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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
