Tag Archives: California

Where Brad and Britt Are Wrong: Version I

Some time ago I was listening to Brad and Britt.  They were debating the health care bill [i think?] and one of the points a caller made was that government is unable to do anything well.  Personally I subscribe to this theory and I think it is an excellent point in trying to defeat the current form of health care legislation.  That being said, Britt tried to defend the government by claiming that the government is able to run parks well; State and National.

Continue reading

Senate Race 2010: III

I have covered the open seats.  Those currently held by Democrats and those held by Republicans.  So far, I have it D-57 and R-43.

Continue reading

The Scorpion and the Frog

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.  The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.  Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

Continue reading

California: Part VI

Planes, trains and automobiles.  It’s a famous movie, but what really has the attention of politicians everywhere is this very same concept.  Planes, trains and automobiles.  Specifically, “how do we get fewer automobiles and more trains?”.  Everywhere people are requesting and demanding that we expand our mass transit system.  Part of it is a pander to the people who are best served at the expense of the rest of us.  Lately, though, we have begun to see the Global Warming crowd clamor that we need to implement more transit in order to reduce the number of carbon producing cars.  Still others claim that we have reached peak oil and going forward, we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

In each case, the supporters are wrong, blind or both.  But nobody is as wrong as often or as blind as California.  Check this out via Reason:

For three years, Veronique Selgado took BART from the East Bay to her job working for an airline at San Francisco International Airport. But she recently switched to driving because BART raised fares and upped its SFO round-trip surcharge from $3 to $8, boosting her daily trip cost to nearly $20.

“It’s outrageous,” Selgado said. “At what point do they stop raising the prices, when it’s $50 a day to go round-trip to work? At what point does BART stand back and say, ‘People can’t pay that much to commute’?”

Millbrae resident Robert Smith, 63, had taken BART and Golden Gate Transit to his job in Sausalito because his employer provided transit vouchers, but eventually he threw up his hands, bought a Honda Civic and started driving.

It took him 21/2 hours each way by train and bus, turning his nine-hour workday into a 14-hour endeavor. Now he drives, and it takes him 45 minutes each way, which he said is well worth the extra gas and toll bridge costs.

Rick Mann loves public transit but hates the two hours and 15 minutes it takes him to walk from his Milpitas home to a transit station, catch a train, transfer to another train and then walk to his job as a software engineer in Sunnyvale.

The point is this: “Mass transit doesn’t work”.  We aren’t dense enough to make it work.  People live too far from where they work.  Transfers are common.  Further, because this is the government, making upgrades to the system is seen as an expense, not an investment.  As such, expenses are minimized meaning fewer trains and busses and fewer stops.  This raises the time of the commute and reduces riders.  But we have to continue to meet the costs.  And that means higher fares and higher taxes.

And soon, gentle reader, that means I am going to be taxed here in North Carolina so that someone in San Francisco can ride a bus that they don’t wanna ride.

California: Part V

Mark Perry has a most excellent post over at Carpe Diem.  The whole thing is a must read, but the highlights:

Exhibit A: California has lost more than one million jobs in the last several years, while employment levels in Texas have remained relatively stable.

Exhibit B: In early 2006, California’s unemployment was actually slightly below Texas, but is now 4.3 percentage points higher than Texas (12.3% vs. 8%).

Exhibit C:

One-way rental rates for a 26-foot truck from U-Haul:

From Dallas to San Francisco: $734
From San Francisco to Dallas: $2,116

From Houston to Los Angeles: $706
From Los Angeles to Houston: $2,051

Exhibit D: Texas kids are one to two years of learning ahead of California kids of the same age.

Exhibit E: William Voegeli tartly says that “Rome wasn’t sacked in a day, and California didn’t become Argentina overnight.”

Net/net children, it is high time to get the hell out of California.  And, now that I think of it, to get California’s mind-set OUT of Washington.

Update: become Argentina overnight!  THAT, is hil-ar-i-ous.

How Cities Benefit by Labor Unions

How does a public pension fund respond after losing more than $70 billion of its $260 billion fund?

“It is important for you to know that the current credit crisis does not directly affect your retirement benefits, which are securely protected by law, or our ability to pay benefits.”

Translation: Not to worry; the taxpayers will have to bail us out.

Excellent.

And what does it mean to tax payers when said fund loses more than $70 billion of its $260 billion fund?

In the end, taxpayers stand to pay plenty for all this, either through increased taxes or diminished public services — closed libraries and shelters for battered women, fewer trash pickups, shuttered courts, slower police and fire response times, more potholes, early county jail prisoner releases and much more — if local governments see layoffs and furloughs as their only way out.

This is your bed, California.  I really REALLY hope that only YOU have to lie in it.

California: Part V

What do you do when you’re short money?  Do you spend less?  Go try and earn more?  Or do you go and hold your hat on the street?

California can’t t spend less.  They won’t do what it takes to earn more.  The only option left open to them is to ask you and I for money:

California’s political leaders, who are facing the daunting challenge of closing an estimated $20.7 billion budget deficit this year, are looking to Washington for help. Just don’t call it a bailout.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he plans to head to the nation’s capital “early and often” seeking federal assistance. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger already has put the federal government on notice that he wants billions he says the state is owed. And outgoing Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County), said she would head east as soon as this month.

Awesome.  California continues to drive themselves deeper and deeper into debt and insolvency.  And then, when the well is dry, they come running to the Federal government for help.

Only in America.

Michigan to Overcome California Soon

My only hope is that these Leftist States lead us out of darkness by their example fo what NOT to do:

Flint, Mich.

Michelle Berry runs a private day-care service from her home on the outskirts of this city, the birthplace of General Motors.

Ms. Berry owns her own business—yet the Michigan Department of Human Services claims she is a government employee and union member. The agency thus withholds union dues from the child-care subsidies it sends to her on behalf of her low-income clients. Those dues are funneled to a public-employee union that claims to represent her.

A year ago in December, Ms. Berry and more than 40,000 other home-based day care providers statewide were suddenly informed they were members of Child Care Providers Together Michigan—a union created in 2006 by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union had won a certification election conducted by mail under the auspices of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. In that election only 6,000 day-care providers voted. The pro-labor vote turned out.

Awesome.

This woman, and thousands like her, are putting it on the line every day.  They are working.  They are sacrificing.  They are, in short, DO’ERS.  And yet, somehow, the moochers and the looters have arranged a deal in Michigan where these business owners are getting screwed.

I mean, for a sec, just for a bloody second, think about what is going on here.  Ms. Berry is the OWNER.  And she is supposed to pay into a Union?  If there were a union/employer relationship present here, it would be HER that the Union would organize against.

California or Michigan.  Michigan or California.

Which one is going to give us the clearest example of what NOT to be?

California: Part IV

I just got done posting on some crazy talk coming out of California.  Not 10 lines down the page and I saw this gem:

Tenant advocates got a win at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Tuesday with initial approval of a plan to extend eviction protections to rental housing built within the past 30 years…

Supervisor John Avalos, chief sponsor of the legislation, said the change is needed “to assure equal protections for tenants in all rental units, in San Francisco. This legislation’s really about fairness.”

Avalos – responding to concerns raised by tenant advocacy groups – said he drafted the legislation after seeing the growing number of evictions of tenants living in properties foreclosed on by banks. Foreclosure is not considered a just cause for eviction.

Look, whenEVER a politician says anything related to “This legislation’s really about fairness” run.  Run far far away.

But there is hope; albeit ‘prolly pretty small:

Colin Gallagher, who owns a condo with his husband in the city’s South of Market, said they would not have purchased their home had they known the rules would be changed after the fact. Their plan is to rent out their condo some day and they don’t want to be restricted with eviction controls. “We certainly feel this would negatively impact our investment,” said Gallagher.

Strange that, huh?  Rules implemented that affect the ability to realize return on investment might reduce said investments?

But hey, don’t let economics get in the way:

Proponents’ message: “In a city with 60 percent renters, a severe housing shortage and an economic crisis, this fix in the law should be a no-brainer,” said Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco.

Gentle Miss Sara.  “No brainer”  You have NO idea.

They Say This With a Straight Face

Turns out about 22.1% of households in the 10 county Bay area are struggling to make ends meet:

Whereas the federal poverty level would be $17,170 a year for a family fitting that description – no matter where they lived in the United States – the self-sufficiency standard estimates that it would take $54,590 for such a family to live comfortably but without frills in San Francisco County, $49,823 in Contra Costa County and $63,871 in San Mateo County.

Are you kuckin’ fidding me!?!

Now granted, this is for a family of two parents with an infant child.  BUT STILL!  We are talking about an income north of 63 large.  $63,000!  And they are struggling to make ends meet?  I read the article twice.  I regret to inform you, gentle reader, that these people are DEAD serious.

Okay, okay.  So…so what?  So, like, what is the conclusion?

“This report raises important questions about how we can better serve the thousands of low-wage workers and families who were already struggling before the recession, whose situations are undoubtedly more precarious now,” said Anne Wilson, chief executive of the United Way of the Bay Area.

How we can better serve people who make about 55k?  Un-be-liev-able!

Check this out:

Annual Salary to be Considered Below Standard

Two things:

  1. Anyone making about $55,000 has the ability to move.
  2. Anyone else think these numbers are just made up so that about 20% of the population will fit?

No wonder California is broke.