California, here we come.
By: Examiner Editorial
July 1, 2009
While promoting his new cap-and-trade energy tax bill, which passed the U.S. House last week, President Obama revealed in a White House address on Monday his model for the nation's economy - California. "In the late 1970s, the state of California enacted tougher energy-efficiency policies," Obama said, noting that the state and its residents use less energy today per capita than the national average. "Think about that," he said, "California producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country and yet they've been able to maintain their energy usage in a much lower level than the rest of the country."
Obama might want to rethink his choice of a model state because it is easy to understand how California has curbed its energy use. Between 2000 and 2007, before the current recession, the state shed nearly 21 percent of its manufacturing jobs, driving down its industrial electrical consumption by 21 percent. California's industrial users pay electric rates twice as high as their Midwestern counterparts - which helps explain why so much heavy industry has fled the state. In addition to alienating its industry, California has also curbed energy use through exorbitant residential electric rates (50 percent higher than the national average) and massive net out-migration. Between 2005 and 2007, 2.14 million Californians moved to other states, while only 1.44 million people from elsewhere moved to the Golden State, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Don't be surprised when the 2010 Census finds even more people leaving to escape California's 11.5 percent unemployment. And, as jobs and residents fled California, its tax revenues have declined, while its politicians went on a spending binge, creating a severe budget crisis.
If the President wants America to look like California, pushing the Obama-Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade anti-global warming energy bill through Congress is surely the way to do it. Among much else in its 1,200+ pages (none of which were read by the vast majority of House members who voted on it), the measure caps carbon dioxide emissions at levels certain to cause artificial scarcity and higher energy prices. That will convince still more American manufacturers that they can only remain competitive by moving to other countries with no caps (think India and China), lower expenses and cheaper workforces. Manufacturers who can't move or who must rely on electric power will simply go out of business or drastically reduce their workforces. The Heritage Foundation forecasts job losses under Obama-Waxman-Markey of 1.15 million annually beginning in 2012. Welcome to the Hotel California in the age of Obama.
|
It took 175 days, a special session, numerous newspaper editorials, and the threat of a government shutdown, but Speaker Pat Bauer has finally freed his fellow Democrats and allowed them to vote on a state budget. After finally passing both the Democrat-controlled House and the Republican-led Senate, the result is a responsible budget that protects taxpayers.
You may remember that prior to the start of the special session, Governor Daniels gave a televised statewide address in which he outlined five simple conditions he needed met in order to sign a budget: No tax increases; at least $1 billion left in state reserves; that legislators cut $1 for every $1 they spent beyond his proposed budget; that one time funds be spent for one time purposes; and that no gimmicks were used.
After weeks of grandstanding and foot dragging, House Democrats have finally joined with legislative Republicans to ensure those conditions were met.
This budget is good for Hoosiers for a variety of other reasons. Foremost, when you look around the country, you’ll see most states are looking at tax increases or massive cuts, including education. Indiana is doing neither, and that’s a credit to our governor and our Republican legislators. In fact, not only are we increasing education funding, but the governor’s ‘education trigger’ has been preserved to drive more money to our schools if revenues are better than projected.
The budget also addresses many other issues that are important to Hoosier families, especially as far as the education of our children is concerned. For instance, there are no caps on the growth of charter schools; money is provided for a scholarship tax credit that could help many low-income families send their children to non-public schools; and for the first time ever, Indiana is exploring the possibility of online schools that extend learning beyond the traditional walls of the classroom. These are the kinds of reforms that will aid Dr. Tony Bennett and his work on behalf of Hoosier kids.
|
| Some Truths Will Never Change |
Some Truths Will Never Change
A photo was recently published showing Michelle Obama serving food at a shelter for the homeless in Washington, D. C. One of those being served his free dinner, a young, able-bodied man, was proudly shown taking a photo of the First Lady with his camera phone. While some in the Obama White House may have seen this as a brilliant photo opportunity, to me it begged two serious questions. If the young man was poor, how could he afford the camera phone and if he was homeless, where do they send the cell phone bill?
This photo could serve as a metaphor for the current socialistic philosophy of the Obama Administration. President Obama tells the public what they are seeing but the reality is far different. President Obama would have you believe that we have a disastrous healthcare system in the United States. President Obama tells us that we must radically overhaul our environmental policies. President Obama tells us that we must reform our energy strategies. President Obama tells us that we must pour millions into Wall Street and Detroit to repair the financial services and auto industries. President Obama spends virtually all of his time telling us all of the wonderful things that Government is going to give us. The plain, unvarnished, inconvenient truth is that Barack Obama has nothing “free” to give us. Everything, and I do mean everything, has a price and it will be paid for by current taxpayers, our children, our grandchildren ad infinitum.
When the people from the BBC came to Kokomo for the purpose of broadcasting a give-and-take program on President Obama’s first 100 days, I had the privilege of participating with a wide variety of our citizens. The program also interviewed people in Atlanta during the hour long program. One of the Atlanta interviewees declared how happy she was because President Obama was going to ”give” her more welfare benefits and social security. The reporter stuck the microphone in my face and asked what I thought. I told the woman in Atlanta that Obama had nothing to give her, that he could only give her something that he had taken from someone else. And so it goes with all of the President’s grand designs in social engineering and income redistribution. All of his plans depend on taking from the productive and giving to the non-productive.
President Obama intends to “give” everyone universal health care. How will he pay for it? Tax people who currently receive health coverage! Tax higher wage earners!
Reduce Medicare benefits! Take away coverage that some people now receive! President Obama giveth and Big Government taketh away.
President Obama intends to clean up our environment and reverse that nasty old global warming. How will he pay for it? His plan of cap and trade will require that the users of coal fired and natural gas electric utilities pay up to 50% more on their bills. Will you be happy paying an extra 50% on your heating bills? Of course, those receiving energy assistance payments won’t give it a second thought.
President Obama intends to make us less dependent on foreign oil. How will he do that? Will he drill offshore, drill in the ANWAR, and drill on U.S. owned land? No, his solution is to utilize gas taxes to drive the cost of gas up so high that we will drive less and consider using mass transportation. Are you going to catch the bus in front of your house tomorrow? How about catching a commuter train to work? Who will pay for this insane strategy? Everyone who drives a car, truck or tractor! The consumer will pay higher prices for transported goods. Talk about those nasty Arabs and their oil cartels!
President Obama declares that the United States must pump billions into our auto companies and financial services companies to keep them afloat. Where does all of that money come from? The money comes from massive borrowing by the United States Treasury. Weekly now, our country is borrowing over $100 billion by selling Treasury securities. How will we pay off these bonds? There will be only three ways of doing it and my suspicion is that the government will only consider two of them. You can only pay off the bonds by reducing government spending, by increasing revenues through higher taxes or by printing money. You can put your money on higher taxes and printing money. Make no mistake; you will pay one way or another!
Let me be clear here. I would like to see everyone have affordable health care. I would like a clean environment. I would like the United States to have energy independence. I would like our auto industry to thrive and prosper. I would like our financial system to be the best in the world and be solvent. I would like to see free markets and responsible governmental policies facilitate each of these goals. I don’t want to see President Obama turn to the Marxist approach of “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.” This approach has never worked and will never work, even when cleverly packaged and sprinkled with foo foo dust by the Obamasiah.
The ugly truth hidden from the American public by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their band of merry socialist minions is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing that this or any other government gives you will be free. Someone will pay for it, most likely you. You can’t escape it and, more importantly, even your future progeny cannot escape it. The Obama social welfare and social engineering grand design will have a price tag that untold generations will be expected to pay.
This brings me to my final musing. If a productive member of society decides that they have become overloaded with the bills for the Obama Plan and they sell their house and move under an overpass somewhere, how will the Government know where to send the bill?
|
| Interesting and Cautionary Tale |
How Politicians Bankrupted CaliforniaBy Carol Platt Liebau
As the end of California's fiscal year approaches, the Governor and state legislators confront a $24 billion deficit. While Republicans and Democrats wrangle over how to address the gaping shortfall, some members of the press have started to look for a scapegoat for the fiscal train wreck. Many have blamed the California taxpayer's only protection: Prop. 13, the 1978 measure capping state property taxes at 1% of a home's assessed value.
Perhaps the most egregious example of the finger-pointing is a recent piece from TIME's Kevin O'Leary, moaning that "Before Prop 13, in the 1950s and '60s, California was a liberal showcase." He insists that "at the root of California's misery lies Proposition 13," and concludes that "in California, the conservative legacy lives on."
How ridiculous. Of all the problems contributing to the fiscal mess, state under-taxation is the least of them. California's sales and gas taxes are the highest in the country - and it has the highest vehicle license fees and the second-highest top-bracket income tax, too. Its corporate tax rates are the highest of all Western states, and for the fourth year in a row, a survey of 543 CEO's found that California's toxic combination of high taxes and intrusive regulations made it the worst place in the nation to do business.
In fact, at the real root of California's fiscal misery is the profligacy of arrogant, big-spending, left-wing legislators, who have treated taxpayers as if they exist only to support the government. Their attitude was exemplified in a recent statement from state assemblywoman Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), chairman of the state Budget Conference Committee, repudiating the governor's call for the state to "live within its means":
Well, there is this mantra out there - "live within our means" - and while that sounds really nice . . . and it sounds really responsible, it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control . . . We have just given away huge corporate subsidies in February; we have given away other tax reductions over many, many years; we've created tax loopholes; in good times, we routinely give away taxes, and then in lean times we never replace those tax deductions or close those loopholes. . . . So "live within our means" doesn't mean anything. The fact is, we have a state with a population that have [sic] needs that we have a moral obligation to provide.
Her assertions - and the obnoxious sense of entitlement underlying them - defy credulity. For politicians like Evans (and the legislature is full of them!), when the hardworking or productive keep more of what they have earned, it's only because politicians have been "giving away" the tax revenues that purportedly belong to them. In this mindset, meeting the "needs" of a greedy, ever-expanding government is the only imperative; taxpayers are nothing more than cash cows, commanded to provide the fodder that allows Evans and those like her to meet their "moral obligations" with other people's money.
Remarkably, even as they have driven California into the fiscal ditch (and demanded ever-higher taxes from its citizens), Evans and her colleagues remain the most highly compensated state legislators in the nation. Along with their six-figure salaries, taxpayers supply them with cars, gasoline and auto maintenance. As regular Californians' budgets are stretched to the limit, many of the "cuts" the state Senate is debating for itself are laughable. They include whether to reduce the benefit that provides their staffers with two new pairs of glasses yearly (or sunglasses, for those who don't wear glasses). The change would limit workers to one new pair - of course, courtesy of the taxpayers.
Ultimately, any honest assessment of California's plight must assign responsibility for the state's fiscal crisis - not to the taxpayers who voted for Prop. 13 three decades ago - but to the politicians who have subsequently exploited them without mercy. Indeed, if spending had simply reflected average population growth plus the average increase in the cost of living since 1991, there would now be a $15 billion surplus. After adjusting for inflation, the state now spends nearly 20% more per capita than it did 18 years ago; even as California's tax revenues increased by 167% during that period, state spending exploded by 189%.
Left-wing legislators like Noreen Evans can demand more taxes and journalists like Kevin O'Leary can bemoan the existence of Prop. 13 all they like. The people know better. And when voters overwhelmingly rejected further tax increases last month, they sent a clear message: It's time for the politicians to start working for Californians again, rather than the other way around.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
Carol Platt Liebau is an attorney, political commentator and guest radio talk show host based near Los Angeles. Learn more about her new book, "Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Hurts Young Women (and America, Too!)" here.
|
| Chairman Dunn Replies To Kingmaker MacAllister |
|
Mr. MacAllister:
Perhaps we could have Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson be the judges. A swimsuit competition might also be appropriate. Now that these four opportunists have decided to run, why don't you just trust the political process? Since you are supporting Luke Messer, this approach of yours appears to be disingenuos at best. I have no interest in participating in this star chamber process. Now, is not the time to waste resources on any opposition to Dan Burton. With big state legislative races in 2010 and reapportionment coming in two years this is clearly the wrong time. In addition, I believe that you will find that there are several other exceptional men who might be excellent Congressmen some day who have elected to put their party above their self-interest and have deferred from running for the 5th District seat at this time. Your approach serves to cut out several great candidates who are also great Republicans. While your proposed approach may well serve the kingmakers in Marion County, Republicans in Howard County will have none of this nonsense.
Sincerely,
Craig L. Dunn
Chairman
|
| Marion County Czars Propose Tampering With GOP Congressional Primary |
| HoosierPundit.com Reports |
And not just any American Idol system; one that is packed with Marion County heavyweights and tilted toward Luke Messer. P.E. McAlister was, with Jim Kittle, one of the first names supporting Messer).
I don't normally opine much on the 5th District; I sort of view it with a distant and cynical eye. I'm inclined to think that the 2008 primary served a good purpose and that another one is a waste of finite resources that could be better spent ousting Democrats in Congressional and state legislative races in November.
Presented for your consideration, an email sent from P.E. MacAllister (Indy GOP bigwig) to various Republican leaders in the 5th District:
Some of us in Marion County are watching with interest the contest in our Fifth District, where four men are challenging the continuing tenure of Dan Burton. The issue of whether or not this is a great idea is by now irrelevant since the candidates are already in the fray, each hoping to win the primary. The nature of the field may be interesting, but impact of such a donnybrook has every prospect of doing considerable damage, despite the fact “this is a free country” and anyone who wants to run for anything is allowed to do so. If there is ample reason to challenge the incumbent, perhaps exploring some way of lessening harm done is in order.
I have discussed the race with both the Marion County and the State Republican Chairmen, hoping to minimize the adverse impact, but for reasons of his own, neither thinks it wise for him to exert the authority the party has given him, leaving us with a spectator role in this critical exercise.
The cynic in me has to pipe up and interject at this point... Seriously expecting Murray Clark to take a stand on anything other than ramming the governor's attorney general candidate down the party's throat probably too much to ask. But I digress. The email continues...
I appreciate their position but don’t see it helpful. My memory of the last free for all, harkens back to a sheriff’s race in Marion County an election or so ago, which got very bitter, very expensive, and was productive of zilch for either candidate.
There could be an alternative. Maybe pretty wild, but here’s one idea. Let all four challengers do their best to line up support, but by the end of the year, say by Christmas time, allow a panel of 25 party elders, respected figures, influential people, major donors, judicious folks from the district, determine which of the four is the best candidate. Let’s assume we can get the contenders to agree on this tack, which means the three losers gracefully depart the scene and support the selectee in the spring primary.
Who selects the party elders? A party elder in Hamilton County is not a party elder in Marion County is not a party elder in Howard County, etc.
A letter has gone out to 21 people here in Marion County and includes figures like Jim Morris, Jerry Semler, Fred Klipsch, Jim Dora, John Mutz, Mike Alley, Yvonne Shaheen, Don Palmer, Al Hubbard, Danny Danielson, Bob Bowen, seeking their participation as ultimate adjudicators and requesting their agreement in principal with the idea.
21 of the 25 people are supposed to come from Marion County?
Tom John reminded me that the sun does not rise and set on Marion County but beams on other counties in the district, and including them in this experiment is essential.
Marion County is the sun around which the other counties of the 5th District should revolve? Does that make Tom John, like Louis XIV, the Sun King? (I jest, obviously.)
Thus this letter to you, asking for: your reaction; requesting your cooperation as one of the “judges” and helping us in finding other worthies in your jurisdiction. The panel, in other words, is a work in process.
This program has to be impartial; has to include promise of total anonymity so no one knows how we vote. It has to include established candidate criteria…past experience, intellectual capacity, persona (charisma), ability to articulate, fundraising capacity, stance on given issues; nature of community support (who is in his list of donors and advisors), etc.
So, we have a Messer ally proposing a presumably pro-Messer panel. Who will that panel think fulfills the candidate criteria? Maybe Luke Messer?
I cannot assure all will buy in. Two of the contenders have signed on, agreeing to the principle, pending details of how it is handled.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the details are not something with which the other candidate suggesting a "pre-primary" (Brose McVey, I believe) will agree, let alone the other candidates.
We need to contact the other two, but my point will be that this is one way of determining who represents the district come the primary. The inference is if a losing candidate opts to run against us after his peers have declined support and puts his personal ambition above that of party unity, he needs not call on me next spring for money.
Cordially,
P.E. MacAllister
Maybe these party elders might decide that no primary against Burton is actually necessary. Oh wait, they won't. The necessity of the primary is already assumed by the very structure of Mr. MacAllister's panel at its inception, along with the apparent pro-Messer origins of the very idea. Far be it for this southern Indiana blogger to say anything about Indianapolis or the mighty 5th District, but this is America. We have a primary system, not a court of the Star Chamber or a Guardian Council. I'm a big believer in primaries, but the amount of money and resources that will be expended in the 5th District boggles the mind. But better a free-for-all primary than a bunch of party elites picking and choosing who gets to stand against an incumbent. But then, it's also my opinion that a bunch of party elites shouldn't be picking and choosing whether to keep that incumbent, either. That's what primaries are for.
|
| What A Difference A Party Makes |
| Things That Make You Wanna Go Huh |
 |
| Media Reporting On Michelle Obama Serving Risotto and Rice At Mission For Poor And Homeless. If poor, how does he pay for cellphone? If homeless, where do they send the bill? |
|
|
 |
| Congressman Dan Burton Endorsed By Howard County GOP Chairman Craig Dunn |
|
|
|
