Random Political Thoughts

[nooryisawesome]

I don't know what to think of Rubio but I think he is the best of some bad options. I REALLY REALLY like these two proposals of his:

1. Change the default student Loan payback method to income based. Really doesn't sound like something that is important but ask anyone with student loans and it is a huge issue.

2. Chang the way the Earned Income Tax Credit is handled. People who receive the EIC would still get it but instead of one lump sum and tax time it is prorated in every paycheck. It would help low income people budget better and provide them an incentive to take a low paying job (which would be slightly higher paying through prorated EIC) vs collect government assistance.

Both of these ideas should be implemented.

[nooryisawesome]

[136 or 142]

It seems only white men and "Christians" have a right to be offended these days.

[paladin1991]

I don't know what to think of Rubio but I think he is the best of some bad options. I REALLY REALLY like these two proposals of his:

1. Change the default student Loan payback method to income based. Really doesn't sound like something that is important but ask anyone with student loans and it is a huge issue.

2. Chang the way the Earned Income Tax Credit is handled. People who receive the EIC would still get it but instead of one lump sum and tax time it is prorated in every paycheck. It would help low income people budget better and provide them an incentive to take a low paying job (which would be slightly higher paying through prorated EIC) vs collect government assistance.

Both of these ideas should be implemented.

Fix it, sure.  But the real problem is why did the students take the fucking things in the first place?  I know 'kids,' 20 somethings,  who graduated fm Community college (the 2 year plan stretched into 5), and some who haven't yet graduated!, who owe routinely over 20 fucking grand.  Some even more.  WTF?!?!  "Well, you didn't expect me to work a fulltime job AND go to school do you?"
Fucking Pussies.  I did.  I was policing up the projects in Lost Fucking Angeles, up to 20 hour days on occasion and attended school full time.  I know other kids who worked their school sched around a work sched.  Single fucking mothers attending full time, working part time who had more balls .... shit, I could really groove on a raging rant right now......

[FightTheFuture]

It seems only white men and "Christians" have a right to be offended these days.

Negative.

Anybody has a "right" to be offended. The question is, do they have cause to be offended? That is open for debate.

[3OctaveFart]

What's good for the goose.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417275/msnbcs-tour-has-taxman-his-case-jillian-kay-melchior

[albrecht]

What's good for the goose.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417275/msnbcs-tour-has-taxman-his-case-jillian-kay-melchior

That is classic limousine liberal stuff. These people who never have seen a tax or government regulation they don't champion so often won't comply themselves. Like the Gore Jr and Obama phenomena. I love public schools and we need to lower our carbon footprint....now I've off to visit a warming conference halfway around the world or to play golf via my private jet and then also take my children, who attend an elite private school, to go on another tax-payer funded vacation on my jet. Only the "little people" need to pay taxes or worrying about their carbon-footprint.

[3OctaveFart]

Here's more liberal hijinks.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/21/tiny-california-towns-have-big-asset-for#.iqxayb:ngnT

[136 or 142]

Here's more liberal hijinks.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/21/tiny-california-towns-have-big-asset-for#.iqxayb:ngnT

I'm not sure that has anything to do with liberals.  While California is a liberal state, there are still more Republicans there than in any other state.
In 2012 Mitt Romney received 4,839,958 votes in California while receiving 4,569,843 votes in Texas.

While these are small towns near Los Angeles, they are also small towns, which tend to be overwhelmingly Republican. Also, most Democrats tend to favor the legalization of marijuana, while most Republicans are opposed (while laughingly also claiming to be pro 'freedom'.)

So, unless you can show me that the Democrats have a majority on those town councils, I'm going to put your comment down to just being more of your typical hyper partisan bullshit lies.

[Catsmile]

I'm not sure that has anything to do with liberals.  While California is a liberal state, there are still more Republicans there than in any other state.
In 2012 Mitt Romney received 4,839,958 votes in California while receiving 4,569,843 votes in Texas.

While these are small towns near Los Angeles, they are also small towns, which tend to be overwhelmingly Republican. Also, most Democrats tend to favor the legalization of marijuana, while most Republicans are opposed (while laughingly also claiming to be pro 'freedom'.)

So, unless you can show me that the Democrats have a majority on those town councils, I'm going to put your comment down to just being more of your typical hyper partisan bullshit lies.

Man, you really know how to piss on a narrative.
You're about as fun as finding facts on Faux News.
P*B had to find new work, thanks to you.
Keep up the good work.

[albrecht]

I'm not sure that has anything to do with liberals.  While California is a liberal state, there are still more Republicans there than in any other state.
In 2012 Mitt Romney received 4,839,958 votes in California while receiving 4,569,843 votes in Texas.

While these are small towns near Los Angeles, they are also small towns, which tend to be overwhelmingly Republican. Also, most Democrats tend to favor the legalization of marijuana, while most Republicans are opposed (while laughingly also claiming to be pro 'freedom'.)

So, unless you can show me that the Democrats have a majority on those town councils, I'm going to put your comment down to just being more of your typical hyper partisan bullshit lies.

Using the police for revenue generation, in particular asset forfeiture, is not a partisan issue although the "war on drugs" and keeping them illegal is more of a Republican thing. But all the DUI crackdowns, police quotas (though they won't call them that), speed-traps, the inspection stickers and seat-belt crackdowns, all the new laws and regulations, and asset forfeiture seems to be happening everywhere- no matter which party is in charge. Unless you are an illegal alien, who often get a free-pass on crimes, the police are looking to charge you with something to get the money for their municipality. And they would much rather go after non-violent types of crimes because it is less risk for them personally.

[136 or 142]

Using the police for revenue generation, in particular asset forfeiture, is not a partisan issue although the "war on drugs" and keeping them illegal is more of a Republican thing. But all the DUI crackdowns, police quotas (though they won't call them that), speed-traps, the inspection stickers and seat-belt crackdowns, all the new laws and regulations, and asset forfeiture seems to be happening everywhere- no matter which party is in charge. Unless you are an illegal alien, who often get a free-pass on crimes, the police are looking to charge you with something to get the money for their municipality. And they would much rather go after non-violent types of crimes because it is less risk for them personally.

Yes, I agree that small town politicians, both Republicans and Democrats seem to favor this form of revenue generation for fear of actually raising taxes.  That said, to the best of my knowledge, this is largely a small town thing, which tend to be largely Republican, and not a big city thing, which tend to be largely Democratic.

I know most cities and states have asset forfeiture laws that also seem to be largely supported by both parties (and asset forfeiture in principle is something I support against white collar criminals, though with the money going to the victims, not to the state), but for the big cities and the states, this form of revenue generation is a tiny percentage of their budgets (though growing).

Of course, it was the Democratic Attorney General Eric Holder who enacted a regulation limiting asset seizures to only those who had actually been convicted of a crime (though it doesn't go far enough), while it was the conservatives on the Renquist Supreme Court in 1996 that declared them constitutional. Their argument seems logical on the surface, that they were used during the time of the writing of the constitution, but they overlooked that the use of asset seizures had greatly expanded since then (which presumably the original framers of the constitution might have not allowed) and that it had been clearly abused since then.

[albrecht]

Yes, I agree that small town politicians, both Republicans and Democrats seem to favor this form of revenue generation for fear of actually raising taxes.  That said, to the best of my knowledge, this is largely a small town thing, which tend to be largely Republican, and not a big city thing, which tend to be largely Democratic.

I know most states have asset forfeiture laws that also seem to be largely supported by both parties (and asset forfeiture in principle is something I support against white collar criminals, though with the money going to the victims, not to the state), but for states, this form of revenue generation is a tiny percentage of their budgets.

Money talks but it is crazy when you situations with large banks ADMITTING things like laundering money for drug cartels and terrorists or the LIBOR manipulation, or mortgage fraud- pay a paltry (in terms of revenue) fine (some of which you can also possible write-off your taxes as a business expense) and nobody goes to prison. Stuff that hurts EVERYBODY and they are punished less than some guy selling some crack. Not that the crack dealer shouldn't be punished (though I think all should be legal) since they are currently laws on the books but the real, big criminals should also be held to task.
As for asset forfeiture- private property (cars, cash, land, etc) and its sanctity is fundamental- it should only be seized AFTER a conviction, appeal, etc. I would include the IRS, in that in addition to local police and DEA. And the burden-of-proof should be on the State to show that having a bunch of cash in your car or at home, for example, was a result of criminal activity.

[136 or 142]

Money talks but it is crazy when you situations with large banks ADMITTING things like laundering money for drug cartels and terrorists or the LIBOR manipulation, or mortgage fraud- pay a paltry (in terms of revenue) fine (some of which you can also possible write-off your taxes as a business expense) and nobody goes to prison. Stuff that hurts EVERYBODY and they are punished less than some guy selling some crack. Not that the crack dealer shouldn't be punished (though I think all should be legal) since they are currently laws on the books but the real, big criminals should also be held to task.
As for asset forfeiture- private property (cars, cash, land, etc) and its sanctity is fundamental- it should only be seized AFTER a conviction, appeal, etc. I would include the IRS, in that in addition to local police and DEA. And the burden-of-proof should be on the State to show that having a bunch of cash in your car or at home, for example, was a result of criminal activity.

Spoken like an Elizabeth Warren Democrat!

[albrecht]

Spoken like an Elizabeth Warren Democrat!

Sort of. The problem is I think a large, centralized government is even worse than big banks or international corporations as they have a legal monopoly on violence and by its nature appears to be always growing (and as such the individual's position or influence on the "republic", "democracy" etc grows much smaller.) It can also change the rules of the game mid-play.  Even at their worst, there usually is an alternative option, or failure, for a company (over time or region.) But, even worst, is the symbiotic conglomeration of BOTH in which 'connected' entities make money from the government (via regulatory capture, sweet-heart contracts, the tax code, and laws) and the government relies on them to provide tax revenue (and here in the US even social welfare in terms of healthcare, social security/disability payments, etc) and political contributions and kick-backs. And 'connected' companies/industries are 'too big' to fail and so get bailouts etc.

[136 or 142]

Sort of. The problem is I think a large, centralized government is even worse than big banks or international corporations as they have a legal monopoly on violence and by its nature appears to be always growing (and as such the individual's position or influence on the "republic", "democracy" etc grows much smaller.) It can also change the rules of the game mid-play.  Even at their worst, there usually is an alternative option, or failure, for a company (over time or region.) But, even worst, is the symbiotic conglomeration of BOTH in which 'connected' entities make money from the government (via regulatory capture, sweet-heart contracts, the tax code, and laws) and the government relies on them to provide tax revenue (and here in the US even social welfare in terms of healthcare, social security/disability payments, etc) and political contributions and kick-backs. And 'connected' companies/industries are 'too big' to fail and so get bailouts etc.

Other than Automobile Industry, which is, if nothing else, a 'legacy' industry in the United States so, whether deserving or not, does tend to receive special treatment from the government, most of the banks (of all types) were the only ones I'm aware of that received bailouts.  Like it or not, banks, unlike every other sector, are central to the functioning of the economy. There is literally no economy without properly functioning banks, unless you want to go back to barter. So, there is no credible choice but to bail them out when they get into trouble.

Obviously you can always choose to just 'let the banks fail' but you'd then have a depression that would make the Great Depression look like the roaring '20s.  I'm aware there are a handful of economists who disagree with this assessment (as there are virtually always a handful of experts offside on almost everything) but my view is the position of virtually every mainstream economist.

[albrecht]

Other than Automobile Industry, which is, if nothing else, a 'legacy' industry in the United States so, whether deserving or not, does tend to receive special treatment from the government, most of the banks (of all types) were the only ones I'm aware of that received bailouts.  Like it or not, banks, unlike every other sector, are central to the functioning of the economy. There is literally no economy without properly functioning banks, unless you want to go back to barter. So, there is no credible choice but to bail them out when they get into trouble.

Obviously you can always choose to just 'let the banks fail' but you'd then have a depression that would make the Great Depression look like the roaring '20s.  I'm aware there are a handful of economists who disagree with this assessment (as there are virtually always a handful of experts offside on almost everything) but my view is the position of virtually every mainstream economist.

There are credit unions, building societies, savings&loans, etc. (Heck one can imagine at some point the electronic "money" could take over and eliminate the middle-man.) And, yes, they can often fail (remember those days) but at least that is a more local problem (as opposed to the huge behemoths threatening to take the whole system down by their bad speculation or frauds.) And there also were still banks that weren't involved in the mess and so the honest ones, the non-speculative ones would flourish as the others failed. The problem is that due to government regulations and favors certain banks became "too big to fail" and many of these same banks have admitted things like LIBOR manipulation, mortgage frauds, laundering money for terrorists and drugs cartels and so on. No business should be "too big to fail", even governments should be allowed to "fail" otherwise there is no change or invention. And why were some "allowed" to fail and others aren't? Why was our tax revenue sent to foreign banks who are at risk? (Having said that I'm in partial agreement that some payments helped avoid a worse outcome but that our "solution" is not complete and there are several large problems that still exists and propping up a failed system, and making regulations to help it (which actually just made the big banks larger) can lead to worse future outcomes than biting the bullet now/then.)

[136 or 142]

There are credit unions, building societies, savings&loans, etc. (Heck one can imagine at some point the electronic "money" could take over and eliminate the middle-man.) And, yes, they can often fail (remember those days) but at least that is a more local problem (as opposed to the huge behemoths threatening to take the whole system down by their bad speculation or frauds.) And there also were still banks that weren't involved in the mess and so the honest ones, the non-speculative ones would flourish as the others failed. The problem is that due to government regulations and favors certain banks became "too big to fail" and many of these same banks have admitted things like LIBOR manipulation, mortgage frauds, laundering money for terrorists and drugs cartels and so on. No business should be "too big to fail", even governments should be allowed to "fail" otherwise there is no change or invention. And why were some "allowed" to fail and others aren't? Why was our tax revenue sent to foreign banks who are at risk? (Having said that I'm in partial agreement that some payments helped avoid a worse outcome but that our "solution" is not complete and there are several large problems that still exists and propping up a failed system, and making regulations to help it (which actually just made the big banks larger) can lead to worse future outcomes than biting the bullet now/then.)

Yes, there were some banks that were in sound financial shape and, while I don't know the percentage of banks by capitalization amounts that were in trouble, I'm sure it was a large percentage though. Also, at least one of the largest credit unions, WAMU, was also in trouble.  Most other credit unions and savings and loans that you mention and the single outlet banks as well are tiny and were in no position to take over from the troubled banks.  More importantly, the banks loan to each other and the 'contamination' would likely have brought down even many mostly healthy financial institutions as the troubled banks would have had to have called in their loans.

The failure to bail out the one (investment) bank you refer to almost certainly made the situation worse in the short term. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the one who refused to bail them out, has even admitted that and that he made the wrong decision.

This almost certainly would have led to a run on the banks, although FDR showed how to deal with that.

Here in Canada, Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin prevented the chartered banks from merging and stopped a 'two big to fail' situation and was mostly criticized on the right for 'meddling in the economy,' though the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a generally right wing organization, did praise him.

Canada escaped the 'Great Recession.'

In all of the cases you mention, I'm not sure who else, at this time, but the government, can prevent the things you are against.  Certainly it would be nice to move to a situation where, via the internet, the population can regulate the economy as we see in small areas like with Ebay and, to a lesser extent, Uber and the like. But, we are no where near that at this time.

The big banks have gotten bigger, but I'm not sure that was because of the new regulations rather than just normal growth coming out of the recession and, of course, to the degree that there were mistakes in the regulations they should be corrected rather than dumped entirely.

[albrecht]

Yes, there were some banks that were in sound financial shape and, while I don't know the percentage of banks by capitalization amounts that were in trouble, I'm sure it was a large percentage though. Also, at least one of the largest credit unions, WAMU, was also in trouble.  Most other credit unions and savings and loans that you mention and the single outlet banks as well are tiny and were in no position to take over from the troubled banks.  More importantly, the banks loan to each other and the 'contamination' would likely have brought down even many mostly healthy financial institutions as the troubled banks would have had to have called in their loans.

The failure to bail out the one (investment) bank you refer to almost certainly made the situation worse in the short term. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the one who refused to bail them out, has even admitted that and that he made the wrong decision.

This almost certainly would have led to a run on the banks, although FDR showed how to deal with that.

Here in Canada, Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin prevented the chartered banks from merging and stopped a 'two big to fail' situation and was mostly criticized on the right for 'meddling in the economy,' though the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a generally right wing organization, did praise him.

Canada escaped the 'Great Recession.'

In all of the cases you mention, I'm not sure who else, at this time, but the government, can prevent the things you are against.  Certainly it would be nice to move to a situation where, via the internet, the population can regulate the economy as we see in small areas like with Ebay and, to a lesser extent, Uber and the like. But, we are no where near that at this time.

The big banks have gotten bigger, but I'm not sure that was because of the new regulations rather than just normal growth coming out of the recession and, of course, to the degree that there were mistakes in the regulations they should be corrected rather than dumped entirely.

Some of the new reporting and regulatory requirement "fixes" hurt small businesses and financial institutions and help larger ones who, becoming larger and larger, become even more "too big to fail." Sounding like a leftist- these new trade agreements being debated (not really, of course because we only get leaks as to their true content) even make things worse with regard to national sovereignty and the "democracy", "republic", etc. Trite to say but Acton, and the Bible, were right. Power corrupts and love of money is bad. Money isn't bad; simply a way to hold or exchange value more efficiently. Government isn't bad (it is good) but when it gets so large and distant and exists for its own means it is bad. The symbiotic and toxic combination of both on a large scale is a recipe for disaster. It isn't capitalism or freedom or "democracy" but the opposite. Meanwhile their media tells us to worry if some homosexual activist can't buy a pizza in some small suburb or focus on some celebrity former athlete is turning into a girl (will he be on a new Wheaties Box I wonder?)

[136 or 142]

Some of the new reporting and regulatory requirement "fixes" hurt small businesses and financial institutions and help larger ones who, becoming larger and larger, become even more "too big to fail."

That is generally agreed by nearly all Congresspeople and they are likely to fix the mistake.  It was a large bill that was put together in a short period of time to address a need that was perceived to be immediate, it's not a surprise a number of mistakes were made, and it doesn't to me anyway, show anything deliberate.

Again, most of these small banks are very small, and even if you added them all together, are still small.  The big banks/financial institutions became larger primarily because the economy has grown for the last 5 years or so.  Bank growth tends to mirror overall economic growth quite closely.

[FightTheFuture]

It`s a big tent, brother sister! Welcome to the new world.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/bruce-jenner-im-a-republican-and-a-christian/

[WOTR]

I'm so glad that I am out of the loop for pop culture.  I had to look him up to discover that in the 70's he was an olympic athlete, but his biggest claim to fame is that he is (was?) the stepfather to Kardashians?  So, aside from making appearances on "keeping up with the Kardashians", this would be a complete non-story... Just one more man who is a woman.  But instead, he gets a 2 hour interview on television because enough people care that the network will be able to turn a profit while millions tune in?  And people care if he is a republican or a christian?

Remind me why my television has not been turned on in years?

[albrecht]

I'm so glad that I am out of the loop for pop culture.  I had to look him up to discover that in the 70's he was an olympic athlete, but his biggest claim to fame is that he is (was?) the stepfather to Kardashians?  So, aside from making appearances on "keeping up with the Kardashians", this would be a complete non-story... Just one more man who is a woman.  But instead, he gets a 2 hour interview on television because enough people care that the network will be able to turn a profit while millions tune in?  And people care if he is a republican or a christian?

Remind me why my television has not been turned on in years?

Has Wheaties issued a statement? Have some "culture warriors" expressed any concern that eating Wheaties will turn their children into homosexuals? Has the Kardashians or Bruce decided on another appalling reality show? Will the Olympic Committee rescind his metals (since he was a woman competing, wrongly, in the men's competition?) Has Obama, or Michelle, expressed any comment or message of solidarity?

[136 or 142]

Has Obama, or Michelle, expressed any comment or message of solidarity?

No, but Elton John has. (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

I'm so glad that I am out of the loop for pop culture.  I had to look him up to discover that in the 70's he was an olympic athlete, but his biggest claim to fame is that he is (was?) the stepfather to Kardashians?  So, aside from making appearances on "keeping up with the Kardashians", this would be a complete non-story... Just one more man who is a woman.  But instead, he gets a 2 hour interview on television because enough people care that the network will be able to turn a profit while millions tune in?  And people care if he is a republican or a christian?

Remind me why my television has not been turned on in years?

I only learned of him in his role as pop culture icon when he caused that accident recently which killed an elderly woman.  I could care less about his gender identity.  I would like to see a show of remorse for the accident he caused through negligence by perhaps stepping out of the public eye for awhile or at least making more of a public statement.  The impression I get right now is that he doesn't have to be accountable because he's riding high on the Kardashian wave and that his transgenderism seems to trump the old lady's life.

[albrecht]

I only learned of him in his role as pop culture icon when he caused that accident recently which killed an elderly woman.  I could care less about his gender identity.  I would like to see a show of remorse for the accident he caused through negligence by perhaps stepping out of the public eye for awhile or at least making more of a public statement.  The impression I get right now is that he doesn't have to be accountable because he's riding high on the Kardashian wave and that his transgenderism seems to trump the old lady's life.

I know nothing of his modern incarnation and avoid reality shows and tabloids so only know of Kardashians was the lawyer from the OJ trial and from posters on this board. But he was quite a symbol/hero from the Olympics (for a brief period even those in the US cared about track&field events and he was on a popular cereal box.) Sad to see him devolve into a reality show, crazy family, gender-bending antics, car accidents, etc.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

I'm so glad that I am out of the loop for pop culture.  I had to look him up to discover that in the 70's he was an olympic athlete, but his biggest claim to fame is that he is (was?) the stepfather to Kardashians?  So, aside from making appearances on "keeping up with the Kardashians", this would be a complete non-story... Just one more man who is a woman.  But instead, he gets a 2 hour interview on television because enough people care that the network will be able to turn a profit while millions tune in?  And people care if he is a republican or a christian?

Remind me why my television has not been turned on in years?

Yeah same here 100%.  Haven't owned a TV in about a decade and don't miss it at all.  What passes for news these days is laughable, and even worse are those mainstream, supposedly respected online news sources with misleading headlines used as clickbait.

[Lunger]

I'm not sure that has anything to do with liberals.  While California is a liberal state, there are still more Republicans there than in any other state.
In 2012 Mitt Romney received 4,839,958 votes in California while receiving 4,569,843 votes in Texas.

While these are small towns near Los Angeles, they are also small towns, which tend to be overwhelmingly Republican. Also, most Democrats tend to favor the legalization of marijuana, while most Republicans are opposed (while laughingly also claiming to be pro 'freedom'.)

So, unless you can show me that the Democrats have a majority on those town councils, I'm going to put your comment down to just being more of your typical hyper partisan bullshit lies.

Its the state legislature that does the damage.  And you know it.

[136 or 142]

Its the state legislature that does the damage.  And you know it.

Actually I don't know it, because it isn't.  It's the municipalities that are in charge of their police forces (along with the police board usually chaired by the mayor) and they decide what they will focus on charging.

[Gd5150]

Actually I don't know it, because it isn't.  It's the municipalities that are in charge of their police forces (along with the police board usually chaired by the mayor) and they decide what they will focus on charging.

The CA legislature has been a Democrat a super majority since 2000 when they jermandered redistricted under Gray Davis. Yes the same governor who was removed from office a few years later. 2000 was a huge election at the time because everyone on both sides knew whoever won was going to be able to rig redistrict the state in their favor. The Dems won, they control the state. Mind you both of our noble Democrat Senators Boxer/Feinstein have been in 23 years since 1992, you know the "year of the woman". Before that Dem Alan Cranston was Senator for 23yrs. See any consistencies?

The governor in CA has very little power because of the Democrat super majority (veto proof). Its all the legislature which is owned by the unions. The other way CA continuously gets asinine spending through is by propositions. Like the 100 billion thats been set aside for speed trains that will never be built. At least not for anywhere near 100 billion. The 1st I recall was in 2005, 20 billion for a speed train from LA to Vegas. How's that coming?

Or the billions in bonds that pass every year for schools and prisons. Who does't want better schools and prisons? (fartnoise) As though the money every goes to those. How bout those California schools and prisons!

The way they get this garbage though is by slipping the props in on the June primary ballots when no one votes, so its very easy to get a majority to pass something. Propositions are a great way to get garbage spending passed and in the rare case the prop cuts something, it goes to court until they find a liberal judge to declare it unconstitutional. For example, in an effort to cut spending, Prop 187 passed in 1994 58% to 41%. It was tied up in courts 6 years until Grey Davis was elected and withdrew court appeals to get it passed.

The state really is going down the toilet. Unions do extremely well. Example, in 2003 the longshoreman in the Port of LA made 120k a year, to work 3 weeks a month. And guess what, every 5-10 years, they go on strike. Since everything goes through the port of LA and Oak, it shuts down the entire economy and affects the national economy. Like in 2003 when the port was closed for over a month and 100's of ships were parked off the coast of Long Beach. Good times! Everything great about California has zero to do with the idiots running it.