The American Spectator : California Jumps Off a Cliff

Text Size

California Jumps Off a Cliff

By Peter Hannaford on 11.14.12 @ 6:08AM

Dr. Jerry Brown is the new Kevorkian.

On Tuesday last week California jumped off a cliff. You could call it a case of assisted suicide — economic suicide. California had been contemplating the action for a long time, making several tentative efforts to do itself in. Finally, it was the advice of Dr. Jerry Brown, the well-known assisted suicide specialist, who made the convincing argument.

The patient had a terminal illness. The medical term for it is “gross fiscal irresponsibility.” If not treated, it leads to total collapse of all systems. Having ignored the symptoms, California is now in the late stages. Here are some listed on its chart:

$200 billion in unfunded liabilities for public worker retirement benefits.
$106 billion in voter-approved bonds the state hasn’t sold because it can’t afford the debt service costs (including a $9.5 billion “down-payment” on a $50-90 billion “high-speed” train).
Deferred payment of required $10 billion to schools.
Years of large annual budget deficits, “balanced” by means of accounting tricks and deferred payments.

Brown has called the budget “a pretzel palace of incredible complexity.” He said he would fix it if only the voters would pass Proposition 30 on last week’s ballot. If they did not, he warned, there would be deep cuts in education and social services. Scare California voters over the word “education” and they will usually do what they are asked to do. They did it once again in the case of Prop. 30. College students turned out in large numbers, worried that its failure would drive up their tuition. Many parents worried that classes would grow and instruction diminish, yet California in recent years has ranked in the bottom 20% of all states for test scores — despite its $50 billion annual education budget.

California already spends half of its total annual budget on education. The Teachers’ union spent $100 million to pass Prop. 30 and defeat Prop. 32 (which would have stopped the union from spending members’ dues on politics without their consent).

The top income tax rate now will go up to 13.3%, easily the highest in the nation (rich people will do as they have been doing in growing numbers, move to low- or no-tax states). The sales tax is going up, too, from 7.25% to 7.5%. (Most cities add 1% or so to that for local use.) The measure is supposed to “sunset” in a few years, but as Ronald Reagan once said, “The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.”

Meanwhile, it will generate about $6 billion the first year, versus a budget deficit of approximately $16 billion. Some fix.

The teachers’ union spends $250 million a year on politics. This has proved to be a good investment. This year it got them passage of Prop. 30 and defeat of Prop. 32 and enough victories of its almost wholly-owned state legislature that added to the majority’s total. Result: two-thirds majorities in both houses, making it possible to pass any and all spending measures without the “brake” of minority restraint.

When and how did this begin? Back in the late 1970s when Jerry Brown was a young man and governor the first time, he planted the virus by permitting public employee unions to engage in collective bargaining. Gradually, but inexorably, this has led to domination of Sacramento by them, thus to extremely generous pensions and benefits. Democratic majorities in the legislature have become ever greater, thanks to the largesse bestowed on them by the California’s richest special interest. All so that a state could commit economic suicide.

About the Author

Peter Hannaford was closely associated for a number of years with the late President Reagan, beginning in the California Governor’s office. His latest book is Presidential Retreats.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (108) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

oldeham| 11.14.12 @ 6:47AM

Barry Goldwater was only partially correct. We should have cut off BOTH coasts - not just the East Coast.

Rhoetus| 11.14.12 @ 11:47PM

Calif was still conservative in 1964.

Appleby| 11.14.12 @ 6:48AM

And you all know what comes next: California, home of All Obama's BFFs, starts shrieking for a "bailout"...and guess what comes after that? In the past, California has been home to some of the biggest and most spectacular riots the USA has ever known. If you think you've seen it all, just you wait until Governor Moonbeam has to tell the children the money tree has shed all its leaves and the well has run dry. If I still lived in California, I'd get my family to Texas as quickly as I could.

pogybait| 11.14.12 @ 9:12AM

Isn’t it about time that we as a society abandon this primitive ritual of voting for tax increases in favor of a more community-oriented and earth-friendly representatives that can do just that for us. Governor Brown and the legislature in Sacramento have been and continue to be a beacon of light to the rest of the country. Good grief, only a dimwitted conservative would prefer the corrupt western style democracy. Why in a short amount of time, California will now develop under a kinder, gentler, more progressive environment; with aggressive taxation and bold new regulations enacted by progressive democrat leaders, we can insure that no man or women ever makes more than the government thinks he deserves. Soon there will be no more need for competition, and everyone would live together in peace and friendship…..You’ll see!!!

nathan| 11.14.12 @ 11:21AM

Very well said! From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. There I was all those years a lost in the wilderness follower of the Founders, thinking that Madison was correct when he said that charity has no place in the legislative process, not knowing that he didn't know what he was talking about.

But thanks to you sir I have seen the light! I too have come in from the dark side of conservatism! Now I even support Brown's high speed rail proposal. So what if the money isn't there? Let's get the taxpayers in Hawaii to help pay for it.

Sir you have opened this one time conservative's eyes! LOL Thank you!

Now that we've had our fun here let's get back to being serious about these things . . . As we watch the mass out migration of the rich and well to do to Arizona, New Mexico, and other states and CA sinks into the Pacific under the weight of massive debt . . . .

Zeppo| 11.14.12 @ 11:48AM

We've done that now. The election produced supermajorities in both houses of the legislature, so now they can hike up taxes whenever they feel like it (which will be often) without the distasteful requirement of a popular vote.

Stan Redmond| 11.14.12 @ 1:09PM

And all California has to do is cleanse themselves from those who are standing in the way of this glorious progress you speak of. FORWARD!

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 1:15PM

FOREWARD indeed (as in lean foward, he's not finished yet!).

John Navratil| 11.14.12 @ 9:24AM

Appleby,

The Progressives are making sufficient inroads in Texas without a fresh influx. The only thing saving us seems to be our "beautiful" weather.

Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 4:22PM

Hey, the weather is OK in El Paso; you just need to watch out for the ASSHOLES. (Kinky Friedman)

Darin| 11.14.12 @ 7:02AM

When all those college students who voted for this can't find a job, I hope it's pointed out to them that their unemployment is their own fault. Sadly, they won't care as long as they get a government check (paid for by people like me).

Dai Alanye | 11.14.12 @ 8:34AM

The easiest way to control public unions is for the government to stop collecting dues for them. This, unfortunately, requires an act of will on the part of legislators, but if passed the unions would soon find their funding severely limited, and a great deal of their efforts spent in convincing members to voluntarily pay dues.

Maxwell| 11.14.12 @ 9:38AM

Dai, I just wish that Chris Christie had done that!

fmm| 11.14.12 @ 8:50AM

Pray that CA goes the way of the dodo bird, as that is the only solution.

fredstat| 11.14.12 @ 8:56AM

The immoral thing is that people didn't vote to raise their own taxes (except for the bit of sales tax - which was downplayed in the campaigning). 55% of the people voted to gang up on the 2% and raise their taxes. That's real courage, isn't it?

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 11:01AM

Well said, Fred. It's hard to imagine anything more blatently discriminatory than a large majority combining forces to seize the assets from a small minority on no stronger pretense than the mere fact that they happen to have assets to seize.

As a Californian who happens to be a member of that small minority, I'm happy to report that one of our more useful assets is our feet. Mine have carried me all the way to the lovely town of Austin, TX, where I have just purchased a lovely home in a lovely neighborhood (and, as it turns out, with a lovely home across the street that was just sold to a lovely family from ... wait for it ... Orange County, California).

The moral of the story? Well, to be painfully frank, the 55% (or the 47%, but why split hairs?) can target the 2% all they want, but they've failed to recognize one critical fact: the reason we're in the 2% and they're not is that we're smarter, more skilled, and more driven. As a result, we're always a step ahead (surely they didn't think we didn't see this coming and plan accordingly, did they?). In their "brilliant" plan to raise my taxes by 33%, they failed to account for the fact that 33% of zero is....anyone?

nathan| 11.14.12 @ 11:27AM

The Founders universally detested democracy as a form of government for a reason. Jefferson said it was a way for 51 percent of the people to rip off the other 49 percent. Adams disparaged it and said no democracy in history had ever survived. Madison called it the most vile form of government. The Founders created what they thought was a republic 200 years ago because a republic was more consistent with the "unalienable" rights doctrine that said rights come from God not from people and that those rights coming from God can not be taken from them even by a majority vote. (You can forfeit your rights by say murdering someone but even then as Madison pointed out, you have due process rights in the Fifth Amendment.)

So supposedly under a republic those unalienable rights including people's property rights can not be taken without due process. And merely because someone is less well off than you and needs your money is not a due pro0cess reason for taking YOUR money.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 1:16PM

Fortunately, even democracy must bow to the laws of physics (the cream will always rise to the top).

DRed| 11.14.12 @ 1:56PM

Austin is great, but if you're looking to get away from liberals you went to the wrong place. Just make sure you get some Franklin's bbq before you move again.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 3:14PM

Nah; they're the good kind of liberals (they keep their hands out of my wallet). In the end, it's a win/win: they get to hug a few trees; I get to keep my stuff - everyone goes home happy. It's a beautiful thing.

Butch| 11.14.12 @ 8:00PM

There is no good kind of liberal, they're just behind the times: they'll catch up. Please leave your California ways at the border; you're a Texan now.

handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 1:43AM

If there is any cream and you have not pastuerized and homogenized the product, in other words, destroyed it.

Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 4:31PM

Bless you, Madam.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 5:50PM

It's sir, but no offense taken (and thank you for the blessing).

Kwan| 11.14.12 @ 9:13AM

Perhaps Homeland Security should add to its terrorist watch list Democrat Party politicians. It seems that they are doing more damage to our country, than the Islamic version of terrorists. But to expect a locked-on-stupid Democrat Party politician like Moonbeam to change course, is naivete-on-steroids. Moonbeam will continue with his leftist policies, to oversee the conversion of California into a replica of the post-apocalyptic city of Detroit.

Bob Grant| 11.14.12 @ 9:25AM

I hate to sound negative and defeatist but California seems like one gigantic calamity that will put a huge stress on the U.S. economy in general.

Raise taxes on the wealth producers? Punish the wealthy?

I hate to break the bad news to citizens of California but wealth producers cannot makeup the shortfall if you taxed them 100% of their income, and CANNOT BE PUNISHED either! They have the ability to MOVE and MOVE THEIR MONEY AROUND.

Don't these morons get it!

What a great plan Jerry Brown has there! Shoo off the geese who lay the golden eggs all the while entice retired cops, teachers, firemen, and other overpaid state retirees to leave for other states so that they can get "more bang for their California Buck" in their retirement; other states gain economic benefit from California pensioners.

What a terrific plan.

That state is so FUBAR it's not funny. Not funny because it will surely affect fiscal responsible states.

Kwan| 11.14.12 @ 10:43AM

Perhaps Moonbeam should consider that rather than investing $90 billion in a bullet train between the central valley California towns of Podunk Falls and Devastation Gulch, that money should be used to construct a Berlin Wall around the borders of California, to keep fleeing taxpayers from escaping.

Stick| 11.14.12 @ 11:40AM

I think you missed the progressive plan to colonize those nasty red states to enable the swells in CA, IL, and NY to continue their mission of re-educating the rubes, rednecks and other misguided white guys.

Kwan| 11.14.12 @ 11:55AM

Kinda sounds like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Beware the Pod-0-crats are coming, and you're the next chump to be converted into a mindless, soulless, leftist-zombie podperson. Resistance is futile you will be assimilated.

Stick| 11.14.12 @ 12:43PM

Kwan, have you ever looked hard at Gov Moonbeam's eyes? It ain't human.

Kwan| 11.14.12 @ 4:05PM

Drink the leftist kool-aid long enough and you'll be totally disconnected from reality. This is quite similar to the definition of someone suffering from schizophrenia.

Stan Redmond| 11.14.12 @ 1:11PM

They WILL get bailed out with magical Obama bucks courtesy of the fed's printing press.

Whig| 11.14.12 @ 9:55AM

If you can't be a good example then at least be a horrible warning to others.

Anthony| 11.14.12 @ 10:29AM

Welcome to vtwin's California and by extension, vtwin's America.
You would think with all that debt, that the state would have sunk into the Pacific by now.
I guess the only good news is that all those fat unfunded pensions are in deep, deep, trouble. Can't wait to see the public sector unions storm Sacramento when the pension checks stop coming.
Hey maybe they'll storm San Fran and grab their pension money from all those lefty 1%ers.
Oops, the barbarians are at the gate vtwin!!!

Louis Jenkins| 11.14.12 @ 10:55AM

Hold the headlines. California is broke. What else is new?

Dave Williams| 11.14.12 @ 10:56AM

As goes California, so goes the nation. Decline and fall.

Who Knows?| 11.14.12 @ 11:53AM

California, there I go from.

Or, as an old aunt used to say about her home state of Missouri, from her home in Portland, Oregon, "It's a great place to be FROM."

cowgirl| 11.14.12 @ 1:06PM

I am a native California and my response to this article - faster please. The faster we hit bottom the better off we will be - when there is no more money there is no more money. Then the rest of the country can use California for the symbolism of Liberalism is Mental Illness.

Remember the sign of mental illness is when you keep doing the same thing over and over with the same results.

Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 4:23PM

I left California in 1993---third best decision of my life.

Best: adopting my two kids.
2nd best: marrying She Who Must Be Obyed.

SUBVET| 11.14.12 @ 8:51PM

Tool ......we are saved the state just passed "Measure B" ....jobs ...jobs...jobs.

So if anyone has any kind of law encforcement experience now that the porn Ind. is regulated they are looking for "pecker checkers" no kidding.

The new problem for CA is that the industry is moving to Navada. There goes the tax base one more business moving out of the state.

I read that over 2000 people a month are leaving the state.

Load the wagon the mule is blind.....Smokey Unick

Rhoetus| 11.14.12 @ 11:50PM

I left in 1987 - so there! ;-)

Stan Redmond| 11.14.12 @ 1:13PM

Obviously the problem is not enough money has been spent by the government. If only they had a little more money they would be in fine shape. A junkie addict just needs one more hit and will stop after that. Same goes for California.

Good place to visit. I miss living there (Foothills to Yosemite) but geesh. I have a business to run.

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 3:19PM

I would say that at least Governor Jerry Brown has proposed raising taxes to cover the expenses. Lets face it to balance a budget you either have to cut spending so your tax revenue matches your expenses or you have to raise taxes to match expenses. It's basic math. As for the 200 billion in unfunded liabilities for pensions the last time I checked California employees had CalPers and that program had more than enough to cover retiring California State Employees. In fact CalPers had such a surplus back in 2006 that many in Sacramento wanted to "barrow" from it (because it belongs to State Employees not to the State itself) to pay for other state programs.

I've been a Republican since my 18th birthday and that year I voted for George W. Bush for President, however as a union member who's family depends on the power of collective bargaining to put food on the table the Republican backed Prop. 32 was the last straw for me. If 32 who passed it would have effectively made it damn near impossible for labor unions in California to contribute to political campaigns while allowing corporations to spend as much as they wanted to influence political campaigns.

This year for the first time in my life (with the exception of writing in Ron Paul for President) I held my nose and voted a straight Democratic ticket on November 6th. I can't stand the Democrat Party but the Republican Party has completely sold out working class Americans.

Bob Grant| 11.14.12 @ 3:38PM

Dumbass single-issue voter.

"...power of collective bargaining to put food on the table..."

What a disingenuous load of crap. Hey, this isn't the twenties or thirties anymore.

You voted for your demise, NOW LIVE WITH IT!!...and leave the rest of us non-Californians TH alone!!!

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 6:05PM

Now, Bob... Dmitri isn't a dumbass; he's a goddamn dumbass!

"I need to rely on a union to put food on my table." You poor pathetic impotent fool, how about relying on YOURSELF to put food on your table (I've found it to be not only effective, but gratifying - you should try it sometime)?

By the way, it isn't called the Declaration of Dependence for a reason...

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 6:36PM

I work for a living Trinacria so yes I do put food on the table for my family and my LABOR UNION makes sure that my share is enough for my family to eat and the bills to be paid. Is there something wrong about that? Our Grandfathers and Great Grandfathers fought and bled for the Union and I will fight and bleed to keep it.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 7:29PM

You see, sport, that's the problem. A worker's wage is a reflection of the value he adds to the company for which he works...NOT the amount of the bills the worker incurs. You and your beloved labor union have failed to grasp this fundamental law; in so doing, you've disconnected wages from value. Once you've done that, the result is inevitable...take a drive through any neighborhood in Detroit and you'll get a preview of how it ends.

By the way, perhaps your grandfather and great grandfather fought and bled for the unions; to be clear, mine emphatically did not - they were too busy fighting and bleeding for the country and the principles of freedom and responsibility, only to be betrayed by a growing class of dependent, self-entitled, effete sissies who enthusiastically agree to trade their freedom for security.

You want to fight and bleed to remain dependent on the labor union? Knock yourself out, sport - I won't stop you. But please, let's not pretend it's a noble endeavor!

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 7:41PM

So according to you maybe we should bring back slavery and the working class can be the new slaves to those who have the blessing of corporate elite. Even under serfdom a peasant was given a plot to raise some crops to feed his family and maybe he even had some livestock. If your view of how things should be is capitalism...then F@CK CAPITALISM. Even the Roman Catholic Church came out against Capitalism in the 19th Century as exploitative and immoral. Capitalism was never conservative and it still IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. Conservatism should mean that we wish to conserve an American way of life and for many American workers that meant a fair wage and benefits so they could take care of their family.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 8:04PM

Swing low, sweet chariot, comin' for to carry me home....

There's the door, sport...

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 11:54PM

This is my country and I'm not leaving Trin.

Trinacria| 11.15.12 @ 11:08AM

Pity.

Bob Grant| 11.14.12 @ 7:57PM

Trin,

Sorry for not fully describing Dtwitri. Heh-)

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 6:33PM

All right Bob if I worked for our non-union competitor I would make at tops 12 dollars an hour without benefits. How the hell am I supposed to take care of my stay at home wife (yes because child care is more than we can afford) and two young children on 12 dollars an hour in the San Francisco Bay Area? Can you answer me that? Should I have voted to destroy my union's ability to contribute to political campaigns and supported 32 when the same people who are supporting 32 would like to see my wages drop to 12 dollars an hour or less with no benefits? Should I have voted for Republican candidates for the House and Senate who would have without a doubt supported more anti-union legislation and more of the globalist free trade that has destroyed our manufacturing base?

In the past I voted for George W. Bush twice and in those elections and even in the 2008 election (I wrote in Ron Paul for President) voted straight Republican tickets and followed my party's suggestions on local propositions despite my opposition to the Iraq War and later our continued presence in Afghanistan and the Republican Party's failure to put American industry and American jobs first. Despite my differences I voted Republican for all those years. Call me whatever you want but I can't do it anymore. I will remain a social conservative as my opposition to abortion and same sex marriage are based on my religion, but on economic issues and issues of defense I cannot support the Republican Party anymore.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 7:39PM

"How the hell am I supposed to take care of my stay at home wife (yes because child care is more than we can afford) and two young children on 12 dollars an hour in the San Francisco Bay Area? Can you answer me that?"

Sounds like a "YOU" problem to me, D. Here's a thought: perhaps you might have given due consideration to your ability to support a stay at home wife in San Francisco before:
1) getting married
2) having children
3) settling in San Francisco
4) declining to pursue an education or obtain a marketable/transferrable skill

You see, Sport, choices have consequences - and it's not your employer's responsibility to bear the consequences of your poor choices.

Now - back to your non-union competitor. He might make only $12/hour, but his company's overhead is substantially lower than your company's. As a result, his company is more competitive and, in the long run, will survive; yours likely will not (at which point it will occur to you that $12/hour beats the sam hell out of $0/hour).

Bob Grant| 11.14.12 @ 7:52PM

Trin,

Indeed.

The non-union competitor also has a better idea of what the REAL WAGE is, not some propped up union wage, which has all kinds of unintended consequences behind it.

Well said!

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 7:54PM

And you know what a REAL WAGE is Bob Grant? Have you ever done a day's worth of REAL WORK in your life?

handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 2:03AM

Dim, I have worked hard for more than 50 years. I supported a family on my own, saved money and thrived without a union, while every union member I knew was broke despite 1. getting 3x my salary 2. 4x that in benefits (I had none) Every experience I had with unions and union members has been negative. Unions are the cause for jobs going overseas and shoddy work and job losses and everybody getting the same pay regardless of merit or ability, lack of personal responsibility and pricing American goods out of reach of the middle class, plus union workers are mostly unproductive and produce shoddy goods. Dues are forced and unions swing elections with forced dues and are exempt from criminal penalties for violence in which most engage. My first job, I had a government contract and was forced to hire union labor only. It was a disaster. I had to hire 5 incompetent drunks, seniority, before I could hire 1 that could do the work. I was harassed daily by the union shop steward; my delivery trucks were strafed by machine guns and drivers killed for not being union. It is worse now-I lost most of my pension funds (GM) because BO conditioned the bankruptcy on firing 40k nonunion workers and giving their pensions to the UAW. It is corrupt and the worst kind of entitlement welfare. You should be ashamed of whining.

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 7:52PM

I was born in San Francisco and since the beginning of time men of all social standings have been getting married and starting families. In the past men usually had some land to till and some livestock. That's not the case anymore...yes we are dependent on a wage to take care of our families. Taking that into account what is unjust with workers uniting to bargain with their employer about a fair compensation for their work? I am almost inclined to believe that the age of Captains of Industry (Robber Barons depending on who you asked) was more just because then business owner's could work out fair compensation with their workers rather than just hiding behind the all mighty profit margin for shareholders as what takes place in today's Corporate America.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 8:03PM

Holy shit, dude; you sound like a Goddamn Lenin poster. Go sell that shit somewhere else, brother, can't you tell we're all stocked up here?

Bob Grant| 11.14.12 @ 8:09PM

5 to 1 he's got a hammer and sickle tat somewhere on him.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 8:11PM

I'd give 100 to 1 odds...

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.15.12 @ 12:01AM

Lenin poster?! I'm a trade unionist. I am not a communist. I have nothing against private ownership or free enterprise, I just strongly believe that if you make a fortune off the backs of your workers then you should at least pay them a fair wage. Leftist revolutions usually occur when no attempts are made to ease the lot of the working class. I am not a communist, I am not a socialist, I am a trade unionist and I am an American.

Trinacria| 11.15.12 @ 11:01AM

And when the laborers make a fortune off the minds of the owners?

handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 2:49AM

You don't know even basic history.........

handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 2:50AM

Dim, I meant that you don't know basic history

Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 4:28PM

Dmitry: I knew you were a compleat idiotic asswipe.

And you are only 30? Wow. (By the way, dumbass, it's "whose" family. That's the possessive. "Who's" is "who is." The lot of the Jew is always to correct the ignorant terrorist loving Muzhik asshole.) Imagine what a swine you would be in several more years?

By the way, Alabama's cost of living is much lower than California's, the people are better, and automobile building jobs are more plentiful. Unions simply screw you. And yeah, I have belonged to one: ASMS in New Zealand.

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 6:38PM

I'm sure you are dishonoring past generations of your fellow Jewish Americans who helped build the labor movement because they knew it was just. Just as many of the Catholic and Orthodox Christian immigrant laborers who ended up joining the American labor movement knew that it was just.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 8:10PM

Rich...a man who relies on a union to strong arm a corporation into paying him more than the value of his contribution lecturing someone on the concept of honor. What's next, a lesson in irony?

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.15.12 @ 12:06AM

My industry has been unionized for nearly 100 years now. I was fortunate enough to join the union at the age of 19 and to work for a company that honors its collective bargaining agreement with its employees. As the Church has said and I believe Jesus Christ himself said there is DIGNITY in LABOR.

Trinacria| 11.15.12 @ 11:06AM

And Jesus was right; there is dignity in labor. There is no such dignity, however, in theft, corruption, envy, and extortion. You can look it up....

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.16.12 @ 7:37PM

I have never robbed anyone, I've never bribed anyone, I don't need the rich man's gold and I don't ask for more than I need to take care of my family. I have never extorted anyone.

Louisiana Joe| 11.14.12 @ 4:40PM

I grew up in an IBEW household, even carried the card for a year but thank God I was from a right to work state. You think the tax and spend bubble can go on forever, you are a fool. Ask Grease, Spain, and a host of other socialist (union loving) countries.

Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 5:58PM

Dimitry: idiot, this raising of taxes assumes "static" earnings. Raising taxes assures that reported income goes down, lowering taxes pushes that income UP. Basic economics. That's why you work for someone, muzhik boy.

MDs and other high earners leave the state as you tax them. That's why I got myself a highly transferrable, highly desired skill, unlike you. If things get too annoying, I'm off to Australia. I'm a board certified MD. I throw away job offers like this one WEEKLY: "Psychiatrist in Greater Austin, $290,000/yr with limited call" because I hate getting a PAY CUT! Even with state taxes in MN, still a pay cut.

Don't you wish you had a brain, Dmitry?

Man, it must be annoying being a stupid Russian Peasant getting stomped on by a Jew.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 6:10PM

Don't you just love it when they admonish us with the argument, "it's simple math" and then go on to demonstrate the profound deficit in their understanding of a dynamic model?

I shouldn't make fun, and yet they make it so goddamn easy...

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 7:30PM

What I was stating is the fact that unless you cut spending you have to raise taxes. That makes sense doesn't it? Was I stating that I am in favor of raising taxes? No. What I was stating was that to balance a budget when you are in the red you have to make sure that your income matches your expenses or is ideally more than your expenses so you have a surplus.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 7:53PM

Ah, Dimitry, you've missed the point (again...). Let me 'splain it for you...nice and slow:
You assert that there are only 2 ways to increase revenue: cut spending or raise taxes. Not true. One can actually increase revenue by lowering taxes (which frees up capital, increases investment, creates more jobs, and as a result, broadens the base of tax payers and increases the volume of taxable transactions). By contrast, one can actually decrease revenue by increasing taxes, as those who face increasing taxes can either leave (as I have done) or, in the case of small businesses, cut jobs to compensate for the increased tax burden.

By the way, you know where you might have learned that?....college (Econ 101). Then again, had you availed yourself of that opportunity, you wouldn't have to rely on the labor union to put food on your table, would you?

handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 2:16AM

Trin, I agree with everything you have said and am impressed with the clarity of your statements. I must however, quibble with 1 Econ 101 in college. I have taken a lot of college courses over the years, have several degrees in various fields and found even back in the mid 60's, Econ classes were well nonsense. They didn't teach Friedman or Laffer-all I learned and got in fights with the teachers over, was a misunderstood Keynesian economics. Remember when Pelosi said unemployment compensation would improve the economy due to the multiplier effect? Total nonsense, but that is CA's sum knowledge of economics. The multiplier effect may possibly be real, but it takes over 50 yrs for the "effects" to be identifiable, assuming of course, that you can isolate and identify the starting point, which even Keynes was fuzzy on.

handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 2:26AM

You still don't get it. Government shouldn't have certain expenses and you don't match your expenses to your income. You live within your income and you save for rainy days. CA has boards and commissions that eat up huge amounts of the budget, have had for 30 years, most started by Moonbeam, the idiot child that pay members 250k for 1 hr work per year or month or week at most. The Air/water quality boards have 1000's of employees with over 100k in come (inc benefits) with literally nothing to do.
Re unions-My grandfather was a master electrician that quit the union in disgust because of the corruption of the union bosses, the forced dues, and strong arm tactics and running companies out of business. Arizona is a right to work state, people get to work, albeit at lower wages but costs are also low. Stop whining and learn some personal responsibility. Companies don't owe you what you want to earn. Merit pay is what I want.

allendale| 11.14.12 @ 4:36PM

The Left does not see financial constraints as an obstacle to its goals. If a municipality or state is bankrupted forging progressive policies, then so be it. Eventually the mess will be sorted out and the bulk of the "progressive change" will remain. This happened in the UK when the left controlled London and Birmingham in the 1990's. Jerry Brown also knows that Obama will gladly spend other peoples money to bail him out.

Pat_Riot| 11.14.12 @ 5:29PM

I never understand why "journalists" cannot ask those that want "the rich" to pay their "fair share" to define what % is a "fair share" and what is the $ amount of assets that makes someone "rich" - those are two simple questions with numerical easy to understand answers if given. Note: anytime a "progressive" is asked this they squirm and try to change the subject and will never answer the question. Please, conservative friends, start asking these questions of anyone that want to raise taxes (they call it revenue)!!!

Occam's Tool| 11.14.12 @ 5:52PM

All of this screaming about what a True Conservative is from this Russki scuzball, and then he "writes in" Ron Paul (a wasted vote; it is good that he lives in CA) and votes CALIFORNIA DEMOCRAT!

Can you say, Jew Hating Libtard Troll? I knew you could.

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 6:40PM

I'm not a liberal and will never be, but then again I do not rate someone's conservatism based on how much their willing to let corporations bend them over and pound them up the ass like the rest of today's GOP.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 7:12PM

they're...not their. Grammar never has been a strong point with the dependent class, now has it?

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 7:31PM

I would knock your teeth out for talking down to me Trin.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 7:54PM

And I would knock your tooth out in retribution...

handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 2:29AM

Union members always seem to resort to violence. Why? because they have no education? or personal responsibility?

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.16.12 @ 7:35PM

No personal responsibility? Do you have children you are responsible for handsoff? Why do you suppose I have no education. I have a high school education that counts for something doesn't it?

Bob Grant| 11.14.12 @ 7:37PM

"willing to let corporations pound them up the ass"

You, sir, are a silly, silly naif.

You make is sound like corporations owe you a living.

You dumbass.

Let me get this through your thick skull.

YOU CANNOT PUNISH CORPORATIONS. They, unlike you, can MOVE. They can also MOVE THEIR MONEY. Both, perhaps, out of your beloved state.

What good will that do you???

Suggestion. Learn to co-exist with corporations so that the pie expands instead of this Zero Sum Game you must play when siding with unions.

Keep talking like a dumbass and you my friend will be out of a job.

See what unions will do? They instill class-envy in people, who then go around sounding like little Karl Marx wannabies.

Unions. I despise them with every inch of my body.

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.14.12 @ 7:46PM

In the first half of the 20th Century American Labor fought hard for a seat at the table, the second half of the 20th Century saw America becoming the most prosperous, wealthy nation on earth and yes there was a partnership between big industry and labor at that time. Now we (American workers) are being told not only do we not have a seat at the table but we should sit on the floor like a dog and be happy with the scraps from the table. I for one will not lie down. I refuse to lie down. If you make money off of my sweat then goddammit I'm going to demand MY CUT!

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 7:57PM

How about building your own goddamn table and putting your own goddamn food on it?

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.16.12 @ 7:30PM

If there was no one to work for I would have to. After the Soviet Union collapsed people did whatever they had to do to survive whether that be legal, semi-legal or not legal at all. I am first and foremost a family man. I'll do whatever I have to do to take care of my family.

Marc Jeric| 11.15.12 @ 2:48PM

This commie is sweating writing this tripe?

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.16.12 @ 7:25PM

I'm not a communist. All of you who think that corporations have your best interest in mind are suckers. Plain and simple you are suckers and if you had working class parents or grandparents they know you're suckers too.

handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 2:44AM

If you agree to work for someone for a certain wage, that IS your cut. If you made a bad bargain, or think you produced more, ask for commensurate pay and/or go elsewhere. You sir, have no honor if you don't live up to your bargain. You don't have a seat at the table; unions control the table, unjustly and those of us workers who want to be free of control and earn our wages and get paid according to our contribution (merit) are hurt by unions and people like you. It was most definitely NOT unions that made us prosperous. We were prosperous IN SPITE of unions. We are no longer competitive. Unions, with their communist backgrounds, influence and philosophy, are a large part of the problem with the economy.

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 11.16.12 @ 7:28PM

I have loyalty to my company because they have loyalty to the union contract and the agreed upon wage and benefits in that contract takes care of my family. I will bust my ass and give 100000% for such a company.

Bob Grant| 11.14.12 @ 7:46PM

OC:

Yea, I was thinking the same thing. His view are all over the place.

Other than hating job producers, I have no idea what he stands for.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 6:00PM

By the way, for those of you who don't have the "special pleasure" of living in the Socialist Republic of California, one rather important point that the story above fails to mention is that the 33% increase in income taxes being imposed upon those of us who have the unmitigated gall to actually earn what we have is RETOACTIVE. That's right folks, despite the fact that we were not given the opportunity to budet for the increase a priori, we're being forced to pay 33% more on income that was already earned, taxed, and spent in the year PRIOR TO the new law!

What's next? Speeding tickets for driving 55 mph last April after the speed limit was reduced to 45 mph in this November?

Bob Grant| 11.14.12 @ 8:49PM

On the bright side, Jerry Brown has set up a convenient payment system for those retroactive taxes: 5 easy payments spread out over 18 months.

It's all part of the "more customer friendly government" BS obama recently talked about.

Trinacria| 11.14.12 @ 10:04PM

Actually, I'm planning to inform the CA Franchise Tax Board that my move to Texas is retroactive to Jan 1, 2012...

handsoff| 11.16.12 @ 2:34AM

Don't need to. Just don't pay taxes in CA. File your Fed return with a TX address, and you might get away with not paying any CA taxes. Depends of course on your particular situation and how your money is earned. I own property in 3 states and am planning on making AZ my "home state" because my income is mostly investments (damn BO and his planned increases) and it is 1/2 the rate in AZ than CO and even less than CA

Rhoetus| 11.14.12 @ 11:49PM

Rules for Conservatives @
http://www.saveamericanow.us.com

Oatley| 11.15.12 @ 7:11AM

We have a rich tradition in this country of allowing the town fool to speak from the soapbox. Such is the state of California.

As long as their madness stays there.

Oldpatriot| 11.15.12 @ 5:34PM

The madness is has been on display in D.C. for years, sixteen trillion and counting.

Marc Jeric| 11.15.12 @ 2:44PM

Government employees unions are by definition criminal conspiracies against the people and should therefore be routinely prosecuted under the RICO Act laws. Even Roosevelt thought so.

floridahan| 11.15.12 @ 4:03PM

This is off the topic, but I'd like to see if we can get some helpful suggestions.
I'm opposed to big/growing government. But I'm just a common voter and would like to ask for comments on "How can we oppose growing Govt. with legal actions.?"
I realize that writting to politicians, . following through on some website petitions, etc. will produce very limited positive results.
What I'm asking is for what can an individual do to keep his own $$$ and not continue to give Govt. $$$ to grow and waste. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Oldpatriot| 11.15.12 @ 5:32PM

To use an old phrase... People get the kind of government they deserve. When most of the wealthy leave the state and the money dries up, as it has, it will be interesting to see what gets burned first.

EclecticHorzman| 11.15.12 @ 11:36PM

The GOP has not acted as much of a brake on runaway spending, but has been gerrymandered out of any semblance of relevance. Now Dems have the Capitol all to themselves, so anyone interested in a cautionary tale for the other 49 states, pay close attention.

derfel cadarn| 11.16.12 @ 12:17PM

They deserve everything they get,voting with your emotions and not your logic is always fatal. So when they collapse,as is assured they will expect a bailout. Meaning that some poor B@$T@RDS in a place that has used their heads and lived responsibly will pay their bills. Which in plain english is BULL$H!T !