Get Back To The Chopper.

Me and P.I.O.T.B. were talking about California, and the IOUS the governor is issuing. In the what is the largest plane that can do a loop thread. So I decided to start a new thread about California politics. Not only that but anything about California, and our wonderful governor Arnold. So I decided to put this thread in the Chat here section.

I would like to say as far as what is going on in California. I really have to blame the democrats for some of this mess we are in.

Now anyone who has posted with me for a while knows I lean left. That does not mean I just blindly follow. I am not what you would call a bleeding heart.

Also if I am wrong on any issues, please correct me. I let it fly from the hip, and at the most may have part of the truth correct. Or I may be flat out wrong. That is the good thing about forums like this one. Maybe we don't have hundreds posting here, but the ones who are here are damn good, and very well educated about many topics.

First off as far as I know the democrats locked in spending on bill they passed, previously. So in the next budget battles there was no way to reduce spending, because spending had been locked on. Now I am not sure what has been locked in, all I know is some spending was locked in. This in part may be what is causing Arnold to issue IOUS. Well it is in part because we are out of money.

We have tens of thousands of government jobs in California. I would say 80% of them are not needed and useless.

California at one time had the most highly educated people working here, in a business friendly environment.

We had decent regulations at the time. Not perfect, but pretty darn good.

I think governor Davis, while you can't put all the blame on him. I never thought he had our best interests at heart. He was truly a horrible governor. He was a gutless SOB. He could not even stand up against the MTBE lobbyists, while they were poisoning our air, and water with the vile stuff. Once Lake Tahoe started to get infected with the stuff. Us Californians really started to get upset. We were so upset over MTBE's that 60 minutes did a half hour program on the subject, and that is rare for 60 minutes to use a 1/2 hr devoted to one subject. It took immense pressure to get that scum bag out of office.

Without looking at the spending bills signed by Davis. I would guess he might well be behind the locked in spending.

In novels I have read, he would be called a cold heart.

Years ago while that vile SOB was governor. We had a real bad forest fire. I don't remember where exactly. Though I do remember four firefighter dying in that fire. Three women, and one man. The fire was closing in on them. They called for help.

There was a helicopter pilot ready to dip his bucket in the river and pick up water, and drop it near the firefighter to give them a chance to escape the flames.

Though as he was getting ready to do this the word came back. You cannot do this until we get approval. There are endangered salmon in that river. You cannot get the water until we get approval.

So once that worthless jerk on the government payroll got up, and made a decision. The four firefighters were dead.

So at least Davis is out of office. He was a scum bag of the highest order.

Now well that being said. What do you think of Arnold?

Theophilus wrote:Me and P.I.O.T.B. were talking about California, and the IOUS the governor is issuing. In the what is the largest plane that can do a loop thread. So I decided to start a new thread about California politics. Not only that but anything about California, and our wonderful governor Arnold. So I decided to put this thread in the Chat here section.

I would like to say as far as what is going on in California. I really have to blame the democrats for some of this mess we are in.

Now anyone who has posted with me for a while knows I lean left. That does not mean I just blindly follow. I am not what you would call a bleeding heart.

Also if I am wrong on any issues, please correct me. I let it fly from the hip, and at the most may have part of the truth correct. Or I may be flat out wrong. That is the good thing about forums like this one. Maybe we don't have hundreds posting here, but the ones who are here are damn good, and very well educated about many topics.

First off as far as I know the democrats locked in spending on bill they passed, previously. So in the next budget battles there was no way to reduce spending, because spending had been locked on. Now I am not sure what has been locked in, all I know is some spending was locked in. This in part may be what is causing Arnold to issue IOUS. Well it is in part because we are out of money.

We have tens of thousands of government jobs in California. I would say 80% of them are not needed and useless.

California at one time had the most highly educated people working here, in a business friendly environment.

We had decent regulations at the time. Not perfect, but pretty darn good.

I think governor Davis, while you can't put all the blame on him. I never thought he had our best interests at heart. He was truly a horrible governor. He was a gutless SOB. He could not even stand up against the MTBE lobbyists, while they were poisoning our air, and water with the vile stuff. Once Lake Tahoe started to get infected with the stuff. Us Californians really started to get upset. We were so upset over MTBE's that 60 minutes did a half hour program on the subject, and that is rare for 60 minutes to use a 1/2 hr devoted to one subject. It took immense pressure to get that scum bag out of office.

Without looking at the spending bills signed by Davis. I would guess he might well be behind the locked in spending.

In novels I have read, he would be called a cold heart.

Years ago while that vile SOB was governor. We had a real bad forest fire. I don't remember where exactly. Though I do remember four firefighter dying in that fire. Three women, and one man. The fire was closing in on them. They called for help.

There was a helicopter pilot ready to dip his bucket in the river and pick up water, and drop it near the firefighter to give them a chance to escape the flames.

Though as he was getting ready to do this the word came back. You cannot do this until we get approval. There are endangered salmon in that river. You cannot get the water until we get approval.

So once that worthless jerk on the government payroll got up, and made a decision. The four firefighters were dead.

So at least Davis is out of office. He was a scum bag of the highest order.

Now well that being said. What do you think of Arnold?

To put it in a nut shell my friend, I really do believe that he has really lived the american dream. Maybe not my dream or yours. But the dream that you can do what ever you set your heart and mind to do if you try hard enough. JMOP

Nice post, Theo. I agree with what OT said and I would add that he got a little help from his friends to attain his dreams. Marrying into the Kennedy clan didn't hurt either.

California Is The Canary In America's Immigration Coal Mine

Have you noticed California lately? Do you get the idea that Governor Schwarzenegger, the invincible terminator, falters with every tick of the clock? His state's problems grow beyond solving. California's sheer hyper-population load cannot be mitigated.

Water issues force 'toilet to tap' for citizens thirsting in that dry state.

When Proposition 187, passed by voters, augured into the ground via incompetent federal judges, the state become a magnet for mass migration of criminal aliens. At some point, LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will not be able to walk safely in his drug crazed, 18th Street Gang-ridden, trash-filled, gridlocked, water shortage and air polluted city. Let's face it; Los Angeles may be equated more to hell than the city of angels.

In a brilliant expose', "California is Dying—and it's the Canary in America's Immigratiion Coal Mine" by Washington DC writer, Don Collins, you find a plethora of understanding facing the United States.

"Did you happen to catch Governor Terminator talking about Judgement Day in California?" Collins said. "Schwarzenegger went on the tube this past week to tell us that "We can only spend what we have. That is the harsh but simple reality," he said in the rare midyear appearance before a joint legislature session. "Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed and our credit is dried up."

Last week, Schwarzenegger said that the annual $4 billion illegal aliens cost taxpayers in educational, medical and incarceration costs doesn't amount to much. He neglected to say that the actual numbers exceeds $10 billion annually. Worse, he failed to address the billions lost to taxes by the underground economy by criminal aliens.

Collins said. "And just now, in responding to the Governor's urgent message for cutting costs, the California Senate passed a bill to give driver's licences to illegal aliens. As if losing an average of almost 600,000 jobs a month in the US should mean we make it easier for the illegal aliens to stay here and to get to jobs American citizens don't have.

"But then, of course, our helpful Federal government is bowing to strong business pressure and allowing over 100,000 legal aliens a month to come here to the US on various brands of work visas."

How many to California? Well here's a bit of basic demography.

"Since the 1965 changes in our immigration laws, we have added huge numbers of immigrants and their children to our national population," Collins said. "In 1970 California's population was 20 million. Today, that population is estimated at about 37 million. Of those, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates about 10 million are legal (7 million) and illegal (3 million) immigrants. Over 8 million Californians were born outside the USA."
Just on the sheer numbers alone, it is not hard to see why California is now bankrupt.

"I am a long-time San Francisco Democrat, now transplanted to Washington D.C.," Collins said. "So recently I wrote Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to ask why we didn't fix our broken immigration system. This was her June 5, 2009 email reply:

"I have long called for comprehensive immigration reform to address the growing disconnect between our nation's immigration policy and the reality on the ground in cities and communities across our country. Our immigration system needs to honor the promise of America and recognize the enormous contributions immigrants make to our nation. We must enact immigration reform that is humane and honors our American tradition of being a nation of immigrants and a land of opportunity for all. At the same time, we must secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure the safety of the American people.

While immigration reform remains an unsolved challenge for our nation, we must recognize that America was built by immigrants, and the immigrant community continues to make significant contributions to our nation. The debate on immigration reform must be framed by our nation's rich tradition of respect for our shared immigrant heritage. Please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind as I work with President Obama, leadership and the committees of jurisdiction to develop a strategy to advance immigration legislation that promotes our core American values."

"Can you imagine such chutzpah?" Collins said. "You know her "comprehensive immigration reform" simply means "amnesty" for the 20 million illegal aliens here now and encouraging many more later. We know the fiasco that the 1986 immigration reform legislation proved to be."

But it really gets much worse if one is trying to calculate the fiscal effect on California—and project what this means for America.

"Folks, California is the biggest example of the famous canary in the coal mine theory ever," Collins said. "Remember, until 1986 in the U.K., canaries were regularly used in coal mines as an early warning system. The birds died in the presence of toxic gases. Because canaries tend to sing much of the time, they provided both a visual and audible cue.

"California is certainly getting toxic budgetary news. It is killing the economy and all that this once-vaunted state had to offer in the way of education and environment, making it the envy of the world. The decline I have personally observed is obvious to so many I talk to, yet this fiscal death notice to California which has counterparts in other states, does not seem to worry other Americans—yet."
All this means more public costs, more demands on government resources.

"How long will this madness continue?" Collins said. "California Governor Pete Wilson tried long ago to get help from our Federal Government, but those elected officials knew better than to try to buck the industrial-military complex that now rules our former Republic. Those worthies (notice in what high regard our Congress is rated in the polls) handle immigration like a political popularity contest where the more cheap labor you support importing, the more money flows to re-elect you from the coffers of business.

"Result: Just take a look at the bloated California budget. And then we learn that the City of Oakland, California will be soon joining San Francisco in giving all residents including illegal aliens ID cards. That can only serve to add to that city's nearly $100 million deficit, as public services will now flow to illegal aliens and their anchor babies.

"Of course the California voters don't want to pay to fix this mess. In the May special election, voters rejected all five budget-related measures placed on the ballot by Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders. Revenue has continued to plummet as residents have reduced spending and unemployment has soared to 14 percent."

One must ask the question: are the patients are running the asylum?

"I predict that as matters get worse—and they surely will—Californians and all Americans will finally wake up to the facct that unchecked immigration, wanton use of the public trough and loss of expected public services will cause a revolt by voters," Collins said. "But for now too many are sitting on their hands, fat, dumb and perhaps apprehensive but unwilling to take part in the political rough and tumble. Sad that corrective action will likely not happen before devastation to our culture, our traditions, our comity and the prosperity we have enjoyed.

"California has had many recent internal signs of overuse and unsustainability. For example, the fish resources of the state have precipitously declined and the commercial salmon fishing season is now closed, while when reasonable new regulations to save the salmon have been proposed, Terminator Schwarzenegger has sided with the farmers who keep degrading the free water they abuse, so that renewal of this great resource is imperilled."

Having bicycled the length and width of California four times in the past 30 years, I witnessed the degradation of our most populous state. Collins gave the final blow, "California is the Big Canary. It's dying—and Americans had better take notice."

The Chronicle’s Love Letter to Schwarzenegger
by Paul Hogarth‚ Jul. 09‚ 2009


Yesterday’s front-page story in the SF Chronicle on the California budget crisis was shocking, dishonest and disgraceful. The piece described Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a “steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman” – who will “hold his ground” against Democrats in the state legislature. Never mind the Terminator has driven the state to bankruptcy – after six years of tax cuts for the rich, fiscal gymnastics and borrowing schemes. Never mind that Schwarzenegger lied about a voter mandate in the May 19th election – and says he won’t support a “single tax increase whatsoever.” Never mind that by vetoing last week’s budget stop-gap measure, Arnold forfeited $2 billion that the state can no longer use – and our government now has to pay with I.O.U.’s. Never mind the Governor told the New York Times that despite the state’s disastrous plight, he will sit down in his Jacuzzi and “lay back with a stogie.” The Bay Area’s paper of record would rather portray him as a “tough guy.”

Carla Marinucci is the Chronicle’s worst reporter, a point Beyond Chron has written about time and time again. With all the talented printed journalists who are unemployed or underemployed, Marinucci stays on as their top political writer – with yesterday’s ode to Schwarzenegger being her most recent incarnation (although Matthew Yi co-authored to the piece.) And it’s hard to see how much lower the Chronicle, which is on the brink of going out of business, can go in its coverage of a serious political issue.

Consider Marinucci’s first paragraph: “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has played an astonishing range of roles in California's budget dramas - bipartisan peacemaker and people's advocate among them. Now, the governor is reprising a classic familiar to millions: the steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman.”

Bipartisan peacemaker? The only thing Arnold ever succeeded in getting Democrats and Republicans in Sacramento to agree on is that they both dislike him – prompting many commentators to label him a “party of one.” As for a “people’s advocate,” Schwarzenegger twice called a special election to have the voters decide – and in both instances, he was soundly rejected.

And while old movie posters from Conan the Barbarian, Terminator and Total Recall could make him out to be a “steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman,” it’s hard to see the Governor’s current posture as nothing but the pathetic bluster of a deranged bully.

Here are the facts: declining revenues due to a severe recession have bankrupted California – leaving us with a $26.3 billion deficit. The state can lay off every employee tomorrow, and it still wouldn’t balance the budget. On May 19th, the voters rejected a complicated set of ballot measures that Arnold championed – after opponents on the left and the right campaigned against them. There has been very little analysis about what “the people” were saying, except a poll that found only 36% of voters (and 24% of Californians) want a cuts-only budget.

Nevertheless, Schwarzenegger has made common cause with right-wing extremists at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association – and Republican in the state legislature. He says the voters on May 19th wanted the state to pass an “all-cuts” budget, and that he won’t support “any tax increase whatsoever.” Arnold has proposed a budget that will shred our social safety net, and up-end the California Constitution by raiding school funding. He wants to open up the ocean for drilling to get revenue, but opposes a tax on oil companies that would make that profitable – even though Sarah Palin’s Alaska has one at 25% of profits.

As June 30th approached, Democrats in the state legislature proposed using $2 billion in reserves to start plugging the hole – money that must be used before the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year, or else it’s gone. They couldn’t pass a comprehensive solution because of the two-thirds rule, but this – along with a few budget savings and closing tax loopholes – would have prevented the state from issuing I.O.U.’s. How did Arnold respond? Repeatedly veto the package, and insist we must resolve the “whole problem” all at once. As the midnight deadline loomed, Schwarzenegger offered no solution besides the veto pen.

Apparently, the Governor is emboldened by his SINKING poll numbers – a pitiful 30% –

But you wouldn’t know any of this by reading yesterday’s Chronicle – although the piece briefly mentioned the state’s bond rating has collapsed, and banks are refusing to cash the state IOU’s. The article quoted Schwarzenegger’s communications director, who said the Governor has “the luxury” of being near the end of his term – and not having to face the voters again. Marinucci could have mentioned (but didn’t) that Arnold’s legacy – from slashing the vehicle license fee (which was raised to even higher amounts this past April before the cut btw lol) to solving each budget crisis by borrowing more money – will be driving the state to bankruptcy. If Gray Davis was still Governor, we might not have a deficit.

In last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Schwarzenegger said he was not letting California’s fiscal crisis get to him personally. “I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight,” he told reporter Mark Leibovich. “I’m going to lay back with a stogie.” God help us! There are so many analogies that come to mind with the Governor’s quote. You could say it’s just like “Nero fiddled while Rome burned,” or another “let them eat cake” moment. A more recent comparison would be George W. Bush, who said he was getting plenty of sleep at night during the Iraq War.

As an R.E.M. fan, however, Arnold’s callous attitude reminds me of the following:

It’s the End of the World As We Know It,
It’s the End of the World As We Know it,
It’s the End of the World As We Know It
And I Feel Fine …

While killing innocent dogs and cats in Animal shelters before they even have a chance to be adopted, Arnold lets prisoners out early:

California grants early release of parole violators
Dealing with overcrowding and fiscal constraints, officials have set free some inmates and approved early release for others.
By Michael Rothfeld
July 9, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento -- California prison officials, facing severe overcrowding and a financial crisis, have been granting early releases to inmates serving time for parole violations.

State officials said the dozens of prisoners set free from the California Institution for Men in Chino and from lockups in San Diego and Shasta counties had 60 days or less left on their terms, or had been accused of violations and were awaiting hearings. The releases were approved by the state parole board.

At least 89 inmates have been freed or approved for early release during the last two months. Others have been sent to home detention, drug rehabilitation programs or similar alternative punishments.

They were screened to ensure that they had never been convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping or sexual offenses, the officials said. The inmates may have been convicted of grand theft, weapons possession, driving under the influence of alcohol or other crimes. Their parole may have been revoked for missing an appointment with a parole agent, failing a drug test, committing robbery or any number of other offenses.

The move came as county authorities in Los Angeles and elsewhere said they could no longer house -- and in some cases, threatened to release -- inmates awaiting transfer to state prisons from their own teeming jails. Counties routinely hold newly convicted prisoners or those picked up on parole violations until the state can take them.

But California's $26.3-billion deficit has left the state without enough money to pay for all of those its laws designate for punishment. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers are considering numerous ways, including the early release of inmates, to save money by reducing a prison population of nearly 170,000.

No budget decisions have been made, and Schwarzenegger spokesman Matt David said the governor had been unaware of the recent releases, most of which were in response to complaints by Los Angeles County that the state had left nearly 2,000 prisoners in its jails. That number represents about 10% of the prisoners in the county's jail system, which has a court-ordered population cap.

"This was an emergent crisis," said Terri McDonald, the state's chief deputy secretary for adult operations at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. "We don't want a system failure in the county jail."

The inmates released from Chino opened up beds for some of those being held in Los Angeles County. McDonald said the state, to be "good partners" with the county, put other inmates in prison gymnasiums that officials had planned to stop using as dormitories, and took additional measures to free up space.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, however, said that the burden had not been alleviated and that the inmates, who cost the county $70 million a year to house, were the state's responsibility.

"If they're releasing them . . . that's their call," Baca said. "For them to blame me for their decision is absurd."

In a June 30 e-mail, a state parole administrator told agents that the Chino prison would be the "first target" for releasing parole violators. Because of the fiscal crisis, the e-mail said, "we are starting to experience some resistance and refusals of the counties to hold our prisoners" and the state was "incapable" of taking them.

Shasta County, for instance, had recently been forced to close a jail wing because sheriff's deputies were laid off, wrote the administrator, whose e-mail was provided to The Times without a name attached.

The county had notified the state the week before that unless "30 or so" inmates were transferred, it would "release them to the streets over the weekend," the e-mail said.

Five were evaluated and released early, with approval from the parole board; the rest were transferred to state prisons, corrections officials said.

In San Diego, 200 inmates are transferred from local jails to state prisons each week. After the state abruptly stopped accepting them in May, then-Sheriff William Kolender warned prison officials that he would release 138 parole violators to avoid exceeding his jails' court-ordered population cap.

"We regret to take this drastic action, but we have no other alternative given our responsibility to adhere to a court order," Kolender wrote in a letter dated May 5.

Cooley blasts Schwarzenegger plan to change sentencing guidelines
The L.A. County district attorney says the governor's proposal to prosecute some felonies as misdemeanors would eliminate prison time even for those who commit crimes similar to Bernard Madoff's.
By Patrick McGreevy
6:59 PM PDT, June 26, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento -- Los Angeles County's top prosecutor says a budget proposal by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would so weaken court sentencing guidelines that if a swindler such as Bernard Madoff were to be brought to justice in California, he would not face state prison time.

Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley has asked Schwarzenegger in a letter to withdraw his proposal to change state sentencing guidelines so certain felonies, such as fraud or grand theft, would be prosecuted as misdemeanors.

Facing a $24-billion budget shortfall, Schwarzenegger has proposed the change in sentencing guidelines to save $1 billion over three years by shifting 23,000 criminals from state prisons to local jails and reentry programs.

"If Bernie Madoff had committed his crime in California under the proposed statute, his . . . scam, which has destroyed countless lives and fortunes, would have been a misdemeanor," Cooley wrote to the governor. "Such scams are commonplace in California."

Prosecutors from Cooley's office joined state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner in Los Angeles on Thursday to warn that the proposal would hinder his investigators in prosecuting insurance fraud.

"This proposal would severely limit their ability to go after career criminals, making simple and complex illegal enterprises much harder to prosecute -- and in the process let criminals off the hook," Poizner said.

Schwarzenegger will work with law enforcement officials on their concerns about the plan, administration officials said.

But "abandoning this proposal would require increasing taxes or cutting even more from education, neither of which the governor will do," said Aaron McLear, a Schwarzenegger spokesman.

Cooley questioned whether the prisoner-reduction goals set by the governor could be met and said such sweeping changes required a thorough review by criminal justice experts.

"The arbitrary reduction of the 73 crimes listed in your most recent budget proposal will have a serious impact on public safety, disproportionately affect many vulnerable victims in society, and usurp the role of the public prosecutors in determining what crime to charge," Cooley wrote in the letter dated June 17.

County receives $44K in state IOUsThadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Posted: 07/09/2009 01:24:40 AM PDT

Humboldt County received its first state-issued IOUs Wednesday morning as the impasse over a $26.4 billion budget deficit showed no signs of letting up.

Humboldt County Treasurer Stephen Strawn said the county received a pair of registered warrants, known as IOUs, from the state Wednesday morning totaling more than $44,000 in health care services payments. While Strawn and county officials said that the county is well positioned to weather a temporary storm, all said they hope the state's budget situation is resolved sooner rather than later.

But, there seem to be few signs, if any, that a budget deal lies within reach.

In fact, things seem to have completely deteriorated since lawmakers and the governor failed to reach a deal by the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year last week.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass refused to attend Big Five budget meetings Monday with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other legislative leaders, saying she was frustrated by the governor's demands for reforms not directly related to the state's gaping budget deficit. For his part, the governor has insisted that the reforms he is requesting will make state spending more efficient, generating billions in savings over the long run.

But it seems Bass is far from the only lawmaker growing more frustrated with the governor. North Coast Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro recently issued a statement that was sharply critical of Schwarzenegger.

In the statement, Chesbro charges thatit was Schwarzenegger who, in the 11th hour, rallied Republican opposition in the state Senate to a package of three bills that had unanimously passed the Assembly and would have staved off the need to issue IOUs, buying the Legislature at least another month to come up with a solution to address the entire deficit.
”I am disappointed in the governor's lack of leadership during the crisis, and his seeming lack of interest in finding a responsible solution that protects all Californians,” Chesbro said.

Schwarzenegger has long said he would veto any plan that came before him that failed to address the state's entire deficit, and some have been critical of the state's Democrats for bringing the stop-gap plan to a vote, saying it wasted precious time and amounted to little more than a “floor drill.”

With Bass sitting out, temporarily at least, the rest of the Big Five has recessed as well, with no future meeting dates set. Wednesday, the governor trumpeted some of his reform proposals and planned to meet with legislative leaders of his own party later in the day.

And, with little, if any, movement evident in Sacramento, some local officials are a bit on edge about how far into the future this budget impasse might stretch.

Humboldt County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus said the county is well positioned to weather the proverbial storm in the short term, but said it, like virtually every other California county, would be hard- pressed to do it for more than a couple of months. Since the Legislature adjourned on the July 1 start of the new fiscal year without a budget, Nickolaus said it's hard to know exactly what's going on or what to expect.

”We have heard nothing other than rhetoric since then,” Nickolaus said. “We just don't know.”

I don't know about anyone else, but I will be sending the State an I.O.U. for my quarterly business taxes this month.

Schwarzenegger legacy entwined with fiscal crisis


SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California voters gave Arnold Schwarzenegger a single, blockbuster-sized mission when they sent him to Sacramento six years ago in an unprecedented election: Fix California's chaotic budget system, once and for all.

Today, California is unable to pay its bills, and Schwarzenegger finds himself mired in the worst financial crisis in decades and in a race against the clock to deliver on his promise to "end the crazy deficit spending."

In less than six months, the Republican governor will enter his final year in office and become a political lame duck, as attention begins to focus on his potential successors. That gives him little time to dig California out of its deep financial hole and enact the lasting budget reforms that he had hoped would shape his legacy.

The nation's most populous state, responsible for 12 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, is saddled with a $26.3 billion deficit, has started issuing IOUs for the first time in two decades, is burdened with the lowest credit rating of any state and is seeing unprecedented joblessness and a decline in personal income.

To Cynthia Sterling, president of the Fresno city council, the fault for California's financial mess lies squarely with the governor. A moderate Democrat, the type of centrist Schwarzenegger has been courting for years, Sterling shared the stage with the Republican governor in the past to show bipartisan support for his initiatives.

Today, she believes Schwarzenegger has talked a good game but failed to follow up the rhetoric with decisive action.

"He made poor decisions and did not include those of us who were in the know," she said. "We're in real financial crisis because of this governor."

That October night in 2003, when Schwarzenegger rode his global celebrity to victory and he and his wife, Maria Shriver, waved to thousands of admirers amid a blizzard of confetti, seems like an eternity ago.

Schwarzenegger still draws autograph-seekers, to be sure, but only a third of voters approve of his job performance, according to polls taken this spring, before the state's fiscal crisis had deepened to the point of issuing IOUs.

He seemed surprised last month by the hostility of an audience in Fresno, typically a conservative bastion that has been welcoming to Schwarzenegger throughout his tenure. This week, he was met with boos from state workers protesting his proposed budget cuts as he left a press conference at the state Capitol.Even his famous gags have fallen flat as the state sinks deeper into financial chaos. He sent the Democratic leader of the state Senate a metal sculpture of bull testicles as a lighthearted way to convey fortitude during the budget negotiations. The lawmaker promptly returned the gift with a terse note saying the cuts Schwarzenegger planned to make to the poor, frail and low-income college students were no joke to him.

"It's not like Arnold came into this situation looking for a $25 billion deficit to cut. Nobody does," Shriver told The Associated Press recently. "People come in because they want to do good, and they want to grow a state and transform a state and help it grow."

That Schwarzenegger finds himself stuck in a financial crisis even worse than the one he inherited is not entirely his fault. He reminds crowds during budget addresses around the state that the worst recession in decades has incinerated wealth everywhere and has hit California especially hard.

Economists agree that the depth of California's financial crisis is due in part to the sinking overall economy. (Gee, but didn't that just start late last year and we have been in debt for years here now???) Schwarzenegger cannot be blamed, for example, for Californians' first drop in personal income since the Great Depression, which is one reason personal income tax dropped 34 percent during the first five months of the year.

His communications director, Matt David, said Schwarzenegger has been fighting since his first day in office for financial and long-term budget reforms that would have given California a buffer during the current economic downturn. But David said the governor has been thwarted by politics or voters.

Schwarzenegger also fought to establish a rainy day fund in 2004, although its watered-down language allowed lawmakers to tap it virtually at will. He now wants a stronger rainy day fund and would like to cap state spending and streamline government programs.

Voters defeated the latest proposals during last May's special election, when they turned down all five budget-related measures on a ballot that was plagued by confusing and deceptive language.

While Schwarzenegger cannot be saddled with the full responsibility for the state's ailing fiscal health, he has taken several steps that have worsened it.

He started by repealing a car tax that brought roughly $5 billion a year to state government but did not identify how he would make up the difference. (by the way that tax returned this Spring, along with higher sales taxes both from Arnold) He persuaded voters to borrow $15 billion to cover the deficit he inherited, then championed another $37 billion in borrowing for infrastructure programs.

Before he was governor, Schwarzenegger persuaded voters to pass the very kind of program that he now criticizes — an initiative for a $500,000-a-year after-school program that is untouchable because it was approved at the ballot box.

Daniel J.B. Mitchell, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles Anderson School of Management, said Schwarzenegger's failure to commit to a clear agenda is one reason he has failed to enact meaningful, long-term fiscal reforms.

"He was elected largely because of a budget crisis under (former Gov.) Gray Davis. So one would think that working on that — priority 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for him would've been dealing with the state budget," Mitchell said.

Instead, from his inauguration through May's special election, Schwarzenegger has turned his attention to an array of policy ideas, many unrelated to the budget, Mitchell said.

Complaints about the governor's revolving policy priorities reached a crescendo last week as negotiations collapsed over California's then-$24 billion budget shortfall.

Every day the state slides deeper into financial freefall increases the likelihood that Schwarzenegger will spend his final year in office overseeing a state in decline, with children losing health coverage, crowded classrooms and shuttered state parks.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said solving the budget crisis should be good enough for Schwarzenegger right now, but it doesn't seem to be.

"We want him to have (a) positive legacy, and that means California begins to turn itself around," Steinberg said. "But you know, you build a legacy over years, not over two weeks or a few days."

Voters' ire fails to fire up process
ShareThisBy Kevin Yamamura
kyamamura@sacbee.com

If the May 19 special election scared Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers into action, they aren't showing it.

Fifty days after voters rejected a Capitol driven ballot package in a rebuke of Sacramento politics, California lacks a budget-balancing agreement and is paying bills with IOUs for the second time since the Great Depression.

Democrats and Republicans continue to squabble over how deep to cut state services and whether to use the crisis as an opportunity to enact permanent changes that shrink state government. They have shifted back to closed door meetings after reaching few deals in public.

In public, they blame each other.

Despite their postelection promises of a quick deal and a transparent process, budget dynamics remain the same as ever, driven by ideological loyalties that have long made it difficult to reach compromise.

"The gravitational pull of budget negotiations is against compromise," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

"You have four legislative leaders, each of whom is encouraged every day by their members to stick to their guns. If every single legislator faithfully represented the voters and interests who put them into office, there will never, ever be a state budget."

Technically, lawmakers in February enacted a $92 billion state budget for the new fiscal year that started last week. But they have to find $26 billion in new solutions because voters rejected $6 billion of their original ideas and the economy grew worse than their outdated projections.

They face more time pressure this year because the state does not have enough cash to pay all of its bills and began issuing IOUs last week, with interest.

Fitch Ratings, a Wall Street agency, downgraded the state's credit rating Monday in response.

Aware of the cash situation, as well as voter disgust over their job performance, lawmakers and Schwarzenegger suggested in May they would strike a deal by June 30. But the threat of IOUs and further erosion of public support was not enough to overcome lawmakers' ties tot heir individual principles or outside influence from unions and anti-tax groups, some of whom have mounted television and Internet campaigns.

"They do have their constituencies, and their constituencies are spending money," said Rob Stutzman, a Republican consultant who was Schwarzenegger's first communications director.

The public repudiated February's secretive budget talks, and majority Democrats reacted by holding budget hearings in public, giving advocates an opportunity to debate proposed cuts in June. But the plan that emerged was largely a Democratic one, with few areas of agreement with Republicans whose votes are needed to achieve a two-thirds vote.

"Lawmakers essentially told us to let them go through their process," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. "I'm not sure they went through their process as efficiently as they should have."

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, DSanta Rosa, chairwoman of the budget conference committee, said Democrats took seriously the month long hearing process that resulted in a Democratic budget proposal with cuts, fund shifts and taxes.

She said Schwarzenegger should have bargained at that time, and blamed him for shifting the parameters at the last minute with new demands for permanent reductions in health and welfare on the final weekend of the fiscal year.

"This is his standard m.o.," she said. "He gets to the absolute deadline, submits what he calls reform proposals and we're supposed to give him what he wants because he has a gun pointed to our heads."

McLear said the governor's new proposals to tighten restrictions on Medi- Cal, In-Home Supportive Services and welfare-to-work are alternatives because Democrats wouldn't agree to Schwarzenegger's original idea to eliminate some services entirely.

Schwarzenegger wants lawmakers to consider changes that impose stricter eligibility requirements on IHSS, Medi-Cal and welfare recipients and providers, which the governor believes would save $1.7 billion this fiscal year, McLear said.

Any takers here to have Arnold be the Governor of your state???? Anyone???? We desperately need Arnold to "live out his dream" elsewhere while we still have a place to live and food on our table. Thank God, he will be gone next year at some point! He should have stuck to making films. I can only hope this happens before he has Terminated what is left of California, because we hanging on by a thread!

Who Killed California's Economy?Joel Kotkin, 07.07.09, 12:00 AM EDT FORBES

Right now California's economy is moribund, and the prospects for a quick turnaround are not good. Unable to pay its bills, the state is issuing IOUs; its once strong credit rating has collapsed. The state that once boasted the seventh-largest gross domestic product in the world is looking less like a celebrated global innovator and more like a fiscal basket case along the lines of Argentina or Latvia.

It took some amazing incompetence to toss this best-endowed of places down into the dustbin of history. Yet conventional wisdom views the crisis largely as a legacy of Proposition 13, which in effect capped only taxes.

This lets too many malefactors off the hook. I covered the Proposition 13 campaign for the Washington Post and examined its aftermath up close. It passed because California was running huge surpluses at the time, even as soaring property taxes were driving people from their homes.

Admittedly it was a crude instrument, but by limiting those property taxes Proposition 13 managed to save people's houses. To the surprise of many prognosticators, the state government did not go out of business. It has continued to expand faster than either its income or population. Between 2003 and 2007, spending grew 31%, compared with a 5% population increase. Today the overall tax burden as percent of state income, according to the Tax Foundation, has risen to the sixth-highest in the nation.

The media and political pundits refuse to see this gap between the state's budget and its ability to pay as an essential issue. It is. (This is not to say structural reform is not needed. I would support, for example, reforming some of the unintended ill-effects of Proposition 13 that weakened local government and left control of the budget to Sacramento.)

But the fundamental problem remains. California's economy--once wondrously diverse with aerospace, high-tech, agriculture and international trade--has run aground. Burdened by taxes and ever-growing regulation, the state is routinely rated by executives as having among the worst business climates in the nation. No surprise, then, that California's jobs engine has sputtered, and it may be heading toward 15% unemployment.

Arnold Schwarzenegger :

The Terminator came to power with the support of much of the middle class and business community. But since taking office, he's resembled not the single-minded character for which he's famous but rather someone with multiple personalities.

First, he played the governator, a tough guy ready to blow up the dysfunctional structure of government. He picked a street fight against all the powerful liberal interest groups. But the meathead lacked his hero Ronald Reagan's communication skills and political focus. Defeated in a series of initiative battles, he was left bleeding the streets by those who he had once labeled "girlie men."

Next Arnold quickly discovered his feminine side, becoming a kinder, ultra-green terminator. He waxed poetic about California's special mission as the earth's guardian. While the housing bubble was filling the state coffers, he believed the delusions of his chief financial adviser, San Francisco investment banker David Crane, that California represented "ground zero for creative destruction."

Yet over the past few years there's been more destruction than creation. Employment in high-tech fields has stagnated (See related story, "Best Cities For Technology Jobs") while there have been huge setbacks in the construction, manufacturing, warehousing and agricultural sectors.

Driven away by strict regulations, businesses take their jobs outside California even in relatively good times. Indeed, according to a recent Milken Institute report, between 2000 and 2007 California lost nearly 400,000 manufacturing jobs. All that time, industrial employment was growing in major competitive rivals like Texas and Arizona.

With the state reeling, Arnold has decided, once again, to try out a new part. Now he's posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama's EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras.

Obama holds up California's environmental policy as a model for the nation. May God protect the rest of the country. California's environmental activists once did an enviable job protecting our coasts and mountains, expanding public lands and working to improve water and air resources. But now, like sailors who have taken possession of a distillery, they have gotten drunk on power and now rampage through every part of the economy.

In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector--from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers--cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don't much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits. The losers are California's middle and working classes, the people who drive trucks, who work in factories and warehouses or who have white-collar jobs tied to these industries.

Historically, many of these environmentally unfriendly jobs have been sources of upward mobility for Latino immigrants. Latinos also make up the vast majority of workers in the rich Central Valley. Large swaths of this area are being de-developed back to desert--due less to a mild drought than to regulations designed to save obscure fish species in the state's delta. Over 450,000 acres have already been allowed to go fallow. Nearly 30,000 agriculture jobs--held mostly by Latinos--were lost in the month of May alone. Unemployment, which is at a 17% rate across the Valley, reaches upward of 40% in some towns such as Mendota.

This insanity has been enabled by a lack of strong opposition to it. One potential source--California's business leadership--has become progressively more feeble over the past generation. Some members of the business elite, like those who work in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, tend to be too self-referential and complacent to care about the bigger issues. Others have either given up or are afraid to oppose the dominant forces of the environmental activists and the public sector.

Theoretically, according to business consultant Larry Kosmont, business should be able to make a strong case, particularly with the growing Latino caucus in the legislature. "You have all these job losses in Latino districts represented by Latino legislators who don't realize what they are doing to their own people," he says. "They have forgotten there's an economy to think about."

But so far California's business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter. "The business community is so afraid they are keeping their heads down," observes Ross DeVol, director of regional economics at the Milken Institute. "I feel they if they keep this up much longer, they won't have heads."

At some point Californians--the ones paying the bills and getting little in return--need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to "dust bowl" states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots.

The last hope lies with those of us still enamored with California. We have allowed ourselves to be ruled by a motley alliance of self-righteous zealots, fools and cowards; now we must do something. Some think the solution is reining in citizens' power by using the jury pool to staff a state convention, as proposed by the Bay Area Council, or finding ways to undermine the initiative system, which would remove critical checks on legislative power.

We should, however, be very cautious about handing more power to the state's leaders. With our acquiescence, they have led this most blessed state toward utter ruin. Structural reforms alone, however necessary, won't turn around the economy's fundamental problems and help California reclaim its role as a productive driver of the American dream.

Time Magazine:

Schwarzenegger's Failure in California

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, the financier Warren Buffett spoke of three houses he owns, two in Laguna Beach in southern California and one in Omaha, Nebraska. He bought his first Laguna Beach property in the early 1970s. In 2003, it had a market value of about $4 million, and because of the limitation of Proposition 13, carried taxes of only $2,264. The second Laguna house, located just in back of the first one, was purchased in the mid-1990s and its market value in 2003 was approximately $2 million. The second house, Buffett wrote, "simply because I bought it later than the first, carried taxes of $12,002 in 2003 ... these figures mean that the tax rate on the second house — same neighborhood, same owner, same ability to pay — is roughly 10 times the rate on the first house." The famed financer said his Omaha house, worth about $500,000, had a property tax bill of $14,401. Buffett's point: "residential property taxes in California are wildly capricious, tied as they are to the date of the purchase rather than the value of the property." Exactly.

As an adviser to Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign in 2003, Buffett said California needed to address the inequities and unfairness associated with Proposition 13. The campaign quickly brushed Buffett aside, but Arnold should have listened. If he had, it could have made all the difference.

The governor, with his global fame, charisma and energy, would be a fine governor of an average state in an ordinary time. That, however, is not California — a massive cosmopolitan nation-state facing extraordinary challenges. Schwarzenegger began his term with tremendous political capital. Like Nixon going to China, Schwarzenegger as a pro-business Republican could have confronted and revised Proposition 13 to put California on stable financial footing.

A social liberal, however, Schwarzenegger was afraid of deserting conservatives on the tax issue. And his decision to eliminate the "car tax," which previously raised $3.6 billion per year, makes the governor personally responsible for $18 billion of the current $24 billion deficit. His first year focus on "waste, fraud and abuse" turned out to be rhetoric without substance. He hired an expert from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush who found little and quickly left Sacramento. An easy answer to the budget problem did not exist.

The state's last gutsy governor was Republican Pete Wilson, a former Marine willing to make tough decisions. In the deep recession of the early 1990s, the state faced an even deeper financial crisis than today. Staring at a budget gap one third of the general fund, Gov. Wilson assembled a bipartisan legislative coalition. According to Jim Brulte, the Republican Assembly leader at the time, Wilson, Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and the others quickly agreed to a plan that was half tax increases and half program cuts. Republicans hated Wilson for raising taxes, but he produced a budget that protected key programs and ended the massive shortfall.

Schwarzenegger presented himself to the public as a can-do action figure who would knock heads in Sacramento and bring sanity to a state that had gone off the tracks during Gray Davis' five years. But on the budget, Schwarzenegger, like Davis before, bet wrong that the economic good times would last and overextended the state's spending programs. For all the hoopla surrounding Schwarzenegger's election in 2003, the Terminator has been a timid governor, much like the man he replaced. Neither the Hollywood superstar nor the career politician had the combination of insight, political skill and grit to deal with the mounting fiscal crisis.

Modern California governors operate largely alone. They usually win election as moderates, liberal enough to please those who value infrastructure, education and social services but conservative enough to appeal to business leaders and fiscal hawks. Yet, once in office, they must deal with a legislature full of partisan ideologies. This is the difference between the Pete Wilson years and today. At that time, Republicans and Democrats had competent, experienced political leadership and the GOP had not yet declared war on its moderates. The leadership included Wilson, Speaker Brown and Republican legislative leaders James Brulte and Ken Maddy, both pragmatic conservatives.

However, angry that Speaker Brown dominated the legislature, state Republicans pushed and narrowly passed Proposition 140 in 1990. This established the nation's shortest term limits on assembly and state senate members, six years and eight years, respectively. Unintended consequences abound. Term limits weaken legislative leadership (assembly speakers now serve an average of only two years), accentuate partisanship and make long-term financial planning politically irrelevant. Kousser explains, "During boom times, nearly all of the legislature's leaders know that they will not be in power when the state goes bust, so they have no incentive to save for a rainy day."

In the old system, a veteran legislator could buck the party line and compromise on taxes, spending and the budget. Today, ideological flexibility is tantamount to political suicide. Because of gerrymandering, legislative races are not contested except during the primary when the party's base demands ideological purity — Democrats must be pro-union and Republicans must oppose any and all new taxes. Holding just 29 of 80 Assembly seats and 15 of 40 state Senate seats, Republicans in California have great power even though they are a distinct and declining minority in a heavily blue state. Why? Because of the two-thirds vote rule, GOP legislators can be pure to their principles. Living in a Proposition 13 world, the state Republican Party has little incentive to reach out to the moderates necessary to win a majority in the state house.

YOU CAN'T REALLY argue with Arnold Schwarzenegger's political success. In 2002 the California Republican Party, still suffering from the anti-immigrant fervor cooked up by former Gov. Pete Wilson, failed to win any statewide offices for the first time since 1882. Yet just one year later Schwarzenegger led a recall effort against the fiscally reckless and managerially incompetent Democratic governor, Gray Davis, beating out the nearest Democratic challenger for the newly vacated position by a margin of more than 2 to 1. Even as Republicans nationwide took a drubbing in the 2006 elections, losing both houses of Congress and the majority of governorships for the first time in 12 years, the bodybuilder-turned-actor, running in an increasingly blue state, smashed Democrat Phil Angelides by a ridiculous 17 percentage points.

That the Austrian Oak pulled out such a victory just two years after calling Democrats "girly-men" at the Republican National Convention, and only 12 months after having his pet special-election ballot initiative package decisively repudiated at the polls, cemented Schwarzenegger's persona as a masterfully adaptive politician, able to bend in the direction of the Golden State's famously eccentric electorate in a way that his fellow state Republicans, with their emphases on immigration and abortion, could not.

Three years after kneecapping Schwarzenegger with an investigation of his tendency to paw unwilling women, the Los Angeles Times was arguing that the U.S. Constitution should be amended so that the foreign-born governor might one day become president. Time magazine put Arnold and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on its cover in June 2007, offering their cosmopolitan Republicanism as the only hopeful future for a party increasingly dominated, and dragged down by, social conservatives. These "socially liberal Republicans who have flourished in Democratic political cultures" the magazine enthused, are "doing big things that Washington has failed to do."

Chief among the things Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg have accomplished is winning elections. Republicans took an even worse drubbing in November 2008 than in November 2006, and as I write are neck deep in a civil war over the party's future, with cultural conservatives rallying behind controversial Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to represent what is now the largest voting bloc remaining inside Ronald Reagan's diminished big tent. To the less-than-casual observer who has a distaste for social conservatism (i.e., the average journalist), the only way forward for the Grand Old Party in the 21st century is a kind of moderate Schwarzeneggerism. "Pragmatic Republicans like [Florida Gov. Charlie] Crist, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels and even conservative Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal," Time's Tim Padgett wrote after the 2008 elections, "will likely be the phoenixes that rise from the GOP ashes of 2008."

If that's true, Republicans may be worse off than we thought. It's not that Schwarzenegger is wrong about de-emphasizing or even rejecting elements of social conservatism. Expending political energy on making sure same-sex couples cannot be legally recognized as married, as Republicans continue to do with short-term success in California and elsewhere, is both bad policy (by consciously restricting the freedom of a disfavored minority) and lousy politics. The under-30 generation does not much comprehend political animus toward gays and ethnic minorities. As a result, voters between the ages of 18 and 29 are abandoning Republicanism in near-record numbers. Forget the youthful, cross-cultural Barack Obama; the 18-to-29 vote went 63 percent Democrat to 34 percent Republican for the House of Representatives. If Republicans aren't careful, they'll go the way of newspapers, becoming something only old people are interested in.

The promise of coastal Republicans in Name Only like Schwarzenegger, at least for the limited-government proponents (including me) who have invested hope in him over the years, was supposed to be that the descriptor socially liberal would be followed by another very important phrase: fiscally conservative. And that's where the Milton Friedman-quoting governor has been an unalloyed disaster.

Schwarzenegger blew into office decrying California's bloated budget, vowing to "blow up the boxes" of Sacramento's bureaucracy, and promising to never again let the Golden State go near Gray Davis' record-setting $38 billion deficit. Five years into the Schwarzenegger era, the budget has ballooned from $100 billion to $145 billion, and the state's legislative analyst announced in November that California was facing a deficit of $28 billion. Bond market ratings assess the state as a bigger lending risk than Slovakia. And those bureaucratic boxes have remained largely intact.

How does Schwarzenegger defend this sorry record? In part, by blaming Republicans. "I think the important thing for the Republican Party is now to also look at other issues that are very important for this country and not to get stuck in ideology," he said on CNN five days after the election. "Let's go and talk about health care reform. Let's go and ... fund programs if they're necessary programs and not get stuck just on the fiscal responsibility."

What are some of these "necessary programs"? How about a $9.9 billion bond for a long-dreamed-of high-speed rail project between Los Angeles and San Francisco that is expected to cost at least $45 billion, which even supporters such as the Los Angeles Times editorial board think will require "many billions more" in subsidies? Then there's the $3 billion bond from 2004 to put California bureaucrats in the stem cell research business, mostly as a poke in the eye of George W. Bush.

How to pay for all this during what the governor has declared a "financial emergency"? Partly by rattling the tin cup outside the White House. Schwarzenegger was one of the first governors to hit up Washington for some of that fat bailout money gushing from the Oval Office.

But the spending splurge also requires new taxes, according to the governor: a "temporary" 1.5-percent-age-point increase in the 7.25 percent sales tax, an increase in the number of services covered by the sales tax, higher taxes for alcohol and oil production, and so on. Many analysts believe that the governor who quickly fulfilled his recall-campaign promise to cut the state's vehicle license fees will soon resort to restoring those charges to at least Gray Davis levels.

Even on social issues, where Schwarzenegger's more libertarian approach was supposed to avoid the Republican trap of freedom-constricting politics, the governor instead has embraced the freedom-constricting policies of the left. To cite one particularly ironic example, in 2004 he signed a law requiring every California employer with more than 50 workers to force upon its managers state-approved sexual harassment training.

Republicans in 2009 are in a mess of their own making. If they interpret the Democrats' sweeping victory as a clarion call to foray further into religiously inspired, Terry Schiavo-style politics that uses government as a lever to manipulate and control other people's lives, then they will deserve their exile from power.

But it will take more than just eschewing cultural conservatism and adopting the Democrats' interventionist economic approach to refresh the Republican brand. There is room right now for an opposition party that emphasizes what the governing party does not: freedom, as both the ultimate goal and the means to achieve it.

Back when he was taping testimonials for Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, Arnold Schwarzenegger looked like the kind of person who would indeed choose freedom if given a chance to govern. Instead, he punted on the radical, government-reducing reforms offered to him by his own box-exploding California Performance Review and learned to love--or at least perpetuate--the very bureaucracy he was elected to confront. That's not a blueprint for 21st-century Republicanism. It's just George W. Bush's big-government conservatism with a Hollywood face.

Of course I was being sarcastic when I said our wonderful governor.

He really has failed the state of California.

I really get upset over the illegal immigration issue. That's right folks 10 billion dollars a year, goes to illegals in California. Maybe we ought to go to their houses and say..... Hey we want our money back. We also want you to get out of our country. NOW!

I remember prop. 187. It passed with close to 70% percent of the public. One stupid judge ruled it unconstitutional. One judge stole our vote.

That seems to be the process these days. It ceased being "the will and voice of the people" and "for the people and by the people" a long time ago. Now, any special interest group can protest and take matters to the Supreme court and file law suits, and/or in California, the 9th Circus (and I mean Circus) Court of Appeals. Or the Legislators just meet and pass whatever they want to, no matter how the public voted. From the Mayor to the President, no one in power gives a crap over how the citizens vote, what the citizens want, what the citizens need or what the citizens are saying. They just do what they want to anyways. We have a smaller, weaker voices and fewer freedoms as each year passes. I don't know why the hell they even bother with the facade of "elections" any longer to begin with frankly. Our Republic died decades ago. I for one, would like it back.

Put It Out There Baby wrote:That seems to be the process these days. It ceased being "the will and voice of the people" and "for the people and by the people" a long time ago. Now, any special interest group can protest and take matters to the Supreme court and file law suits, and/or in California, the 9th Circus (and I mean Circus) Court of Appeals. Or the Legislators just meet and pass whatever they want to, no matter how the public voted. From the Mayor to the President, no one in power gives a crap over how the citizens vote, what the citizens want, what the citizens need or what the citizens are saying. They just do what they want to anyways. We have a smaller, weaker voices and fewer freedoms as each year passes. I don't know why the hell they even bother with the facade of "elections" any longer to begin with frankly. Our Republic died decades ago. I for one, would like it back.

You know the lives of hard working people should not be made so damn difficult. They take so much from us. All they do is make life miserable for those that have a small business, or work hard for a living.

I too want our country back.

California, it was a great place to live once upon a time.

[quote="Theophilus"]

Put It Out There Baby wrote:That seems to be the process these days. It ceased being "the will and voice of the people" and "for the people and by the people" a long time ago. Now, any special interest group can protest and take matters to the Supreme court and file law suits, and/or in California, the 9th Circus (and I mean Circus) Court of Appeals. Or the Legislators just meet and pass whatever they want to, no matter how the public voted. From the Mayor to the President, no one in power gives a crap over how the citizens vote, what the citizens want, what the citizens need or what the citizens are saying. They just do what they want to anyways. We have a smaller, weaker voices and fewer freedoms as each year passes. I don't know why the hell they even bother with the facade of "elections" any longer to begin with frankly. Our Republic died decades ago. I for one, would like it back.[/quote]

You know the lives of hard working people should not be made so damn difficult. They take so much from us. All they do is make life miserable for those that have a small business, or work hard for a living.

I too want our country back.

California, it was a great place to live once upon a time.

Our first and most cherished document, The Declaration Of Independence. below has the answer posted in red. However, it will take the will of all americans to make this type of change again. Some of our states are even now are voting to seceed.

Please read this document all the way to the end.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

HOT PROPERTY
Los Feliz home of L.A. Police Chief William Bratton for sale for $1,875,000

Link here.......


http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/news/la-hm-hotprop11-2009jul11,0,5134995.story

Wow, why sell now. Give it five years or so and you will get a much better return on your money. If you have a nice house than why leave it? I mean really.

Why would you sell it such a depressed market?

Though one would have to ask why did you buy the house in the first place? Also how did you afford that house? You must be asking the same price to sell as you bought it.

Trying to get out, eh?

Good luck on having someone buying a 2,600 square foot house for near two million.

Interesting, and odd. His salary started out when they brought him on at $230,039.00 in 2002. He makes $300,442 per year now. (before taxes) I can't imagine on that salary, how anyone could afford a two million dollar house to begin with.

On a 30 year loan, with 7% interest, your payments would be almost 13k a month! Cripes.
Either he just got a hefty raise and is upgrading, (which I doubt- as the city is so broke) or he knows something that we don't.....like he is leaving the department at some point and either retiring or going elsewheres. Or, maybe a divorce is in his future. You never know.

Los Feliz is a vey nice area but that seems a bootle in this market for a 4 bedroom 3 bath home that is 45 years old. Who knows, if he can sell it (good luck again in this market) He can upgrade for much less somewhere in L.A. Bad time to be trying to sell property though. He should have done that before last Summer. The appreciation on it is pretty low compared to what he paid originally for the house also, due to all properties just diving in value out here the last year.

What really surprises me, is that is home address is now public record. I am sure he has security, but still- just think of the gang members, ex-cons he may have put away (or their friends) and drug dealers who now have that info. Not too bright.

Put It Out There Baby wrote:Interesting, and odd. His salary started out when they brought him on at $230,039.00 in 2002. He makes $300,442 per year now. (before taxes) I can't imagine on that salary, how anyone could afford a two million dollar house to begin with.

On a 30 year loan, with 7% interest, your payments would be almost 13k a month! Cripes.
Either he just got a hefty raise and is upgrading, (which I doubt- as the city is so broke) or he knows something that we don't.....like he is leaving the department at some point and either retiring or going elsewheres. Or, maybe a divorce is in his future. You never know.

Los Feliz is a vey nice area but that seems a bootle in this market for a 4 bedroom 3 bath home that is 45 years old. Who knows, if he can sell it (good luck again in this market) He can upgrade for much less somewhere in L.A. Bad time to be trying to sell property though. He should have done that before last Summer. The appreciation on it is pretty low compared to what he paid originally for the house also, due to all properties just diving in value out here the last year.

What really surprises me, is that is home address is now public record. I am sure he has security, but still- just think of the gang members, ex-cons he may have put away (or their friends) and drug dealers who now have that info. Not too bright.

Sure he could afford it. Just think of all of the money he saved. Everybody knows cops don't have to pay for coffee & donuts. hehehehe

Well today I had to drive the 405 through rush hour traffic. On my way to Otay Mesa. Man that drive will take a lot out of you.

It is just crazy how many people are on the road. The traffic did not let up until I was past the 605. I have done this before, sure enough. Though I was thinking if you had to drive that road everyday during rush hour. A person could go nuts.

That is one tough grinding drive.

Once through that. You are rewarded by cooler weather, and a decent view of the ocean, as you head south on I-5.

Good Lord!! What were you doing clear down near the border?? Cripes, that's a hike from up north. The 405 is terrible all along Orange and L.A. County for two and a half hours in the morning and two and a half in the afternoon/evening. The 5 isn't much better in most places. The 91? Forget it. It's a parking lot. Hell, all the freeways are jammed packed during the rush hours. You have to imagine how nice it would be if the millions of illegals and their clunkers were off the roads here though. lol I use the large surface streets mostly during the peak freeway hours and just avoid the crap, but in a truck, you are kinda screwed. I am glad you got to see some ocean though. I was over it a few times today, nice and clear but hot again today. I guess I shouldn't bitch since I have to fly to Palm Springs this weekend, where's it's like 114. Once, I flew out there and could not land. It was like 125 and they actually had to close the little aiport because the tarmac was too soft from the heat to land on. sheesh

Next time you are down this way, just look up and you might see the sexy beast aka the money pit. lmao

Put It Out There Baby wrote:Next time you are down this way, just look up and you might see the sexy beast aka the money pit. lmao

Now that's one nice looking aircraft. Heck as I was driving down the 405, aircraft passed overhead. I waved just in case one of them was you flying overhead.

Put It Out There Baby wrote:Good Lord!! What were you doing clear down near the border?? Cripes, that's a hike from up north. The 405 is terrible all along Orange and L.A. County for two and a half hours in the morning and two and a half in the afternoon/evening. The 5 isn't much better in most places. The 91? Forget it. It's a parking lot. Hell, all the freeways are jammed packed during the rush hours. You have to imagine how nice it would be if the millions of illegals and their clunkers were off the roads here though. lol I use the large surface streets mostly during the peak freeway hours and just avoid the crap, but in a truck, you are kinda screwed. I am glad you got to see some ocean though. I was over it a few times today, nice and clear but hot again today. I guess I shouldn't bitch since I have to fly to Plam Springs this weekend, where's it's like 114. Once, I flew out there and could not land. It was like 125 and they actually had to close the little aiport because the tarmac was too soft from the heat to land on. sheesh

Man the heat here in the inland valleys has been oppressive to say the least.

Yeah right now I am less than a mile from the border. You don't want to take a wrong turn around here. That is for sure.
I have been here many times. Just bringing stuff that will make its way into mexico.

A lot of the streets you speak of a truck cannot use. Though I am sure you see plenty using them. I just don't need the fines.

California being cash strapped as it is. I am going to avoid giving them a chance to take more money from me than they do already.

Take care down there. As you know the border towns on our side are pretty crummy and not too safe. Stay hydrated too. You have a long haul back home. I must have drunk a gallon of water today. On one leg, I was out in Riverside today and it was 99. I stepped out of the air conditioning and it was like a damn blast furnace and you could see the light shimmering around the heat rising up from the ground. At least I am coastal the next two days. I am going to have to pack some Depends to stick under my pits for Saturday and Sunday though for when I get off the plane. lol I am going to be "stuck" out there for hours both days too. Ugh.

Put It Out There Baby wrote:Take care down there. As you know the border towns on our side are pretty crummy and not too safe. Stay hydrated too. You have a long haul back home. I must have drunk a gallon of water today. On one leg, I was out in Riverside today and it was 99. I stepped out of the air conditioning and it was like a damn blast furnace and you could see the light shimmering around the heat rising up from the ground. At least I am coastal the next two days. I am going to have to pack some Depends to stick under my pits for Saturday and Sunday though for when I get off the plane. lol I am going to be "stuck" out there for hours both days too. Ugh.

I just hope that both of you guys take care and be careful out there.

Hey Howdy, don't know if you caught this on the news the other day, but the latest approval poll has Arnold at a whopping 26% approval rating and the Legislators in Sacramento at $14%!!! ROTFL How much worse can it get form there? lol

Put It Out There Baby wrote:Hey Howdy, don't know if you caught this on the news the other day, but the latest approval poll has Arnold at a whopping 26% approval rating and the Legislators in Sacramento at $14%!!! ROTFL How much worse can it get form there? lol

No I missed that. I know I am not happy with what is going on. I have not had a chance to look at what was cut out of the budget. Though as far as I am concerned, they need to cut a lot more. This coming from a guy who leans left LOL.

I guess we were hoping that an outsider to politics might give us a chance. Nope I feel he is no better than that weasel Willie Brown.

Just another dirt bag in a fancy suit, is all Arnold is to me.

All I know is our highways are falling apart. Infrastructure is falling apart. Businesses are leaving here. Schools are shutting down.

I think a major problem we have as you had mentioned is the declaration of prop 187 being unconstitutional. The judge I can't remember the name of. This judge wrote a 92 page document as to why it was unconstitutional. This I didn't forget. I did not forget that fact because it always stuck in my craw as to how you would need 92 pages to explain something as unconstitutional. In other words the judge was full of it.

I remember hearing on KGO a person from the ACLU saying he had tears of joy about the overturning of prop 187. This made me pretty angry as my vote, all our votes were stolen from us.

Now a huge part of our debt reflects what we are forced to spend to provide services to the illegal aliens here, and they don't stop coming.

I have seen those stats, though I can never remember where I saw them.

One thing about you P.I.O.T.B.

Your outstanding when it comes to research in your posts. You always find the information to back what you say. I always learn a lot from your posts.

I am very impressed with your ability to research subjects. I don't know how you find the information sometimes. I know search engines and all. Even with that, you know how to get to the heart of the manner. Very, very impressive.

Ya know I heard that getting a good education could do that to a person. Maybe I shouldn't have flunked sandbox in kindergarten three times.

The stupid state of California has shut of water to the central valley. I have seen the effects of this, though was not sure why.

It is over a minnow.

This kind of nonsense is not new to California.

One thing I dislike about California politics is the bureaucracy doing what ever it can to trample the rights of property owners.

You might think it is about protecting the environment. It is not.

Years ago we had a hostile take over of a large logging business. I can't remember the name, nor am I in the mood to research this.

So I may be a off somewhat, though I am trying to tell the truth as best I know it.

The logging business was in northern California. Once the hostile take over happened this new business started to clear cut the old growth redwood trees, and people were very angry over this.

Thus stared every possible move to stop this. I can't blame us Californians for being upset over this.

Though what happened next is fairly intense.

People used the endangered species act as a defense against this.

We had the earth first crowd committing acts of terrorism. These people and the bureaucracy came up with the spotted owl. Sure they used it help stop logging our national treasures.

Though were has that got us today.

Well it has got us a cold hearted bureaucracy that cares nothing about science. Nor fact.

Californians opened the door to this kind of abuse by trying to protect our national treasures.

I support trying to protect our environment, though not by a bunch of under educated fools.

I do not support the actions of the earth first group. I found them deplorable to say the least.

Now your everyday average joe is suffering in the name of the "environment"

Now the door has been opened to land grabs, and abuses of power.

I have to say pretty disgusting to have to watch this happen.

It's unfortunate, but there are a lot of extremist environmentalist groups out there that give the real environmentalists a bad name.

It's the same as PETA giving a bad name to anyone who wants to protect animals.

The thing is KAZZA when we truly base facts off facts. Then that will be a great time. We seem to live in a time were facts are laughed at and disregarded. It blows my mind that a certain percentage will view the proven truth as being a myth.

Theophilus wrote:The stupid state of California has shut of water to the central valley. I have seen the effects of this, though was not sure why.

It is over a minnow.

This kind of nonsense is not new to California.

One thing I dislike about California politics is the bureaucracy doing what ever it can to trample the rights of property owners.

You might think it is about protecting the environment. It is not.

Years ago we had a hostile take over of a large logging business. I can't remember the name, nor am I in the mood to research this.

So I may be a off somewhat, though I am trying to tell the truth as best I know it.

The logging business was in northern California. Once the hostile take over happened this new business started to clear cut the old growth redwood trees, and people were very angry over this.

Thus stared every possible move to stop this. I can't blame us Californians for being upset over this.

Though what happened next is fairly intense.

People used the endangered species act as a defense against this.

We had the earth first crowd committing acts of terrorism. These people and the bureaucracy came up with the spotted owl. Sure they used it help stop logging our national treasures.

Though were has that got us today.

Well it has got us a cold hearted bureaucracy that cares nothing about science. Nor fact.

Californians opened the door to this kind of abuse by trying to protect our national treasures.

I support trying to protect our environment, though not by a bunch of under educated fools.

I do not support the actions of the earth first group. I found them deplorable to say the least.

Now your everyday average joe is suffering in the name of the "environment"

Now the door has been opened to land grabs, and abuses of power.

I have to say pretty disgusting to have to watch this happen.

How are those folks suppose to live without water?

CarolinaHound wrote:

Theophilus wrote:The stupid state of California has shut of water to the central valley. I have seen the effects of this, though was not sure why.

It is over a minnow.

This kind of nonsense is not new to California.

One thing I dislike about California politics is the bureaucracy doing what ever it can to trample the rights of property owners.

You might think it is about protecting the environment. It is not.

Years ago we had a hostile take over of a large logging business. I can't remember the name, nor am I in the mood to research this.

So I may be a off somewhat, though I am trying to tell the truth as best I know it.

The logging business was in northern California. Once the hostile take over happened this new business started to clear cut the old growth redwood trees, and people were very angry over this.

Thus stared every possible move to stop this. I can't blame us Californians for being upset over this.

Though what happened next is fairly intense.

People used the endangered species act as a defense against this.

We had the earth first crowd committing acts of terrorism. These people and the bureaucracy came up with the spotted owl. Sure they used it help stop logging our national treasures.

Though were has that got us today.

Well it has got us a cold hearted bureaucracy that cares nothing about science. Nor fact.

Californians opened the door to this kind of abuse by trying to protect our national treasures.

I support trying to protect our environment, though not by a bunch of under educated fools.

I do not support the actions of the earth first group. I found them deplorable to say the least.

Now your everyday average joe is suffering in the name of the "environment"

Now the door has been opened to land grabs, and abuses of power.

I have to say pretty disgusting to have to watch this happen.

How are those folks suppose to live without water?

It is all about control. It is about land grabbing. These people are evil who are doing this.

Here is what is happing. They are shutting down water to farms in the central valley of California. Once they have forced the independent farmer off the land they will view this as their land. The water will flow again.

It was never about the environment.

These people who do this are sick and evil.

Theophilus wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Theophilus wrote:The stupid state of California has shut of water to the central valley. I have seen the effects of this, though was not sure why.

It is over a minnow.

This kind of nonsense is not new to California.

One thing I dislike about California politics is the bureaucracy doing what ever it can to trample the rights of property owners.

You might think it is about protecting the environment. It is not.

Years ago we had a hostile take over of a large logging business. I can't remember the name, nor am I in the mood to research this.

So I may be a off somewhat, though I am trying to tell the truth as best I know it.

The logging business was in northern California. Once the hostile take over happened this new business started to clear cut the old growth redwood trees, and people were very angry over this.

Thus stared every possible move to stop this. I can't blame us Californians for being upset over this.

Though what happened next is fairly intense.

People used the endangered species act as a defense against this.

We had the earth first crowd committing acts of terrorism. These people and the bureaucracy came up with the spotted owl. Sure they used it help stop logging our national treasures.

Though were has that got us today.

Well it has got us a cold hearted bureaucracy that cares nothing about science. Nor fact.

Californians opened the door to this kind of abuse by trying to protect our national treasures.

I support trying to protect our environment, though not by a bunch of under educated fools.

I do not support the actions of the earth first group. I found them deplorable to say the least.

Now your everyday average joe is suffering in the name of the "environment"

Now the door has been opened to land grabs, and abuses of power.

I have to say pretty disgusting to have to watch this happen.

How are those folks suppose to live without water?

It is all about control. It is about land grabbing. These people are evil who are doing this.

Here is what is happing. They are shutting down water to farms in the central valley of California. Once they have forced the independent farmer off the land they will view this as their land. The water will flow again.

It was never about the environment.

These people who do this are sick and evil.

Yea, I just looked it up in google. That's exactly what that's about. As soon as they get rid of some of the farmers, high dollar homes and apartments will go up and there will be plenty of water. Ask them about the fish and they will say "huh? what minnow? ohh yea... uhhh.. there's too many of them now, gotta get rid of them, they're an invasive species."

I don't have to look it up on google. I live it everyday. Not that the land grabs is unique to California.

I am not sure as I have not been to the Carolina's for a couple of months. I would guess attempts there as well?

Attempts to crush the land owner there as well?

They do it, but nothing like that. Here the cities just anexe everything they want and tax people to death.

That is they don't do anything on that scale yet.