A study issued by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a non-partisan think-tank, just confirmed that during the 2009-2010 recessions, every income bracket in California lost income faster than the rest of the United States. But even more disturbing, all but the top 25% of earners now make less than equivalent income classes in other states. Once known as a job magnet for its sunny climate, world-class universities, and burgeoning high-tech opportunities, California has been transformed into a toxic anti-business state that works hard at drive businesses away.

From 2007 when the recession began through its end in 2009, family incomes across all income classes dropped by over 5%. But instead of going back up during the recovery, they continued to plummet by another 6% in 2010. The declines weren’t spread evenly across the income classes. Families with incomes in the top 10% saw their family incomes decline 5%, but the bottom 10% of California’s poorest families saw their incomes plummet by 21%.

In surveys, business executives regularly call California one of the country’s most toxic business environments and one of the least likely places to open or expand a new company. Many firms still headquartered in California consciously refuse to expand their workforce. Brutalized by the bursting of the housing bubble and currently suffering an unemployment rate of 11.7%, 3% above the national average, California family incomes continue to rapidly lose ground.

Already boasting the lowest credit rating of any state in the nation, State Controller John Chiang just released his monthly financial report covering California’s cash balance, receipts and disbursements for November that demonstrates the state’s grim economic circumstances: (more…)

A Schwarzenegger hangover saved California Democrats from a wipeout as the Tea Party wave washed harmlessly up the High Sierra’s eastern slope.  Democrats won eight of nine statewide offices, with the race for attorney general looking more Republican as the late ballots get tallied.  Democrats also racked up their largest State Assembly majority since the Watergate blowout year of 1974 (52 seats of 80).  And, the passage of union-sponsored Prop. 25 allows Democrats to enact a budget with a simple majority vote.  But for visual confirmation of this election’s connection to the failed “Republican” governor, one need only look at governor-elect Jerry Brown’s ad showing Arnold Schwarzenegger side-by-side with Meg Whitman uttering the same platitudinous inanities we’ve come to expect from self-funded dilettantes who neither have the time to vote nor the inclination to first seek a lesser office so as to gain political experience.

It isn’t hard to see where things went awry in California: just look back to the heady years of the historic 2003 recall of Gray Davis.  Davis was swept out of office due a massive deficit brought on by his rapid expansion of state government during the dot com economy combined with his mishandling of the state’s electricity crisis.  Candidate Schwarzenegger won on a platform of “blowing up the boxes” of bureaucracy while “cutting up” the state’s “credit cards” – Schwarzenegger did neither.  Instead, he gave California seven years of uneven leadership, veering from the right to the left while calling his erratic leadership “post-partisanship.” Schwarzenegger pushed through the largest state tax increase in U.S. history, expanded government spending, debt and regulatory hurdles while shrinking the sphere of liberty – curious actions for a self-avowed fan of the late Milton Friedman.  Schwarzenegger’s voter approval rating hit 22 percent this summer, matching Gray Davis’ recall-eve rating – something Davis, if he wishes to indulge in schadenfreude, might see as poetic symmetry.

While the Democrats had a great election night in the Golden State, there are some signs of hope for the majority of Californians who don’t take their ideological cues from San Francisco.

(more…)

Pollsters and pundits alike most often concentrate on the marquee political races.  The Florida Senate race garners national attention because of its intrigue and its national implications.  In California, there is a battle for Governor that will decide the direction of the Golden State.  Just below that surface, however, is a key race that could prove every bit as momentous and which may be key to the future of regaining our limited government heritage – the race for California State Controller.

At first blush, it is a race between a big government, union-supporting incumbent – Democrat John Chiang – and a conservative, limited government reformer, State Senator Tony Strickland.  While there are many races that may fit that description, the Controller’s office is not just another political office.

Keep in mind that despite intervals between Republican and Democrat Presidents, Republican and Democrat Governors, Republican and Democrat Legislatures and Congresses, the size of the federal and state governments has exploded since the 1960’s.  The quaint, 1960s, pre-Great Society, federal budgets of $130 billion have given way to a $4 trillion dollar monolith.  Many state budgets, including California’s have seen similar growth.

That explosive growth, under the watchful eyes of both parties, occurs because more often than not, political discourse is a simple matter of what can government do and how can we fund it.  Far less often do meaningful discussions occur about making government accountable for the money it already has.  If limited government is to make a comeback, the latter must take precedence over the former and (1) today’s environment is the time to do it and (2) the California Controller’s race is the election on which to make that stand.

(more…)

From the Los Angeles Times:

California welfare recipients are able to use state-issued debit cards to withdraw cash on gaming floors in more than half of the casinos in the state, a Los Angeles Times review of records found.

The cards, provided by the Department of Social Services to help recipients feed and clothe their families, work in automated teller machines at 32 of 58 tribal casinos and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms, the review found.

State officials said Wednesday they were working to determine how much money had been withdrawn from casino ATMs by people using the welfare debit cards.

(more…)

Nearly every election year, a series of analysts and candidates suggest to American voters that the election that year may be the most important of its age.  In retrospect, few can argue that the election of Obama has not been momentous.  The midterm election of 2010 may be a turning point as well – especially for American business.

For decades, American business has wined, dined and lobbied the American politicians. Some have sought preferential tax benefits for themselves or their industries.  Others have sought preferential regulations or corporate welfare for the same reasons.  Still others feed the alligator that is government in hopes that it will be kind to them in the future while it consumes others today.

Perhaps no greater example of the latter mentality exists in California.   Year after year, business interests donate millions of dollars to Democrats in the hope that they will act reasonably.  The coup de grace of which was the 2002 election for Governor between then Governor Gray Davis and challenger, and business man, Bill Simon.  Under no uncertain terms, Simon campaigned on lower taxes and regulations.  Davis offered record deficits and coming tax increases – not to mention an ever increasing regulatory burden.  Incredibly, Big Business gave to Davis three to one over Simon.  They did so because they did not give Simon much of a chance and they wanted to curry favor with Davis – hoping he would be kind to them when he won.

Without a doubt there were two losers in that election.  Simon lost by less than 5 points (far closer than business imagined) and California businesses now face the highest combined tax and regulatory burdens in American history.  In other words, California businesses have received a very poor return on their investments into California Democrat politicians – so much so that California’s desert neighbor, Nevada, leads the nation in new business development.

(more…)

Unionism is failing miserably in this age of a greater world market and an increase in competition for business across the globe. More nations than ever have left behind the 18th century and are taking bold steps into a world made smaller by technology. No longer is but a handful of nations leading the world in manufacturing while the rest wallow in abject poverty. This greater competition is increasing the standard of living in nearly every corner of the earth but because there is so much competition, unions in the U.S. are dying out.

American unions are not conducive to the 21st century and companies shackled by them are finding that either unions have to lose their once overpowering control over production or the businesses simply have to shut their doors as foreign competitors beat them up in the world market place.

But these antiquated, jobs killing unions won’t go quietly into the night and they’ve found their path to existence: government. Unions are growing wildly in the public sector because there are no market forces to curb their excesses.

The latest statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that overall unions lost 771,000 members in 2009 and the percentage of private sector jobs held by union members fell to 12.3 percent, the lowest since unionism became de rigueur in the U.S.

But while they are falling to new lows in the private sector, unions are growing rapidly in the public sector. Government is unionizing at an increased rate.

(more…)

Eighteen states provide for recall elections to remove state officials.  Nine of those provide for the same for their Congressional representatives.  But such a right of recall can and should be adopted in every state.

Ideally this would be done by amending the state constitution to provide for such recall elections.  But it can be done through statute as well, with the New Jersey Uniform Recall Election Law as a good model.

The greatest opportunity is in the states that already provide for citizen initiatives to put state constitutional amendments or proposed statutes on the state ballot for a vote of the people for adoption.  In these states, the citizens can act directly, without depending on the politicians to adopt a check on their own power.

The right of recall is desirable because it maintains democratic accountability to the people throughout the entire term of elected officials, rather than just at election time.  This is more relevant now because increasingly we see an attitude among elected officials that they know best and the people are ignorant yahoos who should be ignored until they need to be fooled again at election time.  The people need a right of recall to remove officials who display this anti-democratic attitude after they are elected.

(more…)

Congress is out of control.  The public overwhelming opposes a government takedover of our health care. But Congressional leaders are telling us they don’t care – that they know best, and they’re going to pass it anyway.

We are getting the same attitude on other issues, from global warming regulation, to taxes, government spending, deficits, federal debt, energy policy, welfare, corporate bailouts, and beyond.  Too many of our elected Members of Congress are making behind-closed-door deals and ignoring their constituents, calling them “yahoos,” “Nazis”,“and “tea-baggers.”

This isn’t American democracy — this is a shop-worn, elitist, authoritarianism closer to abuses we see in countries like Venezuela.

So, what would happen if the people could change this rotten situation?

(more…)

How much access can a possible agent of influence for state sponsors of terrorism buy from President Barack Obama? For Jodie Evans, a progressive Hollywood activist, the going rate appears to be $30,400 for dinner and a conversation.

Last week in San Francisco, Obama headlined a three million dollar fundraiser at the Westin St. Francis Hotel. The San Francisco Chronicle reports about 160 people paid $30,400 or more per couple for a private dinner with Obama followed by a reception costing $500 to $1000 that drew over 900 attendees. Among those at the dinner was the leftist, so-called antiwar group Code Pink co-founder, Jodie Evans.

The Chronicle reports Jodie Evans had a several minutes long conversation with Obama at the fundraiser.

Why does Jodie Evans merit such face time with the president even though she acts as an agent of influence for the anti-American governments of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, as well as Middle Eastern terrorists?

Over the life of the campaign, Jodie Evans became one of Obama’s top donors, giving the maximum $2300 to his respective primary and general election funds and tens of thousands of dollars more to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint Obama-Democratic National Committee fund.

(more…)