Watching non-American news media respond with puzzled bemusement at the hysteria and rampant fawning adulation being heaped on His Obamaness sharpened my eye for some way to explain what was happening, when just now I chanced to read this comment on another blog, by someone nicknamed Eon:

I will make one prediction, though. Namely, that it will be a long time before the MFM criticize The One’s policies, if ever, no matter how badly they founder on the rocks and shoals of reality. Because the media put him in that office. And to criticize him, they would have to acknowledge that they made a mistake- in fact, that they were factually wrong, and philosophically invested in a man, a party, and a worldview that is intellectually bankrupt. And that just isn’t going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

If this is anywhere NEAR accurate, American media only need fear ONE HONEST REPORTER, who takes a stand in the desert of their malfeasance and pours out the water of truth…

For such HONEST REPORTERS are still alive in America, and they will find both their backbones and their voices in the days to come!

In the meantime, Onward! On to the Rocky Shoals of Reality!

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.

Republished in full, from our email Inbox this morning. (All emphasis added, formatting for clarity only)

““““““““““““`
Abridged letter from Troy Clarke, President of General Motors - followed by a response from our son, Gregory Knox:

Dear Employee,

Next week, Congress and the current Administration will determine whether to provide immediate support to the domestic auto industry to help it through one of the most difficult economic times in our nation’s history. Your elected officials must hear from all of us now on why this support is critical to our continuing the progress we began prior to the global financial crisis……………….

As an employee, you have a lot at stake and continue to be one of our most effective and passionate voices. I know GM can count on you to have your voice heard.

Thank you for your urgent action and ongoing support.

Troy Clarke President General Motors North America

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Gregory Knox,

In response to your request to call legislators and ask for a bailout for the United States automakers please consider the following, and please also pass this onto Troy Clark, the president of General Motors North America for me.

You are both infected with the same entitlement mentality that has bred like cancerous germs in UAW halls for the last countless decades, and whose plague is now sweeping the nation, awaiting our new “messiah” to wave his magical wand and make all our problems go away, while at the same time allowing our once great nation to keep “living the dream”.

The dream is over!

The dream that we can ignore the consumer for years while management myopically focuses on its personal rewards packages, at the same time that our factories have been filled with the worlds most overpaid, arrogant, ignorant and laziest entitlement minded “laborers”, without paying the price for these atrocities and dreaming that still the masses will line up to buy our products

Don’t tell me I’m wrong. Don’t accuse me of not knowing of what I speak. I have called on Ford, GM, Chrysler, TRW, Delphi, Kelsey Hayes, American Axle and countless other automotive OEM’s and Tier ones for 3 decades now throughout the Midwest and what I’ve seen over the years in these union shops can only be described as disgusting.

Mr Clark, the president of General Motors, states:

“There is widespread sentiment in this country, in our government, and especially in the media that the current crisis is completely the result of bad management. It is not.”

You’re right - it’s not JUST management. How about the electricians who walk around the plants like lords in feudal times, making people wait on them for countless hours while they drag ass so they can come in on the weekend and make double and triple time for a job they easily could have done within their normal 40-hour week?

How about the line workers who threaten newbies with all kinds of scare tactics for putting out too many parts on a shift and for being too productive (mustn’t expose the lazy bums who have been getting overpaid for decades for their horrific underproduction, must we)? Do you really not know about this stuff?

How about this great sentiment abridged from Mr. Clarke’s sad plea:

“Over the last few years, we have closed the quality and efficiency gaps with our competitors.”

What the hell has Detroit been doing for the last 40 years?!?

Did we really JUST wake up to the gaps in quality and efficiency between us and them?

The K car vs. the Accord?

The Pinto vs. the Civic?

Do I need to go on?

We are living through the inevitable outcome of the actions of the United States auto industry for decades.

Time to pay for your sins, Detroit …

I attended an economic summit last week where a brilliant economist, Alan Beaulieu surprised the crowd when he said he would not have given the banks a penny of “bailout money”. Yes, he said, this would cause short term problems, but despite what people like George Bush and Troy Clark would have us believe, the sun would in fact rise the next day. And something else would happen. Where there had been greedy and sloppy banks new efficient ones would pop up. That is how a free market system works. It does work . . . .if we would let it work.
But for some reason we are now deciding that the rest of the world is right and that capitalism doesn’t work - that we need the government to step in and “save us”. Save us? Hell, we’re nationalizing. And unfortunately, too many of this once fine nation’s citizens don’t even have a clue that this is what’s really happening. But they sure can tell you the stats on their favorite sports teams. Yeah - THAT’S important.

Does it occur to ANYONE that the “competition” has been producing vehicles, EXTREMELY PROFITABLY, for decades now in this country?….

How can that be???

Let’s see:

* Fuel efficient

* Listening to customers

* Investing in the proper tooling and automation for the long haul

* Not being too complacent or arrogant to listen to Dr W Edwards Deming four decades ago

* Ever-increasing productivity through quality, learning and six-sigma plans

* Treating vendors like strategic partners, rather than like “the enemy”

* Efficient front and back offices

* Non-union environment.

Again, I could go on and on but I really wouldn’t be telling anyone anything they really don’t already know in their hearts. I have six children, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of wanting someone to bail you out of a mess that you have gotten yourself into - my children do this on a weekly, if not daily basis, as I did at their age. I do for them what my parents did for me (one of their greatest gifts, by the way) - I make them stand on their own two feet and accept the consequences of their actions and work them through. Radical concept, huh.

Am I there for them in the wings? Of course - but only until such time as they can be fully on their own as adults. I don’t want to oversimplify a complex situation, but there certainly are unmistakable parallels here between the proper role of parenting and government.

Detroit and the United States need to pay for their sins. Bad news people - it’s coming whether we like it or not

The newly elected Messiah really doesn’t have a magic wand big enough to “make it all go away”. I laughed as I heard Obama “reeling it back in” almost immediately after the vote count was tallied. “We might not do it in a year.or in four.” Where was that kind of talk when he was RUNNING for the office.

Stop trying to put off the inevitable. That house in Florida isn’t worth $750,000.

People who jump across a border really don’t deserve free health care and welfare benefits.

That job driving a forklift for the big 3 really isn’t worth $85,000 a year.

We really shouldn’t allow Wal-Mart to stock their shelves with products acquired from a country that unfairly manipulates their currency and has the most atrocious human rights infractions on the face of the globe.

That couple whose combined annual income is less than $50,000 really shouldn’t be living in that $485,000 home.

Let the market correct itself people - it will. Yes it will be painful, but it’s gonna be painful either way. And the bright side of my proposal is that on the other side of the pain is a nation that appreciates what it has, doesn’t live beyond its means, gets back to basics, and redevelops the work ethic that made it the greatest nation in the history of the world, and probably turns back to God.

Sorry - don’t cut my head off. I’m just the messenger sharing with you the “bad news”.

Gregory J Knox
President
Knox Machinery, Inc.
Franklin, Ohio 45005

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.

Dobbs: ‘If you’re the police where are your badges?’
Gold Hat: ‘Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!’

Translation: We are the law because we say we are. We don’t need no stinkin’ laws!

President-Elect Obama has chosen Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, completely disregarding Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”

In January 2008, during Hillary Clinton’s current Senate term, an Executive Order by President Bush increased the salary for Secretary of State making Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

That is the law.

We don’t need no stinkin’ laws.

Dec. 11, 2008: Congress late Wednesday lowered the salary for the nation’s top diplomat to keep Clinton’s nomination [as Secretary of State] from running afoul of the Constitution.

From Judicial Watch we learn:

Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe’s appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as “The Saxbe Fix,” was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.

“The Saxbe Fix” may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.

So before even taking office we see Obama following in the footsteps of President Nixon and President Clinton - in lack of respect for the rule of law.

Nixon’s circumventing of that law did not make it okay for Clinton to do it. Breaking a law does not make that law invalid. What it does do, however, is make it easier for others to break that law and eventually for the courts to excuse the breaking of the law as “reinterpretation” of the law and then “precedent.”

[All emphasis is added.]

Should Roland Burris show up for duty in the Senate on Tuesday, armed police officers stand ready to bar him from the floor.

This cinematic showdown is among an elaborate set of contingencies that Democratic leaders are planning if, as expected, the former Illinois attorney general appointed by Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich shows up with newly elected senators to press his claim that he is the legitimate replacement for President-elect Barack Obama…

…With Democratic leaders vowing to bar anyone appointed by Blagojevich because of federal charges that he attempted to sell Obama’s seat, leaders hope to stall Burris with paperwork. Senate rules require that an incoming senator’s selection be certified by the secretary of state for his home state, and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has declined to sign a certification of Burris’ appointment.

This article gives no reason for the SOS refusal to sign - I’ll be looking into that. However, given that Blago is innocent until proven guilty (or impeached) and therefore has the legal right to appoint Obama’s successor to the Senate, any attempt to prevent Burris from taking his seat is illegal.
Even the Democrat Senators realize that, if Burris presents a certificate signed by the SOS, they can’t just refuse to let him in. They can, however, entangle him in paperwork thereby thwarting his ability to represent his state:

…[L]eaders could refuse to swear him in.

Upon presentation of a valid certificate of election or appointment, past practice for senators whose credentials are disputed has been to grant office space and payroll for a staff, as well as floor privileges — but not a Senate seat — while the dispute is pending.

But wait! There’s more!

But Senate Democrats also have a follow-up plan: refusing to seat Burris until the Senate Rules Committee completes an investigation into whether the appointment process was tainted by corruption.

The plan is for the Senate investigation to extend longer than the Illinois Legislature’s impeachment process underway against Blagojevich, leaving open the possibility that a new governor will make a rival Senate appointment that the Democratic leaders could seat…

…There is also the possibility that while the rules committee conducts its investigation, Burris could file suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, asking a judge to order the Senate to seat him.

That’s what former Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. did in 1967, when the House attempted to bar the New York Democrat from taking his seat. Powell won two years later in the Supreme Court, which ruled that Congress did not have the power to fashion its own standards for admittance…

But wait! We’re not done yet!

…[T]he Senate could choose yet another route.

It appears clearer that the Senate would have the power to expel Burris after it seated him, according to Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles…

…[T]he safest route may be for the Senate to wait to see whether Blagojevich is impeached and then replaced by Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn — who could then make his own appointment to Obama’s seat.

The Senate then would simply choose between two people with competing claims for the post, something it has done in the distant past.

Because, you see, it’s not about respect for the law, it’s not about due process of law - it’s about the result:

“As a practical matter, it could probably be done in a way that would work,” Walker agreed. “It certainly would be subject to challenge. But if they could provide a reasonable and articulate explanation for making that choice, it would probably survive a challenge.”

Gaming the system to get the result they want, the law be damned!

These are the people running our country now.

WOULD YA BUY ME A COFFEE? Click here to donate via PayPal.