It was reported in the mainstream media that a solution to the California budgetary crisis is expected by Sunday.  Apparently, there has been some concern in the Golden State due to the fact that it has been reported that some of the banks are refusing the IOUs which have been issued in order to fund governmental contractors which have not been paid due to this crisis.

And it is clear this is no more than a P.T. Barnum spectacle in order to gain more and more leverage with the California residents in the mess that has occurred due to that states progressive liberalism over the years.

Since California most of all, due to the continuing war in the Middle East, should be in the black and not the red at all if they were utilizing those public sums primarily for the state government's true Constitutional functions, rather than also funding special interests primarily with grant monies and no-bid contracts as occurs throughout the nation now in the corruption in state and municipal governments.

After all, Silicon Valley is the largest producer of all the now high tech security devices that are being installed throughout the nation, and one of the largest holder of federal contracts for technology needs in this continuing war, and are huge mega holders of U.S. government contracts.

And I wonder if this is actually the case, why the Hollywood elite have not thought of having their own benefit for the State of California instead of the next AIDS or PETA benefit.

Most of them due to their wealth and global holdings could float the state for a number of years if they were taxed at the rate the middle class actually is, or even the lower income workers - rather than having access to their offshore accounts, and tax attorneys who work the "privileges and immunities" on capital gains so well for all of them for their shell corporations, and trust accounts.  Rather than being taxed on the truth "worth" of their holdings or "property."

And California is primarily a liberal Democratic state or "blue" state, yet many of whose individuals are the direct beneficiaries of the claimed Republican favoritism for the wealthy on those capital gains benies.  Go figure.

In fact, while many of the people throughout the country are now facing homelessness and joblessness in increasing numbers, I read an article this week that David Arquette is planning on holding a sit in for the global Food for the Hungry in New York shortly in order to raise a few million in order to feed those living in third world countries.

I wonder if he has visited his local Los Angeles soup kitchen lately, since the class of individuals now is including the former middle class in increasing numbers.

Or why he didn't simply write a check from his own excess wealth instead of using it for a PR stunt and in order to "socialize" the donations for a cause in which he individually supports and believes?  He could donate his own wealth and it would take care of quite a number, I would suspect.  Or maybe the sums he pays to his tax accountant.

It was also interesting to note that California is not a right to work state, so many of the California public employees are outraged since they now feel they are being victimized by this also "budget crisis."  Since they are state employees and public servants, I wonder where in the California or U.S. Constitution it gives public employees the right to "unionize" in order to gain more taxpayer sums for themselves?  The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is also playing politics with the issue (and just what other citizens in other countries does this U.S. "corporate" union claim it represents?)

Municipalities are nothing more than "state actors" for the states themselves, so this is truly confusing that state employees would be allowed to unionize to get more of the taxpayer bite to begin with.

Although the CPI and statistical data published by the U.S. Department of Labor is a joke in and of itself (artificially concocted due to the fact that most union contracts and salary increases are tied in directly to the CPI, so there is some also "creative accounting" on those figures that bear no actual relevance to the true increases in costs for many products and services), teacher's salaries have gone up at three and four times the rates of inflation, as have several other of the public service occupations.

And with California also primarily one in which there is an additional layer of government in most newer suburban  areas in the form of homeowners associations collecting taxes for former municipal services such as street repairs, street lighting and such, just wonder where all that revenue that the state has collected truly has gone?  Since they are collecting more revenue, but providing less each and every year and transferring those costs back onto the public in those "socialized" land ownership communities.

If they are under "balanced budgets" initiatives, just how are they also then entering into multi-year contracts then with developers and other government contractors to begin with?  How is that "legally" possible?

Sounds more like the classic case of fiscal mismanagement and misappropriation of funds is the true root of California's claimed budgetary woes.  And maybe a few too many of those Sacramento pow-wows and state benefits given to the likes of the Donald Trumps & Co. at the state resident's expense for the global tourism industry and U.S. Chambers agendas in turning the U.S. into nothing more than a tourist attraction and investment opportunity for foreigners. 

All at the cost of their fellow countrymen and their jobs and other "property" for their global monopolies and fellow "corporate" brothers and subsidiaries benefit at the ultimate price of the small businessesmen and any and all emerging American entrepreneurs due to their strangleholds now on a great many of the U.S. market due to favoritism and their "greased palms" political connections.

The delusion goes on.  And nowhere more than the home of the "OC," "Desperate Housewives," and "Californication."

That state is a world unto itself, whose delusion and fantasy extend far beyond Disneyland.

Recently on one of the major networks it was reported that the State of California is facing a massive budget deficit, with the citizens of California screaming.

It appears Governor Schwartzenegger's solution to the catastrophy, one which again has a great deal to do with the past and current administration's governmental excesses from all reports, is now to request that the citizens of the United States bail out California much like the AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts (and it appears, the Big Three auto manufacturers).

California, the home of such programs as "Californication," "Beverly Hills 90210," "The OC" and the like, is hardly an innocent victim in their predicament, but a state who has built it's own reputation on fantasy and excess.

Apparently, it is those hard working Midwesterners and farmers that those in the Golden State now wish to come to their rescue, in addition to the out of work steel and auto workers, and those now homeless due to many of the practices of a number of banks who make their home also in the Golden State.

My former home state, Arizona, is now full of the refugees from California who essentially have destroyed that state with their excesses, and are working on destroying my former home in leaps and bounds with their liberal agendas.

Governor Schwartenegger, here are some suggestions for restoring economic viability in California:

1. Reduce all governmental salaries by at least 25%, in recognition that you, and all public employees of that state, also have blue ribbon health, dental, and pension plans that a good 2/3's of the private sector employees in California do not have (with the exception of Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and Nobb Hill).

Place freezes on additonal new hires until the size of government in the state can actually bear relevance to need, i.e., since the cities and local governments are state actors of the State of California, both legally and by judicial interpretation, just maybe your bicameral legislature could be parred down to a unicameral one such as Nebraska has, which is actually more in accordance with the federal Constitution, since there are only three "legal" entities within it - the federal government, the states, and the people.

And Senators rarely represent the municipalites solely in state government, but usually also large corporate interests just as the House members now do although elected through supposedly "democratic" local elections. Although those candidates merely are representatives of political party and corporate interests, by and large, and many of which funded by out of district slush money.

The U.S. Senators were actually provided to represent "the states" with the U.S. House then representing the people. The 17th Amendment somehow changled all that and is why we now have Senators courted by foreign governments and corporate lobbyists, since if elected by the state legislatures as originally provided, they were accountable to the states themselves.

>Such a change in California government would result in shorter legislative sessions, less bureaucracy, and less costs to the taxpayers with greater accessibility, and would also be a great idea for the other 48 states which have yet to recognize this "double whammy, double bureaucracy" excess. What a concept!

2. Institute gaming and gambling just like the State of Arizona and so many other states across the nation have rather recently done, and then in conjunction with the new social drinking taxes, have officers wait outside the casinos to pick up the low level DUIs after the casinos have plied them with alcohol. Either they lose the money in the casinos to the state, or just in the event they win or truly do not excessively imbibe, they lose it in the DUI fines and fees after leaving.

Then put them in the privatized county court system, so that the state, counties and cities can at least get their share of the federal pork pie for those expenses and incarcerations by the head factored according to arrests and convictions made by juries now which are becoming increasing comprised of many state or municipal employees to insure those conviction rates stay high and those dollars continue to flow in, or been removed entirely so that the city or county judge can act as the state revenue agent instead.

Oh, and also install statewide those speeding cameras so that you can gain another several billions on those progressive fines and fees for speeding violations based upon those fallible machines. That should bring in billions!!!

Alas, though I see that the State Supreme Court is going to "review" the legality this week of Proposition 8, which passed recently under a citizen's initiative restricting marriages to two sex couples.

Overturn that "people determined" decision due to budgetary needs, and of course you can look forward to all those licenses fees, and the "for profit" court costs and fees for all those divorces sometime in the future. Not to mention all those added taxes that will be necessary in order to provide those courts for at least some of those divorces if only 1/3 of them end up in the courts eventually.

And also those future campaign contributions from the California Bar Association Domestic Relations Division due to the gold mine such an action would engender for their corporate interests in state permission and licensures of personal relationships, rather than simple recordations of these oral or written personal contracts.

Nor does this take into consideration the effect and costs of those wildfires of yours due to the aging 60's hippie environmentalists and their offspring, nor the "global warming" scam supported by Hollywood in order to now tax the air we breathe.

I don't think Californians should be screaming, but the rest of the nation.

Barack Obama has asked the U.S. Congress to provide for an additional $83 billion dollars in order to support the war and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was report today in several news sources.

It appears Mr. Obama was not the anti-war candidate after all, and is simply continuing the Bush agenda with respect to the War in Iraq, and simply shuffling troops around.

As you may or may not know, Mr. Bush signed an agreement during his last 100 days in office which provides for full U.S. troop withdrawals just prior to the 2012 next presidential election. Mr. Obama met with Iraqi leaders during his campaign also. This agreement has been ratified by the Iraqi parliament, although it is still unclear since Iraq has only had one election whether or not the agreement requires full approval of the Iraqi people.

Mr. Obama has also been quite evasive with respect to Pakistan, and there have been several drone attacks committed near the Pakistani border reported also by several foreign news sources, although barely mentioned in the U.S. press.

It seems the true change and hope America was seeking will not be found in Mr. Obama after all. In fact, Mr. Obama has spent more, and increased troop levels and movements in his first 100 days in office in accordance with Bush agendas and those of his opponent last election, John McCain.

Clearly this is a bi-partisan effort directly opposed to the majority of Americans who had been misled about the war shortly after 9/11.

Campaign rhetoric aside, Mr. Obama's agenda is clearly not one of any change at all except in escalating the abuses of the Bush Administration which were the American people's primary complaints, and has acted in direct opposition to his campaign representations significantly already less than 100 days in office with the legislative provisions in both the stimulus package, execution of the bank bailout, and now in increasing troop levels and involvement in the war(s).

For a candidate that ran on a platform of balancing budgets by "red-lining" and cutting the fat from government, and other rather fiscally conservative stances (for a Democrat), Barack Obama has really done a 180 since the election - and in less than 100 days in office.

After the horror of the 10 trillion dollar stimulus package he had rushed through Congress in order to "save the American economy," which included a great deal of funding for federal agencies and their expansion, upgrades for high tech improvements in federal office buildings, state and local government expenditures, and for basic infrastructure needs (Budget #1),  Congress then passed earlier this week the 2010 fiscal year end budget again exceeding 3 trillion dollars (Budget #2).  There was a great deal of political posturing involved, and backroom wheeling and dealing, but in the end this enormous budget passed both the House and the Senate.

Prior to it's passage, it was reported in several news sources that included within Budget #2 and in accordance with Mr. Obama's stated "transparency in government" agendas were sums in order to continue funding the War(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan until the planned troop withdrawals in 2010 and 2011 per agreements reached by the Bush Administration with the Iraqi government his last 100 days in office.

However, less than a week after passing this precedent setting budget, Mr. Obama has again asked to have prepared another supplemental appropriations bill for over $83 billion in addition to be earmarked for both the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts.

And then ordered a pizza delivery for his invited guests Friday night from a restaurant in St. Louis.

So, just when IS that red-lining going to start?

 

Apparently, when politically things couldn't seem to get more ludicrous than they already are here in the United States, a story comes out that simply is just too incredible to believe.

In a recent news report carried by the Chicago Tribune, it appears that Barack Obama decided that the menu for his 140 invited guests for a Friday night get together was to include pizza. 

But not just any pizza.  Pizza from a St. Louis eatery, Pi Pizza (as in pizza pie).

The White House flew the staff from the restaurant and their dough, sauce, cheese and pizza pans in order to deliver their haute cuisine personally.

In this declining economy and with Mr. Obama's stated concerns about "global warming" and energy conservation, I wonder just exactly how big those carbon footprints were for this take out order?

And to top it all off, the Tribune reported that the owner of one of the largest pizza restaurants in his home state of Illinois was miffed that he had been snubbed in favor of the St. Louis establishment.

The Tribune article:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gqW0jeBmxn9ncFJTUwcQ_6duivTAD97FQ5I80

Simply incredible.