http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

“Have no fear! God will take care of you!”
“How will that occur?” I queried.
“Have faith, and your faith alone will insure that all will work out.”
“Is there an actual plan?” I reiterated.
“Trust us, for we know best!”

Is this an exchange in the Old Testament between the rabbis or prophets and the Jewish people?
Perhaps an overheard discussion between some disillusioned religious military leader and his troops just before a major battle?
Maybe this was from a bad dream that I just had?

Actually, this is a paraphrase of the “non-discussion” between the California Public Utilities Commission and the mostly clueless citizens of California. On 1/11/2018 the PUC voted 5-0, to close down the last remaining Nuclear Power Plant in the Golden State. Yes, the Diablo Nuclear Plant in San Luis Obispo will be closing in six years. This announcement comes just six years after the closure of San Onofre Nuclear Reactor in Southern California in 2012.
When one looks into the status of the world’s nuclear power plants, over the years many have been shut down – often after a finite number of years of service . . . and during the phase out of a functioning plant, a new nuclear facility is either in the planning stage or has already been built. Is this happening in California? (“Is there an actual plan?”) Actually, The plan for the future of energy in California appears rather vague. (“Have no fear; God will take care of you!”)

“This is no retreat from our strong commitment to Green House Gas (GHG) reduction goals,” said PUC Commissioner Rechtschaffer. I found this to be a strange almost oxymoronic remark, because in the long run, the consequences of the closing of a nuclear power plant will logically not be GHG reduction. Diablo Canyon presently generates 18,000 giga-watt hours of power each year, powering 1.7 million homes. Where will the power for these 1.7 million homes come from when Diablo Canyon is closed? That’s a lot of solar panels and/or windmills! (“Have faith!”) Will the closure of Diablo Canyon cause the state to use more natural gas, a fossil fuel and thus increase GHG emissions? Recall that in 2012 after the closure of San Onofre, the state’s usage of natural gas and the consequent Green House Gas emissions increased compared to 2011. (” Have no fear . . . “) While the environmental lobby hailed this PUC decision, a spokesman did state that they were also “concerned about what will be needed to replace this lost generation of power.” Even more perplexing about them applauding this decision, is that nuclear power now accounts for 9.18% of California power without, let me repeat, WITHOUT, producing any Green House Gases! (“Have faith . . . all will work out.”)

Is the PUC in conjunction with the environmentalists ahead of the curve concerning the future of nuclear power, or is California falling further off the track that supports the nuclear power train? At this point it appears that California has flipped the switch and is going off in its own direction. (“Trust us, for we know best!”)
What is the rest of the world doing? While everyone knows about the tsunami in Japan with the resultant radiation leak that occurred many years ago, this experience in Japan is not what is happening in the rest of the world. At the present time, China has a multitude of functioning nuclear power plants and has 19 new nuclear plants under construction in addition to 24 more that are in the planning stages. Even Egypt, closer to the equator and just as sunny as California, is in the process of building four new nuclear plants. The small country of South Korea (population of 51 million, compared to a population of 39+ million in California) presently has 24 operational nuclear reactors, with two under construction, and four more in the planning stages. Only Germany seems to be on the same track as California has chosen to follow.
Keep in mind that if these five individuals on the PUC in California are wrong about the future of nuclear power, it will be decades before that wrong can be righted. In the USA, and especially in California, it takes many, many years from the approval to the actual building and subsequent functioning of a new nuclear power plant.
I doubt that “having faith alone will insure that . . . God will take care of the California electrical power consumer!”

I read two things yesterday which made me think, “Do we have an epidemic in the U.S.A.? Is there an epidemic of “a loss of common sense?

The first thing that I read was a recent report by the Pew Center, which is a nonpartisan think tank that informs the public about issues, attitudes, and trends shaping America and the world. The Pew Center is not some “right-wing wacko group,” and therefore the report should have credibility with everyone. Their report had to do with voter registration. It stated that about 24 million (approximately 1 of 8) voter registrations in the U.S. are no longer valid or have significant inaccuracies. Furthermore about 1.8 million deceased voters are listed as voters, and about 2.75 million voters have registrations in more than one state. Does this mean that that there are a lot of illegal votes in our elections? . . . “No, not necessarily.” Does his mean that there is the potential for a lot of illegal voting in our elections? . . . “Yes, without a doubt!”

The second thing that I read yesterday involves a case now being heard by the Supreme Court about an Ohio law that removes people from the voting registration rolls if they fail to vote in two consecutive elections and they do not return an address conformation form. In light of the recent Pew Report about the significant issues with voter registration, I initially thought that this “Use It or Lose It” Ohio law made a lot of sense, especially in cities like Detroit and Chicago where the number of ballots cast in certain precincts mysteriously seems to often be more than the number of live voters living in that precinct.
However, my thinking was altered after I read about the plight of a soldier who had been stationed in an isolated area outside the continental U.S. for two years. He had maintained Ohio as his home state of record. He did not vote in two consecutive elections and he obviously could not return the address confirmation card because he was not physically present in Ohio. Is it right that this soldier be disenfranchised, and not be allowed to vote when he returns to Ohio? I say, “No, that is not right.”

What to do? I do not want to have an American in the military be denied his vote, but on the other hand, I do not want my vote cancelled out by the vote of a dead person.
It seems that we have a dilemma!
I have a novel idea . . . “How about if we use some common sense ?”
What if we were to use government-issued photo ID voter registration cards? What if we were to further supplement these voter ID cards with a thumb print to insure against their fraudulent use? What if we were to make the penalty for fraudulent use of these voter ID cards very severe? In other words, why don’t we make our voting process as secure as it is in Mexico?! As an aside, in Canada one has three options to prove that he/she is a legal eligible voter, and all three involve a photo I.D.
Both Canada and Mexico use common sense in their voting processes. Why can’t the U.S. also use common sense ?

Indulge me for just a minute or two while I present a political dilemma. I am going to make a few assumptions, but the facts will be the actual facts.

The dilemma:

When the people of a state elect a governor, and that governor has strong views on subject X,  I think that it is fair to say that a lot of the the people of that state are in agreement with their elected governor’s viewpoint on X. If that governor was elected by a sizable margin, it is probably reasonable to assume that, in fact, the majority of the people in that state are in agreement with the governor on the subject of X.

In the U.S.A. even though a single state is but a small portion of the total entity of the country, shouldn’t the people of that state have some control over the laws that they have to follow? If the people of that state have a strong difference of opinion with the Federal Government on a certain issue, do they have to go along with the Feds? Should they be bound by the same laws as the rest of the country in circumstances where the political leaning of that state is contrary to the political leanings of much of the rest of the country? Should the Federal Government of political party A have the power to strong arm the state whose views are those of political party B? If  the people of a state strongly believe in X, and that state has a law on the books that say that X is okay, shouldn’t the Federal Government just mind its own business? Wouldn’t it be best for the Federal Government to ignore the political difference of opinion with the state over X, and just let the people of that state handle the situation as they best see fit? Wouldn’t the prudent course of action by the Feds be to ignore the federal law in question, and just let the governor  of that state, elected by the people,  do whatever he thinks is best as far as X is concerned?

The potential solution:

Despite your political leanings to either the right or the left, I think that I have presented a cogent argument that the Feds should just butt-out! Leave the state in question alone. Let them follow their own laws and state constitution. To the Feds I say, “Mind your own business! Leave well enough alone!”

The facts and the outcome:

Of course the situation that I am talking about is what happened in 1963 in Alabama. George Wallace, the governor of Alabama, was a strong segregationist, and in fact ran and was elected on that platform. He ordered state troops to block the doors of schools in Alabama in order to prevent “blacks” from entering “white” schools. The problem was that the Federal laws on the books prohibited segregation in schools (Brown vs. Board of Education). The Federal Government (President Kennedy) federalized the National Guard and they moved in to insure that the Federal law was obeyed.  The rest is history, and despite your political leanings to either the right or to the left, I would surmise that all would agree that JFK made the right choice in enforcing Federal law.

The final question:

Does Federal law still have priority over State law or should states be able to choose to follow only the laws that they like? Is this still a dilemma? Would the Ninth Circuit Court of today have sided with the state or with President Kennedy? We may soon find out.

Well they appear to be in sad and somewhat desperate shape. “They” being the Democrats. I typically feel that their views are “sad”, but today I am referring to events that have occurred over the past few days. Events that, to me, indicate D.D.D. (Democrat Depression & Desperation).

First, let’s look at some T.V. ratings. This past weekend’s NFL playoff games had a double digit decrease in viewership despite the fact that the extremely cold weather in many parts of the country probably forced many to remain in the house for much of the weekend. This is “sad” for the Dems because of the ongoing battle between our president and the gutless liberal NFL with regard to the National Anthem protests. To my way of thinking if the NFL’s T.V. ratings are still impressively down, the country is still siding with the president on this issue. (Last year I watched a multitude of NFL playoff games each weekend, but this year . . . None!!)

Second, on Monday Night, the NCAA Football Championship was played. The T.V. ratings for this game were impressively better compared to years past. This leads me to conclude that perhaps it isn’t watching of football, per se, that the people are tired of. If the viewership numbers of the NCAA game are a reflection of interest in the game, the game itself still holds considerable popularity.
However, there is another possible explanation as to why this collegiate game drew such a large viewing audience . . .
President Trump was on the field for the National Anthem.
He stood – he did not sit or kneel!
He had his hand over his heart – not his fist up in the air!
He was positioned near the center of the field – not on the team bench!
During the Anthem he respectfully looked at the flag – not at the ground!
The response of the crowd was overwhelming positive – not like the boos that are heard when the malcontents “protest”!
None of this could have made the Dems happy . . . and more likely it made them “sad.”

Compare this to the Golden Globes. The T.V. viewership was the worst that it has been over the past six years. A good friend of mine who “always” watches the Golden Globes did not watch it this year. These ratings could have only made the Dems sadder and more depressed as Hollywood is a liberal bastion.
But there is an additional thing that is a real indicator of desperation on the left. After the Golden Globes liberal NBC proclaimed that Oprah should be the Democratic candidate for president in 2020. (As I remember, the Democrats were the ones who were proclaiming that Mr. Trump was not qualified to be our president because he did not have any experience in governing.) Granted she apparently did give a pretty good speech at the Golden Globes. I say “apparently”, as I also did not watch the Golden Globes either. What all this hoopla about Oprah indicates is that the Dems basically have no real potential candidate to put up against Donald Trump in 2020. A sad situation, and it seems that they are depressed and somewhat desperate!
BTW, keep in mind that Oprah spelt backwards is ‘Harpo’ . . . and Marx my words, sadly this only brings one image to mind!

The headline in today’s Wall Street Journal, “Dow Hurtles Past 25,000 to Record.” The Journal also pointed out that “the S&P 500 also extended its gains to make its current long-running rally its greatest period of growth since WWII.” The Dow had been muddling along at around 18,000 until the election of Donald Trump, and since then the path has been steadily upward. You don’t hear those on the left talking much about the stock market and its spectacular recent performance, because they know that these market gains over the last year are because of Mr. Trump and his policies. Certainly a stock market correction is coming, and I suspect that the talking heads will then somehow blame the inevitable correction on President Trump.
In 1992 James Carville, a campaign manager for Bill Clinton during Clinton’s successful presidential campaign, said, “It’s the economy, stupid!” If it is truly the economy, then I am having a hard time believing the most recent poll numbers which supposedly demonstrate a continued low approval rating for President Trump.
(Yes, these are the same pollsters who predicted Hillary to win.)
Other than the Dow surging to record highs, there are multiple other favorable economic stats and job stats that are also due to Mr. Trump’s policies.
The GDP has increased >3%, and unemployment is down to 4.1% – coupled with the creation of 2.1million new jobs in 2017. I wonder if those 2.1 million with new jobs were included in these polls.
He has prioritized woman-owned business for $500 million in SBA loans. Were these business women who received these loans and their employees included in these polls?
He has issued an executive order to boost apprenticeships and has moved to bolster computer sciences in the Education Department. Were the beneficiaries of these policies included in these polls?
It will be interesting to see what happens to these polling numbers when the middle class realizes the benefits of the recently passed tax reform. With more money in the pockets of millions, I predict that the polls will show increasing favorability of Mr. Trump. If the pollsters are then somewhat bewildered, we can clear things up for them, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

For those of us in California January 1 is always a mixed blessing as each January 1 we have to begin to live with the new dumb laws that our brilliant Democratic legislature passed and our even more brilliant governor signed into law. This year is no different. I could take a deep breath and live with the chaos that they have created if I thought that it would be the end. However, it is only a matter of time before our non-thinking legislature passes a slurry of new “OMG, how bad can they get ‘laws’.” I am going to surmise that it won’t take long into 2018 for them to surpass their prior record of incompetence they they achieved in 2017.
Anyway here is a short summary of some of the damage that the new laws will cause:

SB 54 states that the entire state will now ignore U.S. immigration law as it forbids law enforcement from cooperating with customs officials concerning individuals that have already been convicted of a crime, or have been arrested because they have just possibly committed a crime. The legislators somehow think that allowing bad guys back into the community is a good idea. This despite the fact that over 70% of Californians and over 60% of Hispanics in California think that this is a bad idea. These californians do not want these convicted criminals or potentially dangerous, just arrested, criminals back in their neighborhoods. Keep in mind that these individuals have come into the purview of local law enforcement because they are suspected of some criminal behavior, or have just finished serving time because of their criminal behavior. It is only a matter of time before local authorities release an individual without contacting ICE, and that individual commits a heinous crime in California.

AB 291 prohibits landlords from reporting renters who are in the country illegally. Here it is also only a matter of time before a landlord gets arrested because he went to authorities because the tenant was not paying his rent, and the tenant says that the landlord reported him only because he was illegal or the landlord had a friend report him as being illegal. This will usher in only more chaos as the legislature interferes in the lives of private citizens.

AB 168 prohibits employers from asking job applicants certain questions during a job interview. It’s only a matter of time before a “he said, she said” situation occurs, when a job applicant does not get the job for which he was being interviewed. Keep in mind that here again the legislature is interfering in the lives of private citizens.

SB 3 is the new minimum wage standards in the state. Beginning on January 1 the minimum wage will go from $10.50 to $11.00 per hour, and this will increase each year until it becomes $15.00 per hour in 2022. Businesses exist in order to make a profit, and so it is only a matter of time before one of the following occurs because employers will have only four choices as the minimum wage goes up.
1. Lay off employees because they are not worth the new minimum wage. Businesses cannot survive if they have to pay an individual $11.00 per hour and that individual only produces $10.50 worth of work each hour.
2. Pay the individual employees the new wage and pass this cost onto the customers. This is already happening and I have already stopped frequenting some businesses because their prices are too high. It is only a matter of time before others stop being customers of these same businesses, and the result will either be current employee layoffs or the putting up of the “Going out of business” sign.
3. Move out of California and relocate to states with a lower minimum wage. This is already happened in NorCal with companies moving across the border to Nevada, and it is only a matter of time before more companies are driven to relocate to more business friendly states.
4. Companies will increase automation and low skilled employees will lose their jobs. This is already started to happen with automated grocery checkout (Albertson’s), and automated ordering at fast food restaurants (McDonald’s). It is only a matter of time before this automation expands into other low skill type jobs such as robots making pizza in Mountain View, Ca. CaliBurger has recently said that it plans to use a robot to man the grill at 50 of its restaurants. Bye-bye more low skilled jobs!

And finally, in the “you can’t make this stuff up” category, starting in 2019 the gender choices on all official state IDs will include male, female, and “non-binary!” It is only a matter of time before some male pervert demands to use the woman’s restroom, because he is “non-binary,” and some female gets molested.

I wish they I could say that it’s only a matter of time before these non-thinking, no concept of real life consequences, Democratic politicians are voted out of office, but I doubt that I will live that long!

Because I feel that it is the duty of all Good Americans to pay the least amount in taxes as is legally possible, for over 30 years I have been an investor in Municipal bonds because of their big tax advantages. For those of you who are not aware Municipal bonds are tax free in the state in which the bond holder resides as well as being free of any Federal Income Tax burden. (A piece of trivia for those of you who might be interested – Municipal bonds from U.S. territories [e.g. Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.] are free from both federal as well as all state taxes.)
Since I consider myself a Good American who happens to live in California, over the years I acquired a trove of California Municipal Bonds, as they were one of the few vehicles that escaped the onerous California taxman. However, about 10 years ago I became concerned that my investments were too heavily weighted with California Municipal Bonds, and that it would be a good idea to diversify my stable of Municipal bonds. I told my broker that he should look at the Municipal bonds from other states as they would still be free from Federal taxation, although not free of California state taxes . . . with one caveat, “Do not buy Municipal bonds from those those states that have Democratic governors.” While it is true that individual states have never gone belly-up . . . i.e. bankrupt, why would any Good American purposely bet his money on losing horses? My concern was that in states with Democratic governors and high state taxes, many high income earners, and thus high state tax payers, would choose to leave that state, and thus hurt that particular state’s financial stability. Was this a wise decision?
In 2012, under B.O. the IRS decided to stop publishing data on interstate migration. (Now why do you think that was?) However because public pressure, probably from concerned Good Americans, they recanted, and the following data is IRS interstate migration data. Let’s look at some examples:

New York State has the highest state and local burden in the U.S. Since Democrat Andrew Cuomo has been governor 577,286 Good Americans have left New York State for greener pastures – taking $27 billion in potentially taxable income with them.
Oops, Andrew!
In Connecticut since 2011, under Democrat Daniel Malloy, 73,676 Good Americans have left – taking $8.5 billion in potentially taxable income with them.
Oops, Daniel!
Since 2011, under Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, 243,099 Good Americans have fled California – taking $7,794 billion in potentially taxable income with them.
Oops, Jerry!
Look for continued out-migration of Good Americans in the states with high taxes and Democratic governors. In fact these numbers will probably increase in the years to come with the recently passed law that negates the deductibility of these high state taxes on federal returns.
Did this Good American make a wise decision when he decided not to buy Municipal bonds from states with Democratic governors? Yes, I believe that he did.

[contact-form][contact-field label=”Name” type=”name” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Email” type=”email” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Website” type=”url” /][contact-field label=”Message” type=”textarea” /][/contact-form]

I may have mentioned some of these things before, but I just came across a 2016 Kiplinger report that is worth reviewing. Kiplinger rated all of the states on the favorability for retirees. The states were rated in terms of dollars and cents on practical terms. Things like living close to family and the climate were not used in this rating system. Kiplinger looked at things such as living expenses, general health of retirees, fiscal status of individual states, and the relative prosperity of residents over 65 years of age.
Where you think California was rated?
Let me give you a little hint – the four worst states were Democratic strongholds.
In California those over 65 made up 12.1% of the population of over 38 million. The cost of living in California was 15% over U.S. average. This is obviously bad for everybody in the state, but is especially bad for those who are retired on a fixed income. The taxes in California are some of the highest in the nation, and there is little hope of these taxes decreasing in the near future. In fact the politicians here have recently passed a gasoline tax which punishes everyone except those who drove electric cars. The medical care costs for a retired couple are greater than average. The fiscal status of California is never very good and this is important for retirees as any increase in red ink could lead to further increases in taxes. The average household income for retired couples is $62,000, and although this sounds high, 1 in 10 of those over 65 live in poverty in the Golden State.
Okay so where do you think California was rated?
Drum roll, please.
California was rated as the third worst state for retirees with only New York and New Jersey rated as worse states for retirees.

I realize that these days not everyone says, “Merry Christmas!” There are those who believe in God, but are not Christians, that do not use this expression and there are those who do not believe in any God. But I digress.

We just got back from a cruise where we met a wonderful couple, Ken and Pat, from Liverpool. They were retired, as were most on this cruise. Ken had worked in some sort of government position, and had also done a bit of youth ministering in the past. He and I disagreed on the optimal length of a sermon, but otherwise we were basically on the same path. (He even liked Donald Trump – more specifically he liked Mr. Trump because of his recent stand on Jerusalem being the capital of Israel . . . but I digress.)                                                Ken had an interesting story about a atheist female coworker, Melissa, and a past November office birthday celebration that the office threw or her. Years back on a Friday Ken and a few of his fellow office mates stayed late to decorate in order to surprise Melissa for her birthday on Monday morning. When she came in to the office on Monday, she was very surprised and asked who had put up all the decorations. Ken answered her by saying that he had just left the decorations on his desk on Friday evening, and, wallah, on Monday morning spontaneously, and without anyone guiding the process, the decorations were all in place – more specifically the ribbons had come out of the package and hung themselves up, the random individual letters had arranged themselves to spell out H-A-P-P-Y B-I-R-T-H-D-A-Y and then they somehow magically ended up on the office wall.
The birthday girl responded, “Ken, you know that’s impossible! Only a fool would believe that these decorations could have spontaneously formed themselves into such a beautiful display. Someone had to have planned, organized, and finally put everything in its place for this party. Get real!”
Ken then responded, probably with a twinkle in his eye, “Are you sure, Melissa? It seems to me that the likelihood that these decorations have occurred spontaneously without an organizer is about the same as the likelihood that all of the beauty you see out of this window – more specifically, the mountains, the trees, and the clouds in the sky – has occurred spontaneously. Happy Birthday, Melissa!”
About one month later and every year since, Ken receives a card from Melissa that says, “Thanks, Merry Christmas!”