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.

Now that graduation season is upon us, higher education has been in the news quite a bit in the United States this past month.

Due to the economic conditions now claimed by most states in the United States due to the mortgage meltdown, bank bailouts, continuing conflict in the Middle East, automakers bailouts, health care crisis, and Wall Street's bear market (many of these situations, of course, are due to governmental negligence and precipitated crises) many of the major universities throughout the nation are now announcing increases for tuition rates for most of the public and private college universities.

Interestingly, these increases are now being announced even after there was considerable funding in the form of grants to a great many of these universities for infrastructure needs, and increases in federal grant monies for tuition costs included within that enormous simulus packaged passed by the Obama Administration several months ago.

As an example, the tuition rate increase announced for one of the major universities in my former home state, Arizona, will be the second increase within the past two years, and will place the average in-state resident tuition now at over $6,275 per semester for incoming new freshman for the 2009-2010 academic year at Arizona State University.  Included will be new fees in the form of "surcharges" also tacked on to those tuition rates.

Although there is a provision within Arizona's own Constitution that provides the parameters for university tuition which can be charged state residents:

Admission of students of both sexes to state educational institutions; tuition; common school system

Section 6. The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible. 

The problem there as in most states is priority of expenditures, and using public funds for private and extra-Constitutional contracts in public/private partnerships and functions most of all.

This amount may sound reasonable when compared to the rate charged at most private universities, or even some of the public East or West coast universities; however, most tuition rates are set by Boards of Regents which are unaccountable to the taxpayers for those tuition rate increases, and simply apply to the state legislature through approvals given by these Board of Regents for their requests.  And would dispute with respect to Arizona's clear Constitutional provisions, that $6,250 per semester is "as nearly free as possible."

As someone who grew up in that state, I compared the rates charged when I graduated from high school, to the new rates in comparison factoring in inflation according to the tables provided by an online inflation calculator source. 

Since I also am aware of a recent backdoor tax levied and was subject to in the form of an added property tax prior to moving from that state for the expansion of that university and the construction costs for same at the municipal level (thus triple taxation at the municipal, state and federal levels in support of that university), and also aware of the sums in grant monies provided under the stimulus, I did not factor in any added "construction" costs which might also be included in the university's budgets.

Besides, more than 2/3rds the building within the Arizona State University campus are less than 20 years old.

In 1970 the rate for tuition for in state residents was $320.00 for 16 credit hours each semester.  As referenced above, the rate for the 2009-2010 academic year will be $12,550.

 What cost $320.00 in 1970 would cost $1755.48 in 2008.

Rate charged at ASU 2009-2010:  $12,550 - more than ten  times the amount of inflation.

And the standard of living (not to mention quality of life) was higher in 1970 even during that recessionary period, than it actually is today.

Also interesting and as a side note, the President of the University was also recently granted a salary increase bringing his salary as a public employee to over $750,000 not including state benefits such as health care, expense accounts, dental insurance and pension plan.  That salary of three quarter of a million dollars exceeds the salary of the President of the United States.

His wife is also employed by the university at a salary of over $160,000 per year.

None of the sums received in direct federal grant monies are included in the budgetary requests made at the state level in most states throughout the nation.

And in 1970, free tuition waivers and costs were given to the top 10% of all graduating seniors from Arizona state high schools in recognition of the "public" support of the Arizona citizens to that university.

Now the criteria for any and all tuition fee waivers requires graduating in the top 5%, and exceeding a state mandated AIMS (Arizona Instructional Measurement System) test which a good percentage of the high school faculty themselves had difficulty passing prior to its being given to the high school students.  And which cost the Arizona taxpayers over 10 million to prepare, since the Iowa Test of Basic Skills or the SAT's themselves were not sufficient as testing methods for measuring instructional goals for outgoing seniors.

And did I mention that the revenue from the sales of tickets and memorabilia, network contracts, and local radio and television broadcast revenues received by the Arizona State University football program, and private alumni grant monies also go unreported in those budgetary requests?

While the selection committee focuses on primarily out state national merit scholars for name recognition, and illegal immigrant and foreigners for federal grant monies in order to also profit at the Arizona and American citizen's expenses.

If you would like to do a historic comparison for inflationary purposes on your state universities tuition increases throughout the past three decades, you can find the relevant table at:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/