The California Legislature Debates Cow Tails While the Rest of the State Burns
No wonder why California has massive amounts of debt – This has to be the biggest bunch of nit-wits I have seen yet!
Too bad it wasn’t these cow tales – mmmmm….
What Do We Have Here? Bank of America Will Accept California’s IOUs
What a surprise! Bank of America, now owned mostly by taxpayers will be accepting California’s IOUs.
California, one of the most solvent states is of course good for their debts/sarc.
This really should have been expected – a state-run bank accepting an insolvent, soon-to-be-bailed-out-state. Seems like monopoly money to me! This is similar to a false economy, where government interference and regulation make free markets anything but FREE/REAL.
Ponzi scheme has become my favorite catch phrase. It effectively seems as though California is issuing it’s own fake currency called IOUs, although it is already insolvent, to pay back at a later date – of which, will never happen. Bank of America is already suffering and got into trouble the last time it bought a toxic company and toxic assets, as did many others – but here it is doing the same thing again. Insanity = Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
Bank of America Corp. says it will accept warrants issued by California’s state government through July 10.
BofA says the state’s budget crisis prompted its decision.
“To support our customers, while giving the state legislature additional time to pass a budget, we will accept California state-registered warrants — or IOUs — from existing customers and clients,” Charlotte-based BofA (NYSE:BAC) says in a written statement.
It is always important to ask “Why” in these very odd and overwhelming times.
Why would Bank of America, who is already in financial trouble and dire straights, accept California IOUs, which it will probably never see? Why does this seem incredibly like the forced situation of Merrill Lynch? Is Bank of America doing this as a favor to the US government? Should I assume that Bank of America will get more bailout dollars if it accepts such a risky investment?
My biggest “beef” with this scenario: who is supporting Bank of America? The government! And where does the government get its money? The taxpayers! It’s not ok by me, that my money is being used to help bailout California due to its liberal/progressive policies that it enacted on the state.
“It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.” ~ Frédéric Bastiat 1801-1850 “The Law”
Liberal State Idiocracy: California Won’t Cut the Pork & Massachusetts Houses Homeless in Motels
California just can’t seem to beat the habit of government spending. The latest proposal coming out of the state legislature originally had $11B in cuts to state services, but that proposal was shot down. So while California burns, literally and figuratively, the state legislature sits there battling back and forth on “to cut, or not to cut.” My advice to California: cut the fat and start doing what’s best for your constituents and your state not your lobbyists, special interests, and your own pockets. I know it’s difficult for politicians, since so many have forgotten who they really work for, but it’s about time to start voting all these people out of office and voicing our concerns. California will be bankrupt before the legislature comes to a decision on the $24B budget, how sad is that?
“All of the cuts that were rejected by the majority party that the governor proposed are things that unfortunately have to be done,” he said. “We can’t afford some of those things when we’re talking about revenues that are back to where we were in 1999 or 2000.
Moody’s Investors Service has warned that California could face a “multi-notch” downgrade in its credit rating, citing the state’s expected massive shortfall for fiscal 2010 of more than 20 percent of its general fund budget and limited options for plugging it.
Schwarzenegger and lawmakers face the task of closing a $24.3 billion budget deficit for the state’s fiscal year beginning on July 1.
Besides the idiocy coming out of California, Massachusetts has also created a plan to house the homeless in motels. They aren’t housing them in motels because they are overwhelmed or out of room at shelters. No, they are paying for them to stay in motels due to complaints that the shelters didn’t have enough amenities to satisfy their needs, like kitchens, living rooms, etc. Are you kidding ME? These people are jobless, don’t pay taxes, and just become leeches on society. Not everyone, but the majority. What would be the incentive to me to make a better life and find a job if the government enabled me to live the way I have always lived and be lazy and complacent? This is the exact same problem with bailouts, welfare, unemployment benefits, and entitlements in general. This has become insane. This is not the innovative, hardworking American society that I studied and read about in school. This is not what my parents taught me or what those in our military have fought for. I’m appalled by the idiocracy that we are now calling our government and our country.
Housing Massachusetts’ homeless is costing tax payers around $2 million per month. It costs an average of $85 per night to have families, including nearly 1000 children, stay in motels.
The Interagency Council on Housing and Homelessness admits that the use of motels for the homeless is not ideal, but is the best that can be done at this time.
Homeless advocates are worried that families are not getting the support of shelters with living rooms, kitchens, and play areas.
The All Powerful Obama Fires Inspector General of AmeriCorps (For Investigating a Corrupt Crony)
Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General of the Corporation of National and Community Service, which runs AmeriCorps, was fired by Obama late last Wednesday. Walpin was in the midst of investigating Kevin Johnson’s, a former NBA star and an avid Obama supporter, misuse of funds.
If Kevin Johnson was found guilty of fraudulently spending or misusing money, he would have been barred from receiving any future federal grants. He is now the current mayor of Sacramento, California and if barred from federal grants, he would not be able to receive billions in stimulus funding.
Since the stimulus bill itself, was a major pay-to-play scheme, it is important for Obama to pay off his cronies and the constituents that voted for him, in order to secure votes in the future. Anybody acting ethically and getting in the way of the Democrats will be sure to lose their job.
Walpin was driving to upstate New York when he received the dreaded yet ironic phone call on Wednesday night from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Reform. Eisen was calling Walpin on behalf of President Obama. Eisen said: “‘Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it’s time to move on,’” Walpin recalls. “Eisen said, ‘You can either resign, or I’ll tell you that we’ll have to terminate you.”
At that moment, Walpin says, he had finished not only a report on the Sacramento probe but also an investigation into extensive misuse of AmeriCorps money by the City University of New York, which is AmeriCorps’ biggest program. Walpin says he told Eisen that, given those two investigations, neither of which was well-received by top Corporation management, the timing of his firing seemed “very interesting.” According to Walpin, Eisen said it was “pure coincidence.”….
In my short life, I have realized that there aren’t pure coincidences and that things tend to happen for reasons. “Nothing, absolutely nothing in God’s world happens by mistake.” This is an historic precedent that just took place, and seems like a more appropriate action from Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro than from the President of the United States.
The method of Walpin’s firing could be a violation of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice, plus an explanation of cause, before firing an inspector general. Then-Sen. Barack Obama was a co-sponsor of that legislation. In the case of Walpin, Eisen’s efforts to force Walpin to resign could be seen as an effort to push Walpin out of his job so that the White House would not have to go through the 30-day process or give a reason for its action. When Walpin refused to quit, the White House informed Congress and began the 30-day countdown.
Eisen’s phone call came after months of increasing conflict inside the Corporation for National and Community Service. “We issued two reports that the management of the Corporation and the board of directors didn’t like, because they criticized what the board was doing,” Walpin recalls. There is no question that Walpin discovered misuse of federal money in Kevin Johnson’s program, known as St. HOPE, and at City University of New York. But as a result of those investigations, relations between Walpin and top executives became frosty, and he says they cut him out of Corporation business that should normally include the inspector general.
[...]
In the course of his investigation, Walpin found Johnson and St. HOPE had failed to use the federal money they received for the purposes specified in the grant and had also used federally-funded AmeriCorps staff for, among other things, “driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands.” Walpin came to the conclusion that Johnson and St. HOPE should be subject to suspension and debarment. But it was not Walpin’s decision to make; there is another official at the Corporation whose job it is to make that call. In September 2008, after reviewing Walpin’s evidence, the official decided to order a suspension, with the distinct possibility that it would lead to a permanent debarment.
Walpin’s opinion was overruled, whereby the government promised that most of the funds would be returned. Walpin was incredibly discontented by the decision to not only undo the suspension but also attempt to vouch for St. HOPE, an organization that Walpin deemed insolvent. Walpin had gone so far as to protest the decision through the board. It was during this period of time that the Obama administration made their decision to terminate Walpin – a man who was only trying to practice integrity and do his job correctly.
Senator Grassley, a Republican Senator, has called on an investigation into the activities that took place last week. He also would like an investigation into Michelle Obama’s connections to the firing, AmeriCorps, and Kevin Johnson. As you may recall, Michelle Obama is very involved in AmeriCorps and for the first time in any first lady’s history, she actually appointed her very own czar to the organization.
We are being ruled not managed – and here I thought the mafia was bad in New York. Boy was I wrong! The thugacracy in DC takes the cake.
Obama may have studied law, but he certainly has no regard for it. Could you imagine if Karl Rove made the phone call for Bush to fire an inspector general?
California Upholds Prop 8 Vote
In an incredible turn of events, California surprises again, and upholds the original vote in favor of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in the state of California.
As I have stated plenty of times before, I am a federalist, and I believe in local government and states’ rights. I believe that if people vote for something it should be upheld and in this case, the people voted to ban gay marriage. Since a majority voted that way in the most liberal state in the union, that says something. It would not be right, just, or constitutional for a supreme court at the state level to overturn a majority vote – that is not democracy.
I saw one quote on twitter that stated: Thank God we live in a republic and not a democracy regarding the hopeful overturn of prop. 8. I don’t think this person quite understands what it is she is talking about. Yes, we live in a republic (at least it is questionable to some if it truly is still a republic since there is too much government control) but we PRACTICE the PHILOSOPHY of democracy (government by the people, through representatives) – that is the point of voting. For an entity to overturn a majority vote when that entity is only made up of 7 people, would be massively destructive to what a republic or the practice of democracy really and truly is.
I’m glad that California acted just in this case and stood by its voters – if a state believes in gay marriage or wants to accept it, it will vote that way. Until then, whether you agree or not, the decision (the will of the people) must be upheld.
The final ruling will uphold prop. 8, but it will also uphold the 18K marriages that took place before the official ruling (which were perfectly legal at that time). This law is very convoluted and will probably have some major issues in the future, but we won’t know until that time. The Supreme Court of CA voted 6-1 in favor of upholding the vote from November. The lone dissenter was Justice Moreno.
I have already seen the “tweets” from those who were hopeful that Prop. 8 would be overturned, calling California losers, M&*$@# F*%@#&$ and various other things. They were hopeful that there would be tolerance shown towards them, but once the decision for the vote was upheld, they called everyone opposed to marriage, rednecks, hicks, intolerant bigots, etc. I’m waiting for the upcoming mobs… those same mobs that tore a cross out of an old woman’s hands last November – and who exactly is intolerant?
Let us also not forget that Obama agrees with California’s decision…
