Will the California Republican Party Confront Voter Fraud?

Several years ago the Election Integrity Project submitted a list of 43,000 (not a typo) dead voters, illegal aliens, non-existent voters and other not qualified to vote to the Registrar of Voters of Los Angeles County.  The Registrar did nothing—neither did the California Republican Party.  During the last election CBS Los Angeles showed a list of hundreds of dead people still on the LA County voter rolls—and STILL voting.  The Registrar did nothing and the California Republican Party did not sue to get rid of the dead from the voting rolls or to do an audit of the rolls.

 

In San Pedro a total of 83 absentee ballots was sent to one apartment address.  None of the people lived in the one apartment nor existed.  The Registrar said, “opps”.  No one from the Republican Party sued to demand an immediate audit of the absentee ballot situation in Los Angeles—where was the LA County or California Republican party on any of this?

“The poor job that the Golden State does in managing voter databases and other election data is ironic, given the fact that the state’s high technology industry leads the world, and that Silicon Valley is a global hub of innovation in database management.

The task of managing voter registration in California is complicated by the fact that the state is home to a high proportion of the nation’s illegal aliens, some of whom volunteered openly for the Hillary Clinton campaign to register others to vote.”

Could this be why, since October, 2012 the California Republican Party had a NET LOSS of 300,000 registered voters? Or is it that the Party has had NO voter registration program since March, 2013—even though for major portions of an election cycle they could do it? Under McCain Feingold a State Party can not register voters within 120 days of a Federal election.  That means for 240 days in a 730 period the California Republican Party COULD register voters.  See here.  

Instead it has outsourced voter registration to an organization run by ONE man, the same person that spent $14 million to end the right of Republicans, and Democrats, to nominate candidates for partisan office.

Do you think it is time that the CRP register voters for 490 days when it is legal?  Should the CRP file a series of lawsuits?  With a real Attorney General in Washington, we might even get the Trump Administration to investigate the corruption of the voting rolls in California?  What do you think?

ballots-vote

California Republicans: Online Registration Allows Voter Fraud

by Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart CA,  11/30/16

The California Republican Party is considering taking legal action to force the State of California to adopt a more secure system for online voter registration, alleging that the current system is too lax and allows for potential voter fraud.

“The [California] secretary of state’s website does not track the IP addresses of the people who register to vote,” Harmeet Dhillon, a former state party official, told the Los Angeles Times. “You could literally register hundreds or thousands of people from the same computer … There is more security on the websites that I shopped on Black Friday than there is on the secretary of state’s website.”

The California GOP has not produced evidence that any voter fraud actually took place through online registration in 2016. Recently, President-elect Donald Trump claimed that “millions” of people had voted illegally nationwide, and said there had been incidents of voter fraud in California, among other states. California’s Democratic Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, took exception to that claim, calling it an “irresponsible attempt to undermine confidence in our elections.”

California’s voting system, however, has been technologically backward for many years. A Pew study in 2014 ranked California 49th out of the 50 states in election administration. The system of online voter registration dates to 2012, well within the scope of the study.

The poor job that the Golden State does in managing voter databases and other election data is ironic, given the fact that the state’s high technology industry leads the world, and that Silicon Valley is a global hub of innovation in database management.

The task of managing voter registration in California is complicated by the fact that the state is home to a high proportion of the nation’s illegal aliens, some of whom volunteered openly for the Hillary Clinton campaign to register others to vote.

City of Los Angeles: We Protect Illegal Aliens and Native Born Criminals

In Los Angeles, if you are an employer, you are not allowed to ask a job applicant if they are a criminal, have been arrested and/or convicted of a crime.  When you make your job offer, at that time, you are allowed to ask if the applicant is a criminal and has been arrested and/or convicted of a crime.  This after you have spent lots of money and time finding the “right” person for the job.

Then , if you decide not to hire a criminal, the City of Los Angeles demands a reason for this decision—as if your business is owned by government.  If you own a restaurant, a bakery, a small business (with ten or more employees) do you want a burglar embezzler, a thief working for you?  The City is demanding an explanation—time consuming.  Then what happens if the criminal is gay, a person or color or a woman—will the City of Los Angeles charge you with discrimination? It could.

“The measure would institute a policy known as “fair chance” or “ban the box,” requiring employers to remove check boxes or questions from job forms that ask about an applicant’s criminal record.

If approved by the City Council, employers with 10 or more workers and city contractors would be prohibited from asking about criminal history until a conditional job offer has been made.

An employer that ultimately decides against hiring a person after learning about his or her criminal record would need to provide a justification for why the job offer is being rescinded.”

eric garcetti

Hiring a criminal? You’ll be barred from asking in LA

Posted by Debbie L. Sklar, My News LA,  11/30/16

A proposed ordinance that would bar employers in Los Angeles from asking job applicants to reveal their criminal records during the initial stages of the recruitment process will go before the City Council Wednesday.

The measure would institute a policy known as “fair chance” or “ban the box,” requiring employers to remove check boxes or questions from job forms that ask about an applicant’s criminal record.

If approved by the City Council, employers with 10 or more workers and city contractors would be prohibited from asking about criminal history until a conditional job offer has been made.

An employer that ultimately decides against hiring a person after learning about his or her criminal record would need to provide a justification for why the job offer is being rescinded.

City officials point to statistics from the National Institute of Justice that show the likelihood of a job offer goes down 50 percent if an applicant has a criminal record.

The measure is part of a national movement aimed at giving formerly incarcerated people a better chance at obtaining employment. Representatives of groups like A New Way of Life, LA Voice, Homeboy Industries and All of Us or None have spoken in favor of Los Angeles adopting the ban at City Council committee meetings.

 

Mapping the $100,000+ California Public Employee Pensions at CalPERS Costing Taxpayers $3.0 Billion

How good is it to work for the State of California or any government agency in the former Golden State?

“The California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) is the USA’s largest pension fund with $301 billion in assets. It’s also a lucrative transfer mechanism helping 1,251 local governments confer ‘highly compensated’ pensions to tens of thousands of public employees. Updated numbers displayed at OpenTheBooks.com show there is a $2.8 billion annual cost to payout 21,862 six-figure public-sector retirees via CalPERS.

It’s a massive payout equivalent to the combined income tax payments of nearly 1.6 million individual California taxpayers.”

Yes, it takes 1.6 million taxpayers just to finance the pensions of the $100,000 plus a year retirees.  At that, the system has un unfunded liability of $991 billion, per the pension think tank at Stanford University.  Did you hear any of the Democrats running for Assembly or State Senate address this issue?  Of course not, they love it.  At some point, sooner than later, it will crash and the families of California will be forced to pay the pensions.  This is another reason to leave the State, before a lien is put on your house to finance this theft of tax dollars by the government elite.

calpers-retirees

Mapping the $100,000+ California Public Employee Pensions at CalPERS Costing Taxpayers $3.0 Billion

 

 

 

 

 
In California, according to data captured by OpenTheBooks.com, the Top 10 All-Time CalPERS public employee pensions start at $390,485 per year.

 

 

 

By Adam Andrzejewski, Forbes,  11/29/16

 

The California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) is the USA’s largest pension fund with $301 billion in assets. It’s also a lucrative transfer mechanism helping 1,251 local governments confer ‘highly compensated’ pensions to tens of thousands of public employees. Updated numbers displayed at OpenTheBooks.com show there is a $2.8 billion annual cost to payout 21,862 six-figure public-sector retirees via CalPERS.

It’s a massive payout equivalent to the combined income tax payments of nearly 1.6 million individual California taxpayers.

So which CA governments conferred the most $100,000 plus pensions through CalPERS?

Using our interactive mapping tool…, quickly review (by last employer ZIP code) the 21,862 public employee retirees at CalPERS who pulled-down a pension of $100,000 or more.

[Just click on the picture of the map to be taken to the interactive mapping tool.]

 

 

 

 

The ‘Big Dog’ units of government conferring the most $100,000 retirement pensions include the California Highway Patrol (1,066); Santa Clara County (836); City of Oakland (509); CA Forestry and Fire Protection (476); Riverside County (461); City of Long Beach (351); CA Dept. of Justice (280); CA Corrections, Paroles and Com (275); CA Corrections (268); and the City of Anaheim (253).

No one has hit the pension jackpot quite like the sworn officers of the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Of the 1,066 six-figure retirees, their average pension is $10,192 per month or $122,304 annually. On top of that, there are the 6,350 active employees at CHP averaging $115,000 in pay with taxpayers chipping in another $48,300 in pension contributions. Therefore, each officer costs $163,000 in pay and pension costs alone.

Meanwhile, Riverside County has 461 six-figure retirees and the top 12 retirements each exceed $200,000 per year. Last year, the assistant sheriff made $653,025 by cashing in banks of unused benefits, i.e. leave.

Pension envy in California is real. The hard working private sector doesn’t have benefits even remotely close to government workers.

It’s no surprise that Oakland is a sanctuary city for highly compensated public employees. It’s ranked third most in $100,000 pensions with its top 509 retirements averaging $126,000 per year. But, soon, the pension problems worsen: Oakland pays 1,251 active employees more than $100,000.

We discovered a ‘$1 Million General Manager’ position at the Los Angeles Sanitary District (LASD). In 2007, LASD General Manager James Stahl retired on a pension of $303,420. His replacement, Stephen Maguin, retired on a pension of $345,408 in 2012. Today, the new ‘General Manager’ earns a salary of $336,972. So it takes $1 million to fund a general manager position where there’s two retirees and only one is working!

In many cases the system legalized corruption. Public pensions are not only for government employees, but are also for special non-government and private associations clouted into the public pension plan at CalPERS. Incredibly, taxpayers guarantee and help fund the pensions but have no say over the salary spiking that pads lifetime pensions (i.e. huge end-of-career raises that increase lifetime pension payouts).

For example, the California School Boards Association is a self-described non-profit organization yet a private entity muscled into the public pension plan. In 2010, Executive Director Scott Plotkin was investigated and exposed for paying out a $175,000 ‘bonus’ which spiked his pay to $540,000 (2008). In an attempt to save face he retired, but now taxpayers guarantee his lifetime pension largess of $148,620.

This is the new ‘CalPERS Effect,’ in which the system itself became an outright lobbyist for higher member benefits. Now, even small towns and agencies are gaming the system for personal gain.

West Hollywood – home of the Sunset Strip – contracts its library, police, and fire protection from the county. Although it occupies less than two square miles, it still employs 69 staffers with salaries over $100,000. In 2010, the city allowed its assistant manager, Joan English, to retire on a $177,048 pension. Immediately, she was rehired on a ‘temporary’ basis in the same position.

Another example: the California Bar Association (CBA) pays six-figures to 133 currently active employees, plus there are 13 CBA retirees on $100,000 plus pensions. The top pension is Herbert Rosenthal at $181,632. Retiring in 1998, Rosenthal’s career spanned 35-years, but he’s already been retired for 18-years.

The golden state of government pension largess just might collapse under its own weight. Recently, CalPERS projected that there’s up to a one in three chance of entering a ‘crisis point’ of doomsday underfunding sometime in the next 30 years.

 

Still, there may some hope and relief coming soon. In August, a San Francisco based state appellate court held that reasonable benefit cuts are permissible in the pension system.

As is the case in pensions systems across the country, CalPERS shows that handing out lavish benefits to everyone – or the many – creates retirement security for no one.

Note: Recently at Forbes, we showcased the 220,000 currently active California public employees making over $100,000 and costing taxpayers $35 billion each year.

 

San Diego Zoo Acts Like a Horse’s “Rear”—Acts Like a Leftist Political Operation

The San Diego Zoo is a place to house animals.  Now we find out those running the place are also in the need of cages—to protect themselves from the “ravishes” of the Constitution and free speech.  Breitbart is a web site that exposes the corruption of government, the apologists for terrorism in  government and has been a leader in showing the American public that Hillary Clinton is a crook, thief and hater of America—not to mention a liar to Congress and slapped the families of the Benghazi dead in the face.

But, the San Diego Zoo joined the anti- truth and free speech mob by cancelling their ads on the Breitbart web site.  Guess the Zoo does not want deplorable Americans see’s the monkey and elephants.  There is now a rumor that those running the Zoo are going to put the Constitution in a cage, so people can see another endanger species—FREEDOM.

It is time for new management of the San Diego Zoo.

“The San Diego Zoo is among several organizations that have reportedly announced they are pulling their advertising from Breitbart.com, the website formerly run by Steve Bannon, senior advisor to President-elect Donald Trump.

The Associated Press broke the news Tuesday, and said food maker Kellogg Co., pharmaceutical maker Novo Nordisk and retailer Warby Parker have also pulled out.

One less place to take my grandkids.

flying_elephant

San Diego Zoo Pulls Ads from Conservative Website Breitbart

By Toni McAllister, Times of San Diego, 11/29/16

The San Diego Zoo is among several organizations that have reportedly announced they are pulling their advertising from Breitbart.com, the website formerly run by Steve Bannon, senior advisor to President-elect Donald Trump.

The Associated Press broke the news Tuesday, and said food maker Kellogg Co., pharmaceutical maker Novo Nordisk and retailer Warby Parker have also pulled out.

Breitbart, which has served as a pro-Trump platform, has been condemned by many for featuring racist, sexist and anti-Semitic content.

The site has now become the target of a social media campaign to call out companies and organizations that advertise on it.

Sleeping Giants (@slpng_giants) launched this month on Twitter and now has more than 2,600 followers.

According to its Twitter feed, Sleeping Giants exists because “We are trying to stop racist websites by stopping their ad dollars. Many companies don’t even know it’s happening. It’s time to tell them.”

Sleeping Giants is encouraging its followers to become “Giants” by taking screenshots of ads running on Breitbart, then tweeting the images to the respective advertisers with “a polite note,” along with the tag @slpng_giants.

 

Santa Barbara Takes First Steps To Ban Smoking in Public Spaces

Santa Barbara is going to make the potheads angry.  They just won the right to fry their brains and the City of Santa Barbara is going to shove them underground again.  The city is about to pass an ordinance that bans smoking in any public place—which means if you are on the beach, near a building, in a park, outdoors—in a bar, anywhere you will not be allowed to smoke.  The only place left is your home.  If you have children at home under eighteen, you can not smoke, since it could be considered child abuse.  If the smoke goes through the walls into your neighbor’s home, that is illegal.  Looks like the hypocrites that hate cigarettes are going to find out pot may be legal, but Santa Barbara gives you no place to smoke.

Unless you are childless and live away from people.  Watch as the Left tests the new no smoking rules.  You know they prefer to fry their brains.

“Santa Barbara appears on its way to becoming mostly smoke-free, with the city’s ordinance committee on Tuesday recommending that smoking be banned at beaches, parks, trails, sports fields, Stearns Wharf, and parking lots, among other public places. Vaping would also be prohibited.”

cigarette smoking ashes

City Takes First Steps To Ban Smoking in Public Spaces

Ban Recommended for Beaches, Parks, Sports Fields, Etc.

By Tyler Hayden, Santa Barbara Independent,  11/23/16

Santa Barbara appears on its way to becoming mostly smoke-free, with the city’s ordinance committee on Tuesday recommending that smoking be banned at beaches, parks, trails, sports fields, Stearns Wharf, and parking lots, among other public places. Vaping would also be prohibited.

The ordinance committee, composed of councilmembers Randy Rowse, Frank Hotchkiss, and Cathy Murillo, voted 2-1 to update the city’s 14-year-old smoking laws with the new restrictions, with Hotchkiss dissenting. Their recommendation will soon go to the full city council for a final vote. But before it does, the committee will hold a separate hearing on whether to ban smoking in the outdoor seating areas of bars and restaurants.

In her presentation Tuesday, assistant city administrator Nina Johnson noted the multiple Stearns Wharf fires that have been caused by discarded cigarettes, and she talked about the thousands of butts collected during annual beach cleanups. Penny Owens with Santa Barbara Channelkeeper said volunteers picked up more than 12,000 during a recent one-day event. Johnson explained that the city’s smoking ordinance is out of sync with state law and is overall far too lenient, according to the American Lung Association. The city received a “D” grade during the health agency’s latest assessment of individual communities’ smoking laws.

Johnson also stated that many Southern California coastal cities, including San Luis Obispo and Carpinteria, take the approach of banning smoking essentially everywhere except in designated areas. She suggested Santa Barbara could do the same.

Hotchkiss said he was hesitant to alienate 11,000-plus city smokers by blocking their access to so many public places. “I don’t want to disenfranchise smokers because they are the minority,” he said. Hotchkiss was also dubious that so many butts are sifted out of the sand each year. “I don’t go down there and shuffle through butts,” he said. Plus, he went on, banning smoking in parks will have little impact — many of the people who smoke there are homeless and won’t follow new rules.

Currently, the only locations where the city prohibits smoking are in public service areas like bus stops and ATMs, and at multi-unit housing complexes operated by the Housing Authority. Smoking is allowed on 25 percent of outdoor dining patios before 10 p.m., and then anywhere on dining patios after 10 p.m. It’s permitted in the outdoor areas of bars any time of day or night. Smoking has already been banned at places like SBCC, UCSB, Earl Warren Showgrounds, Paseo Nuevo, El Paseo, and the zoo.

For nearly an hour on Tuesday, the ordinance committee heard from bar and restaurant owners concerned about stricter smoking rules. “If smoking is banned on patios, then yes we would lose customers,” said Wildcat Lounge owner Bob Stout. “I understand secondhand smoke is bad, but I have to stick up for customers, residents, and tourists who enjoy having a cigarette.”

Pete Degenhardt, owner of Elsie’s Tavern, worried about the impact on tourism, as many Europeans enjoy smoking on beaches and where they eat and drink. “Tourists being stopped by police is not going to foster joyful memories,” he said.

Rowse assured the speakers that no final decision was being made, and that the committee will take up the topic again in the coming months. So far, City Hall has received more 120 letters and emails from the public on the subject, some in favor of the ban, many against it.

 

More Than 800,000 Noncitizens May Have Voted in 2016 Election, Expert Says

Hillary won the popular vote by about 2.3 million, give or take a few illegal aliens.  Now we know that the number is approximately 800,000.  Then you have the dead on the voting rolls—LA County, just one of over 7,000 counties in the nation, has hundreds of dead people voting, consistently, since 2004.  Imagine the number nationwide.  Of course, States with no ID allow anybody to vote, as often as they want—no way to stop them.

If you think California runs honest elections you need to look at the facts.  It maybe not as corrupt as Chicago—but we are challenging them.

“Richman was the co-author of a 2014 study that looked at noncitizen voting in the 2008 and 2010 elections. In the comparable presidential election year, the Old Dominion study determined 6.4 percent on noncitizens in the United States voted in the 2008 presidential election, and about 81 percent of those voters backed Democrat Barack Obama.”

Want honest elections?  Enforce our immigration laws.

vote count election

More Than 800,000 Noncitizens May Have Voted in 2016 Election, Expert Says

Fred Lucas, Daily Signal,11/28/16 

An election expert projects more than 800,000 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election and overwhelmingly for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

While substantial, that number doesn’t overcome Clinton’s 2.2 million popular vote lead over Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who won a decisive Electoral College triumph of 306 to 232.

On Sunday, the president-elect tweeted he would have won the popular vote had it not been for illegal votes cast. The Trump transition team on Monday cited nonpartisan studies on noncitizens voting and of faulty voter registration across the country. Only citizens 18 or older can legally vote.

“Extrapolating on data from several years ago certainly doesn’t substantiate the claim that Trump is making now,” Jesse Richman, an associate professor of political science at Old Dominion University, told The Daily Signal. “That could change. If there is a recount in Michigan and Trump loses by a few votes, then it’s very plausible that noncitizen voting made a big difference. Hopefully, it doesn’t come to that.”

Richman was the co-author of a 2014 study that looked at noncitizen voting in the 2008 and 2010 elections. In the comparable presidential election year, the Old Dominion study determined 6.4 percent on noncitizens in the United States voted in the 2008 presidential election, and about 81 percent of those voters backed Democrat Barack Obama.

Richman applied those numbers to 2016:

The basic assumptions on which the extrapolation is based are that 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted, and that of the noncitizens who voted, 81.8 percent voted for Clinton and 17.5 percent voted for Trump. … 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million noncitizen adults in the U.S. would add only 834,318 votes to Clinton’s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin. … Is it plausible that noncitizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes. Is it plausible that noncitizen votes account for the entire nationwide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.

A December 2015 study led by Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard University argued the 2014 Old Dominion study was flawed and that “the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is zero.” Richman responded to the criticism and said suggesting zero percent does not hold up.

Trump transition team spokesman Jason Miller cited the Old Dominion study reported on in The Washington Post in 2014, as well as a Pew Research Center study from 2012 about problems with voter registration across the country.

“An issues of concern is that so many have voted that are not legally supposed to,” Miller told reporters in a conference call Monday.

He said this warrants more attention than the “shiny object” Jill Stein and the Green Party are using to push recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that have no chance of overturning the election.

Beyond the noncitizens voting study from Old Dominion, Miller pointed to the Pew study from 2012 that found 24 million voter registration records in the United States, or about 1 in 8, were “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.”

The Pew study further found “1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters,” that “12 million records contain an incorrect address,” and that “2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.”

It would take a very high percentage of noncitizens voting to overcome the Clinton popular vote lead, said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors strong immigration enforcement.

“If 10 percent of noncitizens voted, it would likely make a popular vote difference,” Camarota told The Daily Signal. “It’s not the Electoral College he’s upset about. It’s the popular vote. I wish he wouldn’t focus on it. Bill Clinton got just 43 percent of the vote in 1992. How many states did he win more than 50 percent of the vote in?”

Trump could be correct about the number of illegal votes, but there is no way to know, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation who focuses on voter integrity issues.

“It’s possible he’s right, but we don’t know because there is no way to quantify, no system in place to identify noncitizens voting,” Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security should obtain state voter registration lists and check against noncitizen database. And the DOJ should start prosecuting noncitizens who are voting.”

Prosecuting voter fraud will have to be a higher priority under the Trump administration than under the Obama administration, said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog.

“It has got to be a priority I would think based on Mr. Trump’s rhetoric,” Fitton told The Daily Signal. “At least, make sure that only citizens are registered to vote. We need basic reforms to reassure people that elections are free and fair.”

 

Rider: Per capita federal taxes and spending — California vs. Texas

Thought you would like to see these numbers, researched by Richard Rider.  It gives you an idea of the taxes we pay and the Federal funds we get back.  This is just one part of the equation.  Go to Texas and get paid the same as you are paid in California and your take home pay will be approximately 10% higher—and no added cost to your employer.

“Compare the full equation for California and Texas — and the national average (all per capita paid per year):

*****************Paid to Feds**********Received from Feds
California                         $7,691                                                $8,967

 

Texas                                 $8,537                                                $8,865

Nat’l Average                   $7,918                                                $9,961

BOTTOM LINE:  California paid LESS to the feds per capita than Texas.  California got MORE back per capita from the feds than Texas.

As I said, overall the low tax states get a bit more federal dollars (with numerous exceptions at both ends of the tax spectrum) than they pay in.  But it’s a relatively minor economic factor when comparing states, for several reasons.  But let’s start with the progressives’ Workers Paradise — California, and compare it with the progressives’ nemesis — Texas.”

Housing is cheaper, water and energy, along with gasoline is cheaper in Texas.  Prove you are rich and stay in California, you have money to burn.  Want a good life at a lower cost?  The Free State of Texas.

Laffer1

Per capita federal taxes and spending — California vs. Texas

Richard Rider, Rider Rants,  11/28/16

High-tax state defenders have pretty much run out of ammunition.  Clearly the lower tax states are doing better in job creation, business generating, business retention, cost-of-living, prosperity and net immigration standpoint.  The one “fact” the lefties still love to post in desperation is the assertion that the high tax states subsidize the low tax states through the federal collection and distribution system.  There’s a grain of truth in the assertion, but a ton of manure is added to give the factor its desired decaying aroma.

It’s time we took a closer look at this basic tenet of our progressive friends — using the two most compared states — Texas and California.  This rebuttal may get a little wonky at times, but for the serious defender of the taxpayers, this is crucial stuff.  Once you grasp the basic facts, you can just post the URL to this article.  Rest assured that your opponents will not read it — let alone understand it.

Since most of you won’t read this semi-academic treatise, here’s my bottom line conclusion — destroying this bogus claim.  EXCERPT:

Compare the full equation for California and Texas — and the national average (all per capita paid per year):

*****************Paid to Feds**********Received from Feds
California                         $7,691                                                $8,967

 

Texas                                 $8,537                                                $8,865

Nat’l Average                   $7,918                                                $9,961

 

BOTTOM LINE:  California paid LESS to the feds per capita than Texas.  California got MORE back per capita from the feds than Texas.

As I said, overall the low tax states get a bit more federal dollars (with numerous exceptions at both ends of the tax spectrum) than they pay in.  But it’s a relatively minor economic factor when comparing states, for several reasons.  But let’s start with the progressives’ Workers Paradise — California, and compare it with the progressives’ nemesis — Texas.

Liberals make a fundamental “mistake” over and over in their analysis of California’s performance and statistics — they compare state’s dollars while ignoring population.  California has about ONE-EIGHTH of the entire nation’s population.   Its population is 42.5% bigger than #2 Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Hence California going to be “the most” in many categories — starting with the widely ballyhooed “6th largest world’s economy.”  As I’ve detailed in another blog article, if you adjust California’s GDP for population and cost of living, the Golden State is less prosperous than all but 13 of our 57 (or whatever) states.

Now, let’s look at money coming from the feds to California.  Below is a good chart (the first of two) of the various categories of such money, and how much it all totals up to PER CAPITA.  The chart is interactive at its Wikipedia source, but not so in this blog.  So if you want to be able to rank all the states in order in each column, you’ll need to go to the source link. But the important category is the last one — the “Total” — and that’s the column I sorted on.

California does get somewhat less money per capita than the national average — the state is ranked 15th in money received per capita.  California gets $8,967 per person from the federal government. The national average is $9,961 — about a $1,000 more — not exactly a game changer.

But it gets more interesting.  the pitch by the California apologists is that it’s unfair to compare California’s high taxes with the low tax states — especially the low income tax states — because California suffers from this awful federal funding disadvantage.

Okaayyyy . . . .  Let’s look at Texas — the state California liberals love to hate.  Guess what?  Texas, which has no state income tax, a lower sales tax, lower gas tax, lower property tax (a surprise to most) and much less expensive real estate, gets about the same per capita federal funding as California — a bit less, actually:
California   $8,967.
Texas          $8,865.

Moreover, there are two other zero income tax states with federal outlays less than California.
Wyoming   $8,885
Nevada      $8,308

In addition, there are four income tax free states which receive only modestly more federal spending than California — all receiving less than the national average:
New Hampshire  $9.380
South Dakota      $9,499
Florida                $9,760
Tennessee           $9,940

Indeed, only ONE of the eight states with zero income tax gets distributions higher than the national average — Alaska.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

Oakland City Councilwoman: Our City Should Protest Pipeline in North Dakota

Good to know that a citizen from Oakland, California protested a pipeline 1,000 miles away, that was even approved by the anti-energy President Obama.  Jobs are on the line, lowered cost energy is being held in the balance—and the permit process is being challenged.  This by the city council of Oakland, in Northern California.  Any wonder cops are scarce in this crime capitol—the government prefers to handle issues they can do nothing about instead of protecting the people of Oakland.  Imagine if folks from Dallas came to San Fran to protest the craziness of that city?  Great theater, waste of time.

“In a statement issued through her office last Friday, Kaplan said, “We must defend the water, land and the people. I am proud to be part of a city that stands up for justice. Together, we have moral obligation to say no to poisoning our water, no to the violence against those being harmed here in North Dakota, and to honor our First Nation’s peoples and respect treaty rights.”

Kaplan complained that it was cold in North Dakota.  She did not have to go—she could have done her job as an Oakland councilmember.  Maybe the legalization of marijuana got to her.  Another example of why government has too much money.

keystone pipeline

Rebecca Kaplan participated in Standing Rock protests over Thanksgiving

 
Steven Tavalers,

EB Citizen,  11/28/16

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL |
Last September, Oakland Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan proposed a resolution to formally oppose the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) at the far-flung Standing Rock Native American Reservation.

The Oakland City Council approved the resolution just as the protests began growing along with increased media attention.

The gesture from Kaplan’s perspective was not hollow. That’s because she spent the Thanksgiving holiday at Standing Rock.

Prior to Kaplan’s arrival authorities had fired rubber bullets and opened water cannons on protesters amid freezing temperatures.

“It’s very cold here,” Kaplan wrote on Facebook a day before Thanksgiving. “But hearts are warm.” On Saturday, Kaplan noted on social media an increased police presence near the sprawling encampment, along with a photo of law enforcement personnel overlooking a ridge.

Tribal leaders in the area and activists say the pipeline violates their land rights and threatens the water supply.

In a statement issued through her office last Friday, Kaplan said, “We must defend the water, land and the people. I am proud to be part of a city that stands up for justice. Together, we have moral obligation to say no to poisoning our water, no to the violence against those being harmed here in North Dakota, and to honor our First Nation’s peoples and respect treaty rights.”

More than a million people in San Fran? Did anyone ask you?

Today San Fran has about 850,000 people—also a homeless problem, affordable housing problem and the average cost of a garbage home is over one million dollars.  You have to be really rich to live in this intolerant city.  To build projects, you need the approval of the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, the Attorney General of California (not a joke) and then be allowed to spend millions on a ballot measure so the people of San Fran get to vote on your project—many of which have been voted down.

“Defying the growth autocracy is a daunting task, if only because its leading supporters—the real estate industry moguls now joined by the tech oligarchs—pour millions of dollars into local politicians’ campaigns for office. But those powers are not invulnerable.

On November 17, after Heminger, Rogers, and Switzky had advocated changes in state law that would enable MTC and ABAG to force cities to approve the new housing stipulated by Plan Bay Area, Alameda County District 1 Supervisor and MTC Commissioner Scott Haggerty reported that on November 8 every incumbent in his district had lost. The yard signs, he said, all railed against “rampant growth.”…

You read that right—there is a move to have an unelected organization tell cities what, where and how they can build.  Live in a $2 million home and then can and will approve an affordable housing project next to your home—thus devaluing your investment.  The craziness of the Left is going to kill off San Fran and the State of California.

San Francisco, CA, USA

More than a million people in SF? Did anyone ask you?

By Zelda Bronstein : 48hills, zrants,  11/29/16

New regional plan, adopted with little public input, pushes massive growth for San Francisco – with no promise of money for transit or social equity

It’s hard not to be riveted by the terrifying advance of Donald Trump’s presidency. But it would be a huge mistake to ignore less sensational exercises in autocracy, especially those occurring at home. One such operation, which has gone virtually unnoticed, is the continuing travesty of democratic governance known as Plan Bay Area.

Mandated by SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, Plan Bay Area is our nine-county region’s Sustainable Community Strategy—a so-called blueprint that knits together transportation and land use plans and investments for each region in California so as to accommodate the area’s projected growth of jobs and households and at the same time meet its official greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets…

“Infrastructure drives development…”
If that is true, and we want to slow growth and cut emissions, cutting taxes is a good start.

Unelected officials run the show

Plan Bay Area’s autocratic character is rooted in the un-democratic governance of the regional agencies under whose aegis it proceeds, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Both entities are putatively overseen by unelected officials—to be precise, elected officials (mayors, city councilmembers, and county supervisors) who were not elected to serve on MTC or the ABAG Executive Board. It follows that when they run for office or re-election, their positions on Plan Bay Area and the regional agencies’ other projects never come up.

Scott Wiener sits on MTC, and Jane Kim is on the ABAG Executive Board, but during their hotly contested campaigns for state senate, nobody asked about MTC’s hostile takeover of ABAG last May (Wiener supported it—vociferously, accusing opponents of “throwing rocks at MTC”; Kim was absent for the Ex. Board’s May 19 vote on the matter) or their positions on Plan Bay Area’s gigantic growth forecasts and allocations for San Francisco and the 11th State Senate District, and its implications for displacement and housing affordability or local control of development…

Note: For an incisive critique of the Draft Preferred Scenario’s equity failures, see the 6 Wins for Social Equity Network’s October 13 letter to MTC and ABAG...(more)

Please read and share this article. It is one of the most important to come out since the election. Voters all over the Bay Area want to Slow Growth. Will San Francisco voters join them in this effort to push back against the Plan Bay Area?

No public deliberation in San Francisco

The Preferred Draft Scenario never came before the Board of Supervisors. It appeared only on the agenda of San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the congestion management agency for the city and county of San Francisco. SFCTA’s governing board meets on the fourth Tuesday morning of every month. Staff proposal for San Francisco’s input on the Preferred Draft Scenario was on the Authority’s September and October agendas. At those meetings, not one supervisor asked a question or remarked on staff’s proposed comments to MTC and ABAG. Nobody spoke at public comment. On October 25, the SFCTA unanimously approved the staff recommendations…

Ballot box rebellion in the burbs

Defying the growth autocracy is a daunting task, if only because its leading supporters—the real estate industry moguls now joined by the tech oligarchs—pour millions of dollars into local politicians’ campaigns for office. But those powers are not invulnerable.

On November 17, after Heminger, Rogers, and Switzky had advocated changes in state law that would enable MTC and ABAG to force cities to approve the new housing stipulated by Plan Bay Area, Alameda County District 1 Supervisor and MTC Commissioner Scott Haggerty reported that on November 8 every incumbent in his district had lost. The yard signs, he said, all railed against “rampant growth.”…

Would San Franciscans join a slow growth revolt?

Not, to state the obvious, if it’s made in the name of protecting suburban character…

In any case, San Franciscans ought to demand that the supervisors, their elected representatives, publicly vet Plan Bay Area’s big-picture growth agenda. Democracy, like autocracy, begins at home.

Please read and share this article. It is one of the most important to come out since the election. Voters all over the Bay Area want to Slow Growth. Will San Francisco voters join them in this effort to push back against the Plan Bay Area?

Zelda has outdone herself with this one. If this doesn’t grab the public’s attention, nothing will. A growing disgust with forced growth and constant change brought to us by the Plan Bay Area has united the most unlikely of allies in our efforts to stop the too fast too soon changes being crammed down our throats.

Not surprised to hear that incumbents where removed from office. The only way citizens can revolt against city policies and priorities they detest is to remove the politicians backing them.

Mayor Ed Lee announced that he will be ignoring the wishes of the voters who passed props E, J, V and W almost immediately after the election. Even though voters supported street tree maintenance, health programs, affordable housing and free City College, that money will be going into the general fund, just as we predicted. The voters were bamboozled in less than a week this time. Will they buy the lipstick on the pig again?

Department of Homeland Security Overwhelmed by Green Card Catastrophe

The Obama Administration gave out green cards to anybody and everybody, sent out duplicates without question and had many stolen.  If you see a green card, it could be bought by $10 bucks in downtown LA, for $25 in Santa Ana and $50 in San Diego.  Or a real one stolen from someone or the government for $100.  Then the person that lost the real green card can get another one.  Green cards are as worthless a test of honesty as an LAUSD diploma is that the holder is literate.

“USCIS, which handles immigration cases and the distribution of green cards, was found to have produced at least 19,000 green cards during the past three years that were duplicates or contained incorrect information, according to a new report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general.

During the same period, more than 200,000 green card holders reported their cards missing and an increasing number of cards were sent to incorrect addresses, posing a risk to national security.

Problems at USCIS have been increasing over the past three years. The bureau has been deemed incapable of keeping track of green cards and immigrants who have overstayed their legal time in the United States.”

Obama imported illegal aliens by the tens of thousands, he brought in 100,000 from terrorist nations—now we find he gave out green cards like chewing gum.  Another reason Trump won, the American people expect a President to obey the law—or at least be able to administer it.

Obama immigration

Department of Homeland Security Overwhelmed by Green Card Catastrophe

DHS issuing thousands of duplicate cards, terrorists can access benefits

BY: Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon,  11/29/16

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued thousands of duplicate green cards to immigrants, including many that include incorrect information and allow these individuals to stay longer than permitted in the United States, according to a new government oversight report that warns the Department of Homeland Security is incapable of tracking immigrants who may pose a security risk to the United States.

USCIS, which handles immigration cases and the distribution of green cards, was found to have produced at least 19,000 green cards during the past three years that were duplicates or contained incorrect information, according to a new report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general.

During the same period, more than 200,000 green card holders reported their cards missing and an increasing number of cards were sent to incorrect addresses, posing a risk to national security.

Problems at USCIS have been increasing over the past three years. The bureau has been deemed incapable of keeping track of green cards and immigrants who have overstayed their legal time in the United States.

“In the wrong hands, Green Cards may enable terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens to remain in the United States and access immigrant benefits,” according to the oversight report, which disclosed that green card errors cost taxpayers $1.5 million in 2015.

“Responding to card issuance errors has also resulted in additional workload and corresponding costs, as USCIS spent just under $1.5 million to address card related customer inquiries in fiscal year 2015,” according to the report.

Homeland security experts told the Washington Free Beacon that problems at USCIS are widespread and systemic, presenting a challenge to authorities tracking individuals who have overstayed their time in the United States or who pose a national security risk to the country.

In July 2013 alone, more than 2,400 immigrants who were approved for a two-year conditional stay in the United States “were inadvertently issued cards allowing them to stay for 10 years,” according to the report.

Federal authorities and DHS have had difficulty locating some of the individuals who received incorrect green cards.

In May 2014, at least 5,280 cards were printed “with incorrect names and/or dates of birth,” the report found. “In some cases, applicants’ cards were printed with ‘No Given Name’ as their first name and with their first and last names combined as the last name.”

In March of this year, USCIS was caught sending “potentially hundreds of Green Cards to the wrong addresses” due to limitations in the bureau’s filing system.

The DHS inspector general found that “USCIS was unable to identify the exact number of cards sent to the incorrect addresses.”

Of the at least 18,000 green cards reported “missing” between January and April of this year, “95 percent were delivered as addressed,” meaning the cards could have been sold on the black market or used in other inappropriate ways.

“There is a huge black market demand for legal documentation such as Green Cards, which can be used by imposters to reside in the United States or access other individuals’ benefits,” the report warned.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded at least 4,600 cases between 2013 and 2015 in which “imposter green cards” were used.

The number of errors are increasing at USCIS, which experts say is overwhelmed by an immigration system that cannot handle even some of the most simple administrative tasks.

“Service requests initiated by USCIS customers claiming they did not receive Green Cards have steadily increased from 44,519 in [fiscal year] 2013, to 67,247 in [fiscal] 2014, and 92,645 in [fiscal] 2015,” according to the report.

“Congress must continue its oversight of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure the integrity of our immigration system and improve the quality and efficiency of its services,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. “We must take concrete steps to remove any security gaps that can be exploited by terrorists and criminals.  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can assist such efforts by strengthening quality controls and its procedures to target lost, stolen or erroneously issued green cards.”

David Inserra, a policy analyst for homeland security and cyber security at the Heritage Foundation, told the Free Beacon that many of these problems can be blamed on USCIS’s Electronic Immigration System, or ELIS.

“This program has already been running over time schedule, over budget, really falling short on all these things,” Inserra explained. “It really speaks to a serious problem within USCIS.”

“The reality is those cards are out there and could be used for purposes they’re not supposed to be used for,” Inserra said, explaining that the ELIS system is failing to track errors. “There is a risk of these being misused, despite measures that might be taken to try and clean it up.”