It's Not The Money's Fault

Have you ever heard people say that some of the richest people they know are also some of the unhappiest? I argue this is because of one of two reasons. The first is that money may not be the actual route to happiness for that person. If the true key to your happiness is the approval of your parents, or finding true love, or having a child, if you don’t have that one thing, all of the money in the world is not going to provide you with the happiness you seek.

The second reason is the fact that once you have enough money to guarantee yourself financial peace of mind, if you had the ambition and drive to obtain that much money in the first place, chances are you will need some other type of goal to strive for or else you will find yourself feeling unfulfilled.

Now, I know a lot of you out there want to cite the actual money itself and having it in large quantities as the root cause for the unhappiness of the rich, but it’s never the actual money itself – it is either the fact that the money has still failed to fill whatever void in that person’s life they were trying to fill with money, or the fact that the successful attainment of that money has left that person with nothing else for which to strive. As much as those without money want it to be the actual money that is causing those they feel are rich to be unhappy, it is just not the money.

So, the next time you find yourself blaming their stacks of money for the unhappiness of the rich, all the while, not feeling the least bit sorry for them, or if you’re standing amongst your stacks and stacks of money, trying to figure out why you’re still not happy, remember that it’s not the money’s fault.

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.

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.

Maybe It's Time To Start Learning Chinese

Well, folks, that's it. According to the International Monetary Fund, the era of America will end in just five years when the economy of China becomes the most dominant player on the world stage. American politicians will tell us that we are still #1, economists will tell us where we went wrong, even though we already know what the problem is, and the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes won't care as long as they still get what society owes them.

We can already see cracks forming in the once respected U.S. dollar and U.S. treasuries markets, but when we slide to #2 behind China, the world economy and the world's international security system will have a very different landscape than what we all have known through our lifetime.

According to the IMF, whoever wins the Presidential election in 2012 will be the last U.S. President to preside over the largest economy in the world. How are most Americans handling the news? The way that we always do. Instead of buckling down, making real changes, and addressing the problem, most of us will put our heads in the sand and tell ourselves that it won't make a difference in our lives, and the so-called experts are going to fuel that view by saying that the IMF figures are inaccurate and that we have at least a decade until this is going to happen.

According to a MarketWatch article, "Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and is rising."

While this is just a prediction, all signs point to the fact that the U.S. economy will no longer be #1 within our lifetime. America took over as top economic power in the world in the 1890s and unless you're pushing 120 years old right now, you have lived in a time when our nation was the #1 power on the world stage. Imagine what the world will be like when this is not the case. While we may have our ills, we have led the world with the very best of intentions. Do you think that China will do the same?
也許是時候開始學中文

Keep An Eye On Washington This Week...They're Talking About Your Money

This week, House Republicans are planning to introduce $4 trillion in federal spending cuts that would go into effect over the next decade. How nice to see a proposal that entails 10 years worth of cuts instead of ten years worth of increased spending. Republicans are getting the message. Let's hope the Democrats are not too far behind.

I saw a clip last night of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in which he was blaming the craziness of Republican proposed spending cuts on the Tea Party. What Harry Reid and his fellow Spendo-crats are failing to realize is that this is not just the sentiment of the Tea Party, but is the sentiment of the American Taxpayer who thinks it is time for our government to start spending less.

Our sitting President officially launched is re-election campaign for 2012 today. What you won't see in any of his campaign ads is that his budget numbers are so inaccurate that the politically-independent Congressional Budget Office say the President's deficit projections are over $2 trillion lower than they should be when looking at the next decade. Clearly, the Master & Commander is going to hit the campaign trail painting a more rosy picture of our future than actually exists.

The Republican spending cut proposal also comes with strict spending caps in select areas. With the government looking to once again change the law to allow even more deficit spending by raising the legally-allowed debt ceiling to rise once again, it is time for the American taxpayer to take a stand. "We are going to put out a plan that gets our debt on a downward trajectory and gets us to a point of giving our next generation a debt-free nation," said Republican House Representative and Budget Committee Chairman from Wisconsin Paul Ryan.

With the current budget extension bill expiring this week, Republicans and Democrats need to come together quickly to prevent a government shutdown. There is going to be all sorts of wrangling back and forth on what should be cut and what should be left alone. Each side believes that certain spending should be immune from cuts and certain spending is ready for the chopping block. Finding a consensus on what will be cut and what will be protected will not be an easy process.

Be sure to keep an eye on Washington this week. They are going to spend quite a bit of time talking about your money, how they are going to spend it, and how much more debt they are looking to put on your shoulders.

Obama Deserves A Little Praise, But Let's Not Get Carried Away Here...

Polls show 47% of Americans agree with America's action in Libya. I, however, would like to have seen a number of things done differently. I would like to have seen the President and the world community act just a little sooner, though in the end, I do not think this is going to have made a significant difference, but a life saved by earlier action is just that.

I also did not agree with the fact that we were not publicly calling for the ouster of Qaddafi from the start, but were simply saying that we were in the action to save civilian lives. This created some confusion and served to inspire Qaddafi and his loyalists early on in the engagement, most likely leading to additional fighting that may have been avoided.

This morning it is being reported that both the U.S. and U.K. have said officially that we are willing to accept the exile of Qaddafi from Libya without him standing trial for his terrorist activities and his brutal rule of the Libyan people over the past 40 years. I must admit that I find myself disappointed at this news. While ending the conflict earlier is a great thing, we also should be mindful of letting someone who has committed such atrocities simply retire and grow old somewhere; something his victims never got the chance to experience.

And while the Fence-Sitter-in-Chief is actually garnering some decent numbers on Libya, there is still a lot for him not to be smiling about. Oil prices are on the rise because of speculation in the market driven by Middle East "turmoil", the U.S. housing marketing is still in the shitter (sorry, there isn't a nicer way of putting it), and while we may be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel, the economy as a whole is still in really bad shape.

The country is in debt way ABOVE our eyeballs and we are continuing to borrow more and more. The dollar gets weaker and weaker, buys us less and less and the cost of everything is going up. Don't get me wrong, good job on standing up for Libya and way to show some strength and some pride, and maybe even a slight belief that America should be leading the world towards democracy and freedom, but after two years in office, I still feel that we have seen some pretty lackluster results for the most part.

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."

Buzz Is Hermain Cain Stands A Real Chance In 2012

"There's nothing behind the voice or the message. The administration is in free fall. The country is in a state of anxiety and the administration doesn't have a handle on it all."

This is a recent quote from Herman Cain, a former chairman and deputy chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve and the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza.

When Herman Cain walks into a tea party event, he is greated with excitement, and you can even hear people say, "It's him, it's him." Cain has a radio show in Atlanta, does quite a bit of public speaking, is the author of "They Think You're Stupid" and is the first of many potential 2012 presidential candidates to form an official exploratory committee.

Cain has started his possible campaign by attending a number of small gatherings around the nation, last year speaking at 40 Tea Party rallies, and recently attended the Tea Party Summit in Phoenix.

Cain is looking to focus on national security, a fair tax, domestic energy, and repealing and replacing what he calls "health care deform".

When asked about being a long-shot candidate for 2012, Cain says, "Bill Clinton, another long-shot candidate. People would be nuts to think that a long-shot candidate didn't have a chance to win. He also points out that our current president was a long-shot candidate as well. "He was able to knock off the Clinton machine, that's what I call it, because people got excited about a fresh face and a fresh voice."

Cain's rise to political fame actually came in 1993, when during the Clinton health care reform push, he confronted the then-president at a town hall meeting in Kansas City. Cain tried to explain to President Clinton that his proposed mandate that all employers be forced to provide health insurance for all workers would actually cost some people their jobs. President Clinton tried to explain to Cain that government subsidies would help small businesses to meet the health care mandate and not have to lay workers off due to health care cost increases. Cain responded by saying, "Quite honestly, your calculation is in accurate. In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn't work that way."

Cain supports replacing our current federal income tax system with a federal sales tax. He also believes replacing federal income tax with federal sales tax will help stimulate the economy.

Cain credits Sarah Palin for the success of the Tea Party movement and its impact on the 2010 midterm elections, and says that he sees the influence of the Tea Party growing as we move into the 2012 elections.

Many sources agree that Herman Cain is a candidate to learn more about today so you will know who people are talking about when it comes time to vote in November 2012.

Private vs. Public Unions / Private vs. Public Sector Employees

In the wake of what is going on in Wisconsin and starting to spill over into other states, Jefferey H. Anderson makes a truly great point in his article, "Why Public Unions are Fundamentally Different from Private Ones". In his article, Anderson points out that a private employee union bargains with its employer for a share of a profit, while a public employee union bargains against the taxpayer for a potentially boundless sum of money that is not limited by something as trivial and pesky as profit. A private union understands that there may not be profit in an economic downturn, but a public union does not concern itself with such triviality and wants its share regardless of if the government, funded by the taxpayer, is ending up in the black at the end of the fiscal year, or if the government is losing money hand over fist.

State governments are working on behalf of the taxpayers to try to reach some sort of compromise in regards to what the states have promised public union workers and what the states (we the taxpayers) can actually afford. As we have seen a number of times in this economic downturn, governments need to suspend certain programs and ways of doing business in order to deal with budget gaps and to get us through this economic crisis. Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together, and we are all going to have to make some concessions.

Workers in the private sector, for the most part, work longer hours at regular pay, contribute a much higher percentage of their own healthcare and benefit costs, and go without many of the guaranteed perks that unionized public sector workers do, including, most notably, the fact that private sector employees usually earn pay increases and bonuses through performance reviews, while many public sector workers are guaranteed them in their union contracts, regardless of performance and skill level. Teacher tenure and the fact that a really bad teacher can keep their job regardless of performance is a prime example of this.

I disagree with this entirely and think it is time for a change in how governments deal with unions, time for a change in how public unions operate, and time for private sector workers and taxpayers to stop having to bear a bigger economic burden and career challenges than private sector workers whose pay comes from the taxpayer. While I would compromise at the two groups having to bear an equal burden, I would even go as far as to say that the worker whose pay comes from the taxpayer should bear an even bigger burden than the worker whose pay comes from the private sector when it comes to making concessions in an economic downturn, and when it comes to footing the bill for their own sector to operate.

What will eventually bring about the economic downfall of the this country will be the point at which all of the entitlement programs, all of the people who get something from the government, finally overwhelm the system by outweighing all of the people that are not taking anything from the government, the people that are paying into the system. The number of people reliant upon government for their very survival is continuing to grow and our system cannot sustain this pattern indefinitely. Either taxes will need to be increased, or we will continue to borrow until we reach a point at which, as a nation, we can no longer pay our loans. All that the government (and through government, the taxpayer) is asking public union workers to do is to be aware of this fact, be aware of the economic situation, and make some of the very same concessions that private sector employees are having to make. Government is attempting to get us through these tough economic conditions and is looking to public union workers to be realistic and think beyond just themselves and the union, but for the current greater good of the citizenry. That seems like a reasonable request to me.

Taking The Day Off At The Taxpayer's Expense

Just like a Reese's peanut butter cup, Wisconsin has recently seen the coming together of my two favorite things...protestors and teachers...

As Milwaukee Public School teachers left their classrooms to march in Madison Friday, they likely earned more than $3 million to not teach students in Wisconsin’s largest school district.

In Madison, the school district was closed for three days after hundreds of teachers engaged in a mass sick-out so they could attend protest rallies at the State Capitol. That could cost the district $2.7 million.

Late Sunday night Madison Metropolitan School District administration announced their schools would be shut down yet one more day, at a possible cost of more than $900,000.

Many of the absent teachers converged on the Capitol to protest a bill which would alter their compensation packages and make changes in government employee unions’ ability to collectively bargain on issues other than wages.

While some have speculated that the absent teachers will see their pay docked, that may not be the case if they provide a doctor’s note. Due to collective bargaining rules currently in place, the absences could be considered excused and the teachers would be paid for their protesting.

That possibility took on added significance as the MacIver News Service broke the story Saturday that several doctors in lab coats were handing out medical excuse notes to passers by, without examining their so-called patients.

If all the teachers in Milwaukee and Madison are paid for the days missed, the protest related salaries for just the state’s two largest districts would exceed $6.6 million dollars.

Using a figure of $100,005 for average teacher compensation in MPS and an average yearly workload of 195 days, these teachers cost approximately $513 per day in salary and benefits to employ. Spread over 5,960.3 full-time licensed teachers in the district, this adds up to $3,057,634 in daily expenses.

The average teacher’s total compensation in Madison is $74,912, according to the Department of Public Instruction. Each day costs $384.16 per teacher. The district has 2,370 teachers.

These figures don’t include administrators and support staff, many of which got an unexpected paid days off thanks to the week’s protests .

Who's Runnin' In 2012?

The field of Presidential hopefuls for 2012 is starting to take shape. While many of the expected big-name candidates are still doing their dance of acting like a shy girl on prom night, some of the more colorful candidates are already well on their way with their campaigns.

One such candidate is Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey, a self-proclaimed vampire that not only drinks the blood of his girlfriend and mistresses two times a week, but says "Certain criminals, instead of being put in jail, they should be brutally tortured and impaled. Upon them being found guilty of their crimes I'll beat them, torture them, dismember them and decapitate them." Sharkey adds, "I won't be bullied, I won't be blackmailed. Criminals and terrorists will fear me along with corrupt law enforcement officials. I will not tolerate crime or terrorism."

Game over! Can I have my ballot now? My decision is made! I see The Impaler has read my platform on crime, punishment and keeping the peace! Well, I must admit I adapted it from Vlad Tepes, Prince of Wallachia's platform, but a good idea is a good idea, right?

When asked about his chances of winning, Sharkey comments that basically with as bad a candidate as Sarah Palin is, and with how much people hate her, he's a much lesser evil in comparison.

Another notable candidate that has already filed his application to run for President in 2012, is Miami Beach resident Raphael Herman. Herman has run for mayor of Miami Beach six times and claims that fraudulent election results are the only cause of his six-time losing streak. Most notable about Herman is that he is not a naturally born U.S. citizen. When asked about the President having to have been born in the U.S., he claims he has evidence that President Barak Obama was actually born in Kenya and will use that evidence to cite precedence when he is elected President. "I was not born in America. I was born in Israel, but you see [President Barack Obama] wasn't born in this country either. I have his birth certificate."

Deonia "Dee" Neveu, a mother of five from Virginia has also filed her paperwork for her presidential bid. She seems to be wanting to point out to Americans who are misguidedly looking for a President with a wealth of experience that the constitution doesn't actually call for any type of political experience, and in fact, believes that the constitution was written so that any American could give becoming President a shot. "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself," says Neveu. "I don't want to live in the White House. "I would like to use a part of the White House to host fundraising events for America." Well, at least she has more political experience that our current President did when he began his campaign, right?

A reformed heavy drug user (from California, of course) who has found God, Mosheh Thezion is also running for President in 2012, though he is saying right up front that he doesn't like how he looks when he smiles, so we can expect not to see any smiles on the campaign trail. "They'll just dig it up anyway," said Thezion. "I hate politicians who lie. I tell the truth, I have nothing to hide, why would I want to hide something?" Seems like Thezion equates smiling to lying, doesn't he? I bet he was a huge fan of George the Great Satan Junior! Thezion follows up his statement that he used to use "pounds and pounds" of marijuana, cocaine, meth and alcohol before "giving up his sinful ways" by saying, "I grew up a loose liberal which is why I'm a conservative today." As I have always said, a liberal is a conservative that either hasn't hit rock bottom in their liberal ways, been the victim of a crime, or simply come to their senses yet.

Thezion also says that he will "abolish the Internal Revenue Service" and "pay off the entire national debt, permanently." I like how that sounds. Maybe I can get vampire guy to agree to the same financial policy.

Rounding out our cavalcade of interesting Presidential hopefuls is Rutherford B. Hayes, not to be confused with the 19th president of the United States by the same name. Rutherford says, "The current administration is engulfed with socialists, communists, and marxists as well as insatiable condescending egos." Yes, and birds go tweet!

We've still got a long way to go before we start widdlin' down the pack and see if the vampire, Israeli, inexperienced mom, or guy with the same name as the 19th President, can give the likes of The Master & Commander, Mrs. Once Rodham-Clinton Now Just Clinton, The Lady Who Really Liked To Say The Word Maverick Last Time, and clear great choice Mitt Romney a run for their money. Either way, maybe we shouldn't be so closed-minded when it comes to platforms, America. Just because you're a total nut job doesn't mean you shouldn't be setting U.S. policy. I mean, hell, we let Pelosi do it, and The Impaler isn't nearly quite as frightening....

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...

GobiernoUSA.gov

One of the ideals that I still remain steadfast in, and most likely will for the foreseeable future, is that just how a nation has a flag, a national symbol, a national anthem, and so on, so should a nation have an official language. As many of you are currently reading this musing in my native American tongue of English (or American English to the English) could probably guess, I propose that our official language in the USA should be English. I propose that no child graduate from high school in the United States without at least a remidial command of the English language (I know we say that now, but I mean, really, actually be able to speak English), and more importantly, I think that any interaction you have with the federal, state, and local government should be in English.

So, you're saying to yourself, I've been reading Old Man Savastano's rantings for years, and this is nothing new, so why the re-hash on making English the official language of the USA?

Well, I bought a new computer and was cleaning up the pre-supplied "Favorites" that Microsoft thinks I will need and one of the folders is "Websites For United States", and in that folder is one familiar web site, "USA.gov" and the one unfamiliar web site, "GobiernoUSA.gov". Go on, check it out. http://www.gobiernousa.gov. It is so nice to see the American taxpayer paying for twice the web site because we, as a nation, have never really had the balls to pick an official language, even though we all have known for quite some time which one it should be.

How much of our tax dollars go to creating web sites and printing things in other languages? Should not part of the process of being naturalized be that you can do so in English? Oh, wait, hold on a second, it is part of the process. You DO need to have a basic command of the English language in order to pass our naturalization tests. So, why then, would you need a U.S. government website in Spanish? Oh yeah, that's right. We can't forget to take care of our uninvited guests as well. I mean, when you throw a party and people that you have never even met before and don't seem to know anyone you invited just happen to show up, you offer them a drink and a seat, don't you? Quite clearly, in America we do, and to top it off, we make sure that we offer you those bebidas and sillas en Espanol because though you have no respect for our laws, we still want you to feel right at home...

A Return, Even If Partially, To A System Of Checks And Balances

One great reason to look forward to 2011 is that we will see a return, even if partially, to the system of checks and balances in that putrid cesspool of ridiculous spending known as Washington, D.C. that the Founding Fathers (yep, I’m still going to call them that in 2011) put in place for a very good reason. 

2011 will hopefully see a time when we are not voting for bills on Monday that we are going to get around to having a chance to read next Tuesday; a time when there is a small voice that can say, “Hey, wait a minute, why don’t we wait a minute?” instead of cramming and ramming piece after piece of legislation through voting in the 11th hour when everyone is distracted by the flashy lights and Christmas songs and not really watching what is going on over in Crazy Town.

Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer actually gets to see the cavalcade of foundational system change for the sake of creating a new world order finally stop, or at least slow to a reasonable pace. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees these m-f-ing hot air balloons actually quit with the god damned earmarks like they’ve been promising. When even Tea Party candidates are taking earmarks, it’s not time to change the system, it is time to wipe the damned slate clean and just start over.

Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees the Congress and the Executive Branch curtail the reckless and fruitless spending and spend what is needed, where and when it is actually needed. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees less and less “Change The World” and a whole hell-of-a lot more “Creating Jobs” and “Jump-Starting The Economy.”

I know that you elected him so that you could get your free healthcare and your car note paid without having to actually go out and get a job, or for your papeles, or your mama’s papeles, but it is time for all of us – both those of you who voted for him and those of us who didn’t – to come together to expect this President to deliver on his promises on job creation, boosting the economy, and reducing government spending and the deficit.

I say the two years of playing in the sandbox with your buddies is rightly ended, and now it is time to come in and get to work. He wants Republicans and Democrats to work together? I say we do just that and start holding him accountable to those promises – not the ones where he promised everyone who doesn't pay any income taxes even more free shit, but the ones where he promised to enact actual change on this economy and that damned town he’s been living in for the past two years.

Illegal Immigration & The DREAM Act

I admittedly have failed to comment properly on my feelings and position on the so-called DREAM Act and the reason why I am opposed to it. This has not been due to a lack of position, but, in fact, due to my inability to craft a piece that did my position justice.

In short, I feel that EVERY FOREIGN-BORN person should go through the SAME path to U.S. citizenship. Seems fair, doesn't it? If everyone follows the law, then everyone is on equal footing at the time they start the process. Should you get special consideration and get an easier path to citizenship because you have already been living here for many years, using our public education system and social services? The only scenario by which that could happen would be if you were violating U.S. Immigration law, so the answer to that question should be a resounding, "No!"

My position on this piece of legislation also stems from my view on illegal immigration, and my belief that you should receive punishment for breaking the law, not a reward, especially a reward of preferential treatment. Rather than rehash my own personal view on illegal immigration, I would like to provide for you the following excerpt from "Two Californias" by Victor Hanson.

This excerpt below is from Hanson's larger piece on his experiences while traveling through California's once-rich Central Valley, Hanson's home soil, commenting on the desolate wasteland of poverty and welfare-state conditions that the valley has now become due to overregulation and illegal immigration.

This piece holds a special personal significance to me because of my own family's tie in the first half of the 1900s to agriculture, not in the Central Valley, but right here, in Orange County, where four generations ago, my forbearers took the LEGAL path to citizenship:

Fresno’s California State University campus is embroiled in controversy over the student body president’s announcing that he is an illegal alien, with all the requisite protests in favor of the DREAM Act. I won’t comment on the legislation per se, but again only note the anomaly. I taught at CSUF for 21 years. I think it fair to say that the predominant theme of the Chicano and Latin American Studies program’s sizable curriculum was a fuzzy American culpability. By that I mean that students in those classes heard of the sins of America more often than its attractions. In my home town, Mexican flag decals on car windows are far more common than their American counterparts.

I note this because hundreds of students here illegally are now terrified of being deported to Mexico. I can understand that, given the chaos in Mexico and their own long residency in the United States. But here is what still confuses me: If one were to consider the classes that deal with Mexico at the university, or the visible displays of national chauvinism, then one might conclude that Mexico is a far more attractive and moral place than the United States.

So there is a surreal nature to these protests: something like, “Please do not send me back to the culture I nostalgically praise; please let me stay in the culture that I ignore or deprecate.” I think the DREAM Act protestors might have been far more successful in winning public opinion had they stopped blaming the U.S. for suggesting that they might have to leave at some point, and instead explained why, in fact, they want to stay. What is it about America that makes a youth of 21 go on a hunger strike or demonstrate to be allowed to remain in this country rather than return to the place of his birth?

I think I know the answer to this paradox. Missing entirely in the above description is the attitude of the host, which by any historical standard can only be termed “indifferent.” California does not care whether one broke the law to arrive here or continues to break it by staying. It asks nothing of the illegal immigrant — no proficiency in English, no acquaintance with American history and values, no proof of income, no record of education or skills.

It does provide all the public assistance that it can afford (and more that it borrows for), and apparently waives enforcement of most of California’s burdensome regulations and civic statutes that increasingly have plagued productive citizens to the point of driving them out.

How odd that we over-regulate those who are citizens and have capital to the point of banishing them from the state, but do not regulate those who are aliens and without capital to the point of encouraging millions more to follow in their footsteps. How odd — to paraphrase what Critias once said of ancient Sparta — that California is at once both the nation’s most unfree and most free state, the most repressed and the wildest.

I think Hanson makes some fantastically valid points here. While I understand that illegal immigration and the DREAM Act can be very emotional subjects for quite a large number of people living here in the United States, both citizen and non-citizen alike, I think that a good deal of the people who fall on my side of the fence on this issue are troubled mostly by two factors. This group of people's widespread inability to first admit, then hold themselves accountable for violating the law of the land in which they so desire to live, and secondly, what seems to be more of an allegiance to the place in which they do not want to live than to the place in which they do want to live.

When American citizens break the law, we pay fines or get to live in one of our many taxpayer-funded state or federal correctional institutions. Should it not be the case for the non-citizen who knowingly violated U.S. immigration law?

While it is not my intention to ruffle feathers, but my intention to get people on both sides of the argument to think rationally about this issue, I must ask the question. "If Mexico is so fantastic, why are you here in the United States? If you love Mexico so so very much, why did you not stay and try to fix it - try to fight to make your beloved homeland a better place, even if it is just in your neighborhood, or home town? Why do you fly the Mexican flag above the U.S. flag, yet make the choice to live in the country whose flag you fly below the flag of that nation that you chose to not live in anymore?"

These are not rhetorical questions, mind you. These are questions that many of the people that are being flagged as "racists" for opposing illegal immigration and the DREAM Act genuinely would like to have answered by the people on the opposite side of the argument.

Before you get on your soap box and start yelling out charges of elitism and racism, think on one thing - something that Hanson touches on in his article. If you are playing any game, any sport, in the world in which you are on a team, would you not want the person sitting or standing next to you to have an allegiance to your team above all other teams? Would you not want them playing their heart out just as much as you for your team and not have an underlying allegiance to the other team?

Now, consider, that you are not just playing a game, but you are ensuring the future of the greatest democracy to ever exist in the history of mankind - securing its future for your children, your loved ones, securing it for all the good that nation does in the world. Wouldn't you want the person standing next to you to have an allegiance above all others to your nation, and not some other nation? This is what America wants of her citizens, and I do not think it to be an unreasonable request.

If you watch a documentary on people taking the legal path to citizenship, you will see that there is a point in the immigration process where they are asked to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America above all other nations in the world, including the nation which they have left to come to America. You will see that the people making this pledge take that part of the process very seriously - that they labor on it and give it much thought - they struggle with it, but in most cases, they make that pledge. Most notably, you will see by their emotions, that their pledge is genuine.

The illegal immigrant has never had to make that pledge. They have never actually had to contemplate that choice between allegiance to their home country and ours. They get to straddle the fence. They get to live here while their true loyalty remains elsewhere. We are letting them skip a very important and noteworthy step in joining our team. I do not think it is wrong for Americans to want the people living in this country to not be allowed to skip that step.

We have a legal immigration process in place that has served this nation for quite some time. A legal immigration process that does not reward violation of that process, but in fact, deters violation. Many of us believe that our nation is best served by keeping things that way. That's not elitism, and that's not racism. That, my friends, is American Patriotism, and that, my friends, is what we want from those of you who make the choice to join our team...AMERICAN patriotism.

Not only are you incorrect in thinking that most of those who oppose illegal immigration and the DREAM Act do not want you to be able to join the team, but I believe you would find that most of us actually want you on the team. All we are asking is that you join the team according to the rule book - the same rule book that we are going to expect you to follow once you are a member of the team. You are asking us to believe that you are going to follow that rule book when you and yours have already broken its rules. Do you see how that might be of concern to us? Sadly, I don't think that you do.

Dennis Miller said it best when he commented, "We don't mind you joining the party, we just want you to sign the guest book so we know who's here." Again, it's not that Americans don't want you to join the team, we just want you to do it the right way, and we want you to be dedicated 100% to our team. I don't think that is too much to ask.