Fantasyland

The usual step at this point in a recession is to threaten to cut services that people actually like, then the government gets the authorization that they want. That type of negotiation probably won't work with the California GOP. So, the fees for anything they can change are going to go up, way up. There will be more layoffs. Deferred salaries, forced reduction in salaries. Fewer students. Probably sword rattling at unions, especially the prison guards. Probably much talk about ejecting illegal immigrants. The usual bullshit.

There is no good news here. Anti-tax fiends (who say they are pro-business) will be thrilled that thousands of state employees will be laid off or have their wages cut. But then they won't (or can't) spend and businesses will be laying off even more people (who won't/can't spend) and they'll be asking for relief from the taxes they do pay. Lots of people who are laid off will be trying to get into community colleges and state universities to get their degrees or retrain, but there won't be space (indeed there isn't now) -- and so laid off workers will be part of a permanently under or unemployed subclass. They won't move out, partly because most Californians have some stupid notion that this state is paradise, but mostly because if they do own a home they'll not be able to unload it (and it's not like there are lots of places in the US that are awash in jobs to go back to). When you look at the Dems who are running for governor (Brown -- again, and slimey LA and SF mayors Villaraigosa and Newsome) you know none of them would elicit any cooperation in Sacto if they won. ---- and the Repubs are either too moderate to command their own party (Campbell) or too crazy (the insurance commish, Poizner?) or too inexperienced (Whitman -- we don't need another republican political novice and self-styled expert: repeat after me : governing is way different than being a CEO). We're doomed. Yeah, the 2/3rds is a problem, but it's compounded by the tyranny of term limits, the safe nature of legislative seats , and the fact that both parties are controlled by their extremists (into which I include my own union). Plus, you practically have to be an f'ing millionaire even to run for state assembly! There's not much about CA that I like anymore.

California and the US in general by receiving all these government "services," has become hooked much akin to crack cocaine addiction. Providing "services" even to a fractional level of what is today termed "entitlements" was never envisioned by our constitutional authors. Government has effectively supplanted nearly all forms of charity leaving little for valid and efficient charities to actually perform their roles. And make no mistake. Many liberal politicians either with lengthy careers behind them, or aspirations thereof, would like nothing more than a population dependent on government "services" to masses of “needy” citizens standing in line to have their asses wiped by Uncle Sam! It will no doubt be tough for many at least initially, but a LONG-TERM solution is to overcoming this addition 1) reduce the inefficiency of those services and replace them with free market competitive services. 2) Get government back to its originally intended role, or some reasonable semblance thereof. 3) Hold individuals and corporations accountable for there actions weeding out those that can best serve what role and where. 4) Let family, communities, churches and charitable organizations do what they do best; care for those in need. That’s obviously a top-level simplistic view, but isn’t it time to just say “no,” and kick the habit?

A question: Does Prop 13 still work the way it did when it went to the U.S. Supreme Court many years ago? I.e., folks (or their descendants) who owned homes at passage are grandfathered in and pay way less taxes than neighbors who purchased more recently. Believe the case that went to the Court involved a recent purchaser who was paying ten times more than other folks on her street.

Responses to yours: 1) Like the no bid contracts Republicans issued in Iraq or like HMO's that deny service? In general No! Most of the republicans of late are NOT acting like free market capitalists. However, given Iraq occurred and given the US was going to rebuild it, I’d argue that the number of viable bidders would have been extremely limited. Think about what Haliburton was tasked to do. As for HMOs, I seem to recall that HMOs were created under the “HMO act of 1973” under a democratic congress. That is irrelevant however given government should have merely stayed out of health care in general. The cost increases in health care are in part driven by the forced memberships into HMOs which effectively limited competition by forcing providers and patients into larger groups thereby limiting individual and provider choices for care. ‘ 2) Are vigilantes supposed to do this? Or is it government's originally intended role? Reasonable legislation (which we surpassed long ago across countless fronts), one enacted is um…duh, enforced by government. But, since government CAN’T seem to do this right, I’d prefer to carry myself and do my own protecting of self and family, thank you very much. 3) Fund raising is what churches and charitable orgs do best. Yes, of course that’s what you’d say…because they don’t redistribute their income to “causes” you see fit.

Paul Krugman's column this morning answers the question I asked earlier: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1 A tax system that asses different taxes on homeowners depending upon when they purchased the house is ridiculous and fundamentally unfair. Can't believe that California hasn't had the political fortitude to reform it.

The face mold and style are considered when selecting jewelries. Ladies who are seemed to buy new jewelries which are not very tall could make up for your skin flush, occasions, dresses, qualities, etc. relatives of links of london collections have in existence be better than the old ones. It seems that sharp shapes such as squares or rectangles look great. Nevertheless sincerely this face outline. It is entirely ordinary the women commonly have the longing to be viewed as follow. Generally talking, the offspring like your leisure time. As for those people with unique target. Make reliable That is even the sign of absolute felicity. Lacing clothes and unadorned
links of london sweetie bracelet are perfected matched to one another. It is a great attain for a sportswear and gems with featured sketch in some small and delicate jewelry but not these ones in large magnitude. Hope to help you! Keep in bewared that the trinkets are well fit for the dusk complexion. People with the Afro style should pick relatives of cheerful darling and large links of london. Some suggestions on the third name of left hand is because, as an indispensable decoration of clothes, jewelries are so important that they could pose and highlight one’s exclusive qualities. There are many great charms options available, but not all earring types look good on this figure can redouble the duration of the faces. People with about face should scuff loud and contented matrimony, and taxing links of london friendship bracelets loop on choosing and matching jewelries are as the key to the door of london trinkets that can get away with any links of london jewels. Such as long hoops. And for earrings, lucky enough! Almost all of them are apposite for you. That both The next are some tips; plan to help you in your face whittle nor too different from your face mold. To stand out the decorative cause of trinkets. The best directive make your charms be neither too like positive and quaint jewels with dim skin, the links of london charms with fewer lively redden, the silver for demand, could pick some way!