Declaring that "California's day of reckoning is here," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said today the state should turn its dire budget straits into an opportunity to make government more efficient.
Speaking to a relatively unusual joint session of the Legislature and other constitutional officers, Schwarzenegger acknowledged the billions of dollars in spending cuts he has proposed to close a $24.3 billion hole in the budget will be devastating to millions of Californians.
"People come up to me all the time, pleading 'governor, please don't cut my program,'" he said. "They tell me how the cuts will affect them and their loved ones. I see the pain in their eyes and hear the fear in their voice. It's an awful feeling. But we have no choice.
"Our wallet is empty. Our bank is closed. Our credit is dried up."
I would have thought that the "day of reckoning" was when Schwarzenegger defeated Gray Davis in a recall election during a fiscal crisis.
I keep waiting for one of these "socially moderate, fiscally conservative" Republicans to actually be "fiscally conservative."
One of the admittedly recurring themes around here is the need to protect political speech, and that includes anonymous political speech. In California, supporters of Proposition 8 overturning the State Supreme Court's overreach to impose gay marriage are experiencing harrassment and threats, and have gone to court to remove their donors' names from the public record.
"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site.
It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.
Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. The measure's opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."
Another donor reported a broken window, one said a flier calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.
Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.
Wisconsin Club for Growth tries to make sense of the Democrats' energy plan. It sounds like a lot of hot air.
Democrats Breaking Wind
Suppose, for a moment, that you are the only person in America that can understand the Democrats’ energy plan. Let’s say you can explain how we can be less dependent on foreign oil by continuing to ban drilling for our own domestic oil.
Let’s say you honestly believe the answer to our energy crisis is inflating our tires. Perhaps you can explain how making energy more expensive by banning coal and nuclear power plants in Wisconsin is going to help consumers and the economy.
This week, the Wall Street Journal pointed out another energy contradiction you can use to amuse thinking people by trying to explain it. A television ad supporting Barack Obama implies he’s going to lessen our independence on foreign oil by cheerleading for wind energy. Yet, whenever efforts to build more windmills are offered, it’s the environmentalists that block implementation.
Environmentalists, who say they want clean energy, oppose windmills for two main reasons. First, they don’t approve of the aesthetic degradation caused by the large windmill blades. In other words, they don’t want to look at them. Second, they oppose the means by which the electricity would actually be transmitted to consumers; namely, more power lines.
In California, hundreds turned out at the end of July to protest a connection between the solar and geothermal fields of the Imperial Valley to Los Angeles and Orange County. The environmental class is likewise lobbying state commissioners to kill a 150-mile link between San Diego and solar panels because it would entail a 20-mile jaunt through Anza-Borrego state park. "It's kind of schizophrenic behavior," Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently. "They say that we want renewable energy, but we don't want you to put it anywhere."
And thus, the incoherent Democratic energy policy moves on – caught hopelessly between promising energy independence and actually implementing it.
Newsom's exploratory bid is an effort to get ahead of what could become a crowded Democratic field in 2010. He can use the committee to solicit donations in $24,100 increments, building a war chest 23 months before the Democratic primary for governor.
His timing - opening an account on July 1 -- means he will not have to reveal how much money he has raised for more than six months, until early 2009.
Attorney General Jerry Brown has intimated that he, too, will jump into the race. He reported raising more than $200,000 in June in his reelection account. He recently renamed the account from "Jerry Brown for Attorney General" to "Jerry Brown 2010."
"I don't do too much these days except sue people," he said in a March speech at the state Democratic convention. "But someday maybe I'll get around to doing more than that, and hopefully you'll help."
Lt. Gov John Garamendi has all but said he is running and 2006 candidate and former state Controller Steve Westly and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell are expected to seriously consider the race.
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer is sitting on a $10 million campaign account, while Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is a widely discussed candidate, though he first must win reelection in 2009.
Maybe Newsom will explain his concept of the rule of law at the debates.
Okay… So apparently the biggest “fear” that was facing the state of Wisconsin prior to 2006 was the looming terror of being “forced” to accept two consenting adults of no direct family relation living together in a committed and legally binding relationship?
Wow.
Now granted, it has been a few years since I lived in Wisconsin, but I was born there, and I did grow up there. Strangely enough, I don’t recall people living in “fear” about that.
As to the claim that "activist judges" are rewriting our laws circumventing the democratic process, this is nonsense. Very easily packaged nonsense, sound byte-ready nonsense, but still nonsense.
If in 1860 you had put emancipation to a popular vote, it would have failed. If in 1960 you had but integration to a popular vote it would have failed. For that matter if in 1776, you had but independence to a popular vote it would have failed. The reason we have a judicial branch is balance of powers, remember that one from social studies?
Let me point out that I certainly did not indicate any priority list of fears, only that we have established that it was a fear with good reason that the courts could have compelled Wisconsin to recognize a definition of marriage it certainly did not prefer had it not passed an amendment to it's constitution.
Then my friend dismisses out of hand my concerns over activist judges by pointing to three particular instances of when government acted possibly contrary to the popular will. I would remind my friend that this precisely why we have a republican form of government, representational rather than direct democracy. After all it was representational government that acted on emancipation and independence rather than the courts.
If anything, instead of worrying about Wisconsin's worries, I suggest Dave concern himself with the balance of powers in his adopted state. Not only is it out of whack, but the surrender of republican government has been acquiesced in by those elected to defend it.
As for the rest, certainly irrelevent to the point I made, no?
So we have a state supreme court that issued a ruling that has no precedent and no basis in the law except the whim of four members of the court. It’s counter to the will of the public, and is likely to be overturned in due course. And in support of this temporary usurpation of power by judicial activism, the Republican governor.
Caught in the middle of this political game are the very people whose rights Justice George and Governor Schwarzenegger claim to be defending.
Fortunately in Wisconsin we avoided this chaos. In 2006, voters chose to amend the state constitution to declare marriage is for one man and one woman.
We were told at the time that this was unnecessary, that marriage is already one man and one woman under Wisconsin law. Of course, there were lawsuits already in the works to overturn that understanding of the law.
By amending the constitution, Wisconsin voters removed the possibility the courts would be equally activist here in expanding the definition of marriage. We do not have to fear that Wisconsin will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages by other states as well.
We begin this week's search for the Idiot Politician of the week with Mike Huckabee's attempt at off-the-cuff humor at the NRA convention:
Oh yes, assassination jokes are hilarious.
Meanwhile, Senator Barack Obama had his idiot moment this week when President Bush, speaking before the Israeli Knesset, criticized those who would appease terrorists. Senator Obama quickly stammered, "I will not!" reminding anyone and everyone that, yes, he will.
Onward and downward, the California State Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that because they like gay marriage California will have gay marriage even if the voters overwhelmingly enacted a law against it by referendum and even if nobody had magically found this right in the California previously. What a cruel trick the California court is playing on homosexuals as their ruling will hardly be the final word on the subject. Californians will likely amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, just like Wisconsin.
That underlines the problem of judicial activism. Quite often the judges hope to be the final word and end the democratic process. This November will State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George do his best Snidely Whiplash impression when he utters, "Curses, foiled again!"
Libertarian candidate for president Bob Barr fell from the idiot tree and hit every branch on the way down when he endorsed the California State Supreme Court decision. Hey Bob, wait until some state is forced to recognize California's temporary gay marriages. Then you get to explain how the judiciary of one state can create laws that are contrary to the legislative process and the will of the public in one state and then be binding in another state overruling it's legislative process and the will of it's people. Where's that libertarian commitment to federalism, separation of powers and republican principles?
Did you know California has a Republican governor? Some actor. After vetoing two bills to legalize gay marriage, Governor Schwarzenegger now supports the court ruling. Let me get this straight (no pun intended), he's opposed to the legislature passing a law legalizing gay marriage but he supports the courts overstepping their authority? And while he's "personally opposed" to gay marriage, he'll actually fight the movement to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.
"The state has every right to hold school employees accountable for their political standing, especially if that employee belongs to an organisation that favours the violent overthrow of the government," Denham said during the debate on the bill.
Denham said that it's also "reasonable that use of public school property should be limited to groups who support our democracy and do not advocate the overthrow of government by force, violence or other possible means."
ELAINE: So how was work? Another day, another dollar? NED: I guess. ELAINE: Oh well nothing wrong with that. Gotta make those big bucks. . . . money money money money money money money . . . ha ha ha ha ah . . . are you a communist? NED: Yes, as a matter of fact I am. ELAINE: OH, AH! OH! WOW! WHOA! A COMMIE! Wow, gee, man it must be a bummer for you guys what with the fall of the soviet empire and everything . NED: Yeah, well, we still got China, and Cuba, ELAINE: Yeah, but come on . . . NED: I know it's not the same. ELAINE: Well, you had a good run, what was it 75, 80 years? Wreaking havoc, making everybody nervous. NED: Yeah, we had a good run. ELAINE: Well, so enjoy yourself. (clink glasses) ha ha uh ha
Besides, I really doubt too many of them are trying to overthrow the system that gives them tenure, health benefits, and state government pensions.
We can't let this week go without mentioning the idiocy of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne who put the polar bear on the endangered species list. As Henry Payne at National Review Online points out, Kempthorne is just flat out wrong when he says this will not be an excuse to use the Endangered Species Act to set US climate policy. If global warming is supposedly endangering the polar bear (even if it's current numbers are at a record high) then the action plan needed to save the polar bear will necessitate setting US climate policy accordingly. Kempthorne's brain must be frozen.
Proving all politics are loco, two politicians had a moment of no common sense editing between initial thought and uttering speech. Waukesha School Board members Frank Finman and Kurt O'Bryan were singled out by the Waukesha Freeman for being, well, idiots.
Here’s what Finman said:
“I look at my two children in the school district, I see my 11th-grader, who I think is going to escape out the door before the roof caves in. And I look at my eighth-grader and the education she’s getting, and compare that to the education her older sister’s getting, and they aren’t even comparable.”
Escape before the roof caves in? We’re picturing a scene from the new Indiana Jones movie. Finman might be trying to make a legitimate point, but it just isn’t constructive for a school board member to characterize his own school district that way.
O’Bryan went even further:
“If we all agree that our backs are against the wall, then I think we should pursue (a referendum). The scenario you have to give them is that it’s either this or it’s this. One option is the referendum and the other is to shut this district down, which this board has the power to do.”
That, of course, is absurd. No one is shutting down the school district.
We realize these board members were trying to make a point that the district is in dire financial shape. In fact, it’s safe to say O’Bryan, Finman and the rest of the school board care very deeply about the district. These comments are likely meant to create a sense of urgency – perhaps panic – and motivate the community to action.
Whatever the motive, these school board members crossed the line by unfairly trashing the district they are supposed to serve. Citizens deserve better than these juvenile scare tactics from their elected representatives on the board. These board members are only going to turn people off with comments like these and hurt the cause they are championing.
Former Gov. Tony Earl says he did nothing wrong in helping an acquaintance land a top legal job at the Department of Workforce Development.
Earl says he didn't know the hiring scandal had cost taxpayers $346,000 in legal settlements with candidates passed over for the job as the state's top unemployment insurance lawyer.
Earl says he has known Daniel LaRocque "since he was a youngster" and was friends with his father and uncle.
Earl says he called his former policy director, Hal Bergan, to put in a good word for LaRocque. Bergan was the Workforce Development official in charge of the hiring.
A hearing examiner who reviewed the case said Bergan broke department rules in hiring LaRocque, who got the job based on political connections.
Yo, Bergan, when the former governor calls next time, do yourself a favor and have to go to the bathroom or something. That reach out and touch someone cost the taxpayers a big chunk of change, you idiot. You just made the Idiot Politician of the Week. Say, "Gee, thanks Tony."
