Why They Hate President Ronald Reagan

Once upon a time, there were two great superpowers on Earth. There was the Union of Soviet Socialist "Republics," (USSR), a.k.a. the Soviet Union, and there was the USA.

The USSR was controlled from Moscow by the leaders of its Communist Party, with an iron grip over the official Soviet "republics" of Russia at the others, and the Eastern European puppet governments of East Germany and such. It was a massive land expanse all under the control of the elite Soviet men.

A "cold war" existed between the Soviets and free nations such as the USA and UK, with global nuclear war presented a serious and eminent threat.

The USA had series of Presidents as follows:

FDR - A Big Government Democrat who expanded the federal government enormously. Most terms of any President.

Harry Truman - First became President with the death of FDR, as he was FDR's last VP. A Democrat who pushed for the United Nations and national health insurance.

Dwight Eisenhower - Republican who did not make limiting government a driver of his campaign or Presidency. He'd been a successful WWII General.

JFK - Democrat. While some of his positions sound downright conservative today, since he was a young, handsome, well-spoken, charismatic Democrat who apparently won a public standoff with the Soviets (the Cuban Missile Crisis) and was assassinated, he has been revered to this day. He had been Senator.

LBJ - Democrat who pushed for the Great Society government expansion after first serving as VP under JFK.

Richard Nixon - Republican who ended the gold standard, set some price controls, ushered in the EPA, and did not make limiting government a driver of his campaigns or Presidency. He had a long political history, including having been VP.

Gerald Ford - Republican who basically prostrated himself in the wake of Nixon's resignation. He'd been in Congress and then VP under Nixon. He did not make limiting government a driver of his time in office.

Jimmy Carter - Democrat who continued to increase the size and powers of government. Americans were basically told to accept higher energy prices, and by this time more and more on the Left were accepting the Soviet Union and its control over Eastern Europe as permanent and just another, valid way of governing. Carter had been Governor of Georgia.

Then there was the election of 1980.

Of course the Left and partisan Democrats wanted Carter to win a second term over any Republican.

The Republican nomination came down to two choices: Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Bush was much like the other recent Republican Presidents. He had been in government forever and was milquetoast. He'd "waited his turn." Reagan was a "cowboy" who had served as Governor of California, interrupting the Brown Democrat Dynasty, but had been out of office since early 1975 and had no other political experience. He spoke about limiting government, government often being the problem. With talk like that, the Left wasn't going to be able to push through to nationalized health for all and all sorts of new federal governments they claim to be birthrights. He took a stance of being aggressive in defending liberty against the Soviets, and unreservedly claimed we were the good guys and the commies were the bad guys.

He cut taxes and built up the military. A terrible economy recovered well under Reagan.

What Reagan did was ruin what they saw as a great march to globalist progressivism. He revived modern conservatism and patriotism, unashamedly touting the benefits of capitalism and private industry. He lead a revival of our country.

They predicted Reagan was going to lead us into war and nuclear annihilation. Instead, his policies and collaboration with UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II lead to the collapse of the Soviet empire and new freedoms for a significant portion of the world and renewed strength and leadership for the USA.

Yes, it's true, he didn't drop everything and overhaul the organization of the federal government and spending to try to eliminate a negative consequence of the entirely voluntary activities of bloody and rough anal sex with strangers, and sharing recreational drug needles.

And he wasn't perfect. No President is flawless.

But what he did was ruin "everything" for the Left and certain political cultists, and so to this day they hate him with a passion.

He was one of our greatest Presidents.

The Gipper

A Safe and Reliable Water Supply is a Basic Element of Civilization

The Leftist Democrats controlling California and Los Angeles county are failing again. They are failing at some basic, core responsibilities.

Despite people literally fleeing the state, there is again a water "shortage" and residents are yet again being told to reduce their water usage.

Ever look west? California, including Los Angeles county, is on the world's largest body of water.

There isn't a shortage of water. There's a shortage of competent, dedicated service to the residents of California by people who are supposed to be public servants.

The Leftists running the state will blame "climate change" for their failure.

Hogwash.

Living Wages and Liberty with Wages

Limited-government Republicans aren't against anyone earning a living wage.

We are for individuals, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or any other personal characteristic getting paid every cent they, or their representative, can negotiate for their labor, and for working families to be able to spend more of their money how they want, rather than how someone else wants them to spend it.

Stop the invasive Big Government Politicians who increasingly want to tell women, African-Americans, Latino-Americans, LGBTQ+ Americans, disabled Americans, poor Americans, and Senior Citizens how they can and can't spend their hard-earned money and want to take more of their money away from them.

Tax Day is Tomorrow

With income taxes due tomorrow, here are some of my entries dealing with taxes:

Wrong Turns on California Roads

Dear Progressives, Socialists, Liberals, Leftists, and Democrats

Funding Government: Of Fees and Taxes

The State of California

[I'm bumping this up because the new gasoline tax is about to take effect.]

I was born in California and have lived my entire life in California. The state has great climate and geography, natural resources, and human resources. Unfortunately, it is ruled unchallenged by gender-confused, big government, nanny state, unionist, environut reconquistadors, or, to be redundant, Leftists. Democrats have a supermajority in the state Senate and Assembly, and our Governor is a Democrat. These are not moderate Democrats, either. They are far on the Left. Not only is San Francisco city/county led by Leftists, but so is Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles. L.A.’s Mayor is itching to run for Governor or even President.

Illinois is having trouble and California isn't far behind. This is what the rest of the Union faces the more Left it goes.

Here are just some of the things going on in the state right now, that are getting closer and closer to driving me and my family from our home state.

Wrong Turns on the California Roads

What a surprise! Unions of engineers and laborers who rely on taxpayer dollars want higher taxes and fees to "fix the roads" in California, and the Leftist Democrats who literally control the state like the idea of higher fees on automobiles and higher taxes on gasoline and diesel.

Mind you, the fuel is already taxed to build and maintain the roads, but the fund has been raided by politicians and what's left has often been spent on underused transit projects.

Over and over and over again, Californians have been taxed with promises of "fixing" one thing, only to have the money go elsewhere.

Not this time, say the Democrats, like Lucy offering Charlie Brown a chance to kick the football.

They claim that the law they just adopted will amend the state constitution to ensure these new taxes and fees will go to the roads. Ah, but 1) they sneak in "and transit"; 2) even if they stick to this, they'll simply redirect the existing taxes and fees away; 3) there's always a loophole that allows the money to be redirected.

To add to the nefarious nature of this, the increase is tied to inflation, so that means the pain for the taxpayers will never ease, and since raising fuel taxes causes inflation, it's a vicious cycle. Gas taxes go up, inflation goes up as a result (because just about every good and service we use has transportation costs), and so gas taxes go up again.

This is what happens when your state is completely controlled by Democrats. Every statewide office is held by a Democrat and the Democrats have enough of the needlessly bicameral legislature that they can do whatever they want. And they do. So as the socialists, unionists, and reconquistadors who control Los Angeles and San Fransisco run Sacramento, everyone else in the state has to bend over and take it.

A Prime Example of a Delusional Democrat Voter

A Leftist posted this:

This nation is in trouble, so let's be clear:

Someone's been listening to Obama speeches! Trouble, eh? Hmmm. Who's been President the last 7.5 years?

If you're still talking about Hillary Clinton's emails

Dismissing what Clinton did as just about "e-mails" is like dismissing what Nixon did as "just about tapes". Actually, Nixon did far less. And fellow Republicans dropped him and he resigned. You Democrats are not calling for Clinton to drop out.

instead of the urgent need to get weapons of war out of the hands of civilians, you are part of the problem.

What exactly qualifies as a "weapon of war"? I'm guess it is a gun that is currently legal to own somewhere in the country that this guy thinks is too big. Or maybe he's talking about all firearms. Whatever. Well, considering there are millions of people - PEOPLE, meaning things that are 100-300 pounds and need shelter, food, etc. so they can't exactly stay stashed under a floorboard - who came into this country and are here illegally and we "can't" find them or stop more from coming here, then how in the world would we effectively prevent firearms from being smuggled, at great profit, into this country?!? And is this guy talking about confiscation? So he's in favor of something that would certainly lead to stand-offs, barricade situations, groups retreating into fortified armed compounds with their children, and resulting shootouts???

If you're planning to vote for a corrupt businessman whose chief concern is his bottom line with no concern for the small businesses and workers who got him there, you're part of the problem.

I'm no fan of Trump as a candidate. He might be an awful President. He might be a great one. We know Hillary Clinton is corrupt, thinks she can get away with anything, and would do harm to this Union.

And don't feign ignorance. Clinton's biggest concern is her own finances, hence the Foundation shenanigans. Trump's successes and even some of his failures at least helped many other people.

Let's not even get into his overt racism, misogyny, and avocation of violence against his opponent's supporters.

Of course you're not going to get into it because you're probably thinking of parodies of what he actually has said. For example, saying that some illegal aliens coming here are murderers and rapists is not racism. And it is fact.

If you believe your 'good book' means that civil rights and equal rights doesn't apply to gay, trans, or other historically oppresses minorities, you are part of the problem.

The Holy Bible says that there are two sexes, marriage unites the sexes, and that sex is for marriage. That has nothing to do with denying anybody any rights. And MLK Jr. was a REVEREND. I know you like to forget about stuff like that. By the way, my argument against judicial neutering of state marriage licenses didn't invoke the Bible or appeal to theology or religion.

If the congress critter you elected has voted more than once to repeal the affordable care act or defund Planned Parenthood or for lower taxes on the rich, you are part of the problem.

So if  you don't want your tax money used to slaughter innocent human beings for convenience, if you don't like being forced by the federal government to buy a service, and if you think people should be able to keep more of their own money to invest (and grow the economy) as they see fit, then that's a problem?!?

Right now we need to be united as a nation

HA!!! This is from someone who aligns with people who are constantly trying to label and divide people and treat them differently based on their skin color, national origin, religion, sexual desires, and so forth!!!

to reform ourselves into a society where there is really respect for all,

Why are we supposed to respect clumps of cells/collections of molecules? And reform... wasn't Obama going to "fundamentally transform" the USA? Is he a liar or failure?

no poverty

There will always be poverty if for no other reason than Leftists will always say people who have less wealth are poor.

where healthcare is a right

Healthcare is already a "right". Say, didn't you mention Obamacare above? But true rights do not obligate others without their consent unless a crime is involved.

education opportunities are the same for the child in the highest income neighborhood as the poorest

So you're for vouchers? Yeah, didn't think so. There's no way to achieve this other than to criminalize private education, tutoring, and to get all children out of their homes (which may be chaotic) and stick them in uniform government dorms. After all, their parents might subvert the law and give them some sort of educational advantage if they are left with their parents. Say, who runs those school districts in the "poor" neighborhoods? Around here, Leftist Democrat Unionists do. Hmmmm...

and we live in a way that values natural resources

Selling oil does value natural resources!

so we can start making real inroads against global climate change.

I don't believe he really cares because he's not living in a cave with nothing manufactured.

The good news is there is a path forward and it starts this November by getting out the vote and installing elected officials who will actually work toward a progressive future.

So, Obama wasn't it? You were screaming "Yes we can!" when he was elected. I saw you.

We cannot stay on the path we're on today and expect workable solutions.

On that we agree.

Dear Progressives, Socialists, Liberals, Leftists, and Democrats

We're $19,000,000,000,000 in debt, just officially on paper and just on the federal level. This doesn't count obligations that haven't been added to the balance sheets, state debts, local government debts, etc.

Our government can't keep spending more money than we have, especially not at growing rates of the size of deficits.

"Tax the rich" you say?

All of the wealth could be confiscated from "the rich" and the debt and spending would still be a problem. In fact, it would be even more of a problem because in the following years, "the rich" would be generating less economic growth, less tax revenue, and there would be more people "in need".

The cold, hard fact is that at least one of these things must happen if our nation is going to survive:

1. Government spending has to be cut significantly, and the way government budgets going forward has to change. Slashing spending on the military will not satisfy this need.

2. The federal government has to sell off land and other assets and generate more revenue (through oil drilling, for example) on some of the land it doesn't sell.

3. We need to either birth and raise enough children or import enough immigrants (immigrants are people who come to stay, not people who come here for certain benefits and then return home) who'll end up contributing more tax revenue than they'll take. With immigration, it must be taken into account whether or not these individuals either were a net cost in USA tax revenue (through receiving foreign aid) or generated a net in USA tax revenue (through buying goods and services of American businesses) when they were living in other countries. It will be better, on a global scale, to birth our own new Americans rather than moving producing individuals from other countries to here.

I understand that Leftist policies and philosophies are in conflict with those three times in the following ways:

1. Leftism demands increasing government spending. If not directly, by insisting on more and larger government programs.

2. Leftists would rather the federal government increase its land holdings and would rather NO business use such land, especially because Leftists consider such activity an environmental threat.

3. Leftists are fine with immigration, but encourage immigrants to favor larger government. Leftists are more likely to see children as people who should be de facto wards of the state most of the time, as parasites or abusers of the environment (if only through their parents' actions), as burdens, as hindrances to the empowerment of women, as things to be aborted. All one has to do is look at western Europe, which is thoroughly Leftist, to see that the birth rate does not even replace the population.

If you care about the USA having a future the only logical solution is to adopt one, both, or all three of these conservative or traditional & limited government principles:

1. Making government smaller and more limited government.
2. Selling off government/public assets and/or access to land.
3. Making more babies and raising them to avoid consuming as many tax dollars as they generate and who will also vote for smaller, limited government.

Unless we produce it from scratch ourselves, everything we receive, whether goods or services or money, has been generated by someone else. Either we use voluntary transactions to get these things, or we use force, which means government force or crime, to get these things. Even if you are content to increase confiscation for your personal benefit, we, collectively, simply can't function if there is consistently a higher overall consumption than overall production. There will be less production if producers are punished with more confiscation and decreasing freedom to engage in, and benefit from, voluntary transactions.

Lester Doesn't Understand Money or Economics

Have you seen this making the social networking rounds?

"B. Lester" apparently has no clue about money or economics, or is deliberately playing on the envy of others.

There probably are people out there who literally hoard cash and keep in in their home, or wherever. Some of them are "black market" operators. (Some ignorant people think I'm talking about the slave trade.) However, these aren't the people who end up on the cover of Forbes.

The people who make the cover of Forbes as role models do not hoard cash. If they did, they wouldn't be such successful people. No, these people have built up wealth by helping to provide goods and services that people want. Even if they had stashed all of their money in a bank, they would still be helping others because the bank would be using that money.

Rich people have not impoverished this union. On the contrary, as they build wealth, they help others to build wealth as well. It is up to others, rich, middle-class, or poor, to decide whether or not they want to buy what the wealthy person is selling, or whether or not they want to work for the wealthy person, or invest in the wealthy person's business. That is all voluntary. The poor person's dollar is not taken away against his will. The exception is when a government goes beyond Constitutional mandate and spends taxpayer money on something it isn't supposed to. Even then, since the poor do not pay federal income taxes, the poor person's dollar is not taken away. On the contrary, the "poor" in this union are provided with housing, food, health care, education, military/fire/police protection, recreation, transportation, sanitation and so many other things, largely or entirely paid for by others.

Almost all of the people who circulate this picture would be considered as "hoarding cash" when compared to most of the world, yet they whine and moan about other people doing even better than they have. Being angry at others is a lot easier than working hard, making good choices, and being a success. The problem is, electing legislators who keep forcibly redistributing a wealthy person's earnings or keep borrowing to provide us with goodies is not sustainable. That is impoverishing this union. Free your mind from hate-filled Leftist dung and think, indeed.

What Are You Going to Do For Me, Bernie?

My dad came from very modest means. His father told him he was spending too much time on his studies and not enough helping with work, which mean working with his hands. My father was the first in his family to go to college, because some of his teachers strongly encouraged him to fill out scholarship paperwork. He graduated from a university and moved for work.

My mother came from a middle-class family. She went to a university, graduated, and went to work.

My parents met working (someone people should never do now thanks to sexual harassment issues). They dated and, before very long, they married - they didn't shack up for years and pop out children outside of wedlock. My mother had avoided getting pregnant before she married. My father had avoided impregnating before he married. But they wanted children and my mother was not going to abandon her children to daycare.

My father decided he needed to earn more money if he was going to support a wife and children, and that meant getting more education. He worked during the day and went to school at night. He completed his studies and changed careers, and subsequently worked his ass off, keeping his nose clean in the process as he climbed a career ladder. My parents started to have children and bought house that was a good place to raise a family, and they added on to the house as needed as the family grew.

We didn’t live a flashy life. My parents did not spend money frivolously. They emphasized good character and effective studying. We went to public schools. They avoided turning us in to entitled narcissists. We never were encouraged to have anger towards anyone who had more wealth than our family nor seek anything from the government.

I studied hard. I kept my nose clean. I avoided substance abuse and fornicating and putting myself at risk of deadly diseases or knocking a girl up. I was active in a sport, had hobbies, and got a job while still in high school.

Then I went to an affordable university. I never once walked out of class in protest, vandalized or trespassed or assaulted anyone while there, never shouted down any speakers, and I kept working at my job through my full-time studies. I graduated and immediately began working at my job full-time, but also took on some side jobs. After a few years of pounding the pavement, (because I knew I needed to make more money), I was hired in a career-potential job. I also kept my old job, working it part time, and still took on some side jobs. I was working my ass off. I was bringing in much more income than my living expenses, because I lived modestly, drove a used car, practiced good financial habits, avoided crime and substance abuse, and avoiding getting any women knocked up.

I invested my money.

Largely paying for the festivities myself, I married a woman with shared values and goals who’d also been financially responsible, avoided crime and substance abuse, and was never knocked up.  Despite significant challenges, she’d graduated from a university in four years and had gone to work full-time in skilled profession. Like me, she had avoided shacking up with anyone.

I dropped the part-time job and my wife reduced her work hours so we could actually BE married rather than living like mere roommates.

We lived modestly.

When we went ahead with our plans to start a family, as she had insisted and I agreed, she quit her job. We “splurged” on a new minivan by paying cash for it and selling off another vehicle. When market conditions were in our favor, we bought a house so our family would have a stable and otherwise suitable place to grow.

We continue to live modestly. Because we save and invest for our future, there are a many things we want to do NOW that we can’t. Our investments are entirely voluntary. We CHOOSE to invest in certain businesses. The people who work for those businesses ASKED for their jobs, and agreed to take them at the compensation that was offered. The people who buy the products and services of those businesses do so voluntarily. The only exception is when Big Government gets involved.

Now Senator Bernie Sanders, and other people who talk like him, want to punish me and my family. If not directly, they will punish me by attacking, plundering, and restricting the companies in which I invest, to buy votes from a lot of people who have lived beyond their means, who went to schools they couldn’t afford and, often, misbehaved while there, who have frittered away their money and health on substance abuse, who have stolen and assaulted, who’ve been popping out kids out of wedlock.

Why do you want to punish me, Bernie?

What are you going to do for ME Bernie?

Actually, you know what? I don’t want a President who does things for me, other than doing things for the Union of which I’m a citizen. I want a President who seeks to protect the Union from foreign enemies, who’ll prosecute interstate crime, who will veto legislation that does more harm than good, and who will make appointments/nominations of individuals who truly respect the Constitution. I don’t want a President to be my Daddy or Gandaddy or to promise me goodies.

The best thing a candidate for POTUS can say in response to “What are you going to do for me?” is “The same thing I’m going to do for everyone else; try to protect you from foreign enemies and limit government."

The President is not there to solve every problem. The federal government shouldn't even try to solves every problem. Some problems can't be solved. Some things some people call problems aren't problems at all, or are problems of their own making.

Stop looking for a politicians to clean up messes you've made. Stop trying to hire someone to be your bully to take from those who have produced. Make something of yourself.

George Carlin, Economist?

I have no idea if George Carlin, who was often a very funny man, said this or not. It doesn't really matter. The Left circulates this, thinking it is oh-so-clever.

I am for limited, Constitutional government.  Most people would classify me as a conservative. I most certainly do not want to "give the rich more money." The rich earn their own money. What I am against is taking, by force, even more money from the rich to waste on ineffective, inefficient crap that isn't even Constitutional in the first place or out of some sense of envy.

Perhaps the quote is being circulated in reference to capital gains, which is where some rich people are making most of their money? In that case, we're talking about gains made on investments. That income isn't taxed at the same rate as wages or salary because: 1) most of the time, it was already taxed as wages or salary before it was invested in the first place; 2) it was taxed again already since corporations pay taxes; 3) we want to encourage investment; 4) when the tax rate on capital gains is raised, actual revenue collected decreases.

That is because yes, people lose their incentive to take the risk of investing in ways that will subject them to higher capital gains tax rates. Rich people have choices about what to do with their money.

Meanwhile, many poor people do lose their incentive to be productive and work to earn money if they're getting hand-outs. If someone can get food, housing, clothing, medical care, education, recreation, entertainment, transportation, fire protection, police protection, and so much more without ever working, many of people will choose not to work.

It is ridiculous to compare letting rich people keep they money they've earned (rather than taxing them even more) to increasing hand-outs to people who choose not to work or not to advance their place in life.

Also, in general, rich people and poor people do not handle money the same way, or react to money to the same way. That is why many of the rich are rich in the first place, and why many of the poor are poor in the first place. Not all, but for the most part.

If you were to take, at random, ten rich individuals and ten poor individuals and even out their net worth and liquid cash, not so long down the line from doing that, most of the formerly rich individuals would be much better off that most of the formerly poor. That is because the rich do the things they do, and the poor people do the things they do.

The Left is always looking for ways to take money from productive people who put money to good use and give it to strangers who piss it away.

State of the Union 2015 Wish List

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, but permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over thirteen years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S. Apologize for Benghazi and what happened in the wake of that terrorist attack. Stress that ISIS and other such organizations must be obliterated.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Explain that allowing illegal aliens any advantage in gaining permanent legal status ahead of legal immigrants is a slap in the face to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

We're One Race - Human. Yes, "race"-based slavery was our national birth defect, and injustices persisted after slavery was abolished, but hostile racists have very little power now in our overall system. Law enforcement must have limited powers, and rioting shouldn't be tolerated.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Encourage Responsible Gun Ownership. As it is the duty of every able person to stand up to evil & crime in protection of the innocent, responsible gun ownership, training, and practice should be encouaged, and state and local laws should allow for this. Apologize for Fast & Furious.

Declare the Growing National Debt Unacceptable. Explain that it is a basic function of the federal government to adopt a budget, and that it is unsustainable and immoral to accumulate increasing debt, thereby burdening future generations. The government should not encourage further dependency on government.

Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Equal Access to Free Markets. Explain some of the major benefits of free markets, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable. It is clear that people can succeed in the USA regardless of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation, and focusing on slights, imagined or real, based on these personal characteristics, is fostering hostility and division and self-defeating thinking, doing more harm than good.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. Given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence and character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

Why a Gay Man Would Vote Republican

Something Leftists Democrats will often say is "Why would a gay person vote Republican?"

I can think of many reasons why.

Maybe the person cares more about...

1) American values and the American Trinity (Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust)
2) the economy
3) government (taxpayer) debt
4) government employee pension reform
5) rewarding instead of punishing private sector success
6) free markets
7) fiscal responsibility and sustainability
8) monetary policy
9) decreasing dependency on the government
10) economic liberty
11) private property rights
12) tax policy and reform
13) Constitutionally-limited government
14) Federalism
15) judicial restraint and strict constructionism
16) tort reform
17) education reform
18) protecting human life
19) protecting crime victims and holding criminals accountable
20) reformative and restorative justice and reducing crime
21) personal defense and Second Amendment rights
22) national defense
23) religious freedom
24) strong families and parental authority/responsibility

...and any number of other things than:

1) voting as part of a lockstep groupthink support for pandering politicians who divide the American people into different groups based on skin color, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

2) making sure that everyone is comfortable with - and affirming of -  everything a homosexual person does

3) reorganizing everything to make sure homosexual behavior is depicted and affirmed in each and every area of everyone’s life

4) neutering all state marriage licensing through judicial intrusion

In short, they care about other things more than whether or not a politician cheers the fact that a man gets his jollies with another man.

If our nation goes into decline because of fiscal irresponsibility, too much dependency rather than productivity, too much federal government micromanaging of our lives and businesses, identity politics balkanization, or ineffective national defense, things like whether Harvey Milk has enough space in grade school textbooks is going to be the least of a homosexual person’s worries.

The original question presumes that Republicans or Republican policies are "anti-gay". There are some Republicans who do not like people because they are homosexual, but there are some Democrats like that, too. Where in the national GOP platform is anything that is against homosexual people? Affirming that marriage = bride+groom and that such marriages are the ideal for raising children is in no way a knock on homosexual people – it is simply recognizing the difference between men and women and therefore a difference between the pairing of a man and a woman and the pairing of two men or two women. Are there any more Republicans than Democrats elected to major office (Congress, Governor) who have expressed hatred for homosexual people?

Republicans are against bullying and against violence to an innocent person or their property, regardless of their sexual orientation. I’m not aware of any prominent Republican with any power who wants to prevent homosexual people from having the freedom of association.

There are homosexual Republicans, and there are heterosexual Republicans who support many parts of the Leftist homosexual agenda. There are Republicans who want to improve things for "the gay community" through other means than judicial fiat.

So there shouldn't be anything confusing about why a homosexual person would vote for Republicans.

But the Leftist Democrats do this with all of the groups to which they pander with identity politics, including African Americans, Latino Americans, and Vaginal Americans. They identify someone by one aspect of their personal identity and tell that person they have to support Democrats... as if that person can't think for themselves and the only thing that matters about that person is what someone else is going to do for them based on their skin color or genitals or their genitals being the same as their partner's.

The Moral High Ground

It is immoral and counterproductive for the government to take money by force from one person or group of people and give it another unless the recipient is performing a Constitutionally assigned function or the function is otherwise a Constitutional mandate. - Personal Declaration of The Playful Walrus

Leftists want everyone to believe that people like me want poor people to die painful deaths in the streets, because people like me oppose unconstitutionally expanding federal government powers, higher income and capital gains tax rates, and paying for new programs with either increased debt or printing more money (which devalues the dollar).

Charity can't do it all, our Leftists friends say. But the fact is, this side of eternity, nobody can do it all.

Private, voluntary efforts could certainly do a lot more if the government eased up on micromanaging and let people keep more of their own earnings. With just about anything, private, voluntary efforts are more efficient than federal government. This is why the Constitution gives the federal government limited powers, and tells the federal government what it can do, not only what it can't do. Want a huge new federal program to fight "poverty", despite the spectacular failure of those that came before? Pass a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution isn't there just to make sure you can pee all over The Bible and call it art.

Our Leftist friends what to confiscate, with guns draw if it comes to that, that for which people have worked, and give it to people who choose not to work, or to make unwise decisions about finances. That is immoral.

I want to help the needy. That is why I give to voluntary efforts. More of my Leftist friends could do the same if they worked harder and were better with what they earned. Leftist Billionaires can already give their money away, to charity or the U.S. Treasury, if they want to.

Does the Christian Left Bear False Witness?

The Christian Left, eh?

Oh, yes, how could I have missed it all of these years?!?

The Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ According to St. Karl, Chapter 5 Verse 1:

And Jesus said, "Go convince the Romans to take a percentage, whether 15 or 35 percent, from the more wealthy half of the people, from the faithful and unfaithful alike, and have the Romans keep a portion for themselves, then have them distribute the rest to other people for their foor purchases, both those who honor their bodies and those who abuse their bodies alike, those who have saved and those who have not, those who have worked and those who have chosen not to." - (NLV - New Leftist Version)

Hey, doesn't the Bible say something about bearing false witness? Of course, that is assuming the "Christian Left" actually cares what the Bible says.

There are no children starving in the United States of America as a result of Congress refusing to raise taxes on "the rich", who are being taxed plenty.

The fact is, most of the "poor" children in this union are fat. Plenty are obese.

If there are any starving children here, it is entirely because their parents or guardians are neglectful. That is not the responsibility of Congress. We have various taxpayer programs already, including school meals (breakfast in addition to lunch) and many private charities that provide food.

It is not Congress' responsibility, either Constitutionally or morally, to make sure every kid is getting fed (and the kids are getting fed.)  But Jesus did tell His followers to care for the poor directly. He didn't tell them to go strip other people of their money.

The Christian Left is spending spending money on all sorts of things, like getting this image out, that they could be giving to starving children. I happen to know that the person who reposted this picture for me to see spends a lot of money on booze and entertainment. Every dollar they have spent on those things, and the computer, etc. they use could have gone to feeding a starving kid.

When "the rich" can invest and donate their money, rather than sending it down the federal government drain, they help more of the poor eat well, and rise up from being poor so that they, in turn, can help others.

Elizabeth Warren Can’t See the Forest Through the Trees Planted by Capitalists

Elizabeth Warren certainly is popular with my Leftist connections on Facebook. They proudly copy and pasted her comments:

I hear all this, you know, 'Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No.

Yes, it is class warfare to target the "rich" – by definition.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own -- nobody.

Well, no, there isn't, because someone else has to buy the good and services provided by the rich. The fact is, nobody really does ANYTHING on their own, but we still need to have boundaries. There still needs to be some level of personal autonomy, private property and ownership, and personal responsibility. Should Warren be elected to Senate, she will not have done it on her own, yet she will not be forced to let more than a third of her votes be cast by someone else.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

The rich paid for those roads, too. All of us - who buy gas, anyway - paid for those roads, all of us can use them. Even the people who don't buy gas.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

Property owners, a group which definitely includes the rich, paid to educate them. But I'm for separation of state and school anyway.

You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for.

Again, the rich pay for them, too – more so than other people.

You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory -- and hire someone to protect against this -- because of the work the rest of us did.

Uh, is there a factory that doesn't have private security?

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless -- keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

And why does that have to be through the hands of D.C. politicians? Who is it that is funding charities, anyway?

No doubt unwittingly, Elizabeth Warren actually makes our point for us – that by letting free markets work, people who build wealth employ other people to mutual benefit. The wealthy got wealthy, in part, through providing jobs.

The people the wealthy hired were compensated as agreed. The customers who bought the goods or services provided by the wealthy were given that for which they paid. Now, people like Warren want to ignore the fact that the mutual, voluntary transactions were completed and use government force to make the wealthy pay more not only to those already compensated for their work, but to uninvolved people who refuse to work at all.

Are we to believe that someone who studied hard and stayed clean and involved through high school, college, and medical school to become a doctor and works long and odd hours saving lives and then practices good financial habits has less right to enjoy the fruits of her labors and risks than someone who goofed off, dropped out, abused substances, caused trouble, watches the clock at his entry-level job to make sure that he never appears to be working a minute more than 40 hours per week (minus breaks), and blows his money?

All of the things Warren lists have been available to all. It is the wealthy that used them in ways valued most by society.

You can find some good responses to Warren here, here, and here.

Funding Government: Of Fees and Taxes

How do governments get revenue with which to operate? No, contrary to what some would have you believe, it doesn’t magically appear out of nothing. There are some basic ways governments are funded:

Conquest, thereby gaining resources previously outside of that government's domain

Owning businesses, thereby selling goods and services.

Collecting rent

Selling land or mining rights, etc.

Gifts

Customs duties and tariffs on imported or exported goods

Taxes

Fees

Assessments

Fines and forfeitures


Some sources would list loans, bonds, tributes, and subventions, but each of these eventually necessitate one of the other funding means previously listed.

Let’s take a closer look at these funding methods.

Despite what the America-bashers say, we haven’t engaged in conquest in a long time. Very few people would advocate conquest in the historic sense. I do think a valid argument could be made for seizing the assets of nongovernmental terrorist groups and using those to fund our anti-terrorism efforts and to compensate American victims of terrorism.

The government should own very few, if any businesses. Free markets can take care of the needs there.

Collecting rent, for any land the government owns, is certainly valid. That rent should go first and foremost to the maintenance of that property.

Selling land and mineral rights. This could be a good idea. The government needs a certain amount of land for essential Constitutional functions, but otherwise should consider getting out of being a landowner.

People sometimes give gifts to local government, such as donating their land to be a municipal park upon their death. Gifts, such as statues, may come from other places. Gifts to governments should be under certain narrow circumstances to avoid the appearance of undue influence.

The "buy American" crowd loves the idea of duties and tariffs on imports.  However, these keep prices high for American consumers and reduce the incentive to Americans to provide goods and services that will be desired around the world.

Now we’re getting to the nitty-gritty.

Taxes are forced and supposedly for a common benefit. We have income taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes, sin taxes, gas taxes, so on and so forth. Although I highly doubt it will ever happen, most of these should be done away with. A sales tax may work, provided the government doesn’t lose too much through underground markets. Sales taxes will still mean "the rich" will be likely to pay most of the tax burden, because they tend to buy more expensive items. We should not allow taxes to be called “fees” for the sake of political comfort.

Fees are for a special benefit, collected upon a transaction. For example, not everyone owns a motorized vehicle. Some people own many. If we’re going to have government regulation of motorized vehicles and government programs and projects centering on them, it makes sense to charge fees for registering those vehicles in a way that covers enough of the costs so that someone who does not own such a vehicle does not have to pay a tax to support them. Retailers pay fees in order to have their scales and registers certified as accurate. Fees should not be used like income taxes. They should fund a specific, related purpose.

Assessments are charged on a property, usually for an extraordinary expense, such as public works or utility infrastructure construction. Assessments make more sense than most taxes, though in some cases, the same results can be achieved through private property and private infrastructure. For example, property owners in a certain area may pay an assessment to build and maintain a nearby bridge.

Provided they do not violate property rights, fines and forfeitures are another excellent way to fund government functions, and they do so widely now. When someone violates laws, necessitating a response from government, it would be ideal if they could pay for the costs of enforcement, investigation, conviction, and maybe even incarceration. If someone can make money by violating the law and a fine will only amount to a small percentage of their illicit gain, that is hardly a deterrent. But it makes sense to "tax" crime with fines and forfeitures.

So, taxes are not fees, fees are not taxes, and we should not try to hide taxes as fees nor treat fees like taxes. There are many ways for the government to fund its necessary functions without raising or even having income taxes or estate taxes.

My State of the Union 2013 Wish List

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, never mind that they wouldn't have a chance of being implemented with the current Senate, even with a Republican POTUS.  But permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over eleven years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S. Apologize for Benghazi and what happened in the wake of that terrorist attack.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Explain that allow illegal aliens any advantage in gaining permanent legal status ahead of legal immigrants is a slap in the face to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Encourage Responsible Gun Ownership. As it is the duty of every able person to stand up to evil & crime in protection of the innocent, responsible gun ownership, training, and practice should be encouaged, and state and local laws should allow for this. Apologize for Fast & Furious.

Declare That the Lack of a Budget, the Large Deficit, and the Growing National Debt Unacceptable. Explain that it is a basic function of the federal government to adopt a budget, and that it is unsustainable and immoral to accumulate increasing debt, thereby burdening future generations. The government should not encourage further dependency on government.
Don't be Santa Claus. Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care.

Equal Access to Free Markets. Explain some of the major benefits of free markets, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable. It is clear that people can succeed in the USA regardless of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation, and focusing on slights, imagined or real, based on these personal characteristics, is fostering hostility and division and self-defeating thinking, doing more harm than good.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. Given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence and character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

Why OC Should be Free of LA and SF

The Orange County Register frequently prints excellent letters to the editor. I generally find that the letters there are better than those printed in the Los Angeles Times, and there's never a paywall that pops up on the Register's website. I do wonder how much the hits have dropped at LATimes.com since they cut back on access. But I digress.

Here's a good set of letters.

Mike Rodgick of Trabuco Canyon wrote about road to Hell and what it is paved with:

Some, including the founding fathers, believe that liberty and personal responsibility are the highest state of man. The best way to achieve the greater good was to allow each to reap the rewards of their own labors. They were right of course, beholden to no one, following their dreams, laboring for themselves and their families. America became the most prosperous nation on Earth, others not so much.

We all agree that slavery, forcing someone to work for the benefit of others is immoral. Yet, some believe taking money, which is the product of our labors for the benefit of others, is not evil. Voluntary acts of charity are truly noble endeavors, whereas coerced charity is little more than theft and economic slavery.

We all feel sorry for those who are in dire straits through no fault of their own, but the forced subsidy of those who continuously make poor life choices, the unambitious and lazy, tattooed, drug-dealing, gun-running gang bangers and all who take advantage of our social system is counterintuitive and counterproductive. Some are truly less deserving than others. Remove the penalty for failure and remove the reward for success and we will reap what we have sown.

Tim I. Martin of Corona:

The Democrats love painting Mitt Romney as a heartless rich guy who likes to fire people. The truth is that we all appreciate the ability to fire people who aren’t providing services they were hired to do. While most of us have fired food preparers and others whose products weren’t up to our standards, let’s look at firings on an even bigger scale than that of Romney.

He goes on to provide quite the list. Then...

This November, American voters will decide whether or not to fire Barack Obama, who had no problem firing General Stanley McChrystal over comments by subordinates.

Every divorce in this country is the result of somebody getting fired. Many people have become great successes after getting fired. Both hiring and firing are integral parts of life. Ironically, our president continues to use one of his favorite campaign exhortations: “Fired up!”

He's right. There are some other great letters at that link, but there are also some at this one.

Jef Eales of Mission Viejo:

It is interesting how JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon is getting grilled by Congress, again over a $2 billion trading loss. To create some perspective, President Barack Obama and Congress (which hasn’t passed a budget since Obama has become president) have run an average $1.6 trillion deficit per year. The $2 billion loss equates to about 11 hours’ worth of deficit funding to run the country.

Furthermore, the JPMorgan loss is private capital. Accountability and risk will be appropriately rewarded or punished by the market. Unlike the president, who promotes running the country by a negative $2 billion every 11 hours, there is minimal or no outcry or accountability or grilling in the media.

Didn’t he say he would cut the deficit by half if he became president? Why does Obama get a pass on the deficit issue? Put this in perspective, folks.

He's right.

Harold Bradford of Huntington Beach: .

Rodney King was a convicted criminal in the act of committing another crime, drinking and speeding and driving, when the police intervened [“Impact of troubled life gauged,” Front Page, June 18].

Had he been obeying the law nothing would have happened to him. He wasn’t worth the sweat from the forehead of any of the officers involved. He’s lucky one of them didn’t shoot him.

The acquittal of the officers by a jury with backbone wasn’t the cause of the Los Angeles race riots. It was just an excuse for the arsonists, looters, muggers and other criminals to act like the animals they were. Their actions should have been met with whatever level of force was necessary to restore order.

He's right.

The people of Orange County should not have to endure a state controlled by San Francisco and Los Angeles.

California's Taxes

Ron Mossler of Northridge wrote in to The Pink Transgendered Lady (a.k.a. The Los Angeles Times) responsing to the article "Dueling Tax Hike Measures Occupy Democrats":

Pat Hurley, a delegate to the state Democratic Party convention, remarked, "Voters might think the governor's [sales tax] plan is too broad" and that only millionaires should be targeted for increased taxes. Hurley's remark highlights the problem.

As long as there are only a wealthy few who contribute to the supply side of tax revenue, those on the demand side can remain less involved about how politicians spend a limited pool of revenue. If everyone were asked to contribute more, as in a sales tax increase, perhaps more Californians would demand more accountability and responsibility from our politicians.

As long as we pick on the super wealthy, the rest of the populace lacks an incentive to rein in spending.

Thank you, Mr. Mossler. One problem with getting a large minority or even majority of voters on the receiving end of redistribution is that the taxpayers have the resources to relocate. As Mossler noted, people become disinterested at best. At worst, they become active in order to keep up their plundering of someone else's earnings.

The Democrats control Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and California. They are doing a fine job of messing the state up. They can't blame Republicans. The Democrats have control.