CALIFORNIA: ​Why Higher Taxes for Potholes is a Bad Idea

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, here we go again. Once more, taxpayers are being told by our political elites that, if we want good roads, we have to have higher taxes.

Just a few weeks ago, this column exposed the politicians’ plan to hike gas taxes along with vehicle license fees and registration. This plan, by San Jose lawmaker Jim Beall, would slam taxpayers in three ways. First, it would raise at least $3 billion annually by increasing the gas tax by another 10 cents a gallon. Second, it would hike the vehicle license fee, which is based on value, by more than 50 percent over 5 years. Third, it would increase the cost to register a vehicle by over 80 percent.

The latest scheme is Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 which would weaken Proposition 13 by eliminating the two-thirds vote for local transportation sales taxes. ACA 4 is a bad idea. California already has the highest state sales tax in the nation. Not only that, but sales taxes are highly regressive, hitting the poor and working middle class the hardest.

It is true that California ranks very low nationally in the condition of its roads and highways. But, in addition to an already high sales tax we also have the highest income tax rate in America and the 4th highest gas tax. (And, by the way, that gas tax doesn’t even include the cost of California’s one of a kind “cap and trade” regulations which substantially increases the cost of every gallon of fuel pumped in California).

The truth is that the sad condition of our highways has nothing to do with the lack of tax dollars and has everything to do with poor management and bad choices in deciding where our transportation dollars are spent. Our taxes are far more likely to be paying for projects we don’t even need — like High Speed Rail — or a bloated Caltrans budget than they are for fixing roads.

There’s another compelling reason why, should it ever make it to the ballot, ACA 4 deserves to be resoundingly defeated.  At least 20 counties in California, including all the large ones, have already passed higher sales taxes with the two-thirds supermajority vote mandated by Prop 13. Billions of dollars have been raised by these so-called “Self-Help Counties” all for transportation purposes. In going to the voters, local officials have to make sure that they propose projects that are truly needed. Lowering the vote threshold will only incentivize waste and the funding of pet projects, not the high priority needs of California motorists.

We believe very strongly that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay the price for bad decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats. Until our elected leaders direct the vast amount of money already available for highway improvements to those needed projects, we certainly shouldn’t consider even higher taxes and weakening Prop. 13. That’s why HJTA will oppose ACA 4 and we urge all California taxpayers to do the same.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Originally published by the HJTA.org

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Obama’s Assploding Chutzpah Attack On His Critics: “They Have No Compunction About Being Repeatedly Wrong”…

Wait, isn’t he always wrong?

(Click image above for video)

“We can get a better deal. I know it’s easy to play on people’s fears. To magnify threats. To compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich. But none of these arguments hold up. They didn’t back in 2002 and 2003. They shouldn’t now. (Applause)  The same mindset in many cases offered by the same people who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong, led to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It’s a mindset out of step with the traditions of American foreign-policy, where we exhaust diplomacy before war, and debate matters of war and pieces in the cold light of truth.”

Via: Weasel Zippers

Gunman who opened fire at Tennessee movie theater killed by police

A gunman who was also armed with a hatchet opened fire in a movie theater in suburban Nashville, Tenn. Wednesday before dying in a shootout with police.

Fire department spokesman Brian Haas said three people were treated for exposure to pepper spray, and one of those had a superficial wound that could have been caused by a hatchet. No one was taken to a hospital.

The gunman was reportedly identified as a 51-year-old man from the Nashville area. Police spokesman Don Aaron said he was wearing a surgical mask when he unleashed pepper spray inside the theater showing "Mad Max."

Aaron said an officer came into the theater and was fired upon by the suspect. The officer shot back, then backed off. After that, a SWAT team came in, and there was another exchange of gunfire. The suspect was then found dead.

The man also left two backpacks that were being examined by hazardous device officers.

A metro police dispatcher told The Tennessean newspaper the shooting was reported at 1:13 p.m. at the Carmike Hickory Hollow Cinema in Antioch, Tennessee.

Nashville Police confirmed in a tweet that an active shooting situation was reported, and the the suspect was dead. 

The latest shooting comes about two weeks after a gunman opened fire inside a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana, during a screening of the film "Trainwreck." Police said John Russell Houser killed two people and wounded nine others before fatally shooting himself.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Beacon Hill forces line up for fight over sanctuary protections for illegal immigrants

Beacon Hill lawmakers are quietly pushing legislation that could offer sanctuary protections to illegal immigrants across the state, the Herald has learned.

The new legislation, filed by state Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston), would ban public agencies from giving or sharing information on illegals with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless forced to do so by a court or a federal order.

The bill also would ensure illegal immigrants have access to state benefits — such as welfare and driver’s licenses — and it would prohibit Bay State employees from denying “assistance, benefit, payment, service or participation in any program or activity” on the basis of immigration status, except as required by federal law.

State Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton) immediately decried the bill, saying, “This will make Massachusetts a sanctuary state that harbors illegal aliens and makes available to them every benefit under the sun.”

“I think this would be devastating to Massachusetts in many ways,” O’Connell said.

The sanctuary aspects of the bill mirror rules in San Francisco, where the July 4 random shooting death of Kathryn Steinle — allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant deported five times — brought the city’s lax practices into question.

Several Republican presidential candidates now back “Kate’s Law,” named after the slain 32-year-old San Francisco woman, which would hand out five-year prison sentences to any deportee who returns.

The legislation is before the Committee on Children and Families, where O’Connell is a member. The panel was scheduled to hear the legislation last week, but the controversial bill was pushed back to September as sanctuary city policies sparked national headlines.

“This is a bill that just popped up,” O’Connell said. “Nobody knew about it.”

But Rushing responded to the outcry over his bill, saying it doesn’t ask anyone to break federal laws and that he simply wants to encourage immigrants to move to the Bay State.

“It prohibits barring people on the basis of immigration status,” said Rushing, adding that hot-under-the-collar politicians should “calm down.”

“We want to make sure all people of Massachusetts are here legally, and we do that by helping them become legal citizens,” 
he said.

Rushing admitted that there is nothing in his legislation to ensure that illegal immigrants are on a path to citizenship before they receive state services, but said he’d be open to adding that language.

The Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, a pro-immigrant group, has highlighted Rushing’s bill on their website as “priority legislation.”

They write that it “would provide clear guidance that inquiries into immigration status by state agencies and recipients of state funds are not permissible unless 
required by law.”

Word of the bill came on the day Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal appeared on Boston Herald Radio saying top officials in sanctuary cities should be held “criminally liable as accessories” for any crimes committed 
by illegals.

Somerville Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone quickly challenged the GOP presidential candidate to “come and get me.” Curtatone, the mayor of a sanctuary city, said Jindal’s plan is an attempt to push him “beyond the 1 percent right now” in presidential polls.

Via: Boston Herald

Continue Reading....

[Commentary] Climate change and the Latino community

Climate change and its components adversely affect the Latino community. For example, the 2010 census data show that Latinos became the majority in 191 U.S. metropolitan districts, especially in areas with high vehicle traffic and power plant activity.

Furthermore, data from the American Lung Association indicate that Latinos have the highest incidence of asthma. A major issue is the impact of power plants as the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S., accounting for approximately one-third of all domestic greenhouse emissions, a climate change component. Of concern is the connection between the asthma and the emissions.

However, there is a broader context that should worry Americans: climate change. While greenhouse emissions are the result of the power-plant operations, the results of such emissions have been global warming in the intermediate term and climate change in the long term. Invariably, global warming and climate change have been used interchangeably but are in fact distinct events in a greater set of environmental problems.

The Colorado Latino Leadership, Advocacy, and Research Organization (CLLARO) has recently completed a research project that measured the Latino community's perception about climate change. Almost half of the respondents identified themselves as bilingual or multilingual compared to English only or Spanish only. Among several survey items was one asking the respondents whether climate change is the same as global warming. The bilingual/multilingual group was almost fifty-percent more likely than the English speaking group and more than twice as likely as the Spanish speaking group to respond correctly.

Bilingualism and its cultural components can be proxies for cross cultural sensitivity — i.e., aware of events in both the Latino community and the larger one. Therefore, these findings, among others, highlight the importance of culture and more specifically cross cultural understanding of the impact of climate change on the Latino community.

Understanding such difference is key to developing strategies for dealing with the overall problem of climate change. The enforcement of the Clean Power Plan will begin the process of mitigating the adverse fall out from power plant emissions. The plan calls for cutting carbon pollution from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels. The proposal also requires cutting pollution from soot and smog by over 25 percent by 2030. The results will be cleaner breathing and better health.

However, to ensure that such mitigation occurs in ways that improve the health of the Latino community, there is a need for diverse representation at the strategy table, whether that table is set by the governor, the Colorado congressional and senatorial delegation, city mayors and/or the private sector. Given the evidence, culturally responsive persons are more likely to understand the issues and recommend viable steps for improving the quality of life for the Latino community. These steps can include outreach, community education, involvement in the public policy process, and, of course, voting.

As part of the national strategy to deal with climate change, CLLARO supports the Clean Power Plan and will encourage members of the Latino community to support it also. The improvement in the quality of health and life within the Latino community and the overall Colorado community merits such support.

Christine Alonzo is executive director of the Colorado Latino Leadership Advocacy Research Organization. CLLARO will host a Research Expo on Aug.13 at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts from 5 to 7 p.m.

Via: Denver Post

Continue Reading....

4 Charts That Prove DC Elites Are Ignoring Planned Parenthood Debate Raging in the Nation

A series of videos that show Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of aborted fetal organs has sparked a nationwide debate on Twitter about the organization’s practices.

A new analysis of trends on the social media site shows that those located within the Beltway took longer to join the conversation and are talking less about it than most of the country.

According to data provided by Echelon Insights, an opinion research firm, abortion has been one of the most talked about issues on Twitter among all users and those identified as part of the conservative base.

The firm analyzed how frequently abortion was discussed on Twitter over the last eight months and found that conversation surrounding the issue surged in conjunction with the release of videos from the Center for Medical Progress.

The Center for Medical Progress released its first video involving Planned Parenthood less than one month ago and yesterday published its fifth, with more expected. In the weeks that have followed, there have been increased calls for Congress to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding. Lawmakers plan to conduct hearings on the organization’s practices when they return from the month-long August recess.

According to Echelon Insights’ analysis, discussion surrounding abortion has been frequent among all Twitter users and conservatives. However, that isn’t the case among “Beltway Elites,” or Washington, D.C., insiders and liberals.

Total volume of conversation surrounding abortion across all Twitter

audiences from January to August. (Chart: Echelon Insights)

Total volume of conversations surrounding abortion across all Twitter audiences from July 2014 to August 2015.  (Chart: Echelon Insights)

Volume of conversation surrounding abortion among Beltway Elites, liberals and conservatives on Twitter from July 2014 to August 2015. (Chart: Echelon Insights)

>>>Did Your Senator Vote to Defund Planned Parenthood? See Here.

After the first video was released July 14, there was a surge in the number of mentions of abortion on Twitter.

However, the surge was not just among “Beltway Elites.” Instead, including everyone on the social media site, abortion was mentioned more than 90,000 times on July 14.

Additionally, on that same day, abortion was the second most discussed issue among all Twitter users. For conservatives, it was also the second most discussed issue.

However, the release of the first Planned Parenthood video didn’t resonate with Beltway Elites and liberals. Among those demographics, abortion was the fifth and ninth most discussed topic, respectively.

In examining conversations surrounding abortion, Echelon Insights found that most people on Twitter discussing the first Planned Parenthood video were located outside Washington, D.C.

The firm calculates an “Insider Score,” which measures how much Beltway Elites are discussing a topic compared to all Twitter users. Scores below 0 indicate more of a conversation outside the nation’s capital.

Last month, the Insider Score of conversation surrounding abortion indicated that Twitter users outside Washington, D.C., were discussing the issue more than those in the Beltway.

Demographic breakdown and Insider Score of discussion surrounding abortion (Chart: Echelon Insights)

The Center for Medical Progress released a second video involving another Planned Parenthood executive on July 21. The video showed a doctor allegedly negotiating the sale of aborted fetal tissue, and after the group published the video, Twitter saw its second highest peak in conversation surrounding abortion, with more than 50,000 mentions among all users.

However, that didn’t last long.

Among everyone on the social media site and conservatives, it was the most discussed issue on July 22. But for Beltway Elites and liberals, abortion ranked fourth and sixth among discussed topics, respectively.

One week later, on July 30, the Center for Medical Progress released another video showing Planned Parenthood allegedly discussing the sale of aborted fetal organs. This video stirred up conversations once again among all Twitter users—and conservatives, specifically.

According to Echelon Insights, the topic surpassed the level of discussion on July 22, and abortion had the second most mentions on Twitter, topping 77,000. Additionally, the issue became the most-discussed across all Twitter users and among conservatives.

Keeping up with previous trends, abortion was the second and fourth most discussed topic among liberals and Beltway Elites, respectively.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Schumer Pleads With GOP On Global Warming: Just Listen To “Totally Impartial And Non-Political Scientists”…

You know, like this guy:

Via: Weasel Zippers

NEW YORK CITY: De Blasio is crafting his own downfall

Years ago, in a chat with then-Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch, I asked how the Dinkins administration set its agenda. Did it have daily staff meetings, consult with outsiders, poll public opinion?

Lynch, a respected, genial political operative who has since passed away, looked at me with surprise. “I wish we knew who set the agenda,” he said with a straight face.

At that moment, I realized the impression that the Dinkins mayoralty was being driven by events beyond its control was accurate. Whatever the problem, City Hall didn’t just seem to be caught off guard — it was caught off guard.

Something similar is now happening to Bill de Blasio. Mayor Putz is getting whacked like a ­piñata, and he always seems surprised.

One day, it’s murder mayhem, then an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, then a cheating scandal in the schools. Some days, like yesterday, it’s an avalanche.

The comparison with the Dinkins years is apt, but breaks down in one key way. Dinkins’ sins were mostly those of omission; de Blasio is the architect of his dis­asters.

His main campaign promise was to change the direction of the city, and, unfortunately, he kept that promise. He is taking New York backwards.

Although murder is up by 10 percent, reports show most major crimes continue to fall. Yet it doesn’t feel that way.

Many, if not most, New Yorkers believe the city is sliding downhill, and that each day brings us one step closer to the bad old days of terrifying lawlessness and public disorder.

The fear is fueled by enough anecdotes to make it rational — gunfire sprays, with children caught in the crossfire, increased muggings in Central Park, and disheveled maniacs, some violent, taking over sidewalks and subways.

In large measure, these are the fruits of de Blasio’s policies. He wanted a kinder, gentler police force, made Al Sharpton an adviser — and the result is a more violent, bloodier city.

He said he wanted more humane policies on welfare and homelessness, and hired as commissioner Steven Banks, the former head of the Legal Aid Society who spent 30 years suing the city agency he now runs.

As Heather Mac Donald wrote in the City Journal, Banks “helped create, through lawsuit, New York’s unique obligation to provide housing on demand to families claiming homelessness.”

Given his disdain for efforts to get people off welfare and into jobs, it is fair to assume that Banks is at least partially responsible for the surge of people living in parks, shelters and on the streets.

Then there’s Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña, lured out of retirement by de Blasio because no other established educator would adopt his policies. Intent on turning back the clock on mainstream reforms, he and Fariña embraced the teachers-union cartel and are thwarting accountability measures considered standard best practices. In their warped vision, rigorous teacher evaluations and charter schools are enemies, while the union parties like it’s 1970.

The outrageous cheating scandal The Post exposed is a prime example of de Blasio’s folly. The union puts the protection of jobs ahead of everything else, so handing out unearned diplomas is a no-brainer when the aim is to shield the adults from the consequences of student failure.

As one teacher told The Post, “The state, the city, the mayor, the chancellor all look good with an inflated passing rate.”

So true — until that passing rate is exposed as a sham. That’s where we are now, and it’s a perfect metaphor for de Blasio’s tenure.

Less than halfway through his term, he needs a shakeup at City Hall. Problems are multiplying, the quality of life is declining and he is isolated inside his bubble with like-minded lefties.

On the outside, he has squandered public goodwill by showing indifference to the daily travails of city life. Among government leaders, his high-handed lectures have earned him a cold shoulder and ill wishes.

If he has a reset button, now would be the time to use it. Before he runs out of time.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Obama invokes Iraq war debate in push for Iran deal, amid Dem defections

President Obama vigorously defended Wednesday his nuclear agreement with Iran as one "the world unanimously supports," reaching back to blame America's invasion of Iraq -- and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- for emboldening Iran, while labeling Republican opposition as "knee-jerk partisanship," and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's criticism as "wrong." 

Speaking at American University in Washington, Obama described the congressional debate over the Iran deal as the "most consequential" since the Iraq invasion. The president called the agreement a "very good deal" that -- despite critics' claims to the contrary -- forbids Iran from building a nuclear weapon. 

In anticipation of a barrage of advertising against the deal, Obama likened those arguments to the case for war in Iraq more than a decade ago. 

"Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal," Obama said. 

The stark comparison dovetails with the president's central claim that the alternative to an Iran deal may be war -- "maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon," he said Wednesday. And his appeal to lawmakers comes as he tries to stem defections from his own party. 

He spoke after Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, of New York, told Newsday he will oppose the Iran plan. Spokeswoman Caitlin Girouard confirmed his opposition to Fox News. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

CNN's Tapper Shames Earnest For Not Watching Undercover Abortion Videos

CNN's Jake Tapper went after Josh Earnest on Monday's The Lead, after the White House press secretary admitted that he hadn't seen any of the undercover Planned Parenthood videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, and was "relying on news reports that I've seen" about the controversy. Tapper pointed out that "the whole video is put up on the website of this anti-abortion group that put them out." When Earnest blasted the pro-life group for their "ideological games," the anchor retorted that "somebody at the White House should maybe watch the videos in full."

Tapper raised the issue in the middle of his interview of Earnest. He also ran clips from the first four videos that the Center for Medical Progress released. The journalist first noted that "the Senate...is going ahead with a vote to try and defund Planned Parenthood. The White House has threatened to veto any measure like that." He then asked the press secretary, "Is it your contention that there's nothing in these secretly-recorded videotapes of Planned Parenthood officials discussing what sounds like profiting from fetal tissue and organ sales – there's nothing in these tapes that bothers you and anyone in the White House?" -

Earnest replied that "these videos...were released because of their shock value, and there's no doubt that's what depicted on these videos is shocking. I know that based on the news reports that I've read about the videos – I haven't actually looked at them." He continued with one of Planned Parenthood's talking points – that "people...have raised significant questions about whether or not these videos are credible – about whether or not they've been selectively edited in a way to grossly distort the position and the policies of Planned Parenthood." 

The CNN anchor followed with his point about the whole videos being available on the pro-life organization's website. The White House official responded with more liberal talking points about the administration wanting to "make sure that there is not an ideological effort to wholesale defund Planned Parenthood that provides those important health care services to women all across the country.

" The transcript of the relevant portion of Jake Tapper's interview of Josh Earnest from Monday's The Lead on CNN:

JAKE TAPPER: Josh, I want to ask you about a couple other issues, as long as I have – the Senate, as you know, is going ahead with a vote to try and defund Planned Parenthood. The White House has threatened to veto any measure like that-

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That's right-

TAPPER: Is it your contention that there's nothing in these secretly-recorded videotapes of Planned Parenthood officials discussing what sounds like profiting from fetal tissue and organ sales – there's nothing in these tapes that bothers you and anyone in the White House?

EARNEST: Well, Jake, I got to tell you – you know, these videos are – were released because of their shock value, and there's no doubt that's what depicted on these videos is shocking. I know that based on the news reports that I've read about the videos – I haven't actually looked at them. But people who have looked at them have raised significant questions about whether or not these videos are credible – about whether or not they've been selectively edited in a way to grossly distort the position and the policies of Planned Parenthood. And if you consider the source-

TAPPER: The whole – the video – the whole video is put up on – on the website of this anti-abortion group that – that put them out. I mean, you can – you don't have to watch just the edited version. You can watch the whole version.

EARNEST: Yeah. Well, listen, I'm relying on – on news reports that I've seen of people who have taken a look at this and raised questions about the videos themselves. And there's no doubt that this is an organization that has targeted Planned Parenthood for some time. So, they clearly have an ideological axe to grind.

What we know to be true is that Planned Parenthood provides regular health care for millions of Americans across the country, and Planned Parenthood is not able to use federal funds to perform abortions. That is written into the rules. That is a rule that this administration has not just followed, but actually supported.

So it's clear that there are some ideological games that are being played here, and what this administration and this president has long fought for is protecting access for women to health care. And that's exactly why we want to make sure that there is not an ideological effort to wholesale defund Planned Parenthood that provides those important health care services to women all across the country.

TAPPER: Well, somebody at the White House should maybe watch the videos in full.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

Obama Plots to Thwart Justice for US Victims of Palestinian Terrorism

On February 23, 2015, a federal jury in New York sided with 10 American families, finding the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) liable for six terrorist attacks occurring in Israel over a decade ago. The families were awarded $218.5 million for a series of terrorist acts attributed to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas, perpetrated between 2002 and 2004 during the Second Intifada. On Monday, the Obama administration indicated it might intervene in the case‚ possibly on behalf of the Palestinian terrorists.

That’s because the stakes are huge for these two cash-strapped entities. The Antiterrorism Act of 1992 authorizes “any U.S. national injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism to bring a civil action in U.S. district court and recover treble damages and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees,” the act states. Thus, the award of $218.5 million could triple to $655.5 million. When interest is included, calculated to be $165 million, which would also be tripled, the total potential liability runs to $1.15 billion. That sum is equal to nearly a third of the Palestinian Authority’s annual budget of operations.

Both groups intend to appeal the verdict, insisting they are not responsible “for the actions of individuals” involved in the carnage. “The Palestinian Liberation Organization [sic] and the Palestinian National Authority are deeply disappointed by the adverse decision issued today in a New York court,” said Mahmoud Khalifa, PA deputy minister of information, after the verdict was announced. “The charges that were made against us are baseless ... we will appeal this decision.”

In the meantime, Kent Yalowitz, the families’ attorney, requested that the two organizations place $30 million per month in escrow while the process proceeds. U.S. District Judge George Daniels indicated he was inclined to require Palestinians to post some sort of bond, as a means of showing “some meaningful demonstration that the defendant is ready and willing to pay the judgment.”

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

On Bullet Train, Voters Finally May Get to Apply the Brakes

Pencils have erasers. Computers have the undo command and the escape key.

If you had it to do over again, would you vote for the bullet train?

It was called the “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act” on the 2008 ballot, and it authorized $9 billion in bonds — borrowed money — to “partially fund” a high-speed train system in California.

The ballot measure required that there would be “private and public matching funds,” “accountability and oversight” and a focus on completing “Phase I” from Los Angeles to San Francisco to Anaheim. Bond funds could not be spent on the other corridors, like Fresno to Bakersfield, unless there was “no negative impact on the construction of Phase I.”

Today the estimated cost is over $68 billion, private and federal funds are not in sight, and accountability has been cut back — instead of two spending reports to the Legislature every year, only one report every two years will be required. And “Phase I” broke ground in Fresno.

Place your finger on the escape key and stand by. State Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Fresno, has introduced a bill, co-authored by Assemblyman Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield, to put the bullet train before the voters again. If Senate Bill 3 (SBX1-3) can muster a two-thirds vote in the state Senate and Assembly, it will be on the June 2016 ballot.

The measure would freeze spending on the bullet train and direct unspent funds to the Department of Transportation to be used for roads, which would come in handy because California needs $59 billion just to maintain the freeways for the next 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown has called a special session of the Legislature to look for revenue to fill the state’s transportation budget pothole after signing a “balanced” budget that left that item out.

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office offered some suggestions that illustrate the difference between what tax increases can raise and what the bullet train costs.

• Raising the tax on a gallon of gasoline brings in $150 million per 1 cent increase.

• Raising the tax on a gallon of diesel fuel collects $30 million per 1 cent increase.

• Raising the vehicle registration fee nets $33 million per $1 increase.

• Doubling the vehicle weight fees raises about $1 billion.

• Raising the vehicle license fee hauls in roughly $3 billion per 1 percent increase.

There are other options. The LAO says lawmakers could prioritize the budget to use money from the general fund to maintain and construct roads. Billions in cap-and-trade revenue, collected from fees now levied on gasoline and diesel fuel, could be used for highway projects that reduce traffic and improve mileage.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

Hard Truth for the GOP from its Base

The failure of the Republican presidential field (with one notable exception) to stand with its own voters on the burning issue of our time -- mass uncontrolled and unresisted illegal immigration to America -- is one of the most infuriating examples of electoral incompetence in living memory. Not only is this issue central to the concerns of an overwhelming majority of regular Republican and conservative voters, but it is the issue most likely to carve off substantial numbers of regular Democratic voters.  In short, vigorously opposing the ongoing, unprecedented, presidentially invited and abetted invasion of America across its southern border is not only obviously the right policy for the country on its merits, but very possibly the only issue with the potential to carry the Republican nominee not merely to victory but to decisive victory.

In America as in Europe, electoral necessity has placed the Left on the wrong side of illegal immigration for a perilously significant number of its own voters. In America many of those voters are there for the taking -- in Iowa, in Ohio, in Virginia, in Colorado, in Florida, to name but a few not insignificant places -- but the question, as always since Reagan, is whether the Republican Party wants to win the presidency or to lose politely.

In unmistakably blunt language, all the Republican candidates should be declaring the following:

1. That our border to the south must be secured, whatever it takes, as an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite to discussing how to deal with the tens of millions who are already here illegally.  The idea that real border security is unachievable is facially absurd to the American people, as is the morally spurious argument that any nation needs to apologize for defending its own borders or establishing its own immigration criteria.
2. That, after election, the new Republican president will not, under any circumstances, grant any form of blanket amnesty to those who have entered the country in violation of our laws, and that he will work to achieve a complete reversal of the illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty already granted by President Obama (which Hillary Clinton promises to uphold and enforce).
3. That our immigration laws do indeed need comprehensive reform, but not the kind of “reform” the Democrats want, where millions of impoverished uneducated future government dependents are taken in and distributed among key states until the country becomes a dependable one party nation -- the 1965 Immigration Act has indeed done its work. We need a new immigration law that will favor assimilable immigrants, possessing skills and education that improve the competitiveness of the American economy and meet real needs.

None of the foregoing should be even remotely controversial in a well run, first world republic that wants to continue being one. None of it would be controversial to about 75% of the electorate.  All of it would be music to the ears, not only of virtually the entire voter base of the Republican Party but to substantial numbers of regular Democratic voters, both of whom see the connection between mass low skilled illegal immigration, on the one hand, and low wages, declining schools and neighborhoods, and increased crime on the other.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

Enough with the Softball Questions; It's Time We Start Really Questioning Cecile Richards

After watching Andrea Mitchell’s softball interview with Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, I was hoping Andrea Mitchell, or anyone, would ask her the following questions:

With more than 300,000 abortions per year and only about 1,800 adoption referrals per year, does Planned Parenthood provide equal counseling regarding both options for women?  Which option provides more revenue and donations for Planned Parenthood?  Is this what Cecile Richards means when she says “the facts are on our side”?

Many couples endure long waiting lists to adopt an adopted child and will assist birth mothers.  How is this addressed with pregnant women at Planned Parenthood?  Does this fulfill Cecile Richards’ statement that Planned Parenthood “helps women plan their family”?

Does harvesting fetal tissue or organs make the abortion less safe or create more discomfort by virtue of possibly increased time in doing the harvesting procedure or different harvesting techniques?

When fetal tissue or organs are harvested with consent, can the consent be given by minors without parental, guardian or judge approval?  Can a minor alone agree to a potentially riskier abortion procedure that involves harvesting organs?

Do the companies purchasing the fetal tissue and organs from Planned Parenthood make financial donations to Planned Parenthood?

Senator Claire McCaskill stated on the “Morning Joe” show that they “have already cleared Planned Parenthood in an investigation in Indiana.”  Were they cleared on all the issues I have raised here?

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....