What's wrong with California?

Mostly, not much. It's got wonderful people; is large enough that those who want to get away, can. The majority are tolerant enough that really crazy people can stay, and the really conservative types aren't chased out.

But it's got problems. Big problems. Money problems. Most of them stem from one cause, and the ways in which a couple of sets of politically motivated people have managed to exploit them.

The prime cause of our woes isn't a lack of money in the state, but rather a lack of money in the government. We have about 10 percent of the US population, and produce about 13 percent of the US GDP.

The problem goes back to 1978, and Prop. 13. Prop. 13 was a reaction to a couple of problems. There was a big increase in the value of housing prices. The county assessors would reassess properties every couple of years and the tax would jump (when a house goes from 12,000 to 40,000, the tax bite is pretty dramatic). The worst part was the reassessments weren't on a schedule. The increase was usually a surprise.

So Prop. 13 capped the amount which a property could be assessed (one percent of total value), and limited the increases when the property was reassesed. Reassessement could only be done when the property sold, or when certain types of remodelling was done.

That's not the most pernicious aspect of Prop. 13. That's later in the bill.

Section 3. From and after the effective date of this article, any
changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues
collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in
methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less
than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of
the Legislature

The same is true of referenda.

Which makes it hard to get new taxes passed. Historically California has met special needs by passing limited sales tax increases. They are usually well built; with a sunset clause, a sort of bridge fund, while other things level out. In the early '80s the LA Rapid Transit District was raising prices like mad. In two years the fare went from 50 cents (and a dime transfer) to a $1.25, with a quarter transfer. The transfers went from being good for a couple of hours (in effect $.60 was one way to your destination), to being good once, with an extra $.25 letting you use it once more. If you need four busses, it was going to cost $3.00 to go one way.

So we passed a .05 percent increase to our sales tax (in the areas served by the RTD), and fares went back to the previous level. That lasted for five years, and the fare (when the tax went away) rose to $.85/.25. Today it's $1.25.

But with a 2/3rds requirement, it's almost impossible to get such things passed. It takes something as dramatic as the RTD problem to get one, at a local level, and something just this side of the end of the world to get it at the state level. The politcians are afraid of losing their seats, and the folks in the parts not so affected don't see the point.

But bonds... bonds only require a simple majority to pass. They are touted as not costing the taxpayer anything ("no increase in taxes"). But that's only half true. Yes, there is no increase in taxes. That doesn't mean the taxpayer pays nothing. It means the money comes out of the general fund.

And come out of the general fund it does, because the cost of a bond is usually twice what the bond generates. That's before the loss in tax revenue is factored in. State and municipal bonds are tax free, which means it's has a secondary loss to state revenue.

The worst part, of course, is all that money is removed from the general fund; it can't be used for other things. Since taxes can't, effectively, be raised to cover those things which they othewise might. Which leads to someone getting the idea to use a bond issue to cover it, and the postive feedback loop builds.

The easist fix would be to change the way in which those two things are done. Most bonds pass with between 51-54 percent of the vote. Most taxes fail with between 56-60 percent of the vote.

If we could make it 55 percent for both, the tide would shift, which would solve a lot of our problems, becuase, when all is said and done, tax and spend makes a lot more sense than borrow and spend.

I don't know if it's the crazy, or the stupid

Which bothers me.

This guy has two posts, (the second one was started after 10 updates to the first), about Obama's choice in mustard. (give the guy his due... he does allow comments, which isn't as common on the right wing side as I wish; though he does say the Left-wing [nutroots] blogs censor theirs; which has not been my experience)

WTF? I mean, people like what they like. The idea that somehow one has to like (or pretend to like) "just plain Joe" stuff to be a good politician is one of the damnfool things we have in the US. It's pernicious, and wrong. Me, I like dijon. I like german style mustards. I've been known to eat pirogs with chinese mustard (use in moderation, have beer handy). "Chacun a son gôuts" I always say. If you like something I don't, I don't care. Heck, I'll still cook it, and serve it.

So this whole, "He ordered poufy mustard," mustard thing confuses me. Bush liked to drink near-beer. All in all I think that shows a greater lack of taste/smarts than it would have for Obama to ask for a bit of mâche and arugula on his burger.

We are supposed to be a nation of rugged individuals, but a lot of people seem to want our leaders to be conformists. Burgers with "yellow death", and hot dogs with ketchup.

Ok, now for the kicker, why I'm pointing the laughing finger at this guy. He's a professor of law, at Cornell (Which US News/World Reports ranks as the No. 13 Law School in the nation). That's right, he's got nothing better to do with his time than obsess about what kind of mustard the President likes. Ten updates, each a bit zanier than the last (in one he implies Obama's preference is a bit OCD).

He says he went on about it because folks like me (who found out about it this morning, going to and fro in the Internets) are all up in arms about it. Right. I've looked at the rest of his site (so you don't have to), and I don't buy it.

The nutroots and mainstream media understand that Obama and the corresponding Democratic majorities in Congress were elected through a unique confluence of circumstances which may never be repeated. The historic election of the first black president; an unquestioning mainstream media which embarrassed itself with its biased coverage; an economic credit crunch just weeks before the election; a Bush administration which lost its will to fight for its policies soon after the 2004 election; a Republican candidate who refused to attack Obama's relationships with seedy characters even though Democrats showed no such restraint as to the Republicans; and a generalized discontent with the existing Republican power structure.

There is a lingering question, however, as to just who Barack Obama is, and whether we elected a blank slate who makes it up as he goes. This point is made not just by conservatives (who made this argument prior to the election), but also by Democrats and left-wing activists who openly wonder whether Obama's election promises on terrorist detention, gay rights, and a host of other issues were "just words." The nutroots doesn't know who Barack Obama is anymore than I do, and anything which fills in the void in a negative way is viewed as a threat.

This void in Obama's story leaves the Democratic hold on power vulnerable. One disastrous photo-op, open mike, or tape recorder left running, could puncture the Democratic bubble.

Riggggght!

That's why "The Left" has been ignoring the way Obama's advisors on the banking mess are all from the banking houses. It's why we haven't said anything about the way the Obama White House has continued with the Bush White House's abuse of the State Secrets Privilege. It's why we think torture is ok now that Our Guy ^TM is in power.

Oh.. wait, we haven't? Whoa!

Perhaps the real problem is the wingnuts (and this guy counts... if you don't believe me, look at his links) don't believe they really lost. It was a cock-up. The Republicans ran "too far to the left" or something, and so they lost (which seems bass-ackward to me. If the country is so republican, how is it that running to the middle [which I haven't seen, but hey I'm just a member of the Deluded Left). It's not that they were in charge, and screwed the pooch, got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and generally failed to deliver on their promises.

No, it's that, "outside forces" (what caused that credit crunch? Why is it the Dems, not the Republicans, had that historic first black candidate (I mean what, Powell, Rice, Steele, all the blacks who are players in the Republican party weren't interested in the job, or something?)

No, the real problem is that people like William Jacobson think their party is entitled to power (the Permanant Republican Majority) and will grasp at any straw to try and make it seem the present holder of the Office is somehow a fake. They lost on the issues, so they have no issues to attack.

They are stuck with what kind of mustard he likes, and they don't like the one the president prefers, probably because it's not made by French's, but by Kraft

Robert B. Parker has a Blog

I like his work. I have some minor annoyances with the way the subplots in the individual books mirror the arc of continuing story, but hey, that's something which is a painful aspect of dramatic fiction in the modern age (The Closer is awful for this; then again, I dislike aspects of it on a professional level. Her interrogation strategy bothers me. Cops' interrogation strategies bother me, and hers are cop strategies on steroids, but I digress).

His books are hard-boiled detective stories, in the mold of wisecracking; but intelligent (one can also say sensitive). Spenser ("like the poet") cooks, reads, is a baseball fan (and basketball, but he has his priorities, in the season, Baseball takes precedence), enjoys poetry and is tolerant (which doesn't mean he isn't jugemental; there's a difference).

His blog is much the same. Erratic, but readable (add a dose of working writer stuff. Not so process oriented as matociquala, but some interesting insight to the life).

Robert B. Parker

Pictures

New locale, new subjects.


Wings


Contrary to my work of the past month or so, this was shot with a long lens (300mm). I really like the way the colors work in this. The mood is somewhat like a watercolor, with washes of color. The shutter was at 1/180, which is at the feathered end of stable for that lens, and the breeze was blowing, but the backscatter of the light gave some good silhouette.


Inverted Dogwood


It's in negative, just because.

The dogwoods are still in bloom. They are pretty enough, but I don't have the sort of eye get a decent photo in a larger scale. Perhaps if they weren't all in front of houses, but I don't know. My present skill set isn't what it might be for full-sized shots of trees. They are very different up-close. The flowers sit above the leaves, which is what makes them as pretty as they are; the branches look as though the flowers are resting on platters.

Up close it seems they are a sort of large carpeted plant, as if they were a flowering ivy. [positive version]


Horsepower


Something from further back. For visual appeal the classic Mustang has got to have some of the strongest sense of power going. Really clean lines and great proportions. This one is in the "bloodied, but unbowed" state of repair. Living, as I do, in California rusted out; with evidence of dry-rot, isn't the usual sort of disrepair I see.