Posted on

Why Not Use Common Sense ?

A friend of mine sent me an article from the L.A. Times and his accompanying question was, “Are these are next homeless?” 

The article detailed a family of six living in Los Angeles near U.S.C. that was soon going to be forced out of their apartment. The family had lived in that same rundown apartment for four years, but last year the building was sold and all of the tenets were going to be evicted by the new owner. They have looked for another place that could accommodate their family, but despite the fact that both the mother and the father work as managers at pizza places, they cannot find any place that they can afford. Their present monthly rent is $1600/month, and they recently looked at a small 3BR house that rented for $3800/month, which is far out of their range. They have considered moving 60-70 miles outside of the city where housing is cheaper, but the commute would take hours, and they have only one car. The wife said, “It is not easy leaving “home,” family, schools, and church. We may have to live in our car for a while, or in a hotel.” As I read this article, I asked myself, “Where is the common sense?”
In L.A. stories similar to this are apparently not uncommon. Reportedly in L.A. 600,000 are “severely rent burdened” meaning that they spend at least 50% of their income on rent. Last year over 8000 became homeless for the first time, and reportedly for each rent increase of 5% in L.A., an additional 2000 will become homeless. The enormity of these statistics surprised me, and again I asked myself, “Where is the common sense?”
I read the article more than once, and then responded to my friend, “Yes, this is a big problem, but to me the answer for this particular family is pretty basic, but probably not what they want to hear. – move somewhere that you can afford, and find jobs close to where you relocate.”
California is an expensive place to live, and it is even more expensive to live in and around its major cities. Not surprising a lot of people want to live where the weather is nice, but everyone cannot live wherever they want. Let’s use some common sense . . .
If you want to live in X, you should evaluate whether or not you can afford to live in X.
After paying 50% of one’s income for rent, how long should it take to realize that you cannot afford to live in X.
About fifteen years ago a friend of mine and his wife realized that they would never be able to afford a house in Southern California. They decided that a choice had to be made – either stay in SoCal and rent or move someplace else. They used common sense, and moved to Texas. They left “home,” family, schools, and church, and now return once a year to visit.
Why don’t the powers that be come out and just state the obvious?
“If you and your family can not afford to live here, please use common sense and move to someplace that you can afford.”
Posted on

What’s Next ?

What’s next? Apple pie? Thanksgiving?

The left has slowly but steadily gone after things that a lot of us regard as good old Americana. Are they done? Not by a long shot, and that’s why I ask, “What’s next?”
I am assuming that no one needs a review of the push to stop saying “Merry Christmas,” as this leftward push has not been subtle, but there are more encroachments, some subtle and some, not so subtle.
When I was in school, it was called “Easter Vacation” and now it is “Spring Break.” Columbus Day had been a National Holiday, and now in many left-leaning circles, it is now called “Indigenous Peoples Day.” On some T.V. shows aimed at very small children Halloween is now being referred to as “Dress-up Day,” and Valentine’s Day is “Love Day.” (Valentine’s Day was originally named after Saint Valentine and All Hallows Eve, Halloween, refers to the eve of All Saints’ Day.) To the left there can be no reference, no matter how distant, to anything religious, therefore the need to get rid of the names, Valentine’s Day and Halloween. But why would the left stop there? There is a rumor that there is a bill pending in the state assembly of California by a Democrat that proposes to combine Abraham Lincoln’s birthday and George Washington’s birthday into President’s Day and to add May 1 as “International Worker’s Day” (just another way of saying “International Socialist Worker’s Day.” (aka May Day, as is celebrated in communist countries!)
Speaking about things truly Americana, The Boy Scouts have been around since 1910. The Scout Oath begins, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout law . . .
But wait, this has a reference to God, so, “sorry, no can do,” say those on the left who
have been working for years to undermine the Boy Scouts. First it was gay and transgender scouts, followed by openly gay scout leaders, and last year it was the welcoming of girls into Cub Scouts and Eagle Scouts. This steady undermining of The Boy Scouts has now resulted in a name change to “Scouts BSA” in 2019. However earlier this month finally some resistance from the Mormon Church. The Boy Scouts and the Mormon Church had initially formed a partnership 105 years ago based on shared beliefs in God, country, and the necessity of teaching morals and responsibility to boys. Despite the fact that approximately 20% of the Boy Scouts in the U.S. are Mormon, in the last five years these two groups have chosen different paths. As a result, the Church of the Latter Day Saints is severing ties with the Boy Scouts at the end of the year. With this loss of a big chunk of its members, I predict that the “Boy Scouts” will go belly-up, and thus another victory for the left.
So I reiterate, “What’s next?”
Posted on

Illegals for Trump!

Although President Trump is only one and one-half years into his first term, this morning I wondered if the illegals in California would vote for him in the next presidential election. I realize that it is a little early to speculate on the 2020 election, but the economic growth has been great here in California. Okay, okay I am cognizant of the fact that the illegals voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in 2016. but is ‘t the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” whenever attempting to figure out why people vote the way that they do?

First let’s look at the facts before making a rash prediction about how the illegals are going to vote in 2020.

Job growth in California for 2017 was more robust than expected. The state added 366,000 jobs in 2017, which was 11,100 more that in 2016. UCLA Anderson forecast that job gains were likely to accelerate this year partially because of the federal tax cut package that took effect in January. In this past April unemployment in California was down to 4.2% which set another record surpassing the 4.3% record set in both February and March of this year. Throughout the state but especially in Northern California the unemployment numbers are hard to believe with rates of 2.1 in San Francisco and San Mateo, 2.2 in Marin, and 2.4 and 2.5 in Santa Clara and Sonoma respectively. Wow! Dios Mio! In Sacramento a Chick-Fillet was going to increase it’s minimum wage to $17.00 per hour in order to retain its workers. If they are willing to pay this amount, does it not mean that there are plenty of jobs available – jobs for everyone, legal or illegal?
Like I overheard in my local taco shop yesterday when someone asked, ”¿Por qué Señor Trump?” The response was, “¡Es la economía, estúpido!”
Posted on

George Soros -A Good Guy?(Let Me Convince You)

Perhaps we should be looking at George Soros differently! Maybe we should be viewing him in a more favorable light. Now before you immediately stop reading, hear me out and let me convince you.
I presume that just about everyone knows that Mr. Soros is a very, very rich left-wing looney. Ignore that fact for a second and read on. In California prior to Election Day, 6/5/18, this  billionaire put his money where his mouth is. In California he made an effort to reshape California’s criminal justice system by propping up radical, anti-law enforcement candidates for district attorneys. Unfortunately, for him, his exorbitant effort came to a screeching halt, with most of his candidates losing decisively. Throughout California, law-and-order prosecutors who didn’t spew liberal dogma or have hostile views toward police won.
But wait, I think that we should encourage Mr. Soros to try again. Perhaps we should tell him that he just needs to increase his effort by putting more of his money into his next effort. Wait! Wait! Don’t stop. Read on. Let me convince you.
In Sacramento County Mr. Soros poured $400,000 into the campaign of Noah Phillips, an anti-police and pro Black Lives Matter candidate. Mr. Phillips lost to the incumbent pro-police candidate, Anne Schubert, by a 2:1 margin. Since Sacramento County went for Hillary by twenty-four points in the 2016 presidential election, I think that it is safe to identify it as a “blue” locale. In this “blue” county, the Soros candidate got walloped, while George Soros essentially contributed $400,000 to the local Sacramento economy.
In San Diego, Soros backed Geneviéve Jones-Wright to the tune of more than $1.5 million which was funneled through a political action committee that propped up Jones-Wright and supported reform of the criminal justice system. I did not vote for Jones-Wright, in part because I am always suspicious of hyphenated last names, and mostly because she had no experience prosecuting anybody. Jones-Wright was thoroughly beaten by a margin of 63% – 36%. Here again while the George Soros candidate got walloped, he essentially contributed a ton of money to the local economy.
In conclusion, as I stated at the top of this essay, perhaps we should be looking at George Soros differently. He just put a lot of his money into the California economy, and has very little to show for it. Maybe we should encourage Mr. Soros to try again, but this time with more money! Perhaps we should continue to encourage him until his candidates get above 40% of the vote.
Did I convince you?
Posted on

I Scoff!

At the end of regulation they missed a free throw, but got the rebound. A chance to win, but the player who got the rebound then dribbled the wrong way as time expired. Then the star and leader of the team pouted on the bench before the start of overtime, and they were then blown out in the overtime period. This almost sounds like what one would expect at a grade school game, but it was the first game of the N.B.A. championship. Championship series? I scoff!
But plays like this are only one reason that I am predicting that the T.V. rating for the NBA championship series on ABC will be disappointingly sub-par, and from my point of view, the poor ratings couldn’t happen to a more deserving station!
The other ridiculous thing that happened at the end of game one involved a charging call against the beloved home team, the Golden State Warriors. Over the years I have watched a ton of basketball, and I have never seen a charging call reversed by instant replay. The Cleveland fans are still screaming “conspiracy,” but I say, “incompetence!” This is supposed to be championship game, and if these are the best referees that the league has . . . I scoff!
Kevin Durant is one of the best players in the NBA. However, when he couldn’t beat the then championship team from the Golden State, he joined them! This certainly excited the fans in NorCal. However this sort of team shopping, trolling for a championship ring, turns off the fans in the rest of the country. Is anybody in any of the other NBA markets routing for or watching this “If I can’t beat you, I’ll join you” team? . . . I scoff!
However the crowning blow to this upcoming ratings debacle occurred when LeBron James said that neither team in the championship series would go to the White House to celebrate their championship with President Trump. Considering that last year LeBron called our president “a bum,” I am not certain that an invitation was coming.  Be that as it may, while LeBron is certainly quite a basketball player, when it comes to him spewing his political venom, not only do I scoff, but so does about 50% of the T.V. viewing audience.
Posted on

Use It or Lose It

Something must be wrong in Sacramento! As best I can tell our esteemed Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, has not filed a law suit against the federal government in weeks, perhaps even a month! I know that the legislature is in session as they are busy formulating laws to ban plastic straws, so the attorney general and his staff of lawyers must also be on the job. What are they doing with all their time? In order to keep their legal skills at a sharp level, shouldn’t they either use them or lose them?

Well it so happens that I have an inside source in the California Attorney General’s Office, and they are not idle. The following are some confidential quotes overheard by my source!
“When we looked at the recent employment statistics for California, we discovered that there were two groups that were not benefiting from the recent economic surge in California. Perhaps we can sue on behalf of these groups.”

A review of job statistics comparing March 2017 and March 2018 revealed the following:

Ten of California’s eleven industry sectors added a total of 326,300 jobs over the year. The largest job gains were in educational and health services, up 86,100 jobs (a 3.3 percent increase), construction, up 54,400 jobs (a 6.8 percent increase), and professional and business services, up 45,500 (a 1.8 percent increase). Other sectors adding jobs over the year were leisure and hospitality, trade, transportation and utilities, government, manufacturing, financial activities, information and mining and logging. Only one industry sector posted job declines over the year, “other services,” down a total of 5,300 jobs.
“Now we are not sure what ‘other services’ means, but does it really matter? Why should this group be left behind? Obviously the federal government and the Trump administration must be at fault. Let’s file a lawsuit!”

The federal household survey showed an increase in the number of employed Californians over the month of March, 2018 and the year from 3/2017-3/2018. It estimated the number of Californians holding jobs in March was 18,552,000, an increase of 2,000 from February, and up 290,000 from the employment total in March of last year. The number of unemployed Californians was 827,000 in March – down by 16,000 over the month, and down by 142,000 compared with March of last year.
“Sure at first glance these unemployment numbers look good, but let’s look at different sub-groups to see who has been slighted.
Perhaps if we look at employment data by race, age, and gender we can find some group that has been slighted by this recent economic surge.”
 
All age groups demonstrated significant decreases in unemployment including a decrease of 20.2% in the 35-44 age group, and a decrease of 19.4% in the >65 age group. All races demonstrated significant decreases in unemployment, including a decrease of 15.5% in whites, a decrease of 9.4% in blacks, and a decrease of 13.0% in Hispanics.
“Nothing here so far. But wait, there does appear to be a group that has been slighted. The so called rising tide has not lifted all boats. In males, 20 years or older, the number of unemployed has decreased 14.2%, whereas in females, 20 years or older, the number of unemployed has increased 2.2%!
Obviously the federal government and the Trump administration must be at fault. Let’s file a lawsuit!
Let’s get this right over to Xavier. Certainly Attorney General Becerra can set the wheels in motion for our next lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of ‘other services’ and the females in our state.”
I certain that all of you are relieved that the lawyers in the office of the Attorney General of California are going to keep using their legal skills, as we would not want them to lose their legal “acumen”!
Posted on

Uniforms, Haircuts, and Shoeshines

When I was in the Navy, I was fortunate to have wonderful commanding officers, except for one. Without actually mentioning his name, he was Italian and we nicknamed him the “Italian Loafer.” On more than one occasion he was on my case because my haircut was not to his liking  or because one of my shirt buttons was not being buttoned to his liking. Needless to say, he and I were not best buds! However, one of my friends put everything in its proper perspective when he told me the following:

“Those that can lead, lead, and they face the significant and the real issues head on, while those that can’t, revert to uniforms, haircuts, and shoeshines.”
I happened to recall the Italian Loafer and my friends sage advice the other day as I was reading about what the California legislature is doing this year. As I am sure most of you are aware there are some significant present day issues in California, and in a spring issue of U.S. News and World Report, California was deemed to be the worst state as far as quality of life. Yet the legislature appears to be off on a tangent dealing with what Alan West calls, “progressive socialism.” After Trump’s tax cuts, two California Assemblymen introduced a constitutional amendment to tax 50% of any corporate profits resulting from these tax cuts. In the state that State Business Tax Climate Index ranked as 48th, instead of focusing on the real and the significant problem of California’s high taxes, they wanted to further punish California businesses  (? “uniforms, haircuts, and shoeshines”).
Homelessness is a major problem here in California. In Los Angeles homelessness has increased by 75% in the last 6 years, and in San Francisco there is rampant drug use combined with needles and feces on the streets. This is obviously a real and a significant problem, yet the California legislators are now spending their time with a bill to ban plastic straws, unless the customer specifically asks for one (? “uniforms, haircuts, and shoeshines”).
The schools in California rank at the bottom on test scores, and the infrastructure is not maintained because gas taxes have been used for social purposes. These are both very real and very significant issues, yet the legislature is busy with a bill to make the bottles tops on plastic water bottles non-detachable from the bottle itself (? uniforms, haircuts, and shoeshines”).
California has the highest poverty rate in America and approximately 33% of America’s welfare recipients live in California. This is a real and a significant problem, yet the Sacramento politicians are spending their time formulating a bill to mandate warning labels on polyester clothing because of micro fibers that make their way into the ocean. A significant problem? Yes, but something that deserves to take up time in the California Legislature? No! (? uniforms, haircuts, and shoeshines”)
The more I think about it, compared to the California Legislature, perhaps the Italian Loafer was not so bad after all!
Posted on

Trader Jack

“I’m aggressive. I’m confident. I’m a gambler.”

These are the words of someone who ascended to the top by establishing and sticking to his personal style. In 1984, just four years after taking over as the general manager of the San Diego Padres, Jack McKeon’s team won the 1984 N.L. championship. His style was unique in that he built that championship team mainly through daring trades, earning him the nickname, “Trader Jack.” In the beginning of his tenure as general manager, he took a lot of heat from “those that knew better,” the San Diego sport’s talking heads including the newspaper’s sports columnists and the sport’s reporters from T.V. Trader Jack paid no attention to them, and in the end he was proven right. He did exactly what he was good at. His personal skill was evaluating players, making a plan, and following through. (BTW, I do not recall the talking heads eating their words, saying, “Mea culpa, Jack, you were right all along!”)
I did not bring up Jack McKeon because the Padres are going to win the N.L. pennant.
I thought about Trader Jack and his unique approach to building a baseball team, because he reminds me of Donald Trump and his unique approach to foreign policy. He, like Jack McKeon, ascended to the top by establishing and sticking to his personal style. The talking heads on T.V. as well as those on the editorial pages of the newspapers are freely bad-mouthing President Trump and his foreign policy approach. Recall that just a few months ago many of these same “experts” were aghast that President Trump was taking on the North Korea leader, head on, saying that Trump’s aggressive approach could only lead us to nuclear war. There had been a meeting proposed on June 12 between Kim Jong-Un and President Trump, but President Trump just cancelled this summit because of Kim Jong-Un’s “tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in recent comments.” Just like Trader Jack, Donald Trump remains in the driver’s seat. Will the proposed upcoming summit actually occur? Mark my words, Kim Jong-un will soften his recent aggressive posture, and the meeting will be back on. I just don’t know when.
Posted on

Proposition 13.5

Proposition 13 is well known to those who live in California, and undoubtedly less well known to those who live outside of California.
By way of explanation the following excerpts are from Wikipedia:
 
Proposition 13 (officially named the People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation) was an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was declared constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.[1]
This proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for in cases of (a) change in ownership, or (b) completion of new construction.
What transpired back in the late 1970s that was the impetus for Proposition 13 being placed on the ballot?

One explanation is that older Californians with fixed incomes had increasing difficulty paying property taxes, which were rising as a result of California’s population growth, increasing housing demand, and inflation. Due to severe inflation during the 1970s, reassessments of residential property increased property taxes so much, that some retired people could no longer afford to remain in homes they had purchased long before. An academic study found support for this explanation, reporting that older voters, homeowners, and voters expecting a tax increase were more likely to vote for Proposition 13.[9]

Today in other states rising property taxes are becoming an increasingly difficult issue (for example, in Illinois) especially for seniors and others who are on a fixed income, and there is nothing that these individuals can really do about it. Luckily property owners in California are protected from this curse because of Proposition 13.
Those of us who happen to be in the housing market have seen the value of our homes rise, while our monthly payments have remained essentially the same other than a small increase in our property taxes each year. Those on a fixed income who own their home can plan their monthly expenses and can anticipate staying in their home . . . but what about those that do not own their place of residence? What about renters? As best I can tell there is no law against owners raising the monthly rent, and again as best as I can tell there is no limit on how much they can raise the monthly payment in their rental unit (1%,5%,10%,etc.) In the newspaper there was an article that had to do with the gentrification of older neighborhoods in San Diego, and the consequent rising rents in these neighborhoods.
One 68 year old gentleman, let’s call him Mr. V, who has lived in the older, now gentrifying, neighborhood for 25 years saw his rent go from $850 to $1275 over the last four years. He is justifiably concerned that he will be forced out of his apartment. To me this sounds like the 1970s all over again, but this time with renters. If it was not deemed to be right to force people out of their homes because of increasing taxes in the 1970s, it is right today to force people out of their rentals because of exorbitantly increased rents  in gentrifying neighborhoods?
Now here I am not talking about rent control, but am talking about  a proposition 13 for certain renters – let’s call it Proposition 13.5. I would propose that if someone had lived in an apartment for a certain number of years, perhaps five, ten, or fifteen years, then their rent increases would be limited to a 1% yearly increase until they moved out. (Similar to the 1%-2% annual increase in property taxes with the real Proposition 13.) This proposition 13.5 would probably be limited to certain groups on fixed incomes, and there would have to be strict rules and penalties for cheating. If Proposition 13 saved the day for homeowners in the 70s, isn’t it about time to save the day for certain renters with Proposition 13.5.
I realize that there are those of you who are wondering why this topic on Memorial Day.
Now for the rest of the story: The V in Mr. V. stands for Veteran, and Vietnam for he is a veteran and he served in Vietnam. What better way to honor Mr. V. and others like him on this Memorial Day than by considering and perhaps advocating for Proposition 13.5?
Posted on

Is the Mafia Legal or Illegal ?

In our local paper on 5/23/18 there was a front page article about the Mexican Mafia and how the Federal authorities had capped a sweeping investigation with indictments in the Los Angeles area including the L.A. County jails. The article was written by Joel Rubin and Maya Lau who write for the California News Group, which is typically liberal news group. I applauded this type of front page reporting, but something seemed to be missing.
As background the Mexican Mafia was formed in the 1950s by young Latinos at the juvenile prison. This group has evolved into a dominant force that has near complete control of criminal activity inside the nation’s largest jail system, which has approximately 15,000 inmates including those awaiting trial. They are in charge of the area’s drug trade, both inside and outside of the jails. How many of these criminals are illegal immigrants? The article doesn’t say!
The Federal probe began in 2012 and has now culminated in the arrests of dozens of the organization’s members and foot soldiers. The charges were in a bid to disrupt the gang’s control inside L.A. jails. Interestingly, one of those arrested was a lawyer who was able to ferry messages into the prisoners in the jails because of attorney client privilege. Jose Landa-Rodriguez is “accused of running the Mexican Mafia inside the jail system for years. He is accused of ordering homicides, assaults, and kidnapping.” Another member, Luis Vega, is “accused of ordering a killing and directing assaults against those who showed disrespect or failed to follow the Mexican Mafia rules.” Are Landa-Rodriguez or Vega illegals? Again the article doesn’t say, but a betting person could probably make money by betting, “ Yes, they are!”
The article details that eighty-three individuals were named in two federal indictments. Of these eighty-three individuals about three dozen were presently serving time in state prison or in county jails, thirty-two were picked up from the L.A. area, while the remainder remained fugitives. How many of those indicted are illegal immigrants? The article doesn’t say!
The indictments allege that members of the Mexican Mafia “ run roughshod over the Latino street gangs in Pomona.” Are these street gangs mainly or solely comprised of illegals? The article appears not to state the obvious!

What is missing? Why does this article not specifically state if the members of this criminal element are illegals. Inquiring minds want to know!
To me there is only one reasonable answer to that question:
In my opinion, most if not all of the members of the Mexican Mafia in L.A. are illegal immigrants. However, since this goes contrary to the standard leftist line that all illegals are good hardworking people, this issue is not addressed. In fact I would go further and say that either the writers or the final editors were specifically told not to mention the immigration status of any members of the L.A. Mexican Mafia!