Okay, so we weren’t on at the same time, or even the same night… Last Wednesday night, Maldonado came onto San Diego’s Rick Amato show where he made his case for why he had to vote for the largest tax increase in the history of any state. He took some shots at yours truly in that interview as well.

On Monday night, I was Amato’s guest for about an hour, and I gave some critiques of Maldobama (h/t to Barry Jantz on the nick-name).

You can get more information on the Rick Amato show here.

The two segments I reference are available here.… Read More

The eyes of the nation are on California today as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the cases against Proposition 8. The hearing started promptly at 9am this morning. Right now the justices are questioning the petitioners (anti-Prop 8 lawyers). Thus far, the justices have been asking some great questions of the attorneys, pointing out many of the flaws in their arguments. But Kenneth Starr, arguing for Proposition 8, is still to come. Apparently the Cal Channel is inaccessible to many right now because of the overwhelming demand to watch the hearing. Other web sites are streaming the oral arguments, including L.A.’s Channel 7. … Read More

Congressman Tom McClintock gave an outstanding speech in the well of the House of Representatives earlier this week. You can watch him deliver the remarks here, or you can read them below…

M. Speaker:

The Laffer Curve is a simple but elegant method of demonstrating how increasing taxes reduces economic productivity until a point of equilibrium is reached when further tax hikes actually reduce revenue.

If the tax rate is zero, tax revenues are zero. But if the tax rate is 100 percent, tax revenues also reach zero, because there’s no point in working.

… Read More

The Supreme Court just wrapped up the oral arguments in the cases against Proposition 8. During the 3-hour hearing justices put both sides through rigorous rounds of questioning regarding whether Proposition 8 constitutes a revision, rather than an amendment, to the state constitution. Although we won’t know the outcome of this case for weeks (the court has up to 90 days to rule), Prop 8 supporters may have some reason to be optimistic. Two crucial swing votes, Justice Joyce Kennard and Chief Justice Ronald George, were particularly pointed in their questioning about what constitutes a revision to the constitution and the definition of inalienable rights.

Proposition 8 supporters contend that a revision constitutes a fundamental, structural change to our form of government. Placing into the state constitution the traditional definition does not structurally change our form of government. Opponents to Proposition 8 counter that denying homosexuals the “fundamental right” to marriage (created by the court last year in overturning Proposition 22) does alter our form of government by denying them their equal rights. Unfortunately, the core issue in this whole same-sex… Read More

Okay, we’re well over 400 days out from the primary show downs in the California Governor’s race. That said — all reporters love to write about polls, and two of them are out. There is a Field Poll that is written about extensively in the Sacramento Bee. And Democrat pollster Celinda Lake has done a survey that is referenced by Politico’s Ben Smith and can be reviewed here.

Both surveys reinforce the idea that Dianne Feinstein, should she seek to move from her lofty perch in the United States Senate and over to the California Governor’s Office, would hold a commanding lead.

In the Field Poll, Meg Whitman shows very strong, with Poizner trailing behind her (Tom Campbell does pretty well, but at this stage is running a low-budget campaign…) — but with most GOP voters undecided.

On the Democrat side, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will be touting the Field Poll,… Read More

Most FR readers will remember that as a freshman Republican Assemblyman, longtime FR friend Joel Anderson successfully passed substantive legislation and had it signed into law(that alone is an accomplishment for a GOPer in California) that caused the massive investment portfolios of California’s public pension systems to divestfrom investments inIran, which i a country that is a knownsponsor of terrorist organizations.

Well, in addition to making sure that public funds of Californians are not being used to create a healthy economy for terrorists to prosper at home, Assemblyman Anderson is now looking at pioneering legislation to take away a potential tool that terrorists, international or domestic, may use here at home.

I encourage you to take a couple of minutes and watch this network television interview with Assemblyman Anderson, as he talks… Read More

As we mentioned previously, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has filed a lawsuit asking a judge for relief because the state legislature and the governor are in the midst of a deceptive effort to cause Californian’s to consider whether to support or oppose Proposition 1A without having all of the information about the measure readily available to them — there is no mention in the title or summary of this measure that mentions that the passage of it would extend a boatload of taxes for years! Below we have linked the legal documents filed with court for those who would like to read them.

This "keep all of the facts from the voters" campaign extends beyond the omitting of information in the official voter guide pamphlet (though that omission is the most egregious) — it seems that proponents of Proposition 1A literally don’t want to even mention the taxes. Of course, what they should be doing is making the case that they feel the spending cap in 1A is strong enough to justify extending tens of billions in taxes on Californians.

Another example of this "don’t fully disclose and discuss the pros and cons of… Read More

As we mentioned previously, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has filed a lawsuit asking a judge for relief because the state legislature and the governor are in the midst of a deceptive effort to cause Californian’s to consider whether to support or oppose Proposition 1A without having all of the information about the measure readily available to them — there is no mention in the title or summary of this measure that mentions that the passage of it would extend a boatload of taxes for years! Below we have linked the legal documents filed with court for those who would like to read them.

This "keep all of the facts from the voters" campaign extends beyond the omitting of information in the official voter guide pamphlet (though that omission is the most egregious) — it seems that proponents of Proposition 1A literally don’t want to even mention the taxes. Of course, what they should be doing is making the case that they feel the spending cap in 1A is strong enough to justify extending tens of billions in taxes on Californians.

Another example of this "don’t fully disclose and discuss the pros and cons of… Read More