California Conservative

This LA Times article says that the Obama administration isn’t thinking about bailing California out…yet. Earlier this morning, Rasmussen reported that 24 percent of American supported a bailout. This begs the question of whether the Obama based its decision on polling.

California needs to solve its financial crisis by itself and should not expect an emergency bailout from the White House, an array of Obama administration officials said Thursday, making clear they had no appetite to step in and provide financial assistance or loan guarantees.

“Look, we’re going to examine what we can do. What we need to do, however, is to treat states fairly and that means uniformly,” David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, said in an interview. “Whatever we do for one state, there will be other states who also will want to do that. And there’s a limit to what the government can do.”

Hearing the Obama administration say that “there’s a limit to what the government can do” is a little bizarre. Hearing this administration say that is akin to hearing Ronald Reagan say that America is too prosperous and too free.

Here’s what Raasmussen’s polling reported:

Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters nationwide favor federal bailout funds for states like California that are encountering “serious financial problems.” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% are opposed to such bailouts.

As for California specifically, again just 24% believe the federal government should guarantee the state’s loans. Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide oppose federal guarantees. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said the state may request such guarantees.

I’m actually surprised that there’s that much support for bailing California out. I wouldn’t have been surprised if only 10 percent of the people polled supported bailouts.

I’m hard pressed to believe that the Obama administration’s decision wasn’t linked to their polling. The Obama administration hasn’t hesitated to bail others out. I’m thinking that the Obama administration didn’t want to upset California’s voters after they sent a shot across California’s politicians’ bow.

Technorati Tags: Bailouts, California, Schwarzenegger, RINO, Polling, President Obama, Deficits, Spending, Tea Parties, Elections

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

After reviewing Tuesday night’s defeat of Gov. Shwarzenegger’s initiatives, it’s apparent that California’s Tea Party attitude hasn’t disappeared. This article provides a nice summarization of Tuesday’s vote:

Measure 1A, designed to create a “rainy day” fund in the state’s budget, failed with 65.9 percent of the state’s voters against it. In Lake County, 66.3 percent of the voters opposed the measure.

Measure 1B would have required the state to make payments to schools and community colleges beginning in the 2011-12 fiscal year. The measure failed with 62.6 voting against it statewide. Lake County’s vote was 62.8 percent opposed.

Measure 1C would have allowed the state to borrow $5 billion in future lottery profits to balance the 2009-10 budget. The measure failed with 64.6 percent voting against it statewide. Voters in Lake County rejected it as well, with 65 percent of the voters opposed.

Measure 1D would have allowed the state to borrow more than $1.4 billion from voter-approved funds for the California Children and Families Program. The measure failed with 65.8 percent of the state’s voters against it. In Lake County, 67.6 percent of the voters opposed it.

Measure 1E would have allowed the state to redirect approximately $640 million from voter-approved money for expansion of mental health programs. The measure failed with 66.4 percent of the state’s voters against it. In Lake County, 68.9 percent of the voters opposed the measure.

(more…)

When President Obama says that he’s got alot of things on his plate, I don’t disagree with him. According to this LA Times article, he’s now apparently adding union steward to his list of responsibilities:

The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger’s office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

The news comes as state lawmakers are already facing a severe cash crisis, with the state at risk of running out of money in July.

Does anyone think that President Obama would’ve injected himself into this situation if these cuts wouldn’t have affected union workers? I’m betting that he wouldn’t have thought twice about it if non-union workers.

Cutting $6,800,000,000 from California’s stimulus money when the state is on the verge of bankruptcy carries with it a political risk. Republicans could blame President Obama for contributing to California’s collapse. Even if he later puts a different package together to bail California out, the damage will have been done.

Unfortunately, union steward seems to be the job that President Obama is best qualified for.

Technorati Tags: Unions, SEIU, President Obama, Union Steward, Stimulus Bill, California, Financial Collapse

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Two gems from the Wall Street Journal today.

The first piece entitled, How California Became France — Unable to afford a welfare state and unable to reform it by Matthew Kaminski, who writes:

As California goes, says an old cliché, so goes the nation. Oh my.

These days, the Golden State leads the nation on economic and fiscal dysfunction, from the empty homes spread across the Central Valley to the highest state budget shortfall in the nation’s history. Meanwhile, its political class pioneers denial in the face of catastrophe.

The spark for the immediate political crisis was a familiar Californian discovery, a fiscal hole of $41 billion. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared an “emergency” in November and took legislative leaders behind closed doors to hammer out a compromise. The budget adopted in a marathon session this week splits the baby, closing the deficit with spending cuts (hated by the left) and tax hikes (ditto the right), all the while largely failing to tackle the state’s built-in structural defects.

Some parts of the deal, such as borrowing from future lottery receipts, may yet collapse at the ballot in May, and California could soon be back in line to mark another first — state bankruptcy. In anticipation, Standard & Poor’s this month downgraded its bond rating a notch below Louisiana’s.

Even discounting for the impact of global recession, the most populous state’s ills are unique and self-inflicted — and avoidable. In the last three decades, California expanded the public sector and regulation to Europe-like dimensions. Schools, state employees, health care, even dog kennels, benefited from largesse in flush times. Government workers got 16 official holidays, everyone else six. The state dabbled with universal health care and adopted strict environmental standards. In short, California went where our new president and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco want America to go.

Read more.

Second piece, by Pete Du Pont, appropriately entitled: Next Stop, France — By comparison with what’s to come, $790 billion is small change.

Last month Barack Obama became the new president of the United States, a president with a different set of beliefs and perspective about how our country should function, change and–hopefully–prosper. The last president with such vision (although from a different perspective) was Ronald Reagan, who according to most scholarly surveys was one of the best presidents in America’s history. So a look at what the Obama presidency is planning will help us understand where America is going.

According to last week’s Newsweek cover story, “We Are All Socialists Now,” the “America of 2009 is moving towards a modern European state”–whether we like it or not. A decade ago our national, state and local government spending was 34.3% of gross domestic product, while next year it will reach 39.9%, and America “will become even more French.” So there will be “more government taxing and spending,” and “more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment).”

That conclusion should not surprise us, for more government involvement and decision-making in all aspects of our country’s policies, organizations, businesses and local governments is the belief of the Obama presidency. Mr. Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate during his short time there, and, faithful to his beliefs, he has begun establishing the liberal policies he campaigned upon.

Mr. Obama promised to increase federal spending by $303 billion a year, or 10%, but the recessionary emergency spending bill he signed last week will cost a minimum of $790 billion over the next several years. It is the largest annual spending increase since World War II, an enormous deficit-spending bill that, as The Wall Street Journal pointed out, expands “the role of the federal government across the breadth of American business, health care, energy and welfare policy.”

If the spending increases and tax reductions of the bill are extended over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates they will add $1.7 trillion to the federal deficit. And since there are no sunset provisions to end the spending increases, we can be sure that any “cuts” in federal spending will be vigorously opposed. Simply put, a much bigger American government is on its way, and as a result a balanced budget will not be possible for the foreseeable future.

Read more.

As noted before, “we all know how easy it is to roll-back the waste of government bureaucracy once new budgets are set, this is a glimpse of the future. The debt that will be carried on by our children.”

The writing is on the wall. Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, Citizens of America, it’s time for revolt. Let your voices be heard.

RELATED:
The Worst Economic Slump in 75 Years?
“Worst Is Yet to Come:” Americans’ Standard of Living Permanently Changed
Who pays for the “stimulus”?
The Ugly Facts About the Stimulus Package

According to this article, indicators are emerging that California’s irresponsible behavior is driving people away:

Mike Reilly spent his lifetime chasing the California dream. This year he’s going to look for it in Colorado. With a house purchase near Denver in the works, the 38-year-old engineering contractor plans to move his family 1,200 miles away from his home state’s lemon groves, sunshine and beaches. For him, years of rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic have robbed the Golden State of its allure.

Is there something left of the California dream?

“If you are a Hollywood actor,” Reilly says, “but not for us.”

Since the days of the Gold Rush, California has represented the Promised Land, an image celebrated in the songs of the Beach Boys and embodied by Silicon Valley’s instant millionaires and the young men and women who achieve stardom in Hollywood.

But for many California families last year, tomorrow started somewhere else.

The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period, more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y.

Why should people stay when California’s government has been so utterly irresponsible? Taxes keep rising. California’s deficits aren’t eliminated. They aren’t even reduced. Gov. Ahnold and the legislature can’t find a way to stop spending money they don’t have. (more…)

Former LAUSD Teacher Ari Kaufman writes in American Daily:

Now, pity those poor, overpaid, underworked teachers as they embark up on a 2-3 week winter break, please.

In fact:

California ranks first nationally in teacher salaries. The average teacher salary in the state was $65,424 last year almost $2,200 more than second-place New York, and almost $12,000 higher than the national average. What’s more, California placed fifth in the nation in the percentage that teacher salaries have increased over the last 10 years, corrected for inflation.

NEA estimates the average California teacher salary this year is $67,186 - a 4.6% increase over last year. This pay hike comes during a year in which the state has hired an additional 2,800 teachers.

And yet:

On Friday, The California Teachers Association filed a proposed initiative to increase the state sales tax “to provide new, ongoing funding for public schools and colleges that cannot be cut, delayed or diverted by the governor or the Legislature.”

Former SF Mayor Willie Brown has a message for Democrats that’s akin to Ed Koch’s in 2004: the Democrats’ nominee is in trouble. Here’s Willie’s thinking:

From taxes to oil drilling, Democrats are now going to have to start explaining their positions.

If you’re on the right side of issues, you can turn things into an offensive. When you’re on the wrong side, like Democrats are on taxes and drilling, it isn’t fun. It only gets worse from there:

I actually went back and watched Palin’s speech a second time. I didn’t go to sleep until 1:30 a.m. I had to make sure I got the lines right.

Her timing was exquisite. She didn’t linger with applause, but instead launched into line after line of attack, slipping the knives in with every smile and joke.

If anybody’s an expert on “slipping the knives in”, it’s Willie. He’s one of the savviest at the hand-to-hand combat that’s every walked the planet. He’s saying that Sarah Pali was focused on delivering a withering attack, that she recited her lines flawlessly and, most importantly, her attacks were substantive, not stylistic. If you think that’s bad news for Team Barry, it gets worse: (more…)

The AP’s Beth Fouhy has written a particularly offensive hit piece against Sen. McCain. This shocks me not even a little, though it’s more than a little disappointing. Consider these paragraphs as why I think it’s a hit piece against Sen. McCain:

Just last month, McCain reversed himself after years of opposition and called for lifting the federal ban on oil drilling off the U.S. coast. The Arizona senator promotes energy development as a way to boost the economy, and a recent poll found many voters are open to offshore drilling as a way to ease gasoline prices.

But McCain’s views could be troublesome in California, which has seen its share of catastrophic offshore oil spills. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain ally, opposes such drilling and in a television interview indicated he would be open one day to serving as the “energy czar” in an Obama administration.

It isn’t a stretch to think that Fouhy’s intent was to label McCain a flip-flopper without calling him that directly. It’s also not a stretch to think that mentioning girlie-man Gov. Schwarzenegger’s desire to be Obama’s energy czar is meant to imply that Republicans are split on drilling.

Then there’s this: (more…)

As California goes, so the nation? Let’s hope not.

We thought this was worth posting in its entirety, c/o WSJ.

–
California as No. 1
July 17, 2008; Page A14
Wall Street Journal

New York City has long been the highest tax jurisdiction in the United States, but California politicians are proposing to steal that brass tiara. California faces a $15 billion budget deficit and Democrats who rule the state Legislature have proposed closing the gap with a $9.7 billion tax hike on business and “the rich.” There’s a movie that describes this idea: Clueless.

The plan would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 12% from 10.3%; that would be the highest in the nation and twice the national average. This plan would also repeal indexing for inflation, which is a sneaky way for politicians to push middle-income Californians into higher tax brackets every year, especially when prices are rising as they are now. The corporate income tax rate would also rise to 9.3% from 8.4%. So in the face of one of the worst real-estate recessions in the state’s history, the politicians want to raise taxes on businesses that are still making money.

This latest tax gambit was unveiled, ironically enough, within days of two very large California employers announcing they are saying, in the famous words of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, “hasta la vista, baby” to the state. First, the AAA auto club declared it will close its call centers in California, meaning that 900 jobs will move to other states. “It costs more to do business in California,” said a AAA press release, in the understatement of the year.

Then last week Toyota announced it is canceling plans to build its new Prius hybrid at its plant in the San Francisco Bay area because of the high tax and regulatory costs. Adding to the humiliation is that Toyota will now take this investment and about 1,000 jobs to a more progressive and pro-business state: Mississippi. (more…)

Over at Politico, Roger Stein is speculating on McCain’s chances at winning California in November. His take is intriguing:

1. If McCain wins California in November, he almost certainly will become the next president of the United States.

The Democratic nominee would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get to 270 electoral votes and victory without California. Sure, the Democrat could theoretically make up for the loss of California (55 electoral votes) by winning both Texas (34) and Florida (27), but how likely is that? Not very.

As the late Lee Atwater, a major architect of George H.W. Bush’s victory in 1988, said, “I can win without California; they can’t, so I want it.”

2. Winning California is going to be very tough for McCain.

On the surface, McCain looks like a reasonably good match for California. He is a relatively moderate Republican, he is strong on the environment, he talks about low taxes and ending waste, he retains a somewhat maverick image, and he could be popular with independents. He is, broadly speaking, in the same mold as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who will campaign vigorously for him.

But there is a one big difference between Schwarzenegger and McCain, and it has enormous political implications: Schwarzenegger supports abortion rights and McCain does not.

3. Candidates who oppose abortion rights do not win California.

They don’t win at the state level, and they don’t win at the national level. The last presidential candidate who opposed abortion rights and won California was George H.W. Bush, and that was 20 years ago.

And since the Democratic nominee is sure to support abortion rights, McCain cannot win California, right? Not necessarily. He may have one slim chance to win California if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

4. Obama favors giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. McCain opposes it, and this could give McCain the state.

Giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants is unpopular in California. Schwarzenegger successfully exploited opposition to such driver’s licenses in both of his elections, and McCain would have a shot at winning California by exploiting it also.

Yes, it would be ironic for McCain, a moderate on immigration, to take a hard line on this issue, but politics often make people do ironic things.

Dan Schnur, who was McCain’s communications director in 2000 and is now a political strategist based in California, says the driver’s license issue could trump the abortion issue when it comes to McCain. ….

This could swing in two directions. On the one hand, abortion-rights people may recognize that it is somewhat unlikely that Roe be overtuned and decide to vote McCain for other re