California mandated vaccines?

 
This graph is from the California Department of Public Health . It is based on demographics and age groups that contracted Pertussis (Whooping Cough) in 2010.

Now there was a total of 7,824 reported cases of Pertussis out of a population of 37,253,956 people living in California according to the 2010 US Census.

And as it's fairly easy to tell over 75% of the cases are happening in infants under 6 months of age. The Federally listed incidences of Pertussis are 78% in the under one year age group.

So, what idiot in the California Legislature thought it was such a great idea to have it mandated for 7th graders who have a less than 4% chance of catching this disease, to have to get this vaccine? 

Just What's Really Wrong with the California Budget?

No matter how the votes in Sacramento come out today California is still in a huge mess. Despite all the claims that this new budget will "erase" the deficit with no new taxes or "fees" there are major problems that our Legislature is just sweeping under the rug.

First, look at items such as Lease-Revenue Bonds. Seriously do you think any lender would allow you to take a 30 year construction "loan" off of your liabilities when looking at your creditworthiness? That's what the State has been doing for years. These items are not considered "constitutional debt", and so don't even show up for accounting on California's Budget. So bonds that are paying out $2. for every dollar borrowed through the bond sales are not considered "debt". If that is not a debt the State of California owes then what is?

And then there are all the items the Legislature has moved off the "General Fund" Budget, so they don't even have to consider them when balancing the budget. A lot of these are done by making the funding of agencies and departments "fees". Such as Vehicle License Fees. We've all seen how well that works just in the past year. The State needs more money, can't pass a tax? Just increase "fees". Local agencies need more money? Just increase the VLF !

Well, that works just fine, right? It doesn't if you consider that while raising money, it violates two items that the California Legislature should be doing. They don't have to have a 2/3rds vote to raise those funds, nor are they counted in the General Fund Budget.

"Fees" aren't taxes you see...according to California's Legislative Analyst Office and California law "fees" are "voluntary"...

OK, so you want to say it's voluntary to drive a vehicle, or a "privilege"? Even giving you that, how do you explain that the accounting never shows in California's Budget? Or that the uses, which change with the economic conditions, to which the VLF is put, are not put to a 2/3rds vote?

Or how about the oversight that the Legislature is supposed to have over the different departments and agencies? A part of that is supposed to come with the Legislature's General Fund Budget vote. Where's the oversight when an agency is no longer funded by the Budget?If an agency is improperly doing their job, the Legislature is supposed to be able to financially tell them to get their act together. When the Legislature is no longer responsible for the agency's funding, how do they do that?

So, now we come to this year's neat little package...

How many of you knew California now has a second State Fire Department? One that has no firefighters by the way? Only fire trucks and "emergency" equipment.

OK, I'll back up and explain how we got there. To start I'm sure most of you are aware of CalFire, the State Fire Department that is a part of CDF, the California Department of Forestry. So how did a Fire Department that is tasked with protecting State Forests end up being the State Fire Department and having precedence over local Fire Departments?? By becoming the Fire Department for many of the cities and counties in California, in part by convincing the counties and cities it would be cheaper for them to use CDF. At the charge of $20/acre/year in 2009 I don't know how true that is today. And now local and county fire departments not a part of CalFire, are subservient to CalFire and eMA(who's eMA you ask?hang in there I get to it. Promise!). But it gets worse.

That $20/acre/year turns into a $2Billion dollar budget for CalFire. That $2B does not show up on the General Fund Budget. CalFire was placed on this year's budget with a $2million funding, which looked to be just barely enough to cover the salaries of the 6,000+ firefighters. But that is above that $2Billion they take in from the counties and cities. But it gets worse.

California has an "Emergency" Fund that in the past was funded in the $5Million range. Last year CalFire hit that Emergency Fund up for $375 Million, a large part of which could not be justified as emergency use. But it was spent as if it was, although it should have been charged to their General Fund Budget monies according to California's Legislative Analyst Office. The Legislature not only did not do their job in overseeing how that money was spent, but in addition just rubber-stamped those expenses out of the Emergency fund.

Now it could be honestly argued that the Emergency Fund was not big enough, and should have been bigger in the first place. But the Legislature did not do it's job, and CalFire just went ahead and spent the money because they could. No one was over-seeing what they did.

So that brings us to this years budget. The Governor wants to take CalFire completely out of the General Fund Budget, and fund it like several other agencies in California. By creating a "fee" on the insurance of every home, personal real estate and business property in the state.

And what would be wrong with this?

• A "fee" has to be voluntary. There is no way this "fee" could be voluntary according to the LAO
• CalFire has no oversight now, as the Legislature has not done their job in the past to make sure they stayed within their budget
• Taking them out of the funding from the General Fund budget means there will be no oversight as to how they spend their funds.

OK, you say since the Legislature hasn't been doing their job anyway what difference does this make? Should CalFire not be responsible to some entity in the State other than themselves? Is CalFire such a sacred cow that they are allowed to make their own rules and not have to account for how they are spending the State's money? And when they decide that that 4.8% fee on your property insurance is just not enough, and they want even more?

Think of them as the DMV on steroids...

Oh, that second State Fire Department? That would be eMA, Emergency Management Agency. That is also to be funded by that "fee". A fire department without firefighters, telling county and city fire fighters how they will perform under mutual aid responses, and using eMA's equipment instead of their own since the State won't be helping local fire departments upgrade as they could have done if eMA didn't "need" to buy the equipment...

Now, just multiply these problems by how many agencies and departments in the state operating under similar "rules".

The California Legislature has refused to do their job and has created for many agencies the moral hazard of both having no real oversight and the ability to have almost unlimited budgets. Until this problem and others are seriously dealt with by the Legislature, instead of voting away their responsibilities, California will never be able to fix the problems.

The mask comes off

Not for the weak of stomach. But this is what the fascist "Greens" want for you... They do not care about the "environment", they care about controlling how you live.They "care" about getting rich  while making you live as cattle in their "planned green communities". AB32, and the opposition to Prop 23 here in California are all about making your life more expensive and letting the State decide how you live.

Now you know how those "caring" people really think...

There's Hope for California Yet! Meet Alvaro Day running in California's Assembly District 44

Meet Alvaro Day. He's what California needs a whole lot more of, young, bright, and conservative! From Alvaro's Campaign webpage

At the age of 11, Alvaro arrived in the United States with his mother to start a new life. His first obstacle was learning the English language. With great dedication, he managed to attend regular English-speaking classes in a matter of months.  As he learned more about this incredible country, he became captivated by its greatness, its love for God, and its liberty.  Eventually Alvaro’s new adoptive American father taught him about the endless opportunities this country had to offer, and the importance of service to building strong communities.  Alvaro came to believe that in America you could make your dreams come true if you just worked hard .  Alvaro completed high school at 17, completed his general education courses in nine months at Pasadena City College, and by age 20 had graduated from UCLA with degrees in political science and history.

La Canada Flintridge, Pasadena, Altadena, Arcadia and six other cities form this heavily Democratic district in Los Angeles County. But  with Alvaro's articulate message and go get 'em spirit,you never know!

  He is endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association;  iCaucus ; the Mayor of Arcadia, Peter Almunson ; and California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore amongst many others

My motto is: “Never support, vote for, or advocate the passing of bills that promote the misuse of taxpayer money.”

As your representative in the state assembly, my mission will be to stop this mockery of California families, small businesses, students, and hard-working taxpayers affected by these irresponsible policies. Unlike many state legislators who believe that overspending, selling bonds, borrowing money, and increasing taxes are the answer to our problems, I propose a simple rule: Never spend beyond our means, and always use public funds wisely.  By using legitimate cost analysis, we can reduce spending on unnecessary programs and develop realistic expectations, while avoiding indebting Californians in perpetuity. At the same time, we need to reduce taxes, encourage investment, and bring more jobs to our state.

As ICaucus says in their endorsement ~

Alvaro is an example of a new generation of young people who aspire to lead this country on principles of integrity, personal responsibility, and hard work, qualities he developed at an early age.

Motivated by the desire to give back to a country that has done so much for him, Alvaro has been working hard to develop a platform that includes cutting taxes to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation, balancing the budget, and fixing our schools. His efforts are focused on concrete steps specifically tailored to the needs of the state of California and the 44th State Assembly District, which he will represent with integrity and honesty if giving the opportunity.

So, go visit his webpage and contribute to his campaign if you can. He's the future of California.

Andy Vidak, California's 20th Congressional District

Over at RedState Congressman Kevin McCarthy (CA CD22) has a post up about  Andy Vidak, a Central Valley cherry farmer,who is running against Jim Costa. We all remember Jim Costa, don't we?...one of those Dem turncoats who sold out California agriculture last spring for a photo-op with Senator "Don't call me ma'am " Boxer. Where they "announced" they had worked so hard to get the pumps turned back on in the Delta, so California farmer's would be able to grow the food we all eat? The water that was turned off A WEEK LATER, with much less fanfare? That Jim Costa!!
  

This is Andy Vidak

I have the real life expertise in the area of water to bring sense to this issue and the skills and commitment to work with others to get results and lasting solutions. I believe strongly in the principals of the free market, fiscal responsibility and limited government. By bringing honesty, accountability and common sense back to Washington your voice will be heard and we will provide opportunity and security for our communities long into the future

 

So get over to RedState, and then go visit Andy Vidak's campaign page!

CD11: David Harmer and Jerry McNerney in Dead Heat

This is great news! According to the latest polling data from American Action Forum David Harmer the Republican candidate in California's 11th Congressional District is tied with the incumbent Democratic candidate Jerry McNerney and there's this headline from Hotline on Call ~

Bad News For Dems Out West ~

When the Ayres, McHenry and Assoc. surveys -- which were conducted at end of August -- are combined, only 37 percent of respondents say their Dem incumbent deserves re-election while 52 percent say it's time for someone else. By a three-to-one margin, respondents said the country is on the wrong track.

Go visit Harmer for Congress and see why this is the candidate California's 11th Congressional District should elect, and see what you can do to help.

Follow David Harmer on Twitter @Harmer4Congress