Definition of Insanity- Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Also See- Democratic Buget Prososals)

Last week, liberal newspapers up and down the state published editorials supporting Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal. But that is not enough for the special interests and the Democrat controlled Legislature. They come up with their own plan!

An editorial in the Riverside Press Enterprise sums it up best:

The budget proposal that Assembly Democrats unveiled Tuesday would set California on a (familiar) road to fiscal disaster.

Tax increases and increased spending…that about sums up the Democratic Budget Proposal. All they have to offer is the same old tax and spend scheme that put us in debt in the first place.

In 1995-96, state income tax on stock options and capital gains -- mostly the province of the well-to-do -- brought in about $2 billion. By 2000-01, that revenue hit $17 billion, then fell to $5 billion two years later. By then California had committed the higher sum to ongoing programs, causing the state's current budget mess.

The Democrats in the legislature have refused to face the reality that California has a spending problem. Or rather, they have a spending problem! No matter how much money comes into the state coffers, they find a way to spend more. And they haven’t seen a government program they didn’t like. Unless of course a Republican proposes it.

But it is not as though they are incapable of saying “NO!” They’ve said “No” to fiscal accountability in schools. They’ve said “No” to any attempt to reform our state pension system, which has seen the cost to taxpayers go from $150 million to over $2.2 billion in the last five years. They have said “No” to allowing school districts to save millions of dollars by contracting out some nonacademic services. They even said “NO” to school textbooks that are over 200 pages! (See “Children Can’t Read? Get Rid of The Books!” )

They know how to say “No.” They just can’t seem to say it to the special interests.

Craig DeLuz

Comments

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

In yesterday’s debate on same-sex marriage, California Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy made what was probably the most profound statement I have ever heard from him. He exposed the effort to define marriage as nothing more than an attempt to gain acceptance.

The San Jose Mercury News quoted Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg as she attempted to characterize those who do not support same-sex marriage as bigots:

``Unless you are willing to look me in the face and say that I am not a human being just as you are, you have no right to deny me the access to marriage in this state or anywhere else,''

Please note that Ms. Goldberg does not mention the rights, she is seeking the acceptance as a human being. This sentiment was echoed in the committee hearings where same-sex couples testified one after another that government approval of their unions would hopefully aid them in gaining the acceptance of their families.

What Ms. Goldberg does not understand is that those of us who support traditional marriage love and accept her as a human being. And despite our moral objections to her lifestyle choice, we do not seek to outlaw her right to love or be intimate with whomever she wishes. What we object to is being forced to honor that lifestyle. And that is exactly what we would be forced to do if our government put it’s official stamp of approval on it.

Dennis Mountjoy was speaking for most Californians when he stood up to defend, not just marriage, but traditional moral values.

``What the homosexuals in the state of California and in the United States want is not rights, they want acceptance,'' said Mountjoy. ``They want my children to be told that homosexuality is OK, that it is natural. I'm here to tell you that it is not OK and it is not natural and I will not have my children taught that.''

And this is not a right-wing, religious extremist, Republican point of view. As a matter of fact, 13 Democrats either voted against AB 19 or at the very least refused to support it. Democrat Assemblyman Alberto Torrico made it clear that this was not as much about civil rights, but about what is right.

``I'm going against part of me that's been a civil rights champion all my life,'' said Torrico, who did not vote on the bill. ``But it's all about what I think God wants for us, and I can't get around that.''

Craig DeLuz

Comments

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

Listen tomorrow and Friday as I cover the 9 - Noon show on Atlanta's Braves Radio 640 WGST..... that is 6 - 9 AM our time.....and then again here in Northern California from 7:00 - 10:00 PM on KFBK (1530 AM)

How do opinions and issues differ from NorCal in the heart of Dixie? You might be surprised at how similar they really are.

It's always fun to contrast the way people see things in different cities and get a fresh perspective on the things we talk about and are concerned about here. You can listen (and find the call-in numbers too) by going here

---------------------------

Mark Williams is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists, and Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc. His work appears in this publication, on Fox News Channel and nightly on Sacramento’s 1530 AM KFBK radio. For more on Mark and his background visit his web site.

AB 19 (Leno) came up for a vote this evening. All of the Republicans and even a few Democrats stood up for marriage.

I cannot tell you how difficult it was to watch the debate and not be saddened by the fact that such a debate should even be necessary.

Assemblyman Tom Harmon received a legal opinion from the California Legislative Counsel stating that AB 19 violates state law, because any measure that seeks to amend or substitute a measure passed by initiative must also be passed by initiative. Mr. Leno was also advised of this opinion and still pushed this bill.

Sacramento Assemblyman Dave Jones stood up and declared that Proposition 22 only spoke to marriages performed outside of the state of California, which is a complete lie.

In an affidavit by the author of Prop 22 it was noted that the language was constructed with the intention of outlawing the validation of same-sex marriages in California or recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Thus the language “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid (addressing in state marriages) or recognized (addressing out of state marriages) in California.” And Assemblyman Ray Haynes did a masterful job of pointing this out.

As of 6:30pm the initial vote was 35 in favor and 37 against with 8 members not voting. The bill was put on call, to give members who have not yet voted a chance to vote. This means that unless Democrats are successful in getting the support of 6 of the 8 members who have not voted, AB 19 will fail.

Good Job!!!!!

Craig DeLuz

Comments

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com

It was only a matter of time before Assembly Democrats proposed fixing California’s budget woes by increasing taxes on the state’s highest income earners. But it is always interesting to see how they try to put an new spin on the same old failed rhetoric.

Tax the Rich!

The Sacramento Bee is reporting:

So for the first time in years, legislative Democrats are unified in flatly calling for tax increases to help balance the budget.

Specifically, Núñez said, they want to restore two top income tax brackets.

The highest earners now pay a 9.3 percent state income tax. Under the Democrats' plan, married couples earning from about $285,000 to about $570,000 would pay 10 percent, while those who make more than that would pay 11 percent.

Now keep in mind, this is on top of the 1% tax levied on the rich to pay for mental health. And don’t forget about the 1% tax that Meathead Rob Riener is pushing to pay for universal preschool. Are you starting to see the pattern?

Democrats don’t want to live within their means. And they know that the average taxpayer isn’t willing to pay more to cover their spending spree. So as usual they go after their favorite ATM machine…The Rich.

Unfortunately though, there is noting more portable than a rich man and his money. And as we continue to increase taxes on high income earners to pay for government programs, they will eventually leave.

For example, when Tiger Woods signed his $90 million deal several years ago he went from being a legal resident of California to being a legal resident of Florida. This move saved him about $4 million a year.

I am not saying that this one proposal will cause a mass exodus by the rich. But this “Tax the Rich” mindset will. One percent here and one percent there will eventually add up. And as it does, those whom we are targeting to pay for all these new programs will get tired of being soaked.

Then guess who will be left holding the Bag?

Craig DeLuz

Comments

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…
www.craigdeluz.com