Tuesday, May 19, 2009

We're all Californians

Want to know what the country is going to look like after the Obama administration is done with it?
Look to California.

They've valued unions, the environment, special interest groups, and illegal immigrants. And what do you know, they're bankrupt.

If you want to balance a budget you've got 2 options, Tax More or Spend Less. That's it people- it's like loosing weight, you can either eat less or exercize more. Californians don't want to do either- well, now that they have to pay the taxes themselves they don't want to raise them.

I know, big business is the devil, but when big business leaves, who's going to pay for special interests? Obama thinks everyone should sacrifice self interest to work for non-profits, but who will non-profits have to beg donations from when businesses go under? What happens when we open the boarder to illegal immigrants that use our services but can't pay for them? When we shut down farmers to save a fish? Who's going to pick up the check?

California taxed the hell out of those that produce, those that produced left, and there is no one left to pay the bill. California raised environmental regulations to the point where many companies found it hard to function, good thing we have NAFTA. California has millions of illegal immigrants that go to school and use their health care system with out shelling out a dime, someone has to pay for that.

California being a liberal isn't cheap. It's time to step up to the plate and pay for those ideas that you cling to.

Why are Californians running congress? We're letting a state that has run itself into the ground lead the way for this nation. You want to see what's going to happen to this country when special interests, unions, illegal immigrants and environmentalists take over? When the environment is given more value than humans? Want to see what the US is going to look like after the Californians in congress and Obama have their way? Look West.

24 comments:

Emmy said...

Thanks.. I live in CA and totally know that you are right. We just recently moved here and there have been many many times where my husband and I have said, "only in California". For example, go into Target to look for dishes, and there is a warning sign hung up saying that the plates contain some chemical that is known "by the State of California" to possibly cause birth defects.
Only in California.

Steve said...

One of the biggest problems in CA and why they are in this pickle is their referendum process. When you let the masses make most of the important decisions, it doesn't take long to dumb everything down into nothingness. That won't happen on the national scale, for instance like today's vote there on the budget. Can you imagine all Americans voting on the federal budget?!?!?! Hahaha. We can barely get voters educated enough to know the difference between two candidates. I may be an elitist, but democracy and citizen action like CA is why they are the way you say they are.

Salt H2O said...

Regardless of how these policies came into action, the policies have failed and the federal government is following their lead.

Steve said...

But isn't that what the Dems ARE doing, taxing more?!?! There are some actual cuts in the 2010 budget, although each Congressman is trying to block it. Like what Joe Barton from Texas is doing by slowing up the system. No wonder nothing good comes from the Hill.

Ben and Kimberly McEvoy said...

I'd just like to clarify that the actual residents (citizens) or non elected officials in California want the government to spend less. Our elected officials and SF liberals just go to town with their agenda.

I say let us go bankrupt. Maybe then they will think about giving more rights and benefits to citizen then illegals.

From a Californian that pays to much taxes.

thanks for the post Kory.

Frank Staheli said...

I hate for California to be the guinea pig, but that is, serendipitously for the rest of us, what it's become. If Californians and all Americans are smart, we'll realize that California has reached the end of its socialist road. No handout from the federal government is going to help now. It will only make things worse. Californians need to ride out this monster wave and realize that it does not matter who implements socialism--it does not ever work.

Linda said...

Did you watch Michael Steele on Fox this morning when he addressed the states chairmen? It was rousing, excellent, to say the least. He hit several nails on their heads.

It should have had better, and more. media coverage.
You can watch it here:

http://www.stevelackner.com/2009/05/rnc-chairman-michael-steele-delivers.html

Sherpa said...

I agree with Steve. Those referendums are the main reason California is in a world of hurt. California=Direct Democracy Fail!


Oh, and I concur about The Hill. :)

Salt H2O said...

Is there any policy that California has that the federal government isn't trying to emulate?

while the people are voting on the budget- a great deal of the policy that has put California in the place it is has come from judges- ie the ruling against giving farmers water in order to protect the smelt. Or enviromentalists not letting people clear their land of brush and then the land catches on fire, emissions and regulations that have forced businesses out of the state- those were not voted on by the people, it was law makers and judges.

The scary thing is it would be hard to point to any policy that California has enacted over the past 10 years through courts and legistation that the Obama administration disagrees with.

These policies are what put the state in the position it is today, and is what is going to land the US of A in the same position 10 years from now.

Sherpa said...

ie the ruling against giving farmers water in order to protect the smelt.
Which farmers? The Imperial Valley? Are we talking ESA regs that have been in place for years? Irrigation can be extremely inaffective and wasteful, depending on how its done. Not to mention, Imperial Valley and other parts of Cali really need to change their irrigation methods-- if they haven't already. There's got to be some give and take, and there's water enough for the smelt and the farmers if farmers practice practical irrigation methods.
Having grown up in a place where California and Vegas takes our water and somehow still was able to ruin one of the coolest eco systems I'd love to see (Sea of Coronado), -I'm sensitive to these issues.

These policies are what put the state in the position it is today, and is what is going to land the US of A in the same position 10 years from now.

I'll give you the brush issue, that's just dumb-but could you point to where the current administration is advocating removing private property rights? I'd like to read up on it. I'd also like to see the Cali law if you recall where it is.

Sherpa said...

Oh, and the Current Secretary of Interior is a rancher from Colorado--not to mention most of the administration officials at Interior are rural westerners that are sensitive to the issues you mention. I doubt that the above policies you mention will happen in 10 years. :)

Steve said...

Salty, I think you point to the problem that the federal government won't have, namely, that you have a disconnect between voters via referendum, judges, and legislaters. Voters do what is best for them, the state assembly what may or may not be best for the state, and judges ruling on law. So if you have voters enacting polices that judges and the state government doesn't have funds for or can't legally back, then it is total failure. Because the federal system doesn't work that way, ie no direct policy votes by the public, only policies will be enacted that have funding and only those found to be legal by the Supreme Court. The constant stop/start/stop (ie gay marriage for instance) policies in California have wrecked more havoc on their economy than anything else since citizens and businesses never know when and where they stand.

Linda said...

Steve-
I believe your understanding of "referendum process" differs from mine, which is that the initiative referendum exists to prevent government from imposing Government's(notice the first person Capital "G" & the possessive apostrophe)Will upon "the people." The latter of which is a result of elected legislators not listening to the voices of those they are supposed to be representing. Perhaps I'm wrong. At any rate, I am mentally debating the merits of such a system on a national level.

We should be governed by the Voice of the People. That "voice," meaning individual voices, as in a Republic, not the majority voice, as in a Democracy.

The "masses,"(do you mean the majority, large masses of people, groups, or what?) as you put it, are not making the decisions. MSMedia, with our banking institutions' encouragement, is. Follow the $ and you'll find the majority of our national and state politicians at their beckon call.

You are correct in part about dumbing down, but to say it won't "happen on the national scale" is ridiculous. It already has:
--The greater majority (i.e. Amer. people, including their elected) have been so dumbed down for the past 30 years that, like you, they think our Founding Fathers gave us a Democracy, which they did NOT.

They gave us a Republic which was almost entirely given away in 1913 at Woodrow Wilson's urging, via the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (btw, it never received all states' votes needed for ratification, a fact hugely & disgustingly ignored for almost 100years by gov't & the Banksters)and the Federal Reserve Act.

Judges & Legislators, alongside those voters you mention, also do what is best for them. And don't forget that supposed 3rd branch of gov't, the Enforcers (i.e. police & other "law" enforcement agencies)who also do what is best for them, not only in Calif., but on the federal level and in all states, most counties, and most city governments.

And "disconnect?" Above, I said "supposed," because those 3 branches of gov't., the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, have colluded so often and so much, that they are no longer "distinct and separate," as called for in our Constitution. There is a connection alright: They are all in bed together.

As for "judges ruling on law," surely you jest. I have been in many courtrooms and read thousands, nay millions, of pages of law. Judges are *required* by law to rule upon law. Too few know the laws. Fewer still base their decisions upon rule of law. Legislating from the Bench has become so routine that, second only to the plummeting moral decline, I believe it to be the greatest problem of our nation.

Sherpa-
Like Steve, you "doubt that the . . . policies" (events) Kory and others above "mention will happen in 10 years." I am certain of it. They are happening already.

Scour the news, and reject a large amount of it if from MSM. Be open to a different view and read unbiased (not dumbed down gov't paid) political & economic history. Keep a close eye on the markets and on the streets. Watch what is happening regarding the anger level of the American people. Pay attention to the hype and actions of those in real power, the (truly) elite.

The things on which Kory is commenting and trying to warn of are already happening via unanticipated (or are they?) yet inevitable consequences of legislation *already* passed in the last few months, and of current legislation *already* in committee or on the floors of our Congress!

Pay attention: Don't join all the other doubters. Fear it instead.

Steve said...

Linda- You complain that we should be governed by the voices of the people, not democracy, ie majority rule. However, you are also wrong in assuming Republic overrides the "representational democracy" that the Constitution established. We elect people to legislate for us, not by us. HUGE difference. In fact, I think your point supports Salty's more, where California has allowed majority rule has caused problems, at least financially, for the state. Besides, if you truly want a government as voice for the people, a communist system is MUCH more designed to carry voices and concerns UP that our current system, at least in theory. I'm just saying. It's one thing to debate about "what went wrong" or "how we got here", but solutions have to be given on how to "fix the problems". Sitting in your car complaining about how you ran out of gas isn't going to get you anywhere any faster.....

Sherpa said...

Linda, does MSM stand for whips and chains? Oh, wait, that's S&M. My bad.

Thanks for the advice. However-just because we disagree doesn't mean we aren't both similarly educated or knowledgeable about U.S. History, the referendum (an example that direct democracy fails--on a huge scale).

We disagree on one thing though. I'm not one to fear though. If I prepare myself-study, educate etc- The only thing that we fear-is fear itself-And God. Other than that, why fear?

Why not make rational choices, choose to run for office and be a part of this great representational democracy or Republic-as both terms are synonyms for each other.

Heck, Democracy and Republic are synonyms for each other if you go back and look at the latin roots of each word.

There's several types of classifications of Democracies-Representational Democracy being one of them. The Founding Fathers chose the term Republic because they were afraid of mob-rule---or what a Direct Democracy is. California is a perfect example of Direct Democracy gone wrong. If you go back to the latin roots-and take a chance to look at the words as defined in Webster's 1828 Dictionary, you'll see that the two words-democracy and republic are actually synonyms of each other. I didn't cite exact references concerning the Founding Fathers as I'm on my lunch break---one has to take break occasionally from working with and for the "elites". However, I don't work for the "elites"--I took a pledge to uphold the Constitution, even at risk to my own life..Something I take seriously.

Steve said...

Sherpa - We make a great team and I have an "elites" post all ready to go up too! :) I had to take the same oath, btw!

Salt H2O said...

I leave for a day and look what happens.

First the H2O issue: Save the Fish, Screw the Farmers. California is saving a fish that isn't even native to California and cutting off the water supply to farmers. This is a dated post, more news stories have come out on this issue recently.

Second The Economist Says it Better:
Californication

Linda said...

Steve, and Sherpa,
Read my remarks above carefully, because the assumptions you accuse me of are incorrect. Absolutely, you're correct that I support Salty's thesis. I adamantly oppose majority rule. My point, exactly, is that a REPublic *is* a REPresentative democracy. And we're *not* being represented.

Get out your old gov't school's world government books, instead of the 1828 dictionary. Democracy & Republic are NOT "synonyms for each other."
If indeed our Constitution is something you take seriously & agree to uphold at risk to life, then you need to read it often and understand the differences between these 2 forms of government:

REPUBLIC:
In this form of gov't there is *Rule by Law* - the Constitution. That same constitution provides for new laws to be enacted by representatives (not judges, not officers of the law, not any one person or group). Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic which requires approval from all 3 branches of government. This limits the power of government. It recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals. "The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government."

DEMOCRACY:
In this form there is direct government by *Rule of Majority.* It is a form of government in which the *supreme power* is vested in the *people* & exercised directly by them, or by their elected agents. Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly, requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums. The majority group enacts laws without checks and balances from any other group. Rights are not inalienable but are granted by Government. Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).
Of all forms this is the most unstable of gov'ts because it quickly leads to mob rule.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. Our Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy, and they repeatedly and *emphatically* said that they had founded a republic.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a republic.

The primary difference between the two is Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority. I believe understanding this difference is essential to the preservation of our individual rights.

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government"....Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned once.

Salty is correct on all counts. I *love* California and wish I could afford to live there. But some bad things have gone down there and our entire nation is rapidly becoming Californicated.

"THE ESSENCE OF FREEDOM IS THE PROPER LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT OF GOVERNMENT." ~ America's Founding Fathers

Steve said...

If you mean judges ARE making law by ruling on the Constitutionality of laws, then yes, I agree with you. But that is exactly what they are there to do! They are to interpret the law and as the 3rd branch of government, ensure that the other two are not passing laws or doing anything unconstitutional. By upholding the rights of individuals with their rulings, which are open to interpretation due to poor wording or inability for legislators to write clear laws, they are doing exactly what they were designed to do. It is the LAST chance to keep draconian laws, like the Patriot Act, or civil right infringing laws from remaining permanent.

In fact, if you truly believe in the Constitution, then there should be LESS laws in general, which I think you are more or less saying and less government influence, THUS this should allow for gay marriage, abortions, no drinking laws, no regulation of food and drugs, a MORE clear separation of church and state (ie NO funding or support for ANY religion), ecetera. You can't pick and choose which laws you are happy judges rule on and which ones they can't.

Sherpa said...

Linda, I try to read the Constitution at least twice a year-including the amendments. I've also poured over history texts from the time I was little.
Isn't it awesome that this great country allows for differing of thought from educated people- it's one of the reasons that makes it great!

I like listening, reading others opinions, and thinking about what others have to say-especially those I disagree with. Keeps me in check. Glad for the chance to read yours! Thanks for listening to Steve and I.
There's always common ground between those who disagree if you work hard enough at it. That's one of the things I love about this ol' country of ours.

Sherpa said...

Kory----that Economist piece is pretty knee jerk. But uh, if you grew up in the rural, intermountain, west and read the news paper you'd know to fear California anyway. Saying that the Country is going to be California in 10 years? That's speculation motivated by fear. Now if all of the Political Appointees were former govt officials Cali, I'd be shaking in my sandals....but they are not, which is what I'm trying to say. That being said, i wouldn't mind seeing the Senate or the HR get a Republican majority, just to keep the White House in check.

Steve said...

Wait, weren't they saying 10, 20, and 30 years ago that we'd all be like Californians?!??! Is this better or worse than being like New Yorkers to everyone in between?!?! haha. I won't hold my breath for THESE 10 years either...

Salt H2O said...

Steve,
We are all like Californians, 1990 Californians. There's a 10 year lapse. In 2019 we'll all be like Californians in 2009.

Salt H2O said...

Sherpa-
The Economist is hardly out to push a right wing agenda. Nor do I think they're afraid of California. If this was a different publication I might be more inclined to agree with the critique of the article, but the Econimist definitly leans left- with out shoving it in your face.