Posted on

Brothers?

Let me go on the record right from the beginning. This story is not from the Bible, even though it might sound like it. At the end there might be a moral . . . or perhaps not!

Let’s assume that there are two brothers in a well-to-do family. They are not twins, and in fact Brother A is older than Brother B.They are competitive by nature, and both seem to have a petulant streak. Neither are perfect, and in fact they have some of the same character flaws. For years Brother A has made it a point to disagree with Brother B on just about everything.
For example:
“What is the best way to care for our older parents?”
B says, “We should do it this way,” and Brother A says the opposite.
“How should we help our less fortunate siblings?”
B says, “ Force them to stand on their own two feet, and they will be better off in the long run.” Of course Brother A says the opposite.
“How should we deal with our cousins who are breaking the rules by attempting to take advantage of the good nature of our parents?”
Brother B says, “Rules are rules. If they do not abide by the rules, they must be held accountable.” Brother A takes the antagonizing position, “They are just kids. I think we should just forgive and forget. Of course they are aware of the rules . . .  but, come on, have a heart!”
Up to a point these conflicts were basically conflicts of principle with Brother B taking a more “toe-the-line” approach (“play by the rules”), and Brother A taking a more laissez faire approach. However over the last year these differences of opinion have accelerated from merely a war of words. Brother A has taken their disagreements to a new level, as he is now taking Brother B to court over many of their disagreements. On more than one occasion, Brother A has come out and said really nasty things about Brother B!  Brother A has turned into the recalcitrant brother seemingly now opposing Brother B just for spite, and at this point their relationship seems to be beyond repair!
However as we are all aware life can take some unexpected turns. Things can suddenly come up that are beyond our control. Something totally unexpected can occur, and suddenly the situation is much different, and that is exactly what happened.
Some things started to go poorly for Brother A. He was in a bind as things continued to get worse. He needed some help. “Tragedy brings people together,” said Brother A,
so he asked Brother B to help him out!
Some chutzpah!
How does Brother B respond?
Consider that Brother A has made it a point to oppose Brother B on just about everything, even going to the extreme of taking Brother B to court. Brother A has also repeatedly said nasty things about Brother B!
What should Brother B do?
My guess is that Brother B will acquiesce and give Brother A what he needs.
In other words, Governor Brown will get the wildfire aid that he asking President Trump to provide!
Posted on

A Better Use of Tax Money? Part 2

To review from the prior essay, housing affordability is a major problem and it’s getting worse. Among California cities, San Diego’s home prices showed the smallest increase at 7.3 % in a year. In Los Angeles the prices increased 7.6% in a year and in San Francisco the yearly increase was a whopping 10.9% gain. As noted before those who are already in the market can more easily move up because of the increased equity in their present home. However for those not already in the market the chance of being able to afford a house is steadily going down. If wages go up commensurate with inflation, then the increased income should be able to keep pace with the increasing monthly mortgage payment, however, remember that with the increased sales price of a house, the down payment is also increasing. This increasing down payment is what kills potential first time home buyers, as they cannot save enough for that initial down payment.
 A dilemma. What to do? Keeping middle class workers in the state will be crucial to California’s future economy
Like I said, I have an idea . . . a plan!
What I propose is a state-tax free house down payment savings plan.
Before you say, “Not another government plan,” hear me out.
This plan would only be for the middle class, arbitrarily defined as those making between $50,000 – $100,000 per year. The money that they owed each year in income tax to the state could instead be put into a “first house, down payment account”. This money would be before tax money, similar to an IRA, and would grow tax free for up to ten years. Unlike a traditional IRA, however, this money would not be taxed when it was removed from this account if it was used to make a down payment on a first house. As long as people remained in the middle class, they could continue to contribute to this account for a maximum of ten years.
Some caveats:
– Participants in this plan would have to be residents of California.
– The house purchased with the money saved in this special “house down payment
    account” would have to be the primary residence of the purchaser of the house.
– The individual beneficiary of this account would have to reside in California for at
     least ten years after the house had been purchased.
– If perchance any of the rules were broken,  e.g. the house purchaser moved out
  of state after two years or the money was withdrawn from this account, but not used
   to purchase a first house, there would be a significant penalty (?25%) in addition to
   the California tax owed on the money withdrawn.
The big caveat, however, would be for the state. The shortfall in the California tax revenue because of this plan would have to be accompanied by an equal decrease in state spending for the following year. In other words, giving a small proportion of the middle class a tax break could not be accompanied by an increase in taxes for others in order to make up the shortfall.
Even though in the long run this plan has multiple benefits for individuals as well as for the state, my guess is that the state of California would not be able to fulfill its part of the bargain!
Posted on

A Better Use of Tax Money? Part 1

I realize that many of my readers, especially in California, are going to scream, “Of course there are ways to better use my tax money. In fact there are many ways!” However, instead of ranting and screaming . . . “focus” . . . focus on just the following.
In California one of the major problems is housing. Here, there are multiple issues including the basic economic one of supply and demand. For a variety of different reasons, the housing supply has not kept up with the demand, and so the natural consequence is a rise in the price of that which is in short supply, in this case, housing. This is a basic economic principle, and lately there are multiple ideas on how to increase the supply of homes. Again according to the same economic principle, the price of housing will not go down until there is an over supply or at least a competitive abundance of places to live, and unless there is a major recession, I do not seen the price of housing coming down in California for decades.
However, let’s assume for a second that the price of housing in California stabilizes sometime in the future because there is an increased supply. Who is going to buy these houses? Perhaps this question would be better phrased . . . “Who will be able to afford to buy these houses?” These days if one is not already in the market and thus has some equity, it is extremely difficult for that person or family to be able to save enough to afford a down payment on a house. A lot of those who are presently renting would like to buy a house in the future, but because of the high cost of living and the high taxes in California, they are lucky if they are able to stay afloat.
Switching gears, in general which general economic group are we talking about? Which class of people are we talking about that would like to own a house, but just cannot afford it? Many in the upper class already have a house, and for most the cost of housing is not even in the top ten on their problem list. Likewise those that are in the lower economic group are usually swimming upstream just trying to survive. Again for the most part their inability to purchase a house is not in the top ten on their problem list. So who are we talking about? No surprise here. Those that want to, but just cannot save the down payment to purchase a house are those in the middle class.
Recently my tree guy said that he may not be coming back to take care of my trees because he might be moving. “Moving? Why, Francisco? Where to,? I asked him. He replied, “Probably back to Mexico. My wife wants her own house, and even though we are both working, we cannot afford to buy a house here”!
His moving to Mexico is bad for me, as he is a nice guy, as well as a great tree guy, but more significantly it is not good for California, as he is a hardworking, responsible member of the middle class. The real problem for the state is that he is not alone. At present the exodus from California is mainly a middle class exodus, and unless something can be done to improve the standard of living of the middle class, they are going to continue to leave, and this will lead to the economic downfall of California.
Here in San Diego County in 2016 there was a net exodus of 17,194 people with 2,478 in the 18-34 age group, and 3,953 in the 35-54 age group. The main reason that those interviewed gave for leaving was the lack of affordable housing, and for many specifically the inability to ever own their own house.
What to do? Is there any way to improve the chance that those in the middle class will be able to buy a house in the near future, and thus remain in the state?
Does anybody have an idea?
Of course, I have an idea! See the next essay to see an example of thinking out of the box to solve an apparently unsolvable problem.
Posted on

Home Goods – “Thankful”

Yesterday my wife went to Home Goods, her favorite place. I can spend ten minutes in there on a good day, and she can easily spend hours. Whatever it is that attracts women to Home Goods . . . bottle it and sell it! Anyway while at Home Goods she bought a a white plaque that said, “Thankful” in nice black cursive on a white background. I liked it, and by serendipity she hung it on a wall that I look at literally a hundred times a day!
When I look at this sign, I reflect and ask myself, “What am I thankful for?”
Of course, I am thankful for all of the usual stuff . . .  health, family, living in the U.S.A.,etc., but I am also thankful for a lot of other things that are going on these days.
I am thankful that the stock market  is at near record levels, and is sustaining there.
I am thankful that over 1.7 million new jobs have been created.
I am thankful that the nationwide unemployment rate is at near record low levels for all races, and I am especially thankful that the unemployment rate in California is at its lowest level since 1976 when this statistic initially began to be recorded.
I am thankful that the Gross National Product is humming along at levels not seen recently. Gross domestic product grew at a solid 4.1 percent pace in the second quarter, its best pace since 2014!
I am thankful that ISIS in the Middle East is all but eliminated.
I am thankful that the fiery rhetoric from North Korea has ceased, and I am thankful that it appears that North Korea is dismantling its test sites.
I am thankful that a conservative judge, Neil Gorsuch, was appointed to the Supreme Court, and I am hopeful that I will soon be thankful that Judge Kavanaugh, a jurist who believes in following the Constitution, has been confirmed to the Supreme Court.
I am thankful for the newly expanded Veteran’s Affairs health-care program just recently signed into law.
I am thankful that there has been a marked increase in the number of MS-13 gang members have been rounded up, including a recently arrested El Salvadorian national who is a high ranking member of MS-13.
I am thankful that there is now a National Public Health Emergency on opioids, and that  $500 million was added to fight the crisis.
As I go back and read over my “thankful” list, I realize that in essence I am thankful that Donald Trump is our president!
Posted on

Lemon Picker

A woman decided to earn a little extra money for herself and so she applied for a job picking lemons. At the interview when she was asked if she had any experience picking lemons, she replied, “Oh yes, lots of prior experience. I have always bought Chryslers. I was married and divorced three times. I voted for Obama twice and then Hillary once, and now I am a member of the California Democratic Party’s executive committee.”
The interviewer who initially had been nodding in agreement now had a quizzical expression on his face and said, “I understood and agreed with your lemon picking qualifications until you mentioned your membership in the California Democratic Party’s executive committee. How does that qualify you to pick lemons?”
She responded, “The 217 members of this committee just endorsed state Senator Kevin de León over Dianne Feinstein in the upcoming race for the U.S.Senate, and the fact that I am a proud member of that committee speaks for itself!”
For those of you not familiar with the voting in California, it is what is called a “jungle primary,” in which the top two vote getters in the primary then runoff against each other in the November election, irrespective of their party affiliation. Thus Dianne Feinstein and Kevin de León, both Democrats, will face each other in the November election.
Kevin de León, represents the far left faction of liberals in California. He is aggressively anti-Trump and within the last few days has called for his impeachment. Obviously this kind of position appeals to the far left in California, but in the recent primary Ms. Feinstein won the support of 70% of the state’s Democratic voters! She had 2.1 million more votes than Señor de Leon, and carried each county in California by double digits. Feinstein had 44% of the vote and de León had only 12%. So why would the California Democratic Party endorse an obvious loser in the upcoming November election?
To me the answer is obvious. In California the November election is essentially a non-election. All of the statewide contests are essentially non-contests. The only real issue on the ballot is the repeal of the recently passed Democratic state gas tax increase. This issue alone will bring out the conservatives and the independents in California, who will overwhelmingly vote to repeal this tax. The Democrats need to excite the voters who otherwise might not have any enthusiasm about the candidates, and thus might not turn out to vote. Pitching de León as a viable candidate is a way to try to get the Democrats in California fired up to vote, so in essence they can vote “No” on the gas tax repeal.
However, just as picking lemons in life does not qualify one to pick real lemons off a tree, endorsing Kevin de León will not get out the Democratic vote in November.
Posted on

Focus !

Press secretary Sarah Sanders took questions outside the White House on 7/23/18, including one from a reporter who asked if the president was trying to “change the subject” from Russia to Iran. Sanders said bluntly that Trump can focus on two things at once, unlike the media.

“I think the president has the ability, unlike a lot of those in the media, to actually focus on more than one issue at a time,” Sanders quipped, “and certainly we know the media’s obsessed with speaking about all Russia . . .”
As I read this, I applauded her quick wit as it is the Main Stream Media who seem to be unable to shift focus, when unscripted news occurs. For instance, here in San Diego, our local liberal NYT & WaPo wannabe seems to be in a rut. The only Trump related stories that make the front page are those that they can put a negative spin on. For example, “President Threatens Stripping Security Clearances” was on the front page whereas on the same day, “N. Korea Begins To Dismantle Test Site” was buried inside with a much smaller headline font size. And one day last week, on the front page was “ Lawyer Secretly Recorded Talk With Trump” . . . I mean really, “Who cares! Focus?”
Today the story that should have been on the front page was the news that retailers are significantly increasing their hiring of seasonal workers this year. For those in the community that are struggling to make ends meet, this is real news . . . real news that matters . . . Good news that they can focus on!
There are 776,000 retail job openings this year, compared to 654,000 last year and 352,000 in 2012. This year retailers are already posting help-wanted ads for their busy season, weeks or even months earlier than usual. As the chief executive of the National Retail Federation Trade Group, Jack Kleinhenz, said, “The jobs machine in the U.S. has really kicked in, and that includes retail.” This year seasonal workers have the best prospects in years due to the strong U.S. economy and the strong unemployment picture. (Here in California, the unemployment rate in June was 4.2%, which is the record low since these statistics started being recorded in 1976.)
Why isn’t this story on the front page? The answer, of course, is the unwritten liberal rule of never focusing on any good Trump related news, and especially not on the front page! Sarah Sanders is right again, as it appears to be beyond the scope of the “media’s expertise” to focus on anything pro-Trump.

Continue reading “Focus !”

Posted on

THC (The Horrible Collision)

Back many years ago there was a popular T.V show called Dragnet, starring Jack Webb as Sgt. Joe Friday of the L.A.P.D. Every episode started off the same: “My name is Friday. The story you are about to hear is true. Only the names have been changed, to protect the innocent.”
In a similar manner, the story that you are about to read is true (except for the dialogue). Only the names have been changed, to protect the innocent.
“Please bear with me as I still don’t speak so good. My name is Jim. On Easter Sunday,  my girlfriend, Amy, and I had a pleasant lunch and we were heading back to my place to watch the Elite Eight on T.V. I was looking forward to that afternoon as my favorite basketball team, Syracuse, was playing, and I had recorded the game. That’s it! That’s all I remember about that day. In June when I woke up, they told me that Amy was killed in the crash, and that I was lucky to be alive. However, on most days over the past two years I don’t feel so lucky, because the pain is there every day, and I still cannot walk very well, even with my walker.
On behalf of both my dear Amy and myself, I would like to ask Ms. Chol, ‘Why would someone smoke marijuana and then drive?’.
I realize that this question is similar to the question that MADD asks about drinking and then driving, as marijuana impairment and alcohol impairment are similar. However, unlike alcohol, for which impairment can be reasonably measured using a breathalyzer (and confirmed with a blood alcohol content measurement), valid detection for cannabis is time-consuming, and tests cannot yet determine an approximate degree
of impairment. The lack of suitable tests and agreed-upon intoxication levels is an issue in the legality-of-cannabis debate, especially regarding intoxicated driving.
Over the past two years I have learned a lot about marijuana, some from Wikipedia and some from my other research. While there are blood, urine and hair tests that can track marijuana’s active ingredient in the body, marijuana lingers around for too long a period in order for one of these tests to determine the actual intake time. Also, the variation between different metabolisms makes an objective cannabis intoxication test very difficult.
I know that there is no definitive test to detect how long before her car crossed the median that the drug was taken. Without such a definitive test, it was possible or even likely, that we would not be in this courtroom today. I suppose that it was just a stroke of good fortune that at the scene her cannabis pipe was still warm when the police officer found it the ashtray of her Corolla.
I have obviously thought about this a lot, and have finally gotten to the point that I can forgive Ms. Chol, but I doubt that I will ever be able to forgive those who have pushed for marijuana legalization before a test to detect impairment had been worked out.”

Posted on

B.O. 1 or B.O. 2

On 7/18/18 the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution in favor of backing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.). Is this a surprise? Well the “overwhelmingly” is a surprise. However, I am a bit confused, as in the prior week some Democrats introduced a bill that would abolish I.C.E. within  a year.(However, they subsequently backed off and said that they would vote against it! . . . vote against their own bill?? Even for the Democrats in Congress this is bizarre behavior!)
Anyway this resolution in favor of I.C.E. passed by quite a large margin, 244-35. For those of you in the know, these numbers just don’t add up. The number of members  in the House of Representatives is much greater than 279 (244+35=279). So what happened?
I’ll give you a hint . . . the Dems pulled a “B.O.”
Again for those in the know, this could mean either one of two things.
B.O. 1
They could have merely skipped the vote, and thus they would not be on record of either supporting I.C.E. or not supporting I.C.E. One way of “Backing Out” is to just not show up for the vote. In this way one can avoid going on record for just about anything!
From Jan.,2005 to Oct.,2008 then U.S. Senator Barack Obama missed 24.2% of roll-call votes. For comparison the median of missed votes for those in the Senate at that time was 2.2%!
B.O. 2
But even though the Dems did show up, they chose to embrace the other  “Backing Out”  avoidance tactic . . .  just vote “present.” By voting “present,” one can avoid going on record for just about anything.
According to the New York Times (12/20/2007) while a State Senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted “present” 129 Times! Again according to the NYT at least 36 of these times, B.O. was the only State Senator to vote “present” or was one of a group of six to vote that way. On 5/6/99 he was the only one to vote “present” on HB 1298 , an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness . . . the vote was 57-0-1!! On 5/11/99 he was the only one to vote “present” on HB 854, a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims . . . the vote was 58-0-1!!
When voting on bills in Illinois, in front of each State Senator there is a red button (“no”), a green button (“yes”), and a yellow button (“present”). As one would expect in Springfield, Illinois there is a famous saying about the real meaning of the yellow button, since voting “present” is an obvious way to duck a difficult issue, or to back out of having to make a decision. B.O. was good at backing out (e.g. enforcing his “red-line” statement in Syria).
BTW, the final vote on the I.C.E. resolution was 244-35-133, with 133 Democrats voting “present”! I predict that before the midterm elections, this won’t be the last time that the Democrats sink to use one of these infamous  B.O. strategies!
Posted on

”26”

In a recent post, I satirically talked about some of the frivolous bills that took up the “valuable” time of the California Legislature. One of them was AB 1308 which increased the age under which first offenders could still be treated as juveniles. I suppose that the thinking went something like this, “Since young people, ages 18-24 have a rate of recidivism of >50%, it must be because they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions, and this lack of maturity might allow for a greater chance for successful rehabilitation.” Apparently this concept was strengthened by research in the past decade that shows that the brain is not fully developed until the mid-20s. So the liberal legislators in California naturally figured if their criminal behavior was “not really their fault” (due to a brain that is not fully developed), they should not be put into the adult criminal justice system, but rather into the juvenile justice system.Now just as night follows day, one could easily predict that there would be an “aha-moment” in the some other states with liberal policy makers and they would start to consider some of their young criminals might not be fully responsible for their actions either. At present, Illinois, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have considered legislation that would raise the age in the juvenile justice system, and in Vermont a new law allows anyone 21 or younger charged with a nonviolent crime to be eligible for juvenile offender status. “The 18th birthday is not magical; you do not suddenly become a full fledged adult,” said Lael Chester, director of the Emerging Adult Project at Columbia University’s Justice Lab. Although there is no data that this program works, I am willing to give it a shot – after all these misguided criminal folk might have a brain that is not fully developed.

Okay, okay, but what does all of this have to do with the title, “26?”

As many of you might already know, 26 is my favorite number, but that is irrelevant.
“26” has to do with the 26th Amendment.
Without looking it up, how many of you know what the 26th Amendment is?
Briefly, here is the definition as well as some of the history of the 26th Amendment.
The long debate over lowering the voting age in America from 21 to 18 began during World War II and intensified during the Vietnam War, when young men denied the right to vote were being conscripted to fight for their country. In the 1970 case Oregon v. Mitchell, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum age in federal elections, but not at the state and local level. Amid increasing support for a Constitutional amendment, Congress passed the 26th Amendment in March 1971; the states promptly ratified it, and President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law that July.
To summarize, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.
Let me get this straight . . . young people, up until their mid-20s are not really fully responsible for their actions, because their brains may not be fully developed, but their brains are fully developed enough for them to vote in elections! Huh!? When one thinks about this logically, it makes no sense!
I say that a thoughtful decision has to reached with this conundrum. If you think it doesn’t really matter all that much, consider that the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama saw a voter turnout of some 49 percent of 18- to 24 year-olds, the second highest in history, and we know who all of these young people elected!
OMG! Obviously the “undeveloped brain premise” must be true!
Who wants to help me start a new movement: “Repeal the 26th Amendment”?
Posted on

Children, Behave!

“Children. behave!”
Those are the first words from I Think We’re Alone Now, a past hit song by Tommy James and the Shondells that reached #4 on Billboards Hot 100 Chart in 1967. (FYI, in 1987 a version of this song by Tiffany reached #1 in various countries.) These words came to my mind last Sunday when there was a family of five sitting in front of me at church. Multiple times I wished that the oblivious father would have said, “Children, behave!” to his four kids who did not seem to have a clue as to why they were where they were, nor did they have a clue as to what they were supposed to being doing. I thought, “What’s the world coming to?”, but then an “aha moment” as I thought of the California Legislature, and decided that the behavior kids wasn’t quite so bad!
I thought, “Does the California Legislature have a clue as to why they are in Sacramento? Do they have a clue as to what they are supposed to be doing”?
Is there anyone that could say to the legislature, “Children, behave!”?
If you think I am being facetious, review with me some of the brilliant stuff that took up some of their valuable time in 2017.
The official dinosaur of California is now Augustynolophus morrisi. This certainly was an important use of their time! I am thankful that California already had a state fabric, denim, and a state lichen, lace-lichen, otherwise God knows how much more time they could have wasted! Oy vey! “Children, behave!”
SB 239 reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor the purposeful intent to transmit AIDS to an unknowing partner. Also knowingly donating HIV infected blood was decriminalized. Whew! What a relief! “Children, behave!”
They passed AB 398 (Cap & Trade Tax) which is projected to increase gas taxes by $0.61-0.73 by 2031. This is on top of the $0.11 that Cap & Trade (2015) has already increased the gasoline tax, and also in addition to the recent $0.12 increase that the California Democrats pushed through in November 2017. Another example of a tax that hurts the poor and the middle class the worst. Lord have mercy! “Children, behave!”
A bill to require that the true sex of an individual be omitted from California driver’s licenses! OMG! “Children, behave!”
SB 394 allotted $45 million in the state budget to provide free legal services to illegal immigrants. This is a perplexing twist of logic as non-citizens who for the most part do not pay taxes get free legal assistance whereas citizens who pay the taxes that fund the budget have to pay for legal services. Huh?? “Children, behave!”
AB 1308 was a bill to give preferential treatment to prisoners less that 25 years old that had been convicted of serious crimes, because their brains might not have been mature enough to understand right from wrong. Apparently their thinking was that this prior immaturity would now allow for a greater chance of successful rehab. This, in spite of the fact that more than 50% of those ages 18-24 are back behind bars within three years of their release from prison. Note that of the 131,000 inmates in California prisons, 11% are less than 25 years old, and many of these “immature brains” may soon be back on the streets. Yikes! “Children, behave!”
There are many more examples of how the California legislators waste their time and essentially misbehave while in Sacramento, but I only have a limited amount of time and space.
Frequently I wonder if those with the “immature brains” are actually those that spend their time on these frivolous bills! When they hear “Children, behave,” I also wonder if they will eventually realize “that’s what they say when we’re together” . . .  which is the second line of that aforementioned 1967 Tommy James hit song?