Author: Californiacontrarian

At one point host Tucker Carlson rhetorically asked if this was a parody when referring to his ongoing interview on 8/1/17 with Shanker Singam, the Vice President of the California Freedom Coalition (CFC). Although he did not say it, he was probably thinking, “Is this really the best they can do? Is this is the educated spokesman (he was dressed in a coat and tie) for the CFC or is this Sesame Street? Is this a joke?”

To his credit Mr. Singam had a few well rehearsed lines when referring to California’s economy, but when he was asked questions about anything else, he came off more like Big Bird. When asked about the myriad of middle income earners who had left the state, he responded that they were bringing California’s blue philosophy to other parts of the country, akin to missionaries. Of course he did not answer why they were leaving, but he did imply that he was happy to be exporting the middle class as this would make way for the next wave of immigrants.

Another one of his rehearsed lines was that California pays more in taxes than it receives in benefits, but explaining the economics of this would have been like trying to explain calculus to Grover, and mercifully Tucker Carlson did not persist here.

His response to a question about what to do with federal land like Camp Pendleton in Southern California along with its thousands of marines was even more confusing, as he then started to explain that California would lease this land to the U.S. just like the U.S. now has bases in Germany. I guess that Elmo did not know that Camp Pendleton already is U.S. Federal land.

At this point even though the eye-rolling by the host was making me dizzy, it certainly would have been interesting to have the CFC spokesman explain the plan for the National Parks in the new “state”, and even more interesting to hear his response about what California would do if North Korea launched a missile in this direction

I can almost hear some of you saying that one ill-prepared spokesman does not destroy an entire movement. Well the CFC is apparently now out on the streets of California trying to obtain the necessary 585,000 signatures necessary to put the “California Autonomy From Federal Government” initiative on the ballot for 2018, despite the fact that a prior attempt in April was dumped after failing to find enough support.

Cost? It has been estimated that in the final analysis the cost to the state for “an advisory commission to assist the governor on California’s independence and its associated unknown potential fiscal effects” would be about $1.25 million per year.

Err . . . perhaps Miss Piggy and the CFC should rethink its position on middle class taxpayers.

An optimist would say that at least we in California do not have to put up with the machinations of the legislature as they are not presently in session, whereas a realist would say, “Who do you think is out there collecting signatures? Ernie, Bert, and Mr. Snuffleupagus?”

It was Kermit, err . . . California’s Attorney General, who went along with the potential initiative that would allow the state to be a “fully functioning sovereign and autonomous nation” within the U.S. Now keeping in mind that this is the Attorney General of California speaking, one can now understand to whom Shankar Singam was referring when he said, “We [in California] are fundamentally different in the way we speak, and how we think about the world.”

This is Sesame Street!

Help!

 

Going all the way back to the Dust Bowl days California has been a magnet for immigrants – legal immigrants. However since 1990 The Golden State has lost some of its luster. According to the Manhattan Institute there has been a recent net migration of 3.4 million people out of California to other states. The reasons for this exodus are the usual suspects, as the Democratic hierarchy in the state government seems to be almost daring businesses to leave with high taxes, onerous regulation, high labor costs, etc.

Now there is a new theater opening down the street in Arizona which threatens to draw  more people away from this Democratic tragic-comedy, which is currently playing on the stage in California. This adjacent theater’s new production, “A Chance at a Good Education” is being produced by the Empowerment Scholarship Account program in Arizona. However, the latest wrinkle is that the “Actor’s Guild” known as “Save Our Schools Arizona” (SOSA- aka the Teachers’s Unions) has collected thousands of signatures in order to delay implementation of this new production. I wonder while they were collecting signatures, if SOSA used  their real slogan, “save our jobs in the public schools; the hell with the children!”?

Anyway the story line of this new production (now possibly delayed) goes something like this:

In Arizona parents who take their children out of public schools can receive money deposited into their own “education savings accounts”. This money can then be used for private school tuition and other school related expenses, like uniforms, tutoring, etc. Since 2011 this program had been limited to certain groups like special needs children and foster care children, but now has been expanded to all children in Arizona on a first come, first serve basis. The enrollment is now capped at about 5500 students per year and will expand over the next five years to include more than five times this number.

So while this is  good for the parents and their kids in Arizona, how does this affect California?

Follow me on this:

Let’s assume that I am a parent with young kids who in essence will be, or already are forced to attend a poor or even failing school here in California. I cannot afford the tuition at a private school and now I cannot afford the gas to drive them to another better, but more distant, public school.  As the legislature and their left-leaning judges here in California are failing to help my kids get a reasonable education, why should I not move to Arizona? Initially, as I establish residency in Arizona, my kids will go to their local public school, but then I will be eligible to enter the “lottery” for the education savings account money. What do I have to lose? My chances of finding work in Arizona are just as good, if not better than in California, as the unemployment rate is lower there. If I move my family to Arizona, at least my kids will have a chance.

So sayonara Golden State!

Is this a farfetched? Who knows . . . but if there seems to be more and more cars (many with U-Hauls attached) heading east on our highways, now you will know why.

 

 

I want to start out today a bit more philosophical than usual. Let’s say that in an “experiment” you take 100 subjects and you do something that will affect all of them – some in a good way and some in a bad way. Is there a point at which you say, “this experiment is not working”, because too many people are being adversely effected. Or do you just plow ahead, saying as long as good is being done for some, maybe even for a lot, then, “oh well, it’s too bad about those who are getting shafted . . . as that is just ‘an unfortunate part of life’!”

When I presented this abstract philosophical problem to my poker group, most of them responded that, in general, it depended on the gravity of the harm versus the quantification of the good. I felt that this was a reasonable response recognizing that judging the amount of harm versus the amount of good is often not that easy.

Now let’s look at an experiment that is affecting people today in their everyday lives. This “experiment” is the mandated rapidly increasing minimum wage. Yes, I do think that it is an “experiment” as no one really knows what the outcome will be.

Today I read about a young man, Devin Juran, who works at Z Pizza in Seattle. As reported by a local TV station, (K13-Fox) he was initially happy because his (minimum) wage had been recently raised to $11.00 per hour, and it was scheduled to go to $15.00 per hour over the next several years. He said, “I definitely recognize that having more money is important, especially in a city as expensive as this one.” However his euphoria was short lived, because Z Pizza is closing its doors in a few months, resulting in Devin and an additional 10 of his coworkers losing their jobs at Z Pizza. “People like me are finding themselves in a tougher situation than ever.”  The owner, Ritu Shah Burnham, said that she had tried everything that she could to try to keep Z Pizza opened, but with the new increased minimum wage she could not make it. She is very concerned about her employees. “I am absolutely terrified for them as I have no idea where they are going to find jobs, because if I’m cutting hours, I imagine that everyone is across the board.”

On the other side of the issue, let’s look at the everyday life of Shardeja Woolridge in early 2016 before the minimum wage was increased in California. She lived in a two bedroom apartment in Hayward, Ca. with her mother who was on disability. She had a part time job at McDonalds and struggled to pay the rent (they had received eviction notices already), and also struggled  to keep the electricity turned on, as it had been turned off in the past. When asked about a raise in her minimum wage to $15.00 per hour . . . “Whoa”, she exclaimed. At $15.00 per hour she could help pay the rent. She could stock the fridge with food. She could afford Wi-fi.

Now back to the original philosophical question. Is the “experiment” in question (the mandatory raising of the minimum wage) a good thing or not?  How many people like Devin Juran have to lose their jobs, before raising the minimum wage for people like Shardeja Woolridge starts to lose its appeal? Are people losing their jobs like Devin and his co-workers just ‘an unfortunate part of life’, while many more like Shardeja are benefiting from the increased minimum wage?  As my poker group wanted to do, can we compare the gravity of the harm to the Devins to the benefits of the Shardejas? Is the gravity of Devin’s losing his job as bad as, comparable, or worse than the benefit in the day to day lives of Shardeja and her mother because of her increased minimum wage?

Who is right? At this time, I surmise that no one really knows.

Those on the right will side with the Devins – against the increasing minimum wage.

Those on the left will side with the Shardejas – for the increasing minimum wage.

However, I believe that as the situation becomes clearer in the next few years that either the right or the left will admit the error of their thinking, and say “this experiment is or is not working!”

“Oh yeah, BTW I still believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.”

 

In my neighborhood there is a store called The Dollar Store, but soon it may need to be called “The Dollar Nine & One-Half Cent Store”.

“Why?”,you ask.

Basic economics – related to the recent rise of 9.5% in the minimum wage, which went from $10.50 to $11.50 per hour in San Diego on January first of this year. The profit margin at this Dollar Store is small, and as almost all of its employees are minimum wage employees, the only way to maintain this small profit margin is (Door #1) to layoff some employees, or (Door #2) to raise prices . . . and thus the potential name change.

Which do you think will happen?

In a similar vein this week two ladies told me that they had stopped going to a particular movie theater because it had raised the senior rate from $8.50 to $11.50. This increase in the senior rate was 35%! They could no longer afford to go to that theater any longer.  “Our Social Security COLA this year was only 0.3% and so we can no longer afford to go to that theater.” Coincidentally, another movie theater that my wife and I usually go to raised its rate a similar 35%. When I asked, “Why the substantial increase?”, the answer revolved around the increased minimum wage. At this theater there are always four to five very young employees doing menial tasks, such as asking to which movie you are going and issuing a ticket, serving popcorn, drinks, and candy, and collecting the tickets. None of them are old enough to be a bread-winner for a family. None of them are minorities. All are teenagers; some out of high school, some not.

We will not be going back to this movie theater.

At this point both of these movie theaters have apparently opted to substantially raise their prices (Door #2) rather than lay anybody off(Door #1).

Why this minimum wage frenzy? Well the party line is that this increase will allow individuals to better raise a family . . . except that the minimum wage employees that I have run into are not raising families. While I am sure that there are some who are, these menial jobs were never meant to support a family. For the politicians it certainly is a “look at how wonderful I am; look what I am doing to help the less fortunate; and of course by raising our local minimum wage more than is mandated by the state of California, I am even more saintly.” Whether it will actually do more harm or more good is irrelevant for them because rather than thinking about the consequences of their actions, they are all about emotion, and besides ” I will be out of office when the sh** hits the fan.”

Whether the business establishments choose Door #1 or Door #2, only bad things will happen for either for the employees (some will get laid off), the consumers (who will be forced to pay higher prices), or the businesses (decreased profits as some customers will go elsewhere).

Unfortunately at this point, there is no Door #3.

If you are going to be sick, you better do it soon, especially if you live in California. I say this because if you wait too long, there may not be the doctors to take care of you, especially if you live in California.

A recent study has predicted a shortage of 40,800 – 104,900 physicians in the U.S.A. by 2030. This shortage will be felt in both urban and rural areas, and will effect both primary care and sub-specialties. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants will help, but they are not qualified to deliver the exact same services. If there is going to be such a shortage by 2030, why not just open up the spigots and increase the number of physicians being trained in order to satisfy the growing need? Unfortunately caps were placed on Medicare funding for residency training about twenty years ago, and these caps make it very difficult to expand graduate medical education. Okay, so there is going to be quite a shortage of physicians in thirteen years, but why?

The answer involves retiring older physicians, newly trained younger physicians, and some “basic economics.” Part of the problem is that older physicians seem to be retiring at an increased rate. One factor here is burnout, and according to the Maslach Burnout Index, this is due to a combination of six factors – workload, control, rewards, community, fairness, and values conflict. This burnout problem is intensified by the excessive use of Electronic Health Records, which is negatively affecting physician well being. The most recent data indicates physicians are spending about the same amount of time each day in front of the computer screen as they are with face-to-face patient contact. These days when older physicians are financially able to retire comfortably, they just say,  “Show me the door!”

Okay, so what is the problem with the supply of newly trained physicians, and why should they be less apt to practice in California? This is where “basic economics” comes in.

First of all the cost of living is higher in California than in many other places in the country, and this assuredly includes the cost of housing. A friend of mine recently left California because he and his wife concluded that they would never be able to afford a house in California, and now they have a house and are quite happy in Texas.

Second, most new physicians these days are coming out of med school with significant, and sometimes overwhelming debt. Paying off this debt is a major undertaking as the interest on this debt is constantly churning! For the sake of discussion let’s assume that the newly trained physician owes $200,000 because of college and med school loans, and let’s also assume that he/she can potentially earn $200,000 per year. (Both of these figures are not far from what the averages are these days.) Why should the new physician, possibly now with a wife/husband and a young family want to settle in a state that has the highest state income tax in the country? Why should he/she pay $20,000 in state income tax when that same $20,000 could be used to pay down the school loans? If this newly trained physician settles in California, it could take 10-20 years to escape the burden of that debt – remember that the interest continues to pile up as long as there is still any balance due on the loan. So if you were a young M.D., would you rather live in a small rental in an area with a good climate, or live comfortably in your own house in a state other than California?  Duh!!

Third, all of this so far is without the extra burden of “single payer health insurance” coming soon to a liberal Democratic state near you soon – i.e. . . . California! (This is a topic that will be a disaster for practicing physicians in California and will need an entire blog all to itself to discuss.)

I rest my case.

Trouble is a comin’.

Again I say, “If you are going to be sick, you best do it soon, especially if you live in California!”

Last week President Trump fulfilled another campaign promise (“If I am elected, I will accept no salary”), as he donated his second quarter salary of $100,000 to Education Secretary Betsy DuVos – this money to go toward hosting a camp for STEM students at the Department of Education. For those of you who had missed this announcement on CNN/MSNBC, this is the second time that President Trump has donated his quarterly salary. His first quarter salary of $78,000 was previously donated to the National Park Service.

Have any past presidents chosen not to accept their salary?

Did Barack Obama accept his salary while he was in office?

Yes, B.O. did accept his $400,000 per year salary. After all, he whined that he and Michelle had just paid off their college loans a few years before he was elected, and they needed to put money into the college funds for their daughters. He also said that he accepted his salary merely in order to show solidarity with all of the other federal workers! Wow! (If you believe that, I have a bridge that I want to sell you.) That did not make any sense back then, and it certainly does not make any sense now considering that the Obamas are getting a record book deal worth more than $60 million.

Fortunately, I will not need to read that book as I already know how they feel about things. I remember B.O. in 2008 talking about how small-town Americans “cling to guns and religion,” and I vividly recall Mrs. Obama in 2008 saying, “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am proud of my country!”

Although I do not read the Washington Post or the N.Y Times regularly, I doubt that Trump not accepting his salary made the front page of either as I have not seen this item in my local WaPo/NYT wannabe “newspaper.”

FYI – In the history of the USA only two and possibly three presidents have chosen not to accept their salary. JFK and Herbert Hoover did not receive a salary, and whether George Washington accepted his salary is open to question.

Add Donald Trump to that list.”Congrats” to President Trump for fulfilling another campaign promise.

 

My wife’s father told her that she needed to have a major in college that would lead to a job at graduation. In those days the cost of college, while not cheap, was not something that was an undue burden on families. Today, however, American families have taken on more than $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, and in 2016 the average college graduate (by a conservative estimate) is $30,000 in debt. In one respect this debt might be worth it if there was a guarantee of future payoffs, but the New York Federal Reserve Bank says that about 40% of recent college graduates are “underemployed”, often for a long time. Even more disturbing is that in 2010 more than 15% of college graduates were taxi drivers! Now I have nothing against taxi drivers, but driving a taxi in order to try to pay off a student loan?!

Strike one!

 

What is wrong with this picture?

Are too many college students getting “useless” degrees?

Are we sending too many kids to college?

The answer is “Yes!” and “Yes!”

 

Obviously the payoff benefit from a college degree is going to depend on the what the degree is in, as electrical engineers will earn significantly more than psychology majors. However some degrees seem to be very close to the precipice of “totally useless-I need to get a job as a bartender” degrees. Would someone please tell me the marketability of a degree in Gender-Studies or Anthropology. . . other than teaching future students Gender-Studies or Anthropology?

Strike two!

 

However, the real losers however are those individuals who start, but do not finish college, as they do not have a degree, but they still have to payoff the loans. A recently released study by National Student Clearinghouse Research Center found that of those first-year college students in 2015 only 61% returned to the same school and only 73% returned to any school in 2016. Remember that those who do not return to school are still responsible for paying off what they have borrowed.

Why do they not return? While there are many reasons I surmise that most were ill prepared for college in the first place, and perhaps were encouraged to go to college by well meaning advisors, friends, or family members.

Strike three!

 

Why did they not opt to learn a trade before wasting a year in college and incurring debt? As Marco Rubio has said, “We need more plumbers, and less philosophers.”

It is predicted that there will be a shortage of skilled tradesmen in the next 10 years. At present there are about 13 million Americans enrolled in four year colleges, while only 0.5 million apprentices in training to become skilled tradesmen. According to The Federalist there are millions of unfulfilled jobs for skilled workers across the country at a time that labor participation rates are hovering at a four decade low.

Barack Obama was trying to facilitate sending more people to college, and the only thing he was successful at was piling-up student debt and ensuring an over supply of taxi drivers and baristas. Luckily B.O. is out!

Now batting . . . Donald Trump!

 

Mr. Trump is a good pinch hitter with a much better appreciation for the game. He will aggressively swing the bat and has an experienced knowledge of the strike zone in the Major League of real business – unlike his predecessor who looked like he was playing whiffle-ball.

President Trump thinks that the answer to helping these unemployed or underemployed youth is to make it easier for them to go into vocational trades.

Fulfilling another campaign promise on 6/15/17 President Trump signed an executive order to encourage more apprenticeship programs for workers.

He was quoted by the Washington Examiner as saying, “We will be removing federal restrictions that have prevented many different industries from creating apprenticeship programs.”

Those knowledgeable fans are already cheering – anticipating a Home Run!

 

 

Dear Mom,

Well The Jamboree is almost over, and even though I am tired, I wish that it could last for another few weeks. I do miss you and Mad-Dog, and okay I guess I miss my sisters maybe a little, but being here with Dad, Mr. Rauch, and my Boy Scout friends has been an awesome experience. The food has been crazy good, even tho the cookies are not as good as yours lol. It’s the activities that have been really great. I really liked the white water rafting and the rock climbing, but the Zip-line was savage. Unfortunately, each scout could only do it once, but I am already planning on doing it again the next time I come in a few years.

Tonight I’m in my tent, and writing this letter by flashlight. None of us, including Charlie & Dec, are able to sleep even though it is well past lights out, cuz of what happened this afternoon. The President was here. The President spoke to a huge crowd of us scouts this afternoon. I got to see Donald Trump in person, it was lit. He gave a great speech, and we were standing for the entire thirty-five minutes. The applause almost constant and the chanting (“USA, USA” and “We love Trump”) was hecka loud. He talked about how many of his cabinet members were ex-scouts, including Vice President Pence. He emphasized doing what you love to do, finding your passion, and not giving up. Yes, I know that you and Dad have said the same thing to me, but coming from The President – well that was dope! He also talked about momentum and told a story about some guy that I didn’t know who had lost his momentum and consequently did not do well at the end. He emphasized over and over how the Boy Scouts were the future of this country as we believe in putting America first. He said, “Just like you know you can count on me, we know that we can count on you”. He also said a lot of other stuff, but I was too wired to remember much else.

After the speech I was shaking with excitement for a long time. In fact, I was so fired up that I had a hard time eating supper tonight. At supper our Scout master predicted that the papers and the TV coverage would find fault with the speech, as they always seem to do with anything Trump these days. It will be interesting to see if he is right. Even Dad, never a Trump supporter, said that he loved the speech, and that it was better than both the Bush junior and the Clinton speeches that he had heard at past Jamborees. He also said – are you ready for this – that he would probably vote for Mr. Trump on the next go round! #Trump2020.

I am finally starting to get a bit tired, and so I will stop now. I can’t wait to tell you, Grammie, and Auntie Jill & Uncle Johnny more about the speech on Saturday when Dad & I get home.

Luv,

Your son,

Jake

P.S. We have a bunch of pictures to show you guys.

 

“Now I lay me down to sleep, and pray the lord my soul to keep.” If you listen very hard you may hear this child’s prayer emanating from Sacramento each morning at the opening of the daily Legislative session. Are they sleeping? It often seems like it. Are they praying? I doubt it, but sometimes one wonders if praying is an integral part of their long-term strategy.

The latest boondoggle is $3 billion in rebates for buyers of electric cars. Of course this makes perfect sense to our Democratic Legislators, as the buyers of electric cars are the more affluent, so why not give them more money in the form of rebates?! Their recent new gas tax will be a burden on most Californians, especially the poorest in the state, so why not pile the gasoline taxes on those who cannot afford electric cars.

How much is this going to cost the taxpayers of California? . . . Who knows? – Certainly not those in the legislature who voted “yes.” This lack of foresight is common in Sacramento especially those who cook up the budget. There is often a lack of a long term recipe – just keep adding some of this and more of that to the budget, and hope that the cake turns out okay!

Recently I read about an article in the journal, Science,that was talking about the ability of corvids (ravens, crows, jays, etc.) to plan ahead. Ravens showed they could plan for the future instead of just acting on urges. Furthermore the ravens would pass up an immediate reward if they could get a better one by waiting a while. When I read the summary of this article I wondered, “What if there was a way to get some of that raven DNA into these Democratic California congressmen/congresswomen.”

I fantasized, “What if . . . ?”

What if they thought about the devastating effects on the poorer working class before they raised the gas tax?

What if they considered the effects of their increased regulations before businesses left the state?

What if they ever thought about the deleterious effects on the education of poor inner city children, before they consistently backed the teachers’ unions?

What if they realized the disastrous effects on our public school systems, before they championed California as a sanctuary state?

As I daydreamed, I came up with a possible solution:  What if we were to import a large number of ravens into downtown Sacramento?Maybe this would be a way to get raven DNA into (onto) the California Legislature.

Just think how wonderful life in California could be if those in the legislature could actually think ahead?

What if . . . ?

 

“I’m off to see the wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz . . .”

I would guess that most everybody remembers the Wizard of Oz, the 1939 movie starring Judy Garland as Dorothy, Ray Bolger as the scarecrow, Jack Haley as the tin man, and Bert Lahr as the lion. It probably would have won the Academy Award for the Best Picture, except for the fact that Gone With the Wind was also a 1939 film. To refresh everyone’s memory, Dorothy and her dog, Toto, were just trying to get back to good old Kansas. The scarecrow needed a brain. The lion was searching for courage. The tin man was missing a heart.

As I thought about this movie, I wondered, “Are there similarities to today’s political landscape?”

The Emerald City of Oz could be Washington D.C., and the Wizard could be the president, as was theorized many years ago. Could there be more?

Kansas could represent the good old U.S.A. The tornado that ripped through Kansas in the movie is the 2016 presidential election that took Dorothy (a typical American) into a strange and unknown place. All Dorothy wanted was to get back to good old Kansas (“there’s no place like home”) with Auntie Em and Uncle Henry. In my Wizard of Oz allegory, the Wicked Witch of the East and the Wicked Witch of the West are the coastal elites and their left leaning newspapers and liberal T.V. networks.

So far, so good, but then I began to have a bit of difficulty.

Initially I thought obviously the scarecrow would have to represent the Democratic politicians, as if they have a brain, they rarely use it. But upon further consideration, the way the Republicans have handled this whole health care debacle is certainly indicative of their need of a brain, similar to the scarecrow. Without question the Republicans are the personification of the cowardly lion. They would not recognize courage if they accidentally bumped into it. However, then I was left with the tin man who was missing [a] heart? As was pointed out in The Wall Street Journal by Fred Barnes the Republicans certainly have no heart, as having heart is the sine qua non of teamwork, which seems sadly to be lacking on the Republican side of the aisle.

So after much personal deliberation, I think that the Republicans, particularly in the Senate, deserve the Oz trifecta as they have no brains, no heart, and NO COURAGE!