While California Slept

Tomas B. Phillips

[tbphillips]

In case the rest of the nation hasn’t noticed it, we here in California have a few financial problems. I know, it’s shocking, but apparently we managed to elect a whole bunch of Democrats in this state. This lead to a slight problem in that, we effectively became a one-party state. Which means that Democrats had control of everything as far as we could see. It was neo-Marxist heaven. We would get everything we wanted and the “government” would pay for it. Of course, we were smart enough to keep a few Republicans around so that if the Democrats screwed things up too badly, we still would have someone to blame. Just in case George Bush and Halliburton were not available.

So we embarked on an long and arduous quest to see if we could take a state with the 7th largest economy in the world and convert it into the type of economy that makes Bangladeshis look at us and go: Ha! Yes, it was difficult going. At times it seemed as if we might run into a few roadblocks along the way like noticeable job-growth and actual spending cuts. But the Democrats stayed the course being the fine principled people that they are.

One of our proudest achievements was “energy deregulation.” Sorta. The government would no longer “control” energy. Instead, the state would just demand that the “private” energy producers purchase energy form certain people at a certain rate under terms mandated by the state and then sell that energy to the California consumers at a rate also mandated by the state (whew!). As Saddam Hussein said when asked why he invaded Kuwait, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” (but in French)

Ok, so it was not, in the strictest meaning of the term, “deregulation” but as Joseph Geobbels (member of a certain German outfit very popular in the 1930’s) proved long ago, if we get enough people to call it “deregulation” often enough, it will magically become, “deregulation.” Imagine that!! Using this very same method, I regularly refer to my 1973 Ford Pinto as a Rolls Royce.

Once the Democrats realized that the plan was in jeopardy they immediately blamed the George Bush and Halliburton and followed this up with plans to turn off all of the power at regular intervals just in case we less-than-gullible citizens started trying to find the truth by watching television, listening to radios or using computers. Clearly they didn’t think this through. So word got back to us voters and we immediately blamed those damned immigrants.

This problem also shed a little light on the fact that we were $12 billion….no 20 billion…no actually more like $34 billion in debt. We were in deep doo-doo (Spanish translation: Ai caramba!!). We demanded a solution. One, of course, that would not cost us any money.

So the Democrats got to work on a plan to get the State out of debt. They came up with a three-pronged approach:

1) Spend more money

3) Increase the number of government programs and hire more government employees

3) Drastically increase the amount of money spent on government programs and government employees.

To everyone’s surprise this plan failed to result in any discernable decrease in the state’s debt. So they simply decided to raise ta….uh, fees.

You see, one day a long time ago, in a land called Oz (which is where all Democrat policies originate as it turns out) one young industrious tyke came up with an idea. The California Constitution states that you need a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes. This meant that the Republicans, whom we kept around for blame purposes only, could actually stop a tax increase, and those unreasonable buggers kept doing so. This made it nearly impossible to tax our way out of debt. The Democrats only wanted to tax the rich. We were all in favour of that.

So this young man, armed with a dictionary, suggested that they should just call any new “tax” a “fee.” After all, it says you need a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. It says nothing about fees. Why, they could “fee” the people any time they wanted. So they told the Republicans to go “fee” themselves. No matter how you cut it, a fee is definitely not a tax. Why didn’t they think of this before? It’s as if they never heard of Joseph Goebbels (See above). Needless to say this individual is now in the Socialist Relocation Programme located somewhere deep inside of the non-partisan Brookings Institute.

But in true Democrat fashion they went a bit too far with this idea when they decided to raise the Vehicle Ta…uh, Vehicle Registration Fee. So the fine California citizens, who were in favour of the tax on the rich, marched to Sacramento in the spirit of Martin Luther, and nailed a letter of protest to the door of the state capital building that said, “HELL NO!!!” (Spanish translation: HELL NO!!). This was the beginning of the Protestant Party. But the Democrats were firmly in power at this point so they told the Protestant Party to “fee” off (sorry, couldn’t resist). We were left with no alternative but to blame George Bush and Halliburton. Bush was kind of a stretch but we knew Halliburton had something to do with it.

Actually, we decided we wanted a do-over (election wise) and we got it. In an historic move we invited Gray Davis to leave and replaced him with a Republican whose primary goal was to reverse this “fee” thingy on our cars. We didn’t care about much else at the time.

As a result Democrats have proposed Proposition 56 that has only one purpose. Prop 56 will reduce the threshold for tax increases from 2/3 to 55%. Never again will they allow those nasty Republicans to get away with forcing them to be fiscally responsible.

Now if they can only figure out how to sucker the voters into passing it.

[lilylangtree]

Something to make you smile! :)

It is time to take a serious look at our involvement there.

Every day there are news reports about more deaths. Every night on the TV are photos of death and destruction. Why are we still there?

The land is too large to secure all of it. The bad people causing this damage can roam anywhere, and we can't possibly police the whole place. Why are we still there?

We occupy this land, which we had to take by force, but it causes us nothing but trouble. Why are we still there?

Their government is unstable, and in the process of changing. Why are we still there?

Refugees are fleeing by the thousands, driven from their homes. Why are we still there?

It will cost billions to rebuild, which we can't afford. Why are we still there?

We can't even secure the borders. Why are we still there?

And to repeat. Every day we hear of more Americans killed in this dangerous land.



It is clear! We MUST abandon California!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent!

The Demonic Rats want Prop 56!!!

[So Cal Rocket]

The Demonic Rats want Prop 56!!!

Yes they do... and they were very smart to put Prop 56 on the ballot in March - where the lack of a contested Republican Presidential Primary will keep the Republicans home in droves. We need a VERY strong GOTV effort on March 2nd!

[patton]

LOL

[alloysteel]

Things are clearly out of control in California.

I blame it on withdrawing our military bases there. Once the US ended occupation, California was overrun by alien forces, and taken captive. Under the control of a regime with a foreign ideology, and the establishment of law by lottery, it became impossible to determine whether a person was breaking the law or not. Enforcement of the law has become totally capricious, on the whim of the local commissars, who have chosen a select few to prosecute.

AS a most recent example, I point to the patent illegality of the City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, defying the authority of the state to regulate who may marry. So far as is now known, California state code does not permit plural marriages, marriages between persons of close consanguinity, marriage with inanimate objects, marriage between humans and other species, or marriages between adults and children below the age of consent. The clause very specifically states that marriage shall be between a man and a woman. The law is plain, the enforcement apparently is a little fuzzy.

[onyx]

NO on 56 *ping*

[jcb8199]

Wait, the state in which Democrats got their way, all the time, is in bad shape? Huh? I mean, I guess I can see that--it must be GW's fault, after all...

[GSWarrior]

When I explain to liberal folk here in SF how the Democrats have messed things up in California the usual reply is "It's not our fault. Bush is ignoring us because the state voted for Gore."

With logic like that it's almost pointless to address these people.

[hotpotato]

Yes they do... and they were very smart to put Prop 56 on the ballot in March

And promote it with one of the most misleading and outright deceptive ads I've seen completely ignoring its main purpose... to provide the democrats the opportunity to easily raise taxes at will. Polls show the public is confused and right now are in favor of supporting it because they believe Prop 56's only purpose is to force the legistors to balance the state budget... exactly what the ad hopes to convey by redirecting attention from its true purpose.

VOTE NO ON 56

Click on image for more info

[hotpotato]

legistors -> legislators

This prop and its ads make me so angry, I type too fast. :-/

[fuzlim]

"Ok, so it was not, in the strictest meaning of the term, “deregulation” but as Joseph Geobbels (member of a certain German outfit very popular in the 1930’s) proved long ago, if we get enough people to call it “deregulation” often enough, it will magically become, “deregulation.” Imagine that!! Using this very same method, I regularly refer to my 1973 Ford Pinto as a Rolls Royce." - end of your quote



Here is an excerpt from a report on California power deregulation. Check it out for yourself.

California Farm Bureau Federation - March 19, 1996
Power users to Congress: Don't interfere
By Ray Sotero, Managing Editor

Congress must allow California power users to utilize the electrical-restructuring plan approved by the Legislature last year, a coalition of groups, including California Farm Bureau Federation, testified in Washington, D.C. last week.

Speaking in support of Assembly Bill 1890, sponsored by state Sen. Jim Brulte, R-Rancho Cucamonga, the group said the measure created a competitive electricity market.

The restructuring plan promises cash savings to many rural ratepayers, including farming operations. It allows consumers to choose their electric supplier beginning on Jan. 1, 1998.

Enjoying bipartisan support, the measure was unanimously passed by state lawmakers and signed into law last September by Gov. Pete Wilson. - (end of excerpt)

Apparently Goebbels was bi-partisan.

[tbphillips]

Thanks for your reply.

Abraham Lincoln once asked, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg." Answer: "Four. It doesnt matter what you call it the tail is not a leg."

The so-called deregulation plan was an attempt to deregulate part of the market (supply) while still controlling the other (demand). It does not matter how beautifully Republicans or Democrats (neigther of whom seem to have studied economics) phrase it. It was not deregulation.

Now stick to the point.

[fuzlim]

It's sort of hard to see how a fully deregulated market would have operated any differently.

The problem, which was not unique to California, was caused by two events.

1. Much generation capacity fueled by natural gas.

2. A very small group of suppliers with a choke-hold on natural gas contracts. The major one of course was Enron.

Alberta, Canada, which is major supplier of natural gas to the US also went through extreme rises in electrical rates for the same reason. Natural gas prices soared. For a while their rates were even higher than California's. Alberta too had "deregulated" the market.

British Columbia, Alberta's neighbor, has a fully regulated market, and maintained low prices throughout the crisis with no shortage of supply. British Columbia generates most of it's power by hydro (in fact the government owned electrical company is called BC Hydro)

For the deregulated market to supply cheap electricity it must find a way to generate it using something other than natural gas.

The natural gas problem will only get worse as North American gas supplies continue to dwindle (production is down now for the 3rd or 4th year in a row).

Already companies which are heavy natural gas users (fertilizers, plastics, chemicals) are moving from the US because of supply and price problems.

If Alberta decided tomorrow to cut off natural gas supplies to the US, the country would be thrown into an energy crisis that would make California look mild.

This probably means nuclear generation, but that is also extremely expensive, outside of any safety issues.

Long term answer - regulated or 100% deregulated - use less electricity. The cheapest electricity is the electricity you don't use.

[South40]

This man wants you to vote YES on 56.

Any questions?

[South40]

legislators = leftistlators

[Vision Thing]

Ok, so it was not, in the strictest meaning of the term, “deregulation” but as Joseph Geobbels (member of a certain German outfit very popular in the 1930’s) proved long ago, if we get enough people to call it “deregulation” often enough, it will magically become, “deregulation.”

Imagine that. Deregulation in a democrat state. The two do not work well together. That is the problem.