Scottie Hughes - Detroit: Rock City Has Hit Rock Bottom

Welcome to the post-sequester apocalypse. As much as President Obama will have us believe otherwise, the greatest financial catastrophe in the coming days will not be of Washington’s making at all.

If you’re looking to see what a policy of liberalism can do to a city, look no further then Rock City. Despite one of the most aggressive ECD campaigns featuring celebrities Eminem, Jeff Daniels and Tim Allen, not even Hollywood can save Detroit from going broke. It is on the verge of being taken over by the State of Michigan in hopes of saving the city from bankruptcy.

President Obama on October 13, 2012 stated that he “refused to let Detroit go bankrupt.” Well, Mr. Obama then you better be willing to write a very big personal check.

With over $3.8 billion in federal stimulus funds to the city in 2009, President Obama claimed during his reelection bid to be the city’s savior. On the same day that the world is supposed to end with the much-ballyhooed sequester going into effect, Detroit’s financial woes are the inevitable result of liberal tax and spend policies. These policies have led to an annual budget deficit of $100 million, which includes a total of $14 billion in employee retirement liabilities and unfunded pensions. In order for the City to be in the black again, (something they have not been since 2005), Detroit would need $1.9 Billion over the next five years to pay off other long-term liabilities.

As Bob Woodward has discovered, the paternity of the sequester lies squarely with President Obama. It was devised as a trap for the Republicans. The same can be said about the plan of action in regards to Detroit, which was nothing more then smoke and mirrors just to delay what was predictably going to happen. This result was inevitable considering Detroit has always been a city plagued with liberal policies and run by the labor unions.

This is only the beginning. Cities around the country like Stockton, CA, Jefferson County, Alabama and Harrisburg Pennsylvania are Cities traveling down the same path. These cities all share the common trait of continuously electing Democrat majorities to control their local Government. Like a string of dominoes, they are destined to fall one by one. When the states can no longer bail out the cities, who will be there to bail out the states? For example in California’s case, what happens when a State cannot rescue its own municipalities? Does the Federal Government step in and take over a State or does our Federal Government look to foreign investors to bail those States out?

The good news is, with every major bankruptcy or bad economic news that is announced it seems our stock market usually has an opposite effect and reaches for the sky. Chairman Bernanke and his minions at the Federal Reserve hope that this manipulated surge will continue the charade of growth in today’s economy giving the American people the false sense that our economy was not effected.

How quickly will the tribulations of the March 1st sequester be forgotten, once the upcoming consequences of what raising the debt ceiling on March 27th might yield. However, with the Federal Reserve printing no less then 85 billion dollars per month, this economic fairy tale has no chance for a happy ending for the City of Detroit and I fear the rest of the Country as well.

Scottie Hughes

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Kevin McCullough - Why Poaching Profits People

Critics of a free market economy are also critics of individual responsibility. Because they believe in higher taxes, centralized control, and absolute intolerance to other viewpoints, they find themselves reducing free market ideas to that of human flatulence.

At least the current governor of California--Jerry Brown--did this week.

The seventy-four year old was quite taken aback. He was asked by California media this week if Texas Governor Rick Perry's recent poaching expedition would matter much to the state's future. His reply was direct.

"It's not a serious story, guys. It's not a burp. It's barely a fart," replied Brown.

Maybe Governor Brown is just in just denial but Governor Perry's three fold plan appears to be working like a charm.

In the initial stage the Texas Governor voiced a personal public service announcement to the CEOs and gatekeepers in California's business leadership communities. He placed moderate advertising buys in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and other specialty areas. The commercial created a firestorm of attention in the state and gained Perry additional earned media coverage.

He followed that up with a fact-finding mission and personal meetings with some of California's largest corporations. It should also be noted that he was invited to do so by some of California's elected leaders in Sacramento. It was this in-person visit that seemed to rile the California Governor's feathers the worst.

Lastly comes the elbow grease and follow-up with companies that had additional questions, and this appears to be where the real story lies.

Since governor Perry's return home--only days ago--the Greater Austin (Texas) Chamber of Commerce reports a definitive spike by inbound inquiries by California companies. And since the November elections--when California saw state tax increases passed (not even including looming federal tax and Obamacare increases)--businesses in the Golden State are investigating a move to a state that offers much lower regulatory hurdles and ZERO state income tax.

“We have had a spike of double or triple the amount of normal (business relocation) activity since the November election in California,” said Dave Porter, senior vice president at the Greater Austin Chamber.

Critics of Governor Perry's attempts to boost inbound business growth in his state dismiss the efforts out of hand.

Greg LeRoy, long time progressive, and now head of the liberal activist (and heavily pro-union and pro-green) "Good Jobs First" stated, "Interstate job piracy is not a fruitful strategy for economic growth." He argued that "poaching... amounts to a geographic reshuffling of existing jobs." (As opposed to new business activity.)

Recently numbers of governors are joining the open-poaching policy with fervor in a dispute that is raging first philosophically, but secondarily, economically.

Why else is it that states with the strongest economies are poaching from the states in deepest economic trouble?

Governor Walker of Wisconsin, Governor Scott of Florida, Governor Chris Cristie of New Jersey, Governor Daugaard of South Carolina, and Governor McDonnell of Virginia have all made direct plays for companies in California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota to relocate.

So while Governor Brown would like to dismiss the effort, and while leftist progressive think tanks inside the beltway claim a zero sum economic advantage, why would I still argue that poaching is good for the nation?

Significant reason number one: greater, more wide-spread fiscal accountability!

The idea of risk and competition scares progressives because there is no guarantee of "equal outcomes" (which are never actually equal, they only pretend to be.)

Governor Brown--in an already economically near-bankrupt state--could stand to lose massive tax generation from the mere number of employees that one to ten major corporations take out of state (not to even mention the corporate taxes involved.) This reality further hits the pocketbooks of the tax-payers he has promised to solve the economic woes of. If those companies leave he must find alternative solutions for balancing the cost of the state to do business which could mean: spending cuts.

The same for Maryland, Illinois, New York etc.

Significant reason number two: continued job development.

When a company saves money on regulatory costs and on taxes (which serve as a pure burden on the cost that is passed on to tax-payers--remember companies never pay taxes--their customers always do) they can create more jobs in the new location than they previously had in the higher regulatory and taxed region.

Poaching has multiple benefits most immediately for the states that are engaging in it, and long term for the states that are forced to admit that other states are beating them in the contest of ideas, revenues, economies, and contentment.

Governor Perry is right to not only brag about his state's economic growth, but he has a moral obligation to do all he can to expand it.

And while it may give Governor Brown a bit of gas, ultimately he will be forced to accommodate, innovate, or step aside.

And that's exactly the way it should be!

Kevin McCullough

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Excuse Me, Your Illogic Is Showing: Orwell’s Vision Emerges In California

In the 1940’s and 50’s, famed Author George Orwell surmised that both the English language and civilized society were in decline.

After a press conference held last week by Emeryville, California Police Chief Ken James, it’s easy to see a decline in both language and critical thinking skills in our country. And as Orwell thought, indeed civilized society may very well be in jeopardy.

It happened on February 14th. Taking to the microphones and cameras in his suburban San Francisco community, Chief James stood at a podium with the requisite group of serious-looking, professionally dressed, pouty-faced people standing behind him (it appears that Emeryville Mayor Kurt Brinkman was one of them). In part, the Chief said “one issue that always boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon.”

From there, Mr. James went on to say that “a gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon. If it was a defensive measure, why did we lose 55 officers nationwide last year to gun violence? And unfortunately, in just the two months of this year so far, we have lost two officers to gun violence in the state of California alone.”

So, how shall we begin to analyze the logical fallacies here? Let’s start with this: a gun is an inanimate object. A gun doesn’t think; it doesn’t feel; it has no intentions or aspirations; and despite what the Emeryville Chief of Police says, a gun does not have “offensive” or “defensive” tendencies.

In this regard, guns and footballs share something in common. Neither a gun nor a football is “offensive” or “defensive” in its essence. Yet each of them can be utilized by a human being for either offensive or defensive purposes. In short, whether a gun or a football is used for offensive or defensive purposes depends on who possesses it.

Having established this, consider these words again: “a gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon.”

Really, Mr. James? I won’t bother doing “grammar police” work here (“oppositions” is not a word, and placeing “we” and “they” as the subject of the same sentence is problematic as well).

But seriously, does Chief James believe his own definition of a gun? If a gun is nothing more than something used to “intimidate and show power,” then why would police officers carry them? And is it the role of police officers to “intimidate?” Is it ever the job of a cop to “show power?”

I would answer both these questions with an emphatic “yes.” At times police officers absolutely need to “show power” and to appear intimidating in the face of lawless threats, and I suspect that most cops, if they were honest, would agree.

Yet James probably would not want to publicly say “our job as police officers is to intimidate” – especially not in California’s very left-wing Bay Area – because he would steer himself in to yet another public relations debacle, appearing as though he’s making excuses for police officers displaying “excessive force.”

But if James’ assertions are true, and a gun is merely something used to “intimidate and show power,” and can never be used for defensive purposes, then police officers should abandon them immediately. Law enforcement officers should be about the business of defending property, themselves, and the citizens they serve. If a gun isn’t helpful for those types of efforts, as Chief James insists, then it’s time for his police force to hand them in.

And here’s another implication of Chief James’ illogical remarks: If a gun was really something to be used for defensive purposes, then cops would never get killed. Well, in a perfect world, maybe this would be true. But in the real and imperfect world in which we all live (and this would include Chief James), even the best defensive plans sometimes are insufficient to save a life.

I mean no disrespect here to law enforcement officers, or to Chief James. On the contrary, I respect the profession of law enforcement enough to point out the recklessness of this man’s words.

I also realize that we live in a time when logic, critical thinking, communication, and the ability to draw inferences and to consider the implications of one’s words are skills that are in short supply. Yet the demand for them has, perhaps, never been greater in our nation’s history.

A gun in the hands of a criminal is a dangerous thing. The power of law enforcement in the hands of people who can’t think or speak logically is, perhaps, even more so.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Algebra No Longer 8th Grade Math Requirement in CA

The problem is that top colleges expect applicants to complete a calculus course in high school, so that if geometry remains as a full year course, the sequence leading college preparation requires five years, not four. Students who do not begin this sequence in 8th grade can catch up by taking two math courses at the same time. It’s more likely that they will not arrive at graduation fully prepared for top-ranked universities.

The key question is whether requiring students to enroll in a course that they may not be conceptually ready for helps or hurts them.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - I Am Not Stoned - Sobering Realities For Taxpayers On The Road To Legalizing Marijuana

Pot fans got what they wanted in Colorado: they finally convinced voters there to support the legalization of “recreational marijuana.” It’s seen as a huge victory for those who support the powers of the individual states, and a great example of “federalism” in action. But who is considering the burden of all of this on the American taxpayer?

Before I go further, let me be clear: I have never in my entire life consumed marijuana. When I was a kid I was out of step with my peers on this, but I’ve just never been interested in “trying it,” and that’s still true today.

Secondly, I’m quite open to the idea that, as a substance, “cannabis” has value. The “hemp” fibers of the plant can clearly serve a variety of industrial purposes – people have been using it to make rope for years, and I own a wallet made from hemp (and my wallet “works” just fine).

There also may be medicinal values in the substance of “marijuana.” But when an individual state simply says “forget the feds, we’re legalizing it,” the state sets in motion a pattern of legal, administrative, and law enforcement chaos-and the already beaten-down American taxpayer ends up saddled with even more expenses and debts.

Consider how California began its “pot journey.” Voters there passed the “Compassionate Use Act of 1996” (commonly known as “Proposition 215”), a ballot proposition that was to allow marijuana consumption “for medicinal purposes” only. And the whole idea was sold to voters under the guise of “compassion”- you wouldn’t want somebody to suffer without their medicine, now would you?

When California voters said “yes” to medical marijuana, the next question from the government was “how do we give it to them?” It’s still illegal at the federal level, so it’s not like Californians could simply stock pot at the pharmacy, where all the legal medicines are sold. So California had to put together its own means of growing, harvesting, selling, and distributing pot.

This required the California legislators to spend taxpayer money legislating a new “Medical Marijuana Program.” After years of tinkering with legislative attempts, and making amendments, and facing threats of vetoes by former Republican Governor Pete Wilson back in the late 90’s, the California legislature finally found a friend in Democrat Governor Gray Davis, and in 2003 the state passed and began implementing the California “Medical Marijuana Program Act.” The state began hiring more government employees to administrate the new pot infrastructure program, and then began mandating to individual counties and cities that they acquiesce –and all of this was done at taxpayer expense.

Then, two politically “conservative” regions of California – San Bernardino County and San Diego County-refused to implement the new pot program. So the state government sued the two counties, and the counties put their Attorneys to work to defend them against the state. And this ended in a decision at the California State Supreme Court that determined that the counties had to do what the state told them to do with the pot shops – and all of this cost taxpayers lots of money.

By this time, cities and counties all over California began realizing that they had no choice – they had to allow for “medical pot shops.” So the elected lawmakers in the city and county governments began asking their city and county Attorneys “how do we establish zoning laws for the pot shops? Should pot shops be allowed near schools or shopping malls? Should we try to keep them away from kids? If we restrict the hours of operation for the pot shops, will we still be in compliance with the state mandates?” This consumed lots of “man hours,” required lots of professional expertise and input – and it was all done at taxpayer expense.

California’s legal, administrative, and law enforcement chaos hasn’t been confined by its borders- there have been plenty of confrontations with federal authorities along the way as well. With “medical pot” being the law of the land in California, law enforcement agencies and courts are put in a bind: they can enforce and uphold federal law on pot, or they can enforce and uphold state law on pot, but they can’t do both because the state and federal law is on conflict.

During the Clinton presidency, the federal government was mostly “hands off” with California’s medical marijuana efforts. As the program began to unfold, the Bush Administration was more inclined towards intervention.

The Obama Administration began on a note of tolerance with medical marijuana in California, but within a couple of years Attorney General Eric Holder was issuing warnings about the issue being inadequately regulated, and the various U.S. Attorney’s offices in California have initiated a variety of “probes” and “investigations” – all of which have cost lots of taxpayer dollars.

Pot lovers are passionate about their drug of choice, and will say just about anything to try and legitimize it. The argument starts over “medicinal pot,” but the end goal around the country is what Colorado got: legalized recreational pot. “Let’s treat it just like alcohol,” the reasoning goes, “legalize it, then regulate it, then tax it.”

But it’s not “just like alcohol,” at the individual state level. Pot is still highly illegal under federal law, and multiple layers of federal bureaucracies and multiple federal agencies with lots of career governmental employees have a vested interest in keeping it illegal.

So good luck, Colorado. But beware in the other 49: trying to defy the feds over pot unleashes legal, administrative, and law enforcement chaos – and almost nobody is trying to safeguard the taxpayer in the midst of it all.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Gas Prices Soar in California; $6 Per Gallon Gas Forcing Stations to Close on West Coast

Soaring West Cost prices have forced some stations to shut pumps in California.

THANKS Barack Obama!

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - A California Senator's Attack on Parental Rights

Two months ago, I wrote, “As of today, it is legal in California to give hormone blockers to an 11 year-old boy in order to delay the onset of puberty, but it could soon be illegal for a 17 year-old with unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling, even with parental consent.” Now, California Senator Ted Lieu, has removed any doubt as to why he introduced Senate Bill 1172: “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill because we don’t want to let parents harm their children.”

This is an absolute outrage, and every parent in California needs to contact their senators and urge them to vote against this ridiculous and wrong-headed bill.

Senator Lieu, who is married with children, said “he got the idea for the bill after seeing a television special last fall about adults who had gone through this kind of therapy as children. He said he was struck by their description of traumatic experiences, confusion, depression and suicidal thoughts.” And so Lieu has now appointed himself the guardian of the children of California, the arbiter of what is best for them, and the ward over the parents of his state.

If this is not an example of egregious government overreach, nothing is.

For those unfamiliar with SB 1172, it is an unprecedented bill that “would ban sexual orientation conversion therapy for California minors—even if they or their parents want it.” It would also make it very difficult for an adult with unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling, since the counselor would have to inform the client that the counseling does not work and that it could cause harm. How encouraging! [Update: The informed adult consent part of the bill has been dropped -- a small step in the right direction.]

The bill has the enthusiastic support of gay activist organizations and gay politicians, and it is making its way through the Legislature with almost total Democratic backing. Thankfully, there are some politicians who are exposing the absurd nature of the bill. As reported by Kim Reyes in the Orange County Register, Assemblyman Donald Wagner explained that, “The default of this Legislature is to assume authority over parents by getting invested in issues of medicine, which is something it is not qualified to do, especially regarding matters of medical decisions made between parents and children.”

“The Legislature has no business telling parents how to raise their kids, Wagner said, nor is it appropriate for a bunch of legislators without medical training to judge the effectiveness of a particular therapy. ‘I’m not a doctor,’ the assemblyman said.”

Reyes also noted that “three experts consulted by the Orange County Register said they were not aware of the California State Legislature ever outlawing a specific kind of therapy.” (I can only imagine what kinds of professional therapies take place in California, all without legal interference.) And Marc Mason, administrative manager at the Board of Behavioral Sciences, which licenses counselors and therapists in California, stated that “Therapies themselves are not regulated. We regulate individuals or licensees, and we do not have the ability or statutory authority to ban a certain type of therapy.”

Even the leftleft-leaning, pro-gay-activist, American Psychological Association (APA) “‘does not approve or ban’ therapies,” according to Rhea Farberman, an APA spokeswoman. “The association has said that sexual re-orientation efforts are not effective, but hasn’t designated such therapy as an ethical violation.”

Lieu, however, states that, “The facts show that you cannot change someone’s sexual orientation, and when you try to do that, it harms them. The only (legitimate study showing) that highly-motivated homosexuals can change their orientation was conducted by Robert Spitzer (a renowned psychiatrist). He retracted his study this past year, noting that there was no scientific reasoning to back up his findings. So, there is no factual proof that this type of therapy works.”

This, of course, is nonsense. First, there are thousands of former homosexuals who testify to significant or even complete change in their sexual orientation, be it through religious conversion or professional therapy or both. In this age of so-called tolerance and inclusion, why are they ignored or mocked or ridiculed? Why should we believe the testimonies of gays who tried to change but couldn’t while refusing to believe the testimonies of gays who did change? Second, there are actually decades of professional studies documenting the possibility of change (for a detailed discussion, see my book A Queer Thing Happened to America). Third, Spitzer did not retract his study, nor did he discover that his findings were scientifically inaccurate after further research. He simply apologized for the study after suffering years of ugly and unrelenting attack from gay activists and their allies.

But all this is secondary to the larger matter at hand, namely the extraordinary attempt of the government of California to tell parents and their children that, regardless of their spiritual convictions, moral convictions, social convictions, or scientific convictions, minors with unwanted same-sex attractions cannot receive professional counseling to help them change, even with parental consent.

To repeat the words of Senator Lieu, “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill.” Parents of California, are you going to let this bill pass on your watch?

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Afterburner with Bill Whittle - Going Out of Business!

That which cannot continue, will not continue. Does this adage apply to California? Could California simply go out of business? Bill Whittle tells you a cautionary tale about the California government and how it is driving high tech businesses to Texas at the same time that it is building trains to nowhere. Is the California government going to bring the rest of the United States down a path to fiscal ruin? Find out.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Hey California: Meet Wisconsin

It was one giant step for a man, and one giant leap toward fiscal sanity.

But the failed labor union recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was only a beginning. America needs a bunch more Scott Walkers, a whole lot more thoughtful, discerning voters – and we need California voters, in particular, to wake-up.

So California, meet Wisconsin. It’s the state where voters chose a Governor who, despite claims to the contrary, is neither “destroying workers’ rights” nor “killing democracy.” Governor Walker has brought government labor costs in-line with private sector labor costs, and in so doing is saving the state from fiscal collapse. Wisconsin chose wisely – and California, so can you.

I’m emphasizing “the voters” here because statesmen and women don’t operate in a vacuum. We, the people can affirm and encourage elected leaders to do the right thing, or we can encourage our leaders to be reckless and self-serving. In November of 2010 Californians rejected a candidate for Governor who pledged to do much of what Scott Walker has done, and instead elected a Governor who is bought and paid for by labor unions.

The fact that California Governor Jerry Brown has recently succumbed to telling the media “no, we’re not like Greece” should be a serious warning sign. Yet California’s plight could likely be different, had voters there been more like voters in Wisconsin.

It was the fall of 2010, and Democrat Jerry Brown was running against Meg Whitman, a mega-successful business executive and Republican gubernatorial nominee. Whitman had correctly and honestly identified a main source of California’s revenue hemorrhage – the ever-expanding benefits and retirement pensions of government employees – and had campaigned on a promise to “reign-in” such spending.

Brown, on the other hand, pledged to “get honest” with Californians about the state budget fiasco, but also to support “working Californians” (which is code talk for “unionized government workers”), and largely dodged the issue that Ms. Whitman had courageously raised. As Meg’s message began to get traction, the government employee’s unions offered-up all the more cash to Brown’s campaign - and Brown gladly accepted.

By the time the first gubernatorial debate was completed, media attention was mostly focused on aesthetics rather than substantive policy ideas. Jerry was “charming” and “warm” in the debate, and “really connected” with the audience; Meg was “cold” and “distant.” Shortly thereafter, the National Organization of Women endorsed the 72-year old white, male (and perennial government employee) Jerry Brown, over the 53-year old female, accomplished business executive and would-be governor Whitman. On Election Day Brown ended up winning by a 13% margin.

Later in November after the election, several members of the California legislature – a combination of both Republicans and Democrats – enjoyed an all-expenses-paid trip to Hawaii, funded with “donations” from a variety of public utility companies, and the California prison guards’ union. Not surprisingly, one of the first “accomplishments” of Governor Brown after he took office in 2011 was to negotiate and sign a new prison guard’s union contract which now allows guards to cash in un-used vacation and sick time at their highest rate of pay when they retire.

Governor Brown’s maneuver provided a nice payback to a government employees’ union that had “invested” over $2 million in his campaign. But what is mutually gratifying for Governor Brown and the prison guard’s union is not good for the rest of California- the new union contract added a minimum of an additional $600 million in un-funded liabilities, to a state that at the time was already sinking in nearly $10 billion of government debt.

And there’s more. Despite the state’s debts, and despite class cutbacks and continuous tuition increases at California’s two publicly-funded university systems, the University of California’s “Board of Regents” nonetheless voted $140 million in faculty salary increases. In the California State University system (the “U.C.” and the “CSU” systems operate separately), university presidents recently voted themselves pay raises. And despite his year-and-a-half of warnings about a lack of funding for K-12 education (most of which is unionized in California), Governor Brown’s latest budget nonetheless adds an additional 13% to K-12 expenditures.

Whether it’s spending increases on college faculty, unionized law enforcement officers, road crew workers or public school teachers, Governor Brown’s fiscal priorities all point to the same objective: providing salary and benefits increases to government employees who mostly vote with his Democrat party.

Brown’s proposed means of paying for the increased government spending is much the same as President Obama’s – raise taxes on “rich people.” California has the worst government bond rating in the nation (the S&P is threatening another downgrade), and for the 7th year in a row the Golden State was recently voted by America’s CEO’s to be the most “un-friendly” state for business in the nation. Yet Governor Brown and his party remain undeterred. ?

After years of this same kind of self-serving, vote-purchasing public policy, Wisconsin chose a different course in 2010 and re-affirmed that direction last week. California, you can chose differently, too – but are you awake? And do you care?

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Another Outrage in California

As of today, it is legal in California to give hormone blockers to an 11 year-old boy in order to delay the onset of puberty, but it could soon be illegal for a 17 year-old with unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling, even with parental consent. This is an absolute travesty.

SB 1172, which addresses this very issue, passed its first hurdle on Wednesday, as the California Senate voted 23-13 in favor of the bill, which would also require counselors and psychotherapists to warn prospective adult clients of the alleged danger of any counseling or therapy aimed at helping them modify their unwanted same-sex attractions.

Not only is this an outrageous denial of the client’s right to self-determination and, in the case of a consenting minor, parental rights as well, but it also means that the government of California is intruding itself into the relationship between counselor and client. This even prompted “the L.A. Times, not known to be a voice of conservatism, [to] come out against this legislation, saying it constitutes unnecessary government intrusion into what should be mental-health-association policy matters.”

Can anyone say, “Gay activist overreach?” (For a useful fact check of the bill, see here.)

Even without SB 1172, the current state of affairs already reads like a very poor joke, as noted by conservative journalist Matthew Cullinan Hoffman:

A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman.”

The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved.”

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual.”

The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”

As expressed by family therapist Adam Jessel: “In today’s climate, if Bill tells me that he is attracted to his neighbor Fred’s young child and he wants to reduce these attractions, I, as a therapist, can try to help him. If Bill has an unwanted attraction to Fred’s wife, this too is something I am permitted to help him with. But if Bill has an unwanted attraction to Fred himself, then it’s regarded as unethical for me to help.”

Yet this should hardly surprise us, given that in 2011, the council of representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) voted 157-0 (!) to support same-sex “marriage,” and it is many of the APA’s “scientific” studies that are used to undergird SB 1172, not to mention fuel public hostility against any attempts to change unwanted same-sex attractions.

SB 1172 also relies on the APA’s 2009 task force report on “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.” But, as I documented in A Queer Thing Happened to America, the task force “consisted of all gay, lesbian, and gay-affirming psychologists, with no dissenting viewpoints allowed onto the panel. And almost every one of them had a long, proud, and well-known history of gay psychological activism. Yes, this was the APA’s handpicked task force to investigate whether gays could change their sexual orientation.” And now an intrusive and unfair law is about to be passed based on this highly-biased report.

According to a study released at a bisexual summit in 2009, 74% of bisexuals experienced childhood sexual abuse, which confirms the experience of thousands of counselors and clients who can point to a relationship between same-sex attractions and childhood sexual abuse. But SB 1772, backed by the power of the government of California, would make it impossible for a teenager who had suffered such abuse to receive counseling for his or her unwanted sexual attractions, even with parental consent. This is as dangerous as it is cruel.

At the same time, in California (as of September, 2011), “The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl . . . defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young. Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy. . . . At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning.” And this is legal!

In San Francisco, the official school policy mandates that, “Students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently at school.” Yes, if 6 year-old Jane identifies as John, she can use the boy’s bathroom (and locker room).

Not to be outdone, according to the Los Angeles Unified School District Reference Guide, “‘Gender identity’ refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex.” So, your biologically male child can identify as male or female or both or neither, and that is perfectly fine and eminently sane.

Yet it will soon be illegal for a 17 year-old troubled by unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling – unless, of course, the counselor encouraged the teenager to embrace his or her homosexual feelings or to consider sex-change surgery.

Is this not an outrage?

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Party Like It’s 1978: Governor Jerry Brown And The Same Ol’ Failed Ideas

Taxes must be raised.

Either that, or teachers and cops will be laid-off, and the people of California will suffer.

So says Governor Jerry Brown, as he seeks to convince Californians that they should vote themselves higher taxes. The Golden State’s circumstances are dire, yet Jerry Brown is facing the crisis with an approach that’s nearly forty years old. He was saying this same thing – leveling these same threats - back in 1978.

We’ll go back to the 70’s in a moment, but first let’s put California in its current context. Despite how anybody feels about our 31st state, California should be regarded as an economic epicenter and a spectacular place in the world. It is, after all, home to the highest mountain in the contiguous forty-eight states (Mount Whitney), the lowest valley (Death Valley), “Surf City, U.S.A.”(Huntington Beach), Apple Computers, Mattel Toys, The World Champion San Francisco Giants, eBay, Legoland, Cisco Systems, the most fertile farmland in the world (the San Joaquin Valley), Twitter, Hollywood, three U.S. Presidents (Richard Nixon by birth, and Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan by “adoption”), Mitsubishi Motors of North America, and – for better or worse – Facebook.

This is to say that California can be and should be a place of robust economic opportunity across multiple sectors. Yet tax-and-spend-and-regulate politicians like Brown have had a stranglehold on the state for the past twenty years or so. And while capital has been leaving, productivity has been slumping, and tax revenues have been declining, Governor Brown and company have continued their same failed policies.

Brown was sworn in to his third term as Governor in January of 2011. At his first State of the State address, he announced that his plan to solve California’s dreadful fiscal problems would involve both cuts in government spending, and – if California voters approved – tax increases.

This seemed very reasonable. Very practical. Very “bi-partisan,” if you will. And indeed Governor Brown brought about some modest cuts in government spending: he eliminated taxpayer funded mobile telephones and vehicles for some government workers (most of us in the private sector don’t get “free” mobile telephones and cars from our employer anyway, but this had apparently become standard operating procedure for privileged government employees in California).

But Brown then went about spending millions of more non-existent tax dollars on certain unionized government employees. For example, in April of 2011, knowing very well that California’s budget deficit was headed upwards of $15 billion or more, Brown nonetheless approved a new contract for the California Prison Guard’s union, which now allows guards to accrue unlimited numbers of un-used paid vacation days each year, and then cash-in the un-used vacation time when they retire.

So why placate the prison guard’s union at a cost of an additional several hundred million dollars, even as the private sector is shrinking? Because Jerry Brown owed them big time – the prison guard’s union, alone, had contributed over $2 million to his 2010 campaign coffers.

As for the California legislators, they’ve spent the past four years ignoring the national recession, as well as their own state fiscal crisis. Instead, they’ve been focusing on such high-minded things as banning the sale of caffeinated beer; raising taxes on “sugary soda drinks (too bad if you’re a beverage vendor);” requiring all public school children to be taught “Gay History,” regulating the density of kid’s baseball bats; requiring that all underage minors wear a helmet while skiing; banning the sale of shark fins (these are an Asian delicacy, but to heck with the restaurant owners – the sharks are endangered); establishing an official California “Parks Make Life Better” month; banning the sale and distribution of plastic grocery bags; requiring the use of a fitted sheet, instead of a flat sheet, on hotel beds; and implementing a statewide sales tax on internet-based commerce.

Governor Brown and his California Democrat party have behaved as though the private sector economy will always produce, no matter how law makers abuse businesses and taxpayers. If the government runs out of money, then threaten to fire teachers and cops – that always puts voters in the mood to authorize even higher taxes. Governor Brown is playing this game now, just as he did nearly forty years ago.

The year was 1978. In the midst of the Carter-era stagflation, and after years of tax increases, Californians were about to pass a statewide ballot initiative known as “Proposition 13,” which sought to freeze local property tax rates. A young, forty-year-old Jerry Brown traveled the entire state (at taxpayer expense, of course) warning that if property taxes were not permitted to rise on a regular basis, teachers would be fired, schools would close, and police and fire services would dwindle.

Brown was in his first term as Governor, and I was in the eighth grade. I remember very well the scare tactics in my public school, and Brown’s fear and loathing on the nightly tv news. Yet Californians were un-daunted by his threats - with a record-high 70% of the electorate voting, Proposition 13 won in a landslide in June of that year.

Will Brown’s ’78-styled fear campaign work in November? It may very well, but it won’t fix the problem. Higher taxes or not, California’s government must abandon the tax-and-spend-and-regulate cadence – before the party’s over.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - Divorcing California

Is it time for Americans to divorce California for Irreconcilable differences?

---

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Brian Calle: Fail-ifornia: Other Than the Weather, What's So Golden about California?

California has a terrible unemployment rate, uninviting tax rates and discouraging regulations. Is Southern California going to be the next Detroit, just on a larger scale? Are unions to blame? Find out as Alexis Garcia gets the answers from journalist Brian Calle.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Austin Hill California,The "Failed State"

“Failed state.”

That sounds harsh, doesn’t it? Do a web search with the words “failed state” and names like Somalia, Haiti, and Sudan will appear on your computer screen.

Unfortunately, the 31st state in our union – California – is looking more and more like a “failed state” as well. And this should matter to every American, because like it or not, California is both a global economic epicenter and a spectacular place in the world.

My native homeland of California is home to the highest mountain in the contiguous forty-eight states (Mount Whitney), the lowest valley (Death Valley), Facebook, “Surf City, U.S.A.”(Huntington Beach), Apple Computers, The World Champion San Francisco Giants, the most fertile farm land in the world (San Joaquin Valley), eBay, Legoland, Cisco Systems, “the entertainment capitol of the world” (Hollywood), three U.S. Presidents (Richard Nixon by birth, and Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan by “adoption”), and Mitsubishi Motors of North America. It remains a global leader in the agricultural, information technology, and aerospace sectors. If it were its own country, it would comprise the eight largest national economy in the world.

This is to say that California can be and should be a place of robust economic opportunity across multiple sectors. But politicians and government employee labor unions have a stranglehold on the state (sound familiar?). Businesses and capital are now leaving while actual economic output is slumping.

Most academicians and government bureaucrats who keep track of the world’s “failed states” still won’t admit that Greece belongs on their lists, so the idea that California has in any sense “failed” isn’t even considered. But if we take seriously the criteria for determining a “failed state,” then the sad truth about California becomes painfully clear.

One of the most often quoted authorities on failed states is The Fund for Peace, a Washington, DC-based non-profit think tank organization, and among the many indicators of a failed state that “FFP” notes is “uneven economic development among group lines.” This notion of “uneven economic development” often has “life or death” implications in places like Zimbabwe or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, yet the idea is every bit as real in California as it regards the disparity between the government, and the private sector economy.

For the record, the government of California presently entails a budget deficit of somewhere between $10 and $15 billion – a deficit that is expected to swell to about $25 billion by the middle of 2012. With this as his backdrop, Governor Jerry Brown took office in January noting at the time that California had a history of “kickin’ the can down the road” with its budget woes, and that his plan to solve California’s dreadful fiscal problems would involve both cuts in government spending, and – if California voters approved – tax increases.

Yet Governor Brown is a life-long government employee, and will have nothing to do with cutting state spending where it is most problematic – in the arena of government employee salaries, benefits, and retirement pensions. In fact, while he has been completely unable to implement his plan of “temporarily extending” certain “temporarily inflated tax rates” (which de facto amounts to a tax increase plan), he has continued lining the pockets of unionized government employees with more lavish expenditures on their salaries, benefits, and retirement pensions.

In April, for example, Brown approved a new contract for the California Prison Guard’s union, which allows guards to accrue unlimited numbers of un-used paid vacation days each year. When a guard retires, the un-used vacation time can now be “cashed-in” at the guard’s highest salary rate- a sweet pay-off from Governor Brown to a labor union that spent nearly $2 million on his campaign last year.

And here’s where yet another set of criteria comes in to play for determining a “failed state.” According to the Fund for Peace, failed states often exhibit “a disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including a failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence…” The high-minded folks at the FFP may not know this, but – shocking news! – California has so horribly mismanaged its prison system that it can’t afford to facilitate all of its prisoners.

After being taken to court over the conditions in which they were detaining convicts – which included as many as 54 prisoners sharing one toilet – the California government was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in May of this year to release huge numbers of prisoners. This is to say that California’s leaders had plenty of money to spend on their unionized prison guards, yet it doesn’t have enough money to properly facilitate prisoners so as to comply with federal requirements.

Is this “failure enough” to get anybody’s attention? By the FFP’s own criteria, California has failed to fulfill a “basic state function” and to protect “citizens” from “violence.”

The Fund for Peace needs to sound the alarm bells over the California government’s failures, but they probably won’t. It’s up to the state’s citizenry to demand better leadership in Sacramento – before it’s too late.

Austin Hill

---

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Austin Hill - Message From California: “American Citizens Need Not Apply”

The United States is ordered by a “government of the people, by the people, for the people…”

But in modern-day California, it’s not so obvious any longer which “people” the government is allegedly serving.

Let’s go back to September of 2010. In the midst of the Golden State’s contest for a new Governor, a woman named Nicky Diaz Santillan held a press conference in Los Angeles – along with her famous Attorney Gloria Allred – and announced that she was suing Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman.

Santillan, we were to learn, had been a live-in housekeeper for the Whitman family between 2000 and 2009. After she was fired from that position she decided to do what Californians often do, and she sued her former employer for “emotional and financial abuse.”

Ms. Santillan happened also to be an illegal alien -a fact she revealed at her press conference -and had stolen an American citizen’s Social Security number so as to falsify documents and to portray herself as a citizen, when she was seeking employment with Whitman.

It was quite a spectacle, that strange September day in California. Seated behind the microphones and in front of the cameras of the American media, flanked by an American Attorney who had accessed the American judicial system to sue an American citizen named Meg Whitman, sat an illegal alien named Nicky Diaz Santillan.

Nobody dared to ask questions about the fact that Ms. Santillan’s presence in California was a violation of federal law. And nobody said a word about her admission to the crime of identity theft. It was all about the alleged “abuse” done to her by the American Meg Whitman.

In fact, California’s top law enforcement agent at that time – Attorney General Jerry Brown – had nothing to say about illegal immigration and identity theft either. Brown was the Democrat nominee for Governor, and he was polling behind Whitman. So rather than address the apparent crimes and confessions, Brown instead joined the chorus of critics claiming that Whitman had been “insensitive” for ending Ms. Santillan’s employment.

Shortly after that press conference, Brown began to poll ahead of Whitman. On Election Day in November, Brown trounced Whitman by nearly fourteen percentage points.

In California, trying to uphold the law with illegal aliens can be a very costly thing. Yet the political benefits of allowing illegal aliens to live above the “government of the people” can be enormous.

After the election, California was rocked by another bizarre event. At Fresno State University, one of California’s largest tax-payer funded schools, the campus newspaper revealed that their student body president Pedro Ramirez was an illegal alien.

Whether Ramirez was “outed,” or he “arranged to be outed,” is not quite clear. But after the news broke, Ramirez set out on a well orchestrated series of international media interviews (he rapidly became the “guest of choice” at “CNN En Espanol”) and a speaking tour to promote the federal “Dream Act” amnesty legislation. He flew up and down the state of California, and even paid a visit to Washington, D.C. to “lobby Congress” on behalf of illegal immigrants.

Ramirez’ presence in California was a violation of federal law, yes. But once again, California government officials didn’t dare ask the obvious questions: How does he pass through security check points at airports? Does he have an American passport? Does he have a California Driver’s License? How did he obtain these documents? Was identity theft involved?

It’s a “government of the people,” sure. But what does this mean any longer in California?

Not only does California ignore definitions of “crime” and “punishment” in cases involving illegal aliens, it is now about to legislate preferential treatment for illegal aliens which, de facto, will put U.S. citizens at a disadvtange. With a budget deficit of somewhere between $10 and $15 billion – a deficit that is expected to swell to about $25 billion by the middle of 2012 – California is cutting back on funding for everything from highway maintenance to K-12 education.

But – alas! – the California legislature has nonetheless found money in the coffers to fund special college and university grants intended specifically for illegal alien students (Americans need not apply). It’s called the “California DREAM Act,” and it’s sailing quite smoothly through the legislature right now.

In the 21st Century, it’s difficult to imagine that tax-payer funded college scholarship programs designated for “citizens and legal residents only” would be met with favor anywhere in America. But in modern-day California – a state that will probably be asking for an “Obama bailout” in the near future - tax-payer funds set aside “for illegal aliens only” is quite acceptable.

Yes, it’s true - the United States is ordered by a “government of the people, by the people, for the people…” But in our 31st state, it’s a government that is “for” just about anyone – except the American Citizen.

Austin Hill

---

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Austin Hill - Slouching Towards Insolvency (The California Way)

The U.S. Federal Government is on a collision course of debt and deficits.

And California may be the best example yet of “the feds on steroids.”

As state governments continue to feel the recession’s impact and are staring-down daunting fiscal challenges, the wisdom of the American people has been prevailing in some of the most unlikely places. In states as diverse as Wisconsin, Idaho, New Jersey, and Ohio, Governors and legislatures have stood-up to the ever-expanding demands of government employee unions, reigned-in employee compensation growth, and have cut state spending. Even in liberal Massachusetts the Democrat-led House of Representatives voted last week to limit the powers of their state government employees’ unions.

But the wisdom hasn’t yet made it all the way out to the Left Coast. With a budget deficit of somewhere between $10 and $15 billion – a deficit that is expected to swell to about $25 billion by the middle of 2012- California politicians have continued their self-serving spending sprees of the past many years, while at the same time legislating itself further and further away from any semblance of being “business friendly.”

Like it or not, California is both a global economic epicenter, and a spectacular place in the world. It is home to the highest mountain in the contiguous forty-eight states (Mount Whitney), the lowest valley (Death Valley), Facebook, “Surf City, U.S.A.”(Huntington Beach), Apple Computers, The World Champion San Francisco Giants, eBay, Legoland, Cisco Systems, “Hollywood,” three U.S. Presidents (Richard Nixon by birth, and Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan by “adoption”), and Mitsubishi Motors of North America.

This is to say that California can be and should be a place of robust economic opportunity across multiple sectors. But politicians have a stranglehold on the state, and consequently, businesses and capital are leaving, while productivity is slumping.

After Governor Jerry Brown took office in January, he noted that California had a history of “kickin’ the can down the road” with its budget woes, and that Californians had been treated with “evasions,” “accounting gimmicks,” and “smoke and mirror” tricks on state finances. At his first State of the State address, he announced that his plan to solve California’s dreadful fiscal problems would involve both cuts in government spending, and – if California voters approved – tax increases.

This seemed very reasonable. Very practical. Very “bi-partisan,” if you will. And indeed Governor Brown has brought about some cuts in government spending, in part by eliminating taxpayer funded mobile telephone and vehicle privileges for government workers (most of us in the private sector don’t get “free” mobile telephones and cars from our employer, but this had apparently become standard operating procedure for many California government employees).

But the pathway to a tax increase has not been so smooth. Allowing California voters the opportunity to vote themselves a tax increase requires the state Assembly and Senate to legislate a special election, and Brown has insisted that the passage of special election legislation must have at least some Republican legislative votes.

Thus far, however, Republican legislators have refused to cooperate. Government employee unions are now becoming even more fierce with their demands that Brown and the legislature just simply “legislate tax increases” without a public vote, but Governor Brown has remained consistent with his pledge that “the people” must decide on tax increases, and that Republican legislators must provide political “buy-in.”

So what do California leaders do when the deficit is exploding and tax hikes are at a stand-still? In Governor Brown’s case, he has committed to spending millions of more non-existent tax dollars on unionized government employees. For example, earlier in April Brown approved a new contract for the California Prison Guard’s union, which will allow guards to accrue unlimited numbers of un-used paid vacation days each year. When a guard retires, the un-used vacation time can now be “cashed-in” at the guard’s highest salary rate- a sweet pay-off from Governor Brown to a labor union that spent nearly $2 million on his campaign last year.

The precise cost to the taxpayer for this political quid-pro-quo is impossible to know right now. But state government estimates suggest that Brown just saddled Californians with an additional $600 million in pension liabilities.

As for California legislators, they’ve been working on bills that would ban the sale of caffeinated beer, raises taxes on “sugary soda drinks,” require all public school children to be taught “Gay History,” and mandate the establishment of an official California “Parks Make Life Better” month. There have even been efforts at a bill that would require the use of a “fitted sheet, instead of a flat sheet, as the bottom sheet on all beds within a California lodging establishment…”

Indeed, the wisdom of America is breaking-out all across the country -except at the White House, the U.S. Senate, and across that vast region known as our 31st state.

Austin Hill

---

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---