Not much I can say about this article except...
CAN THE LOTTERY!!!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Growing Pot
Recently in the news, California State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has introduced a bill (the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act [AB 390]) to legalize the production and sale of marijuana. Calls to decriminalize or normalize marijuana use have long existed, and have gained greater support as our prisons become overcrowded and police officers remain overworked. For this reason, Santa Monica is among the cities that have essentially told its police officers to disregard incidents that involve small level possession or usage of marijuana.
This bill, though, is not looking to overturn any cruel and unusual punishments for pot users. It is not striving to undue great injustices. It is nothing more than another desperate effort to increase the state's pocketbook. Be sure, Ammiano cares not about the potential health risks or prison sentences users might face. He just wants to tax them and grow the government's pot.
As I stated from the very first post here, I am not looking to get into moral discussions on the lottery or, in this case, marijuana. Suffice it to say that I've played with both in my time. We've seen quite clearly that adding lottery revenue to the state coffers, supposedly to supplement education spending, has allowed politicians to expand the general budget. This means more government run programs and services that we don't need, or that we do need but are delivered inefficiently and of substandard quality. I've always heard that fish grow to the size of their bowl. While I don't know if that's true, government has proven that it will grow itself to the size of its budget.
In 2006, Prop 86 asked voters to increase the state excise tax on tobacco products by $2.60, with the additional money going to support new or expanded programs for health services, children's health services, and anti-tobacco initiatives. On a personal note, my mother recently passed away from cancer, which I have no doubt was caused by years of cigarette use. So, I am no fan of tobacco companies. However, I voted against Prop 86 (as did a majority of Californians), and I would do so again today for the same reason. In order to sustain those "new or expanded programs", we would need to make sure that a high number of Californians continue to smoke. If they gave up tobacco, thereby no longer paying the $2.60 additional tax, the money would dry up. However, we know that the health services created by this law would not simultaneously go away. The result would be higher taxes on the rest of Californians to continue paying for those programs.
Similarly, despite the argument of some that smoking joints is not as unhealthy as smoking cigarettes, I don't think anyone can make the case that smoking pot is good for you. Under AB 390, the California government would need you to use and marijuana to pay for its debt, just as it pushes the lottery on people regardless of their financial situations.
A believer in smaller government, I support a doctor's right to prescribe medicine that he or she feels will best benefit a paitent, including medical marijuana. I also agree that we need to look at the priorities of our peace officers, courts and prisons, and figure out where marijuana related crimes should fit on that list. However, I refuse to support a government money grab that promotes the use of any narcotic solely to expand its already expansive wallet.
This bill, though, is not looking to overturn any cruel and unusual punishments for pot users. It is not striving to undue great injustices. It is nothing more than another desperate effort to increase the state's pocketbook. Be sure, Ammiano cares not about the potential health risks or prison sentences users might face. He just wants to tax them and grow the government's pot.
As I stated from the very first post here, I am not looking to get into moral discussions on the lottery or, in this case, marijuana. Suffice it to say that I've played with both in my time. We've seen quite clearly that adding lottery revenue to the state coffers, supposedly to supplement education spending, has allowed politicians to expand the general budget. This means more government run programs and services that we don't need, or that we do need but are delivered inefficiently and of substandard quality. I've always heard that fish grow to the size of their bowl. While I don't know if that's true, government has proven that it will grow itself to the size of its budget.
In 2006, Prop 86 asked voters to increase the state excise tax on tobacco products by $2.60, with the additional money going to support new or expanded programs for health services, children's health services, and anti-tobacco initiatives. On a personal note, my mother recently passed away from cancer, which I have no doubt was caused by years of cigarette use. So, I am no fan of tobacco companies. However, I voted against Prop 86 (as did a majority of Californians), and I would do so again today for the same reason. In order to sustain those "new or expanded programs", we would need to make sure that a high number of Californians continue to smoke. If they gave up tobacco, thereby no longer paying the $2.60 additional tax, the money would dry up. However, we know that the health services created by this law would not simultaneously go away. The result would be higher taxes on the rest of Californians to continue paying for those programs.
Similarly, despite the argument of some that smoking joints is not as unhealthy as smoking cigarettes, I don't think anyone can make the case that smoking pot is good for you. Under AB 390, the California government would need you to use and marijuana to pay for its debt, just as it pushes the lottery on people regardless of their financial situations.
A believer in smaller government, I support a doctor's right to prescribe medicine that he or she feels will best benefit a paitent, including medical marijuana. I also agree that we need to look at the priorities of our peace officers, courts and prisons, and figure out where marijuana related crimes should fit on that list. However, I refuse to support a government money grab that promotes the use of any narcotic solely to expand its already expansive wallet.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Take the Good, Take the Bad
We've spent a lot of time focusing on quality education here (and our state's lack thereof). So, it would be hard to ignore the President's speech today on that topic.
There is much to like here, such as a call for merit pay to good teachers, especially those working in low income neighborhoods, and an expansion of charter schools. As this US Dept. of Education report shows, charter schools outperformed traditional schools in the 2005-'06 and '07-'08 school years. However, many unions still oppose these schools. I applaud President Obama for taking a stand even if it could upset people who backed and even helped to fund his campaign.
A glaring omission in the speech is accountability. I can understand if Obama didn't want to come across as attacking teachers in this, his first major speech on education. However, as he brings up merit pay to teachers who's students perform well, I would have hoped he'd also discuss what to do with teachers who's students continually fail. I'm narrowly willing to give him a rain check on this, hoping that it comes in future discussions.
Also, I would have liked to hear more about local control, certainly a key ingredient to get parents involved with their students. That seems an obvious one. Why was this left out?
That leads me to the bad, in particular this section of the President's speech:
First, he attacks the Republican party. Then, not a breath later, he argues that partisanship and petty bickering have been holding back educational progress. If that wasn't petty bickering, what is?
I think it's safe to say that both Republicans and Democrats have some good ideas as to how to fix the educational system. It's also safe to say that, throughout too much of California anyway, neither has done anything to actually succeed in improving public schools, especially in low income areas.
For all of us who graduated from high school, we know what it takes: good teachers, engaging curriculum, and parents who take part in the educational process. Cut out any of those items, and you drastically cut the chances of students' success. We need a government, starting locally,then statewide, then (with a more hands-off approach) nationwide that will support those three vital ingredients.
There is much to like here, such as a call for merit pay to good teachers, especially those working in low income neighborhoods, and an expansion of charter schools. As this US Dept. of Education report shows, charter schools outperformed traditional schools in the 2005-'06 and '07-'08 school years. However, many unions still oppose these schools. I applaud President Obama for taking a stand even if it could upset people who backed and even helped to fund his campaign.
A glaring omission in the speech is accountability. I can understand if Obama didn't want to come across as attacking teachers in this, his first major speech on education. However, as he brings up merit pay to teachers who's students perform well, I would have hoped he'd also discuss what to do with teachers who's students continually fail. I'm narrowly willing to give him a rain check on this, hoping that it comes in future discussions.
Also, I would have liked to hear more about local control, certainly a key ingredient to get parents involved with their students. That seems an obvious one. Why was this left out?
That leads me to the bad, in particular this section of the President's speech:
Too many in the Republican Party have opposed new investments in early
education, despite compelling evidence of its importance. So what we get here in
Washington is the same old debate about it's more money versus more reform,
vouchers versus the status quo. There's been partisanship and petty bickering,
but little recognition that we need to move beyond the worn fights of the 20th
century if we're going to succeed in the 21st century.
First, he attacks the Republican party. Then, not a breath later, he argues that partisanship and petty bickering have been holding back educational progress. If that wasn't petty bickering, what is?
I think it's safe to say that both Republicans and Democrats have some good ideas as to how to fix the educational system. It's also safe to say that, throughout too much of California anyway, neither has done anything to actually succeed in improving public schools, especially in low income areas.
For all of us who graduated from high school, we know what it takes: good teachers, engaging curriculum, and parents who take part in the educational process. Cut out any of those items, and you drastically cut the chances of students' success. We need a government, starting locally,then statewide, then (with a more hands-off approach) nationwide that will support those three vital ingredients.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Smell The Pork
In a previous post, I wrote about a desire for President Obama to become a leader in the fight to cut excessive, unnecessary government spending, providing direction for our state. Coming off of Obama's State of the Union where he promised to end the hideous process of earmarks, my tongue was only partially in my cheek. He promised to veto those bills, and I still want to give him a chance to keep his word. Listening to his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, though, it seems that promise doesn't actually take effect until next year, with Gibbs stating that Obama plans to sign the House passed spending bill filled with pork barrel projects. That's the nice thing about politics - you can make a promise during your campaign, and then win the power to decide when the promise should be enforced.
Gibbs explains that the earmarks are left over from last year, and that "We'll change the rules going forward." In essence, he wants to blame this on the previous administration, projects so vital to our nation that, because Bush didn't push them through, now Obama has to do so. One of these vital projects sticks out among the rest, at least as much for its irony as its cost: $1.7MILLION to study pig odor in Iowa. Take THAT fiction writers...truth really is stranger.
Fortunately, as reported here, there are still some Senators on both sides of the aisle who are keeping their promise to cut unwarranted spending. Most of these Senators are on the right, but there are at least two Democrats opposing the bill, and I applaud them. Because of this, the Senate is reconsidering the spending bill. As we continue to Can The Lottery, I urge another task for all readers. Call and email your Senators. Tell them to keep President Obama's promise to end earmarks, and to cut them out of this bill. We don't need nearly two million dollars to realize how much this pork stinks.
Gibbs explains that the earmarks are left over from last year, and that "We'll change the rules going forward." In essence, he wants to blame this on the previous administration, projects so vital to our nation that, because Bush didn't push them through, now Obama has to do so. One of these vital projects sticks out among the rest, at least as much for its irony as its cost: $1.7MILLION to study pig odor in Iowa. Take THAT fiction writers...truth really is stranger.
Fortunately, as reported here, there are still some Senators on both sides of the aisle who are keeping their promise to cut unwarranted spending. Most of these Senators are on the right, but there are at least two Democrats opposing the bill, and I applaud them. Because of this, the Senate is reconsidering the spending bill. As we continue to Can The Lottery, I urge another task for all readers. Call and email your Senators. Tell them to keep President Obama's promise to end earmarks, and to cut them out of this bill. We don't need nearly two million dollars to realize how much this pork stinks.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Proposition 1A - Not Nearly Enough
As part of the recent budget compromise, the state legislature agreed to put a number of provisions on an upcoming May ballot. Among those is Proposition 1A, which would extend the recently enacted tax hikes to four years in exchange for a spending cap and mandatory "rainy day fund".
Flashreport, a terrific website and source for state and local news items, ran an editorial today by CA Secretary of State Bill Jones, found here. In the piece, Jones supports the proposition, arguing that if it had been in effect since the 1998-'99 budget year we would be facing a deficit of $5.4billion, as opposed to the $32billion he lists as the current budget deficit.
I certainly agree that a spending cap would have kept politicians from throwing around money during peaks of prosperity that could not possibly be sustained. As a framework, I think a spending cap is a good thing. Increased revenues should not automatically lead to increased programs, which will still need to be funded when the revenues come back to earth.
However, as has been stated here many times before, simple across the board budget cuts will not move our state forward. Until we enact a zero based budgeting system, where every program and state service must justify it's existence and funding levels, we will continue to endorse failure.
For example, California spends enormous sums to fight drug and alcohol abuse, with over $700million slated in the '09-'10 budget. Yet, as documented here, drug abuse remains astonishingly and dangerously high among teenagers. Narconon reports that 2006 saw 2.4million Californians use cocaine.
We could slash the state's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) budget by 10%, 20%, 50%, or increase it by any percentage. Neither move would address the fact that the department's efforts are clearly not working. Blindly continuing to fund the department, regardless of the funding amount, without demanding results or accountability is unfair to the taxpayers and unfair to the constituents who are in need of a well-functioning ADP. In this particular example, we are faced with a problem that is a double hit to California's growing deficit: the cost of the Department, and the cost of addiction to the state. Certainly, funding is necessary, but so are results.
State politicians believe they can continue to waste taxpayers' money by dangling proposition 1A in front of us. We are supposed to be comforted by the fact that they merely won't be able to waste quite as much money on a yearly basis. Not much comfort there.
To stop the madness, we must cut off the pipeline. Can the Lottery! Keep your hard earned dollars out of the politicians' hands. Bring back fiscal responsibility and accountability.
Flashreport, a terrific website and source for state and local news items, ran an editorial today by CA Secretary of State Bill Jones, found here. In the piece, Jones supports the proposition, arguing that if it had been in effect since the 1998-'99 budget year we would be facing a deficit of $5.4billion, as opposed to the $32billion he lists as the current budget deficit.
I certainly agree that a spending cap would have kept politicians from throwing around money during peaks of prosperity that could not possibly be sustained. As a framework, I think a spending cap is a good thing. Increased revenues should not automatically lead to increased programs, which will still need to be funded when the revenues come back to earth.
However, as has been stated here many times before, simple across the board budget cuts will not move our state forward. Until we enact a zero based budgeting system, where every program and state service must justify it's existence and funding levels, we will continue to endorse failure.
For example, California spends enormous sums to fight drug and alcohol abuse, with over $700million slated in the '09-'10 budget. Yet, as documented here, drug abuse remains astonishingly and dangerously high among teenagers. Narconon reports that 2006 saw 2.4million Californians use cocaine.
We could slash the state's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) budget by 10%, 20%, 50%, or increase it by any percentage. Neither move would address the fact that the department's efforts are clearly not working. Blindly continuing to fund the department, regardless of the funding amount, without demanding results or accountability is unfair to the taxpayers and unfair to the constituents who are in need of a well-functioning ADP. In this particular example, we are faced with a problem that is a double hit to California's growing deficit: the cost of the Department, and the cost of addiction to the state. Certainly, funding is necessary, but so are results.
State politicians believe they can continue to waste taxpayers' money by dangling proposition 1A in front of us. We are supposed to be comforted by the fact that they merely won't be able to waste quite as much money on a yearly basis. Not much comfort there.
To stop the madness, we must cut off the pipeline. Can the Lottery! Keep your hard earned dollars out of the politicians' hands. Bring back fiscal responsibility and accountability.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Three Fingers
"Point you finger at someone, and you end up with three fingers pointed back at yourself." That's one of those old phrases like "when you assume, you make..."
But, when it comes to California's reckless spending, failing schools, congested traffic and more, we the people must indeed point three fingers back at ourselves.
For years, we have voted in and continued to support politicians who spend taxpayer money without responsibility or accountability. We don't ask them to make things better, rather accepting their excuses. ("It's the President's fault." "It's the other party's fault." "It's big business's fault.")
Today, Los Angeles holds a major election that may lead to 10% turnout. I went to the polls smack in the middle of lunch time today and saw two other voters whilst there. I mentioned to one of the poll volunteers that, as I was leaving my office to vote, one of my coworkers asked "There's an election today?" The poll worker's response was classic. "Yeah, just for the mayor of the 2nd largest city in the United States!"
Along with the mayoral election, Los Angeles voters will be deciding on the next city Controller, Attorney, Community College Board members, as well as various measures including one that raises the cost of electricity for every household in a bogus scheme to increase solar power usage (the nefarious Measure B, which even the L.A. Times argues against here).
You can assume (without making...) that I do not support Mayor Villaraigosa, and you'd be correct. Many fiscal conservatives have been supporting Walter Moore or David Hernandez. I have known David for some time now, and personally I don't think there is a better person we could elect than him. He has spent years volunteering his time for various people and groups throughout our city. I know him through Republican circles, and also know that he is an individual who cares more about principles than party.
That said, while I proudly endorse and support David Hernandez for mayor, I'd urge everyone to vote, regardless of their choice. Yes, I have a "throw the bums out" mentality right now. Shouldn't we all? But, even if we "vote the bums back in", doing so with a mere 10, 15 or even 20 percent turnout only serves to further the thinking that local politicians can do whatever they want because the people aren't paying attention anyway.
This is our city, our state, our country. That ought to be worth something to the other 90% of people in Los Angeles.
But, when it comes to California's reckless spending, failing schools, congested traffic and more, we the people must indeed point three fingers back at ourselves.
For years, we have voted in and continued to support politicians who spend taxpayer money without responsibility or accountability. We don't ask them to make things better, rather accepting their excuses. ("It's the President's fault." "It's the other party's fault." "It's big business's fault.")
Today, Los Angeles holds a major election that may lead to 10% turnout. I went to the polls smack in the middle of lunch time today and saw two other voters whilst there. I mentioned to one of the poll volunteers that, as I was leaving my office to vote, one of my coworkers asked "There's an election today?" The poll worker's response was classic. "Yeah, just for the mayor of the 2nd largest city in the United States!"
Along with the mayoral election, Los Angeles voters will be deciding on the next city Controller, Attorney, Community College Board members, as well as various measures including one that raises the cost of electricity for every household in a bogus scheme to increase solar power usage (the nefarious Measure B, which even the L.A. Times argues against here).
You can assume (without making...) that I do not support Mayor Villaraigosa, and you'd be correct. Many fiscal conservatives have been supporting Walter Moore or David Hernandez. I have known David for some time now, and personally I don't think there is a better person we could elect than him. He has spent years volunteering his time for various people and groups throughout our city. I know him through Republican circles, and also know that he is an individual who cares more about principles than party.
That said, while I proudly endorse and support David Hernandez for mayor, I'd urge everyone to vote, regardless of their choice. Yes, I have a "throw the bums out" mentality right now. Shouldn't we all? But, even if we "vote the bums back in", doing so with a mere 10, 15 or even 20 percent turnout only serves to further the thinking that local politicians can do whatever they want because the people aren't paying attention anyway.
This is our city, our state, our country. That ought to be worth something to the other 90% of people in Los Angeles.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Looking Nationally...
At a time when our state is spending money without restraint, without responsibilities, and without accountability (leading to our recent tax increases), I look to any leader who can discourage that fatalistic process. Last night, in his State of the Union, President Obama spoke out, quite strongly, against excessive spending. He stated, in no uncertain terms, "I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities."
Calling the stimulus/recovery plan "free of earmarks" seems to rely on technicalities rather than budget reality. But, taking Obama at his word, he has an upcoming chance to make a hard stand against earmarks by vetoing the spending bill passed by the House today. Taxpayers For Common Sense lists $7.7billion worth of earmarks in the bill. Congressional Democrats claim that it contains only $3.8billion. Either way, that is far more than the country can afford, now or ever.
Among the earmarks is $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in California. I admit that I didn't vote for Barack Obama and that I differ with him on a great many political issues. I'm certain, however, we would both agree that tattoo removal is not among "our most important national priorities."
When House Republicans opposed the bill, Democrats attacked them, wondering why they didn't oppose spending during Bush's administration. This is a fine question to ask, but not a reason to continue reckless spending. Despite being a lifelong Republican, I'm happy to have seen my party lose power, if it has turned them back towards fiscal conservatism (among other ideals). President Obama has been looking for ways to reach across the aisle. This seems to be his best opportunity.
Within California, it will certainly be a lot harder for state politicians to justify their yearly spending on failing programs if President Obama, the leader of CA's majority party, rejects that process of mindless spending. "My administration," he said, "has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. " Today's House bill contains an across the board 8% increase in federal program funding. When President Obama keeps his word and vetoes this bill, as I hope he will do, it will send a powerful message to state and local governments across the country, reverberating locally in our state capitol and city halls.
At the end of the day, politicians are conservative, liberal, or moderate based not on what they say, but rather on what they do. For California to see fiscally conservative policies enacted nationally can spur us to do the same. If the inspiration comes from a source as seemingly unlikely as President Obama, all the better. If he can do it, can't we?
Yes we can.
Calling the stimulus/recovery plan "free of earmarks" seems to rely on technicalities rather than budget reality. But, taking Obama at his word, he has an upcoming chance to make a hard stand against earmarks by vetoing the spending bill passed by the House today. Taxpayers For Common Sense lists $7.7billion worth of earmarks in the bill. Congressional Democrats claim that it contains only $3.8billion. Either way, that is far more than the country can afford, now or ever.
Among the earmarks is $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in California. I admit that I didn't vote for Barack Obama and that I differ with him on a great many political issues. I'm certain, however, we would both agree that tattoo removal is not among "our most important national priorities."
When House Republicans opposed the bill, Democrats attacked them, wondering why they didn't oppose spending during Bush's administration. This is a fine question to ask, but not a reason to continue reckless spending. Despite being a lifelong Republican, I'm happy to have seen my party lose power, if it has turned them back towards fiscal conservatism (among other ideals). President Obama has been looking for ways to reach across the aisle. This seems to be his best opportunity.
Within California, it will certainly be a lot harder for state politicians to justify their yearly spending on failing programs if President Obama, the leader of CA's majority party, rejects that process of mindless spending. "My administration," he said, "has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. " Today's House bill contains an across the board 8% increase in federal program funding. When President Obama keeps his word and vetoes this bill, as I hope he will do, it will send a powerful message to state and local governments across the country, reverberating locally in our state capitol and city halls.
At the end of the day, politicians are conservative, liberal, or moderate based not on what they say, but rather on what they do. For California to see fiscally conservative policies enacted nationally can spur us to do the same. If the inspiration comes from a source as seemingly unlikely as President Obama, all the better. If he can do it, can't we?
Yes we can.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Don't Forget the Can
A vital part of the Can The Lottery Plan is an effort to expand charity and volunteerism throughout California. The basic idea, as outlined at the Can The Lottery website, is for people to stop buying lottery tickets and instead use the money they save to buy canned goods to donate to the organization of their choice (thereby keeping money away from politicians who spend it without responsibility or accountability, while also helping those in need). Or, if people chose to save their money altogether, we'd ask that they turn the dollars they save into corresponding acts of volunteerism.
To date, the posts on this blog have been focused on the state spending and budget mess that led to the formation of this endeavor. Today, I want to focus on our "softer" side.
In his most recent book DO THE RIGHT THING, former Arkansas governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee talks about the voices calling for smaller government. However, he makes an important point: Smaller government can only be accomplished when the public takes on greater responsibilities. For example, he notes that a town filled with criminals would need a large police force. But, if the town's citizens acted responsibly, which is to say lawfully, then a smaller force would suffice.
Similarly, I don't believe that government is best suited to help those in need to get back on their feet. People lose their jobs, homes, and well-beings for countless reasons, and the idea that a government agency could create a "one-size-fits-all" program to help those people is fatally flawed. I also don't believe that there is anything charitable about forced charity. Indeed, that is only bound to breed contempt and widen the gap between haves and have-nots. I do believe that the most meaningful and valuable help comes from individuals within the community. We should not and must not complain about government's inaction without taking action ourselves. Charity and volunteerism don't just lift up the individuals helped by the acts. They improve the entire community. Done on a mass scale, they revitalize our country.
Rather than creating endless government programs, I would push for California to work with existing community groups and organizations (including faith based organizations) to provide a template and access for community members to donate their time and resources. I'd also suggest that the state increase the charitable deduction for state taxes, and create a system where volunteer hours can be applied to deductions.
I'm willing to bet that every one of us has been touched at some point by a random act of kindness performed for our benefit - some large, some small. It is these moments that bond communities together. Strong communities lead to strong towns and cities, which build strong states, which form strong nations. This is how the United States of America became the greatest nation on earth, and this is how we shall remain as such.
To date, the posts on this blog have been focused on the state spending and budget mess that led to the formation of this endeavor. Today, I want to focus on our "softer" side.
In his most recent book DO THE RIGHT THING, former Arkansas governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee talks about the voices calling for smaller government. However, he makes an important point: Smaller government can only be accomplished when the public takes on greater responsibilities. For example, he notes that a town filled with criminals would need a large police force. But, if the town's citizens acted responsibly, which is to say lawfully, then a smaller force would suffice.
Similarly, I don't believe that government is best suited to help those in need to get back on their feet. People lose their jobs, homes, and well-beings for countless reasons, and the idea that a government agency could create a "one-size-fits-all" program to help those people is fatally flawed. I also don't believe that there is anything charitable about forced charity. Indeed, that is only bound to breed contempt and widen the gap between haves and have-nots. I do believe that the most meaningful and valuable help comes from individuals within the community. We should not and must not complain about government's inaction without taking action ourselves. Charity and volunteerism don't just lift up the individuals helped by the acts. They improve the entire community. Done on a mass scale, they revitalize our country.
Rather than creating endless government programs, I would push for California to work with existing community groups and organizations (including faith based organizations) to provide a template and access for community members to donate their time and resources. I'd also suggest that the state increase the charitable deduction for state taxes, and create a system where volunteer hours can be applied to deductions.
I'm willing to bet that every one of us has been touched at some point by a random act of kindness performed for our benefit - some large, some small. It is these moments that bond communities together. Strong communities lead to strong towns and cities, which build strong states, which form strong nations. This is how the United States of America became the greatest nation on earth, and this is how we shall remain as such.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
He Still Doesn't Get It
In an interview earlier today, Governor Schwarzenegger was asked about fellow governors who planned to turn down portions of the federal stimulus money. His response was telling: "I just hope they give me their funding."
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has been one of the most vocal in rejecting certain stimulus funds for his state. What he understands, that Schwarzenegger doesn't, is that the stimulus money is a one time payment meant to create or expand state programs. In the following years, the stimulus money will go away but those programs won't, leaving the state with a larger deficit.
Just two days ago, Governor Schwarzenegger, together with the California Legislature, passed through one of the largest tax hikes in our state's history. Now he is looking for more money, rather than committing to responsible, accountable spending. After all this, he still doesn't get it.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has been one of the most vocal in rejecting certain stimulus funds for his state. What he understands, that Schwarzenegger doesn't, is that the stimulus money is a one time payment meant to create or expand state programs. In the following years, the stimulus money will go away but those programs won't, leaving the state with a larger deficit.
Just two days ago, Governor Schwarzenegger, together with the California Legislature, passed through one of the largest tax hikes in our state's history. Now he is looking for more money, rather than committing to responsible, accountable spending. After all this, he still doesn't get it.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Overpriced Underperformance
In the brief history of this blog and the CAN THE LOTTERY website, we've focused quite a bit of attention on California's public education system. When it comes to state and local governments, I believe there are two duties that stand above all others: provide superb protection for the public's safety and provide superlative education for the state's youth. Regarding the latter, it is not just a moral obligation to California's youth. Sterling education gives the youth the opportunity to become highly functioning members of an increasingly difficult world economy. Along with being a matter of values and civil rights, education is a matter of concern for the economy and public safety. If we do not have an educated population, we can not expect to remain a world power.
So, to get to specifics, where does California rank? According to Morgan Quinto Press's "Education State Rankings", California is 47th in the nation (and, unfortunately for us, that's on a 1-50 scale with 1 being the best and 50 being the worst). The state rankings are based on 21 different points of criteria, listed on their site.
The American Legislative Exchange Council moves California all the way up to 38th...still, of course, in the bottom 1/4 of all states. Part of the reason for the "high" score there is that ALEC takes into account teachers' salaries, for which CA is ranked 3rd in the nation. NOTE: I have absolutely no issue with good teachers receiving high salaries. Indeed, I think it is completely warranted. My problem is with the other figures. For expenditures per pupil, we are ranked 34th. Pupil-teacher ratio, 49th. Eighth grade mathematics, we are ranked 45th, and eighth grade reading we are 47th.
We must all ask ourselves: What is the purpose of the public education system? It certainly should not exist to serve the politicians, lobbyists or special interest groups. It should not exist to serve administrative boards. It should not even exist to serve teachers or parents. It should and must exist to serve the students. Beyond any other measure of success, if students are not learning then our public schools are failures. These studies make it abundantly clear that too many of our students indeed are not learning, and too many schools are failing.
The budget plan passed through yesterday does nothing to address this failure. Not one politician stepped up as a leader to speak out against low reading and math proficiencies. Not one of our elected officials acted as a true representative, promising to take responsibility to right the ship. All they did was demand that the taxpayers fork over more money.
California must change the way it perceives education and redirect the flow of money directly into the classroom to be spent as the local schools, in conjunction with the PTAs, best see fit. If the schools fail the children, then the children must be given an opportunity to attend a school where they have at least a fair shot at gaining a proper education.
We would never keep going to mechanics who continually fail to fix our cars properly. We wouldn't patronize restaurants that consistently bring us the wrong dishes, poorly prepared at that. Yet, we have no problem sending our children to schools with low graduation rates (some under 50%), where they have a less than 25% chance of gaining math and reading skills above proficiency levels.
It is safe to say that our priorities, much like the budget, are completely out of line.
So, to get to specifics, where does California rank? According to Morgan Quinto Press's "Education State Rankings", California is 47th in the nation (and, unfortunately for us, that's on a 1-50 scale with 1 being the best and 50 being the worst). The state rankings are based on 21 different points of criteria, listed on their site.
The American Legislative Exchange Council moves California all the way up to 38th...still, of course, in the bottom 1/4 of all states. Part of the reason for the "high" score there is that ALEC takes into account teachers' salaries, for which CA is ranked 3rd in the nation. NOTE: I have absolutely no issue with good teachers receiving high salaries. Indeed, I think it is completely warranted. My problem is with the other figures. For expenditures per pupil, we are ranked 34th. Pupil-teacher ratio, 49th. Eighth grade mathematics, we are ranked 45th, and eighth grade reading we are 47th.
We must all ask ourselves: What is the purpose of the public education system? It certainly should not exist to serve the politicians, lobbyists or special interest groups. It should not exist to serve administrative boards. It should not even exist to serve teachers or parents. It should and must exist to serve the students. Beyond any other measure of success, if students are not learning then our public schools are failures. These studies make it abundantly clear that too many of our students indeed are not learning, and too many schools are failing.
The budget plan passed through yesterday does nothing to address this failure. Not one politician stepped up as a leader to speak out against low reading and math proficiencies. Not one of our elected officials acted as a true representative, promising to take responsibility to right the ship. All they did was demand that the taxpayers fork over more money.
California must change the way it perceives education and redirect the flow of money directly into the classroom to be spent as the local schools, in conjunction with the PTAs, best see fit. If the schools fail the children, then the children must be given an opportunity to attend a school where they have at least a fair shot at gaining a proper education.
We would never keep going to mechanics who continually fail to fix our cars properly. We wouldn't patronize restaurants that consistently bring us the wrong dishes, poorly prepared at that. Yet, we have no problem sending our children to schools with low graduation rates (some under 50%), where they have a less than 25% chance of gaining math and reading skills above proficiency levels.
It is safe to say that our priorities, much like the budget, are completely out of line.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Virtues of a Super Majority
Unable to fix the real problems facing California, our state's elected officials look for scapegoats to blame for our late and unbalanced budgets, and underperforming state programs and services. Recently, the target of their wrath has increasingly been the two-thirds super majority of votes needed to pass a budget.
Here is a well written article of how the two-thirds threshold came to be [note, I don't always/often agree with the views of this particular website, but their research here is excellent]. Briefly, in 1933 a constitutional amendment was passed, stating that the budget could not grow more than 5% in a year unless approved by 2/3 of the legislature. In 1962, as part of Prop 16 - which condensed the state constitution - the 5% rule was removed, leaving us with the current requirement of a two-thirds super majority vote necessary to pass a budget.
In 2004, Prop 56 asked to lower the majority needed to pass a budget or raise taxes (also 2/3) down to 55%. Overwhelmingly, voters were against it, with nearly 66% voting to maintain the super majority.
So, is the super majority a good thing? If so, why?
California is, in many ways, a microcosm of the United States. Much like the nation in general, our state is massive in area, yet has relatively small pockets of high population density. For example, Los Angeles County alone accounts for nearly 10 million out of the estimated 36,756,666 population of California. Combine that with the over 3 million people each living in both San Diego and Orange Counties, and the over 2 million people each living in both Riverside and San Bernadino counties, and that totals over 20 million people, more than half of the total state population. [Figures from U.S. Census Bureau 2008 estimates].
The federal government deals with a similar issue by having two methods of legislative representation. The House of Representatives accords legislators based on state population. The Senate accepts two Senators from every state, regardless of size. California's State Assembly and State Senate both draw districts based on population size, and have since 1968 (before then, each county could only have one State Senator).
Now, we happen to live at a moment when the party line split in the two state legislative houses is just short of two-thirds for Democrats and just above one-third for Republicans. This has led many to consider the super majority threshold to be a partisan issue. But, let's forget political parties for a moment and remember that the legislators represent (or, at least are supposed to represent) the people of their districts throughout our state.
As outlined above, Southern California has the population, and with it the legislators, to dictate the budget process for the entire state, if a simple majority ruled. Northern California and, especially, central California would be left out to dry. Indeed, in the past this has sparked in-state fighting over issues such as water sharing, transportation funding, etc.
California's Central Valley, for example, has a population of about 6.5 million covering 42,000 square miles (as opposed to almost 10 million people living on L.A. County's 4,752 square miles). Yet "four of the top five counties in agricultural sales in the U.S. are in the Central Valley." Should this type of extraordinary production not have a meaningful voice in state budget discussions?
Therefore, the two thirds super majority vote is necessary specifically for a state such as ours. It ensures meaningful representation for all Californians. When todays' budget compromise was passed, it raised taxes on everyone throughout our state. And, we have quite a history in this nation of opposing taxation without representation.
Beyond that, with the state budget growing to over 100 BILLION dollars, isn't it reasonable to expect that our paid, elected officials can come up with a plan that at least 66% of them will support?
Here is a well written article of how the two-thirds threshold came to be [note, I don't always/often agree with the views of this particular website, but their research here is excellent]. Briefly, in 1933 a constitutional amendment was passed, stating that the budget could not grow more than 5% in a year unless approved by 2/3 of the legislature. In 1962, as part of Prop 16 - which condensed the state constitution - the 5% rule was removed, leaving us with the current requirement of a two-thirds super majority vote necessary to pass a budget.
In 2004, Prop 56 asked to lower the majority needed to pass a budget or raise taxes (also 2/3) down to 55%. Overwhelmingly, voters were against it, with nearly 66% voting to maintain the super majority.
So, is the super majority a good thing? If so, why?
California is, in many ways, a microcosm of the United States. Much like the nation in general, our state is massive in area, yet has relatively small pockets of high population density. For example, Los Angeles County alone accounts for nearly 10 million out of the estimated 36,756,666 population of California. Combine that with the over 3 million people each living in both San Diego and Orange Counties, and the over 2 million people each living in both Riverside and San Bernadino counties, and that totals over 20 million people, more than half of the total state population. [Figures from U.S. Census Bureau 2008 estimates].
The federal government deals with a similar issue by having two methods of legislative representation. The House of Representatives accords legislators based on state population. The Senate accepts two Senators from every state, regardless of size. California's State Assembly and State Senate both draw districts based on population size, and have since 1968 (before then, each county could only have one State Senator).
Now, we happen to live at a moment when the party line split in the two state legislative houses is just short of two-thirds for Democrats and just above one-third for Republicans. This has led many to consider the super majority threshold to be a partisan issue. But, let's forget political parties for a moment and remember that the legislators represent (or, at least are supposed to represent) the people of their districts throughout our state.
As outlined above, Southern California has the population, and with it the legislators, to dictate the budget process for the entire state, if a simple majority ruled. Northern California and, especially, central California would be left out to dry. Indeed, in the past this has sparked in-state fighting over issues such as water sharing, transportation funding, etc.
California's Central Valley, for example, has a population of about 6.5 million covering 42,000 square miles (as opposed to almost 10 million people living on L.A. County's 4,752 square miles). Yet "four of the top five counties in agricultural sales in the U.S. are in the Central Valley." Should this type of extraordinary production not have a meaningful voice in state budget discussions?
Therefore, the two thirds super majority vote is necessary specifically for a state such as ours. It ensures meaningful representation for all Californians. When todays' budget compromise was passed, it raised taxes on everyone throughout our state. And, we have quite a history in this nation of opposing taxation without representation.
Beyond that, with the state budget growing to over 100 BILLION dollars, isn't it reasonable to expect that our paid, elected officials can come up with a plan that at least 66% of them will support?
Time To Can The Lottery
It has been done.
Early this morning, the California state legislature passed the much maligned budget plan. Though the revised plan drops the previously suggested 12cent per gallon gas tax increase, it still includes a .25% across the board income tax increase, a 1cent on the dollar sales tax increase and a doubling of the car tax (along with a reduction in the dependent tax credit). These measures will take more money out of the hands of every California taxpayer [calculate your "share" here] without even pretending to address the underlying issues facing our state.
As Reuters reports, the state faces a $42billion deficit. This faulty plan tries to make up the costs by combining $24.2billion in tax increases and borrowing (including borrowing $5billion from expected future lottery revenues), and with $15billion in "spending cuts." One of the many problems with the plan, though, is that the cuts are not really cuts at all. As Reuters states in the above-referenced article: "They clamped down on spending by putting public works projects on hold, withholding payments to counties for social services and postponing tax refunds." That's the equivalent of you or I saying we will cut down our monthly expenses by stopping payments to our water, electric and credit card bills.
The biggest problem, though, goes beyond the simple act of raising taxes. We live in a state with a graduation rate of only 70% (and just 57% for African Americans), per the Alliance For Excellent Education, who also note that "Dropouts from the class of 2008 will cost California almost $42.1 billion in lost wages over their lifetimes."
We live in a state full of traffic congestion, yet the best our elected officials can offer is nebulous bond measures that lead to more confusion and no less traffic.
We live in a state with struggling or failing public hospitals.
We live in a state ranked with the 17th highest murder rate in America and an illiteracy rate higher than any other state.
Surely, before they increased taxes the politicians must have found ways to address these and numerous other problems, right? Not quite. Truthfully, real government reform was never even addressed.
The battle of the budget centered around spending cuts (favored by Republicans) and tax increases (favored by Democrats). Unfortunately, neither party focused on attaching real accountability to the taxpayers' money, aka the state's budget.
For programs or services to be successful, they need to have power, responsibility and accountability over the funds allocated to them. For example, when I was working my way up towards producing, there came a time when I was given responsibility over production budgets. But, I wasn't given the power to make changes I deemed necessary. I explained that I needed that power - willing, of course, to consult others - in order to fulfill my responsibility. I was given that power, and the projects came in on time, under budget, and creatively successful. I also had accountability. If the projects were over budget, I would likely lose my job.
The days of funding programs and services merely because they received money the year before have to end. Handing out dollars without clear instructions of what is expected in return must no longer occur.
California needed leaders who could reform government and improve our state. Instead, our politicians pushed through a sham of a budget that gives us the same old failures with one exception: THEY COST MORE!
Our elected officials failed, and will continue to fail as long as we keep subsidizing their efforts by sending our money into the state's piggy bank. The time has come to Can The Lottery.
Early this morning, the California state legislature passed the much maligned budget plan. Though the revised plan drops the previously suggested 12cent per gallon gas tax increase, it still includes a .25% across the board income tax increase, a 1cent on the dollar sales tax increase and a doubling of the car tax (along with a reduction in the dependent tax credit). These measures will take more money out of the hands of every California taxpayer [calculate your "share" here] without even pretending to address the underlying issues facing our state.
As Reuters reports, the state faces a $42billion deficit. This faulty plan tries to make up the costs by combining $24.2billion in tax increases and borrowing (including borrowing $5billion from expected future lottery revenues), and with $15billion in "spending cuts." One of the many problems with the plan, though, is that the cuts are not really cuts at all. As Reuters states in the above-referenced article: "They clamped down on spending by putting public works projects on hold, withholding payments to counties for social services and postponing tax refunds." That's the equivalent of you or I saying we will cut down our monthly expenses by stopping payments to our water, electric and credit card bills.
The biggest problem, though, goes beyond the simple act of raising taxes. We live in a state with a graduation rate of only 70% (and just 57% for African Americans), per the Alliance For Excellent Education, who also note that "Dropouts from the class of 2008 will cost California almost $42.1 billion in lost wages over their lifetimes."
We live in a state full of traffic congestion, yet the best our elected officials can offer is nebulous bond measures that lead to more confusion and no less traffic.
We live in a state with struggling or failing public hospitals.
We live in a state ranked with the 17th highest murder rate in America and an illiteracy rate higher than any other state.
Surely, before they increased taxes the politicians must have found ways to address these and numerous other problems, right? Not quite. Truthfully, real government reform was never even addressed.
The battle of the budget centered around spending cuts (favored by Republicans) and tax increases (favored by Democrats). Unfortunately, neither party focused on attaching real accountability to the taxpayers' money, aka the state's budget.
For programs or services to be successful, they need to have power, responsibility and accountability over the funds allocated to them. For example, when I was working my way up towards producing, there came a time when I was given responsibility over production budgets. But, I wasn't given the power to make changes I deemed necessary. I explained that I needed that power - willing, of course, to consult others - in order to fulfill my responsibility. I was given that power, and the projects came in on time, under budget, and creatively successful. I also had accountability. If the projects were over budget, I would likely lose my job.
The days of funding programs and services merely because they received money the year before have to end. Handing out dollars without clear instructions of what is expected in return must no longer occur.
California needed leaders who could reform government and improve our state. Instead, our politicians pushed through a sham of a budget that gives us the same old failures with one exception: THEY COST MORE!
Our elected officials failed, and will continue to fail as long as we keep subsidizing their efforts by sending our money into the state's piggy bank. The time has come to Can The Lottery.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Perils of Procrastination
It just kills me that the legislators in Sacramento are crowing about their weekend sessions and late nights, trying to pass a budget which would would be bad news for the state anyway. Are they expecting our sympathy, gratitude, or both?
Throughout my years, I've worked as a dishwasher, busboy, waiter, bartender, electrical supply warehouse worker, haunted house actor, dog track vendor, hot dog stand vendor, and - mercifully - for the last decade or so as a television producer. The one common thread through all of those professions is this: I COULDN'T LEAVE UNTIL THE JOB WAS DONE! Or, at least if I did leave before the work was finished, my time working there would soon be finished as well.
There are some people savvy enough to hide their lack of work, but eventually it piles up and tips over. For years, California's politicians having been "leaving the office early", worried more about their future campaigns than their state's future. Now, the work has piled up on them. But, they are allowing it to tip over onto us, their constituents, in the form of the massive tax increases proposed in the new budget, which at the time of this writing is being pushed towards passage.
There is a lesson to be learned in this, but it is up to us, the constituents, to administer and define the lesson. If we allow taxes to be raised, excessive spending to continue, and the perpetrators to remain in office, then the lesson will be: Procrastination is good.
If, however, we call our representatives to voice our discontent, cut off their funding by boycotting the lottery (using the money we save for charitable endeavors as outlined by Can The Lottery), and vote the perpetrators out of office, then the lesson will be: Do your job and do it well, or you will face serious consequences.
Which lesson sounds right to you?
Throughout my years, I've worked as a dishwasher, busboy, waiter, bartender, electrical supply warehouse worker, haunted house actor, dog track vendor, hot dog stand vendor, and - mercifully - for the last decade or so as a television producer. The one common thread through all of those professions is this: I COULDN'T LEAVE UNTIL THE JOB WAS DONE! Or, at least if I did leave before the work was finished, my time working there would soon be finished as well.
There are some people savvy enough to hide their lack of work, but eventually it piles up and tips over. For years, California's politicians having been "leaving the office early", worried more about their future campaigns than their state's future. Now, the work has piled up on them. But, they are allowing it to tip over onto us, their constituents, in the form of the massive tax increases proposed in the new budget, which at the time of this writing is being pushed towards passage.
There is a lesson to be learned in this, but it is up to us, the constituents, to administer and define the lesson. If we allow taxes to be raised, excessive spending to continue, and the perpetrators to remain in office, then the lesson will be: Procrastination is good.
If, however, we call our representatives to voice our discontent, cut off their funding by boycotting the lottery (using the money we save for charitable endeavors as outlined by Can The Lottery), and vote the perpetrators out of office, then the lesson will be: Do your job and do it well, or you will face serious consequences.
Which lesson sounds right to you?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Good News, Bad News
First the good news....
The California State legislature did not pass the "compromise" budget as expected this past weekend. That means, for the moment, Californians are spared an increase of $14billion in increased taxes, part of the planned budget.
Now the bad news...
We are also no closer to having a state government that respects its constituents and their tax dollars.
As has been stated here before, this isn't just about money. It is about the job performance of our elected officials and the quality of services provided by the state.
In "Annie Hall", Woody Allen recalls the following joke:
Well, our state politicians are trying to push the same joke on us, but are telling it with a straight face. Too many public schools are failing the students, traffic remains gridlocked in our cities, unemployment is on the rise, etc etc etc. So, what is their solution? Throw more money at everything!
We need leaders - not just politicians, but LEADERS - who will take a hard look at every service provided by the government and decide two things: 1 - Do we need this service or not (or, is this a service that should be provided by government or the private sector)?; 2 - If we do need the service, how can we improve its quality and efficiency?
For example, in regards to education, we need to cut the red tape and mounds of paperwork local schools must deal with just to get access to money. Get the funds directly to the local schools for them to spend as they best see fit (working with PTA's and local school boards). Not only does this provide vitally needed local control, it also cuts time and wasted money.
The same can be done for all government programs that are not cut. Give them power and responsibility over the money, with very clear instructions on what the state expects to receive for that funding. No more spending on vague transportation bills that promise improved infrastructure, yet lack in details on how or where the money will be spent. No more giving funds to failing government programs solely because they received money the year before.
State politicians must stand up for the taxpayers' money, and they should provide us access to what we are getting for our dollars. Every organization that receives state taxpayer funding should have to fill out a three page report (no 50 page reports filled with graphs and pie charts). Page 1 should outline their successes during the past year. Page 2, their failures. Page 3 would state how they plan to build on their successes and rectify their failures over the next year. Then, it would be very clear to elected officials how much (if any) of the tax dollars the organization should receive. Of equal importance, those short reports should be posted on a state website for all Californians to see.
Priorities, responsibilities, accountability and specificity. That is how most of us run our personal and business budgets. It must become how California runs our state budget.
The tax hike may have been staved off for another day, but beast remains alive.
CAN THE LOTTERY...Feed the hungry, Not the Beast!
The California State legislature did not pass the "compromise" budget as expected this past weekend. That means, for the moment, Californians are spared an increase of $14billion in increased taxes, part of the planned budget.
Now the bad news...
We are also no closer to having a state government that respects its constituents and their tax dollars.
As has been stated here before, this isn't just about money. It is about the job performance of our elected officials and the quality of services provided by the state.
In "Annie Hall", Woody Allen recalls the following joke:
Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of them says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions."
Well, our state politicians are trying to push the same joke on us, but are telling it with a straight face. Too many public schools are failing the students, traffic remains gridlocked in our cities, unemployment is on the rise, etc etc etc. So, what is their solution? Throw more money at everything!
We need leaders - not just politicians, but LEADERS - who will take a hard look at every service provided by the government and decide two things: 1 - Do we need this service or not (or, is this a service that should be provided by government or the private sector)?; 2 - If we do need the service, how can we improve its quality and efficiency?
For example, in regards to education, we need to cut the red tape and mounds of paperwork local schools must deal with just to get access to money. Get the funds directly to the local schools for them to spend as they best see fit (working with PTA's and local school boards). Not only does this provide vitally needed local control, it also cuts time and wasted money.
The same can be done for all government programs that are not cut. Give them power and responsibility over the money, with very clear instructions on what the state expects to receive for that funding. No more spending on vague transportation bills that promise improved infrastructure, yet lack in details on how or where the money will be spent. No more giving funds to failing government programs solely because they received money the year before.
State politicians must stand up for the taxpayers' money, and they should provide us access to what we are getting for our dollars. Every organization that receives state taxpayer funding should have to fill out a three page report (no 50 page reports filled with graphs and pie charts). Page 1 should outline their successes during the past year. Page 2, their failures. Page 3 would state how they plan to build on their successes and rectify their failures over the next year. Then, it would be very clear to elected officials how much (if any) of the tax dollars the organization should receive. Of equal importance, those short reports should be posted on a state website for all Californians to see.
Priorities, responsibilities, accountability and specificity. That is how most of us run our personal and business budgets. It must become how California runs our state budget.
The tax hike may have been staved off for another day, but beast remains alive.
CAN THE LOTTERY...Feed the hungry, Not the Beast!
Friday, February 13, 2009
Potential Impact
The question begs to be asked: Can we actually have any meaningful impact on the state? There is no doubt in my mind that we can. Consider the following:
* If 20,000 people who would normally spend $2 per week on the lottery instead spend $1/week over the course of a year, that would keep over $1million from going to the politicians
* If 15,000 people who would normally spend $5 per week spend $2, that would keep $2.34million out of state officials' hands
* If 10,000 people who would normally spend $10 per week spend $4, that keeps $3.12million away
* If 5,000 people who normally spend $20 per week (we know you're out there!) instead spend $5, that keeps $3.9million away
All total, that is well over $10,000,000 that the politicians would have to live without. Sound like a lot of people to recruit? Not when you consider that California's population is nearing 37 million!
Of course, politicians will claim that the money is coming out of education, but indeed we will be forcing them to cut down the general fund budget to make certain education is fully funded. As stated in an earlier post, public education is too important to be funded only if and when people spend enough on the lottery. It should be a top priority, not an after thought.
Admittedly, even $10million may not seem like much when compared to the over $1.4billion profit the state pulls in from the lottery, per their website. [On a side note, check out the statistics on the site - that 34 cents on the dollar from lottery revenue goes towards schools, but 61% of that goes towards salaries NOT to the local classrooms.]
But, even going up against a beastly revenue such as that, I guarantee you that politicians will quickly notice if $10million is missing from their coffers. They will pay attention to the voters, just as they should have been doing all along.
And, of course, if that $10million goes towards canned goods for the hungry or other charitable donations, many others are bound to pay attention as well...and they are likely to follow suit.
Can The Lottery, Bottle The Power
"What I do think it represents is a true compromise. I say it's a package that has something for everybody to hate."
You might think that the above quote regarding the California budget compromise comes from a bitter citizen. Maybe from radio hosts such as John and Ken who are standing up for taxpayers.
No....incredibly it comes from State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass!
How many of us have jobs where we can turn in a project that each of our bosses will hate, and we could consider that a success? Therein lies the problem. Our elected officials have forgotten (or never knew in the first place) that the citizens of California are collectively their bosses.
That is why Can The Lottery is so vitally important at this moment. A much as I am against government taking increasing percentages of our hard earned dollars, this is about more than money. It is about power and responsibility.
The politicians believe they can continue to waste money and replenish it by raising taxes, without any fear of consequences. They may as well be poking at the voters, asking "What are you gonna do about it?" We have been bullied by our "representatives" for far too long. It is time that we, the people, regain our confidence and restore our power.
Cut off the politicians' financial pipeline and we end their power trip. Can The Lottery!
You might think that the above quote regarding the California budget compromise comes from a bitter citizen. Maybe from radio hosts such as John and Ken who are standing up for taxpayers.
No....incredibly it comes from State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass!
How many of us have jobs where we can turn in a project that each of our bosses will hate, and we could consider that a success? Therein lies the problem. Our elected officials have forgotten (or never knew in the first place) that the citizens of California are collectively their bosses.
That is why Can The Lottery is so vitally important at this moment. A much as I am against government taking increasing percentages of our hard earned dollars, this is about more than money. It is about power and responsibility.
The politicians believe they can continue to waste money and replenish it by raising taxes, without any fear of consequences. They may as well be poking at the voters, asking "What are you gonna do about it?" We have been bullied by our "representatives" for far too long. It is time that we, the people, regain our confidence and restore our power.
Cut off the politicians' financial pipeline and we end their power trip. Can The Lottery!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
CAN THE LOTTERY...The Plan!!
Enough is enough.
The California state government has apparently reached a compromise on a state budget, and it is not good news (details seen here). After years of excessive spending, done without responsibility or accountability, the state is mired in massive debt. The solution? Take more money from the people.
The budget promises the following:
- 2.5% - 5% across the board Income Tax increase
- 12 cents-per-gallan Gas Tax increase
- 1 cent on the dollar Sales Tax increase
- $210 reduction in the dependent tax credit
All this comes at a time when many Californians are struggling to get by on a daily basis, and when small businesses are fighting to stay alive. Our "representatives" either don't care about their constituents or simply are not listening.
We, the citizens of this state, seem to have a few choices. 1 - Refuse to pay taxes, facing additional fees and jail time. 2 - Refuse to work, keeping food off our families’ tables. 3 - Stop buying local products (to combat the sales tax), hurting local business. None of these seem particularly appealing, so here is the new plan....
CAN THE LOTTERY!
The state lottery was passed by voter initiative in 1984 to provide extra funding for schools. 25 years later, schools are still failing across the state, and lottery revenues allow state politicians to use general fund money for pet projects, failing programs, and skyrocketing state payrolls.
Our plan is simple. If you normally buy 3 lottery tickets in a week, start buying 2, or better yet 1 (or, of course, none). With the money you are saving, buy canned goods from the local store where you would normally purchase the lottery tickets and donate them to a local food kitchen, shelter, faith based organization, or other group you are proud to support. If canned goods aren't your thing, then buy candy and donate it to organizations such as Operation Gratitude (or any of their other needed items, listed at their website here).
If you are looking to save money, then apply those dollars to volunteer work. Buying 1 lotto ticket instead of 3? Then perform 2 volunteer acts, even simple "acts of random kindness".
PLEASE NOTE: This is not about a moral objection to the lottery. This stems from the outrage so many taxpayers have towards elected officials who, after years of reckless spending, are now demanding more of our hard-earned dollars.
For those who worry that these efforts will negatively affect public education funding, I understand that concern. However, I would offer the following:
- As seen here, a small percentage of the revenue from the lottery actually goes to local schools, where the funding is so crucially needed.
- Education should be at the top of the list in terms of necessary funding. We should not have to rely on people buying a lottery ticket in order to give a child a textbook.
- This is the key...Legislators will be forced with a choice: cut education (always unpopular) or cut excessive, inefficient and ineffective government programs. Which will they choose?
As part of these efforts, we are starting a website: http://www.canthelottery.com/, which will be coming soon. In the meantime, we'll post updates, thoughts, ideas and progress on this blog. Please also post YOUR comments here, and let us know your stories at the CAN THE LOTTERY FORUM. Saved on lotto tickets to buy a canned good? Let us know. Let your friends and neighbors know. Of vital importance, let your representatives know.
CAN THE LOTTERY! Feed the hungry, not the beast!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
