The LA Times came up with a great interactive chart where you can balance the California budget by cutting state programs and raising taxes.  I assume they developed this to show the average Californian how hard it is to balance the budget.  If this assumption is correct, then their plan has backfired.  This was way easy.  I pretty much wiped out medi-Cal, sorry poor people who can’t afford insurance.  Looks like you are going to have to go back to healing your sicknesses the old-fashioned way: prayer or your immune system.

I also let most of the convicts in the prison system go and pretty much wiped out rehab programs and substance abuse problems.  It is now up to the surrounding states to make sure all of these drug-addicts and criminals stay in California.  I hear there are a lot of vacant homes, so I am sure they will find somewhere to squat.  The one exception, however, is the illegal immigrants in the prisons.  They will have to be deported.  I am a little disappointed that cutting prison programs was the only option to solve this problem.  Outsourcing criminal detention and drug rehab to countries like China, Cuba, Russia, or Mexico would be a cost effective way of dealing with criminals.  It would also be a pretty good deterrent to prevent crime.  

I also cut all the excess education programs.  Sorry, community colleges.  You were a nice idea, but this state has bigger problems.  I have good news for kids.  They get an extra week of summer.  I also cut Calgrants.  Sorry students, you will just have to go get some more student loans.  I am sure there are plenty of those to go around.

I wiped out most of the welfare programs.  The good news here is that by giving up these programs, California gives up over $3 billion in federal funds.  This will be a nice windfall for Obama, whose economic team is working relentlessly to try and cut $100 million from his $1.75 trillion budget - keep up the good work gentleman.  

I did a few one-time fixes.  Mostly the ones where the state government takes money from local governments.  I think California needs a little infighting.  

With the state workers, I didn’t do anything that was possibly illegal.

I got rid of all the general government expenses that I could.

I enabled tax witholding for independent contractors and raised taxes on alcohol, and …drumroll please…California now has a $289 million surplus.

This activity is a little flawed.  California recently passed extensive tax increases to cover the budget shortfall.  Not surprisingly, increasing taxes actually reduced tax revenues coming into the state, thus widening the shortfall.  I was a little disappointed that this interactive game didn’t have an option for tax cuts.  There are far more historical examples where tax cuts increase tax revenues than there are examples where tax increases increase revenues.

You can play the balance the budget game yourself here.

Sell outs

I was surprised when the Waxman Markey climate change ponzi scheme passed the House, that all three Utahn congressman opposed it.  Jim Matheson, Utah’s shining democrat, voted against it despite his reputation as something of an environmental crusader.  His statements against the bill can be read here.  

Matheson’s comments on the bill make me wonder what these 8 sell-out Republicans were thinking when they voted for the bill.  I need to point out, that Matheson believes we must fight climate change and reduce energy dependence, and his arguments against the bill can’t easily be dismissed as the rantings of an unbeliever who won’t accept the “facts” of scientific bullies.

He claims the bill will destroy the derivatives market.  The bill will create unfair regional transfers of wealth when not-so-windy states with a lot of coal (like Utah) have to pay windy states with no coal (like ???) to burn coal.  In short, his criticisms seem to worth considering, but Pelosi’s Congress seems pretty committed to hurry.  After all, they need to get as much crap sticking to the wall before Americans figure out what is going on.

For example, The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Alan Carlin, produced a report that was critical of current accepted truths of global warming science, and his report was entirely censored by the EPA.  You can read the emails discussing this blatant act of censorship.  You can also read the actual report that was censored.  Everyone at least ought to read the executive summary to get an idea of the kind of scientific evidence that is being censored and suppressed.  The rushed way in which this censorship occurred is characteristic of the way democrats and Obama in particular seem to be running things.  The cool college professor seems less concerned about hearing all sides of an argument and proceeding with the best available information.  

I can accept the fact that most Americans are ignorant or lazy, and so they are an easy group to swindle.  However, what I can’t understand is why some of my smarter friends pass off what is going to be another trillion dollar train wreck on the Obama/Pelosi one-way-track to bankruptcy.  If the science of global warming is so convincing and so sound, then why do dissenters need to be silenced and censored?  If someone is wrong, isn’t the best form of censorship to let them speak out?

The last time that Mormons were kicked out of the country for community organizing was back in the 1840s.  While historians can probably identify many causes for which Mormons were forced to leave the country, perhaps one of the most notable reasons was because their settlement, Nauvoo, on the Illinois bank of the Mississippi river had a larger population than Chicago.  As a voting bloc in Illinois, the Mormons pretty much had the ability to control elections and the rest of Illinois wasn’t too thrilled that such a strange bunch of people had this kind of power.  The people of Illinois dealt with this problem the same way that their neighbors in Ohio and Missouri dealt with this problem: Fire, tar, feathers, mobocracy, violence, terrorism, murder.  So the Mormons left, and settled the intermountain West from Canada to California.  It is pretty well-known that Mormons had to renounce polygamy for Utah to become a state, but most Americans were more worried about the political power that the church had in the Utah Territory.  For example: 

Idaho Senator Frederick Dubois sought to limit Mormon influence by taking on the easy target of plural marriage: “[We] were not nearly so much opposed to polygamy as we were to the political domination of the Church… We made use of polygamy.”

Once again, Mormons are demonstrating that they can exercise formidable political power, and once again, mainstream America is not too thrilled about this group’s community organizing activities.  Once again, mainstream America is targeting Mormons’ beliefs about marriage to disenfranchise them politically.  Time Magazine recently published an article called, “The Church and Gay Marriage: Are Mormons Misunderstood?”  Although the title of the article seems to suggest that Mormons are misunderstood, and the author of the article will help you understand them better, the tone and structure of the article mostly contribute to an increase in misunderstanding.  Where it would be easy to read this as yet another indictment of multiculturalism, (what does “understanding” another culture really mean anyway?) the point of this article seems to be to stereotype Mormons as homophobic automatons that do whatever the prophet tells them to do.  I will agree that the article is rhetorically subtle in how it makes this point.  After all, the author does paint with the sympathetic brush at times.

Nevertheless, due to editorial constraints, personal bias, editorial bias, dishonesty, or just the daunting impossibility of the task of “cultural understanding,” I would have to argue that this article falls short of it’s proposed intent, and so yes, David Van Biema, thanks to you, Mormons are misunderstood.  The cultural logic that informs this article, also informs this online hate brochure, that basically suggests that Mormon viewpoints should not be tolerated, and that through hatemongering and intimidation it might be possible to prevent Mormons from exercising their political will in the future.  Of course, this is a perfect example of the liberal, multicultural idea of tolerance: Tolerance is great as long as that which is to be tolerated is something you already agree with.

I am sure that most Americans agree that it is a good thing for young teenagers (from 12 years up) to attend a homosexual prom in Boston, where the chaperones were gay men handing out business cards to come to their kinky kamp summer camp and bondage and sado-masochist classes.  Most Mormons would probably agree with one of their leaders, Neal A. Maxwell, who said that Heavenly Father takes our agency more seriously than we do and would therefore agree that it is perfectly fine for young teenagers to explore various forms of sexual perversion, drug-use, and statutory gay rape.  When you stand for things that are so agreeable, it is hard to understand why simple-minded, provincial Mormons can’t be more tolerant.

Iranian Elections are Like This

Iran’s election results are in, and the winner of this election cycle’s Rock ‘em Sock ‘em tournament is Mahmoud Adiminijad!  Man what a fight!  And folks, things are just starting to heat up!  Even though the Grand Ayatollah was at the controls of each fighter, spectators are now claiming the fight was rigged.

Taking a play right of their previous colonial oppressors playbook, Persian punks are taking to the streets.  They’re burning buses and fighting with police, just like a good old fashion English soccer riot.

On the other side of the globe, leaders in the West who had doubled down on Mousavi, are discussing the results with the media like those who just lost a bet discuss the results with their bookie.

In previous posts, my friend Jake and I were arguing over whether the banks would repay TARP money.  A few weeks ago, the banks wanted to, but the Treasury wouldn’t let them.  It looks like yesterday the government gave the green light for some of the banks to pay back the money.  It also looks like the treasury made $4.8 billion on the deal from dividends - not a bad reason to hang onto an investment.  We’ll have to see if Barack Obama takes credit for this relatively good news, despite the fact that Bush is largely responsible for this part of the bailout.  I say this news is relatively good, because now we still have a few problems that are a result of this initial bailout.  

These banks were able to pay back the money because they were able to raise capital.  They were able to raise capital, because there is a lot of money right now sitting on the sidelines looking for safety.  Because of the moral hazard created by the government bailing out the banks, these banks now look like a safe investment even though the past behavior of the institutions indicates otherwise.  Also, it is increasingly becoming apparent that this bailout money was financed by future inflation.  So in defense of Chuckles and Jake, I guess I would have to say that I would rather deal with trivial things like economic moral hazards and inflation rather than the apocalyptic demise of our financial system.

However, that is if you limit to the bailout to the original one crafted by Bush and Paulson.  The system probably could have contained the inflationary effects of printing $700 billion.  This would have been like a nice dose of Viagra to an otherwise limpid economy.  The Obama administration is behaving like a bunch of teenagers who broke into Grampa Keynes medicine cabinet.

For example: 

Yet one more example of the viability of advanced computer modeling

This chart was used by Obama’s expert team of economist and their magical modeling computers to sell Obama’s stimulus plan.  Of course Obama was all over the news the other day promising that these jobs will come; after all, his experts with their magical computers are telling him so.  Meanwhile tax collection rates are plummeting because large numbers of people aren’t working, and Obama’s innocent little $1.75 trillion forcasted budget deficit will soon balloon to $2 trillion.  When most people’s incomes drop or disappear, they slow their spending.  Then again, most people haven’t reached the point of economic enlightenment that characterize democrats, where laws of economic scarcity can be mitigated with good intentions.

In conclusion, I am glad I was wrong and banks are paying back taxpayer money.  I just wish they were paying it back to someone else other than our prodigal political leaders.

I found a good blog that explores some of these ideas: Carter’s Second Term

Jake has been urging me to answer whether I believe there is something to the data saying that there are trends indicating the presence of climate change or if this is all just a big liberal conspiracy.  to clearly answer this question for him, I would have to say that I believe that the scientific study of climate, like any other form of scientific inquiry, is innocuous in and of itself.  Climatology is basically a bunch of curious people trying to answer questions using the scientific method.  Unfortunately for their field, it has become one of the most politicized fields of scientific inquiry.

The idea of anthropogenic global warming is more like a liberal’s wet dream than it is a liberal conspiracy.  To understand this claim, you have to understand the paradigm through which I view environmentalism.  Most Americans seem to view environmentalism this way:  Liberals are environmental crusaders that want to save the planet from the ravages of markets and industry vs. Conservatives who want to completely ignore the environmental impact of markets and industry as they greedily pursue profit.  This misrepresentation of the debate over environmentalism has atrophied the conservative side of the debate.

However, the modern environmentalist movement was started by a conservative, and despite the fact that conservative environmentalism seems to be an oxymoron to most, conservative environmentalism most likely has the best answers to today’s environmental problems than most liberal envirowackos.

Peter Huber’s book, Hard Green is probably the best book for laying out the conservative’s environmental sensibilities. For an example of how Huber thinks about environmental issues, you can read Bound to Burn. Here are some good quotes:
“Green jobs” means Americans paying other Americans to chase carbon while the rest of the world builds new power plants and factories.

Computer models demonstrated that [nuclear] meltdowns were highly unlikely and that the costs of a meltdown, should one occur, would be manageable—but greens scoffed: huge computer models couldn’t be trusted. So we ended up burning much more coal. The software shoe is on the other foot now; the machines that said nukes wouldn’t melt now say that the ice caps will.

We don’t control the global supply of carbon.

You can read the rest of the article to see the basic conclusion that I will also make.  Even if humans are contributing to an increase in carbon emissions, there is little that those who adhere to liberal ideologies can do to stop this.  Whether you call it a conspiracy or a wet dream, the reason why liberals cling to global warmingism and their regulatory guns is because liberalism wants to micromanage everything it possibly can.  From car companies, to banks, to molecules, modern liberalism is waxing quite confident that it can effectively manage just anything where markets have “failed.”  However, to the modern liberal, real results matter less than perceived ones, which makes global warming a perfect tool for psychological exploitation.  It is easy to see how labeling something that intends to control things as ephemeral as molecules and emotions as a conspiracy isn’t too far-fetched.  However, I’ll stick with my stance, that controlling the climate of the planet is just too juicy of an opportunity for the average liberal to pass up.

Meanwhile, the liberal’s solutions to prevent global warming does more to discredit the theory than any discussion of scientific evidence.

Recently there was a story on the front page of Yahoo about the 31 year old in charge of dismantling G.M.  Where I have been quick to criticize Obama in many ways, I actually see this as a good thing.  The article was headlined to make me think “What, he is replacing experienced CEOs with grad students?!?”  However, after I read the article I decided it is a good thing, so way to go Obama.  

Generation X Coming of Age

Obama is quick to blame everything wrong with the country on George W. Bush.  This is a fine political move to make for him, but I think he should take it a step further.  Why not blame all of the country’s problems on Baby Boomers?  Some historians label Baby Boomers as the “Me Generation,” and probably for good reason.  The world has yet to see a rival generation that has selfishly amassed so much wealth for itself at the expense of their forefathers (WWII and the Great Depression) and its children (Generation X is pretty much considered the screwed generation).  

On a recent comment on a blog called Askcherlock.  The owner of the blog, a Baby Boomer, was contemplating the current problems facing social security.  In response to a comment I made, the owner said this, “You work all your life with certain expectations and plan for them, then someone changes the rules in the endgame. What’s up with that?”  To this I reply that the increasingly dysfunctional America that we see today is largely a mirror image of the generation that has been writing the rules for the last 10-20 years: The Baby Boomers.  Since they are largely the architects and recipients of some of the biggest entitlement grabs in human history, I can’t say that I sympathize with Cherlock or Baby Boomers in general. Cherlock might as well have said, “Our generation created rules that secured as much wealth for ourselves as possible at the expense of everyone else, and it turns out that our rules defied economic logic, so now we have to face the reality of this, which means the rules might change in a way that contradicts the lie we have been believing in our whole lives.  Not Fair!”  I have about as much sympathy for Baby Boomers worrying about the Social Security Trust Fund as I do for those who invested with Bernie Madoff.  Caveat Emptor.  

I hope that Obama screws this important constituent just as he has many of his other constituents.  I am hoping that he puts together a team of Gen-Xers to solve the budget problems facing Social Security and Medicare.  My generation has been told our whole life that this money wouldn’t be there when we need it, so I am sure a capable team of Gen-Xers, with their wealth of experience of being screwed by the previous generation, can emapthize with themselves and come up with a solution that for once gives Baby Boomers what they deserve.  Picture Rick Wagoner.

Brian Deese

Christian Bale

On another note does anyone else think that Brian Deese, the 31 year old dismantling GM, looks like Christian Bale, the 35 year old dismantling his acting career?  Brian Deese?  Sounds a lot like Kyle Reese.

Indiana Flag

Promise-keeping, including honoring contracts, is the default position of a lawful society. But suddenly, many citizens’ legal claims are merely starting points for negotiations with an overbearing government.

-George Will

In an editorial after the general election, Bill Ruthhart wrote in the Indystar of the event where the eleven members of the Indiana electoral college voted for Obama.  In a quaint display of imagery, he describes how these Democrat electors innocently stumbled through the ceremony, since it was clear that none of them had done this before.  After all, it has been 44 years since Indiana last voted for a Democrat for president.  After they placed their votes, those in the room had a definitive Obamasm.  This is a nice piece of imagery to describe the general election.

One elector of note was Charlotte Martin, a retired school teacher.  Of the event she said, ”Indiana has not (voted for a Democrat) since 1964, and to think I was an elector — it’s just amazing.”  Amazing indeed.  I wonder how amazed she is now that her retirement benefits are on the line because of Obama’s policies.

Recently, Indiana’s Governor MItch Daniels, has labeled Barack Obama’s policies as shock and awe statism.  He and the state treasurer are denouncing Obama’s treatment of Chrysler’s creditors.  Apparently, the pension fund that supports Indiana’s retired school teachers owns $42.5 million dollars of secured Chrysler debt.  Of course, according to Obama, as purchasers of secured debt the Treasury of Indiana has engaged in irresponsible “speculation.”  While it is true that there is an Amendment in the Constitution, the 5th one to be exact, that says the Government can’t take your personal property, it is possible that Obama sees a deficiency in this amendment.  Even though it spells out what he can’t do, it doesn’t spell out what he must do for the UAW that in many ways contributed to his election - probably especially in Indiana.  The answer for Obama is to say, “Screw the law, Screw legal contracts, Screw the NEA, Screw retired

Obama's Speech Writer

teachers, Screw Indiana, I’ve got constituents to pander to.”  I don’t envy his position.  Who do you choose to pander to?  Americans who think the Constitution is important?  That pesky document.  The NEA?  They supported you too after all.  Indiana?  They bought into your “Hope” snake oil, and voted for a Democrat President for the first time in 44 years.  Hmmm!  How do you keep everyone happy when the interests of one of your constituents directly contradict the interests of another of your constituents?  This sounds like a problem for Barack Obama’s speech writer to solve - PETA should interfere to protect the rights of that poor overworked chimp.