March 9, 2010

Curbing Voter Fraud in California

Help curb voter fraud in California
Bookworm

One of the things the last few elections has revealed is escalating voter fraud in America, fraud of the type that aligns us more closely with a banana republic than with a traditional Western nation. Thus, we know that groups such as ACORN have registered thousands of non-existent people. And because America has traditionally had an honor system at the ballot box (”If you say you’re Minnie Mouse, than I guess you’re Minnie Mouse. Please, go vote.”), little has been done to stem the impact at the ballot of those fraudulently registered voters.

There is now a ballot initiative circulating in California that officially concedes that the honor system no longer works. It will require all California voters to show photo ID at the polling place, and it mandates steps to protect against voter fraud in absentee ballots too. Lastly, as a little extra benefit, it allows an extra 15 days for votes sent in by overseas troops. In other words, the whole ballot is meant to slow down fraud and allow every vote to be counted.

I only heard about this ballot initiative today, but I can assure you that the Democrats will hate it. They’ll waffle on about the fact that poor people just can’t manage to obtain government ID, making this an impossible hurdle between themselves and democratic participation. That this argument is demeaning is obvious. It also makes no sense when one considers that these same people are able to handle the system with some level of skill when it comes to collecting government benefits. (And I speak with solid second hand knowledge about this, since someone close to me lives at that level, as do her friends. Whacked out on perpetual 60s head trips they may be, but they know how to get their welfare checks and food stamps.)

If you are a California voter who is interested in making this initiative a reality on California’s ballot, go here, print-up the petition you’ll see, sign it, and mail it to

Vote SAFE925 University AvenueSacramento, CA 95825

A couple more things: A couple more things: First, time is of the essence, since all petitions must be received 131 days before the election. Second, each petition is written so that two people from the same county can sign it. Of those two (or even if there is only one signatory), though, one must not only sign it, but also fill out the “circulator” declaration.

January 21, 2010

Beyond the California Storms

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The skies are filled with the brooding thickness of a stormy morning. Rain is pounding the steel roof of my office, blurring the image of the world through the window's glass pane. The vicious flooding on the streets brings with it a renewal of much needed life-nourishing water. The growth of indigenous weeds are rising alongside green blades of new grass through the soaked lawn out front that was browning from the thirst of a drought only days before. The Siberian Husky has retreated to the safety of her dog house, and the palm tree stands tall, dripping from the onslaught of a week's worth of much needed moisture.

With the needed rain comes a destructive force, as well. Hillsides stripped of ground-cover from last season's fires are sliding downward, pouring mud onto the neighborhoods below. Creeks are flooding over, and storm drains can't seem to eliminate the water fast enough from major intersections flooded with impatient traffic carrying bodies that are desperately trying to get to work. Trees have fallen, and automobile accidents have dotted the highways. But perhaps the most destructive part of the storms is the least explored consequence of all.

Yes, California is in a drought, and the rains are much needed. But the struggling economy largely depends on the transportation of goods and new construction, one of which has been slowed and hindered, while the other has met an abrupt halt. Big rig trucks have slowed their pace to a near crawl, as well they should for safety's sake. But hungry markets must wait longer for their goods, and in an economic downturn, such conditions could mean the difference between flourishing, and closing the doors forever. Construction sites have shut down completely, eliminating the movement of goods to those locations, and leaving at home a myriad of truck drivers that are in dire need of income.

Like all other storms, however, the foreboding onslaught we are now experiencing will eventually come to an end. The rains will cease, and will be followed by a new day. The sunshine will dry the glistening world, and the new growth will remind us of the promise of new beginnings, and the hope of new opportunities. An unforgiving wind may be blowing through my community at this moment, and the night may be turning cold, but when the storms end, and a lighter silky wind calms the storm battered environment, we will not only continue on, but we will perhaps be a little wiser having weathered the storms.

January 19, 2010

Breast Cancer and the Tobacco Tax

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A report has come out that because of a falloff of the revenue from California's tobacco tax, a state breast cancer screening program is in trouble, having its funding abruptly cut by Sacramento. The program includes the Harbor-UCLA Medical Foundation, which uses specially trained student doctors to read mammograms sent to them from outreach groups throughout California. The program benefits 311,000 women per year.

The federal government also contributes to the program. If the state contribution is lost, however, the $61 million from the federal government will also be lost, ultimately killing the program.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is defending the cuts, indicating the cuts in services are a result of "unprecedented fiscal challenges." An increased demand for breast cancer screening, combined with a declining state tobacco tax revenue has forced the cuts, claim the bureaucrats in Sacramento.

This is an example of government waste, and short-sightedness. Think about it. The tobacco tax is a revenue source that not only is limited, but the same government relying on the source of revenue is also working to kill the source of revenue with an anti-smoking campaign. Less smokers means less revenue. Then, as the federal government corruptly does with social security, the revenue from the tobacco tax does not stay within the realm of original intentions. Instead of the tobacco tax only being spent on cancer research, and anti-smoking education, as originally promised, Sacramento has used the tax money from smokers like a slush fund. Sacramento dips into the fund regularly for school building projects, road construction, state worker salary raises, and. . . oh yeah. . . the occasional anti-smoking awareness campaign.

The budget fiasco in Sacramento is indeed a spending problem, and not a revenue problem. While I understand that Sacramento is trying to cut wasteful spending, and any other spending they can get their hands on, to reduce the multi-billion dollar shortfall, the cuts seem like random tosses of spaghetti against the wall, with the hopes that some will stick, and prove to be successful.

Many of the programs, and the funding strategies attached to them, were shortsighted in the first place. While health advocates and Democratic legislators are decrying the cuts as shortsighted, surely they must have known that the dwindling nature of a limited revenue source would eventually force Sacramento's hand. The program was being funded by a dwindling tax source by a state government that doesn't know how to spend its money in the first place. Once the revenue source for the breast cancer screenings was depleted, where did they think the state was going to get the money to continue the program?

Meanwhile, I am sure the state legislators are enjoying their high incomes, plush offices, and Cadillac health plans.

I believe in state-funded programs that help save lives. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to be supplementing the program, however. The law of the land, also known as the U.S. Constitution, dictates that state issues must be funded by the states, and the federal government must remain separate from such activity.

The problem is, both the federal government, and the state governments, often receive revenue, and then ask themselves, "Oh, goody, how can I spend this money!"

As a result of Sacramento's inability to run its own financial business, lives will be lost because of the cuts to the breast cancer screening program. While the state throws money into bottomless pits, and while the revenue sources are drying up as smokers die or quit smoking, and businesses get the heck out of California because of unreasonable state regulations and restrictions, programs like the breast cancer screening program that saves lives suffers.

On the flip side, health clinics are reporting that fewer women are coming out to screening events. Some mammography services are actually struggling to find work for their radiologists.

While the beneficiaries of the funding were not aware the cut in funding was coming, a small cut would have been manageable. Sacramento, however, is out of touch, and does not pay attention to such things. It makes you wonder how many programs and projects are over-funded, or shouldn't be funded in the first place, and if a simple diversion of funds to other programs that are under-funded would help solve the problem.

Governments don't think that way, however. They just spend and spend and spend, because they think your taxpayer money is an unlimited well of cash they can keep sending their bucket into.

Sources:

Decline in state's tobacco tax may spell end for breast cancer screening program - KPCC Public Radio

Women die as California Taxes Tobacco to Death - Cactus Thorns, The Sun Runner

Thousands of women face cuts to cancer screening - Bakersfield dot com

January 10, 2010

Sacramento's Unlawful Furlough Order

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Facing a $21 billion deficit, Sacramento is scrambling to save its financial posterior. The California economy is the nation's largest, and California is the most populated state of the Union, but do to decades of mismanagement, and excessive spending, the state of California economics is in serious trouble.

Reason would dictate that the state with the largest population would see employment numbers that are superior to every state in the country. Rather than employing more people than any other state as one would expect of the most populous state, businesses and workers are leaving the state in droves, and the unemployment rate is one of the highest in the nation.

Decades of progressive government policies have forced Sacramento to do whatever it takes to meet a budget, and Governor Schwarzenegger, hoping to hang on to the last vestiges of Republicanism in his policies, does not wish to increase taxes (even though he already has through the use of increasing tax withholding by 10% without even a vote). So, the Schwarzenegger administration has gone on a cost cutting campaign in the hopes of reducing spending enough to pull California from the brink of utter collapse.

I agree that the problem is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem. In typical progressive government fashion, California has been tossing around billions of dollars while imposing strict restrictions and regulations on industries. Under this system, business owners and corporations are fleeing from the state, and the few that remain are finding it more and more difficult to make a profit, and in turn is reducing state revenue.

Excessive spending on the bureaucracies necessary to enforce the industry killing regulations, as well as capitulation to the demands of powerful unions like the Service Employees International Union, have been a couple of the factors pushing state spending through the roof. Labor union influence, in fact, is so strong that even the court system is moving against Sacramento, recently ruling that Schwarzenegger's furlough order for state employees is unlawful.

The ruling came from the Alameda Superior Court, who recently ordered Governor Schwarzenegger to stop furloughing thousands of public servants who are members of three major public sector unions. Specifically, Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Sacramento's Emergency Services Act makes any order of mandatory furloughs illegal, and that essential services should not be penalized for the failure of Legislature to pass budgets.

The agencies affected by the furlough order were also supposed to be funded by special funds, not the general fund, making the agencies essentially untouchable in matters regarding a shortfall in the general fund.

Sacramento plans to appeal the ruling, and state workers being furloughed will continue until the cases are resolved.

Twenty-four lawsuits are in play, and it is beginning to look like many of them are going to be decided in the California Supreme Court where the State Constitution should be applied to the cases.

Schwarzenegger is using a controversial executive order to enable him to use emergency powers to impose these furloughs, or mandatory days off, with are currently imposed twice per month, and are expected to equate into savings of $2.2 billion in payroll costs.

January 6, 2010

Federal Government Salary Increase for 2010


The Federal Government Salary Increase for 2010 is in, and I’m speechless…. What world does the government live in? Surely not ours!!!

Let me start with this statistic…. The average federal employee has a salary of $71,206. The average private sector employee makes nearly $31K less at $40,331. Does this sound fair to you?

According to USA Today, the number of federal workers whose salaries equaled or exceeded $100,000 jumped by 5 percent during the recession. A five percent jump! So, while the rest of the world is cutting back, the government is giving themselves salary increases.

“When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000,” USA Today reported.

The hypocrisy of this Federal Government Salary Increase for 2010, comes after 7.3 million people have lost their jobs! How about showing a little restraint? Does this make anyone else frustrated? If so, tell me about it below.

December 14, 2009

Would you trust Britney Spears or the California Legislature?



Check out the results from the first question of the poll! Who do you think Californian’s trust more?

Numerous sites have already picked it up, including FlashReport (a popular weblog on California politics). Read their post on our poll results: http://www.flashreport.org/blog0a.php?postID=2009121412393604&post_offsetP=0&authID=2006111814370225\

Please share this with your friends and encourage them to sign the petition

December 11, 2009

California Tax - I'm adding teeth to our campaign



Here is the latest with this “California Tax.” My wife Lily and I have decided to invest over $10,000 of our own money to officially poll Californian's and determine what they really think about this “California Tax.”

As of now, when I contact the press or radio station they are not interested in how “I think” Californian’s feel, they want to know the fact. Thus, this is why we are investing in the polling information. Here is what we are going to find out… and you will be notified first of the results:

  • What percentage of Californian’s know about it?
  • What percentage of Californian's think it's fair?
  • What percentage think we will get the money back?
  • What percentage consider it a tax increase?

And my favorite question…

  • Who would you rather manage your family’s wealth, the California Legislature or Britney Spears!

Stay tuned…. and spread the word!

December 2, 2009

It’s just going to get worse


It’s just going to get worse.

Check these articles out about Los Angeles and Arizona having budget problems also:

LOS ANGELES ARTICLE
ARIZONA ARTICLE


If we don’t do something about it… our politicians are going to take more of our hard earned money.

Let’s come together, spread the word!

www.NotoSacramento.org

November 23, 2009

10 Friends.... Do it Now!


We are over 1,230 signatures for No To Sacramento.

If everyone had 10 of their friends sign this, we would be at 10,000 signatures before you know it!
Did you see the article in the LA Times, “Lawmakers Try to Block Cuts in Their Pay, Perks” – what a joke! Join me in this cause! Click here to see article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffani from Fontana said it best:

As a state employee I am already subject to the 15% furlough, which for those who don't know means that I am forced to work 3 days out of the month that I am not getting paid for. And now on top of the 15% pay cut I am already forced to take, as a taxpayer I am now subject to an additional 10% being taken out of my check in taxes. It is unfair and unconstitutional. We as Californians need to get serious with these politicians in Sacramento and let them know that we are not going to sit back and take it anymore.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a sample of an email people can send to their friends and family:
Like me, I’m sure you are frustrated with Sacramento’s latest “gimmick” of charging an extra 10% withholding on every Californian in the state. This is unfair and we need to stop this.
A friend of mine started this online petition. I signed it, and encourage you to do the same.

Sincerely,
Your Name
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talk to you soon!

November 19, 2009

State Facing $21Billion Dollar Budget Cap



No wonder why we are being taxed!

If this upsets you, like it does me, post your comments below.