About Me

Name: Eric Jay
Location: Oceanside, CA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

CA Statewide Special Election: 1A-1F- Big Fat NO!

Posted by Eric Jay on Thursday, April 30, 2009 6:00:00 AM
     The current fiscal crisis in Sacramento has driven the politicians to place 6 Statewide Ballots to be voted on during a Special Election slated for May 19. It really burns me up when I hear the Democrats and Governator Arnold can't arrive at a balanced budget. The Democrats of this state, in creating one of the biggest nanny-states, have spent recklessly and result is an unmanageable deficit. Spend, spend, spend. In addition, one need only look to Sacramento to see what will occur in Washington D.C. when spending far outpaces taxation. Entitlement and profligate spending are the problem, not taxation.
     When I received my Special Election pamphlet and I read it, I said to myself: NO. Tax and spend. The effect of the propositions is continued tax increases. The politicians and those that support increased spending are now using deceptive ads and language in the ballots themselves, to get the result they want. Increased taxes. No cutting to balance. No line item so the Gov. can cut wasteful spending, etc.
     I was happy to read this morning that the San Diego Union Tribune Editorial Board agrees with me. I will be voting NO on all 6 propostions. Here is the editorial:
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published on April 30 2009 , Our Region Page 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITORIALS - A fraud and a bribe Voters must reject Propositions 1A and 1B.

     The corrupt Sacramento political establishment’s contempt for voters is obvious in its linked campaigns for Propositions 1A and 1B on the May 19 special election ballot. The first measure would divert revenue in good years to a rainy-day fund for use during bad years to smooth out the boom-bust cycle in state spending. It would also extend a recent package of sales, income and vehicle taxes by two years, costing tax- payers an additional $16 billion. Proposi- tion 1B, which would take effect only if 1A passes, would take $9.3 billion in diverted revenue to “repay” public schools and community colleges for funding they lost during the budget crisis.
     But instead of try- ing to sell these measures to the public honestly, the establishment is doing all it can to hide their ac- tual contents. First, state leaders have crafted ballot language for Proposition 1A that cynically fails to mention its higher taxes. Now these leaders are mounting a TV advertising blitz that would have voters believe the two propositions and the other four measures on the ballot amount to a populist revolt against the scoundrels in Sacramento — proposals that would create a “spending limit they can’t change” and would “help hold the line on higher taxes.” This is simply not true. None of the measures creates a strict spending limit or impedes the com- ing push for higher, broader taxes.

     Proposition1A is best described as a mild reform with three crucial structural weaknesses.

The first: If it were enacted along with Proposition 1B, it would be years before much money went to the rainy-day fund.

The second: It gives the state controller a crucial say in how much revenue should be diverted. California happens to have a controller (John Chiang) so beholden to public employee unions that last summer he blocked temporary pay cuts for state workers ordered by the gover-nor — an amazing display of extra- legal defiance.

The third: It can be suspended in any vaguely defined “emergency.”   
  
     Proposition1B is best described as a bribe to the California Teachers Association so that it wouldn’t oppose Proposition 1A.
     No wonder state leaders try to hide the central truth about Propositions 1A and 1B. That truth: These measures aren’t revolts against the Sacramento status quo. They are perpetuations of it.(Emphasis mine).

BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS For
May 19 Special Statewide Election
 
STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS:
 
PROPOSITION 1A $16 billion tax hike, rainy-day fund ?NO
 
PROPOSITION 1B Schools funding shift ?NO
 
PROPOSITION 1C Lottery borrowing scheme ?NO
 
PROPOSITION 1D Children’s programs funding shift ?NO
 
PROPOSITION 1E Mental health funding shift ?NO
 
PROPOSITION 1F Pay-raise suspension for elected officials ?NO
     I must concur with the recommendations of the Union-Trib Editorial. Vote NO and then let's get to work with the furthering of the Tea Parties Nationwide!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

President Obama at G20: America Has Been Arrogant

Posted by Eric Jay on Sunday, April 05, 2009 12:00:00 AM
     The words from President Obama at the G20 will win many European hearts and minds. Gushing with the effervescence of a giddy schoolgirl the Washington Post's Michael D. Spear gushes:
The president and first lady Michelle Obama strode
onto a stage in a sports arena to thunderous applause,
an image that invoked candidate Obama's campaign rallies.
     He's a rock star, they are the King and Queen of the world. All this, while back home the average American is worried whether or not the next paycheck is her last. Worried that their home may be foreclosed upon, their car reposessed. In addition, if I were a CEO of a major cprporation in the United States I'd be worried that Mr. Obama and his "economic team" were on their way to fire me and take over my company.
     While he is on foreign soil, the president of the United States criticizes America. Just after he and the First Lady strode to the stage (I wonder if the stage inclued Greek doric columns?), standing before a large adoring, to shouts of 'yes we can' or rather its German equivelent, the President of the United States (POTUS) decided that this was an appropriate venue for letting Europeans know their animosity towards America were well founded:
"There have been times where America's showed arrogance (emphasis mine)..." he said.
     What he really wanted to say was: 'during the last eight years the former administration lacked the intelligence and nuance and was arrogant in its dealings with Europe, and the world for that matter. That cowboy mentality, go it alone, unilateral action taking have ridden off into the sunset and oblivion. We will collectively remake America, from top to bottom, to more resemble what the great minds, the extraodinary acamdemia, and the wise politicians of Europe have established. We will begin to transform economies that collectively we will,' President Obama in his own words:
I'm very proud of the work that was done in London. I think the fact that
we have a regulatory framework that can prevent this crisis from happening
again, the fact that we have taken, collectively, steps to not only encourage
growth, but also to make sure that we're helping emerging markets and
poor countries deal with the consequences of this financial crisis, none of
those things alone guarantee immediate recovery, but they are necessary
foundations for recovery.
     The man just can't help exposing himself for the liberal, far left, Chicago pol that he his. The discussion that he and Pelosi/Reed/Frank/Dodd are remaking the United States into a collective society. He has promised transparency and when you strip off the shiny new clothes, we find a socialism lite. Nationalized banks, insurance companies, automobile industry,
and lastly the granddady of all reforms: HealthCare.
     Oh boy, I should be a speechwriter for the president. If I were still in college I just found a new drinking game. You know, you remember taking shoots for everytime a person says something or during a sports event a particular run/pass/kick, you ge the idea. When the POTUS says the words- collectively, consensus, partner, partnership, and I imagine there are a number of similar words. I would not last long before toppling over
     The POTUS as candidate Obama spoke to Joe the Plumber and gave away his true nature:
"you’re gonna be better off [...] if you’ve got a whole
bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and
right now everybody’s so pinched that business is
bad for everybody and I think when you spread the
wealth around, it’s good for everybody. (Emphasis
mine)
    Those last 12 words should have a harbinger of doom. The Democrats Pelosi/Reid et al along with the Adminstration are going to wreck as mus damage as they possibly can sow. The mid-term elections, I believe, will be the end of the Democrats' monopoly on both House of Congress and the presidency. It will take a decade or more to undo the damage to America. In addition let's pray that the balance of the Supreme court doesn't fall into the majority of justices that tips the scale toward liberal, active judges. The overall federal juduciary in the US will be dramatically shifted toward activist liberal judges. God saves us.
     Lastly, while listening to the press conference with Chancellor Angela Merkel his grand thinking (or grand scheme) , tainted by the likes of Bill Ayers, Reverend Pfleger, the communist Frank Marshall Davis, . Here, allow a little explication, I am not saying that President Obama is a communist, nor would I go so far as to call him a fascist.  Although, Glenn Beck is making the case that the US has been on the tracks toward fascism since the 30's from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Bush 43.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Investor's Business Daily Compares Corp. Bailouts to Narcotics

Posted by Eric Jay on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:00:00 AM

     I believe that investor's Business Daily had it right, the comparison of corporate bailout money to narcotics is also very appropriate given the situation:

   It should now be clear: Federal bailout funds are a corporate narcotic. Once a company starts taking them, a chemical like dependency develops. The addict does whatever will bring in more of the drug. Ultimately, like heroin, the short-term euphoria gives way to decreased function for the recipient, even destruction.
   More importantly for the American people, letting Uncle Sam become a corporate drug dealer- with taxpayer money the addictive poison being peddled- also places Washington in a position of dictatorial control over the private sector.


    Ouch! That one has got to smart for those on Capitol Hill. This editorial goes straight for the jugular, and well it should. The taxpayer needs to be shaken awake. We are long past the point of sitting back and allowing events to overtake us. We are headed down a long steep hill, with no brakes and no end in sight. The United States under the leadership of President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid and the whole Democratic leadership are in the driver's seat.
   If the United States government is the sole provider of the narcotic stimulus (hm, no thought as to that term?) for corporations in the United Stated, then the overall drug cartel begins with the Commander in Chief. He has made it clear, in the case of GM, that 'he and his team are in control now.' It is a very tough analogy to place the POTUS as the metaphorical head of the drug cartel, and his minions are his 'narcotics dealers.'
   Once under the effects of the narcotics it is nearly impossible for the addict to say no. Hey, guess what, there are those in the financial centers of the world that never wanted the funds in the first place, and secondly, would love to give back the money. Some of these bailouts were given by the Narco captains- Bernanke, Geithner. Oh, I can hear the left screaming that this was all Bush's doing, he and his minions began the spiral down- they created the recession- and all the Obama Administration is tasked with is fixing what was broken.
   Aye, there be the rub, huh? The POTUS and all of those masterful economic do gooders are doing more than just trying to pick up the pieces. They are trying to reshape and remake the federal government in the image that they want. No more golden parachutes for corporate giants, no hand outs and free lunches for corporate fat cats.
   (Now we all know that what is good for the goose is no good for the gander, right? None of the new rules for corporate executives will affect the manner in which Congressmen/women and Senator's nor any of their aides nor any belonging to the Administration. Word is just getting around Capitol Hill that, according to the Wall Street Journal:
 
WASHINGTON -- While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash -- also courtesy of taxpayers.

Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information.
(Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses, April 1, 2009)
I believe there is no question as to the many perks that our legislators enjoy will not be tampered with either, you know- limos, private charters- Mdme. Pelosi gets hers courtesy of the US military. I quibble not with the reason, it sound enough for me that for govt continuation security has to tight, it is her utter abuse of the perk- and one cannot forget the earmarks, they are ripe for greedy politicians to grease the palms as it is. Questionable loans- Dodd, Obama. Tax dodging.)
   I find it amusing every time one of these mightier than thou Senator's get to go about their questioning and pontificating on television to flay the corporate heads. It is equally laughable when I see the headlines that 'Corporate Execs called to meeting at the White House.' Boy, I must say that when the phone rings and the Executive Assistant at ABC, Inc. buzzes in and tells CEO Joe American that 'the White House is on line one,' that the color in the CEO's face disappears and the exec. is wishing they had worn Depends today...
   In some ways there is the flip side of the coin, and that is that the government could be said to be an addicted narcotic user as well. The signs are all the same. The power that the president now wields is nearly incomparable. He holds the power and authority to strip a CEO of his/her title, in addition to rewriting the corportions business plan. In all of history I can think of no other authority figure that comes close, unless you are able to throw in the Kings and Queens, The Popes and the Church in the power struggles of the Medieval times.
   Here is an apropos phrase from Shakespeare's Henry VI Part III:
QUEEN MARGARET:
Off with his head, and set it on York gates;
So York may overlook the town of York.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Instead of the Governator Arnold...

Posted by Eric Jay on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:00:00 AM
     Instead of the moniker of the Governator perhaps a new name fits better- Taxanator Arnold Schwarzenegger. As of today April 1st we Californians woke to a huge tax increase. Here in San Diego, CA the rate went from 7.75% to 8.75%. Does anyone here believe that the Spending Fat Cat Liberals in the State Capitol are likely to lower that rate once the 'crisis' eases? Ha! If you believe that, I have a bridge in the San Francisco Bay to sell you!
     The only crisis that we have in California is self made. The State Legislator has never met an entitlement, or some Nanny State program that it could pass on. The very same crisis that 'snuck' up on the California governement and has left the state with a $42 Billion deficit, is 'sneaking' up on the United States government- or rather the taxpayer.
     There is not, not, not a tax revenue problem, never has been. Never. The state and national government has a spending problem. My goodness, the crisis, that was on the verge of a New Depression a few months back, and one that the Obama Administration could not let slip through its fingers, is/was created by the very legislators and the governor's/president's that are now tasked with solving. Yep, put the Fox in the Hen house to fix the hole that the Fox made in order to get into it.
     This makes me sick. Revenues from taxes are huge, HUGE, the problem is that the entitlement spending, the spending on government programs are even HUGER (I know, not a real term, but heck, it gives one a little perspective)- did anyone take their kid's to Monster's versus Alien's, as I did? The female lead character, voiced by the lovely Reese Witherspoon, is called Ginormica. The government had to make a new name for her.
     Next year, when tax revenues plunge, and companies continue to shutter their doors in CA and the deficit grows to ginormous dimensions the State will again have to go to the well to create more revenues, it's a vicious cycle. The pressure in CA to repeal Prop 13 will then get into full swing. The Liberal 'drunken' Legislators want to change the rules, hmmm, sounds familiar. The state government wants to make changes to the manner in which tax hikes are approved; the supermajority shoved aside for the less restrictive majority (basically, 50 plus one) to increase our taxes. Instead of needing the 2/3 vote percentage required now to change tax policy (especially, as it pertains to increasing Prop 13 real estate tax hikes) replaced with the 50.01 percentage. A gimmick that tweaks the system in favor ot the big spenders!
     Hmmm...it sounds devilishly like something that the Obama Administration wants to put in place in the Senate to push HealthCare reform down the American taxpayer's throat. The Senate requires the supermajority in order to get past the Filibuster, needing 60 votes to close debate (cloture) on legislative matters. The gimmick that Obama/Reid and the Senate Democrats want is called reconciliation.
     Reconciliation has traditionally been used in budgetary and tax reform. It has never been used in order to create a whole new bureaucracy. It wasn't used to create the Social Security Administration, it wasn't used to create MediCare,etc. I can hear the arguments already from our friends across the aisle, that President Bush (43) used it to get his tax cuts passed in 2001. I would remind them that it was not used to completely change tax policy and create a new "IRS."
     I am pretty sure that changing the rules of the game, even if those rules have served the country well. The filibuster- the talking out of a bill- has been in place in the Senate since 1851. As the only arrow in the minority's quiver, to be used to indefinitely stretch debate on a bill, would be not only unheard of power grab. That being said, the Chicago pol and community organizer is well versed in political tactics. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals has not been lost on President Obama's political tenacity is clear. He intends to completely remake the United States of America.
     One can argue that Obama/Pelosi/Reid are reaching 'large.' As Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel continues to take advantage of the crisis, and we can expect no less. The fact that the more conservative Democrats (Blue Dog) are running from Card Check legislation, perhaps there is hope.
    Anyway, we have hope. The mid-term election is not far away. If the economy continues it tanking and Obama?Pelosi/Reid draw attention away for it, the more likely that we Conservatives can get back to governing with the principles laid out by President Reagan. A new beginning for Republicans must start with admitting their mistakes (i.e.: earmarks, spending) and lay out how they will govern with those Conservative principles. It can work in California as well as nationally. The Tea Party is coming to your town and none too soon!
 
Below is the article in the San Diego Union Tribune that triggered this post:
Californians will start feeling the pain of the recently negotiated state budget fix today, when a 1 percent increase in the state sales tax will force consumers to pay more for goods such as cars, furniture, laptops and toys.

Starting today, most San Diego County residents will pay 8.75 percent The rate in four cities - El Cajon, In Mesa, National City and Vista - will be higher because of increases their voters have approved.

Businesses and manufacturers are worried that the temporary tax increase could prolong the worst recession in recent memory and further dampen retail sales. In the coming months, Californians will also see an increase in personal income taxes and higher fees to license their vehicles.

"There's no doubt in my mind that our sales will go down because of this," said Beau Boeckmann, vice president of Ins Angeles-based Galpin Motors, which runs the largest Ford dealership in the world. "It's an unfortunate truth. I hope the governor will reconsider doubling our car taxes." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers agreed to $12.5 billion in tax increases as part of a $42 billion deficit-closing plan to help stave off what they described as devastating cuts to education and health care. Despite the higher taxes, state programs also face major cutbacks, and the state is struggling with double-digit unemployment.

The sales tax is expected to bring in an estimated $5.8 billion before it expires July 1, 2011, but could last an additional year if voters agree to extend it as part of a package of budget-related initiatives in a May 19 special election.

In addition to a higher sales tax, the state will impose a 0.25 percent increase in the personal income tax rate in the 2009 and 2010 tax years and a 0.5 percent increase in fees to license vehicles.

 Comments Open
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Question of the Day: When Gov't Run GM Fails Now, Then What

Posted by Eric Jay on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:00:00 AM
     If you visit my site often (well, if I were true to myself, there aren't many who visit 'often,' I won't delude myself) you will know that there are rarely if ever just one question, so this post is no exception! One leads to another, and on it goes. The only regret that I have is that there are so few that comment. I enjoy reading the responses from fellow bloggers, it makes me feel not so alone in my convictions and, well, my utter conservatism. Actually, my wife calls me a blind partisan, maybe not in so many words, but her tone says it all*.
 
     That being said, I cannot be but surprised by the sheer magnitude of current events. Are the indelible fingerprints of the Obama Administration going to be around for a decade, two, fourscore and...? The very fact that the profligate spending by this president and his step-in-line Congress and Senate, we can be assured that unwinding the damage will take at least four score. One Trillion in debt, who would have thought, huh. (The saying, a trillion there, another there, another here and we are now talikng about real money! couldn't be more true.)(Another scary tidbit: the debt rung up by the Obama Administration is greater than all, that's ALL, other presidents COMBINED.)
 
     Big deep breath here. In, out. Fill the lungs, clear the mind...
 
     Okay, okay, I will get to the question now (okay, after the set up). From the Investor's Business Daily, dated 3/31/09, are some disquieting words. Those words should resound from roof-top to roof-top, coast to coast. This president has taken the unheard of action of firing a CEO from a major corporation, replaced him with, presumably, his pick to run the company: 
Meet The New Boss (Access may be only by subscription)
Posted 03/30/2009 06:53 PM ET

Industrial Policy: The U.S. government dictating a major corporation's merger partner and who its CEO should be was unimaginable a year ago. Has industry sold America's free-market soul for bailout money?

A president of the United States orders the chief executive officer of General Motors to resign. The same president is further ordering Chrysler to merge with Fiat, the Italian firm specializing in flimsy cardboard boxes on wheels.

This new reality should send a chill down the spines of all Americans. The federal government has begun to run U.S. companies.

President Obama said Monday, "my team (emphasis mine) will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan."
 
     Here it comes, the question, soon...
 
     Who would have thought that a major American corporation, a mainstay in American manufacturing, would forfeit their decision making to the government. We're not talking about regulating this auto company. What we see is a full fledged corporate coup de'tat! The head of the automobile company of Chevy, GMC, Pontiac, Cadillac has been dismissed. I don't believe there has been a president who has wielded such authority.
 
     Scared yet? Oh, that wasn't the question, sorry. My point in all of this, is that General Motors is now, for all intents and purposes, run by the government of the United States. President Obama had more to say, qualifying his statement that he and his team were now making decisions, continuing in IBD:
"They must ask themselves: Have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments? Above all, have they created a credible model for how not only to survive, but to succeed in this competitive global market?"
     Scared yet? A shiver running down your back? Me? I am personally curled up beneath my Snuggie- a product no doubt the creation of some small business owner that truly is quaking in his or her boots. Wondering when and if the big bad Sheriff Obama is ready to come and fire him, take his business away and then adding injury to insult taxes her, retroactively, at an ungodly rate of 95% of receipts (yes, that is a qualification of some consequence...) not profit, not gross profit.  Yep, you guessed it, we have not gotten to my initial question, but it is next. There is no question that President Obama has taken over General Motors, lock, stock, and barrel. Drum roll please...
    • Now that GM is no longer a private entity, and
      decisions are made solely at the whim and mercy
      of President Obama, what happens when GM fails?
    • What business is next? Airlines? Oil Companies? Package delivery (FEDEX, UPS)
    • Let the new GM CEO go?
    • Or, fire Obama/Biden?
     I will give you one example, now that I think of it there are two great examples of businesses run by the government. I am sure you can them instantly, if you haven't already made the leap. United States Postal Service and Amtrak. Fannie and Freddie are, certainly, other entities that are run by the government, too. They are not full fledged, operated solely by the government, but the reality is they are.
     Now we have, and I mean no disrespect, a lawyer, a community organizer, Chicago pol running what used to be one of the largest companies in the world. I don't know about you, but the track record of government run businesses foes not bode well for our economy.
     In addition let us throw in HealthCare reform! Convert, what some estimate to be as much as 20% of GDP, into another government run entity.
     If you are not scared now, your name must be George Soros. He sits blissfully in Davos, counting his coin, and talking mano-y-mano with Treasury Secretary Geithner on how to create a new world currency reserve. Now you should be really scared!!!
     In retrospect, knowing what you know, would you still vote for Obama/Biden? Would you be likely to vote for another 4 years?
 
Comments open
 
 
 
*Come on guys, you know what I mean. I am not a blinded or a blinkered partisan Republican. By nature I am a big 'C' conservative. A little right of Hugh Hewitt, and somewhat left of Rush. If you were travelling with those directions you'd become disoriented. I think that is what separates we thinking Republican's versus liberals; when confronted virtually all liberals fall back upon their scripted talking points, whereas a died in the wool Conservative will stray, sometimes greatly, from "the party line."  A few of my heroes are Ronald W. Reagan and his partner in crime PM Margaret Thatcher, that might give you a little insight into my thinking...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »