Those Who Can – Do. Those Who Can’t – Regulate Those Who Can

It’s how this country became the economic light of the world. Talented people – free to do amazing things. They become fabulously wealthy – and make all our lives better and richer.

Your computer, your phone, your car, your home’s television, heater and air conditioner and millions of other life-bettering things – created by talented people availing themselves of the free market opportunities this nation gave them.

Of course, some people are more talented than others. Not everyone is Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Once upon a time, the less-extraordinarily-brilliant appreciated and admired the best of the best.

Seton Motley | Red State | RedState.com

But we have spent the last half-century-plus training Americans not to appreciate accomplishment and pursue it themselves – but to envy others’ success, and want society to punish them for having the audacity to excel.

And that’s where government comes in. Populated in far, far too many instances by people steeped not in the pursuit of excellence – but in its persecution.

If these people were actually good at productive work – they would be doing productive work. But they’re not. So they’re professional scolds and busybodies – government bureaucrats lording over those doing productive work.

Those who can – do. Those who can’t – regulate those who can.

Meet New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. If there were a dictionary entry for “Anti-capitalist, anti-capitalism government stooge” – posing next to the entry would be Schneiderman. A particular hobby horse of his is the Greatest Scam on Earth – global warming, oops, I mean climate change. Thus he has great disdain for fuels that actually work to fuel our economy – oil and gasoline in particular.

Schneiderman years ago launched an omni-directional witch hunt against ExxonMobil – and brought a lot of his fellow Democrats along with him. And despite failure piled upon failure – Schneiderman continues to be chief persecutor of this private sector success story.

Which means rather than Exxon spending its time, effort and money working to deliver us more and cheaper petroleum – they have to waste a whole lot of all of it dealing with this bureaucrat nightmare. (Remember all of this the next time you don’t like the price at the pump.)

Schneiderman and his ill ilk began by attempting – for more than a year – to prohibit Exxon from engaging in its First Amendment free speech rights. That failed.

So Schneiderman moved on to attempting to punish Exxon for making predictions about what the weather will be. (Yet climate change alarmists and weather persons everywhere continue un-government-addled.) But that too seems to be collapsing under the weight of its own absurdity.

Which brings us to Schneiderman’s latest inanity. And he’s brought President Barack Obama’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) along with him.

Exxon Mobil Says It May Write Down Assets After SEC Probe Into Its Reserves: “During the third quarter, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office launched probes to determine if Exxon should have written down the value of its reserves based on drop in global oil prices that began about two years ago. Unlike peers such as BP and Chevron, Exxon has resisted reducing its assessment of how much its reserves may be worth.”

Schneiderman and the SEC are now disingenuously pretending that a very legal business practice in which Exxon is engaging – is illegal.

Exxon, being a hugely successful oil company, knows what it’s doing in the oil business. So too, by the way, do BP and Chevron. But shared excellence in a shared field does not mean everyone will agree on everything all the time.

To wit: BP and Chevron reduced their third quarter reserve assessments. Exxon chose not to do so – then. They are choosing to do so now.

One of those two decisions will – determined by unfolding market events – turn out to be a better one. However, none of these decisions is illegal.

Yet a bunch of anti-free-market, clueless, feckless government bureaucrats are pretending it is. So Schneiderman can continue his years-long effort to make Exxon’s life miserable.

Here’s a thought: How about we rein in the know-nothing, ideological-tyrant bureaucrats?

And let those skilled in the art of productive work – get back to engaging in productive work.

Unhindered and un-harassed by the know-nothing, ideological-tyrant bureaucrats.

Our economy, our nation – and the world – would be so much the better for it.

The post Those Who Can – Do. Those Who Can’t – Regulate Those Who Can appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


New National Poll: Trump Pulls Within the Margin of Error — Plus Bonus RANT

A new CBS/New York Times poll shows Trump pulling within the margin of error — but Hillary is still leading, 45% to 42%. For now.

Heading into the final days of the presidential campaign, the race has settled back into a tight contest, with Hillary Clinton holding an edge over Donald J. Trump after a month of tumult. Most voters say their minds are made up and late revelations about both candidates made no significant difference to them, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll released Thursday.

Five days before Election Day, the margin between the candidates is narrow, with 45 percent of likely voters supporting Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidate, to 42 percent for Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee. The difference is within the poll’s margin of sampling error. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has the support of 5 percent of likely voters, and the Green Party nominee, Jill Stein, takes 4 percent.

The poll fully prices in James Comey’s letter concerning the re-opening (yes, lefties: “re-opening”!) of the email investigation. However, because of the time it takes to conduct polls and the resultant delay, not all the new Clinton revelations (such as the Clinton Foundation investigation) were known to respondents:

The Times/CBS poll began hours after Mr. Comey’s letter became public, and most voters contacted said they had heard about the development. Even more voters said they were aware of charges that Mr. Trump had made unwanted sexual advances toward a number of women.

Yet, about six in 10 voters over all said that the 11th-hour disclosures about each candidate would make no real difference in their vote, but they were more likely to be negatively affected by the revelations about Mr. Trump than by those about Mrs. Clinton. Four in 10 likely voters said Mr. Trump’s behavior toward women made them less likely to support him while fewer, one-third, said the newest development in the F.B.I. investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails had that effect.

Enough with the polling news. I feel a rant coming on.

Hillary Clinton is such an awful candidate that it is, in fact conceivable that we could elect, as President of the United States, a man with the political knowledge of a fourth grader and the self-centered temperament of a five-year-old. A man who tells us that under Hillary Clinton, 650 million immigrants could enter the U.S. within a week. A man who thinks that judges sign bills. A man who, when asked about the Supreme Court, immediately thinks about a Justice who criticized him. A man who can’t concentrate on anything but t*ts and p***y for more than five minutes. A man whose entire reason for existence is narcissism. A man who is, easily, the least-informed candidate to run for the Presidency in history . . . and perhaps the least-informed serious candidate for any federal elective office in decades.

Hillary is so beatable. And yet the Republican electorate picked a nasty, cruel, staggeringly dishonest, laughably ill-informed, and utterly amoral human being as the alternative.

The “Republican” has a chance of winning after eight years of government intrusion into our lives and the doubling of our national debt. Had you told me, two years ago, that I would be writing that sentence five days before the election, I would have assumed that I would be ecstatic.

But, because I do not trust the nominal Republican, and find him unstable and frightening, none of this makes me happy, in the slightest.

[Disclaimer]

The post New National Poll: Trump Pulls Within the Margin of Error — Plus Bonus RANT appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Hugh Hewitt Jumps Aboard the Trump Train (VIDEO)

Solid B Plus.

Yesterday, radio host Hugh Hewitt made a sudden U-turn and decided that he most likely would cast his vote for Donald Trump:

Via Politico:

Appearing on MSNBC Live with Steve Kornacki during the afternoon, Hewitt was asked where he stood on the GOP nominee going into the final days of the presidential election.
Story Continued Below

“I wait on events. I’ve been surprised so much in this race. I don’t have to cast my absentee for another four or five days and I wait on events,” Hewitt said. “I’m inclined to cast it for Donald Trump but I have to wait and see what happens in this.”

Earlier in the month you may have seen this:

Of course, earlier in the month we didn’t know the Democrat nominee would be under investigation by two different divisions of the FBI by election day, either.

I’m not sure this is a huge surprise, Hewitt has always been a party loyalist when it comes down to it. Recall his support of George Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. And I expect that this will be more common on Tuesday than many people will ever admit. Even acknowledging that “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,” the factors that led Hewitt to ask Trump to withdraw have neither changed nor been mitigated in the past three weeks. The fact that Hillary Clinton is under investigation is simply proof that we have two wildly unacceptable candidates for president.

The post Hugh Hewitt Jumps Aboard the Trump Train (VIDEO) appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Ready for a Second Clinton Impeachment

Hillary Clinton Oct.28

Sen. Ron Johnson said Monday he believes Hillary Clinton’s actions with her private email server are impeachable offenses should she be elected president. “She purposefully circumvented it (the law), this was willful concealment and destruction,” Johnson said during an interview with Wisconsin’s Beloit Daily News:

Johnson cited 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) and 18 U.S. Code 2071, which have to do with the willful destruction or removal from proper custody of information relating to national defense. Johnson honed in on the latter of the two, which reads in part that anyone found to have concealed or removed records “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

“I’m not a lawyer, but this is clearly written,” Johnson said. “I would say yes, high crime or misdemeanor, I believe she is in violation of both laws.”

I didn’t think too much about Johnson’s impeachment comment because according to the Beloit Daily News, Johnson was highlighting the difficulty that both Johnson and his Democrat challenger–former senator Russ Feingold–have in backing their party’s presidential nominees.

On Wednesday, Texas Rep. Mike McCaul chimed in and said Hillary could be impeached if she’s elected president:

“This investigation will continue whether she wins or not,” the Republican lawmaker told Fox News. “But assuming she wins and the investigation comes forward and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial. It would go to the Senate and impeachment proceedings and removal would take place.”

McCaul also criticized Hillary for “running around saying she’s been cleared and the investigation is over when in fact that is not a correct statement” and suggested that her presidency could create a “constitutional crisis.”

With Fox News now reporting the FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation will, barring obstruction, will continue to an indictment, you best prepare for a second Clinton impeachment.

The post Ready for a Second Clinton Impeachment appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Hillary Clinton May Be In Deep Doo-Doo Over the Weiner Files

FBI Director James Comey has come under fire from virtually every quarter of the Democrat establishment over his decision to re-open the investigation — yes, re-open the investigation — into Hillary Clinton’s penchant for slinging classified documents about the internet like so much spam. Yesterday, lame-duck-soon-to-be-fomer-embittered-at-the-Jimmy-Carter-level-president Barack Obama claimed that Comey had launched the investigation based on innuendo.

This seems to not be the case.

Senior FBI officials were informed about the discovery of new emails potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server at least two weeks before Director James B. Comey notified Congress, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

The officials said that Comey was told that there were new emails before he received a formal briefing last Thursday, although the precise timing is unclear.

The information goes beyond the details provided in the letter that Comey sent to lawmakers last week declaring that he was restarting the inquiry into whether Clinton mishandled classified material during her tenure as secretary of state. He wrote in the Friday letter that “the investigative team briefed me yesterday” about the additional emails.

The people familiar with the investigation said that senior officials had been informed weeks earlier that a computer belonging to former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) contained emails potentially pertinent to the Clinton investigation. Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, shared the computer with her husband, from whom she is now separated.

Comey did not notify Congress as soon as he learned about the emails because officials wanted additional information before proceeding, the officials said.

What is presented here is a different set of facts than the Clinton campaign and her fluffers in the media, yes, Kurt Eichenwald, I am looking at you smacking your lips right now, are portraying the story.

The outlines of the story are:

There are some 650,000 emails on Huma Abedin’s various devices.

They are not all duplicates of emails that have been turned over the the FBI under the previous investigation. This, right here, screams perjury and obstruction of justice.

Some of those emails appear to FBI investigators to be classified.

The emails may not be directly to Abedin from Hillary but they are copies of virtually every email Hillary Clinton has sent over a period of years.

Apparently the FBI was well aware of the radioactive nature of their intended course of action and took a couple of weeks to do an initial review of Abedin’s email before informing Comey.

We can infer from this that Comey, him being a fairly astute guy if not one necessarily with the courage of his convictions, decided what was found warranted notifying Congress.

All of this adds up to the email on Abedin’s personal devices being much worse than we’ve been led to believe and this is not merely FBI overreach or a desire to dot the i’s and cross the t’s.

At some point, this investigation is going to be rolled into the investigation of the Clinton Foundation (see Dan Spencer’s post on the subject) — which is what should have happened from the very beginning rather than running two smaller investigations — as you can bet an large percentage of the nearly 3/4 of a million emails discovered are going to concern the activities of the Foundation.

This mess is not going to be cleared up before next Tuesday and if Clinton does manage to win, something that is no longer as sure as it was a week ago, she is going to spend her first “hundred days” trying to remove this alligator from her ass and not proposing an legislative agenda.

The post Hillary Clinton May Be In Deep Doo-Doo Over the Weiner Files appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Trump News? Fox News Obtains Casting Notice For ‘Up-And-Coming’ Conservative News Network

Donald Trump keeps saying is not interested in having his own news network. But what if he loses next Tuesday? The cost to launch a cable network is extremely expensive and Trump would have to raise several billion dollars to get it off the ground.

But what about a streaming based network? The Trump team has been experimenting with that on Facebook and the costs to launch an internet based network would require far less money. The only question is whether or not an internet only news network could attract the necessary talent to make it a success. But it’s out there:

What’s being billed as an “up-and-coming conservative media network currently in development” is now scouring for hosts, reporters and right-leaning, well-spoken panelists, according to a brand new casting notice obtained Wednesday evening by Fox News.

The notice goes on to say the on-air talent the network wants “must be knowledgeable about conservative viewpoints, current events and the presidential election,” adding applicants must also “look upscale and intelligent,” and should be “outspoken and energetic.”

Auditions are being held at an undisclosed New York City studio on Nov. 7, the eve of Election Day.

While the casting call doesn’t identify any specific employer, it does suggest initial programming will be streamed on the internet, infrastructure the Trump campaign has already set up through its Facebook live feed where aides have been broadcasting events and counter news programming.

Here’s the other issue that concerns me. Will this be a “news” outlet that seeks to preach to the choir with nothing but commentary or will it be a network that covers news but with a conservative bent?

There is a home for commentary like RedState, National Review, The Federalist and The Weekly Standard. But if this new network is just going to be people espousing on camera, the same viewpoints found in written form elsewhere on the internet, what’s the point?

 

 

The post Trump News? Fox News Obtains Casting Notice For ‘Up-And-Coming’ Conservative News Network appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Liberals and The Media Can’t Decide If Hillary Is A ‘Strong Independent Woman’ or A Victim

We’ve heard all of the metaphors and similes related to women as to why Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States. “First woman President!” has been the rallying cry for many supporters as well as many in the media who have been cheerleading her (despite the nonsense about “tough” or “negative” coverage).

That isn’t a problem. It is expected and if Hillary wins it will be historic.

The problem with both the left and the media is they cannot seem to figure out what Hillary Clinton is. They either cannot decide or they know and deliberately choose whichever theme fits best when they need it. Is Hillary Clinton the strong independent woman or is she the victim, requiring protection from all of the mean men in her life?

Frank Bruni wrote this awful piece describing men in Hillary’s life as “tormenters.” Susan touched on some of this in an article yesterday, focusing much of her attention on Bruni. While Bruni is a symptom that afflicts the media, he’s not the entire issue. His brethren in the media and naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters and campaign people make up the whole sickness that permeates the political landscape. He writes:

How much of her Achilles’-heel defensiveness is a byproduct of her marriage to Bill? When he was governor of Arkansas and when he ran for president in 1992, there were constant rumors of his philandering and a ceaseless effort to keep them from spreading. She learned early on to see the media as invasive, her opponents as merciless, and privacy as something to be guarded at all costs. That doesn’t excuse her use of a private email server as secretary of state, but it does help to explain it.

So her Bill’s philandering and the media attempting to get the story somehow explains Hillary, circumventing established State Department rules and possibly violating the law with a use of an off-site private email server during her tenure. In this scenario, Hillary’s victimhood is Bruni’s raison d’être.

It allows Bruni to show Hillary overcoming the odds to reach the US presidency. It’s an absurd argument to make. Hillary’s path to reach higher office went through the oval office when it was occupied by Bill (and at times, Monica Lewinsky). That and carpet-bagging to an easily winnable state got her elected Senator where she built a forgettable record. Naturally, her time in the Senate was only to prepare for the Presidency. Barack Obama spoiled those plans in 2008.

So she took on the tenure of Secretary of State leaving behind a terrible legacy and the Middle East that is in shambles. Still, the fawning press did nothing but praise her time there saying it padded her resume for another Presidential run.

A run, of course, that is paved with sexism along the way. You see, when Hillary is running, she’s the victim. It’s when she wins that she becomes the “strong independent, woman” who stood up to the icky men who would keep her down, simply because she doesn’t have a penis.

The left, and the media who will protect her will never shy away from using identity politics to explain away any issues or trouble she will have if she is elected President. The scandals will most likely happen. With they Clinton family, they almost always do. That doesn’t even include the intense pressure she will face in the realm of foreign policy, national defense and her domestic agenda.

By some miracle. Hillary may not be touched by scandal. And she may be more pragmatic as Commander-In-Chief than many people believe. That said, her media friends are going to have to make a decision. She cannot be both the victim and the second coming of Joan of Arc. They should make that decision live with that decision.

 

 

The post Liberals and The Media Can’t Decide If Hillary Is A ‘Strong Independent Woman’ or A Victim appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Clinton Foundation Investigation Now ‘A Very High Priority’ (Video)

RedState-2-READY FOR HILLARY

With less than a week left before Election Day, Fox News reports that the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation that has been going on for more than a year is now a “very high priority:

FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people on the foundation case, which is looking into possible pay for play interaction between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

[. . .]

“There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day,” one source told Fox News, who added some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails.

FBI agents are “actively and aggressively pursuing this case,” and will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, sources said.

Watch Fox News’ Bret Baier’s incendiary report about the “very high priority” investigation into the Clinton Foundation in the following video clip:

The post Clinton Foundation Investigation Now ‘A Very High Priority’ (Video) appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Polls We Didn’t Get to Today (Nov. 2)

Clinton-Trump-Poll

Today Susan Wright covered the TargetSmart/William & Mary poll of Florida’s early voters.

Here are the polls we didn’t cover.

STATE POLLS

Arizona: A Data Orbital poll taken Oct. 29-30, shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton 45%-41%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4%. The polling memo said Trump’s four-point edge is the “largest lead he has garnered in weeks.”

Illinois: A Loras College poll taken Oct. 26-27, shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 45%-34%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 6% and Green Jill Stein at 2%.

Kentucky: The Bowling Green Daily News reports that a Western Kentucky University poll taken Oct. 25-30, shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton 54%-37%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Jill Stein each at 1%.

Maine: A Maine People’s Resource Center poll of likely ME2 voters, taken Oct. 24-26, shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 42%-37%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 9% and Green Jill Stein at 4%. Maine allocates two of its four electoral votes by congressional district.

Michigan: WJBK-TV reports that the latest Fox 2 Detroit/Mitchell Research tracking poll taken Oct. 31, shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 50%-43%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4% and Green Jill Stein at 1%.

Missouri: A Monmouth University poll taken Oct. 28-31, shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton 52%-38%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4% and Green Jill Stein at 2%.

New Hampshire: WMUR-TV reports that a University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll taken Oct. 26-30, shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 45%-38%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 6% and Green Jill Stein at 1%. In a similar poll taken Oct. 11-17, Clinton led Trump 48%-33%, with Johnson at 7% and Stein at 2%.

North Carolina: A SurveyUSA poll taken Oct. 28-31, shows Trump leading Clinton 51%-44%, with Johnson at 3%. WRAL-TV  reports that in a similar poll “released three weeks ago, Clinton led Trump 46 to 44 percent.”

Pennsylvania: The Allentown Morning Call reports that a Franklin & Marshall College poll taken Oct. 26-30, shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49%-38%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4% and Green Jill Stein at 2%. In a similar poll taken a month ago, Clinton led Trump 47%-38%.

Texas: KTVT-TV reports that a Dixie Strategies survey taken Oct. 27-29, shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton 52%-39%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 3%. In a similar poll taken earlier last month, Trump led Clinton 45%-38%.

Virginia – One Poll Shows Clinton +6, Another +4:

NATIONAL POLLS

IDB/TIPP Tracking poll taken Oct. 26-31, shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 45%-44%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4% and Green Jill Stein at 2%.

ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll taken Oct. 28-31, shows Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton tied at 46% each, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 3% and Green Jill Stein at 2%.

Rasmussen Tracker poll taken Oct. 27 and 30-31, shows Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tied at 44%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 5% and Green Jill Stein at 2%.

Read Oak Strategies National poll taken Oct. 27-28, shows Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tied at 37%, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 6% and Green Jill Stein at 2%; 18% were undecided. In a similar poll taken last month, Clinton led Trump 34%-31% in a four-way race.

Senate Polls

Arizona: A Data Orbital poll taken Oct. 29-30, shows Sen. John McCain (R) leading Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) 50%-40%.

Illinois:

  • An Emerson College poll taken Oct. 27-30, shows Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D) leading Sen. Mark Kirk (R) 54%-36%, up from a two-point lead she held in a similar poll taken in September.
  • A Loras College poll taken Oct. 26-27, shows Duckworth leading Kirk 42%-34%; 16% are undecided.

Kentucky: A Western Kentucky University poll taken Oct. 25-30, shows Sen. Rand Paul (R) leading Lexington Mayor Jim Gray (D) 55%-39%.

Missouri: A Monmouth University poll taken Oct. 28-31, shows Sen. Roy Blunt (R) leading Jason Kander (D) 47%-46%.

Pennsylvania: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that a Franklin & Marshall College poll taken Oct. 26-30, shows Katie McGinty (D) leading Sen. Pat Toomey (R) 47%-35%; 16% were undecided. According to the Tribune-Review, since October, neither candidate has held a lead of more than 4 percentage points in any poll.

Missouri: A Monmouth University poll taken Oct. 28-31, shows Sen. Roy Blunt (R) leading Jason Kander (D) 47%-46%.

You can see Tuesday’s results here.

The post Polls We Didn’t Get to Today (Nov. 2) appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


California Voter Guide, Simplified…if There is Such a Thing in a State That Tried To Ban Black Cars

When I first began hobby-blogging on my own personal site, I used to take the California voter guide every election cycle and break it down for my friends who said they had trouble interpreting the often convoluted and overstuffed guide and liked to ask me about my opinion as a political junkie. It soon became a tradition and as I moved into professional blogging its something I still try to do every year.

California is basically a budding direct democracy at this point, thanks to years of heartless, scum politicians running around Sacramento unchecked. As a result, residents voted themselves the power to approve or disapprove of any new spending, fees or taxes. Most of our ballots are crammed with new measures and initiatives every year, as the voters don’t trust the people they voted for in the first place.

I’ve broken down each of the 17 measures on the ballot this year into simpler pieces to digest. I give you a short summary, an explanation of what your YES and your NO votes mean (they don’t always mean “yes” and “no”), and then I give you my personal opinion just in case that matters to you. I hope this helps you or any of your friends in California.

Prop 51 School Bonds

In a nutshell: Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K–12 public school facilities; charter schools and vocational education facilities; and California Community Colleges facilities. Fiscal Impact: State costs of about $17.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.

What your YES vote means: You give permission to the state to borrow $9 billion dollars to be paid back over the course of 35 years as well as add an additional $500 million per year in interest payments to the current $2 billion per year in interest payments on educational bonds.

What your NO vote means: You do not give the state permission to borrow the aforementioned amount in bonds and add to the annual interest debt.

My Vote: I never vote for these bonds. Bonds is a fancy word for “taxes”. Buried in the language in the bill is a provision that community colleges must have their projects approved by the state before they receive money. In essence, the state doesn’t necessarily have to use this money as promised. $500 million a year in interest alone? That makes no sense. Next election cycle will bring new requests for new bonds to pay the massive interest on the old bonds. NO for me.

Prop 52 Medi-Cal hospital fee program. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

In a nutshell: Extends indefinitely an existing statute that imposes fees on hospitals to fund Medi-Cal health care services, care for uninsured patients, and children’s health coverage.  Extends indefinitely an existing stature that imposes fees on hospitals to obtain federal matching funds. Makes this temporary fee permanent. Declares fee proceeds do not count as revenue toward state spending limit Prop 98 funding requirement

What your YES vote means: The fee imposed on hospitals that is scheduled to end in January of 2018 would be extended permanently.

What your NO vote means: The fee will end on the date voters originally agreed to.

My Vote: NO! This is a tax on hospitals and voters originally agreed to it because it was temporary. The state never honors its promises on “temporary” revenue. Here is your proof. The state wants you to make this tax permanent because they get matching federal funds. And isn’t it convenient they’ve also stipulated in this bill that the fees they collect don’t count towards the spending limits voters imposed on the state? Supporters of this measure say the funds are necessary to support “children’s health” and poor California residents. But isn’t this the entire reason Obamacare was crammed down our throats? So no poor person had to go without insurance? We also have both state and federal laws that prevent doctors and hospitals from turning away anyone in need regardless of ability to pay. This is nothing but a scheme for the state to get more money from the feds and from hospitals. We shouldn’t be punishing hospitals for helping people. We should be making owning and operating hospitals as easy as possible as they are vital to our citizens. I won’t approve our state reneging on its promises and using fear tactics to do so.

Prop 53 Revenue Bonds, statewide voter approval, initiative constitutional amendment

In a nutshell: This measure requires statewide voter approval before bonds can be issued or sold if the bond exceeds $2billion. Prohibits dividing projects into multiple separate projects to avoid statewide voter approval requirement.

What your YES vote means: You agree that voters should have the right to vote on any expenditures that require more than $2 billion in bond revenue.

What your NO vote means: You do not agree that voters should have the right to vote on expenditures that require more than $2 billion in bond revenue.

My vote: A reluctant YES. This is the madness “direct democracy” which California has currently voted itself into. Our politicians are so corrupt the people keep having to pass measures that require direct voter approval on nearly everything. But the politicians just find a loophole and then we have to have a vote to close the loophole and so on and so forth. I’d prefer to just elect decent representatives but that is the impossible dream in this state. Sacramento got around the original voter requirements by breaking up big projects into smaller projects and not revealing the total cost. Prop 53 disallows that and requires politicians be transparent with the budget. I have no illusions that any of that will happen but…yes. Unenthusiastically, as I know we’ll be voting to close the loopholes in this measure in just a few years time as well.

Prop 54 Legislature: Legislation and proceedings

In a nutshell: This bill requires the California legislature to publish on the internet any bill they are considering for at least 72 hours before they vote on the issue. It also authorizes the recordings of all state and local legislature meetings and proceedings by any resident (except for close proceedings).

What your YES vote means: You agree that legislators should release any bill on the internet for all to see for at least 72 hours before they vote. You also agree that any resident can record any open legislative proceedings at any time with no state fees or interference.

What your NO vote means: You don’t believe the state should be forced to publish bills on the internet at least 72 hours prior to a vote. You don’t’ believe residents should have the right to record any open legislative proceeding.

My vote: Again, like 53 its a reluctant YES. More direct democracy red tape brought to you by the apathetic voters of a state that has a full time legislature that has nothing to do but make up ways to fleece the taxpayers every day. I had a Democrat-loyal friend call me up one day when her school sent home memos about transgender bathroom laws going into effect. She was livid and wanted to know what she could do. I told her it was too late. She’d already voted for the law by voting for the person who enacted the law in Sacramento. Votes have consequences. Perhaps she and others could have made a stand against it if they’d only known it was happening in the first place. Of course, you still have to depend on people knowing enough to search out the posted bills, but I do like the protections for people who record meetings. Support for this seems to be bipartisan and in the voter guide the rebuttal is filled with words like “Big Oil” and “Big Money” and “Big Lobby” and that automatically makes me think this is probably a good bill.

Prop 55 Tax extension to fund education and healthcare

In a nutshell: Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000 and allocates up to $2 billion per year to schools and community colleges.

What your YES vote means: This “temporary” income tax would be extended to 2030

What your NO vote means: This “Temporary” income tax would end at the original agreed upon date of 2018.

My vote: Can you guess? Is there an option for “HELL NO”? Its really nervy for the state to use the word “temporary” to trick people into believing the state would ever make any revenue temporary. Its also nervy that there is another Prop on the ballot that is basically this same thing (51). So if one passes and one loses the state is still getting its tax increase. If they both pass we’re looking at a combined $11 billion in taxpayer dollars for schools this year. Please keep in mind that every year we are told there is not enough money for schools in California. This is a lie. There is too much money, it just doesn’t get passed down to the people whom everyone claims they care about the most – the teachers and students.  Why should I have to cut my personal expenses but my state government only ever asks for more and more and never tightens their belts?

Prop 56 Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Prevention, Research and law enforcement

In a Nutshell: Increases cigarette tax by $2 per pack to fund all the projects mentioned in the title.

What your YES vote means: Yes, we should impose another $2 tax on tobacco products (also includes E-cigs)

What your NO vote means: No, we should not impose another $2 tax on tobacco products (also includes E-cigs)

My vote: Easy. No new taxes. And this tax raises it from $0.87 to $2.87…that’s crazy!  Every person in America should thank a smoker for funding so much of our daily life. Cigarettes are taxed mercilessly and bring in a lot of revenue. People who smoke already know its unhealthy. We don’t need the government trying to tax people out of smoking, nor do we want it considering how much money cigarettes bring in to state coffers every year. NO for me on this ridiculous tax.

Prop 57 Criminal Sentences. Parole. Juvenile Criminal proceedings and sentencing.

In a nutshell: Allows early parole consideration for non-violent offenders. Authorizes the Dept. of Corrections to release certain inmates early for good behavior, rehabilitation or educational achievements.

What your YES vote means:  Certain state prison inmates convicted of nonviolent felony offenses would be considered for release earlier than otherwise. The state prison system could award additional sentencing credits to inmates for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. Youths must have a hearing in juvenile court before they could be transferred to adult court.

What your NO vote means: Current sentencing guidelines and applications do not change.

My vote: No way. This is one of those bills that depends on you not reading it carefully. Buried in the prop is language that makes it clear that the sentencing guidelines are based on an original conviction. It says this only applies to non-violent offenders, but the way it is written means that if a serial rapist is first convicted on a trespassing violation, that is the violation the state will consider when looking at early release, because it was the “original” offense. So the violent criminal arrested on a non-violent charge is eligible for early release. Al Capone was arrested for tax violations. Under this law he’d be eligible for early release. This is a scheme for the state to reduce the prison population at the risk of public safety. My vote is NO.

Prop 58 English Proficiency. Multilingual education

In a nutshell: Requires districts to solicit parent and community input in developing language acquisition programs. Requires school districts provide ESL for non-English speaking students. Authorizes school district to force immersion programs for non-native english speakers. Repeals previous requirement that students only be taught in English.

What your YES vote means: Yes, schools should be required to provide non-English educational options

What your NO vote means: Schools should not be required to provide non-English immersion and training programs and previous props for English-only teaching in non-immersive programs remain standing.

My vote: Nope. I’ve never met an immigrant from a non-English speaking country who didn’t know Americans speak English. It is the official language of this country and most of them are eager for their children to be fluent. The quickest way to fluency is total immersion. Partial immersion programs actually slow a child’s ability to learn English. Also, parents should not be forced to pay for ESL programs and their children shouldn’t pay for it by losing valuable classroom time to English language instruction. English is the language of our land. Being bilingual or trilingual is a wonderful gift and should be applauded. English is better, its just the language we use. Accommodating more only increases costs and decreases actual educational instruction.

Prop 59 Corporations, political spending, federal constitutional protections.

In a nutshell: Overrides the federal constitutional ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election commission, and gives California the right to reverse the ruling for this state. If you don’t know what that is, don’t vote on this proposition.

What your YES vote means: You give the state the authority to nullify the federal Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission regarding election spending

What your NO vote means: You do not give the state the authority to override the federal Supreme Court on election spending

My vote: No. That’s a dangerous precedence, isn’t it? What if we manage to elect some super crappy people who believe blacks and whites shouldn’t be allowed to get married? Will we hand them the authority to override the Constitution of the United States? I’m a big supporter of states rights, but that’s a slope I really don’t want to slip down. If you don’t know anything about the Citizens United decision you can learn about it here, but its my suggestion you just don’t vote on this one if you don’t get it. No shame in it.

Prop 60 Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements

In a nutshell (go ahead and giggle, you know you want to): Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires adult film producers to obtain state health licenses and imposes liability on producers or distributors of films should the production be deemed in violation. Permits the state to inspect for and enforce violations (oh, to have that job).

What your YES vote means: Yes, the state should force the porn industry to use condoms and get health department licenses to operate.

What your NO vote means: No, the state should not have the right to enforce the use of contraceptives or to impose license fees on porn industry participants.

My Vote: Less government is best government. Porn is gross and dangerous but people who participate in the (legal)  industry are consenting adults. We spend roughly a BAJILLION dollars a year educating kids in schools about condoms and STDs and safe sex. We were told it was the only way to prevent disease. Ostensibly all these porn “performers” already know about condoms. If they want to use them, they can. If not, they take on the risk. Plus its just another way to squeeze more fees out people. There are already state mandated guidelines for every business that have to be followed. So we have “safety measures” in place for the workplace already. I’ve never been a big fan of being forced to pay the government for a piece of paper that says you can do what you’ve already been doing forever. Like for braiding hair or running a street hotdog cart. These are transactions between consenting adults who incur the risk/reward consequences for themselves. No to this busy-body legislation.

Prop 61 State prescription drug purchases, pricing standards.

In a nutshell: This one is very complicated. This bars state agencies from buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at any price over the lowest price paid for the same drug by the U.S.Dept. of Veteran Affairs, except as may be required by law.

What your YES vote means: The state of California is allowed to dictate the price they will pay for prescription drugs.

What your NO vote means: The state of California cannot interfere with the price of prescription drugs.

My vote: Nope. Everyone wants cheaper medication. Who can be against that? The language of this prop is extremely confusing. I had to read it a few times to understand it. Basically its price control. Price controls always drive up the cost of an item or result in a scarcity of an item. Its a horrible, horrible idea. This bill will make drugs for poorer Californians who are dependent on state care more expensive and harder to obtain. NO on this prop.

Prop 62 Death Penalty

In a nutshell: Repeals the death penalty, applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death.

What your YES vote means: Yes, repeal and abolish the death penalty.

What your NO vote means: No, keep the death penalty laws we already have. Maintain the death penalty in the state of California.

My vote: This one is up to personal opinion. I’m a proponent of the death penalty (you can read my explanation here) so I’ll be voting NO, in order to keep the death penalty. Vote your conscience.

Prop 63 Firearms, ammunition sales

In a nutshell: Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large–capacity ammunition magazines. Requires Department of Justice’s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

What Your YES vote means: an entirely new department and court process will be established and Californians will need to have a background check before purchasing ammunition as well as register in a national database

What your NO vote means: no new ammunition or firearm requirements will be permitted.

My vote:  I’m pro Second Amendment all day long. We already have the most stringent gun control laws in the country. Restricting ammunition by requiring a background check is like requiring people to go through a background check to by gasoline or Sudafed. Those are things that are used for very dangerous things but also things that most people use according to the law and their own health standards. All restricting ammunition means is that Californians will start buying their ammunition in other states where state law enforcement can’t track that information if needed for an investigation. It also removes tax revenue from state coffers when people cross state lines to buy goods. Its also unconstitutional. NO NO NO on this bill.

Prop 64 Marijuana Legislation

In a nutshell: Legalizes marijuana for use by adults 21 and over. Allows the state to license and regulate marijuana sales. Imposes a 15% excise tax on retail marijuana. Decriminalizes marijuana and allows for resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions.

What your YES vote means: Adults 21 years of age or older could legally grow, possess, and use marijuana for non-medical purposes, with certain restrictions. The state would regulate non-medical marijuana businesses and tax the growing and selling of medical and non-medical marijuana.

What your NO vote means: Growing, possessing, or using marijuana for non-medical purposes would remain illegal. It would still be legal to grow, possess, or use marijuana for medical purposes.

My vote: Another “vote your conscience” prop. Frankly I approve of legalizing marijuana, but I don’t approve of a 15% tax on it. That’s insane. I’m skeptical of the government controlling things like licenses and regulation when it comes to something people have been doing and partaking in with relative peace for a long time. However, I like the idea of reducing marijuana penalties and sentences. Honestly, I haven’t decided. I think its revealing that the medical marijuana industry is very much opposed to this prop. Vote how you feel on this. I don’t have any solid opinions one way or the other.

Prop 65 Carryout bags, charges, initiative standards

In a nutshell: Grocery stores and other retail stores will be forced to collect a “bag fee” for every bag they use for your items. This fee will be directed to the state for an “environmental project” fund

What your YES vote means: stores will be forced to start making you pay for your bags and then forced to give that money to the state.

What your NO vote means: Stores are not forced to charge you extra for your bags and the state will not receive a new source of revenue.

My vote: What the hell? NO!  Look at that description and tell me that’s ok. The government is basically telling the stores they have to charge for bags and then they don’t even get to keep the money! So its their expenditure, their market risk and their labor but not their profit. Which means you will be paying more money for your products because the stores will no longer be able to simply build it into the cost of your product. They’ll have to maintain their profit margin while being extorted by the state. This makes no sense. Its complete BULLSHIT. I’m voting NO. However, someone used the word “environmental” so I don’t have a lot of faith in my fellow Californians to reject this absolute nonsense. 

Prop 66 Death Penalty procedures

In a nutshell: The language on this is complicated but basically it amounts to lowering the amount of time a death penalty case can remain in the court system. It lowers the amount of time attorneys have to file petitions and requires that direct appeal and habeas corpus process must be completed within 5 years of the sentence. In other words – no more 20 year death penalty cases. It also eliminates the state’s 5 person Habeas Corups board and returns those considerations to the California Supreme Court.

What your YES vote means: The state must change the death penalty appeals process, make it shorter and eliminate the red tape surrounding death penalty cases.

What your NO vote means: The state will not impose any new changes on the current appeals process.

My Vote: This is another conscience vote, but I’ll be voting YES on this. I believe the death penalty should be a much swifter process, while still allowing for thorough investigation and consideration. Twenty years is much too long for a person to be on death row, and a type of “cruel and unusual” punishment in itself. Also, I’m for eliminating any useless government committee. The courts can do what that stupid, 5 person, money-sucker panel has been doing for years. Vote your conscience on this one.

Prop 67 Plastic bag ban

In a nutshell: Bans plastic bags like ones you get at grocery stores.

What your YES means: You hate plastic bags and authorize the government to tell private citizens what kind of material they’re allowed to carry their items home in.

What your NO vote means: You love freedom and think if people want to use plastic, they should be able to use plastic.

My vote: Okay, I was a bit judgy in my analysis but for cripes sake. We literally passed a bag ban in this state and then the governor who championed the bag ban overturned the bag ban because  a bag ban meant we were sending thousands of jobs (creating bags) out of state. One factory that employs 6,000 Californians was set to leave for Texas until the ban of the ban. Now we’re going to vote on another ban? People, make it stop! NO on this. NO NO NO!

The post California Voter Guide, Simplified…if There is Such a Thing in a State That Tried To Ban Black Cars appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State