http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

Fact: On 5/4/18 the Labor Department announced that the jobless rate fell to 3.9% from 4.1% a month earlier, hitting the lowest level since December 2000.

On 5/5, this was the lead story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal out of Washington, D.C. with the headline “Jobless Rate At 17-Year Low.” This article was very objective detailing a multitude of grafts and statistics. It was positive referring to this record low unemployment as being “the result of a historically long jobs expansion that shows little evidence of slowing.” It detailed that employment rose in industries including manufacturing, health care, and accounting. There continues to be a plethora of positivity in this article, including that the “report suggested that there are more workers available for full time jobs than the main unemployment rate suggests.”

Now let’s shift gears to our local paper which typically finds it difficult, more like impossible, to say anything positive about Mr. Trump. First of all this story was in section C of the newspaper, albeit on the first page of section C., and it read more like a misplaced subjective opinion piece masquerading as news. The headline to the story was factual, “U.S. Jobless Rate Slides Below 4%,” but with a subtitle of “Usually good news, the reason is the labor force shrank for 2nd month.” It’s difficult to put a negative spin on such good economic news, but Jim Puzzanghera, the author who writes for California News Group (? Los  Angeles ) hammered away how this record unemployment rate was really not good news at all, and of course no credit was given to President Trump’s policies. Even though this downer of an article did mention that the unemployment rates for blacks and Latinos were at the lowest level since the Labor Department began tracking these figures in the early 1970s, there was no praise and no congrats for this accomplishment.
To me the contrast of these two articles, both supposedly reporting on the same data is astounding! It’s very hard, if not impossible, to conclude that this decline in the jobless rate is not a direct result of President Trump’s policies and the recent tax cuts. Kudos to the President and the Republicans, and a thumbs down to the obvious slant of Mr. Puzzanghera who does his best to try to convince his readers that this good news is really “bad!”

Two of my neighbors recently wrote letters to the governor of California. Because my daughter-in-law is an English teacher, they asked me to proof read them before they were mailed. They both consented to have them printed as is.

Dear Governor Brown,
I am a senior citizen living on a fixed income, and to set the record straight, I have voted for you multiple times including twice in the seventies. I have never written to you before, but today I received my vehicle registration renewal notice, and “shucks” was I surprised.
I drive a 2000 Chrysler that has eighty thousand miles on it. Although the number of times I drive decreases every year, I still need to drive to church, and occasionally to bingo. I also need to drive to the grocery store when my son doesn’t have the time to take me. He tells me just to use Uber, but it it’s too hi-tech for me. But back to my vehicle registration. I am beside myself, as the cost to register my car has gone up from $115 last year to $143 for this year. This despite the fact that I will be driving even less miles compared to last year. How can this be? I thought that you were supposed to be for those of us who are barely scraping by!

Respectfully,
Mabel

Dear Jerry,
In 2018 you referred to those who did not agree with the Democratic gas tax increase (SB 1) as “freeloaders,” and you snarkily stated something to the effect that those who used the roads had to pay for their upkeep. Jerry, are you aware of the fact that California already pays a little over $84,000 per mile for highway maintanence compared to the national average of $28,000 per mile, and ranks 46th in quality of urban highways. That is a sad but telling statistic. Could it possibly reflect on your leadership?
What is worse, however, is that you told us that the revenue generated from your tax increase would be for roads and infrastructure. That does not appear to be the case as on 4/26/18 the Transportation Agency announced the grant recipients for $2.6 billion of the $5.4 billion in annual gas tax and vehicle registration fee increases. Of the 28 projects awarded SB1 money, none involved road upkeep! $2.4 billion went to light-rail and electric bus networks! There was also $100 million for “active transportation” which involves bike lanes, sidewalks, and recreational trails. Jerry, it appears to me that these are the “freeloaders,” as, as best I can tell, the bikers and the walkers do not pay the increased gas tax or the increased vehicle registration fees!
I have not seen you or any of your Democratic colleagues on T.V. explaining why all of this money is not going to roads as you and they promised. Is it possible that you are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the “freeloaders?” If that is so, it is truly deplorable!
We Californians can only hope for an “Oops-moment” with the “repeal the gas tax” measure that will be on the ballot in November.

Sincerely,
A California Freeloader!

Ho-Hum! They are at it again. They, being the state of California, it’s attorney general, and its governor, and they are in the process of mounting their 32nd legal challenge to the Trump administration. As one of the chumps that lives here in California, I ask again, “Who is paying for all of these legal challenges?” Of course, I already know the answer . . . the taxpayers of California are paying the bill.
This particular legal challenge involves the EPA changing the proposed automobile mileage standards for 2022-2025. Using the typical liberal tactic of attacking the speaker, Governor Brown called the EPA chief, Scott Pruitt, “Outlaw Pruitt,” and accused him of “breaking the law.” (EPA officials declined to respond to the name-calling by the governor.)
Rather than suing and name-calling the issue is whether or not the EPA has the authority and legal standing to change the present mileage standards. Where did these standards originate? Are the present standards actually law, or are they merely some rules that were formulated by unelected bureaucrats?
In 2010 the EPA and the NHTSA established a National Program of new standards for gas mileage. As we all probably know the EPA is an independent agency of the federal government, and back in 2010 the chief of the EPA was Lisa Jackson, who was appointed by Barack Obama. The NHTSA is an agency of the Executive branch of the U.S. Government, a part of the Department of Transportation, and in 2010 the chief administrator was David Strickland, who for eight years prior was a Democratic Senior Counsel on a Senate Committee. I am not alleging any impropriety with Mrs. Jackson or Mr. Strickland, but both were appointed and neither was an elected official.
If these unelected officials can play a big part in 2010, why can’t different unelected officials formulate a new plan in 2018? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The educated response from California officials, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra, “Those #*%#&x* ; we don’t like dat; we don’t like dem!” Continue reading “They Are At It Again”

Let’s say for the sake of discussion that a family has four kids. It would seem obvious that in order to maintain a sense of fairness and order that the rules would have to be the same or at least very similar for all of the children. For instance when a child reaches middle school, he/she gets a cell phone so that he/she can inform the parents of where he/she is. Starting at age sixteen a child may get a driver’s license, providing that he/she can pay a predetermined portion of the auto-insurance. Each child’s curfew is set by the age of that child . . . for instance at age fifteen, the curfew is 9:00 and at age sixteen the curfew is 10:00, etc. Now let’s expand that to a family of ten children . . . all the more important to have the same rules for everybody. Now imagine if the family had fifty children . . . mind boggling, but all the more important that everyone play by the same rules. If one “independent” child decided to make his/her own rules, then the result would be chaos! Welcome to the U.S.A. family and the recalcitrant child, California.
The latest temper tantrum by the recalcitrant child involves the new E.P.A. standards for automobile gas mileage. Despite the fact that these new standards have not been officially announced by the E.P.A., the independent teenager is already protesting.
“I find this to be an outrageous intrusion,” said Diane Feinstein. “We will take this fight to the courts . . .” Obviously Ms. Feinstein is now in full campaign mode, even though the E.P.A. spokesperson has refused to comment on the details of the draft plan!
As a sidelight, Neil Gorsuch gained a lot of respect from me when he agreed with the four liberal justices in a ruling just last week. With this decision, Judge Gorsuch established himself as an independent thinker. In the recent past have any of the four liberal Supreme Court justices ever split from the other three, and voted with the conservative justices? “No, not that I am aware of.” This obviously says a lot about their ability to think independently. At some point is it possible that California could actually gain some respect from the rest of the family by considering a Trump administration proposal before reflexively objecting to it?
It seems pretty obvious that California feels strongly that it should be able to decide its own fate and follow its own rules in just about everything – no matter what the parents (Federal government) say. Would the state follow its own train of logic and allow me to follow my own set of rules? “No! That would lead to chaos.” What if my city, or my county wanted to follow its own set of rules, would the state of California say, “Okay, my obstreperous son, do what you want. It’s okay with me.”? or would it say, “Not a chance, as that would lead to chaos!”
If a state can choose which federal laws it chooses to obey, can a citizen, city, or county also choose to do the same?

Last week I brought up to one of my liberal friends that Ben Carson was one of my heroes. Ben Carson was an esteemed neurosurgeon, and now is the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. If you don’t know his story, I would strongly recommend reading one of his books in which he details his growing up in Detroit. They are easy reads, and are G-rated. They would be good reads for children and grandchildren. That got me to thinking, “Who are the heroes of today?” In order to answer that question, I reviewed the newspapers for the past week, and was surprised not only by the number of heroes, but also shocked by the words of one “anti-hero.”
(I use the term “anti-hero,” because my comments are meant to be G-rated, but actually a more apropos name would be “x*#yb¥” . . . if you know what I mean.)
First for the heroes. In the last week two deceased heroes were written about. The first was Gussie Zaks. She was a truly remarkable person. She was a Holocaust survivor who spent her time informing and lecturing to groups, mainly younger kids and teens, about the Holocaust. I happened to know her because I took care of her husband, Mike, and I can personally vouch that Gussie was a remarkable woman. I asked myself, “Why don’t politicians have the character of a Gussie Zaks?” The second deceased hero was 1st Lt. Philip Sauer who was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for his courageous actions in Vietnam on 4/24/67 when he gave his life to try to save the men under his command. Why don’t politicians have the courage and the character of a Philip Sauer?
The “anti-hero” of the last week is Senator Jon Tester of Montana. He is a ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and came out against President Trump’s nominee for the head of the V.A. I can understand it if the Democratic Senator did not feel that Dr. Ronny Jackson was qualified to run the V.A., as that is what the Senate Hearings are all about. I can also understand why a liberal senator would come out against anything proposed by Trump. (I can understand it, but I still think that it is despicable in today’s political environment.) However what I can’t stomach is the outright meanness and anger that Senator Tester exhibited against someone who has spent his entire career as a military physician. I reviewed Senator Tester’s bio, and I did not find any mention of his military service! Nor did I find that the former music teacher and farmer had any expertise in medicine. To go on T.V. and make unsubstantiated malicious comments about Admiral Jackson is below disgusting in my book! If the reputation of this long term White House physician, who has served under three presidents, is damaged, he can thank Jon Tester! Why do we have politicians like Jon Tester?
Finally the heroes of the past week. There are two true heroes – one male and one female. Ladies first.
Tammie Jo Shults, the courageous pilot of the Southwest Airline plane Fl. 1380, that had a potentially disastrous occurrence at close to 30,000 feet when a piece of an engine came loose and went through a window in the passenger cabin. The cabin depressurized. All of the passengers could have easily been killed if it were not for the courage, the steady hand, and the steady nerves of the pilot. If you haven’t heard her calm radio communication with air traffic control, it is inspiring. Why can’t we have politicians with the courage and fortitude of Tammie Jo Shults?
Last but not least is perhaps the bravest hero of the past week, James Shaw Jr., who disarmed the deranged shooter at The Waffle House just outside of Nashville, Tennessee, and as a consequence saved many lives. He did not consider himself a hero, but just someone who made a split second decision to act. After watching him hesitantly speak on T.V., I thought of the dichotomy with Jon Tester who was anxious to spew his political vitriol about a good man, Dr. Ronny Jackson.

Although I don’t often give advice to President Trump, here I would advise him to invite both of these heroes, Tammie Jo Shults and James Shaw Jr., to the White House and personally commend them both.

The other day I saw an editorial by Catherine Rampell, an uber liberal who writes for the Washington Post. In the past my reading of anything by Ms. Rampell has led to something akin to nausea, but her title (“Debt bomb looms”) intrigued me. For a long time I have been concerned with the National debt of the U.S.A., and in fact have asked the following question to those who I figured would know the answer, “Where should I put my savings or at least a portion of my savings that will be safe when the sh** hits the fan with our National debt?” The answer from those that should know was typically, “I don’t know!”
Ms. Rampell actually made some good points in spelling out her concerns about the increasing National debt. However, in lockstep with her liberal tendencies, she wasted no time in criticizing the Republicans about the recent “tax-cuts for the rich.”
“Catherine, did I miss the part about the National debt increasing from $10.6 trillion to $19.7 trillion while Barack Obama was in office?” Of course, this was not mentioned in her article . . . but I digress.
She cited some source as forecasting that within a decade our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at its highest level since 1946, and commented that International Monetary Fund expected that the debt burden of the U.S.A. will get worse over the next five years. Of course, she railed against the Trump administration officials who have expressed interest in further tax cuts.
“Catherine, did I miss the part about the National debt increasing almost as much during the presidency of Barack Obama as it had during the time off all previous presidents?” Of course, this was not mentioned in her article . . . but I digress.

I agree with Ms. Rampell that the debt bomb is looming. Make no mistake about it, I was disgusted with the Republican’s recent capitulation to Schumer and Pelosi which added significantly to the deficit. When you have a liberal like Catherine Rampell truly concerned about the National debt, then I am really worried, and I wonder if economic disaster can be that far down the road?
Finally, if anyone knows of a safe place to put my savings when economic disaster strikes, please let me know – perhaps, the sooner, the better!
“Catherine, that includes you!”

Last week I saw something that I had not seen much of in many years. I saw multiple “Help Wanted” signs. I saw them at McDonald’s, Einstein’s Bagels, and at CVS. Was this apparent plethora of job openings just a coincidence or did it indicate something of more significance? I assume that you have heard the phrase “A rising tide lifts all boats,” and I think that is what is happening here. Most of these job openings and Help Wanted signs are aimed at teenagers, as the 12 month average unemployment rate for teens In March was 13.9%, the lowest year-round average since 2001 and about half that in 2010. Why?
Well in my opinion because the nation’s unemployment rate is at record low levels, those over-qualified individuals who had worked at McDonald’s, Einstein’s, and CVS have now moved up to better jobs – jobs that they were always qualified for, but now the jobs are there, whereas these jobs weren’t there before. This low teen unemployment rate extends across all races. The jobless rates for white teens is the lowest since 2001, and the jobless rates for both Hispanic and black teens are about half of what they were in 2010. Many of my friends described the various jobs they had while growing up, and just about all agree that this teenage job experience better prepared them for the real world.
What I have detailed so far are facts, most of which have come from a recent Wall Street Journal article about teen employment, but the question remains, “Why?” Well to me the answer is pretty obvious. The reason that the tide is rising is because of the economic policies of Donald Trump.
Sure the politicians, especially the Democrats, will argue that this is a fluke, a coincidence, and not related to the policies of our present president, but the sons and daughters of these big time politicians don’t need the jobs at McDonald’s, Einstein’s, or CVS because daddy owns the yacht club!

What do the following three things have in common?
1. A Broward County school district
2. San Diego city libraries
3. A private school in the northern suburbs of San Diego

Actually these three things have little in common, except for a common unifying liberal policy or principle. Note that I did not say “principal”, although if you called the head of the library system, ‘a principal’ and a school superintendent, ‘a principal’, then one could probably say that the common thing is that you have three principals with leftist principles.
Let’s discuss separately:

1. In 2013, apparently Broward County schools rewrote their disciplinary policies to make it nearly impossible to suspend, expel, or arrest students for behavioral problems including criminal activity. This strategy has been adopted by more than 50 school districts nationwide, and allows troubled students to commit crimes without legal consequence with the stated purpose to slow the “school to prison pipeline.” Of interest the Broward school Superintendent, Robert Runcie, had close ties to Barack Obama and his Education Department. His new policy promoted discipline through participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses, and other “self esteem building exercises.”
One of the lead advocates for this programs was Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. In November 2013, he reportedly signed an agreement that spelled out 13 crimes that could no longer be reported to the police. Unfortunately, since then ex-students without an arrest record, could buy weapons, and also without an arrest record, the police could not corroborate tips with past arrests.
Not surprising Broward County, where Nikolas Cruz went to school, went from leading the state of Florida in student arrests to having one of the lowest school-incarceration rates in the state. If this is the parameter by which Runcie’s policy is measured, it could be considered a success . . . however, if the measured parameter is ‘lives lost’ . . . 17, then it is not!

2. San Diego city libraries will now automatically renew a book on its due date, and the book will be automatically renewed up to five times. This despite the fact that there is a three day email notification when a book is due, and the book can easily be renewed by phone or by email. What this now means is that it is almost impossible for the lender to pay a late fee. From my perspective the message to the users of the library is: “If your book is late, don’t worry. There is no need for you to take responsibility. You won’t be punished with a fine as there is no consequence for your inaction!” Officials contend that fines for returning items late create an adversarial relationship between libraries and the people that use them, and Misty Jones, San Diego’s head librarian commented that “‘Seinfeld’ did a whole show about library cops.” (I am assuming that regular readers already understand my theory about the correlation between first names and political leanings!) Uri Gneezy, a behavioral economist at U.C. San Diego feels that charging fines introduces a potentially damaging economic element into the relationship between libraries and the people that use them. (Let me try to understand this kind of position: “The library and the library user have entered into a contract of sorts. The user may use the library’s book for free for a certain period of time, but only for that specified period of time. If the user keeps the book beyond that period of time, there will be a fine . . . Whoops! Never mind. For you, the library user, forget the concept of a contract. Forget the concept of personal responsibility. Forget the fine.”) If Uri and Misty feel that a fine of 30 cents a day is too steep for the poorest among us, then lower the daily fine rate, but, please, do not destroy the concept of personal responsibility for those who most need to learn that concept. I hope that the parameter, by which this new plan’s success is measured, is not the number of library fines that were levied or the number of books that were returned late!

3. At the school where my son teaches, the principal has just introduced the concept of “Restorative Discipline.” From what I can understand this new policy involves the teacher (not the principal!) sitting down with the misbehaving student and explaining to him/her that their actions are not acceptable in the classroom setting, and to please not do it again. The principal apparently feels that a policy of talking nicely and rationally to a high school student can supposedly alter a student’s mis-behavior without resorting to the usual principle of “you must learn that you are responsible for your actions, and so you must pay the penalty – the usual penalty is an hour or so of detention either after school or on Saturday.” Since this new enlightened policy has just gone into effect, time will tell if disconnecting an action from its unpleasant consequences will alter student’s behavior. I hope that the parameter by which this new principle is judged is not the number of hours that students are spending in detention!
Just as the Kumbaya principle of no consequences for bad behavior did not work in Broward County, I will predict that it will not work in libraries or in private schools. Hopefully the consequences of these new principles by leftist principals will be recognized as typical leftist “pie-in-the-sky” consequences before bad things happen.

This year California’s legislators will make $107,238. They also get $183 per day in tax-free per diem payments to cover expenses for each day they are in session in Sacramento. FYI, Governor Brown’s makes $195,803, which makes him the highest-paid governor in the country.
Q: Who actually pays them?
A: We, the taxpayers of California, pay them.

Are we getting value for our money?
What do they actually do to earn these generous salaries?

For the record last year they passed almost 1,000 bills. Wow, it sure sounds like we are getting our money’s worth! Quantity, yes. Quality, ?? For the record, last year Governor Brown only vetoed about 12% of the bills passed by the legislature, which implies that the citizens of California have over 800 new things to be aware of because of the “work” of its legislators. So not only do we actually pay those in the legislature, but we have to actually live with the nonsense that they pass into law each year. If you think that I am using the word, “nonsense” loosely, perhaps to see if we are getting our money’s worth, we should look at some of the things they are working on this year.

As noted in a recent column by George Skelton in the L.A. Times, the California legislators appear to be wasting their time by sponsoring bills, that include the following:
“Mouth to snout” which would allow first responders to provide this emergency service for dogs and cats.
Barring sit-down restaurants from providing plastic straws unless they are requested.
Making surfing California’s official sport.
(Keep in mind that we are paying them to work on these bills.)

But the primo bill that our “legislators” are working on is SB 1490 (Henry Sterns, D- Canoga Park). This bill involves abolishing Columbus Day and replacing it with “Indigenous Peoples Day”.
Perhaps a bit of history is appropriate here. Many Italian Americans observe Columbus Day as a celebration of their heritage, and the first celebration was held in New York City on 10/12/1866. In April, 1934 Congress and President FDR proclaimed Oct. 12 as a federal holiday under the name, “Columbus Day.” Since then many liberal bastions such as Berkeley, Ca., Madison, Wisconsin., and Cambridge, Mass have renamed October 12, “Indigenous People Day.”
Recently, the city of L.A. and L.A. County have renamed this day, “Indigenous Peoples Day,” and now our state legislators are “working” on the same thing in Sacramento. This despite the fact that here in California October 12 is not an official holiday. Those who are against keeping October 12 as Columbus Day point out that Columbus did not treat the natives very well, and thus should not be celebrated. I actually do see their point here, and to me any time we can get rid of a useless federal holiday . . . get rid of it!
But I do have an issue with California legislators renaming the day “Indigenous People’s Day” especially in view of the fact that in 1968 then California Governor Ronald Reagan commemorated Native Americans by proclaiming the fourth Friday in September as “Native American’s Day.” Perhaps the California Legislature should consult an official state calendar, and move on to something more useful because that is supposedly what we are paying them to do!

According to the San Jose Mercury News, apparently enough signatures have been collected to put an initiative on the ballot that would split the present state of California into three separate states. The new state of “California” would include Los Angeles and would basically extend up along the Pacific Ocean to Monterrey. The new proposed state of “Southern California” would include Orange County, San Diego and the counties in the mid and the eastern part of the state up to just past Fresno. The new proposed state of “Northern California” would include San Francisco, Sacramento, and all the way to the Nevada and the Oregon state lines. Of course the people of California can express their opinion through this ballot measure, but the ultimate determination would be made by the U.S. Congress.
Two questions:
First of all which way would those of you who live in California vote?
And secondly . . . Let’s assume that this proposed ballot measure passes in California, which way do you think the vote would go in the U.S. Congress?
To be clear, this splitting of a state to make two separate states has been done in the past, so this splitting up of California is not without precedence.
To analyze the political effects of this proposed division, let’s look at the effect on both the U.S House and the U.S. Senate. There would be little if any effect in the U.S. House of Representatives because the representation in the House is determined by a state’s population, and since the population of California would be the same both before and after the proposed division.
However, the big change would be in the U.S. Senate, because each state gets two senators. So the “new California” would now be three separate states, and so would be represented by six U.S.Senators – two from each of the new states. So if two of the three new states were to vote for Democrats, the balance in the Senate would in essence remain the same as it is now with +2 senators (present California Senators) for the Democrats. The Republicans could benefit would be if two of the three proposed new states were to vote in two Republicans each, or if the voters would elect three Democrats and three Republicans combined in the three new states. Neither of these scenarios is likely to happen in the near future, if ever, so I would assume that the Republicans in Congress would be against this CAL 3 proposal. However, keep in mind that the House now is Republican, but could easily be flipped in November. Would the Democrats think that this is a way to strengthen their Democratic representation in the Senate?
To even things out, perhaps Texas should split into “East Texas” and “West Texas?”
But until that happens, I will be voting “No” on CAL 3.