NO to California Water Bonds Totaling $11 Billion

Of course we want to ensure our water supply and at the same time protect our environment.  So every few years and sometimes more often the California legislature proposes more money to maintain the water supply.  Unfortunately the actual amount of available water has declined.  Many reservoirs are well below their capacity.  Rationing of water has become a state wide fact.  This would certainly be a time when Californians would approve a bond measure to improve the system.

Is that how the legislature decided on a $11.1 billion bond proposal?  Apparently the answer is yes.  The problem is that this bill appears to be more about building water projects we do not need rather than addressing the issue of water distribution.  If passed, this bond issue will provide money for lots of contractors and $10 million for a Sacramento center for social tolerance that has nothing to do with water.  This fact was exposed by Sacramento Bee reporter and columnist Dan Walters.  Mr. Walters says this bond issue doesn’t address the issues.

Here is a list voter approved water projects from just this past decade I found on the internet.

Proposition 13. In March 2000, California voters approved Proposition 13 (2000 Water Bond), which authorizes the State of California to sell $1.97 billion in general obligation bonds to support safe drinking, water quality, flood protection and water reliability projects throughout the State.

Proposition 40. In March 2002, California voters approved Proposition 40, a $2.6 billion state bond measure for conservation, neighborhood parks, and coastline and watershed protection. Proposition 40 was the largest conservation bond measure ever approved in California.

Proposition 50. In November 2002, the $3.4 billion water bond measure, the largest in California history, was approved by voters. It provides $825 million in funding for CALFED for a variety of programs, including surface water storage studies, water conveyance facilities, levee improvements, water supply reliability projects, ecosystem restoration, watershed programs, conservation and water recycling. More on Proposition 50 is available at www.water.ca.gov/grants-loans.

Proposition 84.  In November 2006 California voters approved this measure that will fund water, flood control, natural resources, park and conservation projects by authorizing $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds. The bonds will be used to fund various projects aimed at (1) improving drinking and agricultural water quality and management; (2) preserving, restoring and increasing public access to rivers and beaches; (3) improving flood control. See details of the law at http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/prop_84_text.pdf.

My calculator says these propositions spent more than $13 billion.  The cost to pay back those bonds with interest will most likely be double that amount.  Unless I hear some startling reason for this waste of tax dollars we should all vote NO to this give away.

Negative Nabobs Live On

The President and the Democratic Party find themselves in a “no win” position in the world of politics now.  The party of “no” is growing more extreme every day.  The Republican Party has become the party of “negative nabobs.”

A little history is appropriate here.  

-It was President George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, who rushed his proposal to give $700 Billion to the financial industry without any strings because it was believed that the nation was about to come to a grinding halt.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -It was President George W. Bush who formulated the Bush Doctrine of preemptive military strikes that took the country into Iraq and neglected the situation in Afghanistan.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -It was the Bush administration that ignored the warnings about the Katrina hurricane.

Now, just 10 months after entering office president Barack Obama is supposed to have solved all of America’s problems.  Look at what has happened.

-3.5% GDP growth is artificial.  It’s all the result of government programs.  Are those the programs that the GOP said would not work?  Isn’t the point of the programs to stimulate the economy?                                                                                                                                                                                                   -Medical costs are rising at about 10% annually.  The cost of insurance and care is taking at least 15% of American earnings.  Obama proposes a Federally run insurance plan and the GOP says no but offers no alternatives.                                                                                                                                -The war in Afghanistan is going badly and the president is considering a new strategy.  The former VP, Dick Cheney, calls the president’s evaluation “dithering” and the GOP faithful applaud.                                                                                                                                                                                                       -Swine Flu vaccine has been quickly developed and the news media is scornful of medical lab care in assuring a quality product is produced.                                                                                                             -Improved relations with nations that have historically been our allies and reduced tensions with other nations has been a hallmark of Obama’s presidency.  It is scorned by the GOP.  Their answer is let’s fight.   Rush Limbaugh hopes the “president fails.”  

Unfortunately Democrats are not willing to grant Republican successes.  It’s the negativity of the minority party that ought to be condemned.  It is rarely about what is good for America.  The last time we all came together was the week after 9-11.  We all need to ignore the nabobs of negativism.

The American War Machine

We are using the wrong strategy in our Afghanistan battle.  United States armed forces along with international armed forces and Afghan security forces and police are now reported by the Associated Press to outnumber Taliban rebels by 12-1.  There are currently about 104,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including about 68,000 Americans.  Americans are dying at an alarming rate thanks to IEDs.  Our fight ought to be with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups that threaten the United States.  They are the group that was responsible for 9-11.

The American army is made up of volunteers.  As a consequence most American families are not affected by the injuries and loss of life.  The military-industrial complex couldn’t be happier because the war is making money for military manufacturers and the commanders have a cause that is difficult to dispute.

My contention is that the United States needs an alternate strategy that uses an undercover, quick deployment methodology that will deter attacks on the United States and its allies.  We cannot bring Jeffersonian democracy to people who have no conception of our way of life.  Many of the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are living in a 12^th century world.  Our occupation of Iraq proves that we cannot contain terrorists.  Our final success in that country remains in doubt as proven by the latest bombings in Baghdad that have killed 153 people.

Like the continued manufacture of C-17 aircraft, the industrial complex that manufactures war materiel will lobby Congress to support the McChrystal request for more forces.  I fear that Obama does not have the backbone to say “no” to those who love war.        

The President’s Vision

President Obama has already made history by being the first non-White to be elected to the presidency.  That was a significant accomplishment.  However, it is not enough for our new president.  He wants to make significant changes to our relationship with the rest of the world and wants to re-make parts of the American economy.  The changes he wants to accomplish are dramatic.  Given his lack of experience, his objectives seem unrealistic.  After all many Democrats as well as most Republicans hold historical views that are contrary to his ideas.

Obama’s allies are operatives who seem to see everything through a political spectrum.  Those associates are driven by political motivation.  They understand that their best opportunities to change America and its relationship to the world must be accomplished in the earliest part of the Obama presidency.  That is the reason for the hard push for health care reform and the very aggressive foreign policy.  It is not clear that his closest supporters even understand his vision.

I am not saying that his ideas are wrong.  They are just views that do not conform to historic philosophy.  It appears he may be correct in his views of the 21^st century.

In foreign affairs Obama wants the United States to step down from its position of supremacy.  His calls for greater participation of other countries in resolving international issues is a view that was actually started by President George W. Bush.  There is a good reason for this change of philosophy.  This country currently has 300,000 soldiers in 150 countries and 820 bases in 39 countries.  The U.S. military budget is approximately $500 billion.  Starting with George Washington there has been an idea that the country would be better off with limited foreign entanglements.

In domestic affairs Obama wants to involve the federal government in more of the things that impact most citizens.  Reform of health care is just the first step of his agenda.  He wants the federal government to become more involved in the educational systems and the industrial system of our nation.  I believe his objective is U.S.A. Incorporated.  He sees this as the avenue to competition in a global economy.  His list of books to read in 2009 includes Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman.  The recent decline in the value of the American dollar is a good thing when you are trying to compete with the low cost nations of the world.

It’s a scary set of objectives.  I think I can see where he wants to take this nation.  Many people will fight him because they are living in the past.  The problem is too few have taken a really good look at where the nation is right now.  Those resisting his ideas could easily stop him.  The question is what is their vision?

A Political Conservative

the right wing are a hysterical name calling group

President George W. Bush was no conservative.  Conservatives are those who stand for the status quo, do not spend more than they earn and don’t want the government to spend more than its income.  They view the bible and the constitution as documents to be both respected and honored.  They are the group of people who are the accountants, bankers, business owners, and others who make decisions in a calm and deliberative manner.  George W. Bush met only some of those expectations. 

Is a political conservative the same as a member of the right wing of the Republican Party?  In my view the answer is no.  William F. Buckely Jr. offered his views in this statement from his National Review magazine.  Those of the right wing are a hysterical name calling group who have become a gang of gun totting haters that are praying for Obama’s failure and his early death.

In the current battles in Congress, Republican conservatives are living up to their standards when they say no to changing the health care system, no to new climate change regulations, and no to war when have not been attacked.  OK, they have it right on two out of three.  It is President Obama who is taking a deliberative approach to committing more troops to Afghanistan and conducting talks with Iran before attacking.

As a Moderate with both Liberal and Conservative views it is impossible to actively participate in any political party.  I do understand how someone can be part of one party.  Those people have to accept the idea that the majority rules and besides so many people in the party are their friends.  Perhaps I am not part of either party because neither party has been friendly enough.  Perhaps I am just too conservative for any party.

The High Cost of American Health Care

I took a book out of the library on mutual fund investing titled “100 Best Mutual Funds.”  Just inside the first few pages was the author’s argument for making investments in equities (another word for stocks) rather than bonds or CDs.  The contention is that stocks are responsive to inflation thus are the better investment.  To indicate the significance of inflation the author provided these startling facts on the costs of things we all want or need.

	Year	Amount
First-class stamp	1934	3 cents
	1980	15 cents
	2002	34 cents
	Increase	1,133%
A new car	1934	$1,436
	1980	$6,200
	2002	$19,175
	Increase	1,335%
A day in the hospital	1934	$12
	1980	$344
	2002	$2,854
	Increase	23,783%

Sources: U.S. Postal service, U.S. Census Bureau, and the Wall Street Journal, April 2002

I was astonished to see that the cost of hospitalization had inflated at a rate of 17 times faster than the cost of cars.  There is no doubt that health care has become an extraordinary burden on our country.  The question is how do we bring this ballooning expense under control?

The Los Angeles Times article about a woman’s need for surgery that would have taken a waiting time of 39 months in Canada as opposed to two days in the United States tells me that nationalized health care will not provide the solution we need.

Forget the plans for health care that have been discussed in the House and Senate.  This nation has a serious problem.  No single person and no political party has all the answers.  We need people of good will and intent to meet together to stop this outrageous theft of income.  The sad fact is that we do not have the kind of people in our congress that will sit together to find a reasonable solution.  Is it the people we elected, the political parties, or the lobbyists who are stopping the process?

Political parties do not matter.  Electing people to office that really care about America’s needs ought to be job one.

A Poll Asks “Should Obama be Killed?”

I am quite certain that protecting George W. Bush from an assassin was difficult when he was president.  I personally thought he was the devil but I never thought about killing him.  Today we have a Black man as president.  That fact alone generates hatred.  The killing of Martin Luther Kings Jr. proves that many will kill just because someone is not White.  A minister in Arizona has asked his church’s membership to pray for Obama’s death.

Protection of Barack Obama and his family has to be far more difficult than the protection of any family that has ever lived in the White House.

So here we have an articulate man and a beautiful family.  Why should he run for re-election?  I cannot think of one really good reason.  Freedom of press can cause many people to speak about horrible deeds.

I found this article on the Toronto Star web site

Sep 28, 2009 04:41 PM

The U.S. Secret Service is looking into the person behind a “Should Obama be killed?” poll on Facebook, according to a report on the Washington Post Company’s online publication Who Runs Gov.

“We are taking the appropriate investigative steps,” Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told reporter Amanda Erickson of The Plum Line blog, housed on Who Runs Gov. “We are aware of it.”

The poll, first reported Sunday night by another blog, The Political Carnival, offers four choices to the question “Should Obama be killed:” 1) Yes. 2) Maybe. 3) If he cuts my health care and 4) No.

The application – created by an outside party, not Facebook – has since been disabled. It appears that at least 750 people had participated in the poll before it was taken down. (You can see a screen shot of what it looked like here:

http://bit.ly/4lUH0y

Users searching for the original poll are now greeted with the following message on Facebook:

“The application `Polls’ is temporarily unavailable due to an issue with its third-party developer. We are investigating the situation and apologize for any inconvenience.”Facebook’s spokesman for policy matters, Barry Schnitt, tells TalkingPointsMemo.com that the Secret Service asked Facebook on Monday to take down the poll, but that it had already been removed by then.

Meanwhile, TPM notes that a related poll subsequently surfaced: “Should the person who created the ‘Should Obama be Killed Poll’ be arrested?”

It, too, has been disabled.

Toronto Star

William Safire

William Safire was a conservative that I admired.  The reasons were simple.  First he was not part of the hysterical fringe.  He was a calm, collected, and reasoning man.  Second he was a wonderful writer.  His “On Language” weekly column was a favorite of mine.  I even created my own blog with the same title and purpose.  That was the tracing of word origins and their usage.  I could never match his use of language and never anticipated but always dreamed I could.

What scares me most is he was only nine years older than me.  I am hoping to see my one hundredth birthday and know that I am 100 years old.

Safire’s stupid writing for Spiro Agnew was creative. “Nattering nabobs of negativism” is the one I remember.  It was smart, cheeky and fun. 

You were great Bill!

 

Meg Whitman for California Governor, I Don’t Think So

“Hey, I’m rich and I can do anything!  I can even become governor of California.  It might be fun, I will be giving back to the community that made me so damn rich, and besides I really have nothing else to do.”

I was a supporter of Arnold Schwarzenegger because I hoped that a wealthy, well educated person with moderate views could improve the management of our state.  I was wrong.

If you read and listen to Meg Whitman you will know that her goals are the same stated by Schwarzenegger when he was running for office.  Creating jobs, cutting state spending and fixing the education system will be her top priorities according to an SFGate on line article.  She says she will cut 40,000 state jobs but doesn’t tell us how she will do that.  Remember Schwarzenegger’s appointment of accountants who would find all the places where there was corruption and waste?  Was he the “girlie man” who didn’t have the courage to stop that corruption and waste?  Perhaps there really isn’t any consequential savings. 

Remember this well intentioned Schwarzenegger quote, “It’s disturbing to realize that after taking a close look at California’s budget, it’s hard to make any sense out of it. In Sacramento, spending is out of control and as governor, I will work to get the state’s fiscal house in order. Immediately upon taking office I will order an outside, independent audit of the state budget so we can get a clear picture–uncluttered by politics and special interest influence–of how we can bring spending under control without neglecting our most important obligations.”

The Republicans need a gubernatorial candidate who really knows how the state functions and has the skills to reduce the state’s payroll.  Meg Whitman’s only credential is she has the money to pay for her run for office.

Repairing California

California, the Golden State, is literally falling apart.  The streets, freeways, levees, and even the water distribution system are all breaking apart.  The Los Angeles Times reported 34 breaks in the Los Angeles city water distribution system.  Add to that the deteriorating educational system, the high taxes, the over budget government systems (city of Los Angeles and state government), and the legislative deadlocks and you begin to understand the depth of our turmoil.

The city and state districting has been so gerrymandered that there is little opportunity to unseat incumbent legislators without an extraordinary uprising of the electorate. 

District boundaries are merely a symptom of the overall management of California.  Republicans and Democrats have carved up the state in a manner that ensures that when an incumbent retires his successor will be in the same party.

Two examples help to tell the story:                                                                                                                     1. The 30^th congressional district held by Henry Waxman.  His primary constituency is West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu, and all the immediately adjoining areas.  For reasons that will forever remain a mystery his district boundary includes the west end of the San Fernando Valley.

2. The second and sixth council districts in Los Angeles are a perfect example of the no reasonable districting philosophy that has invaded cities as well as state districting nonsense.  Clearly these districts were devised to ensure the re-election of candidates based upon the ethnic backgrounds of the constituents rather than neighborhood needs.

The state constitution has 522 amendments and is 110 pages long.  To make it useable the regulations in the constitution have been organized into topic “codes” to enable understandability.  Many laws have been included in the constitution rather than simple state law to prevent them from being overturned.  Thus the Public Housing Project Law is Article 34.

To pass a budget in the state legislature requires 2/3 vote.  Thus 1/3 of the legislature controls the budgetary process. Only two other states have this requirement.  It is the reason that budgets are rarely passed before their due date.  The result is this year’s issuance of I.O.U.s by the state treasurer. 

It is the same reason that bond issues are approved by the voters rather than the legislature.  The same reason a typical state wide ballot has 10 to 12 initiatives.  The legislature can’t agree on most laws and puts the questions to voters who usually lack adequate information to make wise decisions.  Voters are influenced by special interest groups that spread lots of lies.

BusinessWeek has just reported that a new state commission to recommend an overhaul the tax system has been established by the legislature.  The legislature will abdicate its responsibility and the plan will appear on a future ballot.  Voters, with limited knowledge, will be encouraged to vote yes or no by various special interest groups that will try to frighten the public.  It’s how this state got into so much trouble by using initiatives to pass property tax regulations, governance laws, bond initiatives, and other laws that should have been determined by the legislature.  That is a group that has refused to take responsibility.   

The solution is a state constitutional convention.  The Bay Area Council, a business group in San Francisco that includes the surrounding bay area, has taken on the leadership role in this endeavor.  Through a group called Repair California they have been holding town hall meetings throughout the state and have met with the editorial boards of many newspapers for their support.  The Los Angeles Times has become an enthusiastic supporter of this idea.  They have published six editorials supporting the idea of a constitutional convention.  The first of those editorials appeared on  August 16, 2009.  The most recent appeared on September 20, 2009.

Moving to Oregon is not an option for me.  We have to get this done.