Added to the above problems, California (and other states) welcomes foreign students into our top colleges and universities for a premium price. These premium tuition costs paid by foreign companies have offset the costs of our “noble” affirmative action program for the last 25yrs. Seems our learned politicians didn’t limit affirmative action to US students for quota attainment. Foreign students that come to the US for their education are the smartest in their respective countries, they often do very well in our universities, soaking up everything we can teach them, for a reason……to compete with the US! For 25+yrs we have been teaching foreign countries everything our universities know about science, biology, quantum physics, math and engineering, among many other valuable subjects. And we wonder why so many jobs have gone overseas. Hmm.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got his engineering degree at a university in North Carolina. He was the mastermind of 9-11. Do you think his engineering degree helped him destroy the trade centers? You betcha.

My opinion:

No desk in any US college or university should be offered to a foreign student when there’s a US citizen that wants it. I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t agree with this simple idea so we can retain jobs and build a bigger and smarter workforce in the United States, not to mention be more secure.

You are absolutely correct! On the business side, this is a very bad idea, at least what we know of it right now. California has been very unfriendly to businesses and this would only make the environment worse.

Anyway, my hope is in the “balancing” of the income taxes on individuals.

There are two big reasons we are in the mess we are in; 1) unfriendly business environment which is driving businesses out of California; 2) burdensome income taxes on the wealthy which is also driving them out of California. So, if the policies of this State are driving those who “pay taxes” out of the State, why are they so surprised that revenue’s are not “increasing” as they expected?

I am, for the moment, hopeful that they will “level” the playing field when it comes to income taxes.

Ultimately though, I would like to see either a consumption tax such as the plan being pushed by FairTax or some form of a flat tax.

Under this proposed plan you eliminate income tax deductions for company expenses and company investments. Why would any business invest in jobs in CA if they need to pay a double tax – first on “revenue” then on property? Notice there is no suggestion on elimination of property taxes. This kid of revenue tax adds a tax markup to all resale business transactions regardless of profitablity.

Guess who’s exempt from the new taxes? Government employees and their “services!” This kind of bad plan only serves to transfer more “work” to the state and their union work force. Isn’t that what got us into this mess in the first place? We should be doing the opposite!!

Example: Most private schools are non-profit and pay no tax. Private schools, under this plan, would now pay tax on their revenue (tuition) rather than profit. New “plan” makes it more expensive and difficult to operate this “business” because less money available for student expenses (like non union teacher paychecks) because of new taxes on “revenue.” Enrollments will decline. You don’t think the public teacher’s union has thought this one through?

The same scenario applies to public healthcare, housing, security, etc.

THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA!

I believe there are many people out there who do not understand that we are not a “democracy” where a simple majority rules, we are a Republic. I also know there are many today who have never read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. I am simply trying to do my part to encourage others to “learn”.

Anyway, I thought then and do now you’re a very fine fellow! Blessing to you and your family

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toEdT0VEHKI

Blessings to you!

Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8
November 05, 2008
Contact: (916) 608-3065
By Andy Pugno

“The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.

This is the second time that California voters have acted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is time that the opponents of traditional marriage respect the voters’ decision.

The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself.

The right to amend California’s Constitution is not granted to the People, it is reserved by the People. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the reserved power of the People to use the initiative process to amend the Constitution. For example, when the Rose Bird Court struck down the death penalty as a violation of fundamental state constitutional rights, the People disagreed, and in the exercise of their sovereign power reversed that interpretation of their Constitution through the initiative-amendment process. Even a liberal jurist who vehemently disagreed with the People’s decision on the death penalty, Justice Stanley Mosk, nevertheless acknowledged the People’s authority to decide the issue through the initiative-amendment process.

It should also be noted that the ACLU recently made this same “constitutional revision” claim in a nearly identical matter in Oregon and it was unanimously rejected. The claim was made under almost identical provisions of the Oregon State Constitution, against an almost identical voter constitutional amendment which read, “…only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” The Court of Appeals of Oregon unanimously rejected the ACLU’s “revision” claim. (Martinez v. Kulongoski (May 21, 2008) — P.3d—-, 220 Or.App. 142, 2008 WL2120516).

The coalition that has worked so hard for the past year to enact Proposition 8 will vigorously defend the People’s decision against this unfortunate challenge by groups who, having lost in the court of public opinion, now turn to courts of law to pursue their agenda.”

http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com