By MIKE ZAPLER

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been warning for months that California’s budget is hurtling toward the proverbial cliff — the point where the state cannot pay its bills.That time is about to arrive, and the fallout could be severe and far-reaching, particularly if the legislative budget stalemate lasts.

In February, state Controller John Chiang will suspend $3.7 billion in payments for at least 30 days. Further, IOUs in lieu of payments could be issued soon.

News organizations concerned about access issues at the Obama White House

Representatives from Obama’s press office held a conference call with photo editors, who are concerned that the administration prefers distributing photos taken by a White House photographer in cases where photojournalists have been permitted access in the past…

…Television network bureau chiefs also protested the exclusion of video cameras from the second oath of office…

…Four reporters witnessed the oath of office and shared their observations with others, and a White House photo was released.

“We think it was done in a way that was upfront and transparent,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a briefing when questioned why video cameras were not present.

What goes around, comes around. How enamored are the media with their messiah now?

Voters may be asked to end state budget impasse

If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger calls a special election this year, California voters might be forced to make the hard choices on the budget and taxes that the Legislature won’t.

State Controller John Chiang said in an interview that he would support putting a tax increase package to voters in an effort to break the long-running legislative stalemate that has left California with a $42 billion deficit and weeks away from delaying refunds to taxpayers and grants to college students and low-income and disabled residents.

WHY do we keep re-electing these incompetents who can’t make the hard choices or compromise on anything??

The last special election cost the taxpayers of California about $50 million. If we have to pay a similar amount again how about taking it straight out of the legislature’s funding?

The commenters on the article at SFGate have some interesting ideas as well:

monet2u
If I have to vote to resolve these budget issues, then I want them to relinquish their titles, salaries, etc. Apparently, I could easily do their jobs.

bigwhitedog
So while we are voting on this mess, lets recall everyone of them and start over!

looktoplanb
I’d guess that the State of CA would be better served not having a special election. I’m no Carnac, but I think any tax increase proposal would go down to defeat by probably historic percentages. Save the money and work with the Republicans. It’s pretty obvious at this point that there needs to be severe cuts in benefits, workforce and programs on a permanent basis for California to survive and eventually prosper going forward.

lamont_cranston
We need to fire all these people. We keep re-electing them and then whine when we have the same results. Fire all of them, particularly if we have to pay for a special election to fix what we ‘hired’ them to.

drumstick
Why are we paying the members of the CA legislature when they pass their duties back to the voters!? I thought this country was a republic, not a democracy! Oh well, I can make the difficult decisions for you very quickly: Postpone rail, 20% pay cuts to state employees, stop payments to welfare recipients, raise the sales tax by 1%, raise car registration fees, and fire the CA legislature. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

firstand3
Lets vote. And while we are at it also vote on making the legislature part-time and set their salary at minimum wage.

qawagstaff
Let’s bring back the poll tax! It isn’t that outrageous! The original purpose wasn’t to discriminate, that only came in the South post Civil War. The founders put it in the constitution as a protection against the populace voting themselves money and as a way of raising taxes. If you wanted to vote, you paid a tax, and the money the Government spent was from poll taxes and tariffs. Those Founders were pretty smart.

gojira
According to the nonpartisan California State Legislative Analysts’ Office, the state will spend on education in fiscal 2008-09, per K-12 pupil, $11,626. That’s really the elephant in the room. The past 20 years have seen a massive influx of immigrants, most of them poor and unskilled, and of rabbitlike fertility. But the children of those immigrants, the “anchor babies”, are citizens the second they pop out on U.S. soil — entitled to a free public education. And as soon as they are old enough to hit kindergarten, one of those anchor babies costs the rest of us more than eleven and a half grand per year, each. And will continue to cost that each year through 12th grade. There’s no way that the small amount of taxes their parents typically pay will ever come anywhere close to offsetting that huge educational bill. And if we don’t do something about this, the financial future of the state is pointed straight down the toilet.

fatboy_baxter
I am OK with deciding what to keep and what to cut. Just put every single budget line item on the ballot with its budget for 2008 right next to it. In my infinite uninformed wisdom, I’ll make the decisions the nincompoops we elected cannot. Of course, one of those budget lines will be for legislative salary expense. Hmmm, now how should I vote on that…..???

From DoctorHousingBubble we get a clear picture of California’s problem:

Total Revenues and Transfers - 2008-09
*Dollars in Millions

Personal Income Tax $58,023

Sales Tax $35,093

Corporation Tax $11,937

Other $11,490

Motor Vehicle Fees $5,966

Highway Users Taxes $3,565

Insurance Tax $2,276

Tobacco Taxes $1,096

Liquor Tax $341

Note item #1 - personal income tax. This is where the state gets most of its money…and that number is going to sink like a stone this year, as is item #2 because people are losing their jobs.

Total Expenditures (Including Selected Bond Funds)
*Dollars in Millions

K-12 Education $43,710

Health and Human Services $35,687

Higher Education $14,567

Business Transportation & Housing $13,406

Corrections and Rehabilitation $10,290

General Government $7,749

Legislative, Judicial, Executive $6,358

Resources $5,707

Environmental Protection $1,582

State and Consumer Services $1,555

Labor and Workforce Development $427

Note item #1 - the biggest cut of our expenses goes to a failing public education system. A system that “educates” students who then need remedial classes just to attend community college. A system that educates all children, including illegal immigrants, at taxpayer expense. A system that fights school vouchers tooth and nail even though vouchers would ultimately save taxpayer money. A system that spends most of its resources on administration and not on students.

Note item #2 - the second biggest share of our taxes goes to welfare. In an economy where people are losing jobs and losing the health insurance that is tied to employment, that number is going to go UP.

What the hell is “general government” that it’s a separate category from the three legal branches, legislative, judicial and executive AND gets a bigger budget than the Big 3? Put together (as it should be, not divided up to move it farther down the list) government comes in at #4, just barely beat out by higher education. Can you say “bloated?”

Note the item dead last on the list - labor and workforce development. That which we need MOST right now is dead last.

Really, if they go forward with a special election I hope and pray that an initiative goes on it that kicks every last one of our state legislators out of office. We can carry the load until replacements are elected. We’re doing that anyway.

California’s budget deficit is well known by now, an estimated $40 billion dollars (yes, that’s billion, with a b). In spite of having known about this gap for months the state legislature and governor have failed to agree on a revised budget. This after a record-breaking late budget for this fiscal year in the first place - due by June 15, 2008 it was signed into law on September 23, 2008. Now, just a few months later, the state executive and legislative branches are haggling over the budget - again - and failing to reach an agreement - again. Meanwhile it is estimated that the state will run out of cash in late February.

The situation is so dire that the state controller has warned he will have to delay payments to taxpayers, businesses, social service programs and student aid to conserve money in the state’s checking account. Finance officials project the state will run out of cash in late February, but the state controller will have to make a decision by Feb. 1.

They ignore how their inaction could actually make the situation worse.

In just a few weeks, California is expected to begin issuing state refunds to more than 10 million taxpayers — a welcome injection of cash into the ailing economy.

There’s just one catch: The state may delay the checks or issue IOUs instead…

…According to the Franchise Tax Board, the state returned $10.7 billion to individuals and businesses last year. The average state refund was $853 for individuals and $13,284 for businesses.

Almost $11 billion that will NOT help revive the economy due to the inaction of politician. Politicians who don’t take unpaid furloughs to help ease the budget crunch or have to fear layoffs.

But it’s not just the governor and the legislators. California’s government is full of people who think that someone else should make the sacrifice:

After Schwarzenegger’s announcement of the furloughs, it took just one working day for six statewide elected officials to say the furloughs shouldn’t apply to their minions. Yep, six Democrats denounced the hardship it would create and said they didn’t have to abide by the governor’s order. They include Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, Controller John Chiang and schools chief Jack O’Connell.

But there’s good news, if karma can be considered good news:

State Controller John Chiang has said the first group to receive IOUS is likely to include legislators.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is the incoming chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee — the first woman to hold the job.

Senator Feinstein is, IMHO, not a candidate for any lack of intelligence jokes. And she’s willing to take on her own party when necessary, too:

Earlier in the week Feinstein, who’s served in the Senate since 1992, had become the first Senate Democrat to say publicly that Roland Burris should be seated in the Senate despite the taint of corruption surrounding the man who appointed him, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Feinstein’s position put her at odds with her party’s leaders, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid publicly denounced her position as “not valid.”

But Feinstein said she’d spoken twice with Reid before going public. She said the Burris appointment was valid under the Constitution, and the idea that the Constitution would be trumped by Senate rules relied on by Democratic leaders was “an impossible dream.”

I’d rather have a Republican in the position but at least we can count on Feinstein to bring respect for the Constitution and the willingness to fight for it to the table.

I received the following email today from Citizens Against Government Waste; all emphasis is added:

The HillaryCare proponents in Congress are making good on their campaign promise!

Under the guise of helping children without health insurance, the advocates of a government-run, universal healthcare system for all Americans are pushing for a massive expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) - increasing the cost of this program to you, me, and all taxpayers

If they succeed, this would be a giant first step toward making their vision of a socialist, Canadian-style healthcare system a reality in this country.

The House and Senate will consider legislation on SCHIP as early as next week, and it’s urgent that you tell your Senators and Representative to oppose the expansion of SCHIP and the tax increases that would be required to pay for it.

SCHIP was originally designed to help low-income families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid gain access to health insurance for their children. The proposals being pushed by the HillaryCare advocates would increase the SCHIP income eligibility level from the current 200 percent of the federal poverty line (approx. $40,000 in annual income for a family of four) to 300 or even 400 percent of the federal poverty line (approx. $61,950 and $82,600 in annual income, respectively); might allow states to expand coverage even further to other individuals; and might even increase existing benefits to a practically unlimited benefits package.

These proposals could triple spending on SCHIP, from $25 billion to as much as $75 billion over five years, and make more than 71 percent of American children - including many who already have private insurance - covered under either SCHIP or Medicaid.

To pay for this big-government healthcare expansion, its advocates have proposed increasing the federal cigarette excise tax by as much as 156 percent and raising taxes elsewhere. Trust me, this will be just the first of many tax increases to come as SCHIP, like virtually every other entitlement program before it, ends up costing more than expected and sucking up increasing amounts of your tax dollars!

[A]fter the failure of HillaryCare in the 1990’s, the universal healthcare proponents have wised up. They know they can’t impose a government takeover of America’s healthcare system - and the massive tax increases needed to pay for it - all at once without provoking a resounding public outcry. Instead, they’ve adopted an incremental approach, where they will slowly expand existing government healthcare programs until they crowd out private insurance.

The backers of this plan think they can get all Americans dependent on the government for our healthcare before we know what hit us!

Please tell your Senators and Representative to oppose legislation that would expand SCHIP and increase the federal cigarette excise tax, or any other taxes, to pay for it.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Schatz
President

Socialized medicine, by focusing solely on the patients - who, of course, should be the PRIMARY focus - makes no allowance for research and development. R&D is VERY expensive and is currently funded by the profits made by privately owned medical facilities. The U.S. has been the world leader in medical research because our capitalist system makes this very expensive R&D profitable which, besides being good for the patients, is good for the economy.

Socialized medicine strangles R&D. Countries with socialized medicine just ride on the coattails of the U.S. If we also socialize medicine on whose coattails will we ride?

Economic crisis notwithstanding, the U.S. is a wealthy enough country to provide medical care for its people - ALL of its people. The best way to ensure that the poor and uninsured get care is to provide, not a medical system funded and controlled by a government with limited resources, but an insurance program that allows them to get care in the privately owned system.

Don’t miss this very important point - truly socialized medicine does not allow competition by private businesses. They sign up for the government program or they shut their doors. Socialized medicine equalizes healthcare, not by raising the standard of care overall, but by lowering it overall, to the lowest common denominator. It takes away the basic right to choose from whom we get our health care. It will be from the government program or not at all.

Is that really the direction we want to take? Do we want to leave our children a country with third rate medical care and crushing entitlement spending?

I don’t.

Another case makes it to conference at the Supreme Court. I’m guessing it will be denied just like the others.

Lightfoot v. Bowen, S168690, Supreme Court of CA
Denied on Dec. 3. Filed with SCOTUS 08A524 on Dec. 12, denied Dec. 17 by Justice Kennedy. UPDATE: Distributed for conference Jan. 23, 2009 by Chief Justice Roberts.

Unknown to most Americans, a number of lawsuits are winding their way through the nation’s court system. The basic premise is a challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the office of POTUS. I wish I could offer an up to the minute status on each case, but this research is taking longer than expected AND I have been very busy at home, so here is the list without updates. I do not know if this is a complete list. I’ll update as time allows.

Given that the SCOTUS has denied consideration of two lawsuits on this issue and since the Electoral College has voted, I doubt that these cases will go anywhere. But you never know.

State cases concerning eligibility of Barack Obama for POTUS:

California
Joan Corbett v. Bowen, 30-2008-00114112-CU-FR-CJC, Orange County
There was an ex parte hearing Nov. 3 and no further docket activity, so I’m guessing this case is dead at the Superior Court level. No appeals found with CA Supreme Court.

Keyes v. Bowen, 34-2008-80000096-CU-WM-GDS, Sacramento County
Filed Nov. 13; hearing set for March 13, 2009.

Lightfoot v. Bowen, S168690, Supreme Court of CA
Denied on Dec. 3. Filed with SCOTUS 08A524 on Dec. 12, denied Dec. 17 by Justice Kennedy. UPDATE: Distributed for conference Jan. 23, 2009 by Chief Justice Roberts.

Georgia

Rev. Tom Terry v. Handel, 08CV158774S
Filed with Georgia Supreme Court Nov. 3, S09D0284, Dec. 3 dismissed as moot. Motion for reconsideration filed Dec. 15, pending.

Hawaii

Martin v. Lingle, 1CC08-1-002147, Honolulu County
Denied; emergency motion for reconsideration filed Dec. 1. Opposition to motion filed Dec. 12. I can’t tell from the court website if this is on calendar but there is no case termination date so I assume it’s still alive.

Kentucky

Daniel John Essek v. Obama, Kentucky Eastern District Court, 6:2008cv00379 (Whitley County)
Filed in District Court Nov. 25

North Carolina
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan v. NC Board of Elections, Pender County
No further info available

Texas

Jody Brockhausen v. Andrade

Darrel Hunter v. US Supreme Court
Appeal filed in Texas Northern District Court, 2:2008cv00232
- filed in SCOTUS, Docket number unknown

Washington

James E. Broe v. Reed, King County

Investigating:

Susan Herbert v. United States of America, Barack Obama and John Roberts
Florida Middle District Court, 3:2008cv01201
Filed Dec. 15

Susan Herbert v. Barack Obama and United States
Florida Middle District Court, 3:2008cv01164
Filed December 4, 2008

Kamal K. Roy v. United States of America, George W. Bush, John McCain and Barack H. Obama
Hawaii District Court, 1:2008cv00513
Filed November 13, 2008

Gordon Allen Stamper v. United States of America, R. Barclay Surrick, Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain
Ohio Northern District Court, 1:2008cv02593
Filed November 3, 2008