Posts Tagged ‘california’

Hope?

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.

Advertisements

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 : , ,
Del.icio.us : , ,

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 : , ,
Del.icio.us : , ,

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?

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.

Digg!

It’s my money … and yours!

November 25, 2008

It is amazing how many people want our money.

The Federal and State Governments – depending on where you live – take our money and give it away like there is no tomorrow. As this article suggests, we are treated like an ATM.

And, in these financially difficult times, what does the Government do with the money the take from us?

First, they bail out various financial institutions to prevent them from failing, with Citigroup being the latest. Then, we have the Big 3 Auto Makers asking for their chunk of the pie. Now, we have California and Ohio asking for a chunk of the Federal Pie since what they are taking is apparently not enough.

The National Debt (debt clocks here and here) is growing at an astonishing rate. And, as pointed out here, it is going to continue to grow.

Now, the push is for a second stimulus package. But, some suggest a tax cut would help the situation far better than a stimulus package.

I favor the tax cut. With a tax cut, I get to keep more of my money with every paycheck. This will give me some breathing room in my budget. A stimulus check will give me a one-time chunk of money that does not help my month-to-month budget.

Let us keep more of our money!

Eliminate the legal institution of marriage …

November 15, 2008

Finally, someone else is putting forward the idea I suggested here, the idea of getting the State out of the marriage business. Read the opinion piece by Douglas W. Kmiec’s titled “A proposal for compromise on Prop. 8”.

Essentially, the idea is to eliminate marriage licensing by the State and replace it with a civil union. The civil union will have all the same rights and benefits that the State confers to marriage today. No ceremony is required to establish a civil union, only the completion and filing of the proper paperwork.

Then, the religious institutions will be free to perform marriage ceremonies for whom they choose.

And, more importantly, those who believe the act of homosexuality is wrong will retain their First Amendment right to state their belief in the public square, whether they are an individual or a religious institution.

Let’s hope this idea gains momentum and actually get’s pushed through the legislative process.

Technorati : , , , , , , ,
Del.icio.us : , , , , , , ,