The Death Of Our Coastal Towns

When you grow up along the sparkling Southern California coastline, one of the most difficult things you can do is attempt to solicit sympathy from anyone in the world. Beautiful beaches, moderate temperatures, amazing quality of life, and a pretty chill attitude across the board, all make everyone in every other part of the world think you’d never have a care. For some, it is a life of economically based privilege, but for most, it is a life of hard work that yields worthwhile rewards.

But, when you grow up in the beautiful little coastal towns of Southern California, one of the most-desired places to live in the world, one of the saddest things you witness year after year is the eventual and permanent transformation of those towns into a place that is unrecognizable from the one you loved so dearly while growing up.

Towns grow, landscapes change, small businesses close and city governments change from focusing on maintaining an enjoyable life for citizens to attracting more tax revenue and tourism dollars.

Local, long-time residents are pushed out as they seek to re-find the quaint little towns that have been pulled out from underneath their feet by the passage of time. Streets and neighborhoods are transformed from sleepy, cozy, little burgs with character to bustling, big box, trendy cities with urban flair. And sadly, avoiding busy areas filled with tourists grows from a summertime chore to a year-round endeavor.

But perhaps the worst aspect for those who grew up in this paradise is watching these beloved towns commit cultural suicide. You see quaint downtown streets lined with small houses and mom-and-pop shops where locals congregate turned into multi-story urban apartment complexes with underground parking garages and first-floor brand name retail outlets. Cultural uniqueness and flavor is slowly and methodically replaced by uniformed, trendy urbania.

So, if it’s not the residents who want this change, then why is town after town falling victim to this urban sprawl? It is a two-pronged attack from the government-industrial complex. City governments that need to bring in more revenue to support a growing population and urban developers who want to make the most profit from increasingly valuable coastal land are joining forces, and there is no doubt that, willingly or not, they are destroying the character of Southern California’s coastal towns.

I call it cultural suicide because residents of the community that serve in local government or own or work for the development companies are committing the act of destroying these cities from within. Whether knowingly or not, these people are killing the culture and character of the communities that surround them.

The suicide starts with one or two local businesses, spreads down the street, begins to consume entire neighborhoods, and then, eventually spreads throughout the entire town. Local governments seeking more revenue raise the rents on government properties, forcing the local businesses that occupy those government properties to shut their doors or move. Increased rents on government property lead to increased rent on private property, and the local businesses that occupy those private properties shut their doors or move. The government land is sold to make even more revenue and the private buildings are gutted and torn down, then replaced with bigger, more sterile buildings with less culture but more space that can be rented at a higher cost to larger corporations that can afford the higher rents. This urban sprawl spreads like an incurable virus until its host no longer resembles its former self.

I recently read a fantastically written article from a locally focused online news and interest rag called Thrillist that really drove this point home. The article was about a well-known restaurant at the Santa Monica Airport that was forced out of business by the City of Santa Monica as part of that local government’s efforts to close the iconic general aviation airport and its businesses. The forced closing of the airport and its businesses, like this restaurant, will deal a definitive blow to the local culture and long-time patrons of these businesses as the city guns to fill up its coffers with the inevitable millions it will gain by selling the land on which the airport sits to developers who will no doubt sweep in and build yet another array of those multi-story earth-toned, wood and metal accented, five-story apartment buildings with underground garages and first-floor name brand retailers that I mentioned earlier.

And much like the Los Angeles of old that we only see in movies, old photographs, and our dreams, the airport that has served local aviators from Hollywood stars to the most anonymous among us, will soon be just a memory. The restaurant, called Typhoon, had a single owner, a local businessman who spent a good portion of his life serving amazing cuisine, supporting the local jazz scene, and providing a place that pilots around the world will still talk about for years now that it’s gone. Why did is this restaurateur call it quits, even while his establishment flourished? The City of Santa Monica raised his rent by 200% because they wanted him, his long-time patrons, and the culture and flavor of the Santa Monica of yesteryear gone. To them, it is a small price to pay to keep the city government afloat.

The city needs money and urban developers are chomping at the bit to get that airport land, and sadly, in Southern California these days, that is all that matters to city government and urban developers. Local culture, flavor, long-time residents, long-time family businesses, and the heart and soul of the communities can all be damned!

And this is just one establishment inside one historic Southern California coastal town and iconic location. This is just one of many thousands of places that are, or soon will be, long gone, never to return.

One such other iconic feature of these costal towns that is changing forever is the pierside main street that once housed local mom-and-pop restaurants and a slew of boutique specialty and surf shops. And nowhere has Main Street and its surrounding area gone through a more gut-wrenching overhaul than in Huntington Beach, or Surf City as it is called in the onslaught of tourism marketing materials.

Those of us who grew up in Huntington Beach from the 50s to the 80s enjoyed a colorful and diverse row of one-story shops and restaurants that lined a quiet little street that was overly busy only a few select hours a week and during the peak of summer traffic. We enjoyed small mom-and-pop shops and a quiet local scene of local surfers and beachgoers. But then, the big construction cranes and land developers came in and the Main Street and surrounding area that we knew and loved was changed forever. Today, the quaint little pierside area we loved is gone, replaced by multi-story condos, brand name retail chains, and sprawling hotel complexes.

Locals once spent lazy weekend mornings beachside having breakfast and enjoying early dinners. Now, if you’re a local resident, there is a good tourist-filled four or five months in which you don’t even bother trying to get down there, if you even bother trying at all. For those of us who grew up in the area and spent a good chunk of our childhood there, it is so sad to no longer be able to enjoy the places you love because they are either so crowded, or worse, just gone.

Locals who have had enough can do little but move on to quieter areas or quieter towns and hope that the government-industrial complex will not overrun their new home just as quickly. And this pattern is going to continue to spread and grow. Trendy urbanites will rush in and the long-time residents who built our coastal towns with years of hard work will rush out, heading north, south, or inland, attempting to recapture their quaint little towns somewhere else.

For now, we watch the mom-and-pop shops come down, and watch the ever-taller, ever more sprawling hotels, retail centers, and apartment and condo complexes go up, remembering a time when our towns belonged to us, the folks that built them.

Photo by William L. Savastano

My Guide To Taxifornia's 17 Propositions

I’m giving you a choice, loyal reader. You can just follow the quick, one-line Proposition Guide I have provided just below this paragraph and take my word for it, or, you can read my over 5,000-word explanation of how I reached my conclusions below.

Yes on 53, 54 and 56 - No On All the Rest!

17 state propositions, Taxifornia?! In one election cycle? Are you kidding me?! Group that with all of the local measures and then all of the national, state and local candidates, and you are all but guaranteeing that no one is going to do all of the homework necessary just to be informed enough to make intelligent decisions on every one of these propositions by Election Day.

But, Taxifornia, isn’t that your point? Isn’t that what you are trying to accomplish in the first place with your cancer-like, virus-like, perpetual, self-interested growth? It’s as if your job has changed from serving the people in their time of need to so overwhelming them with your laws and regulations, and your 17 propositions on one ballot, that they just blindly either throw their hands up in the air and don’t vote, or rely on those horribly misguiding television commercials to make up their mind. It’s as if you want us to just cover our eyes and blindly guess while voting either yes or no, probably without fully understanding what a yes or no vote means.

Well, Taxifornia, I, for one, am not going to take it. I am going to read your 223-page General Election Voter Guide because I am certain there is probably some really costly, horrible stuff in there that you and the lifetime politicians that coarse through your black veins are trying to sneak by us.

Oh, I don’t know, say something like a bond issue where you get $9 billion in income so that you finally put some money into our schools despite the fact that our property taxes are supposed to pay for that very same thing. What are you doing with our property tax money that you need more money for the schools? What exactly are you wasting, I mean spending, that property tax money on, Taxifornia?

And naturally, in government’s typical fiscally ridiculous modus operandi, getting that $9 billion in income today is going to result in return payments over the course of the next 35 years that total $17.6 billion. So, say you and I are at lunch and your lunch costs $9, but you forgot your wallet, and I told you that I would loan you the $9, but that when you paid me back, I wanted $8.60 in interest for a total of $17.60. What would you say? Well, probably right after calling me a credit card company, because those are definitely take-it-from-behind credit card company interest rates, I’d hope that you’d tell me where to go. But, this is the fantastic interest rate our beloved state of Taxifornia is willing to pay to get its hands on that $9 billion. And for that reason, I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 51. Our government needs to learn to be much more fiscally responsible with our money through not wasting it so horribly as they do, and not paying almost twice as much as the principle in interest on bond issues. Make better use of our property tax money, Taxifornia, before you strap us with even more debt.

Proposition 51 is a no-brainer for me. For 52, there is more of a fence to sit on. Basically, with Proposition 52, a yes vote means that a fee the government charges to private hospitals just for existing, which is set to expire on January 1, 2018, would instead continue indefinitely. There is also language in the proposition that calls for ensuring the fees go to help provide medical services for low-income families. If only Taxifornia were not famous for passing propositions that mandated funds go to one area, only to turn around and still divert those funds to other things later, oh say, like the lottery money that was supposed to go to the schools. Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely for providing medical assistance to those with low incomes, but at the same time, I always have a problem when our state taxes someone or something just for existing. Let me share the “CON” argument from the Taxifornia Voter Guide. “Removes all accountability and oversight of over $3 billion of taxpayer dollars.” No, that’s not the case, pro-fee people. This does not remove oversight, but, in fact, removes the money completely from the government’s hands and leaves it in the hands of the people who made it – the folks who own and operate the hospitals. The CON argument goes on to state, “Gives $3 billion to hospital CEOs with no independent audit and no requirement the money is spent on health care.” Once again, the CON folks are trying to mislead us. This is not government money that is going to the hospitals instead. It is the hospitals’ money that the hospitals are keeping instead of sending it in to be wasted by Taxifornia. See the slight of hand they are trying here? If it’s the hospitals’ money, they should be able to spend it on whatever the hell they want to, just like me and how I should be able to spend my money on whatever the hell I want to. And, let me provide one more argument here to show you why I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 52. The “NO” narrative under “WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS” in the Taxifornia Voter Guide states “An existing charge imposed on most private hospitals would end on January 1, 2018 unless additional action by the Legislature extended it.” So, what that means, boys and girls, is that even if you vote no on this proposition, like I am going to, at some point between Election Day, which is November 8, 2016, and January 1, 2018, over a full year later, if your money-hungry Taxifornia Legislature votes to extend the fee anyway, guess what happens? That’s right, even if we all vote no and tell the bureaucrats we don’t want it, they can still say “F U voters!”

So, what the hell, Old Man Savastano, are you going to vote no on everything? Actually, no. I’ll tell you something I am voting yes on, and that is 53. I will VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 53 because it will require a statewide vote on any state revenue bonds totaling more than $2 billion. Right now, there is no limit on the amount of a bond issue and there is no voter oversight. I personally think it is a great idea for the voters to at least be made aware, as well as have a say, when our Taxifornia bureaucrats are going to borrow over $2 billion dollars that we taxpayers are going to have to pay back, especially when those geniuses have shown time and time again that they have absolutely no problem paying close to $4 billion for every $2 billion they borrow. We need to end this ridiculous cycle of borrowing and paying horrible interest rates. The CON argument, which wants a no vote on 53, is saying that this oversight by the taxpayers on what gets borrowed will have an impact when money is needed for local infrastructure repairs, but I have two arguments back against that. The first, if it’s a local infrastructure project, shouldn’t the local taxpayers be the ones taking care of that? Should a taxpayer in Southern California be paying for a bridge retrofit in San Francisco, or should the people who drive on that bridge every day be taking care of that? And the second, I am sure that local infrastructure people, when faced with this $2 billion bond cap, will simply push their projects through in smaller amounts split amongst more projects. Government gets its money no matter what, boys and girls, but let’s at least make it a little more difficult for the Fat Cats in Taxramento to waste our money.

And why don’t we go ahead and keep the pattern going! I will VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 54, too. This one is actually a great idea! It’s one that I know has every Spendocrat in Taxramento tossing and turning in their big luxury beds every night. Passing Proposition 54 “Prohibits [the] Legislature from passing any bill unless [it is] published on [the] Internet for 72 hours before [the] vote. Requires [the] Legislature to record its proceedings and post [them] on [the] Internet. Authorizes [the] use of recordings. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.” Now, you know I normally oppose government spending, but paying a few million dollars to put this little cap on the voting actions of our Taxocrats is a fantastic idea. Now, you and I might not have the time to check that website for each bill these horrible spenders pass, but rest assured, it is going to make the digging tax advocate organizations do much easier. Plus, if you’ve ever been in charge of a child, even though they might not see you, as long as they know you are there and could pop your head into that room any minute, what happens? Definitely a lot fewer bad things than if that child knew you weren’t in the house. Let’s all keep a better eye on the whiny babies who waste too much of our money in Taxramento by passing Proposition 54.

So, do we keep the yes momentum going for Proposition 55? No. Much like the classic politician, I will flip-flop back and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 55. Proposition 55 extends for another 12 years a special income tax that the state of Taxifornia imposed on the evil bastards who make more than $250,000 a year with that money going to schools. So what gives, Old Man Savastano? You hate schools, or something? Well, let me ask you this. There are property taxes that are supposed to cover the schools, and if you remember, Proposition 51 is asking for $9 billion for the schools. So, that $9 billion is on top of the $4 to $9 billion that the tax Proposition 55 wants to extend for another 12 years. How many times over are we expected to pay for schools? Oh, and by the way, there is language in the tax that Proposition 55 will kill that says if the schools have enough money, then instead of the money going back to the taxpayers, it goes to healthcare for low-income families.

So, let’s look at this for a second. Property taxes and local taxes go to fund the schools. Then, on top of that, this tax on the evil bastards who don’t deserve to keep their money is designed to cover the costs that go beyond those taxes. But, in certain years, there is enough money for the schools and the money from the evil bastards tax then goes to pay for healthcare for low-income folks instead. Well, if there is left over school money after the property and local taxes and after the evil bastards tax, then what the hell is the money from the bond issue under Proposition 51 for? Do you see the pattern here? Taxocrats do all they can to get all the money they can out of us, and boy, do they love disguising it as something for the children. To quote Helen Lovejoy, “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!” Sorry, Helen, I am not buying it. The more taxes that pass, the more idiots like me end up having to pay them, so no, Taxocrats, I’m voting against Proposition 55, just like I will with Proposition 51.

Well, folks, we’re plugging right along through these 17 propositions, and let me warn you – get ready to pick yourself up off the floor because fiscally conservative Old Man Savastano is about to throw you for a loop and vote for a tax increase. That’s right – Proposition 56 raises the tax on a certain product an entire $2 every time someone in the state purchases it. And honestly, I have absolutely no problem with that. If you’re a smoker, you will, but hey, I believe at the end of the day, or in the morning perhaps, we all make our own bed.

Communism sucks. I oppose it vehemently, however, thanks to the nanny state, I am forced to participate in a particularly horrible form of it – health insurance. I am now required by the United States of America to have health insurance no matter what, regardless of whether or not I think I need it, or whether or not I want it. Such is the case for every single person in America. That means that we are all now communally responsible for each other’s health. Believe me, I sure don’t want to be responsible for anyone else’s health, nor do I want to be paying for their medical needs. Yet, thanks to the Communists in Taxington, D.C., here we are, so, sorry folks. You and I both know that paying $2 more a pack is not going to help you quit smoking, but the Taxocrats think fines and taxes deter behavior, just like all those speeding tickets they give us, so that’s why this one’s on the ballot. And for you e-cig folks out there, my apology as well, but this one is going to cost you more money, too. But, you know who its not going to cost more money? That’s right, those of us who do not smoke, but are still paying into the same healthcare system that you are going to use once all that tobacco and “harmless” vaping starts to kill you. I just think that if anybody should be paying for that, it should be you, and not us, so that is why I will VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 56, even though it is a tax increase.

Now, you might see some ads for the folks that are opposed to Proposition 56 in which they are crying fowl because not all of the money from the additional $2 per pack tax is going into the state coffers, but is also going to the Fat Cats at the health insurance companies, but you know what? I’d much rather have it come out of your pocket now and go into the health insurance system than out of mine later, or worse, just go to be wasted by the state of Taxifornia, solely because you should be the one responsible for your actions, not me. It’s all about personal responsibility and accountability with this fiscal conservative.

Well, loyal reader, you may not have agreed with me entirely up to this point, but chances are, if we are going to disagree on one of these 17 propositions, Proposition 57 might be it. 57 “Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Provides [that a] juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will be prosecuted as an adult.” This one was not too hard to reach a decision on. I do think that adding an extra set of eyes to cases where juveniles are going to be tried as adults is a good idea, but I must admit I am opposed enough to early parole for felons that it outweighs my agreement on the juvenile court judge oversight, therefore, it is my duty to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 57.

I definitely want to see every single prisoner truly reform and rehabilitate. I want to see them come out of prison and never commit a single crime again. But, I would argue, they have the capability and the means to do so right now, without the passing of this proposition. I believe we all make choices in life, and while some might be right and some might be wrong, when it comes time to dole out the consequences of those decisions, it should be up to us to pay for own actions. It should not be up to the voters to provide a blanket easing of sentencing like this. Each case should be judged on a case-by-case basis based upon the laws currently in place. The saying “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” was coined for a reason.

And this leads us to Proposition 58, the first one of the 17 that I really had to dig into to make a decision. This was because both sides’ descriptions were purposely cryptic, and both claim to have the best interest of students in mind. Even the state-written summary in the Taxifornia Voter Guide was misleading, but here’s the crux of it. Voting no on 58 means that children who enter the California public school system who do not know English will still be placed in classrooms where they are “taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible.” This means they first go into an immersion program where they may be with children not necessarily their own age, but of similar English-speaking ability, and are then taught primarily in English until they learn the language. Once proficient, the students are placed in the regular class for their age.

A yes vote on 58 means that the language, “taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible” will be removed from California law, thus removing the restriction that new English language learners be placed in these immersion programs. Instead, local school districts will be allowed to design their own programs based on what local authorities deem to be the most successful. I truly believe this is something that should be standardized across the entire state, and I also believe that immersion is the best way to learn a new language. Therefore, I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 58.

Now, we get to Proposition 59, which literally does absolutely nothing other than give a quantifiable percentage of the people who either vote yes or no for it to be used as a public opinion poll to tell the Taxifornia Taxislature whether or not Taxifornians believe that corporations and labor unions should be able to spend all the money they want on influencing political campaigns. This measure DOES NOT change campaign finance laws, DOES NOT change the fact that corporations and labor unions cannot donate directly to candidates, NOR DOES IT CHANGE the amount of money anyone can spend to say anything they want to about any ballot measure or any candidate on the ballot.

To be honest, I don’t care which way anyone votes on this one. If you think corporations and unions should be able to spend whatever they want influencing political campaigns, then join me and VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 59. If you think there should be caps on what entities can spend on influencing political campaigns then vote yes. Either way, THIS PROPOSITION DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CHANGE ANYTHING. It is the same as any wasteful, costly resolution that any local government passes declaring it Bozo The Clown Day within a city. And yes, I am also voting against Proposition 59 because I think putting do-nothing measures like this on the ballot is a complete waste of resources and everyone’s time.

So, if 59 wasn’t a big enough waste of resources and time, here we go with Proposition 60, everyone’s chance to weigh in on whether or not the actors in porn should be forced to use condoms. It also requires porn producers to pay for vaccinations, testing and medical examinations to ensure that all the folks screwing, I mean acting, in porn are as clean as they possibly can be. Taxifornia estimates it will cost about $1 million a year to send regulators to make sure porn folks are using condoms. Now, there’s a government job! This is another one of those measures that I could honestly take or leave, but I will say that being as how I am opposed to the nanny state, wasteful and unnecessary regulation, and the further tossing of my tax dollars out the window, even though all those STDs floating around the porn set are going to raise my healthcare costs, I will still VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 60. Plus, all this is going to do is put money in lawyer’s pockets and increase regulatory and court costs.

And speaking of government waste, Proposition 61 is also a complete and total waste of taxpayer money and resources. 61 aims to fix a problem, the high cost of prescription drugs that are provided to citizens by government entities, but goes about it the wrong way. The Taxifornia Voter Guide provides a great way to look at Proposition 61. It says to equate government entities buying prescription drugs to a consumer purchasing a car. The car has a published MSRP, but a lot of times consumers can haggle with the dealer to get extras included in that price, or pay a reduced price. When government entities buy prescription drugs, the same exact thing happens. And while nowadays, consumers can usually find online what other people are paying for the car they are wanting to purchase, the drug companies don’t provide their customers with this luxury. Due to non-disclosure agreements, no one really knows what the government entity is paying for the prescription drug other than the person at the government entity actually making the purchase. This means that the VA can be buying a drug at a much higher rate than other state or federal entities. It also means that when government entities are negotiating prices, they have no idea what others are paying so it puts them at a real disadvantage. Proposition 61 proposes using a VA database in which the highest price ever paid by the VA is listed to cross-check the top price government entities in Taxifornia pay for the prescriptions listed in the database, and make it illegal for Taxifornia entities to pay more for the drug than the top price the VA ever paid. This is going to cost money to enforce, and cost money to monitor and prosecute. Instead of wasting money on this, Taxifornia really should concentrate on collective buying and negotiating. Why are seven different government entities buying the same drug in seven different transactions at seven varying prices instead of using the collective purchasing power of all government entities in negotiations with the drug companies? Because government is inherently stupid, asinine, and horrendously inadequate when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Proposition 61 has its heart in the right place, but it’s just going to be a waste. Instead of voting for it, we should all VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 61 and demand our Taxifornia government entities pool their resources to get better prices on prescription drugs.

Proposition 62 is one of those that you fortunately don’t really need to read too much into because you should already know the particulars, especially if you’ve lived in Taxifornia and watched the news for any length of time. When Charlie Manson was out there being Charlie Manson, we had no death penalty in the fine state of Taxifornia, and that is why we are blessed with his presence to this day. We clothe, house, feed, and put up with marvel after marvel during his regularly scheduled parole hearings. We do not endure this with Richard Ramirez because he’s dead. If you think that folks like Charlie Manson should be allowed to grace us with their presence for their entire natural life, then you’re for yes on 62. If you’re like me and you think we should still be using the chair, you’ll want to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 62.

Now, there are some ancillaries to this one. They want the murder that lives out his or her natural life to work in the prison system to earn money by making license plates (and other fare) so they can pay restitution to the families of the dead. If you’re like me, you’d probably much rather have the bastard dead than earning $1.25 an hour to try to make up for the loved one they murdered. Yes, the death penalty is mostly symbolic at this point here in Taxifornia. Only 930 people have been sentenced to death since 1978, but I’d say some of them really had it coming. Plus, let’s not forget that staving off the death penalty in exchange for life is a great bargaining tool for prosecutors to use when building cases against criminal entities and leaders. If we do away with the death sentence, prosecutors will lose that bargaining chip. I hope you’ll join me in keeping it in place.

Now, on to Proposition 63. Let’s start with a history lesson. Back in 1988, I wrote an essay for my High School Freshman English class on gun control. And thanks to the ineptness of government in targeting legal gun owners instead of targeting criminals and criminal activity, oh, let’s say like illegal immigrants who get released back out in sanctuary cities and go on to kill people instead of being deported, I was able to turn that same essay in again in 1989, 1990, and 1991, then again in college in 1993 and 1995, and also sold versions of it for others to turn in well into the late 1990s. Now, in its infinite wisdom, while we are seriously talking about not deporting criminals, there is a measure on the ballot, Proposition 63, which would require background checks to buy gun ammunition. The libs, of course, say this will keep ammunition out of the hands of the bad guys. Yeah, just like all those gun control and immigration laws are keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal immigrant criminals from committing crimes. Proposition 63 is not going to do anything other than cost the taxpayers and law-abiding gun-owners money. It will not stop crime. It will not prevent crime. It will just create an even bigger black market for ammunition like prohibition did for alcohol. Yes, we need to do something about gun violence and crazy people getting guns, but this proposition is not it. I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 63.

And as we move on to Proposition 64, here we go with legalizing pot again. People are still dying in drunk driving accidents, so let’s just hope and pray that they will not get high and then drive, right? You know, just how we hope and pray they don’t drink and drive. Government wants this proposition to pass so it can tax and regulate pot and earn more revenue that it can just waste like it wastes so much of the revenue it gets now. All you stoners out there can keep growing your shit in your closet and smoking it in your own home or buying it from your Cousin Larry, so you don’t need us to legalize it so you can get high. We all know you’re going to anyway. What this is going to do is make getting high more socially acceptable and that is going to lead to more people thinking it is perfectly all right to get high then do things that are going to endanger the rest of us. This alone would give me grounds to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 64, but wait, there’s more!

Let me quote once again from the Taxifornia Voter Guide, even though I am hesitant to do so because it illustrates that Dianne Feinstein and I actually agree on something, which honestly makes me a little sad, and nauseous. “Proposition 64 purposely omits [a] DUI standard to keep marijuana-drivers off our highways.” This means there IS NOT a DUI clause in this proposition that addresses the penalty and enforcement of those who are high on marijuana while driving once it is illegal. I have a YUGE problem with that. “[Tax]ifornia Association of Highway Patrolmen and Senator Dianne Feinstein strenuously oppose. Legalizes ads promoting smoking marijuana, Gummy candy and brownies on shows watched by millions of children and teens. Shows reckless disregard for child health and safety. Opposed by California Hospital Association.” Need I say more?

Onward now from life to death in Taxifornia to the greatest evil ever devised by man…the plastic bag. Yes, that’s me laughing at you, Taxifornia. Not only because you are so worried about plastic bags while we’re going to hell in a handbasket, but because Proposition 65 stipulates one of the things that is going to happen if Proposition 67 passes. Only in backward-ass Taxifornia would 67 come before 65.

So, you’ll excuse me if I go out of order here slightly so I can attempt to alleviate some of the confusion that government has absolutely no problem burdening voters with. Proposition 67 seeks to make it illegal for grocery stores to provide customers single-use plastic or paper carryout bags. I totally get why you’re trying this, but Taxifornia, local governments throughout Orange County already tried it and, frankly, it didn’t do shit. It didn’t keep plastic bags off the ground, out of the ocean, or out of the waterways. All it did was take our money when we had to pay for bags and inconvenience the hell out of us when we were shopping. Huntington Beach tried this for two years and ended up repealing it because of all the headaches it provided. And, it didn’t cut down on plastic pollution in the environment one bit. Proposition 67 also has a flaw, too, and it is that none of the money collected from penalizing customers for not using reusable bags actually goes to the environment. Either way, plastic bag bans don’t work and have already failed all over the state, so I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 67.

Going back to Proposition 65, now. If Proposition 67 passes, and Proposition 65 passes as well, then Proposition 65 will require that proceeds from the penalization of customers who don’t use reusable bags will then go to environmental causes. I will still VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 65. While I do think we need to be conscious of the environment, I just feel that plastic bag bans which lead to consumers having to pay for bags to carry home the things they buy because it is mandated by the gub’ment is just wrong on so many levels.

Sixteen down, only one left to go! Are you still with me or have you done what Taxifornia wants and given up? Proposition 66 seeks to make changes to the death penalty and how it is implemented. It wants to put time limits on challenges to death sentences and revise rules so that attorneys who refuse to accept death penalty appeal cases would be forced to do so. Also, most notably, it would allow condemned inmates to be housed at any state prison, instead of at specially appointed prisons designed to do so as is that case now. You’ll forgive my laziness in quoting the Taxifornia Voter Guide again, but the CON position states, “Prop. 66 is not real reform. We don’t know all of its consequences, but we do know this: it adds more layers of bureaucracy causing more delays, costs taxpayers money, and increases [Tax]ifornia’s risk of executing an innocent person. Prop. 66 is a costly experiment that makes matters worse.” Basically, a no vote on Proposition 66 means that nothing will change with the current death penalty process, so I will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 66.

And there you have it folks, my completely biased, self-centered take on the ridiculously overwhelming 17 Taxifornia Propositions on the ballot. Sorry I’ve only given you less than a week to read up on them, but hey, I was busy earning money to pay my taxes so I didn’t have time to read up on all the ways that the libs in Taxifornia want to tax me even more.

So, good luck out there. Read and learn as much as you can about the propositions and the politicians running for office before you vote. And for God’s sake, please vote…oh, unless you’re a lib, then I’d say don’t worry about it. These aren’t the droids you are looking for. 

Photo by William L. Savastano

A Little Insight Into How Government Spends: Widening Of The 405 Freeway

Here in Southern California, we have this wonderful monument to the achievement of the humans called the Interstate 405, or “the God-damned 405” to the locals. It runs from mid-Orange County right up through Los Angeles County into the San Fernando Valley. It was originally designed to be a bypass to the heavily congested Los Angeles-area portion of Interstate 5 that runs from Mexico to Canada through California, Oregon and Washington. But, if you know anything about Southern California, you know there are two cars for every person and a God-given right to never carpool so we have congested the crap out of the bypass artery too. As a result, we are continually widening the 405.  In fact, since the Orange County section of the 405 opened in 1969 as an actual Interstate, the 405 has been widened time and time again. It literally seems like as soon as we finish adding a lane, we start adding the next lane. Adding a lane in each direction one at a time, each new lane basically becoming obsolete by the time it is finished.

Each time a widening is needed, there is wrangling among Orange County officials, transportation budgets, city councils and citizens. The most recent widening project proposals even included the possibility of adding toll lanes to the 405. Pulled from a recent newsletter from one of the County Supervisors, here are the options that were being considered:

Option 1: Add one general purpose lane in each direction between Costa Mesa and the County line in Seal Beach (14 miles from SR-73 to I-605) at a cost of $1.3 billion that is already fully funded.

Option 2: Added two general purpose lanes in each direction with an approximate $100 million funding gap that raises concerned that trying to find $100 million could potentially jeopardize other scheduled freeway projects, such as upcoming I-5 improvements.

Option 3: Add one general purpose lane in each direction and one high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane in each direction. In addition, the current high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane would have been converted into an HOT lane to create a two-lane toll facility (“managed lanes”), similar to the 91 Express Lanes. Toll revenue bonds would have helped fund this $1.7 million project.

So, government, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided that Option 1 is the way to go. Our existing toll roads and toll lanes are not turning out to be as profitable as everyone thought they were going to be, so I can understand their reservation about Option 3, though I must admit that when stuck on the 405, I sure as hell would be willing to pay $5 to get into a lane that is actually moving.

So, even with Option 3 tossed out, when you look at Option 1 and Option 2, I find myself a little surprised, yet at the same time completely not surprised, that government is going with Option 1.

Government is going to add one lane in each direction to the 405 from the 73 to the 605 at a cost of $1.3 billion with the entire cost completely covered.  For just $100 million more – that’s $1.4 billion dollars instead of $1.3 billion – government could add a second lane in each direction at the same exact time.

I think all of us, as well as our County Officials, are familiar with the concept of a volume discount, where by buying more at the same time, you save money over buying the same amount at two separate times. One lane for $1.3 billion or two lanes for $1.4 billion is a hell of a volume discount!

I understand that the $100 million is not funded right now, so government would need to come up with the money somewhere, but government seems to be able to find billions and billions of dollars to waste nationwide each and every year. I am sure one of the most lucrative counties in the country could come up with a mere $100 million, right?

The worst thing about this lack of desire on the part of County Officials to try to find this $100 million is that if history is an indication of the future, as soon as this lane is done, we’re going to need another lane and within a matter of a few short years, we’ll be building that additional lane under a new construction project that is definitely going to cost a hell of a lot more than the $100 million that we could spend now. 

So, a government that seems to have no problem spending and spending, and spending frivolously at that, won’t spend $100 million today to save $1.3 billion, or probably even more than that, ten years from now. In what world does this make sense?  Definitely not the world that we idiot taxpayers have to live in!  We, unlike government, have to make sound and common sense financial decisions because our future income is not guaranteed by law or and ability to jail someone for refusing to provide us with our income.

The single largest threat to government is a lack of government growth and the single largest threat to government growth is efficiency and common sense. I believe, whether intentional or not, this is why government opts to spend 13 times more money down the road on a future project than make a sound financial decision today.

A Perfect Waste Of A Damned Good Shark

I know that most of you, especially the ones who live in Southern California, may have already heard about the recent harvesting of an 11-foot shortfin mako shark that weighed 1,300 pounds from the ocean off Huntington Beach by a group of fishermen from Texas, but I wanted to use this occasion to once again get up on that proverbial soapbox that this wonderful invention called the Internet has given us. Thank you, Al Gore.

As some of you may know, I spent a period of time as an amateur marine biologist, taking courses, working at aquariums, and heading out on research vessels from time to time. Some of you may also recall the story I love to tell about the time I got to see a 17-foot great white shark that was caught by some fishermen off San Pedro while I was working at the Cabrillo Aquarium, where I helped care for a number of much smaller and less sinister sharks. To this day, I still donate money to some of our Southern California aquariums and oceanic causes I believe in.

That being said, quite honestly, when I read this story, it really bothered me. Let me explain. While you won’t catch me passing up on the wonderful meat products that nature has to offer us humans on very many occasions, it’s not like we’re running out of cows, chickens and pigs any time soon, but things like whales and sharks are a different story. While some populations are rebounding, others are still in decline and under threat of extinction, so killing them just for fun might not be a great idea. Wow, now I sound like the Greenpeace people.

Don’t get me wrong, I at times think about, perhaps even struggle with, the fact that my chicken sandwich, cheeseburger, and the bacon I put on them or eat as a side dish, used to be a living, breathing creature, but I handle it. It is much easier when you never have to go out and meet the animal that you’re eating or actually see it in any way, shape, or form that is close to being alive because of grocery stores and restaurants, and living the life of readily-available food here in the grand ol’ US of A, isn’t it?

But where I do start to draw my own personal line is when it comes to hunting, fishing and things of those sorts. Now, before you take away my Conservative card, again, let me explain. Mountain men up in Alaska hunting so they can eat? While I wish we’d figure out a way to get them some pre-packaged food so they didn’t have to kill their next meal, all right, I can live with that. Killing a wolverine because it’s hungry and trying to get at the food you’re storing for the winter? I have a harder time with that. It’s not the wolverine’s fault you have to live in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. Native people killing some whales every year for food and tradition? I kind of have a problem with that in this day and age, but OK, I can live with that. Killing a big bear, elk, whale, shark or other animal for the quote-un-quote fun, sport, or thrill of it? Yeah, I have a problem with that. Hunting just to hunt, killing just to kill? Yeah, that, I believe crosses the line, especially when it is an animal whose numbers in the wild are just not what they used to be.

Japan killing whales? Completely pointless, and a waste. People out in the woods or on the ocean just out killing? Completely pointless, and a waste. These people killing this shark while out here on vacation? Completely pointless, and a waste. Though these fishermen did donate the dead shark to since, I just do not believe there is much science could learn today about this shark they don't already know, or could have learned by capturing then releasing it.

It all boils down to one thing. Some people just enjoy killing things. Some people step on spiders. Some people pick them up with a napkin and put them outside. Some people will go their entire life without killing a bear, elk, whale or shark, and some will not. It is the nature of the human problem. Some people will go their entire life without killing another person, and some will not. There’s billions of humans. But each one of us is an individual, right? Spend some time with an animal, any animal, and tell me they are not an individual with their own traits and behaviors.

I’ll let you stew on that for a bit. Either way, this particular shark is now dead and on its way to be hacked up for science so that some humans on vacation could have a thrill and have a story to tell, and I personally think that is just sad, completely unnecessary, and a perfect waste of a damned good shark that quite frankly, the world and its inhabitants needed more alive and swimming in the ocean than dead on a lab table.

U.S. Supreme Court Orders Taxifornia Taxpayers To Continue To Help Pay For College For Illegal Immigrants

Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court, Taxifornia Supreme Court, Illegal Immigrant rights groups, Dream Act supporters, a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals, and the three to four million illegal immigrants living in Taxifornia are all in agreement that the Taxifornia taxpayer has a money tree in their backyard, should pay for anything and everything that society asks for, no matter how ridiculous, and that once again, the 41% of us who receive no government aid need to continue to foot the bill for the other 59% to continue to live a standard of life that frankly, they do not earn themselves like the rest of us.

According to the Boston Harold, “The U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday to uphold California’s policy of granting reduced, in-state tuition to college students who are illegal immigrants is likely to bolster similar proposals across the nation as well as a California measure to provide financial aid for the undocumented.”

This means that the Taxifornia taxpayer will need to foot the bill for a tuition discount for 41,000 students that rings up at annual costs of $23,000 at a UC school, $11,000 at a Cal State school, and $4,400 at community colleges. Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the in-state tuition discount set up so that the children of people who had lived and worked in Taxifornia – paid Taxifornia income tax, and worse yet, federal income tax, could get a break when sending their kids to college? Why then, would that discount, at the taxpayer’s expense, be extended to the non-income-tax-paying non-citizen?

Not that I was ever in agreement with the taxpayer footing tuition bills (Yes, I’m one of those nut-jobs that believes you should pay for college yourself), but this really continues to be a step too far for a state government that spends way too much money and relies too heavily on the hard work of some people, while completely turning a blind eye to law-breaking and lack of hard work from others.

You want to go to college? You want to send your kids to college? Then start saving. Start putting money away. You and your parents shouldn’t get to not plan ahead, then on high school graduation day, stick your hand out and expect us to foot the bill.

So, if this wasn’t bad enough, the Boston Harold continues with their story: “Undocumented students and their advocates said they will use the court’s action to push for passage of the California Dream Act, state legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to receive campus-based aid and the state’s Cal Grants for their bills at UC, Cal State and community colleges. It could cost about $32.2 million annually, according to an analysis by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The measure, proposed by Democratic Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, recently passed the state Assembly and is being considered in the state Senate. The Legislature approved a similar measure but former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it last year as he had with previous versions. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, ‘supports the principles of the Dream Act and would closely consider any legislation that reaches his desk,’ his spokesman Evan Westrup said Monday."

So, not only is Taxifornia asking the idiot taxpayer to help foot tuition bills for illegal immigrants, but it may soon be asking them to foot the bill for state-funded financial aid as well.

No accountability, no personal responsibility, and no respect for the law of the land for some, and accountability, personal responsibility, and a heavy load of taxes for others. Freedom to do what you want, when you want, all with no consequences for some, and jail time if you don’t pay your taxes for others.

Yet Another Tax...The "Crash" Tax

According to California AAA CEO Thomas McKernan, "more than 50 California cities have imposed a new fee for police, fire, and other emergency services that respond to traffic crashes." In some cities, the taxes are only imposed on those who are at fault, but in some cases, even drivers who were not at fault are forced to pay a crash tax, even though they were minding their own business being a model driver and in possession of state-mandated car insurance, and paid up on their vehicle license fees.

Time and time again, this ridiculous state and these ridiculous local governments never cease to amaze me. We pay sales tax - we pay property tax - we pay business tax - we pay income tax - we pay gas tax - we pay car tax - we pay phone tax - Do I need to continue? So, now, greedy government officials are telling us that even with all of these taxes, there is no money to pay police, fire and paramedics to show up at the scene of a car accident?

To top it off, there are even more sinister forces at work with these crash taxes...the slimeballs at the collection agencies. That's right, I said slimeballs. While I have never been on the collectee end of the collection agency equation, I did at one time hire one to collect some money that was owed to me. What a mistake that was! They took my fee money, collected my money from my customer, then turned around and spent it without giving me a dime. Like I said, slimeballs.

So, where was I? Oh yeah, the slimeballs at the collection agencies. While local government officials might not be the dullest tools in the shed, they are not necessarily the masterminds of this tax. Collection agencies who are preying on cities strapped for cash are encouraging city governments to pass these ridiculous taxes so that the collection of them can be turned over to...you guessed it...their collection agencies...of course, with the agency getting a cut of the taxes they collect. A private company encouraging government to tax you, then getting to keep part of the money they collect for said government? That sure doesn't sound right, does it?

You will have to keep an eye out for a bill next time you are involved in a traffic accident here in the fine state of Taxifornia. With all of that being said, there may, however, be a slight glimmer of hope. Some of the folks that make up the Taxifornia State Taxislature are introducing a bill that would ban these crash taxes. Imagine that...the revenue-hungry Taxifornia State Taxislature even thinks these crash taxes are wrong! I guess we'll have to see what happens.

3-11-11

I recorded the following for posterity during the 3-11-11 Japan earthquake and tsunami:

11:24 PM (3/10/2011) - News footage coming from Japan is completely astounding. Footage shows an airport terminal that looks like an island with the entire surrounding area underwater - little compact cars floating like debris on a lake. Refineries and industrial plants are engulfed in flames. Japan says 7.9, but we are saying 8.9. This one looks really bad.

12:19 AM - The footage of those initial surging waves overtaking the land is really hard to watch, but I don't think anything like it has ever been captured on video before. The Japanese government has issued a statement that they are mobilizing, but are basically asking people to do what they can until help arrives. Proof positive that no matter how advanced we are as a society, when disasters strike, you will be own your own for the first three days.

12:21 AM - Tsunami warning sirens are sounding in Hawaii. If there is a tsunami heading west, it is expected to hit there 3:00 AM Hawaii time.

12:33 AM - A tsunami watch for the West Coast of the United States has been issued. Landfall would be about 7:00 AM for us.

12:50 AM - An update to the U.S. West Coast watch has been issued: 7:20 AM Crescent City, CA and 8:00 AM San Francisco. Japan is saying that at least one coastal town has been completely destroyed. Hawaii's tsunami warning was just updated to an evacuation order for low-lying coastal areas.

12:58 AM - Some news sources are reporting SoCal in the clear, while some sources are saying it is too early to tell.

1:11 AM - A new tsunami watch info has been issued - Santa Monica would be hit at 8:49 AM and La Jolla at 9:00 AM. Some sources are reporting the California watch has been upgraded to a warning. The Orange County Sheriff will be closing beaches and not opening piers in the morning.

1:18 AM - Amazing to watch this unfold. Evacuation orders have been issued for the Philippines and Guam and a warning has been issued for everywhere along the U.S. West Coast north of Point Concepcion.

2:15 AM - I am going to get a few hours sleep. Setting alarm for 5:00 AM when tsunami is expected to hit western-most part of Hawaii

5:07 AM - The tsunami is reaching Hawaii, but waves seem much smaller than expected.

6:18 AM - Looks like more realistic numbers are starting to come out of Japan. Apparently, they've evacuated the area around one of the nuclear plants. Rescuers are starting to find hundreds of bodies in the coastal areas. Looks like the early waves in Hawaii were not as high as expected, though some areas are still expected to be hit harder. Some reports are warning of significant damage being possible in Northern and Central California. We are just under an advisory down here in Southern California for now.

7:14 AM - No serious damage in Hawaii, though there will be some large post-surge clean-ups. Water is six inches to a foot deep along some coastal areas, blocks in from the beach. Some Hawaiian areas did have water come in 12 feet higher than normal and move 100 feet inland. Officials in Hawaii warn that second and third waves may be higher. 2 to 3 foot swells are possible on U.S. West Coast. Warnings still in effect - even in Southern Pacific. West Coast coastal communities still under advisory.

8:35AM - Small tsunami waves have begun to hit the Oregon coast. They are much smaller than originally expected. Reports from Japan continue with more and more bad news and loss of life. A dam break in Fukushima has washed away homes and there is an entire train with an unknown number of people missing. A ship that had somewhere between 80 - 100 people is also missing. People in Japan are still being urged to stay away from the coast and evacuate coastal communities. All U.S. Navy personnel are accounted for. U.S. military is mobilizing to help. Seven U.S. ships are being re-routed to assist with rescue and humanitarian support.

10:05 AM - We are passed the initial warning and advisory times for landfall of the tsunami now and there really isn't much damage on the west coast of the U.S. to report, though a number of boats along the coast have broken free of moorings, some being pulled out to sea, some being bounced around harbors or dashed against break waters. Witnesses along the coast are saying that large areas of ocean floor are being exposed before the swells come in. Wave swells are expected to land through afternoon and evening.

12:25 PM - Reports about boats and boat docks all long the California coast being drug out to sea or scuttled after the water first rushes out then rushes back in are prevalent. There is one confirmed report of a person in California being swept out to sea. A number of nuclear power plants in Japan are being forced to shut down. Death tolls are still being listed in the hundreds, but some estimates of as many as 88,000 missing people are starting to circulate.

1:30 PM - Orange County Sheriff is beginning to re-open beaches and piers. Advisories remain in place.

2:34 PM - Reports are coming out of Japan that radiation around the nuclear plant that had a coolant failure is 1,000 times higher then normal and evacuations are being expanded. Japan's early warning system supposedly did work and despite the loss of life may have ended up saving lives. Officials in Hawaii stand by their decision to evacuation, also claiming that the evacuation most likely saved lives as well. No damage reports from Southern California. Santa Cruz and Crescent City harbors suffered significant damage, though, and one 25 year-old photographer in Crescent City was killed when he was swept out to sea while taking pictures of surging waves by the mouth of the Klamath River. Four people in Oregon who were also taking pictures of waves had to be rescued. Officials across the Pacific continue to warn that more destructive waves could still follow.

3:00 PM - News coverage remains heavily focused on the tsunami, but some sources are starting to report other news as well. All new covered has been solely focused on the quake and tsunami for the past 18 hours.

7:33 PM - Rescuers are starting to reach areas hit by tsunami in Northern Japan. States of emergency are in effects at the nuclear reactor in Fukushima, about 150 miles away from central Tokyo. Some people are choosing to leave Tokyo out of fear of nuclear fallout. The Japanese government is trying to reassure people that workers will be able to prevent meltdowns. Some rail services are being restored, but most airports are still closed. Japanese travelers are stranded abroad.

7:59 PM - Death toll has been set to about 1,000 now. People in submerged areas are awaiting rescue on rooftops. Hundreds are still missing. These numbers still seem so low compared to the footage that we have seen. People are still trapped in debris from the earthquake that occurred almost 24 hours ago. Large areas of Japan are still without electricity.

11:50 PM - Rescue efforts in Japan continue. Reports are coming in that as many as 9,500 people are missing from a single coastal town hit by the tsunami. Nuclear power plants in Fukushima sound like they are in real trouble. There is not enough power to cool the cores at two plants. Japanese officials seem to be trying to downplay the danger, but both plants are only about 150 miles from the center of Tokyo. Financial markets are expected to take heavy losses on Monday. Trading in Japan will resume on Monday. Japan is the second largest purchaser of U.S. debt. There is speculation if Japan will be able to continue to fund the U.S. in this manner. There is speculation that rebuilding might create growth, but that could be far into the future.

Motorists Unfairly Targeted As Cash Cow For Government

My readers know that I am a huge fan of traffic cops and traffic tickets and how, acting as the state's prostitutes, these officers work the streets, making money for "daddy". Turns out, even the CEO of the Automobile Club of Southern California agrees with me. While he doesn't use the same colorful terms that I tend to use, Thomas V. McKernan does agree that motorist are enduring treatment that is "inappropriate and unfair".

"Everyone agrees that state and local governments need sufficient resources to provide California's citizens with vital services, such as education, public libraries, law enforcement, and emergency services," McKernan writes, "but more often these days, state lawmakers and local officials turn to motorists to generate funds to plug budget holes and underwrite spending on a variety of projects - which, frankly, is inappropriate and unfair."

McKernan goes on to state that while it is reasonably fair for drivers to pay taxes and fees that go to roads, the CHP, the DMV, and other driver-related services, it is not right that drivers are forced to pay for services unrelated to driving.

Cars are an easy thing to target as a quick way to generate some revenue here in Taxifornia because there are so many of them. A $5 increase in fees gets the greedy politicians $150 million.

"What's more," McKernan says, "state and local governments have discovered less obvious ways to obtain money by raising fees. A good example is traffic tickets, which now consist not only of a simple fine but also of multiple added penalties that can quadruple a violation's cost." Your $100 car pool violation comes with NINE added fees and penalties that can bring its total cost to $440. Ironically, one of these fees is to help pay for the construction of courthouses, despite the fact that very few people actually go anywhere near a courthouse when they pay their traffic tickets.

You already pay taxes to pay for fire and police services, but some cities will also charge you a "crash" fee when you use those services at the time of an auto accident. The money from your "crash" fee usually goes into a general fund, not directly to police and fire budgets. Some cities, like Laguna Woods and their famous cameras at El Toro and Moulton, and at Leisure World Gate 12, fine you the same $430 for turning right without making a complete stop as they would if you just flat out sped through a red light. This generates large amounts of money for these cities.

In Taxifornia, we now pay 1.15% of the value of our car as a "vehicle license fee".

In summary, McKernan says, "Government must come up with real solutions to budget issues, fairly allocate appropriate taxes and fees among the population, and not focus on a single group, such as motorists, which are perceived to be an easy target."

Marriage, Civil Unions, The Church & The State

With all that seems to be going on right now in the great state of Taxifornia with the budget and taxes, it would seem that the ol' "gay marriage" debate has taken a bit of a back seat for now. I'm honestly quite comfortable with that as it seems that when the issue flares up, people really tend to stop looking at it rationally and let emotions get the best of them.

I'd like to take this pause to put together something that I had been planning on posting for quite some time, yet have not had a chance to get around to doing. How about we stoke the fire a bit?

I believe that most conservatives have a very good, black and white understanding of something. Let me explain. I have a marriage to my wife that is in place because we, based on our religious beliefs, held a ceremony in which we, in the eyes of God, joined together in a marriage. I also have a civil union to my wife that is in place because the person who performed our ceremony is also a state-appointed officiator of civil unions sponsored by the County of Orange, and by proxy, the state of Taxifornia. It is a very simple concept, and quite honestly, goes very well with the idea of the separation of church and state. Our marriage applies to all of the religious beliefs that we have - the afterlife, together forever, adultery, sins, etc., and our civil union applies to all of the stately legality - our legal obligations to each other and to the state that will exist throughout our union, as well as the legal obligations we have to each other if we split up and the legal obligations we have to each other pertaining to any children we might have together. Do you see how there are two separate things going on at the same time here? Our marriage is governed by our moral obligations and our civil union is governed by our legal obligations. I say that as a nation, we really should start looking at these as two separate things that occur concurrently.

Now, I am going to divert from the conservative pack here, but in the interest of finding a solution to our problem, let me say that when it comes to civil unions granted by the state, I am all for them. I am even all for them if we are talking about two men or two women wanting to enter into a civil union. I truly believe that this is a matter of state and should be governed by the state, and as such, any two people, regardless of gender, even transgendered, should have the same exact rights as everyone else in their civil unions. Two men and/or two women who have the same civil union certificate that my wife and I have should have the same exact rights granted by the state that we do.

One problem, however, that we need to fix before moving forward with our separation of church and state is that I do not have a "civil union" certificate issued by the state, but a "marriage" certificate. The state should not be allowed to issue such a thing as a "marriage" certificate. It should be called a "civil union" certificate, issued just like a business license, or any other state document. This should be issued regardless of gender and religion, again, just like any other state document. A "marriage" certificate, to run concurrently with a "civil union" certificate, should be issued by the church that performed the ceremony.

Do you see where I am going with this? When it comes to morality, let's deal with and seek an audience with religion. When it comes to legality, let's deal with and seek an audience with the state. Let's have a separation there. The religions do not get to dictate to the state who can have a civil union, and the state cannot dictate to the religions what they consider to be a marriage.

If the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state in the literal sense, then why is it that the act of joining two people together in a court house in the eyes of the state carries the same name as the act of joining two people together in a church in the eyes of God? I argue that they should not be called the same thing, as they are truly two completely separate things. Should we not all be getting civil unions at the court house and marriages in a church? I can go through a ceremony at a church, but if it is not performed by someone licensed by the state, then my civil union is not valid to the state. The marriage is valid to the church and to God, but the civil union does not occur unless the ceremony has the approval of the state by means of the ceremony being performed by a state-approved agent. Does it not make sense, then that a civil union could be an agreement by two members of the same sex? It's a legal agreement witnessed by a state-appointed agent. Makes sense to me.

But, then, what also makes sense to me, is that if I am getting married in a church, or being married by an agent of the church, should not that marriage adhere to the traditional definition of one man and one women that the religion adheres to? That also seems to make sense to me. So, man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the church, marriage - Man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the state, civil union - Man and woman who have done both, either in a ceremony performed by one person with both church and state ordainment, or two people, one with church credentials and one with state credentials, or at two separate ceremonies - in the eyes of the church and God, marriage - in the eyes of the state, civil union.

It all boils down to a game of semantics, then, doesn't it? Now, mind you, I am saying that a man and woman with a civil union should have the same exact rights and privileges that a man and man or woman and woman have through their civil unions. Now, if the semantics are important and we need to start talking about what the churches themselves call the joining of two people who are the same sex, then isn't that a matter for the church, and not a matter for the state? Isn't that what you wanted in the first place? Separation of church and state. If two men or two women can convince the Catholic church to marry them, then hey, more power to you, but that should have nothing to do with my ballot, my courts, and my government. If a man and a woman, and a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, all have the same rights under the civil unions that are issued by the state, then at the state level, and honestly, even at the federal level, the argument should be over. You can call it whatever you want to, but legally, they should all be civil unions that are issued by the state. Anything beyond a civil union should be between people and the churches, not people and the state. Like I said, separation of church and state.

Tax Hikes & Spending Cuts The Taxxy Brown Way...

I will give you, as I have said many-a-time before, it was most definitely time for Arnie to go. I would have much rather seen, however, a legitimate business woman as our new Taxifornia Taxernor than lifetime politician and union whipping boy Taxxy Brown. If this were a Presidential election, we would have just re-elected Jimmy Carter. Way to go, Taxifornia!

So, now, that the issue of Taxernor is settled until we can try to get a business person in there again, let's talk about the main reason that I am concerned about Taxxy Brown...taxes. Sure, we'd all like to pay nothing (and hey! half of you actually do!), and I realize that we do need to pay something so that we can fund our infrastructure, military, and what-not, but for those of us that are in that 50% that do pay taxes, should we not undertake the initiative to try to keep as much of the money that we earn that the other 50% get to pay - nothing? It may not be a reality, but at least it gives us something to shoot for, right?

That being said, I must also say that Taxxy Brown is at least, unlike most Spendocrats, willing to cut some spending, taking a step closer to at least getting the 50% who pay no income taxes to help foot the bill as well. He as also said that he is going to take his tax increases to the voters, so we will see if that actually happens.

What taxes are going to get raised and what spending is going to get cut if Taxxy Brown gets his way? A lot of programs are going to be reduced, and the temporary tax hikes implemented by the Taxinator will be kept in place for another five years! Five years?! Yep, five years!:

Income: A 0.25 percent surcharge on each personal income tax rate, which would generate $3.2 billion in the next 18 months. But, if your personal income tax rate is zero, does that mean you have to pay 0.25 percent? What do you think?

Dependents: A reduction in the tax credit for dependents from $227 to $99, for $1.9 billion over 18 months.

Sales tax: A 1 percentage point increase in the state sales tax - from 5 to 6 percent, bringing in $4.5 billion over 12 months.

Licenses: An increase in vehicle license fees from 0.65 percent of a car's value to 1.15 percent, bringing in $1.3 billion over 12 months.

Proposed spending and service reductions
Among Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed solutions to help close a $25 billion deficit are the following:

Cell phones: The state pays for about 96,000 cell phones for state workers. Brown would cut that number by at least 50 percent.

State vehicles: State workers use about 13,600 state-owned cars, pickups and vans, not including about 12,000 used in public safety. Only cars needed for critical functions would be kept.

Cal Fire: In the many wildland areas that have been developed, emergency response would be transferred from state firefighters to local firefighters. State firefighters would be cut from four workers per engine to three.

State jobs: 57,000 workers would get 10 percent pay cuts, and hundreds of state jobs would be eliminated as the state transfers more responsibilities to counties in foster care, incarceration and social services.

Redevelopment agencies: Redevelopment agencies would be phased out to save billions of dollars, although they would be allowed to finish existing projects. The money saved would first go to the general fund and in future years would be given to schools, cities and counties.

Courts: A permanent reduction of $200 million annually for the state's courts.

Governor's office: A 25 percent reduction in spending, or $4.5 million cut.

Parks: State parks would lose $11 million more in funds, requiring continued park closures.

Medi-Cal: Benefits would be capped, with limits placed on prescriptions (six per month per recipient ) - unless they are lifesaving - hearing aids ($1,510 a year) and durable medical equipment ($1,604 a year). Co-payments of $5 would be required for most visits. Doctor's visits would be limited to 10 per year.

Disabled and elderly: California is one of the few states that provide day care centers for disabled and elderly adults who might otherwise be in nursing homes; Brown would eliminate this program altogether to save $176 million in 2011-12.

Healthy Families: Fewer than 1 million children receive medical insurance under this program because their families do not qualify for Medi-Cal. Brown would eliminate the vision benefit and increase premiums and co-payments.

So, that's the laundry list that Taxxy Brown is going to propose. We'll have to see if it makes it to the ballot, and what he is going to do when voters shoot it down...

56-Year-Old Cross Ruled Unconstitutional

I honestly do get the argument about the separation of church and state, but for people to sit here today and say that the Christian-based beliefs of the Founding Fathers did not play a role in thier lives and the founding of the United States of America is blatant history revision. I, for one, refuse to support that revision to this nation's history, despite the fact that you're only going to catch me in church a handful of times per decade.

The continuing movement to remove all reference to religion in this country may seem like a good idea to the intellectual elite who look down upon the believers, but trust me, folks, if we just flat out did away with religion as suggested by the Bill Mahers of the world, the ensuing hell on earth with no religious consequences would make you start praying for a return of religion.

As I have said many times before, as long as your beliefs do not harm others, then go right ahead and believe what you want. If Jewish and Muslim symbols offend you because you are a Christian, then you weren't really paying attention in church, were you? Flip that statement for all the competing religions, and for the non-believer. If you don't believe, then believers should not have a beef with you. It should be your choice. But, that should also mean that the non-believers should not have a beef with believers.

With all of that being said, then you may see why I find it very bothersome to read that a war memorial cross in a San Diego public park was declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court because the court says it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion.

It would seem some whiny non-believer who wants to rid the nation of all religious symbolism outside of an actual religious building is getting their way, and I think that it is sad to see the whining of the few being held in higher regard than the will of the many.

This case struck me as nothing more than modern-day, revisionist history, non-believer whining. It involved the nut-job "Judges" at the anything-goes 9th U.S. Distrcit Court of Appeals and a cross that has been in a park, honoring Korean War Veterans for 56 years. 56 years, in the same spot, doing the same thing, just being a cross in a park, a symbol of honor to the men and women who died in service to their country. Then, comes along the non-believer whiner who can't just keep their non-beliefs to themselves, but ironically, as they complain the believers do, must force their non-beliefs on the believers.

Is there really so little good in your life, so little to be happy about that you have to take up a fight against a cross sitting in a park? Really? Why do we listen to these whack-jobs, America? Why are we giving them a voice that is louder than the voice of reason?

Taxifornia Police Officers Can Now Search Your Cell Phone Without A Warrant

I have long made the argument that if the government and law enforcement want to listen in on my cell phone conversations, they can feel free to do so because they are not going to find anything interesting. My biggest argument against it would be that it would be a waste of taxpayer money for them to take the time to do so. Also, I would hope that if they are going to listen to my cell phone calls, they at least obtain a warrant, thus following proper channels and the law.

What if, however, it came down to a police officer wanting to search the actual contents of my cell phone for incriminateing evidence? Again, they are not going to find anything, but now we are no longer talking about a conversation flowing in the air waves, but something that I carry around with me in my pocket. Quite clearly, they would need to obtain a warrant to go through the contents of my cell phone, right? Well, according to the champions of individual civil liberties, the Taxifornia Supreme Court, no, they do not. Just how an officer can search your person if they suspect you of a crime, they can now, in Taxifornia at least, search the contents of your cell phone.

I agree that, for the most part, the law abiding have nothing to worry about in terms of being incriminated by the contents of their cell phone, but if a corrupt officer has your phone, who knows what they could put on there. Crooked cops have been known to plant drugs, so why not plant incriminating evidence on your cell phone?

I have always viewed the need for the police to obtain a search warrant as a check and balance to the authority of the arresting officers by the courts. Was this check and balance of the power of the police not the reason that the Founding Fathers added the Fourth Amendment to the constitution? When we start doing away with the obtaining of warrants prior to search, we are removing the check and balance that was the intention of the Fourth Amendment. Without search warrants obtained from a judge, we are removing the oversight of the conduct of the police by the court.

Good Riddance To The Taxinator! You Turned Out To Be A Damned Politician After All...

I would like to thank the Taxinator for giving us, the idiots who voted for him, one last slap in the face while he is on his way out the door. Whenever one of these politicians, especially the ones that claim that they are not really politicians, is on their way out of office, they always take the time to cast a few pardons here and there, regardless of whether or not they are deserved. In most cases, they are to friends of friends and colleagues of colleagues, and friends and/or colleagues of money-givers and future business partners.

Yesterday, the Taxinator did a favor for Father Of The Year Fabian Nunez and his murdering son, Esteban. Nunes is the rightfully disgraced former head Democrat in Sacramento who is now a business partner of the Taxinator's chief political advisory firm.

Raise your hand if you took part in a murder in college. Now, raise your hand if you got to plead your murder charge down to 16 years and didn't have to stand trial because your daddy was the Democratic Speaker of the House in Taxifornia when it came time for you to pay for your crime.

Now, raise your hand if your daddy was able to befriend a Democrat in Republicans' clothing who happened to be governor and on his last day in office got your sentence cut down to seven years.

Look, only one person in the entire state has his hand up! Oh, and don't go crying special treatment, Taxifornia murderers who are serving your full terms. According to the politicians, Esteban Nunez was subject to the same fair-for-everyone Taxifornia justice system as you.

I also love that Arnie (who, thank all of the powers in the universe will no longer be the the Taxinator by the end of the day today) didn't even have the balls to let the family of the young man that Esteban Nunez helped murder know about the reduction in sentence either in person, or through lackey communication. 

Fred Santos, the father of Luis Santos, had to hear it from reporters when asked how he felt about it.

Arnie ran on the platform that he was not a typical politician and probably somewhere in that steroid-encrusted brain of his still thinks that he is not, but this last minute back-door deal to reduce the sentence of a cold-blooded murderer tells me a different story. Sometimes, it would seem, the non-politician can turn out to be an even worse politician than the self-admitted politicians. Good riddance to yet another lying, cheating, despicable Taxifornia politician.