No Nanny State - Molon Labe!

Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.
--Albert Einstein

A good buddy of mine sent me a couple of links to information that just boils my blood.

The first article is called, "Thinking Like "Fat Tony". It was published in September of last year.

It's a fictional look at how we're just a bunch of suckers - mostly for the pablum that is fed us by Nanny.

Fat Tony is a character in a book - he has "street smarts". He uses his powers of observation to guide his decisions. This is in contrast to Dr. John, who is a by-the-book observer of facts.

They are given a set of facts, and asked to make a prediction -

Taleb [the book's author] then brings these two completely different people together in a make-believe encounter to ask them a question in order to compare their answers. He tells them that he has a coin and that it is “fair”, meaning that it has an equal probability of coming up heads or tails when flipped.

He then tells them he has flipped it ninety-nine times and the coin has landed heads each time. Taleb then asks them to calculate the odds of the coin landing tails on the next throw.

Dr. John: Trivial question. One half, of course, since you are assuming 50 percent odds for each and independence between draws.

NNT [Taleb]: What do you say Fat Tony?

Fat Tony: I'd say no more than one percent, of course.

NNT: Why so? I gave you the initial assumption of a fair coin, meaning that it was 50 percent either way.

Fat Tony: You are either full of crap or a pure sucker to buy that “50 percent” business. The coin gotta be loaded. It can't be a fair game. (Translation: It is far more likely that your assumptions about the fairness are wrong than the coin delivering ninety-nine heads in ninety-nine throws.)

NNT: But Dr. John said 50 percent.

Fat Tony (whispering in my ear): I know these guys with the nerd examples from my bank days. They think way too slow. And they are too commoditized. You can take them for a ride.

The central point that he's making is that if you believe exactly what you're being told at face-value - no questioning of the information - you're in line to get taken. Big time.
----------

The article gives a very interesting example of official government information that is virtually impossible to be true. Yet, it has been published - unchanged - since April of 2006 -

Here’s something even more bizarre. One would assume that the size of the Mint’s working stock varies from month to month, just like inventory varies from month to month in any business as a result of changes in production and the ebbs and flows in sales. And indeed, the Mint’s inventory did vary monthly, up until March 2006. But according to the Treasury’s reports, the Mint’s working stock has remained exactly 2,783,218.656 ounces since April 2006. How is it possible that the Mint’s working stock has remained unchanged for 28 months? Have you ever seen any business anywhere in the world for which its working stock was unchanged for a day, let alone 28 months?

Click this link. It will take you to the Treasury Department's, "Status Report of U.S. Treasury-Owned Gold".

Click the most recent report - June 2009. Here's a screen shot of the "working stock" report.


Click the image to enlarge it.

Yep, the working stock is STILL exactly the same as it was back in April 2006 -39 months later. For this to be accepted as fact, that would mean that our government wants us to believe that not a single gold coin has been minted in the last three and a quarter years.

Maybe the Treasury guys should walk across the hall and talk to the Mint guys. According to THEIR site, they sold 172,000 ounces of 2008 minted gold coins.
----------

The Dr. John's of the world might say, "Well, they buy exactly the amount of gold blanks as they're going to produce each year. THAT's why the numbers remain unchanged."

For you to believe that, you would have to believe that for each month of production, the exact amount of incoming gold equaled the exact amount of coins produced. And they would have been able to do that every single month for the past 39 months.

That would be a level of efficiency unattainable by the best manufacturing companies in the world. I don't think even the most ardent gulpers of Nanny's Kool-Aid would consider any arm of the US government as "ultra-efficient".
----------

Speaking of non-ultra-efficient ideas, consider this hospital administrator's experience with our current federally mandated health care system. This is the story across the country.

I believe these are called, Unfunded mandates -




Why would anyone think that by socializing our medical system, our health care delivery would improve? In my area of Northern California, we have seen a dozen or so hospitals close because they just aren't profitable. Why would you stay open if you're not making any money?

So now we have fewer hospitals, providing care to more people. Less competition results in higher costs.

I wonder what our health care system would look like if our hospitals were only forced to treat American citizens and LEGAL residents for free.

I think Fat Tony would say, "Dat's a no-brainer". Too bad Washington is full of nothing but Dr. John's...

Labels: communism, Constitution, Corruption, criminal, Fascism, illegal aliens, nanny state, Taxes, welfare state

Desperation is the raw material of drastic change. Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.
--William S. Burroughs

Reno is truly an armpit. A desperate armpit, I believe.


Even though it's only a couple of hours drive away, the last time I was there was 27 years ago when I was 23. I remember at the time that the place seemed old and gray. Everyone there seemed to be old.

Twenty-seven years later, I still got the same feeling. I'm obviously much older, but I felt like a youngster in Reno. The place is loaded with old-farts. It must have the per-capita corner on those little personal sitting scooters.

It's pretty dreary on the other end of the age scale as well. Very high unemployment. So many "lost children" walking the street. Teens and "twenty-somethings" that have that meth-head look - anxious, scabbed up, paranoid. This is right downtown near the major casinos and touristy stuff.

Lots of cops driving by, not seemingly doing much about it. Not really a Chamber of Commerce-worthy environment.

My brother had made the comment that he wanted me to carry concealed when we went out on Saturday night. I was already carrying (my set-up had virtually no "printing" and I was wearing a polo-style shirt). I was not going outside of the hotel unarmed. Period.
----------

The gun show was clearly a big financial boost to the area. Virtually everyone we spoke with (that worked there) had said Reno had been a ghost town of late, and it was nice to see the cash flowing for a while.

It was an interesting thing to see inside the guns show: the areas that were doing a brisk business - primarily the ammo, holster and magazine vendors, and the utility gun booths with modern, practical workhorse weapons - were all charging sales tax. Most of the others were only charging face value for the goods.

I was kind of surprised to see the large numbers antique gun dealers. I did not see a single sale at one of these booths. Same goes for the vendors selling animal pelts, WWII or Civil War memorabilia.

If it wasn't something with a practical use, the sales were light.
----------

I stayed at Harrah's, but that may be the last time I stay at any of their facilities in Nevada.

We got a room upgrade. What did that consist of? We got a coffee maker (no microwave) and this lovely lamp:


Click the picture. We named it "the Hair Lamp". It was this hideous thing covered in some kind of fabric that looked like hair. It looked like a big tinder bundle. And this was in a room that allowed smoking! Every time I'd stand up, my head went right in the middle of the lamp. I was not pleased.

The primary source of my anger was their policy on concealed carry. I honestly did not see the signs when we first arrived, but they had at least one of the entrances posted with signs saying that concealed carry was not allowed, even with a permit.

From what I've read, to be enforceable, the signs must be posted at all entrances and be very visible. As I said, I honestly did not see it until we were actually leaving.

Now, it's their property, and they can choose the type of clientele they want in their hotels and casinos. And it's my prerogative to spend my money elsewhere - and that is a prerogative I will exercise.

I'm going to write their CEO to voice my displeasure, most likely to no avail.

A company can pick its market niche - the rich, the common folk, the young, the ultra-cool. Apparently, they want to cater to sheeple, and that's their prerogative.

I ain't sheeple, and they'll get no more of my money. In all of the markets they're in, I have alternatives, and I'll spend my money in those businesses.

They're the newest member of the No Buy Zone, joining Miller Beer (pro-illegal aliens), Pizza Hut (for firing a CCW-carrying employee for defending himself by using a gun) and McDonald's (for not supporting an employee that came to the aid of one of THEIR customers who was being assaulted).

----------
OT: Why are we cutting Cuba a break? Is not it the job of the president to do things that are in the best interest of our country? If so, what did we get in return for the recent loosening of travel restrictions to Cuba?

This is going to be a huge boost to the Cuban economy. What did we get in return? Political prisoner releases? Free elections? How about cheap cigars?

This is nothing more than one Marxist giving a gift to another Marxist.

Labels: Brady Bunch, communism, Concealed Carry, Constitution, criminal, Fascism, Gun Grabbers, illegal aliens, Life and Times, nanny state, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance

Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.
--Thomas Szasz

Despite my close relationship with "the police" - my father was a life-long cop, I have a brother that is currently a senior officer, I've been in two cop weddings, and have current friends that are cops - I have been critical of many, many police actions.

I've shared some insights into some of the garbage going on with the Oakland Police Department, most recently in late January. They are far from a model agency.

Yesterday, a poster named Abraham replied to my post, basically with an attitude of, "They had it coming because of past sins." This morning, Pickdog said basically the same thing.

Their views are not isolated.

This morning, while listening to the radio, they had an audio clip of an on-the-street interview with a woman that lives in the neighborhood. The reporter was asking about the whole deal, and asked if she felt any pity or sadness about the cops that were slaughtered.

Her exact response was, "I feel sorry for Lovelle, he's the one that needed help." Lovelle, of course, being the name of the executioner.

You have an entire community coming to the defense of a convicted felon, who is also a suspect in an other murder. This morning it has come to light that a DNA test of the maggot shows that he is also the rapist of a 12 year old girl.

The day before Lovelle Mixon unleashed a barrage of gunfire that killed four Oakland police officers, the department's investigators learned that DNA evidence had linked the fugitive parolee to an unsolved rape this year, authorities said Monday.

Yet they still come to this bastard's defense. Poor, poor Lovelle.

He slaughtered these cops, not because of past police atrocities or economic conditions, but because he knew he was a felon in possession of a handgun, and THAT would land his ass back in prison.

They can't differentiate between legal and illegal acts. Why aren't they doing something about these supposed police abuses? Why aren't they going after the highly diverse city leadership - the bosses of the police? Where are the NAACP, Jesse and Al?

As we saw with the BART killing aftermath, they seem unable to hold a protest march without it turning into a "Trash the City" orgy. If they have evidence that these abuses are happening, bring in the feds, like was done in New Orleans.

Instead, they celebrate the murder of the police and the destruction of the rule of law.

Fucking worthless animals.
----------

If you're in California, you had better toe the PC line.

SACRAMENTO—New applications for California's Adopt-A-Highway program have been placed on hold while the state sorts out a legal fight with an anti-illegal immigrant group.

Lawyers for the San Diego Minutemen said the Department of Transportation is drafting new rules for the litter cleanup program to prevent the group from getting a sign with its name on it along the freeway.

CalTrans initially granted a stretch of highway near a border checkpoint to the group. When the state took down the sign, a judge ordered it to be put back up. When the state offered the group a new location, the Minutemen refused.

CalTrans is now drafting new rules that would allow the state greater flexibility in refusing applicants. Department officials said more than 3,000 cleanup permits are still being used.

You have a legal group, one that says the government should simply follow and enforce the laws on the books. When they see that Nanny isn't doing a damned thing, they form a group to do it themselves.

When they want to do as thousands of other organizations have done before them - get their name on a highway clean-up sign to promote their cause - they are shut-down by the state.

Land Of The Free, my ass.
----------

I should have known better to try and imply what would happen to the stock market after Geithner announced his latest version of the stimulus plan. I figured it would tank, and it soared.

Great. If this can bring the economy out of the shits, I'm all for it. I would love to take my retirement funds out of a crappy CD/IRA and get it back into the stock market, but I think this will be short-lived.

I read the White Paper put out by the Treasury Department. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how it will draw investment dollars. Well, it will draw dollars, but I don't think the banks will be selling.

They give an example: A bank holds an asset with a face value of $100. The investors make an offer of $84. The FDIC will guarantee financing for $72, leaving $12 of "equity" to be split between the investor and the Treasury. The investor would then act as the loan servicing agent and accept and process payments from the homeowners.

As I said, maybe I'm missing something, but here are my thoughts:

All "toxic assets" have already been written down by the banks. They were compelled to do so by the SEC and federal banking regulators. They've taken their "hair cut" off the assets, and they are at current market values.

If the banks wanted to sell those assets, they could do it right now at the current market values. Why would they take a further hair-cut on these assets? I don't see anything in this package that would incent the banks to sell these assets.

If the $100 value is the original face value of the loan, again, the bank will not accept an offer lower than that amount to which they've written down the loan. Perhaps that is the $84 mentioned in the example. If this is the case, then we're giving free money to the investor group.

Perhaps more information will come out in the next few days to clarify this.

To me, it looks like a desperate government putting up pretty pictures to placate a weary public. Or even worse, it's a way to spend more of our tax dollars to benefit someone else.

Labels: Concealed Carry, Constitution, Corruption, criminal, Ethics, illegal aliens, Life and Times, Self-Defense, Thought Crimes

Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity.
--W. Clement Stone

From a bailout discussion on Fox News and how Obama is being painted as our second savior. The money quote (pun intended):

Jesus Saves. Obama Spends.

----------

Continuing with the religious theme, there is a new ad that has been produced to put the $800 billion stimulus bill into perspective:

If you spent a million dollars A DAY since the birth of Jesus, you still would not have spent $800 billion.

2009 years x 365 days a year = 733, 285 days

733,285 days x $1,000,000 = $733,285,000,000
----------

I saw the ad on TV, but can't seem to find it anywhere online.

My question would be, "Why did you wait until AFTER the bill was signed to run the ad? Why didn't you do it BEFORE, so we at least had a chance to stop it or slim it down?"
----------

I've added another national company to my "No Buy Zone" list.

McDonald's.

When this story first came out, it said that McDonald's has a policy against intervening in fights or disputes that take place in one of their restaurants.

It seems they had an employee who was more worried about doing what is right, than doing what he was told to do.

It nearly cost him his life. He intervened when a customer slapped some woman in a McDonald's in Little Rock, Arkansas. In the video, he rushes the guy and pushes him out the door. He then stumbles back in. He had been shot a number of times by the punk that had slapped the woman.

He now has $300,000 in hospital bills for being a good, decent citizen.

I understand that their rules were "no involvement with fights". Technically and legally, they are on solid ground.

As an American citizen, they make me sick.

They are falling back on saying that the state insurance company is making the decision not to pay (if true, here's another example of Universal Health Care in action...). I'm sure that's based upon McDonald's "don't interfere" rules.

Even if the insurance company holds their ground, McDonald's could pick up the $300,000 cost without it even being noticed on their income statement. You could not put a price on the positive press they would receive.

Their CEO just received this email letter from me:

Jim Skinner
CEO

I just reviewed your Corporate Responsibility report for 2008. The opening paragraph was this:

McDonald’s is committed to being a company that the public can trust. We believe that good governance is more than a collection of laws and regulations. It is the intersection of the relationships among our Board of Directors, our management and our shareholders. It is informed by the values that have been the foundation of our business for more than 50 years – integrity, fairness, diligence and ethical behavior.

Integrity, fairness, diligence and ethical behavior. Lofty goals, indeed.

Yet I read a story where one of your employees in Little Rock, Arkansas nearly lost his life protecting one of YOUR customers. He is now under a burden of $300,000 in medical bills for this act.

You and your corporation are pointing to the "laws and regulations" stating that you have a "do not interfere" policy, and that it is the insurance company that is the bad guy here.

No, sir, it is YOU who is the bad guy. You had an employee that showed integrity and ethical behavior - two of your four corporate goals. Here was a young man who literally risked his life because it was the right thing to do - corporate rules be damned.

Are you really more than "a collection of laws and regulations"? I don't think so.

Prove me wrong, sir. Step up to the plate and embrace the actions of your employee. He should be heralded in your company, not vilified. Let's see if you can actually demonstrate your corporate goals of integrity, fairness, diligence and ethical behavior.

Until then, I am circulating the story of your cowardly and disgusting actions to everyone I know, with a recommendation to boycott your company until you make this right.

It may or may not make an impact, who knows? But it's the fair and ethical thing to do.

Try it some time.

----------

Who are the other two companies in the No Nanny State, "No Buy Zone"?

Pizza Hut. Not just because their pizza tastes like something a dog leaves on the lawn after eating a bowl of prunes, but because they fired an employee who had a CCW and defended himself from an armed robber while delivering a "pizza".

Miller Beer. Like Pizza Hut, it's not because their "beer" isn't worthy to degrease auto parts, it's because of their financial support for illegal aliens.

I also won't ever spend a dime at Macy's because of the way one employee treated me when I was buying my first good business suit 25 years ago. They don't do anything that is unethical, so they're not on the list. They are just pieces of crap in my eyes.

Yeah, I can hold a grudge, huh?

Labels: Concealed Carry, Ethics, Gun Grabbers, illegal aliens, nanny state, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
--Marcus Aurelius

OK, we're going to "stimulate" the economy with at least $827 billion. We all know that it will be more, but let's use that as our number.

What does that kind of money mean? We hear these trillions and billion bandied about, but what do you get for $827 billion.

If you were a country, you'd now be the 17th largest economy in the world - perhaps larger depending upon the source you're reading.

According to the CIA World Factbook 2008 numbers, you'd fall somewhere in between The Netherlands ($909 billion GDP) and Turkey ($799 billion GDP).
----------

You could buy 33 million cars, each costing $25,000 each.

You could hold a lottery for 3 million American winners (1% of population) and give them each a check for $275,000. Hell, just give every man, woman and child in America a check for $2,750.

You could pay each of the 20 million illegal aliens $41,000 to leave and never come back. That's 20 million jobs opening up right now. Twenty million Americans and legal aliens earning their own keep.

You could buy 134 billion copies of the US Constitution. That's 22 copies for every man, woman and child ON EARTH.

Run the numbers for yourself. It's fun.... and very depressing. What do you think YOU'LL get for your share of the $827 billion? Besides a good screwing.

Stimulating, indeed...

Labels: communism, Constitution, Corruption, Fascism, illegal aliens, nanny state, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
-- Vladimir Lenin

By now, I'm guessing most folks have heard about Barry capping the salary of CEOs whose banks have been suckling on the TARP teat. This will even apply to the banks that didn't want the money, but were strong-armed into taking it. Many folks are quite happy with this move.

Not me. CEO salary is something that should be between the CEO and the shareholders. If Nanny was going to set conditions for accepting the money, those conditions should have been spelled out before the money was doled out.

But of course, that's not how Nanny plays. She sucks you in like a drug dealer giving out free samples. Once you're hooked, the price goes up.

Nanny doesn't play fair, because she doesn't have to.
----------

I did a post a while back on the negative ramifications of the nationalization of our banking system (Free Toaster With Every Account?). I focused mostly on the credit side - how Nanny will decide who gets the money and for what reasons. My guess is that credit underwriting will have a large component of "what social cause does this advance?" You know, like what they did with the CRA in forcing banks to lend to people unable to repay the loans.

Now that Nanny owns the banks, more social programs will be forced down their throats, which means it is being forced down our throats. Historically, we were paying for these social programs indirectly. The bank passed along the cost of administering these programs to us in the form of higher fees or loan rates, or lower deposit rates. We'll shortly be paying for it in the form of higher taxes.

But don't despair! Going forward, you and I - as non-voting owners of these banks - will have yet another chance to fix the plight of the down-trodden. No need for them to fix their plight themselves - it's Nanny To The Rescue!

It seems that the federal banking regulators aren't satisfied with only requiring banks to give loans to people that can't afford to pay them back. No, Nanny seems a bit perturbed that the banks aren't voluntarily giving checking accounts to people that can't get them on their own.

With a bold headline, the FDIC has announced, "FDIC Releases First National Survey of Banks' Efforts to Serve the Unbanked and Underbanked."

I sure am glad they're spending tax dollars looking into this, what with all of the other piddly things going on. Still, what causes me concern is the subheading: "Banks Offer Products and Services for the Unbanked and Underbanked; Opportunities for Improvement Remain."

Uh oh. Nanny's not happy.
----------

What are the Unbanked and Underbanked?

They typically fall into two categories: People that used to have a checking account, but through some act of their own choice, stole money from a bank. They either bounced a bunch of checks, kited checks, cashed checks not made out to them, or some other such illegal act.

These folks get banned from most banks for a few years (there's a central clearing house that lists all of these people).

The other group generally makes a conscious decision to NOT have an account. They don't trust banks with their money or privacy, they've committed some other sort of crime (didn't pay child support, for instance) and don't want anyone knowing where they are, or they are in the country illegally.

In Nanny's eyes each of these two groups are simply misunderstood souls that are unfairly being denied, "Access to a basic bank account and to financial services [which] is a starting point for economic opportunity,".

Ahhh. Economic opportunity. I guess that's not important when it comes to the banks themselves.

Cutting through all of the bullshit in the FDIC Press Release, the banks had good reason to NOT want to offer these people checking accounts.

Banks are concerned about the profitability of doing business with unbanked and underbanked individuals as well as perceived regulatory issues related to anti-money laundering laws and regulations.

Wow, who'd a-thunk it. Banks want to make a buck, and are tired of being bitch-slapped by Nanny over anti-money laundering "transgressions".

So, what's a Nanny to do?

You start off with a lofty public goal that makes All True Americans tingly right down to the tips of their toes.

The study recommends defining a national shared government-industry goal to lower the number of unbanked and/or underbanked individuals and households in the U.S. and the creation of a national task force to provide oversight and guidance for the achievement of the shared goal to encourage banks to offer products and services designed to increase access of unbanked and/or underbanked individuals to the mainstream banking system.

I had coffee come shooting out of my nose when I read, "shared goal". Who the fuck do they think they're kidding?

This is going to be thrust upon the few remaining non-nationalized banks in the form of new CRA regulations. Nanny will be able to sell it as, "endorsed by the banks" because the banks she OWNS will all nod approvingly in front of the televised hearings staged by the Congress-critters.

Of course, as a major shareholder (if not THE majority shareholder) of so many banks, requiring the nationalized banks to "voluntarily" adopt the "shared goal" is a foregone conclusion.

I wonder, just wonder, how this will affect the profitability of these owned banks. Certainly, with lower profits due to the losses incurred by the shared goal, it will become more and more difficult for the banks to ever buy their way out of Nanny's grip.

But then again, as I said before, Nanny doesn't play fair, because she doesn't have to.

Labels: communism, Constitution, Corruption, Fascism, illegal aliens, nanny state, Taxes, welfare state

The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.
-- Vladimir Lenin

What in the hell is going on with the press and Obama? Look, I get it that people voted for "change", but this press coverage of Barry's coronation is honestly starting to worry me. The press is fairly "giggly" with the guy.

It seems unimportant to them that about half of America didn't vote for the guy. It's All Barry All The Time.

And where did all of these stations suddenly get all of these black reporters and commentators? Holy shit, it's Political Correctness Gone Wild.

My concern is that he WON'T be able to deliver what he's promising. It's like everyone is getting ready with extended hand, palm up. If he is unable to give everyone their pot of gold, he's going to get hammered. Ugly social unrest. People will pine for the, "good old Dubya days".

The only person I've seen question any of this is Sean Hannity (whom I personally cannot stand). There may be others, but he's the only one I've seen. The "Barry As Lincoln" stuff is so over the top.

He's got a boatload of pending Executive Orders to start his administration. It will be interesting to see which ones are at the top of the list.

President-elect Barack Obama will convene a meeting of his top economic advisers on Wednesday, his first full day in office, as the incoming president immediately tries to put the financial crisis at the center of his agenda, senior aides said.

Three aides said Obama is planning an ambitious first week that will include several other high-profile moves: a Wednesday meeting with military brass to map out a change to the mission in Iraq, appointment of at least one envoy to deal quickly with the Mideast crisis and issuance of executive orders on issues ranging from the environment to the detainment of terror suspects.

Apparently, the rest of the world wants a piece of the action as well.

When Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, the wish list that has been building abroad may have grown longer than he or anyone else can deliver.

It will be interesting to see how long the "honeymoon" lasts with the press. Too long, I fear...
----------

I was very glad to see that Bush commuted the sentences of the border patrol agents that popped a cap into the ass of the Mexican drug dealer.

In perhaps his final act of clemency, President George Bush has just commuted the prison terms of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting an unarmed Mexican drug smuggler who fled across the Rio Grande after they stopped his van with 743 pounds of marijuana.

I wish he had pardoned them out-right, but this beats a stick in the eye, and they'll be out in a month.

Labels: communism, Constitution, illegal aliens, Political Correctness, presidential

The most dangerous area where our laws are not being faithfully executed are the laws designed to protect Americans against the millions of aliens who enter our country illegally every year.
--Phyllis Schlafly

One more step down the slippery slope.

Yep, the provincial capital of The People's Republic of California - San Francisco - is finding yet another way to spit in the eye of US law and squander the resources of its citizens. Really, they are squandering all of our resources.

The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to issue municipal identification cards to city residents - regardless of whether they are in the country legally...

Why aren't the supervisors being rounded up and thrown in jail for Aiding and Abetting criminals? The term, "illegal alien" should be a dead give-away. They're here illegally. The supes are knowingly assisting them.

Consider a bank robber. If you knew someone had just robbed a bank, and you provided them aid and comfort to evade arrest, you'd go to jail. Why isn't this happening, en masse, to the government officials in SF?

Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who authored the ID card legislation, said the program is a smart public safety measure because it would make residents living on the social margins of San Francisco more likely to seek the help of police and could give them more access to banking services.

"People are afraid to report crimes," Ammiano said, referring to illegal immigrants who avoid local law enforcement authorities over fear of being arrested or deported by federal immigration officials.

No, you socialist piece of shit, a "smart public safety measure" would be to have them deported. In that way, the law would be followed, the illegal aliens would not have to worry about being the victims of crimes, and WE wouldn't have to worry about being a victim of THEIR crime.

And the law doesn't just apply to city services. They are forcing their socialist policies on private business.

The legislation would require companies holding city contracts to accept the municipal card as a legitimate form of identification...

Amazingly, one supervisor actually voted against the measure. Good luck at the next election, fella.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd voted against the measure, saying his opposition was primarily financial because the city doesn't know how much implementing the program will cost. "Next year's budget is not going to be pretty," Elsbernd said. "With all the services included, this could shortchange our budget discussion."

The San Francisco County Clerk has estimated the cost of the program could range between $1.07 million and $2.86 million in the first three years, much of that for staff to process the cards.

Upwards of $3 million for administration! It is going to cost shit-load more than this when all of the "free" services are included. When are people in that shit-hole going to stand up and say, "ENOUGH!"?

Oh wait, they are. With their feet.

The population of 25 to 34 year olds in the city dropped by 28.26 percent from 2000 to 2006, from 180,418 to 129,430, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey. San Francisco County's population of 25 to 29 year olds dropped by 43.5 percent from 2000 to 2006, and its population of 30 to 34 year olds dropped by 12.8 percent during that period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Amazingly, SF actually saw a slight increase in their overall population from 2004-2006. What I find interesting is the age groups listed above is the group of people that are just getting started making and building their careers. Making more money, and seeing a huge chunk coming out of their pay checks. Movin' on out!

Great plan, SF. You reap what you sow.

Labels: amnesty, communism, Constitution, Fascism, illegal aliens, welfare state

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
--Winston Churchill

***UPDATED*** After you read this post, be sure to see the annotation at the end. I swear, my head is going to explode.


I've lived in California for all of my 49 years (yikes, number 50 is right around the corner!). I've spent all but one of those years in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. I've seen a great deal of change in this once-great state.

I remember as a kid while attending Fair Oaks Elementary school, that once a week, my mom would give us money to buy our lunch. It cost $0.25 for lunch, and another $0.06 for a waxed-cardboard container of milk.

I clearly remember a conversation I had with my mom about "the rich kids" - some kids that got to buy their lunch every single day. I mentioned the kids names, and she explained that they weren't from rich families, but families with less than what we had. She said the school paid for their lunch.

I honestly remember thinking it must be great to be poor if you got free lunches! It was weird, but these kids kind of wore the free lunch ticket as a badge of pride. My guess is it was a defense mechanism because they were used to having so little, and "buying" their lunch each day was one of the few "cool" thing they had. I don't really know.

The kids that got the free lunches had very well-worn clothes. I distinctly remember making some sort of wise-assed comment about them (my dad was an Oakland beat cop at the time, so we were far from well-to-do, but I was a kid - what did I know?). My mom, who was born in the 1930's and who remembered truly tough times, made it very clear that if I ever made fun of someone being poor, I would meet the business end of her wooden spoon. And it wasn't the spoon she used to make cookies - it was the one used to raise welts on your ass!

Anyways, our school had no more than a handful of kids getting the free lunches - maybe a dozen kids, tops. The school was a K through 6 elementary school with two classrooms per grade. I'd guess there were around 400 kids (I checked the district numbers, and the current enrollment is 355).

If I assume the enrollment has been static over all these years, that means that 3.38% (12/355) were on the program. Let's say I was incredibly inattentive, and the number was actually tripled to 3 dozen kids. That would put us at 10.14% on the program.

Imaging my surprise when I saw this article:

Statewide, nearly 51 percent - or about 3.1 million - students are enrolled in the free and reduced-price meal program, which saw a 4.5 percent increase this year in the numbers of meals it serves.

More than half of all kids in California public schools are on the free lunch program?! Holy fucking shit!
----------

Not surprisingly, the programs are running out of money, just like everything here in California state government. The bleeding-heart socialists have got to be encouraging people to "join the program".

"But it is difficult because we are stretching every single dollar we have," said Cirila Villanueva, food services director for the 2,100-student Los Nietos School District in West Whittier, which has 100 percent participation in the meal program.

How is that possible without encouragement from the state? Even in the most impoverished neighborhood in the poorest city, SOMEONE has got to have some personal pride. Or a job.

I would love to hear how many of these kids are the children of illegal aliens. West Wittier, which is in Southern California, has huge numbers of illegals. Over 83% of the citizens of the fair city are Hispanic, yet only 9.2% of people under age 18 are below the poverty level.

Nine percent are below the poverty level, yet one hundred percent are on the program.

The ONLY logical conclusion is that Nanny encourages people to become dependent on the state for at least one meal a day. It seems especially so if you are Hispanic.
----------

What are these wards of the state going to do if they're not fed? Do you think there may be some "social unrest"?

Everyone's heard how California is broke. To the tune of multi-billion dollar deficits. It's because of crap like this that we're in this hole.

Like all other programs, the well is running dry. The article lays out the numbers:

As for the cost of the program, the federal government shoulders most of it, doling out between $2.17 and $2.57 to schools for each meal while the state pays 22 cents.

Last May, the state ran out of money for the program and sent only about 2 cents per meal to schools, which were then left to pick up the state's share of the cost for the rest of the school year.

Did the school districts "raise the bar" for program eligibility so that the truly impoverished could still be helped? Hardly.

"We have no intention of reducing (the meal program)," said Skvarna, adding that student participation increased between 5 percent and 10 percent this year, especially among middle and high school students.

"It's a great program; something that works."

Yeah. It's working like a charm. It's a great program if you're trying to teach citizens and their kids how to be dependent on Nanny for their survival.

Class dismissed.
----------

***UPDATE***

Two commentors made note of some things I wanted to check out and see if they applied to the district with 100% student participation - Los Nietos School District.

GR4US has commented that he'd bet that a bunch of the kids in the district would be showing visible signs of money - bling, fancy cell phones, nice cars dropping off the kids, etc.

Jimmycrackcorn noted that in the school district where he lives, THE PARENTS are getting fed as well.

I tried to see if I could find any pictures of the schools, PTA - anything - in the district to see if there were any Hummers, Vettes, BMWs or Mercedes in any of the lots. So far, no hits. But I'm lookin'...

Jimmy's information, though, hit very close to the mark.

It seems as though there is a very good reason the district has a 100% participation rate, even though only 9% of the kids are in the poverty category.

In the September 1999-2000 base year, the state approved LNSD Food Services Department to participate in Provision 2, a non-pricing site for the first time. Non-pricing sites are those that serve meals (breakfast & lunch) at “No Charge” to all enrolled students at the district regardless of family size or income. In the September 2003-2004 base year, the state approved LNSD Food Services Department to participate in Provision 2, as non-pricing sites for the second time. In the September 2007-2008 the State approved the Provision 2 extension for LNSD Food Services Department, as a non-pricing site.

These bastards have been giving the food away, on my dime, since 1999. All students are encouraged to fill out some paperwork, then they will receive free meals for the next five years.

It seems that serving parents is the ONLY way they bring in money. The site doesn't say how they determine how much is charged, only indicating that it includes the cost of food and "some labor". Tax free, though, unlike any other food service establishment in the Late Great State of California.

I need to look into this "Provision 2" bullshit. I don't know if this is a state or federal program.

Gimme strength. I need a cocktail.
-----

The Hispanic community should be going bat-shit crazy over this. They are falling into the same Nanny-dependent honey-trap that has crushed the Black community.

If these parents become dependent upon the state, their kids will model their behavior. The vicious cycle will continue until the pride and honor are gone. Nothing will be left but self-pity and loathing for "the system". The very system upon which they've become dependent.

God help us all.

Labels: communism, Constitution, democrats, Fascism, illegal aliens, nanny state, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction.
--Winston Churchill

The first change of the Obama era is with his slogan. Out with, "Change You Can Believe In", and in with, "Change Can Happen".

Change is a funny thing. Some is good, some is not, depending if you're on the giving or receiving side of the equation.

It's noodle-scratching time for us all. What do you think will change, and how will it affect your life? The answer will differ for each of us.

I think it's clear that taxes will increase. Part of that can be laid at the feet of Bush. He was the proponent of the financial bailout. Sure, the Dems signed on, but so did most Repubs and Bush misplaced his veto pen. It was actually in Paulson's hand, writing up the plan.

Still, Obama has an aggressive social agenda. We're going to see some sort of Universal Health Care. We're going to see some sort of Carbon Tax. We'll certainly see an expansion in the size of government regulators in regards to financial services.

He's got to come up with a way to pay for all of this. He's promised a cut in taxes to 95% of Americans. So who's going to foot the bill?

His site says he will close corporate loopholes and reverse Bush's tax breaks for the rich. He's also going to cut inefficient government programs. He doesn't say which ones, and when pushed for an answer in one of the debates, he couldn't answer.

Remember: If corporate taxes go up, your cost to purchase the products or services of that corporation will go up as well. If wealthy people get tax increases, they'll have less money to invest, so business won't be able to have access to capital.

Both the corporations and the wealthy will simply take their capital off-shore.

On the personal income front, it was almost humorous to see the Obamites shuffling their feet when they were discussing how much income pegged you as "wealthy". It started at $250k a year, and seemed to drop by $50k every couple of days. I saw one person say it was $100k. Any bets on whether that number gets "further downward adjustments"?

They're playing with the numbers before they've even taken office.

Great plan, Barry.
----------

What other change can we look forward to?

I've got to guess that the IRS is going to be beefed up. They will have to get more aggressive going after people either fudging their taxes or looking for ways to delay their payment. You know, people who believe they should be able to keep more of what THEY earn.

He discusses on his site how he plans on closing corporate tax loop-holes and off-shore tax havens. The bills gotta be paid. The IRS will Git 'er Done!

Same will probably be true with the BATFE. They've all got to be sportin' wood with Barry coming to town. Their current practice of harassment will become policy. If I were a gun shop owner, I'd start looking for another line of work. I'm guessing they are going to be in for a world of hurt over the next few years.

The Department of Education will likely get ramped up. No time like the present to set the indoctrination education agenda for at least the next 4 years. Socialism, One-World and my favorite, the Group Hug will all be required courses. We can just drop all of the pesky Founding Fathers (how sexist!) and Constitutional crap from the curriculum. Well, maybe it can be retained in the literature classes under "Fantasy and Science Fiction".

The Department of Homeland Security - specifically the INS - will become paper-pushers, just making sure the "Come On In" paperwork is filled out correctly. Maybe they can also teach the English lessons which Barry promotes on his site. Feel the love.

On the bright side, we should see the dismantling of the race-based quota systems we have in our federal government contract system. No need for them since we have a minority at the helm (I figured I'd give everyone a good laugh considering the gloomy tone of this post).

----------
So what do you do?

It's all about the dollars. How many you get to keep and how many Barry gets to give to someone else. Many, MANY people are either expanding their participation in, or considering the Underground Economy.

Considering our "progressive tax structure", it is the ONLY way to keep more of the money you earn. Our current structure punishes you for being successful, and Barry has already promised to take more of what you earn when you pass certain income levels HE deems as excessive. Hell, it was the center-piece of his economic plan.

Get educated on the subject, and for God's Sake, keep your head down. Buying expensive cars and boats for cash when you clearly don't report enough income to support your lifestyle will bring the Barry-squads down on your ass.

Only discuss your specific plans and actions with unquestionably trustworthy family and associates. Be comfortable. Be low-key. Be smart.

Oh. And buy your guns and ammo while you still can. You might want to read up on caching. There have recently been a number of articles about hoarding - Obama-speak for spending your money as YOU see fit - so I wouldn't be surprised if having more than a couple boxes of shells or other supplies will paint you as some sort of lunatic. He was hoarding ammo and beans in his weapons cache.

God help us all.

Labels: communism, Constitution, Fascism, Gun Grabbers, illegal aliens, nanny state, presidential, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
--Ayn Rand

Like any growing enterprise, The Bank Of Nanny continues to find ways to expand its reach.

I've ranted about this before. Here I told you how Nanny has granted herself the ability to buy ownership in private banking concerns. You know, the same ones she is supposed to be regulating.

I wrote here about how Nanny forces banks to make loans - sorry, Community Reinvestments - that are a big part of why the sub prime mess is, well, such a mess.

I pointed out here how Nanny closed one formerly profitable line of lending, and immediately expanded another government program that just happened to fill that market need. Amazing, huh?

It seems like the good folks at The Bank of Nanny like that best technique the best: Make it illegal in the private market, then fill the void.

The spreading subprime-loan debacle has emboldened some state governments to move aggressively against "payday lenders," outfits that offer high-interest-rate loans to cash-strapped borrowers who pledge to repay them when their next check arrives.

The payday loan business has exploded in the past few years. They fill a very specialized market niche. If you can't get or don't want a checking account at a bank, they provide you with a way to cash your check.

Keep that in mind as you read the rest of this: The people that use these business do so because they have done something to get them banned from banks, or they don't want an account.

Both instances involve personal choice. (Yeah, if you are banned from a bank, you made the choice to defraud them in the past).

They charge a butt-load to cash a check. Check cashing is an extremely risky business. You'd be shocked at the numbers. As an example, for the eight years I was at my last bank, the ONLY fraud losses we incurred were for either bad checks or credit cards. It was about split down the middle.
----------

Like I said, they charge a ton to cash a check. For instance, to cash a $100 check, they charge $15 for two weeks. Steady yourself, but that equates to 360% per year. Good Lord, that sounds like a lot of money.

But is it?

Let's look at their clientèle. The first part is people that can't get a checking account. You can get yourself blacklisted (for 4 years, I believe) if you get caught kiting or doing anything illegal with your account. Banks developed a nationwide system where you get into this system if you've screwed over any other bank. Once this was started, check fraud plummeted.

The other group is people that don't want a checking account. I was actually surprised at how many people are voluntarily 'unbanked'. There are literally millions of people in this country that are qualified for a regular checking account, but don't want one.

They want to stay 'off the radar'. The don't trust banks. Or they're not here legally.

Yep, illegal aliens make up the single biggest slice of the voluntarily unbanked.

We had a huge union client that had lots of illegals in their ranks. These guys would cash their checks and walk around with hundreds or thousands of dollars in their pockets. Lots of them got rolled for their wads.

The union wanted us to set up a program where we would issue reloadable debit cards - like those gift cards you can buy - that didn't have an individual checking account attached to it. We dragged our feet because it didn't pass the 'smell test'.

We eventually used the "Know Your Customer" laws as our way out of that program. If it had gone through, it would have meant issuing over 20,000 cards just for this one union in the Bay Area.

It's funny, but another union heard about this and wanted a similar card. While virtually all of their members were either Americans or legal aliens (they did .GOV work), they wanted the cards primarily so they could get their vacation pay bonus, and not have to let their spouse know they got the money!
----------

Back to the check cashing joints. So ask yourself this question: How much would you charge a complete stranger - even one that has given you his or her drivers license and SSN - to cash their check? I don't know what my number would be, but I guarantee you it would be well north of fifteen bucks.

Clearly, there's a market for this service. You used to be able to cash your checks at the local watering hole, but you paid 'interest' by buying a couple of drinks. Same thing with local grocery stores, but with them, you can usually only get a certain amount over the price of the groceries you're buying. And don't bother bringing in a payroll check.

So these new laws are looking to set the interest rate at 36%. That sounds reasonable, right? Well, the most a check cashing place would be able to charge for that $100 check would be less than $1.50 every two weeks. To cash checks for complete strangers. Yeah, that will work.

If this goes through, Nanny will have effectively legislated the closure of this obviously needed source of cash.

How will this void be filled? What new option will be made available that does not currently exist? The pols will decry the plight of the illegal alien or the poor working-class guy that is being robbed by 'the system'. It doesn't matter that they're using these places by choice. It must be fixed, 'cause Nanny Knows Best.

Any bets there will be a new branch of The Bank Of Nanny opening up soon?

Labels: communism, illegal aliens, nanny state, Political Correctness, welfare state

Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.
--Thomas Szasz

I post fairly often about illegal aliens. About how they are robbing poor Americans of their ability to provide for themselves. I don't give a Tinker's Damn that these illegals are just, "poor souls trying to feed their families". I care about American families first. The illegals are breaking our laws - which I agree with - and they need to be stopped.

But it seems to be too much of a bother.

Without much effort, you can look through the Internet and find stories about how the Feds screwed border patrol agents that fired upon an illegal alien drug dealer. The agents are in prison.

You see time and again about the 'sanctuary cities' and how they totally disregard our immigration laws for 'humanitarian purposes'. Yeah, the 1/3 of the prisoners that occupy our state and federal prisons - you know, the illegal aliens - were clearly here for humanitarian reasons.

So when I see a story like this, I just want to give up. I've had enough. There is nothing even approaching logic in our government.

After nearly 14 years as a researcher at the University of Idaho, Dziewanowska has been denied permanent residency by U.S. immigration officials, who say she worked without authorization for eight months. She did that, she and her attorneys say, on the advice of the UI (University of Idaho), and she quit working for a time when the university advised her to do so.

Long story short: The University courts this Russian woman to come and do research. THEY screw up and give her bad advice on how to follow the laws of the US. Because she didn't properly dot the 'Is' and cross the 'Ts', they want to boot her out of the country.

Here is a sought after, society-contributing person who was trying to follow the rules but screwed up, and we're working to deport her.

HEY DHS! WHY DON'T DON'T YOU REDIRECT YOUR EFFORTS TOWARDS THE 20,000,000 ILLEGAL ALIENS IN OUR COUNTRY AND NOT TOWARDS THOSE ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING TO OUR SOCIETY?!

I need to send this lady an email. She needs to come to San Francisco. Since she's not allowed to legally work, she can take advantage of the wide variety of free housing, food and medical. All without any concern about being harassed over her now-illegal status.

Do you want to hear the real kicker? Her research concerns the nebulous War On Terror.

Dziewanowska was recruited to the UI in 1994 because of her research background, and she's been involved in studying methods of fighting agents of bioterrorism such as the plague.

She's earned FBI clearance for that research – at one point, she was granted such clearance while immigration officials were refusing to approve her authorization to work.

Nanny is willing to trample our Constitutional rights of privacy, all in the name of terrorism, yet when a paperwork mishap occurs, Nanny does her best to deport someone that is actually doing something that might protect us.

Good Lord, we're doomed. We're just too stupid to continue as a country.

Labels: Constitution, illegal aliens, nanny state, Political Correctness, Self-Reliance, Terrorism

There's nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot.
--Scott Adams

It is people like this that are at the core of the sub-prime mess. Stupid, greedy people.

Things couldn't have looked better three years ago for Milton and Patricia Harper of Lake City, who giddily accepted the keys to a small castle, plus enough money to pay taxes on it for 25 years.

Now, the Clayton County house that "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" built is a two-story, turreted example of how things can go wrong. It's in foreclosure.

The Harpers used the house at 5489 Ahyoka Drive as collateral for a $450,000 loan, Clayton County mortgage records show. Records at the law firm handling foreclosures for the lender, JPMorgan Chase Bank, say it is in foreclosure. The four-bedroom house with decorative rock walls and a three-car garage is scheduled for auction on the Clayton County Courthouse steps Aug. 5.

They were given something for free - a home. The company that built the home raised a $250,000 fund for them to take care of their home maintenance for the next 25 years, and to provide scholarships for their 3 kids. They were set for life!

And they've pissed it all away. They took the money to start a construction business. They wanted something for nothing. And now they're homeless because of their greed.

On the radio this morning, they were talking about how we always assume that people that are poor are somehow noble beings that are penniless because they have given their lives to a greater good.

Perhaps a few. But I'm guessing most folks without two nickels to rub together are a lot more like these folks. I have found it usually to be a lack of taking advantage of our nation's free education system, a history that usually involves drugs or alcohol, or the perpetuation of a family history of dependence upon the state.

They are looking for the easy way out. No concept of 'earning'. Just taking.
----------

My illustrious state continues to find ways for Nanny to shove her un-gloved hand up our asses and operate us like sock puppets. It really is stunning.

First, we have the proud distinction of being the first state in the nation to actually ban trans fats. Think about that - Sacramento is telling us what kind of fat we can eat. Arnold is a small-government Republican, right? Right....

Not to be out done, Los Angeles decided that a sub-set of their citizenry is too stupid to decide where to buy their food. If you live in a portion of the city - a portion that is poor and heavily minority - the city now assumes you don't have the mental wherewithal to decide where to eat all on your own. You choices must be narrowed, unlike the rich, white people who are apparently smart enough to know where to eat.

"While limiting fast-food restaurants isn't a solution in itself, it's an important piece of the puzzle," said Mark Vallianatos, director of the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College.

Could this be any more racist or classist or insulting? Yet you hear barely a bleat from the sheeple affected by this. [Sidebar - WTF is the Center for Food and Justice? A culinary school run by Judge Judy?]

Feeling suddenly unappreciated, the good folks in San Francisco, in their never ending quest to regulate every minute of every life in their fair city, have deemed it necessary to restrict the sale of cigarettes. Well, kind of:

City residents picking up prescriptions can forget about buying a pack of cigarettes at the drugstore checkout. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 Tuesday to ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies beginning this fall.

The measure amends San Francisco's health code to prohibit tobacco sales in any pharmacy, whether a small mom-and-pop store or a large retailer like Walgreens. Drugstores caught selling tobacco products in the city will be fined up to $1,000.

"A pharmacy should be a place you go to get better, not a place you go to get cancer," said Nathan Ballard, a spokesmen for the mayor's office.

Well, Nathan, thanks for taking away my need to think for myself. When I do want to find a place to go get cancer, at least I'll still have all of the other grocery and liquor stores. And gas stations. And corner markets. And bars. Oh, and smoke shops.

Oh wait. This isn't about my health! It's about your posturing and preening. Trying to look like you're relevant. Trying to show your liberal, bleeding heart comrades that you know what's best for everyone.

Are you idiots still unsure why people and businesses are fleeing your city in droves?
----------

Speaking of the City of Fruits and Nuts, the Minutemen are going to be holding a protest in SF today.

The founder of the Minuteman Project says he will camp out on the steps of San Francisco's city hall to call for the resignation of Mayor Gavin Newsom over his support of a "sanctuary city" policy for illegal immigrants.

Jim Gilchrist, the Minuteman Project's founder, says he is absolutely appalled by the horrific slaughter of three San Francisco family members by an illegal alien wielding an AK-47 and boasting allegiance to the notorious MS-13 street gang. Edwin Ramos, a 21-year-old man from El Salvador, has been charged with opening fire on the three men -- a father and his two sons -- on June 22 as they sat in their car during a traffic jam.

Let's sum that one up: An illegal alien had an illegal weapon (here in CA) and was a member of an illegal gang.

Yet Newsom thinks it's hunky-dory to thwart all efforts by the Feds to round up and either deport or jail these criminals.

I'll ask again: Are you idiots still unsure why people and businesses are fleeing your city in droves? Unless you're an illegal alien, that is.

Labels: amnesty, communism, criminal, democrats, illegal aliens, nanny state, Political Correctness, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

Any change is resisted because bureaucrats have a vested interest in the chaos in which they exist.
--Richard M. Nixon

The state government here in California never ceases to amaze me in the depths they will delve to ruin this state.

I've written a number of times quite recently about a $15 billion deficit they need to address. They haven't even thought about reducing spending. It doesn't even appear to be a consideration, even by our "republican" governor.

No, their answer is to increase taxes. Again.

The Wall Street Journal wrote a great piece on this yesterday. I think it's for subscribers only, so I'm going to liberally borrow from it.

New York City has long been the highest tax jurisdiction in the United States, but California politicians are proposing to steal that brass tiara. California faces a $15 billion budget deficit and Democrats who rule the state Legislature have proposed closing the gap with a $9.7 billion tax hike on business and "the rich." There's a movie that describes this idea: Clueless.

This has been their modus operandi for as long as I can remember. Tax business, tax the rich. Tax business, tax the rich.

Here in California, you're considered rich - you pay in the highest tax bracket - as soon as you have taxable income of around $40,500. Yep, lots of yacht owners pull down forty grand a year.

The plan would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 12% from 10.3%; that would be the highest in the nation and twice the national average. This plan would also repeal indexing for inflation, which is a sneaky way for politicians to push middle-income Californians into higher tax brackets every year, especially when prices are rising as they are now. The corporate income tax rate would also rise to 9.3% from 8.4%. So in the face of one of the worst real-estate recessions in the state's history, the politicians want to raise taxes on businesses that are still making money.

No problem. We over-flowing with rich folks and filthy rich businesses, right?

This latest tax gambit was unveiled, ironically enough, within days of two very large California employers announcing they are saying, in the famous words of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, "hasta la vista, baby" to the state. First, the AAA auto club declared it will close its call centers in California, meaning that 900 jobs will move to other states. "It costs more to do business in California," said a AAA press release, in the understatement of the year.

Then last week Toyota announced it is canceling plans to build its new Prius hybrid at its plant in the San Francisco Bay area because of the high tax and regulatory costs. Adding to the humiliation is that Toyota will now take this investment and about 1,000 jobs to a more progressive and pro-business state: Mississippi.

There is already a reverse gold rush going on in California and the evidence points powerfully toward high tax rates as a culprit. Census Bureau data show that, from 1996-2005, 1.3 million more Americans left than came to California. And the people who are leaving are disproportionately those with higher incomes: the very targets the Democrats want to tax more.

1,900 jobs and 1.3 million taxpayers, gone. Way to go, boys and girls.

From 1996 to 2005, the state's overall population grew by just shy of 4 million people. Do the math: That's a 5+ million person influx. It's not real difficult to read between those lines - People paying the bills are leaving the joint. The illegals are flooding in to all of the 'sanctuary cities'. Not surprisingly, we're out of money.

The liberal fairy tale is that the rich "don't pay their fair share." The reality is that there's no state in the country more dependent on six- and seven-figure earners to pay its bills. Those with incomes of more than $100,000 pay 83% of the state's income taxes, and the richest 6,000 of the 38 million Californians pay $9 billion in taxes. Every time a rich person like Tiger Woods departs, the state fiscal problem deepens.

Do a little more math: Those 6 thousand people each averaged tax payments of $1.5 million. Hey, they're rich. They can afford it. If they don't like it, they can just leave. Oops, looks like they are.

Well, at least our leaders are only spending money on the necessities, right?

What the politicians in California refuse to address is their own overspending. State outlays were up 44% over the past five years [the same time frame Arnie has been our Guv], meaning that California is spending at a faster pace than even Congress. Minority Republicans in the Legislature say the solution is a hard expenditure cap – like 46 other states have. Yet even in the face of the giant deficit, Mr. Schwarzenegger and the Democrats want to pass a new $9 billion water bond, a $14 billion state-run health insurance program, and the most expensive climate-change program in the country.

And that's just the stuff our legislators have come up with. We have a number of propositions to be voted on that could add another $11 billion to that total.

If this weren't so incredibly idiotic, I'd be laughing my ass off.
----------

I have no doubt that most, if not all of the tax and spending increases will get passed. It's just the way things are done out here. Spend the money, wring your hands, increase taxes.

Perhaps they could throw some of that money towards the Employment Development Department. I have been trying for 10 days to speak with someone about how starting a business will affect my ability to get unemployment payments starting in October. From what I've read, as long as there is no profit, I should be OK.

But there is too much money involved for me to make a mistake. I've been calling for 10 days at different times of the day, and have gotten the same message every time, saying, "Sorry, we have more calls than we can answer. Please call back later. Good bye". And then it hangs up on you. You don't even get the option of staying on the line to wait. I've written email messages, with no replies. Fucking assholes.

Good Lord. I'm trying to do the right thing, and the 'system' blocks you at every turn. How people are able to deal with the government on a regular basis and maintain their sanity is beyond me.

Labels: communism, illegal aliens, Life and Times, nanny state, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

For business reasons, I must preserve the outward signs of sanity.
--Mark Twain

I was originally going to do a piece on the Federal Reserve chairman actually saying out loud that they had bailed out Bear Stearns. He left enough wiggle room to cover his political ass, but it was unprecedented, in my memory at least.

Mr. Bernanke said in the question-and-answer session that it's fair to say the Fed "bailed out" financial markets broadly through its intervention in the rescue of Bear Stearns even though that firm itself didn't benefit from any bailout.

"If you want to say we bailed out markets in general, I guess that's true," MR. Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee, adding the Fed's role in the rescue was necessary.

I was going to rant and rave and throw a fit, but then I started to reflect on a thought I was having yesterday while I was out buying some shotgun shells.

I was listening to the radio, and the talking-head was saying how we now have more Americans than ever before in our history as a nation, on food stamps. Twenty-eight million Americans. Damned near 10% of our total population. There have been periods with a higher percentage of people getting government cheese, but this is the highest in terms of absolute numbers.

Our government actually pays to produce and run TV and radio commercials encouraging people to apply for hand-outs. They now give the recipients a debit card so there is no negative stigma attached to receiving and spending government largess.

And it appears as though the USDA (the .GOV agency that gives this part of our money away) doesn't think enough is being spread around. They are now offering $5 million in grants to, "improve participation in food stamps for those who are eligible, but for a variety of reasons do not receive the help intended for them." (Hurry! You only have until May 15 to get in your application).

Did they ever stop and consider that there may actually still be some people left in America that don't think taking government hand-outs is a good idea?

Silly, silly boys!
----------

Back to that thought I was having while listening to the radio: I'm not going to get one thin dime of the hundreds of thousands dollars I've had taken from me by the federal government over the past 30 years.

I'm 49. That puts me 17+ years away from getting Social Security (66 and ten months). By the time I belly up to the bar for a cool sip of retirement refreshment from Uncle Sugar, the bottle will be empty. There will either be no money left, or they will use a "means test" of which I won't pass because I've actually been a responsible adult and saved my money.

Sixty-three percent of our federal budget already goes to entitlement programs. Soon, we will have Universal Health Care (regardless of which twit makes it into the White House). The cluster-fuck in the Middle East is draining $12 billion a month from our treasury. We're subsidizing corn so it can be taken out of food production and made into ethanol. Some sort of "carbon tax" is on the horizon.

There are too many outstretched hands, and not enough wallets to fill them.

I've been robbed by my government, and they're coming back for more. Screw that. I'm getting mine while I still can.
----------

I'm dead-serious about this. It isn't like I haven't paid my "fair share". I've paid way more than that. Back in 1989, I got laid off (I actually laid myself off!). I had two babies to feed and a house payment to make. I didn't apply for unemployment insurance because the thought disgusted me. I worked two jobs for chump-change to make ends meet.

No more. I am not going to continue being the "bitch" of some bureaucrats in DC or Sacramento, nodding dutifully while they expand their social programs off of my paycheck.

I will no longer have a perspective of, "What's good for America"? The bastards taking my money clearly don't have that perspective, so why should I? In fact, I'm an idiot if I do so.

Nothing is going to change until our system has a total collapse. It has another 15 or 20 years at the outside. At that time, some sanity may come back into the equation, but not until then. Until there's no government money to keep buying votes, nothing will change.

If I continue feeding this machine and not taking anything in return, I'm actually helping to sustain this travesty. My new perspective is, "I'm doing what's good for Mike and his family".
----------

Bail outs? Bring 'em on! Why? Because in the short-run, it will help me. Bail outs will help to stabilize real estate prices and the stock market long enough for me to sell my home here in The People's Republic of California and allow me to move to a Free State (well, a free-er state), lower my costs, work and wait for the collapse.

Grants? Yeah, baby! I've had a book for quite a while on how to apply for government grants. It now moves to the top of the "must read" list. http://www.grants.gov/ is my new best friend. With a little planning, I'd meet 4 of the 7 qualification criteria.

Universal Health Care? As Acid Man used to say, "I'm getting a funny feeling in my pants". This is going to be a feeding frenzy. I can picture the .GOV having grants on how to get more people to sign up for more services. Brilliant!

I think the biggest opportunity will be in the carbon tax/global warming arena. I've mentioned in the past that some friends and I were working on a business plan to separate eco-freaks from their eco-dollars - and get thanked in the process. We let it die because it had a feeling of not being quite ethical.

No Mas! Nanny is jumping on this band wagon in a big way. All three of the presidential front-runners have slurped the Climate Kool-aid. Baby Bush has greased the skids. This is an area that needs some careful consideration. Government do-gooders and guilt-ridden suckers all in one package is just too sweet of a deal to pass on.

And speaking of "no mas", there's got to be some way to make some money on illegal aliens. Hell, across the bay in San Francisco, they just reaffirmed their "sanctuary city" drivel.

I'll have to work fast in SF, though. They throw money around at such an impressive rate, they make the liberals in DC and Sacramento look like pikers. They are going to be one of the "canaries in the mine" that fall first from their social programs.

I need to get in while the gettin' is good.

Labels: American Ingenuity, communism, Eco-fraud, Global Warming, illegal aliens, nanny state, Political Correctness, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

I saw this in the online version of the Wall Street Journal today. If it happens - odds might be kind of low, as the court is in San Francisco - this could be the first step in normalizing our immigration flow to manageable numbers. We'll see:

Update: Spineless judge postponed this for 10 days.

Firms Brace for Crackdown on Illegal Labor
By MIRIAM JORDAN
October 1, 2007; Page A3

As a crucial hearing looms on a planned government crackdown on illegal immigrants in the workplace, many businesses are scrambling to figure out how they will cope with an expected loss of illegal labor. A U.S. district court in San Francisco could decide as early as today whether the Social Security Administration can send out thousands of "no match" letters to employers whose workers' names don't jibe with their Social Security numbers. The notices would be accompanied by letters from the Department of Homeland Security outlining new penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

The program, if put into effect, is expected to pose tough choices for many business owners, particularly in industries such as agriculture, construction and food service, which rely heavily on illegal workers. Employers would be required to fire such workers once their status was exposed, or risk fines.

The Bush administration prepared the crackdown after Congress failed to pass an immigration bill that would have legalized the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. At least eight million illegal laborers are believed to work in U.S. jobs.

The work-site program was supposed to roll out in September with the mailing of 140,000 no-match letters to employers. But the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit alleging the new policy could lead to discrimination against or firing of native-born U.S. workers and legal immigrant workers. The program was delayed when a federal judge in August blocked the new policy until questions about its legality had been addressed. The hearing that opens today is aimed at clarifying this.

The new program puts employers on notice that they can no longer look the other way regarding illegal workers. If an employer receives a no-match letter on a particular worker, the company has 90 days to certify that worker's legal status; otherwise, the worker's employment must be terminated. Companies that violate the policy would face what Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has called "stiff penalties or sanctions" higher than the fines of up to $2,200 a worker in place today.

Already, many companies are bracing for a hit -- particularly small businesses that say their survival could be at stake. Those businesses say the new enforcement places a disproportionate burden on them, subjecting them to costly and time-consuming record keeping by reducing productivity even if only a handful of workers are affected. Some businesses in industries such as agriculture and construction are talking about shutting down or moving their operations abroad.

"The typical small company is not equipped to be the nation's immigration police," says Todd McCracken, president of the National Small Business Association, which represents about 65,000 small companies. "A small-business owner can't just give no-match letters to human resources to sort out."

In early September, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several trade groups representing small businesses that employ low-skilled immigrants joined the lawsuit. Among others, the United Fresh Produce Association, the National Roofing Contractors Association and the Association of Nursery and Landscapers allege the Department of Homeland Security failed to perform a financial-impact assessment, as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to measure the impact of the new rule on small businesses.

"This is a hollow argument coming from businesses who want to avoid liability for employing unauthorized workers," said a Department of Homeland Security spokesman. "The rule does not impose an expense for employers."

In the $1.2 trillion construction industry, at least one-third of the work force is undocumented, according to an estimate by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industry experts believe the actual figure is much higher: Last year alone, nearly half of new construction workers were Hispanics who had arrived in the U.S. since 2000.

The impending crackdown generates everything "from concern to utter panic among roofing contractors," says Craig Silvertooth, director of federal affairs for the National Roofing Association, based in Chicago, representing 4,300 businesses. "There is no way to run your business if this goes forward."

In agriculture, about 70% of all workers are illegal immigrants, according to independent estimates, and an existing guest-worker program supplies less than 2% of the work force required each year.

Most illegal immigrants work for bona fide businesses and are hired and paid like other workers on the payroll. To get work, the immigrants normally obtain a fake Social Security card with a made-up nine-digit number. The fake cards are peddled in immigrant neighborhoods.

When the illegal immigrants are hired, their employers don't know whether the documents are authentic. A company thus hires workers, puts them on the payroll and withholds necessary taxes. The unauthorized workers, who receive a paycheck regularly, pay into Social Security but can't draw benefits.

Social Security has been mailing no-match letters for decades, but employers haven't been held accountable for workers who failed to address discrepancies. In fact, employers have been advised not to take any adverse action against an employee based exclusively on the letter. "There has been no definitive legal obligation to take action," says Angelo Paparelli, an immigration lawyer with offices in New York and Irvine, Calif., who is advising several concerned businesses.

"Employers have to be held accountable if they are given clear notice of the fact that they may be hiring illegal aliens," Mr. Chertoff said in announcing the new crackdown. Mr. Chertoff added that about 4% of the 250 million wage reports received by Social Security each year show no matches.

Maureen Torrey, former chairwoman of United Fresh Produce and a farmer in upstate New York, says she provides W-2 forms for all her employees and withholds taxes on their earnings. She has received no-match letters in the past: 375 of her 400 workers are Hispanics, and she figures some are in the U.S. illegally.

The new rule is pushing many farmers to consider extreme options. "You've got to comply," says Mrs. Torrey, who runs Torrey Farms in Elba, N.Y. "We move our farm operations to another country or just sell out." Some U.S. farmers have already been investing or subcontracting in other countries such as Mexico.

The owner of a small California manufacturer that has 120 employees and subcontracts for the U.S. government foresees having to fire about 15% of her work force. "Because of the role they play and the tight labor market, it is probable that we would go out of business," said the woman, who spoke on condition that neither her name nor that of her company be cited.

Some observers hope the legal challenge to the administration's latest enforcement efforts will revive congressional action on immigration. In the meantime, the policy could drive more immigrants to seek jobs in the off-the-books economy, where they have fewer legal protections from employment abuses.

Labels: illegal aliens, Political Correctness, Race-baiters, Self-Reliance

The Administration is laying the groundwork for an emergency immigration bill. With the smallest of excuses, they will come to us saying that, for our own safety, we need to pass the Comprehensive Immigration bill.

There has been wide-spread reporting on the recent "gut feeling" comments by Secretary Michael Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security (note: did you know, that's what KGB stood for...?). What has not been so widely reported is the crap that scares me:

In the next 18 months, as the Bush administration draws to a close, Chertoff said he plans to put security tradeoff options before the American public.

Huh? Waddya mean, Mike? Why would we have to make choices?

The dire warnings and Chertoff's comments come as the Bush administration faces political and business opposition over its immigration and border policies that have security implications.

With stiff blowback on those issues, the administration has been unsuccessful in efforts to enact broader security measures -- ones opponents fear are too costly and unnecessary, and infringe on people's rights.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Tribune that lasted more than an hour, Chertoff said that the recent failure of Congress to pass an immigration bill has negative repercussions for homeland security and will lead to continued federal crackdowns on illegal immigrants.

Bad for homeland security? More crackdowns on illegal aliens? Why is that a bad thing?

If border crossings are not tightened with stricter document regulation because of economic oppositions from business interests, then Chertoff predicts possible dire consequences.

Hey Mike! Why not just enforce the laws we currently have on the books? You know, the ones that fine businesses for hiring illegals? At $10,000 per illegal hire, that will get the attention of most businesses quite quickly. There's also that pesky little document called The Constitution that requires you to protect our border.

So what are ya gonna do, Mike?

There will be security repercussions from Congress' failure to pass immigration reform. Chertoff said he hoped granting a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants would cut away "the tall grass" hiding criminal elements among undocumented workers.

Oh, I see. Because you pukes got your asses handed to you with the Amnesty Bill, you're now looking for political cover via the age-old, "It's their fault!" gambit. Are you going to use, "The Boogie Man" technique as well?

"What do you think is going to happen to your business when a guy comes across the border with a phony document and blows up a target in Buffalo or Detroit?" he asked. "Do you think the American public is then going to allow the border to remain open?"

Good boy. You're playing the hand perfectly. Douche bag.

Mike, honest to God, you need to read my blog more often. I've repeatedly given you the way to "cut the tall grass", yet you continue on your same failed path. Here. It's easy:

1. Go to your buddies at the Social Security Administration. Every year, they produce letters where the names and numbers don't match. In 2003, they produced over 900,000 of their "Do Not Match" letters.
   
2. Put this list in a database (I know you guys have some extra computers laying around). Tie the Do Not Match folks with their employer's Tax ID Number (TINs).
   
3. Sort your list, in descending order of number of multiple TIN hits.
   
4. Call the local and cable news guys. Tell them to bring cameras. Go visit the CEO's of those companies and perp-walk them out of their headquarters. Leg shackles add to the visual impact.
   
5. Repeat daily for 1 month, or until your list is exhausted.
   

Amazingly, the illegals will disappear. The business will stop hiring them, so they will have no reason to stick around the US. No more incoming illegals for the same reason. There will be a mass exodus from the country, and it won't have cost the taxpayers one thin dime. In fact, it will be a money-making venture, as you can hit the companies up for the previously mentioned $10,000 per illegal.

Your "tall grass" will have been trimmed, and you can do your fucking job. Now get to it.

Yeah, I know. I'm a dreamer...

Labels: amnesty, Constitution, illegal aliens, Terrorism