http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

Do you know the way to Santa Fe? Well billionaire Michael Bloomberg certainly does. Bloomberg, the ex-New York City mayor, who apparently thinks he knows what is best for the rest of us, just put over $1M into a proposed “soda tax” ballot measure in Santa Fe, the most liberal city in New Mexico.

Yes, that is the same Michael Bloomberg that banned sales of large sugary drinks while he was the mayor of NYC. Moreover his mission has not been limited to NYC and Santa Fe, as so far it has been reported that he spent $1.6M in Philadelphia and $18M in Oakland and San Francisco promoting “successful” soda tax initiatives. For whatever reason Mr. Bloomberg is on a crusade, trying to tax sugary drinks across the USA. If Liberalism is a religion, this soda tax is it’s new gospel, and this new gospel has already gathered additional converts in the liberal bastions of Berkeley, Ca., Boulder Co., and Cook County (Chicago), Il.

Back to Santa Fe . . . This tax would have put a 2 cents/ounce tax on sweetened beverages with the proceeds going to pre-schools. A six pack of Coke or Pepsi would have cost an additional $1.44 and this tax would have added $22 to a canister of lemonade mix!

Gloria Mendoza, a native of Santa Fe, told the city council that perhaps the elites should tax tofu instead of soda!

Laurie Martinez, a city resident said, “I just don’t believe that anybody has a right to tax what people consume.” She did not like the fact that by drinking sugary drinks she’d be paying for the schooling of other people’s children. “I have a 95 year old father and nobody helps me pay for his senior care.”

On May 2, 2017 with a record voter turnout in Santa Fe, this soda tax was thoroughly defeated with 58% voting , ‘No’!

Now to my central recurring question:                                                                                “Do liberal and most often Democratic policies hurt the poor the most?”         (To my prior readers note that this is a recurring theme . . . over and over! And to my new readers, pay attention as to how often this comes up in the future.)

Let’s address this recurrent question when discussing the soda tax.

In the Santa Fe issue, what is most interesting is that the middle/lower class neighborhoods (who stood to potentially benefit the most from the pre-school largesse) voted overwhelmingly against the measure. Why would they vote against this issue in significant numbers? Well to me the answer is intuitively obvious – they felt that for them the potential benefit was not worth it in terms of dollars and cents. If each ounce of a sugary drink is going to have increased cost, it is going to cost the poorer people more, relatively speaking, in terms of their income. They understand this – as being poor does not make one stupid!

In Philadelphia within 3 months of passing a soda tax of 1.5 cents per ounce, sales of Pepsi dropped 40%. (I think that I can hear the libs cheering and saying, “right on!”)

However what this led to was lay-offs of approximately 100 workers, and who do you think was more likely to get laid off?

You would be right if you answered the low /middle class workers.

It gets even more ridiculous in Seattle where liberal mayor, Ed Murray, decided to impose a 2cents/ounce soda tax . . . that is until his staff informed him that it was mostly poor kids who consumed sugary drinks! Oops!

So what does the liberal Democrat do then? . . . Keep in mind that there is no tax that a real Democrat doesn’t like. Mayor Murray then changed the tax to fall also on diet drinks, even though these drinks have no calories, and therefore do not contribute to obesity! Why on diet drinks, he was asked, “Because that is what privileged people drink.”                                                                 (It is well worth it to read that quote multiple times!)

But please note that what caused him to change the tax was the fact that this new tax was going to hurt the poor, the most!

So recognize that soda taxes are indeed regressive – i.e. they hurt the poor more, and so they actually fit very well with the real life consequences of liberalism.

And most of all, “Be careful as this new gospel will probably be coming soon to a liberal pulpit in your city or town!”

 

 

How do residents in San Ysidro feel about a border wall? The southern boundary of  San Ysidro, you see, is on the Mexican border. Let’s ask Lennox Lake and his father, both residents of San Ysidro what they think about this issue.

The father, Benjamin, cannot answer at this time as he is presently at his son’s side 24/7, and unfortunately Lennox cannot answer at this time as he is comatose in Rady’s Children’s Hospital after being injured in an auto accident in San Ysidro approximately 1 block from his home. This 6 year old sustained a depressed skull fracture, a fractured nose and a significant head laceration while sitting in his car seat on 1/6/17 at 11:30pm. The family was returning from Disneyland when their car was hit broadside by a Chevrolet Silverado “allegedly” driven by 38 year old Constantino Banda-Acosta, who was arrested shortly thereafter.

 

As tragic as any severe auto accident is, especially when a child is severely injured, what is so unique about this one? Well to start with Mr. Banda-Acosta is an illegal immigrant who was driving “under the influence” and left the scene of the accident after blowing through a stop sign. At this time Mr. Banda-Acosta is charged with felony DUI with bodily injury, felony Hit-and-Run with injury, as well as driving without a license.

It gets worse!

What “distinguishes” Mr. Banda-Acosta is that in 2006 he was arrested for a DUI, and since 2009, apparently he has had his license suspended three times.

Wait!!

Something is wrong with this picture.

If he is a illegal immigrant now, he certainly must have been illegal in 2006 and again in 2009. How did he get a driver’s license prior to 2006 or why in 2009 did he still have one? Sure in the state of California in 2017 an illegal immigrant can get driver’s license, but the granting of legal California drivers licenses (AB 60) to illegals did not start until 2015!

But remember this is California, so it gets much worse!!

Mr. Constantino Banda-Acosta has had 2 prior arrests for domestic violence (felonies, I believe) and was deported on Jan. 10, 2017. According to his estranged wife, he was back at her house in Chula Vista, which is adjacent to San Ysidro, on Jan. 20, 2017.

Again remember this is California, so it gets worse still!!!

Mr. Banda-Acosta has been deported on 14-15 prior occasions over the last 15 years. You have not misread this . . . He has been deported 14-15 times! Obviously he has gotten back into the U.S. each time. This time it took him a mere ten days or less to get back across the border into Southern California.

There are so many things wrong with this picture that it boggles the mind. However, what most stands out to me is the obvious gross inability of the United States to keep “bad people”, like Mr. Banda-Acosta out. There are many “progressives” as well as many liberal Democrats in this state’s legislature who are arguing vociferously against the building of a wall along the Mexican border. I wonder how many of them will be standing with Benjamin Lake next to his son’s hospital bed proudly proclaiming that building a wall is wrong?

I think . . . NONE!

I also have not heard Lorena Gonzalez, state Rep. for the 80th district that includes San Ysidro, either make any statement about this tragedy or express any condolences to the Lake family. Of course that is really not very surprising as she is about as pro-illegal immigration as one can get.
As an aside, prior to writing this, I reviewed many T.V. News transcripts as well as articles from many newspapers – the only one that referred to Mr. Banda-Acosta as an “illegal immigrant” was The Daily Mail – from England!

 

When I heard about Evan Low’s (D, Silicon Valley) bill in the California legislature to lower the voting age in California to 17, I wasn’t sure whether to laugh or cry.

Initially I laughed as this is such a blatant attempt to increase the Democratic voter base in California, that it was amusing. I figured that next, a Democratic add-on to this voting bill would include a tax free status to all seventeen year olds. [Recently a proposed tax free Democratic boondoggle for California teachers (really for the teacher’s unions) flopped when news came out that teachers were in fact not in short supply, as advertised, but rather were being laid off in California.] Of course for the seventeen year olds, offering them tax free status ( in exchange for them voting Democratic) would not be very persuasive as the vast vast majority do not pay any taxes.

However, on thinking further about this ludicrous proposal, I started to cry because some of the Democratic loonies in Sacramento are probably serious about this, and the first step in order to change the State constitution is a 2/3 vote in the Legislature, where the Democrats have a 2/3 majority. Possibly, a better approach to counteract this insanity, might be to add to it. Why not lower the voting age to 16. After all what’s the big difference between 17 and 16, and if these prospective Democrats are old enough to drive, why shouldn’t they be able to vote? An then why not 15, then 14, etc., as the 14 year olds probably know as much as the 17 year olds when it comes to evaluating the candidates – which in fact is not much! Unfortunately the Democratic Legislature might actually go along with this nonsense, as they are not well known for using anything above their shoulders except for their mouths.

Seriously, I get nauseated when I think that the vote of a new clueless snowflake could cancel out my vote. Perhaps we could have the potential 17 year old voter first pass a civics test in order to prove that he/she deserved to be able to vote, but we all know that the Democrats would consider any “means testing” prejudicial.

I guess that our only real hope to prevent this change in the California constitution is that the second part of the approval process is a vote by the people who have to have much more common sense than the Democratic Legislature.

On 4/18/17 the America Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) put out its 10th annual “Rich States, Poor States” study. Every year this study accesses and compares economic opportunity in all of the states. ALEC thought that there would be “a pro-growth trend across the nation in 2017″(? a post Trump election effect), but, as in all years, there was a bottom ten (#41 – #50).

All the states in the bottom ten were blue states that have either a Democratic legislature, a Democratic governor, or both. Those in nomination for the worst state in terms of economic opportunity included the  usual blue suspects . . . Illinois, Hawaii, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon.

“The envelope, please.”

And the Oscar (the worst state in terms of potential economic opportunity) goes to . . . New York – a blue state with both a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor.

However a very special mention has to go to blue California (again with both a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor) that managed to tumble 16 places from #31 in 2016 to # 47 in 2017. Some had thought that when it went from #44 (2015) to #31 (2016) that possibly economic opportunity was looking up in the Golden State, but alas California fell even further compared to its disastrous ranking in 2015.

I am sure that the Democrats that run California will either ignore this study, or say that that the Russians were somehow responsible!

 

In the last day or so I noticed a number of seemingly unrelated headlines – that in fact may be of consequence in the day-to-day lives of African Americans who are living in the poorer neighborhoods.
1. “New Solutions Demanded for San Diego Police Shortage”
2. “Race Was a Factor, Survivors Say”
3. “Two Chicago Policemen Ambushed on South Side”

First of all, the city of San Diego is experiencing a significant shortage of police despite a recent increase in compensation and a stepped up recruiting effort. Vacancies on the police force have increased from 170 (10/2016) to 207 (5/2017), while applications have decreased 36% over the last 2 years. This is all in addition to the fact that about 1/3 of those now on the force are eligible to retire in the next 5 years.

On 4/30/2016 a deranged gunman shot up a pool party at an apartment complex in a somewhat upscale San Diego neighborhood. The gunman was white and 6 of the 7 who were shot were Black or Hispanic. On the day after the shooting, Police Chief Shelly Zimmerman said that there was “zero evidence that the crime was racially motivated”. In addition SDPD Captain Ahern commented that the investigation is likely to take several weeks.
Of course it did not take long for a number of black community leaders, including Shane Harris, the president of the San Diego Action Network (a civil rights organization), to question how Chief Zimmerman could have said such a thing.
Why not compliment the San Diego Police for their rapid response that undoubtedly saved many more African-Americans from getting wounded and perhaps killed? Why not commend the officers who risked their lives while being shot at by the crazed gunman?
My initial response to the “it must be racial” crowd is “at this point what difference does it make!”
Even though this despicable senseless act is a tragedy, whether or not it was racially motivated becomes somewhat of a moot point as the distraught gunman, who acted alone, is dead (killed by the police). What is the point of coming out against Chief Zimmerman – almost accusing her of trying to cover up something – within 24 hours of the crime.
To me, the only reasonable reason why Mr. Harris would verbally attack Chief Zimmerman at this stage is to make himself look good! To Mr. Harris I ask, “do you think that your self-serving comments will improve the lives of African-Americans in the poorer crime ridden neighborhoods?”

Meanwhile two undercover Chicago policemen were ambushed while sitting in a car on the south side of Chicago – which for all intents and purposes is a solidly black area. Why were they there? They were there because this is the area of the city where most of the record number of Chicago murders are occurring. They were there basically to try to make this neighborhood a little safer for the African-Americans that unfortunately have to live there.

At this time the national trend appears to be similar to that in San Diego in that less young people are signing on to be policemen/women. This trend seems to be fueled by greater scrutiny of police work as well as negative media stories about the police.

Does Shane Harris realize is that the good people in the poor black communities need the police? They do not want decreased police response times which will inevitably occur if the police department is not fully staffed. They hope that there will always be enough police to continue proactive policing. If the police force cannot meet its staffing requirements, it is the poorer neighborhoods that will suffer the most.
In my opinion, comments coming from the likes of Shane Harris can potentially dissuade future law-enforcement recruits from signing on, and thus can only further decrease police presence in the poorer black neighborhoods.
I can forgive a “Clueless George” if he does not comprehend the long term consequences of what he is doing, but I suspect that Mr. Harris is fully aware of what he is doing.

Youth (16-24 years old) unemployment is a big problem in most of the world today, as it is in the US and also in the state of California. This is a societal problem for all of us as unemployed youth are more likely to get into trouble, more likely to get trapped in the in the vortex of accelerating drug abuse, and more likely to break the law and thus be incarcerated. However, it is also a tragedy for these young unemployed individuals, now being referred to as “the lost generation”, because once they fall on the wrong side of the employment curve (unemployed for up to years at a time), it can take 20 years for their earnings to catch up and thus affect their life-long earnings.

Obviously this is a multi-factorial problem with no simple solution. However when it comes to some obvious solutions, why are the Democrats seemingly trying to make it more difficult for these unfortunate individuals to get themselves off the mat and into the fight? One of the main Democratic missteps resulting in the aggravation and prolongation of this problem is their backing of a higher and increasing minimum wage. Nothing hurts these young potential job seekers more than a higher minimum wage.

Why would a business owner hire someone with no experience, while being forced to pay that individual as if he/she had some work experience?  A sandwich shop owner, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, when asked about youth unemployment, said, “often they lack the ‘fundamental stuff’ – arriving on time, ironing their shirts, communicating well, and taking direction” . . . “We are going to end up with a whole group of people in their 40’s and 50’s who can’t function.” Business owners cannot afford to teach these basics workplace skills at an increasing minimum wage.

As studies of this problem have shown, the poorer youths of this “lost generation” seem to be affected the most, so while the Democrats try to sell themselves as the protectors of the less fortunate, they are, in fact, harming the poorer less fortunate, the most!

Parenthetically, many, many years ago when I was in high school, I had a job every summer. During my first two ventures into the job market, I was paid less than $1.00 per hour! Now obviously my wages at that time cannot compare to wages today (inflation, etc.), but I was lucky to be able to “get into the market” and learn some work related skills, mainly because I was “cheap labor”. This was good for the employer and better for me.

Unfortunately the youth of today are not so lucky.

As I am writing this, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has just put forth President Trump’s first edition of his new tax plan. In response I have seen a snapshot of Chuck Schumer standing at a podium with his mouth open (as usual), and his arms outstretched like the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro, but I have not yet heard the caterwauling from the usual cast of Democratic characters. ( I now really like the word, “caterwauling” because I can now spell it and it oftentimes perfectly describes the Democratic whining.)

Here in California I think that I can predict the lyrics of the song that the California “Queens-ton Trio” (Pelosi, Feinstein, & Waters) will sing:

“This new plan will make the rich richer. ”

The middle class will be the losers.”

“This plan will make the poor poorer!”

However, when one looks at the itemized deductions that will disappear it seems pretty apparent that the higher earners will be the big losers. They obviously pay more state income tax because they earn more, and this deduction . . . abracadabra . . . gone. The more affluent also pay higher property taxes since they own more expensive houses. The previously deductible property tax deduction . . . abracadabra . . . gone.

The portion of middle class that does not itemize will benefit, because, in essence, if they do not itemize, it means that they do not have any significant deductions, and thus they have little in the way of deductions to lose. That portion of the middle class that itemizes could potentially be losers as they will lose their property tax deduction and their state income tax deduction. However in some instances this potential loss may be balanced out by the end of the alternate minimum tax.

On the other hand, the poor that pay taxes will be the most significant benefactors in this new plan. The standard deduction for families and for individuals will be doubled and this obviously benefits those who do not itemize and thus encompasses most of the poor.

Now here is the hooker for the Democrats. As only about 30% of households use itemized deductions, the present benefit from these deductions are concentrated in the high income-high taxed states. The states that will potentially be the biggest losers are those states with the highest state income taxes, such as New York, New Jersey, and of course California.

These are all Democratic states.

So the Democrats have a choice to make. Will they go along with a plan that will benefit the poor and middle class the most, or will they revert to partisan politics in order to benefit their “nanny states”?  If past actions are any indicator, I would bet that the Democrats will come out in force against this plan, as they always seem to choose the option that hurts the poor!

On 4/26/17 two stories appeared simultaneously on the newspaper’s front page.

The first story talked about Sergio Juarez, an unemployed 50 year old father of three who was now living with his family at a Motel 6, because both he and his wife had lost their jobs years before. On the night before taxes were due Mr. Juarez found a cashier’s check for $676 that Yesenia Ortiz-Del Valle had lost about an hour or so before, as she was scrambling to try to get her tax returns in on time. Mr. Juarez then went out after dark, found Mrs. Del Valle, and returned her lost cashier’s check to her. He then turned down her reward offer that he  could have used “to put gas in his car”.

“I don’t think that what I did was anything special. It was the right thing to do.”

Now contrast that to the other front page story about judge William Orrick of the U.S.District Court in San Francisco temporarily blocking President Trump’s effort to make San Francisco and Santa Clara County obey federal law. Yes, this is the same William Orrick who had been a bundler for Obama’s 2008 campaign to the tune of $200,000, and then also apparently personally contributed $30,000 to the Democratic Party.

After the 2008 election William Orrick was then subsequently appointed by President Obama to the District Court. Notice that I did not say, “quid-pro-quo” about William Orrick’s appointment to the District Court by President Obama after he had been an important financial player in Obama’s 2008 election. Notice also that I did not suggest a “quid-pro-quo” in his prejudicial decision against President Trump, a Republican, keeping in mind that Judge Orrick was appointed by a democratic president.

Notice, however, the contrast between the men in the two stories. In the first story about Mr. Juarez, it is apparent that we are dealing with an honest man. He did what he thought was the right thing to do, and would not accept a reward for his actions . . . in other words he refused any “quid-pro-quo”.

He said that what he did was not anything special . . . and to that I say, “compared to who?” His actions certainly seem special when compared to the actions of a certain judge on the District Court in San Francisco!

Who is the honorable man?

 

I am actually pretty surprised that it has been about 2 weeks since Rep. Adam Schiff (D, Ca.) has appeared before the cameras. For a while this member of Pelosi’s Posse had his mug on the news almost every night with his condescending comments about potential, but as of yet unproven, contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. Does the absence of his smug face on TV indicate that Trump is now passing the Schiff’s Sniff test?

When President Trump recently congratulated President Erdogan after the election in Turkey, I thought for sure that Schiff would be back on TV . . . caterwauling, as it is rumored that Rep. Schiff receives significant donations from the Armenian lobby, and we all know Armenia and Turkey are not exactly the best-of-buds. Complicating this situation, Armenia is the Russian proxy in the disagreement with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Perhaps there should be an investigation of the relationship between Schiff and Armenia and Russia to see if it passes the “Sniff test”! I doubt, however, that Schiff would ever recuse himself as this would damage his standing in the Posse!

His response to such an allegation might be, “What the schiff!”

BTW- As this blog also hopes to improve your general knowledge, I hope that    some of you will look up “Nagorno-Karabakh”!

In Dec.,2016, the liberal Washington Post had an editorial, “A Fight on His Hands” in which the author basically opined that that Trump and “the deniers” we’re basically imbeciles when it came to “the reality of human-induced climate change”. At the time this piece reminded me of an argument between two second graders that I recently had witnessed. Here, one of the 8 year-old’s position was basically, “Oh yeah, but you’re stupid!”

The fact of the matter is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to have an intelligent discussion on anything when one side consistently says, “Oh yeah, but you’re stupid!”, and, yes, this applies in spades with arguing “adults”.

I am just an ordinary guy and freely admit that I am not an authority on “global warming”. However, one of my friends who has researched this topic quite extensively feels that ‘man made global warming’ is . . . (because this is basically a family oriented venue) . . . malarkey. I have not studied this topic in any detail, although I became suspicious of some skullduggery when the ‘Oh Yeah, But You’re Stupid’ crowd found it necessary to change the name from “global warming” to “climate change”. Why does one change the name of his team unless something is basically wrong or offensive with the old name?

Imagine . . . We were ‘the Cubs’, but now in the 6th inning, we are changing our name to ‘the Swans’!

Anyway back in December, I e-mailed the author of the Washington Post editorial and I also submitted a letter-to-the-editor to our local liberal paper. My position basically was – if liberals are so sure that they are right, why not have a real debate on this issue.  The debate could be televised, and the phrase, “Oh yeah, but you’re stupid” would be outlawed! The ratings would be spectacular especially if this occurred in prime time, and once and for all, we ordinary folk could decide who and what to believe.

Of course my letter was not printed. The Washington Post writer never responded, but I imagine that he probably thought to himself, “Oh yeah, but he’s stupid”.

This topic recently resurfaced when the Wall Street Journal on April 21, 2017 published an editorial piece in which the author, Steven Koonin (a theoretical physicist)  wrote,”[t]he public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science.” He also suggested that we “put the consensus to a test, and improve public understanding through an open, adversarial process”. To me it certainly sounds like Steven Koonin, the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at NYU, is proposing a debate.

So far I haven’t heard the rebuttal from the left, “Oh yeah, but he’s stupid”! . . . perhaps because Steven Koonin served as undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama’s first term.