First a quick video.  A bit of crowing perhaps:

Now the real meat of the story:

California lawmakers are struggling to spin the results of the May 19 special election, fearful of the possibility that the voters may have just fired the first shot of the next great tax revolt.

I was on NPR with Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) the day after the election as he labored to claim that the Tuesday vote was all about frustrated voters, worried about their jobs who simply want the legislature to do its job and not pass the buck to them. He rejected my contention that the vote was an anti-tax vote.

But election-eve polls tell a different story, with California voters seeing themselves as over-taxed and very desirous of cuts in state spending. Polls are nice, but actual votes are better. While Prop. 1A lost by almost 32 points, it lost in fiscally conservative Orange County by almost 53 points while, in the early returns, it was passing in only one of California’s 58 counties: San Francisco. In the end, the most liberal California county, San Francisco, was the kindest to Prop. 1A, turning it down by barely more than six points. A 50-point spread in votes between Orange County and San Francisco County cannot be explained away by Sen. Steinberg’s attempt at damage control.

Gov. Schwarzenegger and the four legislative leaders, the “Big Five,” put this special election together with only Sacramento interests in mind, thinking the public sector unions that might be afraid of even a modest budget restraint tool would be bought off by the prospects of higher taxes. It mostly worked, with some unions enthusiastically supporting Prop. 1A and only a few opposed. But the Big Five forgot the most important special interest: the voters.

In spite of spending $26 million to bully and warn Californians into approving the five propositions, with opponents only marshalling $4 million, every budget-related proposition lost with the strongest showing a pitiful 37.4 percent “yes” vote for proposition 1B, a measure heavily backed by the powerful California Teachers Association union.

California now faces a $21.3 billion deficit over 15 months, with general fund revenues projected to be about $86 billion in 2009-10, down from $102.6 billion in 2007. Democrats face an interesting dilemma. They can do one of three things:

• Do they reform government, trimming unpopular expenses, such as the state’s bloated welfare rolls with California spending three times the national average on welfare due to our overly loose rules regarding work requirements and aid to illegal immigrant families?
• Do they slash and burn popular programs such as education and law enforcement?
• Do they try another end-run on the state constitution, enacting billions in new taxes with a simple majority vote by simply declaring them to be “fees”?

Based on my discussions with Democrat lawmakers, I do not expect any attempt at meaningful spending reform. Rather, dramatic reductions in popular programs such as K-12 education and law enforcement seem more likely, with the Democrats in the mood to tell the voters: “These painful cuts are the result of you voters voting against higher taxes.” If the public sector employee unions mobilize against this move, then the final outcome may well be another massive tax hike masquerading under the legal fig leaf of “fees.”

Either outcome would likely see California voters, recently mobilized under the banner of more than 50 tea parties in April (I had the honor addressing the tea parties in Pasadena and Modesto), organizing to make 2010 a repeat of the historic 1978 election by qualifying new tax and spending limitations for the ballot. Were that to occur, it would shake the foundation of the political establishment from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

Observers of California politics know that I opposed the budget deal that led to this special election. I stood up to my own party leadership, and I resigned as Assembly Minority Whip rather than support a deeply flawed deal — the only Assembly Republican to pay a political price for doing so. Though vindicated by events, I take no pleasure in the knowledge. Our beloved state is on the precipice, and whether it pulls back or plunges over is now in the hands of the men and women who brought it there.

California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore resigned today as Chief Republican Whip due to his opposition to a massive tax increase deal brokered by Republican legislative leaders.  DeVore said, “The St. Valentine’s Day deal to raise taxes on hardworking Californians will neither close the budget deficit nor control spending.  I believe leadership thinks they are doing the right thing – but I cannot be a party to this agreement as I believe it will harm California.”

Excerpts of DeVore’s letter to Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines follow:

“…the recent agreement you negotiated to increase taxes in exchange for a spending limit will not likely accomplish the twin aims of deficit reduction and budget control that you seek.

“This proposed agreement also strikes at the heart of our longtime opposition to tax increases.  Excessive taxation both harms the economy and robs hardworking Californians of a portion of their liberty.  Placing our Caucus squarely in line with tax increases also demoralizes our supporters – people who were counting on us to hold the line.

“For these reasons, I believe it is appropriate for me to resign as Chief Republican Whip, effective immediately.  I can no longer participate as a leader on a team that is preparing to make a fundamental mistake of colossal proportions.  For the sake of California I hope I am wrong – however, I fear I am right and that this tax increase and budget deal will result in more harm to the Golden State than good.”

Barbara Boxer was on C-Span this morning discussing the stimulus bill when she declared: “Writing this bill is like making sausage.”

That’s about right. Coincidentally, we have a web ad on a similar subject released today:

Yesterday’s awful vote on Timothy Geithner aptly demonstrates that Washington has lost its bearings.  For this purpose I’ve created a new calculator to show you just how your taxes will work moving foward.  It’s pretty straight forward:

photo: WashingtonPost.com

Let’s go on a trip down memory lane to the not-too-distant past.

In 1986, Linda Chavez left her high ranking post in the Reagan Administration to run for the U.S. Senate against Maryland liberal Barbara Mikulski (a political clone of Barbara Boxer, but that’s another story). In a bad year for Republicans, Chavez lost the race.

In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Chavez to a post in his cabinet as Secretary of Labor. Chavez was soon forced out because it was alleged that she had employed an illegal immigrant 10 years earlier. Subsequent investigation uncovered that Chavez had not, in fact employed the woman in question, but had sheltered her and given her some emergency assistance because the woman was threatened with domestic abuse. The woman, Marta Mercado, is now a U.S. citizen.

Contrast the political uproar and media storm over Chavez’ nomination with the quiescent reaction of our electeds in the halls of Congress and our pals over at CNN and the New York Times regarding President-elect Obama’s nomination of Timothy Geithner to be the Secretary of the Treasury.

Geithner, you may recall, is the man who may soon be in charge of trillions of our tax dollars who thinks paying taxes is only for the little people. While working for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from 2001 to 2004, Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes totaling more than $45,000 including interest. Interestingly, the IMF, an international entity, pays its employees’ taxes and even sends them a notice regarding the taxes owed.

Just to ram the point home that laws are meant for some and not for others, Geithner also employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper (“Haven’t we all?” the U.S. Senators conducting the confirmation hearing must be thinking to themselves.)

So, Mr. Geithner, soon to be fifth in the line of succession to the President, right behind soon-to-be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gets a pass for not paying taxes and for employing an illegal immigrant while Linda Chavez, in line for Labor Secretary, gets destroyed for giving a woman in danger some humanitarian assistance.

God bless America: land of the free and the home of the double standard.

From the diaries, by Erick
On Monday, January 5, President-elect Obama selected former Cong. Leon Panetta to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Panetta’s chief qualification is his utter lack of intelligence experience – meaning that he has not been involved with any of the intelligence activities in the past 7 years that have kept America safe.  This makes him an acceptable candidate to the anti-war left.

Obama’s first choice to head the 20,000 person, $10 billion spy agency was John Brennan, a former top CIA officer with 25 years of experience, including time as a station chief in Saudi Arabia.  Brennan was a leader of Obama’s intelligence transition team.  Obama pulled the plug on Brennan after an uproar from leftwing bloggers that he took his serious job too seriously.

Read More →