There is an old adage in politics that I rarely subscribe to which is to be careful what you ask for. After all you would be paralyzed if you adhered to that principle, unable to act.
Nevertheless, Republicans and some “good government” Democrats and Independents have been pushing the notion of the California redistricting panel hoping that perhaps there will be more competitive Congressional and Legislative districts in California.
The Panel is made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and four Independent or minor-party voters. Three votes from each bloc is required to approve a redistricting map.
The Republicans are crying foul “over the hiring of Q2 Data and Research to provide expertise in drawing 177 legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization districts.”
“We haven’t seen the final results, but they certainly have opened the door to wide-ranging suspicion, and that defeats the purpose of the process,” said the Republican State Chair Tom Del Becarro.
Redistricting reform was one of the proposals championed by Governor Schwarzenegger as part of the backlash against the lines drawn by legislative leaders back in 2001 to protect incumbents.
Republicans have claimed off and on the drawing of the districts distorts Democrats power. The problem is when you look at the statewide sweep by the Democrats in 2010, in a Republican year nationwide, and consider the fact that since the 1994 election when Republicans last won statewide, the only major statewide race won by a Republican was Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003 and then again in 2006.
The news for the Republicans statewide has been bad for 15 years. It got worse when a poll released after the election showed broad swaths of voters opposing the Republican core agenda.
And now as Dan Walters reports this morning, it gets even worse in two ways – demographically and by voter registration.
Writes Mr. Walters, “the results of the 2010 census that confirmed anew the state’s incredible demographic and cultural change. California’s rapidly aging white population, an overwhelming majority a few decades ago, has now dropped to scarcely 40 percent, while the rapidly growing Latino and Asian populations are now more than 50 percent.”
Second is the voter registration numbers, which show “Republicans dropping to 30.9 percent, their lowest level in recorded history, while rival Democrats maintained their share at about 44 percent.”
The Republicans loses have not gone to the Democrats, but rather to the independents who form about 20 percent of the electorate.
Dan Walters writes, “It’s not a stretch to say that the Republican Party, which once dominated California politics and was very competitive into the 1990s, has devolved into a party of rapidly aging white people, and as they disappear, its fortunes may sink further.”
Dan Walters argues that there is more to the Republican decline than just demographics. He cites the demise of the Southern California defense industry, coupled with the inflow of immigrants, which shifted the politics of LA County from party-neutral to strongly Democratic.
But there is more, he argues. The Republicans have moved right as the state has move left.
“What was once a middle-of-the-road party that dominated California as Democrats paddled on the left reconfigured itself into a right-wing party,” he writes. “The party’s stridency on taxes, illegal immigration, abortion and other hot-button issues alienated both white moderates – most noticeably in the suburbs – and the surging numbers of Latino and Asian voters.”
Bottom line is that in the end of the redistricting process, Democrats will remain the dominant party in legislative districts because they are by far the dominant party in the state.
People that are worried about the new primary system should realize all that will mean is that there will be two Democrats running for November elections.
And it is really worse than for those “good government” types. Look at a typical electoral map and you will see the exact problem with drawing competitive districts – California is electorally fragments. You will see a deep crease of Democratic support moving from LA up the coastline. You will see a veer of Democratic support up the I-80 corridor to Sacramento County. And you will see Republican support in the rest of the valley, the mountains, and the desert region.
At the margins, redistricting may matter in creating an extra seat or two for the Democrats or drawing more safe districts for incumbents, but at the core, even an equitable drawing of the maps is going to produce a heavily Democratic map and one with a lot of non-competitive districts.
Why? Because that is how California looks naturally.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
As I said at the time of the election for the first redistricting proposal you can draw safe districts or competitive districts but not both. The Republicans accepted safe districts last time with the guarantee of a legislative veto. They could have gone for competitive districts but would have risked losing their 1/3 veto. After this round they may lose the one third required to block anything as it is the only power they have left is to block new taxes and the way they are using that power will marginalized them even more going forward especially when the rest of the cuts are forced through.
Really interesting statistics. It’ll be fascinating to watch if – and just how badly – this backfires for the GOP. I’d love to see a GOP critique of the points made here, but they seem spot on to me. It does feel like the GOP has forcibly marginalized itself by its focus on unpopular issues.
Nevertheless, voter registration and turnout are two very different things. With the very low turnout currently expected for the next election, it’ll be interesting to see how the GOP performs.
Aren’t these the same republicans that told dems to go pound sand over Bush II’s coronation by the Supreme Court? The same ones that hold budgets hostage and threaten workers jobs if they don’t get their way? Tough darts folks.
I think we should divide CA as West CA and East CA shaped like a ying-yang symbol where the border is just east of the coastal range with East CA getting the coastal area just north of Mendocino, and West CA can share a border with Arizona and a bit of Nevada adjacent to Las Vegas. These two states would share little in common in terms of ideology… but they may be more governable on their own.
“The same ones that hold budgets hostage..”
An interesting New York Times article on Andrew Cuomo passing a $132 billion dollar budget in New York with little acrimony and mild budget cuts. How does NY have a bigger budget than California and an easier time passing such a budget?
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he’s fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won’t be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid…
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
‘Taxes drove me
to my doom…’
When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
It’s time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Use Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Hotel Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Seems like redistribution of taxes generally, considering income tax was over 65% (and as high as 90%) for the wealthiest folks in the country during the majority of the 20th century. Lowering income tax while providing better services has been the “smart” political move… so the funding comes from somewhere else (or massive debt).
Also, you forgot the Crash Tax.
Just a thought, but this confirms my belief that CA is out of step w the rest of the country… it is a state on the fringes…
California isn’t out of step. The coasts are more liberal, the fly-over states more conservative. In fact the Republican party base is now just the southern states + Utah. They can expand past that at times, but the GOP has shrinking demographics. It is increasingly pulled away from the center by the views currently represented by the Tea Party, which will hinder electoral gains even more. The misfortunes of California Republicans are just more exaggerated than in other states, so far, because the Republican party here is very extreme and tends to alienate independent voters.
Blue states vs red states, 2008:
[url]http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/statemapredbluer1024.png[/url]
[i]Seems like redistribution of taxes generally, considering income tax was over 65% (and as high as 90%) for the wealthiest folks in the country during the majority of the 20th century [/i]
Teaparty types are mostly unaware of that as are “DINOs” who oppose tax raises on the wealthy (lets not forget BO just agreed to extending Bush’s tax slashes). Mr Boone’s ditty is a bit misleading anyway: the CA state fees (not all taxes) are a pain–and more of a burden on middle class/poor. But the wealthy pay much less than they have historically.
During Reagan’s first term rates were near 50% on the higher end–the investing classes still make a killing on capital gains. An increase of a few clicks on Fed capital gains rate could take a chunk out of the deficit and war debt (and at state level save programs/train/hire teachers, etc).
[i]”the wealthy pay much less than they have historically”[/i]
This is the standard economic classism argument from the left… ignoring the only thing that matters – tax revenue:
[quote]The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
In 1960, 44 percent of all federal revenues came from income taxes, while in 2008, 46 percent came from the income tax.
In 1960, the top 10 percent of households, as measured by income, paid 38 percent of all federal taxes; other ninety percent paid 62 percent. In 2008, the top 10% pay 68%[/quote]
What this says is that the growth of wealth has allowed the bottom 90% of income earners to pay a smaller percent of the tax burden.
[i]”the CA state fees (not all taxes) are a pain–and more of a burden on middle class/poor.”[/i]
True, but the middle class and poor get more in return these days. Besides, hasn’t it been the tax and spend party that has levied most of these taxes so they have more to redistribute? If you have a problem with this then you might be a Tea Party advocate and not know it.
[i]”the Republican party here is very extreme”[/i]
I think “extreme by comparison” to the most liberal state in the country. Schwarzenegger is considered significantly left of center by most true conservatives… especially on social issues.
Jeff B.: [i]I think “extreme by comparison” to the most liberal state in the country.[/i]
Most liberal state? Even more liberal than Vermont, Massachussetts and New York? Please explain.
Yes Perezoso, you detailed pretty well the concern I was alluding to with coming closer to a “flat tax” in the income tax rate trends, as well as additional state taxes and fees.
Federal Income Tax Rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_1.png
Incidentally, contrary to Mr. Boone’s claims, here’s a comparison of Federal Income Tax vs other Federal taxes over the last 30 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG
Any impression that “other” taxes have increased disproportionately to federal income tax is simply not true.
[i]”economic classism “[/i]
that’s a new one–like Breitbart style manipulation. By calling for higher taxes on the rich, you’re discriminating against the wealthy! Oppressor.
[i] Besides, hasn’t it been the tax and spend party that has levied most of these taxes so they have more to redistribute? [/i]
Schwarzenegger more like it. That was the Girly Man’s MO: instead of asking his cronies in the GOP Yacht Club for more money, tax the middle-class/poor via all sorts of fees or tuition increases, etc.
Boone also overlooks the fact that Reagan demolished the older bracketing system in what ’86, or so–to the benefit of upper middle class and very wealthy. Thus those comparisons don’t really mean much.
Justin: I think you need to study the links you provide a bit more. Your graph demonstrates what I wrote.
“In 1960, 44 percent of all federal revenues came from income taxes, while in 2008, 46 percent came from the income tax.”
Perezoso: Aren’t wealthy people just people too? You seem to have some anger directed at them.
[i]”Most liberal state?”[/i]
Certainly by policies. Based on the 2010 election, maybe by voter too.
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/146348/Mississippi-Rates-Conservative-State.aspx[/url]
Don:
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/146234/Number-Solidly-Democratic-States-Cut-Half.aspx?version=print[/url]
Another part of that poll shows CA to be solidly Democrat even though the percentage of people claiming to be Democrat has fallen (-16% nationwide and -5.4% in CA). The poll does ranks CA as 10th in line for Democrat advantage (same the poll you posted).
But frankly, this does not disprove my point. For example, in Texas I would probably be considered a lefty by their standards.
You overlooked my point on the changed tax brackets (and other factors), Boone. The comparisons don’t mean anything .
Not anger. But at times something…like Justice enters economic considerations. Are the wealthy necessarily smarter and more qualified than the middle class poor? Hardly. We shouldn’t begrudge the successful professional, say a qualified doctor, overly much (tho usually they are from wealthy families)–yet many ostentatiously wealthy people are not professionals but merely successful gamblers and hustlers.
Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs are not doctors or engineers. Most likely not even capable programmers. Yet…they make millions (mostly on stocks) while Maria, an RN makes 50000 a year or so, and has no money to play the stock market (yet Maria is measurably more educated, has higher intelligence, etc). With a good trend upwards, Steve Jobs probably makes a few million a month. Is that fair? F**k no. A capital gains tax thus has a somewhat normative aspect: it seems quite fair that gamblers and speculators pay taxes on profits that they won, merely because of fortune, especially when the tax revenues might be used to assist the state in some way. That, or just ban the stock/commodities markets. And legalized gambling for that matter.
The Republicans’ Hispanic problem:
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-republicans-hispanic-problem/2011/03/27/AFiMXokB_story.html[/url]
Jeff B., asserting California is the most liberal state: [i]Certainly by policies. Based on the 2010 election, maybe by voter too.[/i]
Both Vermont and Massachussetts support same-sex marriage, and both will soon have universal health coverage. Are there some California policies that are more liberal than those states’?
Both appear to rank higher than California on Democrat/lean Democrat, as well as ranking higher on identification as liberal. New York is also above California in those categories, but I don’t know as much about their state policies.
It is a perfect storm. Spanish-speaking moochers invade California and provide the looters with the votes they need to retain power. Unfortunately, the producers have been complicit. It is the middle class that suffers as a result.
“Spanish-speaking moochers”
Wow.
Jeff B.: [i]Spanish-speaking moochers[/i]
Could clarify that? In spite of this racist stereotype, I personally haven’t seen much in the way of effective mooching on the part of Spanish speaking immigrants. They do blue collar work that a lot of “natives” refuse to do — agricultural labor, custodial, domestic work, landscaping. In fact I suggest that many “natives” may have a more questionable work ethic with respect to this type of work.
And few Spanish speaking families I’ve met simply don’t know how to apply for programs that they could qualify for. And frequently get ripped off in the process, mostly because of language barriers.
Maybe you know something I dont, but I suspect that the anti-immigrant ranting is an excuse to deflect any connection to what’s wrong with things today (“not my fault the way things are today, it’s those damn immigrants”). The longer Republicans blame it on the immigrants, the longer they will delay seeking out effective solutions to become relevant again. Good luck with that.
No, no, no. It is not a racist comment. The term “moochers”, “looters” and “producers” is and Ayn Rand term from Atlas Shrugged (also A new movie about to be released).
The vast majority of Mexican immigrants coming to this country lack the education and/or skills to earn enough to contribute more dollars in taxes than they consume in public service. That is what the “moocher” term means… consume more from others than you produce yourself. The looters are those elites in power that take from the producers to redistribute.
I don’t deny the strong work ethic demonstrated by Mexican immigrants. I also don’t deny that many do jobs that other Americans don’t want to do (although I think this argument is way overstated). I don’t see them as being any more or less than any other race or group of people… unless they are undocumented… in that case they are more illegal. My point was that the great flood of numbers that have entered this country and this state are political fodder and enablers for those that want to tax production (the looters) and redistibute the procedes to those that want it (the moochers).
Immigrants to this state are overwelmingly Spanish-speaking. And there are copious surveys and studies to prove that they are siding with state Democrats in every election and every cause except maybe gay marriage.
wdf1 and Don: You can’t honestly say that you are not pleased with the prospects of a greater number of Hispanic voters from Mexico. The trends and possibilities must warm the heart of anyone hoping California stays in Democrat hands.
Republicans have none but themselves to blame for losing the Hispanic vote.
One more thing… about 10% of my extended family I classify as moochers. So, please don’t get your “race” underwear in a bunch over my use of the term. Race does not enter my conscience unless someone else brings it up… really. Statistics, ecomomics, ideas and behavior do matter to me… but not race, or gender or any other classification protected by the PC police.
Yeah, sure Don. Bush was so anti-Hispanic. This is where you twist the facts. How can a good conservative compete with the Party that promises to give away more free stuff?
Arnold – He was so anti-Hispanic too.
I am not surprised that these immigrants chose Dems over the GOP. What I am surprised about is that labor still makes its bed with Democrats given the left worldview of more open borders. I know a lot of people working in the construction industry quite conflicted about their political alignment. It used to be that they didn’t want the jobs immigrants were doing… now they need the work, but the wages are so depressed from the oversupply of low skilled labor it makes more sense for them to collect unemployment… and anger.
JB
Attributing derogatory terms to Ayn Rand does not excuse their pairing with the modifier “Spanish speaking”. That was all yours.
I also would like to know the basis for the statement that “this argument is way overstated.” From my personal experience in Fresno,
southern California,and Tucson, I would say if anything it is under appreciated.
Also, I would also like to offer an alternative interpretation of the terms moochers and looters.
Moocher, defined as someone who consumes more from others than they produce themselves would seem to me to apply nicely to many of the sons and daughters of the rich who have inherited great wealth which they themselves have done nothing to earn.
For looters, I would offer the alternative definition of those who are able to take advantage of the productivity of others because they were born into a position of power. Whether what you are looting is money, labor or what I would consider a persons most valuable asset, time, the act of using anothers efforts to leverage your own well being is the same. One of the differences in our world view is that you seem to see this kind of behavior only in the poor, while I would say that it is the many of the rich who have perfected the art of looting.
Pete Wilson with Prop. 187, and more recently Arizona Republicans with their immigration law, have alienated Hispanic voters from the Republican party. As you noted, Arnold was never perceived as a ‘true’ Republican. In fact, he probably could never have survived the primary process if he had run in a normal election the first time. As long as Republicans keep scapegoating immigrants, they will lose Hispanic voters.
Medwoman: [i]”Ayn Rand does not excuse their pairing with the modifier “Spanish speaking”. That was all yours”[/i]
Interesting. Then I assume you have the same or similar problem with the following post since it seems to negatively stereotype both Spanish speaking (do manual labor) and “natives” – which is PC-speak for whites – (have a more questionable work ethic).
[i]”In spite of this racist stereotype, I personally haven’t seen much in the way of effective mooching on the part of Spanish speaking immigrants. They do blue collar work that a lot of “natives” refuse to do — agricultural labor, custodial, domestic work, landscaping. In fact I suggest that many “natives” may have a more questionable work ethic with respect to this type of work.”[/i]
[i]Don Shor: “Pete Wilson with Prop. 187, and more recently Arizona Republicans with their immigration law, have alienated Hispanic voters from the Republican party”[/i]
The talk in the GOP circles is that even with a great many Republicans supporting amnesty including Ronald Reagan who effectively open the doors for them, the Hispanic vote is lost, and the GOP strategy is to ship the illegal immigrants back so to at least lessen the tyranny of the left majority. In that the Democrats can thank themselves for making illegal immigration a racial wedge issue – confusing it on purpose with legal immigration which most Republicans are for, and many want more of – for political gain. The Dems have laid out all their cards on this. It is a dangerous political play because most in the US are anti-illegal immigration. When times were good it was easy to have an open heart for all our more needy friends across the border. As more existing Americans have joined the ranks of needy, and as Democrats attempt to reward them all to garner votes… I think they will empower the Tea Party and more extreme elements on the right. The Dem lack of compromise and negotiation on illegal immigration will only play out well for them if other Americans still feel more economically secure. That does not look to be happening… and may be the reason the numbers of voters aligned with the Democrat Party are falling.
There’s a lot of truth in Greenwald’s point that California is going increasingly Democrat.
Unfortunately, California is following the lead taken by such Democrat Bastions as Detroit, Illinois, New York, New Orleans, Oakland, Vallejo, etc. Beacons of good government all. Examples of how decades of Democratic Party government has led to prosperity, education, equity, etc.
JB
I don’t know whether I would have the same problem since I am not sure exactly to whom the term ” natives” applies. For instance, if it applied to native Americans and if the implication that they as a group were lazy, then yes, I would find it equally offensive. Since II do not find manual labor to be demeaning, I do not find it a negative stereotype regardless of who is doing it or what language they speak. However, having read
Ayn Rand, I am sure that the term “moocher” is intended to be derogatory and you chose to pair it with “Spanish speaking”. I simply can’t find a way to put a benign spin on that.
‘”natives” – which is PC-speak for whites’
In this context, I take native to mean a non-immigrant as opposed to immigrant. I don’t know why you read that as being PC for white.
If this report is right then California is almost guaranteed to be totally Democrat run after the next election with no GOP veto power via Democrat’s having more than 2/3’s majority. I say great, then these crybaby liberals can’t blame anything on the GOP like they are now even though they have control of the Governorship, State Senate and House. Heck, they’ve had control of both houses for the last 14 years and have done nothing but run the state into the ground.
Maybe when it comes to the Democrats having a super majority in both houses the GOP might have to flee the state like the cowardly Wisconsin and Indiana Democrats in order to stop votes.
“The term “moochers”, “looters” and “producers” is an Ayn Rand term from Atlas Shrugged (also A new movie about to be released).”
Sorry, I don’t automatically recognize the Rand terms.
[i]The vast majority of Mexican immigrants coming to this country lack the education and/or skills to earn enough to contribute more dollars in taxes than they consume in public service.[/i]
Can you cite some credible statistics on that? Immigrants have been coming to California for decades. You have the pachuco/bracero/chicano/cholo generations in California from at least the 1930’s to the present. Why is it only now that you say that California is declining? According to you, have they always been moochers? Do they ever quit being moochers in subsequent generations?
If I have Spanish speaking immigrants married into my family, are they moochers to? How do I know? You generalize in such a broad way without any qualifications that I begin to think you’re being naive and ridiculous about this whole thing.
JEFF: [i]”The vast majority of Mexican immigrants coming to this country lack the education and/or skills to earn enough to contribute more dollars in taxes than they consume in public service.”[/i]
WDF: [i]”Can you cite some credible statistics on that?”[/i]
I found this, which seems to support Jeff’s argument:
[img]http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/labor.5.gif[/img]
Forgot to include this link to that graph and the copy which describes the findings ([url]http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/labor.html[/url]), all from a place called the “Center for Immigration Studies.”
Rifkin
That would seem to address only half of the equation. Any data by group on how much “they”consume in public services ?
medwoman:
[i]”That would seem to address only half of the equation. Any data by group on how much “they “consume in public services?”[/i]
I just did a quick Google search. Frankly I do not understand why anyone would challenge the perspective that immigrants, on average, consume more from our state and local budget coffers than they contribute.
[url]http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_5cedf831-9d5d-5335-af7e-2af6730a577c.html[/url]
[url]http://www.capsweb.org/content.php?id=308&menu_id=8[/url]
[url]http://www.cis.org/node/2649[/url]
I apologize to wdf1 for suggesting that the term “native” was PC-speak for whites. I see now that this is a common term used by researches differentiating between immigrants and others. It seems certain words can cause reactions if we don’t know the trends for use and context. I will be more careful in my use of potentially emotive terms.
E Roberts Musser: “Just a thought, but this confirms my belief that CA is out of step w the rest of the country… it is a state on the fringes…”
Don Shor: “California isn’t out of step. The coasts are more liberal, the fly-over states more conservative. In fact the Republican party base is now just the southern states + Utah.”
Now let’s see, CA is pushing for the legalization of drugs; is at the forefront of promoting gay marriage; is determined to hang onto the death penalty to be tough on crime; is a bastion of the Ku Klux Klan and the skinhead movement; has had increased ecoterror activity; etc., etc., etc. CA is a bastion of normalcy? I think not…
[quote]Schumer had scheduled a conference call with reporters, but apparently didn’t realize journalists were already on and started giving off pointers on how to talk to reporters about the budget process.
He expressed appreciation for lawmakers getting on the call and then lashed into Republicans and told fellow Democrats that they should frame the GOP view as “extreme” and associated with the Tea Party.
“Always use the word extreme, that’s what the caucus instructed me to do the other week, extreme cuts and all these riders, and [House Speaker] Boehner’s in a box. But if he supports the Tea Party there’s going to inevitably be a shutdown,” Schumer could be heard saying.[/quote]
There you have it folks. This is the Party of all things right and relevant… that one that makes media hay out of the lack of GOP compromise.
The problem for the GOP is that there is no left-equivalent of the conservative Tea Party, because the Democrat Party is already extreme.
Boone pulling out the big guns: The divine Miss Ayn. [i] A is, indubitably, A. And the unionist-collectivist rabble must be liquidated.[/i]
Even Miss Rand, bless her corrupt Nixonian heart, was slightly PC at times, and would probably object to Boone’s crypto-racism, e.g. calling hispanic people “moochers”.
CA has just had 8 years of Ayn-o-nomics via Schwarzenegger, though with Ahhnuld’s unique spin. BushCo–applied Ayn Rand (Greenspan was a Randian).
Hey Jeff,
Did you see where Anthony Weiner wants an Obamacare waiver for New York even though he was one of its biggest backers and claims he helped write the bill. The Democrats practice nothing but hypocrisy.
Rusty: How come that does not surprise me? What also does not surprise me, but always amazes me, is how these “policies for the rest of the people… not me” lovers of socialism will find a way to justify their hypocrisy. Kind of like they force poor minority children to attend crappy schools that will doom them to a life of poverty, while their kids get sent to the exclusive neighborhood schools and private schools. It is all eerily Randian.
Note how little press there is for John Boehner scrapping together enough funding to try and help DC kids get a quality education for once and for all… that is after Obama cut the programs that were helping to turn things around.
Perezoso – you are just about as funny as Gilbert Godfrey. Not quite though… which I think is a good thing for you.
No cryto-racism. Just honest about the facts. Statistics are not racist. As I wrote before, two things taking us down. One of them is a lack of honesty.
Quote from “the divine Ms. Rand”, as you so eloquently stated:
[quote]Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce.[/quote]
I would alter the Rand quote a bit:
[Quote]Money is not the tool of the moochers, who are made money-depenent by the claims and redistibution of your product by the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce.[/quote]
Jeff B: What is the appropriate way to measure the economic burden of immigrants on society?
You cite sources that choose to measure the estimated cost of social programs serving immigrants minus the estimated amount they pay in taxes. That’s one way to look at it. But imagine the profits that are permitted to the employer by hiring cheaper immigrant labor. The U.S. government can tax the employer for those additional profits. For instance, if General Electric used immigrant labor for custodial services (either through direct employment or through a subcontractor), then GE might save money which would add to its bottom line profits, which in turn would mean that the government could in turn receive more taxes from GE:
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2
010/story?id=13224558[/url]
Likewise cheaper immigrant labor provides more disposable income all around for people who hire them. I think you might find common ground with the unions on this. Very often they haven’t been very warm to the idea of immigrant labor.
Here’s a news piece from last October about how apple farmers in Washington state couldn’t get unemployed “natives” to come pick apples. They had to rely on immigrants.
[url]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130840422[/url]
At one time it is likely that your ancestors mooched off of somebody. It just depends on your perspective.
Jeff,
The hits just keep on coming. Anthony Weiner has been outspoken about all the unpaid UN diplomat’s unpaid parking tickets in NY just to find out that Weiner had $2180 of unpaid parking tickets in Washington DC.
Total hypocrites.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/weiner_roasted_as_capitol_scofflaw_KxdU9BPklyx0nsRpBb38uK
Remember Jeff, you’re either a maker or a taker in society.
But I like the term “moocher” too.
Miss Rand attempting economics is about like Boone attempting political analysis. Did she mean like produced by skilled workers? Then, so much for your GOP/TeaParty heroes in finance, business, management.
You’re about as funny as that crypto-racist Glenn Beck, Boone. Which is to say, not.
As far as your racist comments go, like most teabaggers you know little about history. California was hispanic (spanish and mexican) and native before it was the whites. The CA hispanic population–nearly equal to whites– is by and large people who were born here.
Jeff, how come when liberals are losing the argument they often will bring racism up against their opponent? Pretty pathetic, but that’s all they’ve got.
wdf1: I think problem with bringing in more these secondary and terciary benefits, is that there are other costs associated with them. For example, what are the costs for an oversupply of labor on the natives? How does the depression of wages due to this oversupply of labor reduce consumer spending and increase the number of natives accessing public assistance. I think the look at government inflows and outflows is the cleanest way to measure this.
Pathetic would be racists quoting Ayn Rand as support for like, anything. Boone made the racist comment. At least admit you’re Minutemen. Or is it mormons.
You simply don’t know what the issues are.
Jeff B: [i]I think problem with bringing in more these secondary and terciary benefits, is that there are other costs associated with them. For example, what are the costs for an oversupply of labor on the natives? How does the depression of wages due to this oversupply of labor reduce consumer spending and increase the number of natives accessing public assistance. I think the look at government inflows and outflows is the cleanest way to measure this.[/i]
In a global economy, these things already happen with the current behavior of businesses. With manufacturing, it’s easy enough to close up U.S. factories and go overseas where the labor is cheaper. Immigrants often work for cheaper, but we’re talking about services that can’t be shipped somewhere else — custodial, farmwork, domestic, etc.
It’s interesting that a conservative viewpoint typically favors helping out business, even as it means the loss of jobs domestically. But then when it comes to immigration, there’s hesitancy to be consistent.
GW Bush didn’t appear to support a hardline policy on immigration. He always threw out the phrase, “guest worker program” and actively sought out ways to connect to the Hispanic/Latino community. Bush was your last successful conservative at a national level. I’d take a close look at his political playbook to figure out a better way come up with a friendlier message.
Everyone in this country (except Native Americans) are immigrants or descendents of immigrants. You can’t denigrate immigrants without rubbing voters the wrong way at some level.
[i]”Everyone in this country (except Native Americans) are immigrants or descendents of immigrants”[/i]
I am talking about here and now and California. See the prior post from Rich for the education level of Mexican immigrants.
What is the difference between a US company outsourcing a job, or hiring an illegal immigrant? Both produce some economic benefit related to the company’s lower cost of labor. The immigrant also pays some taxes. However, that immigrant consumes much more than he contributes to the economy. The outsourced employee does not. From this perspective, we are better off outsourcing than importing unskilled, uneducated labor.
When I was younger I worked on farms and ranches. Today the wages are too depressed to make it a viable employment option for my sons. The same with many construction jobs I worked when I was young.
The way that this works, we pay a tax in the cost of all the low-skilled, low-educated immigrants in this state, and this subsidizes business. Why aren’t liberals up in arms over this additional benefit provided businesses? Because they benefit from all the new voters to loot for.
Actually Jeff , some of us “on the left” do object “subsidizing business” with these taxes. It’s just that again, we see the issue differently.
I would favor paying the farm laborers a wage that would be viable for your sons. I place the blame for this situation not on the workers who are willing to produce for the low wage to provide a better life for their family, which is apparently exactly what you did, but rather on the employers who are willing to employ at substandard wages to enhance their income.
I also find it a little disingenuous to limit the discussion to “here and now” pretending that there is no relevance to the history that defined which parts of the southwest ultimately ended up owned by the US and which by Mexico. There is a bit of irony in the use of terms such as
“Spanish speaking moochers” while living between cities named San Francisco and Sacramento historically taken by the more crafty and or militarily more powerful “looters”of the north for their own profit, clearly for redistribution, just to the already wealthy and powerful,
[i]” I place the blame for this situation not on the workers who are willing to produce for the low wage to provide a better life for their family, which is apparently exactly what you did, but rather on the employers who are willing to employ at substandard wages to enhance their income. “[/i]
First point… I do not blame the legal immigrants pursuing their rational and honest interests, nor the companies pursuing their rational and honest interest to make a profit. I do blame illegal immigrants for breaking the law. I also blame the companies that knowingly hire illegal workers. But mostly I blame the Federal government, and the looter left politicians for failing to stop the flow and deport those who cross our borders illegally.
I hear this argument of “it is businesses’ fault” from the left, and frankly I think it is a hollow talking point made up to deflect the argument from the facts. The first employer that starts doing background checks to verify legal residency will be the ACLU whipping post for discrimination claims. The left media will grab the story: “The mean CEO that destroys the lives and dreams of hard-working Hispanic families”. The left will howl at the travesty of so many poor people being harmed.
The left rejects ID cards. The left rejects any action that they can opportunistically slap with a label of racial profiling.
Frankly, despite the lack of transparency for the left’s true desire for copious immigration from down south, I don’t see how any bleeding heart can truly support having employers start firing and refuse to hire any resident that does not have sufficient papers. First, it is just plain mean. Second, it is not the responsibility of business to police our borders… that is what our Federal government is tasked to do. Lastly, it would be extremely expensive and ineffective to distribute this role to every business that hires.
Even if businesses stopped hiring illegals, many people from across our southern border would still try to migrate here for the wonderful government-provided benefits they would receive.
[i]”I also find it a little disingenuous to limit the discussion to “here and now” pretending that there is no relevance to the history that defined which parts of the southwest ultimately ended up owned by the US and which by Mexico.”[/i]
You can’t be serious on this point are you? How far back in history do we get to go to justify invasions?
Note that we do not have a flood of immigrants from our northern border. The issue is entirely economic. We simply cannot afford all the poor people that have immigrated to this country from south of the border over the last 2-3 decades. Prior to that the US had the capacity to assimilate the flow of all immigrants.
The left rejects solutions to this problem just like they reject solutions to fix our crappy public schools and solutions to balance our budgets by reducing the cost of our overpriced public sector labor … and their rejections are bankrupting the state and country.
In California, the cost of illegal immigration, ironically, about equals our budget shortfalls.