California is not only rapidly exiting mainstream U.S. culture, it is forging its own distorted and unethical version of right and wrong.
Three alarming examples:
1. Forging ahead with single payer, and reality be damned.
The Sacramento Bee pointed out that by replacing current state-run health programs with a single-payer system, the state would still need to come up with an additional $200 billion annually.This year’s state budget in California is about $180 billion. Yes, implementing a single-payer health care system would require doubling California’s current tax burden.
Oh, never mind! The state Senate voted 23 to 14 this month in favor of SB 562, a single-payer proposal that would guarantee universal health care to all Californians. “What we did today was really approve the concept of a single-payer system in California,” declared state Senator Ricardo Lara following the vote.
No, what they did was reaffirm the fact that progressive cant refuses to yield in the face of cold, hard facts, math, reason and common sense. The cheerleading from the Left is mind-numbing. Writes the Nation: If health care is a right—and it is—the only honest response to the current crisis is the single-payer “Medicare for All” reform that would bring the United States in line with humane and responsible countries worldwide.”
Well, let’s see: health care is NOT a right except in Left-Wing Fantasyland, and all of those “humane and responsible countries” have crushing tax burdens, reduced liberty, economic instability, crushing debt and completely different values, priorities and responsibilities than those of the United States.
Ethics is only ethical when it is practical and practicable in the real world. The ethical response to the fact that single-payer doubles the state budget is to say, “Oh. Well, obviously we can’t do that, then. On to plan B.”
2. That minimum wage increase that Gov. Brown said was based on principle rather than economics? Yeah, about that…
This was the Ethics Alarms Unethical Quote Of The Month in April:
“Economically, minimum wages may not make sense. But morally, socially, and politically they make every sense because it binds the community together to make sure parents can take care of their kids.”
—–Governor Jerry Brown on April 4, as he signed into law a phased state-wide increase in the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour.
As Commentary wrote in reaction to this jaw-dropping admission following an irresponsible act, “Good intentions have always inoculated the left against criticisms of the consequences of their policy preferences.” This has become a culture-wide, self-destructive malady during the Obama administration…
The mass insanity of raising the minimum wage is the apotheosis of this mania. Note that I am trying to attribute the best possible motives with this: I have read many conservative writers who believe that the left knows the policy will be catastrophic economically, but because it will be politically useful in the short-term, they don’t care about the long-range consequences. Admittedly, statements like Brown’s makes this difficult for me not to agree with them, except that it is usually considered stupid to tell voters that what you are doing makes no sense.
To state what should be obvious, if large minimum wage increases don’t make sense economically, that means they are bad policy, incompetent, and thus unethical. And we know–know—that they do not make sense economically.
Surprise! From the Fresno Bee (The LA Times has the same information, but will make me mess with my ad-blocker, so to hell with it);
As the East Bay Times reported in January, at least 60 restaurants around the Bay Area had closed since September alone.A recent study by Michael Luca at Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca at Mathematica Policy Research found that every $1 hike in the minimum wage brings a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of a 3.5-star restaurant on Yelp! closing. Another telltale is San Diego, where voters approved increasing the city’s minimum wage to $11.50 per hour from $10.50, this after the minimum wage was increased from $8 an hour in 2015 – meaning hourly costs have risen 43 percent in two years.
The cost increases have pushed San Diego restaurants to the brink, Stephen Zolezzi, president of the Food and Beverage Association of San Diego County, told the San Diego Business Journal. Watch for the next mass die-off there.
Oh, but the minimum wage hike must be ethical, because the motives behind it are so pure!
Wrong. Wilful stupidity and deliberate avoidance of facts is never ethical. Just Californian…
3. Decriminalizing despicable acts because the criminals are a favored class…and victims be damned.
This is, perhaps, the worst of all. The California Senate has voted to no longer make it a felony for someone infected with HIV to knowingly expose others to the disease by having unprotected sex without telling his or her partner about the infection.
It really did.
What possible logic or ethical standards support this? How can this be squared with governments duty to protect the public?
The crime would be downgraded to a misdemeanor, and the bill would even apply to people who donate blood or semen without telling the blood or semen bank that they have AIDS, or have tested positive for HIV, the precursor to AIDS.
The measure now goes to the State Assembly for consideration, where if it is as shrewdly considered as other recent California policy decisions, it will soon be law. This irresponsible idiocy was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), whose reasoning is that it is unfair to make HIV/AIDS the only communicable disease given such harsh treatment by prosecutors.
The obvious remedy for this, to the extent that it’s true, would be to increase the penalties on those who willfully infect individuals with other infectious diseases. But this is California, Ethics Bizzaro World, where progressive cant eats ethics, common sense and responsible policy, and spits out the bones.
______________________
Pop Quiz: I have a provocative observation to make that is tangential to this post, but I have declined to make it.
Can you guess what it is?
________________________
Pointer and Source: Reason
Ethics Alarms 
“Well, let’s see: health care is NOT a right except in Left-Wing Fantasyland, and all of those “humane and responsible countries” have crushing tax burdens, reduced liberty, economic instability, crushing debt and completely different values, priorities and responsibilities than those of the United States.”
And a complete incapacity for defending themselves if the time came to do so.
Except they assume that we’ll come bail them out if it really is necessary.
Like the US did when Australia confronted Indonesia over East Timor.
Oh wait, the US remained strictly neutral then. Help wasn’t asked for, just a request not to help the other side. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, so there were good arguments that the US should intervene on their side to get brownie points in the Middle East.
The two countries were evenly matched in terms of GDP at the time. Militarily… not so much. But quality has a quantity all its own, to paraphrase Stalin. It helped to have friends such as Thailand and New Zealand in on it too, even in small quantities, rather than the zero from the US. Or Botswana for that matter. Not their problem.
The point is, the US will only ever help its allies if it is felt at the time that it’s in the US’s best interests to do so, regardless of other considerations. That can’t really be argued against. That will, or will not, happen regardless of any country’s military expenditure.
Just as Pax Britannica was good business, even though the US got something of a free ride, so was Pax Americana. Tomorrow it might be Pax Sinica. Not because of the inherent goodness of the Chinese Politburo (HA!) but because they see it as being in their best interests.
It’s when perceptions have little contact with reality that things become tricky.
“Ethics is only ethical when it is practical and practicable in the real world. The ethical response to the fact that single-payer doubles the state budget is to say, “Oh. Well, obviously we can’t do that, then. On to plan B.””
Then there is an argument in there somewhere that the War on Drugs could reach a financial tipping point where it is simply not worth it…?
“Pop Quiz: I have a provocative observation to make that is tangential to this post, but I have declines to make it.
Can you guess what it is?”
Is it Trump-reaction related?
Why yes, it is!
You know, my two year old reached for a very hot pan (straight off the stove) one day, I scolded her and told her “no, you’ll hurt yourself”. She reached for it again. This time I gently swatted her hand, and said “no, you’ll hurt yourself”. She reached for it again rapidly to prove a rebellious point and touched it just enough for the heat to register a little pain. She didn’t reach for it again.
I don’t think California is smart enough not to make a 4th reach in spite of being told something is bad for it.
Neither do I.
But how did it get this way?
I have my theories, but I’ll need more time to compose.
Is your observation that these actions were all Trump-approved fairly recently?
What?
He was for a single payer system around the turn of century, and has continued to say that it can work in some places. He’s talked in favor of a $10 federal minimum wage within the last year. I don’t know if he’s had to address the criminal question, but he’s definitely on the side of free love. I think a theoretical Gov. Trump of California would happily sign all of those bills.
I have enough trouble keeping track of the President’s current positions to think about his various past policies when nobody was taking him seriously.
Also, when
CaliforniaDistrict 1 starts compelling people from my district to come fight in their arenas, hopefully my children will be too old to partake…Jack,
1. You just have to remember that in the new methods of teaching math, the answer the student arrives at is not as important as his reasoning behind reaching that answer. So perhaps California lawmakers think the numbers actually work out. This year’s budget + $200 billion < $180 billion. Voila!
2. Of course these minimum wage hikes are done knowing that it will hurt the economy. This breeds more class discontent, which justifies the left in promising more handouts and even more wage hikes, promises which surely will convince the populace to keep the left in power.
3. But, it is just so embarrassing to admit you have HIV! Think of the psychological trauma such a person must endure! The shame! The humiliation! This person might not even score if the truth becomes known.
I know this is my Catholic viewpoint coming out here, but have we really stopped and considered that all STDs would pretty much disappear in a generation if people kept sex within a lifelong, monogamous relationship?
4. No idea, really. But I continue to support the petition for the PRC to secede from the union.
2) I used to hold to the notion The Left really does want to push the nation to a catastrophe, because nations facing catastrophe’s very excitedly vote into office left-wing saviors.
To a degree I still do think that an unhealthy component of the Left has this as an objective. But for the most part, I think it’s abject ignorance. The Left Wing base has been educated in the farce of Keynesian economics since primary education and through college. News reports and economic reports are all communicated in Keynesian language and from a Keynesian paradigm. They’ve been force fed pop culture that essentially bolsters the notion that you can just simply wish something into existence. The monstrosity here is the Big Lie that the Left has fed the people.
I’d be more inclined to blame a lack of reality-testing. They likely figure that making Big Corporations “pay their fair share” will raise the money. More than likely, all that will do is make the affected corporations leave the State. Eventually, unemployment will reach 100%, but by then, all the corporations (employers) will have moved to Texas. Unfortunately, all the Californians will also have moved to Texas, which will become a blue state, and the cycle will start over again. Remember, the definition of “insane” is “Continuing to repeat the same asinine behavior, expecting a different result”.
I thought that was the definition of socialism?
Pretty close, buddy. May want to start looking for a route to Oklahoma.
“Unfortunately, all the Californians will also have moved to Texas, which will become a blue state, and the cycle will start over again.”
Over my dead body. They ruined paradise, now they want to ruin hell… I mean Texas, with their stupid ideas. Move to Texas, learn how we became desirable!
(Did you catch the obscure reference to Davey Crockett?)
Was not Texas a blue state in the 80’s?
More like ’70s, if I remember right. I was not paying attention until after Reagan was in office a few years
Actually, Davey said “You may all go to hell. I am going to Texas”. Thus he differentiated between Texas and Hell. But, there is a poem, in the 1946 version of ‘Texas Brags’, that claims that the devil lives in Hell and rents out Texas. Not sure of that one.
Yes, I did not quote him directly… but I knew what Dave said. I grew up in Texas, and live in spitting distance of the Alamo
I know that, slick. Just giving you a hard time. Spitting distance, huh? What do you think of the new plan for the Alamo?
Glass walls suck. So sez the consensus (or, at least, those that speak up). Personally, I was thinking “who gets to clean those every day, who pays them, and if they don’t how crappy will it look?”
Moving the Cenotaph is stupid. Especially to a location that has debatable relevance.
Cleaning up the kitsch business across the street is worthy of praise, IMHO.
The planning is still too nebulous to comment further.
Oh, was there actual planning involved? I just figured the corporation they tagged to do this spent ten years collecting city funds. There is no “planning” involved in this, just profit. I probably won’t be around when they try to move the Cenotaph to in front of the Menger, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it arrived as several tons of rubble. Like you, I don’t like this plan, but getting rid of Ripley’s seems like a GOOD idea.
1) Agreed. The glass walls suck. I’m all for rebuilding to the best of our analytical ability that wall to what it likely appeared at the time of the battle.
2) We’ll disagree here: I’m all for moving the cenotaph. What a friggin out of scale monstrosity.
3) Also, demolish the wall around the backside of the compound which perennially confuses Alamo-goers as to the layout of the place and the essential understanding of flow of that battle.
I could go with all you have said. I just don’t like moving a monument without a compelling reason.
“I just don’t like moving a monument without a compelling reason.”
Just remind the SJWs that it’s just a monument to a bunch of white guys that wanted to expand slavery.
The monument won’t last long then.
Agreed. The only thing that back wall does is give easy access to the Crockett and the Menger</I..
But in all reality, I think the only sensible solution to the Alamo plaza as a memorial is to make some extremely minor modifications to that area of downtown San Antonio to establish a solid sense of realism to the site.
It really should be modified to look like this:
Not only am I with you, but I’d love to see a restoration like this done. Unfortunately, it AIN’T going to happen. Unless our new Mayor is smarter than I think he is.
Tex thinks we should raze downtown San Antonio. I for the life of me cannot think of a compelling reason not to follow his advice.
It is unethical of me, but there it is.
Actually, I hate the “Ripley’s” and the like, but there is one building which was a Woolworth’s 5-and-dime that had a snack bar in it where I used to eat lunch, when I was skipping school. Yes, I was a truant. But I liked the sandwiches that snack bar sold, Sorry to see it go.
[Reply to dragin_dragon’s June 20 at 5:34 pm]
California’s economy failing? Texas’ economy in perma-boom?
Why, just a couple of days ago, the Houston Chronicle Business section ran on its front page an article of nanny-nanny-boo-boo, saying that according to certain indicators, California’s economy has started to out-perform the economy of Texas. It had to be true, because that was what this little snippet conveyed: “…that boogieman of Texas politics – California – has started to eclipse the Lone Star State on plenty of economic indicators.” Meanwhile, poor Kansas got beat up all over the page for (gasp!) reducing taxes – that mortal sin to government-lovers.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Kansas-vs-California-11226757.php?cmpid=gsa-chron-result
Democrats in Texas want a state income tax so badly, they’re suing for sanctuary cities to become a fundamental human right.
No doubt the tech sector and internet based commerce is indeed causing California’s economy to BOOM. It’s a fair claim. But mere money flow does not a healthy community make.
Guys, they are DOUBLING their losses!. And have NO proposals to make up the difference! This is called ‘bankruptcy’ unless they can come up with a way to increase income. See what I mean?
Stupid is as stupid does, my mama always said
Your mama was very wise. Believe her.
Let’s see…Houston, isn’t that a sanctuary city? At least, until Abbott’s sanction kick in? Unlikely to get anything truthful from the Chronicle.
3. From my introvert viewpoint, have we considered that STDs would become much rarer if people didn’t have sex with people they literally just met? It must be some combination of being too trusting and not realizing how much they should trust someone before they have sex with them. That or not paying attention to consequences.
Actually, now I’m curious as to what percentage of transmissions are from people that people literally just met. I wasn’t able to find anything on it with a cursory Google search, but based on this disconcerting article, I’ll bet it’s very high. http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/safe-sex We need to help Epicureanism win over Hedonism.
We should build the wall… around Kali, Oregon, and Washington? That State Senators have just potentially tainted the blood banks they may need at any time, thus invoking a world class karma demonstration?
“…at least 60 restaurants around the Bay Area had closed since September alone”
In the interest of being fair, the Bay area may lose this many restaurants in that time frame normally. When I lived in the area, such places came and went and were replaced routinely. The real test is whether or not they are being replaced under the new minimum wage. Oh, and are all those without jobs enjoying the great wages they don’t get?
On Item 1, single payer has been the end game for progressives since Hillary made a grab for health care. Obamacare was designed to fail, just to get to single payer. Why?
i have a theory, outside of the obvious government taking over a sixth of the economy (what has the government EVER taken over that was not a disaster?) If you control the health care and you control the population. Death panels have been proven to be real, and it is a short step to deciding that ‘deplorables’ should die to ‘save resources for goodthinkers.’
Democrat politicians already have talked about controlling what people eat, forcing them to make the approved health choices, or the fatty deserves to die. This same refrain has been true for smoking and other areas.
Single payer is rationing. No way around that. I don’t trust CONSERVATIVES to decide if granny lives or dies, much less progressives. they have shown a decided callousness to their opponents, especially lately.
Minimum Wage arguments always disappoint me. The first rule of economics is to accumulate the most utility possible out of the scarce resources you have, the first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics.
It’s counter-intuitive to assume that if you raise the price on something, people will buy more of it, but it’s actually true of one market. Unfortunately, that market isn’t labor, it’s luxury items… Apparently you can mark the same diamond or boat up 10% and a certain class of people will be more likely to not only buy it, but brag about the price. Go figure.
But back to labor. We’ve raised the price on labor, what happens? Will this create jobs, kill jobs, or will people not care? That’s always been the question. It’s hard to nail down because the marketplace generally grows over time, so when someone says: “It doesn’t matter if you raise the minimum wage, historically after hikes people ended up hiring more anyway.” Well… That’s a bit of a mixed bag, actually, but assuming you were right… How much of that is because of population growth? Would the jobs numbers have risen faster without the minimum wage increase? And what about the times when jobs numbers shrank?
What I think is most likely, is that minimum wage increases has SOME negative effect on a market this is naturally volatile… If the job market was going to grow by 1000 positions in a month, and a minimum wage increase is passed, depending on the jobs, depending on the severity of the raise, maybe the market only grows by 900. And if the market is going to shed 1000 jobs this month, and a minimum wage increase is passed, again… depending on factors, maybe the market loses 1100 jobs instead. In my opinion there is no possibility for the opposite to be true, labor is not a luxury item, a minimum wage increase will never in and of itself increase labor.
I also think it’s amazingly… coincidental that every time there’s a minimum wage increase, the number of unpaid intern positions seems to tick up.*
And so you have to look at the people effected by minimum wage. About 2% of working America makes the minimum wage. Those workers are more likely to be young, more likely to be female, and more likely to be an ethnic minority. They are less likely to have attained education, although many are in school, and they are much less likely to be considered skilled labor. Basically: People Democrats say they care about.
Also amazingly coincidental… Unpaid intern positions tend to be taken disproportionately by younger people, women, and minorities.
Democrats have to choose to focus jobs or wages, because those figures are at odds. Market forces can cause both to rise, but government forces cannot. The people most likely to have their wages increased by a minimum wage hike are also the people most likely to lose their jobs, and those people are disproportionately the kind of people the democrats purport to care about.
*By the way, it takes testicles the size of wrecking balls for someone like say… John Stewart, who had much to say the last time America was having large scale minimum wage discussions, to use his old platform to advocate for the passage of a higher minimum wage, all the while paying the people who powdered his face and clipped the mic to his lapel exactly zero dollars an hour, because they were unpaid interns. Anyone who uses an unpaid intern should be estopped from ever commenting on minimum wage increases until they stop.
It’s seriously a stupid argument out the door anyway.
Who actually *stays* at minimum wage that doesn’t completely suck at a job? Who actually stays at minimum wage long?
Minimum wage is essentially compelling employers to pay more a lower assumed skill set.
That right there is illogical out the door and any follow on discussions are simple waste of time.
I sometimes wistfully remember being in high school in the 60,s and dreaming of someday living in California. The land of the cool kids. Surfing, listening to great music, Monterey, San Francisco, Beach Boys, etc. I married a California boy and found out that most of the state was just hot, dry and agricultural.
“Unexpectedly” Now it’s hot, dry, full of aging hippies, counterculture dumbasses, whatever San Francisco and Hollywood are, and an economy on the brink of disaster, but stobbornly protecting the snail darter.
But, it still identifies as cool so there’s that. Also, apparently, if you have AIDS you can identify as healthy. Who could have predicted this?
My great fear.
Spelling error.
“stubbornly”
sorry
Not to worry. The Texans above kept misspelling “Davy” as in Crockett.
Well, how about that? I started that misspelling. Davy is correct.
Via The Mercury News (May 31,2017): “Universal health plan would save Californians $37 billion annually, study says”
“Pollin and other economists at UMass Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute estimate that California would save so much by eliminating insurance-company overhead and controlling prescription drug costs, among other measures, that the state’s businesses and families would pay less for health care than they do now.
The new study estimates it would cost California $331 billion to provide health care to everyone living in the state — less than the $368.5 billion spent today in a system that leaves millions without coverage. To pay for it, they say, the state needs to find $106 billion in annual tax revenue — far less than the Senate committee’s estimate of $200 billion.”
Article is worth the read. Quite a different outlook. Maybe the “Left-Wing Fantasyland”, as you gleefully call it, is not so much a fantasy after all.
The article makes no sense, mathematically or logically. Even if the shortfall is “only” 106 million—and such estimates are always, always too low—the State is already running a deficit, and can’t afford it.
I think the idea is that people will not have to pay insurance companies, so that money will go to the state instead. That said, I don’t trust the government to come up with sensible insurance policies on the basis of being “fair”.
What about all the jobs that will be taken out of the private sector? I doubt all the people involved in health care/insurance and prescription drugs etc. will find or want to find government jobs. Also while private sector employees must be efficient and effective or be replaced government employees feel no obligation to be efficient or effective.
If you think dealing with insurance companies is difficult just imagine a health care system brought to you by the same people who run the DMV. And they won’t be motivated by health insurance attorneys and lawsuits.
So then there will be a whole new group of unemployed people who aren’t used to being on the welfare rolls and who might not be happy about it.
If the government were good at insurance we’d know it by now. The fact is, it isn’t, and we do know that.
Why aren’t health insurance benefits provided by employers counted just the same as any other income?
What would be the consequences of counting those benefits as income?
The cost to employers would be the same.
The amount of additional (state) income tax would increase, especially if the rate on the new income was increased so there was no sudden windfall to employees, but was revenue neutral.
And.. they’d still get healthcare paid for. Possibly a lot better healthcare with no lifetime or annual caps, possibly not as good, depending.
There would no longer be this hidden subsidy, where those who are employed are subsidised by the self employed, the jobless, and those whose minimum wage jobs provide no health benefits.
“Why aren’t health insurance benefits provided by employers counted just the same as any other income?”
I think you have hit on a historical question. I think the employer exemption from income tax came about because the IRS did not know what to do with it. (I think I have my history right.)
Under the tax code, income is pretty much anything you get, unless it is excluded (a little simplistic, but not much).
If my employer pays my health insurance premium, have I gotten a benefit? Well, I have insurance, but it is nothing to me unless I use it. But, if I use it, what is the benefit I have received? The $200.00 that the employer paid for my premium? Or the $32,000.00 the insurance company paid for my surgical procedure?
In other words, because the IRS could not tell whether the payment of a health insurance premium rendered any benefit to the employer, it decided that such a payment would not be considered income.
-Jut
But that’s crazy, especially now. If something is considered essential to have and an employer pays for it, it’s income whether the insurance has to be used or not.
Not sure how you can say the article doesn’t make any sense! The article states that the figures are on the optimistic side. And mind you, “the study’s lead author, economist Robert Pollin, is a friend and former adviser of Gov. Jerry Brown — who has expressed deep skepticism about the cost of California turning to a single-payer plan all alone.”
This just shows that there are other options. Too bad both sides of the aisle are stubborn and rarely do we see a bipartisan effort to at least recognize the merits of each others plans.
It makes no sense because it claims that single payer will save more money than the entire California budget, but that taxpayers will have to make up a shortfall.
Just as we Californians have to make up the shortfall on the annual PERS payments which is now closing in on $1 Billion.
JUDAS PRIESTS! Why is anybody still living there? When it gets to a point where EVERYBODY is on welfare, how do they pay the bills?
Sure. They had bean-counters promising that the California lottery would eliminate the state debt too. And that the high speed rail would be a smashing economic success for all. And that new gasoline taxes would make road repairs a breeze. Surprise, none of those things happen. Those things NEVER happen. Progressive economists have a track record worse than doomsday-cult prophets when it comes to predictions.
Every time the State grabs more money and control, it will be spent, forgotten, and unaccounted for in just the amount of time it takes for moronic voters to forget about all of the broken promises. Then California can just hold its hand out for more. And as long as some socialist monkey at a Research Institute “estimates” that “THIS time socialism will totally work guys” the gullible voters will keep falling for it. Until the entire state goes bankrupt (clearly losing 3 cities hasn’t gotten enough people’s attention.)
You know, I’ve read a progressive assert that “debt perfectly well CAN increase forever, and as long as it grows at a lower rate than GDP it’s not a big deal…”
The current brouhaha (apart from this single-payer business) is Jerry Brown’s new gasoline tax meant to pay for road repair (we already have the highest gas taxes outside of Hawaii.) A grassroots campaign to fight the tax started this time, not necessarily because Californians don’t want to pay taxes…but because there is a special fund already for road repair, funded by our already-high gas taxes, and it was raided and emptied out long ago by this same government to pay for a variety of nest-feathering crony projects. Which is why they now want more. Surprisingly, there were actually some voters who actually are aware of this, and want to force our state to live within its means.
This prompted Gov. Brown to call the anti-taxers “freeloaders” which in a sane world would be his one-way ticket to the kind of political reputation enjoyed by Emperor Nero or Marie Antoinette.
Sounds like Krugman to me.
Well, it was a Krugman disciple.
It is clearly clear that the California Democratic leadership is anti-American.
Well, there went another one of my comments into the memory hole…
California is hoping they will be allowed to basically have their cake and eat it too, putting this impossible system in place and then banking on a Democrat-led Federal government to bail them out if things become problematic. The fact is I can quite easily see a later Democratic administration doing just that…with the tax money of the rest of the nation. That, and the fact that it would lose the Democratic party almost half of its guaranteed electoral votes, is why Calexit will never happen.
Several years ago, California, a state hat refuses nuclear power, and has not been able to build a new power plant in over thirty years, began experiencing ‘rolling brown outs’. They immediately contacted Texas, which owns the only one of three power grids that produces an excess of power, to ask for help. Texas, of course, complied, then sent California a BILL for the power. Governor Gray, as I recall (note the little play on words, there) was OUTRAGED that Texas was CHARGING California for the power. Rick (Perry) said “Pay up or be shut off”. I’m pretty sure, after much blustering, he actually did.
California is a never-ending comedy of errors. I remember when one large company packed up and moved, the state government’s strategy to convince them to stay was…buy radio ads encouraging people to call their corporate offices and shame them into staying in California.
A comedy?
Like comedy as in “laugh lest we cry”?
I am a proud Californian. Everything God put here (the weather, the mountains, the beaches, and the people in general) is great. But let me tell you: this government is insane. There’s no nicer way to put it without lying. If you live here, GET OUT while you can.
California is far ahead of the rest of the country on the progressivisation scale. Which is to say they’re like Detroit, but trendier and with more natural advantages by which to delay the eventual descent into American Mordor. They’re “too big to fail” which is why losing 3 cities to bankruptcy (with dozens more in peril) doesn’t seem to bother anyone.
There are exactly two kinds of people who can afford to live here: extremely rich people and the peasants who serve them for pennies. The latter class is propped up by welfare and by not having to pay any taxes. The former can afford to live wherever they want and enjoy having all the prime real estate to themselves. Every intelligent person who isn’t a millionaire is either watching the collapse from safely in Arizona by now, or is already making escape plans.
If you don’t already have a couple of million dollars to pay off the State and plan on starting a business…you can’t. Move to Nevada. Or collect cash and food benefits which will sustain you while you set yourself up as a neighborhood drug dealer or pimp. (If you are an illegal immigrant, you can start whatever legitimate business you want, as long as it mostly serves other illegal immigrants. The government will ignore you and you can ignore them, and you’ll probably do very well for yourself. I’m not even mad. Would that we all could live the libertarian dream.)
I remember voting against the high speed rail because it was an obvious boondoggle and there was no clear way to pay for it. But it passed, like just about every single “let’s spend money on X” measure on the ballot here. Most Californians just read (on the ballot) that “bonds” will pay for X. And they don’t know what bonds are. So they vote “yes” every time.
See
http://www.stonekettle.com/2017/06/the-right-question.html
For a discussion.
My own view on “is healthcare a right?”
” Wrong question.
Healthcare is a neccessity for the nation to survive.
Or the first biowar attack will destroy it. Or even a natural pandemic.
In the face of that fact, philosophical discussions about rights are irrelevant.”
Maybe, but don’t confuse health care with health insurance. Can you honestly say you’ve known anyone who NEEDED it could absolutely NOT get health care before Obamacare came into play?
Nope!
Yes. All three are dead now of course. And in all three cases, the problem was financial, rather than an incurable illness. I interpreted “known” as “known personally”. If you mean “known” to include people contacted through helplines, many, many more. But I don’t know the outcome for those, they just drop off the radar and I never hear from them again. Some may still live.
With jobs disappearing due to technology, we eventually are going to be headed to a world where the number of children are regulated (e.g. China), but the government pays a minimum wage to everybody that covers the basics in life. The rich will have to take on this burden. It’s going to be a bumpy ride folks.