Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category


September 29, 2009

Is there hope?

A commission in California will recommend a change to the “personal income tax structure to reduce the burden on the wealthy“. They will also recommend abolishing sales and corporate taxes, replacing it with a tax on businesses net receipts.

Read the article here.

You can also visit the website for the Commission on the 21st Century Economy to learn more about the commission and their charge.


Proposition 8 – the facts …

May 28, 2009

I was reading a news article (here) about the California State Supreme Court’s ruling validating Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act. While reading the comments to the article, I came across the following:

“If California did not want gay marriage then all of this would never have happend and those who are married now would have never been offered the chance…. so think about the facts.”

The implication of the statement is that California “wants” same-sex marriage. I disagree, so I responded with the following:

The facts are:

1) In 2000, Californians passed Proposition 22 stating that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
2) Those who want to redefine marriage took the issue to court. And, in May of 2008, eight years later, 4 of 7 judges in the California State Supreme Court voted to overturn Proposition 22 and allow same-sex marriage. The State Supreme Court also denied a request to “stay” the decision until Proposition 8 was decided later in the year.
3) In November of 2008, Californians again declare that marriage should be between one man and one woman by passing Proposition 8.
4) In May of 2009, the State Supreme Court rules that Proposition 8 is valid. And, even though some disagree, the Court had no choice but to let approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages remain recognized because they did not grant the stay requested after their earlier decision.

Those are the facts.

Same-sex marriage is an issue in this State because a group of individuals who want to redefine marriage have made it an issue. And, the group has been successful in achieving their goals using the Court system. However, each time it has been presented to the voters of this State, the voters have been clear that they do not want marriage redefined.

Marriage is not a right. Historically, it is a religious ceremony joining one man and one woman in “holy matrimony”. Today, not only is it a religious ceremony for most, but the State uses it as a “legal instrument” to confer “benefits” to those who are “married”.

Personally, I believe the State should come up with another legal instrument to confer those “benefits” and leave marriage to the religious institutions. This will allow the State to grant the legal instrument to both traditional unions and same-sex unions without redefining marriage. I think this would best serve both sides of this issue.

I would love to see the proponents of same-sex marriage pressure the State to come up with a legal instrument other than a “marriage certificate” to confer the rights they are seeking. The State and the Federal Government need to get out of the marriage business.

Will that happen? Considering this article, it looks like the fight is moving back into the court system.

Technorati : , , : , ,

Victor Hanson says it all …

March 19, 2009

Victor David Hanson wrote an excellent article titled “Accounting for California’s Suicide” which was published by Real Clear Politics on March 6, 2009.

I suggest everyone read the above article. Once read, take action if you wish to save the State of California.

Technorati : , , : , ,


Guess who pays?

February 19, 2009

So, what does a Legislature do when: 1) the budget is $42 billion short; 2) the Country is in a recession; and 3) their constituents are taking pay cuts or losing their jobs? Well, in California, the Democratic controlled Legislature raises taxes!!! (Read the article here).

Once again, it is the citizens who have to pay for their mistakes.

The Legislature in California has been on a spending spree for the last decade. And, following the “dot-com bust”, the Legislature has contiunously tried to raise taxes rather than cut-spending. They have finally succeeded. The Legislature “says” there are cuts. But, you will be hard pressed to find “actual cuts”. What the Legislature calls cuts is really an increase, only the increase is not as big as was desired.

Will voters in this State ever realize that the “tax and spend” philosophy does not work?

And, more importantly, will Republicans stop welcoming those who are Repbulicans In Name Only (RINO), like our Governer and the three “Republicans” in each house that had to support the proposed tax increases?


Three P’s of Government …

January 24, 2009

We learned in the previous article that we have a Republican form of Government, a government ruled by law. The basis of our Government is held in the words found in the Declaration of Independence.

“… they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”

And, this forms the basis of my political beliefs! From these words, I have developed the “Three P’s of Government” which define the proper role of government.

Three P’s of Government

Protect Life – The government must protect the citizens it represents.
Preserve Liberty – The government must preserve the freedoms of it’s citizens.
Permit the Pursuit of Happiness – The government must allow it’s citizens to pursue happiness.

I apply each of these to a government action to determine whether the action is appropriate or not. If the action is in opposition to any of them, then the action is inappropriate. In most cases, an action will apply to at least two of these.

For example, let’s take the issue of banning fireworks, something that is very common in Southern California.

Protect Life – Banning fireworks does protect life and property. This very reason is why the bans were proposed.

Preserve Liberty – Banning fireworks takes away a freedom. Law-abiding citizens are no longer free to use fireworks if they so choose.

Permit the Pursuit of Happiness – Banning fireworks does not really apply here. One could stretch it and say that the ban prevents them from “being happy”, but that is not what is meant by “pursuit of happiness”.

So, “banning fireworks” is not appropriate because it takes away a freedom from it’s citizens even though it may protect lives and property.

Now, this seems pretty simplistic and limits the role of government. And, that is exactly the point. The role of government in our daily lives must be limited and, applying the “Three P’s of Government” consistently, we can achieve that.


What Type of Government Does America Have?

January 12, 2009

Is America a Democracy or a Republic?

I believe many today will say they believe America is a Democracy. And, in many cases, it seems that way. However, America is a Republic.

The following video does a good job of explaining the differences between the common forms of government. And, it helps to remind all of us that America is a Republic.

The American Form Of Government

Please watch the video above. And, if you want to learn more, please read the following.

Declaration of Independence
(This should be mandatory reading for everyone. I try to read this every Fourth of July.)

Constitution of the United States
(This should be mandatory reading for everyone. I have read this several times.)

Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1787
(I have read many parts of this historical record from James Madison.)

The Federalist Papers
(I have read many of the articles that make up the collection.)



Who says one vote doesn’t count?

December 30, 2008

Jim Winder retains his seat on the Yorba Linda City Council by a single vote. Once again, we see how important it is that everyone votes.

Ed Rakochy called for a recount which was completed yesterday. The final tally was 11,950 for Mr. Winder and 11,949 for Mr. Rakochy. The OCRegister article covering the final results can be read here.

Ed Rakochy stated in the article, “I think you’ll see a lot of improvement and a lot of reform.” I hope we do.

However, as I’ve said before, I am concerned that the goals of the group (YLRRR) will overshadow the desires of the community. As we saw in the election and in the first meeting on December 2, they are not afraid to push people aside if they don’t wholly agree with group. In the election, they did not support Henry Wedda after they supported his appointment to the Council in 2007. Then, in the first meeting where YLRRR had a majority of the Council, they passed over Jan Horton for the Mayor position and did not allow her to serve on any of the paid board positions.

We all must keep a close eye on what they do over the next two years!



California Adds More Laws …

December 28, 2008

The following links identify some of the new laws in California that take effect on January 1, 2009.

The question is, do we really need all of these laws?

Personally, I think the Legislature has too much time on their hands. To make themselves feel useful, they come up with all of these laws, no matter how “silly” they really are, rather than addressing the real issues of this state.

I believe it is time to go back to a “part-time Legislature”.

In 1966, Proposition 1A was passed which created a “full-time Legislature”. Yes, Jesse Unruh believed Proposition 1A was the way to solve the problems he found, specifically the inability to address complex issues and eliminate potential conflicts of interests and the influence of lobbyists. However, I believe there are other ways to solve those issues.

  1. Make the pay “sufficient”. We all must be paid for the work we perform.
  2. Restrict all forms of “gratitude” from lobbyists.

I don’t think we can do anything about their inability to address complex issues. As we have seen over the last several years, they can’t even manage to get the budget under control even with the “special sessions”. The only way to solve that is for us, the citizens of this State, to elect individuals who WANT to solve those problems. Most who are elected today are concerned about the environment, a woman’s right to choose, animal rights or other such things that don’t help solve the bigger problems. So, it is up to us to choose our representatives wisely if we are ever going to get out of this mess.

In the meantime, getting back to a part-time Legislature will be a step in the right direction.

Here are a few articles on the subject for your edification.



Who’s to blame?

December 21, 2008

The economic crisis that is now crippling the world clearly started in the U.S. And, as the Japanese owner of the company I work for acknowledged, it was specifically the failure of the subprime mortgages.

The question as to who is to blame for the subprime mortgage mess is constantly debated. The media has clearly tried to point the finger at President Bush and the Republicans.

In an attempt to provide a more complete picture, I am including the following.

First, an editorial which got me started on this, from Investor’s Business Daily, “The Subprime Lending Bias”.

The rest of these links help support the statements made in the above article.

CRA Regulatory Change – 1995

First Union Press Release – October, 20, 1997

Andrew Cuomo – Affirmative Action “lending” – April 6, 1998

HUD Press Release 00-45 – March 2, 2000

It is clear from the above that the problems started during the tenure of President Clinton. However, it is also clear that President Bush did very little, if anything, to prevent the impending crisis.

But, more importantly, it doesn’t matter who is at fault. In the end, we will pay!!! Whether it is bailing companies out for making bad decisions or, as stated in the previous article, it is bailing out Legislatures who fail to manage the State’s budget, it is the taxpayer who will lose!!!


Atheists’ attacks on Christianity this Christmas season …

December 18, 2008

Once again, Chuck Norris echoes my sentiments in the article, “Atheists’ national holiday?”.

The atheists are on the attack this year. And, what are they attacking? Religion and, more specifically, Christianity. Why can’t they just say they believe there is “no god” without attacking religion?

It’s the same with many who believe in evolution. They can’t just say they believe in evolution. They have to attack Christianity. For example, some have taken a Christian symbol and modified it, mocking Christianity.

Christian symbol –>

Darwin symbol –>

And, as Mr. Norris points out, society appears to have no problem when it is religion that is attacked. However, if you make any comment about a “minority” group that is considered an attack, it is front page news.

It is time for those who believe to make these inconsistencies apparent to others. You don’t have to attack back, just point out the disparities that exist. If we don’t stand now, we will kept down in the future.