California

[MtnBiker]

ANGELES (AFP) – Californians were heading to the polls Tuesday to vote on a raft of special ballot measures touted by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to help plug the state's multi-billion-dollar budget deficit.

A total of six measures are being voted on, which will allow for increases in sales, income and vehicle taxes as well as other moves such as pay freezes for elected officials.

Schwarzenegger has warned that failure of the six budget measures will lead to cuts in essential services to avert a fresh fiscal crisis.

Schwarzenegger told legislators in a letter last week that for the first time since 1938, California faced a drop in annual income tax collections as the effects of recession took hold in the most populous US state.

Schwarzenegger said that since lawmakers passed a budget earlier in February to plug a projected 42-billion-dollar deficit with spending cuts and tax increases, California's financial situation had worsened.

Schwarzenegger said California now faces a budget shortfall of 15.4 billion dollars, almost double a March estimate of eight billion dollars.

Failure of the ballot measures being voted on Tuesday would see the deficit increase to 21.3 billion, he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090519/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticscaliforniavote_20090519163741

So California needs additional sources of income, they have a budget shortage.

and


Obama Unveils Tougher Fuel Standards

May 19, 2009 · President Obama on Tuesday unveiled a plan for tougher vehicle mileage standards that would require an average of 35.5 mpg for cars and trucks within seven years in a move aimed at cutting greenhouse gases and reducing dependence on foreign oil.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104307694&ft=1&f=1001


Ummmm, oil is seeping naturally everyday off the coast of California and has for more than a 100,000 years. Gee, do you think California could sell royalties to oil companies to claim that oil and Americans could put it to use, would that increase California's income? Not to say that it would take care of their current budget shortage, but it would help.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/15/natural-petroleum-seeps-release-equivalent-of-eight-to-80-exxon-valdez-oil-spills/

[hjmick]

Man, I can't get out of this state fast enough.

[crin63]

On my wait out to vote NO on all the props right now.

[Mr. P]

Man, I can't get out of this state fast enough.

Mick's a Hick! Get yer ass home boy!!!:poke::beer:

[Little-Acorn]

Man, I can't get out of this state fast enough.
I can, but I choose not to. It's too nice a place, and even the extreme-liberal politicians haven't messed it up enough to run me out.

Yet.

Prop 1A: Increases taxes $16 billion, and says Calif will put more money into a "rainy day fund" than in previous years, whenever it has good economic times. (P.S. With liberals in charge, California will never have good economic times.)

Prop 1B: Changes how the state constitution is intepreted regarding payments to K-12 schools and community colleges, hoping it will result in cutting payments to them up to $3 billion.

Prop 1C: Borrows $5 billion this year from future state lottery winnings, and borrows more in future years; and modifies the lottery to hopefully produce more winnings.

Prop 1D: Takes money from some childrens' services that a special ballot measure created taxes to pay for, and transfers them to other childrens' services that the state general fund is supposed to pay for. So the General Fund doesn't have to pay $600 million this year, and $260 million in each of the next three years. What it does to those special-ballot-measure childrens' services it took the money from, is not mentioned in the voter's guide.

Prop 1E: Same as Prop 1D, but for state Mental Health services instead. Robs Peter (non-Gen-Fund programs), pays Paul (Gen-Fund programs), so the state General Fund doesn't have to pay $460 million to Paul. Presto, a $460M "savings"!

Prop 1F: Prevents pay increases of elected officials if they run a deficit in the year's state budget. Does it decrease their pay? Ohhh, nooooo, can't do that!

Basically, these Props are tax increases and/or confiscation of existing funds that weren't in the General Fund, using the money to pay for General Fund items. Except the last one (1F), which I think someone wrote as a joke. Funds are being cut from schools, state-provided childrens' services, and state-provided Mental Health services.

A few numbers from Ahnold and the legislature's 2009-2010 budget:

Prior Year Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . -$13,692 <----- Last year's deficit of 13 billion dollars.
Revenues and Transfers . . . . . . . . . $86,300
Total Resources Available . . . . . . . . $72,608 <----- That's 72 billion in income.

Total Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . $111,089 <----- That's 111 billion in spending.

Fund Balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -38,481 <----- A deficit of 38 billion this year.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

California's next-year budget pays $52 billion for education, $30 billion for Health and Human Services, and $10 billion for Corrections and Rehabilitation. All others are low single-digits. See http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/BSS/BSS.html . So it's obvious why Ed and HHS were the ones getting cut by these Ballot Props.

But which parts of Ed and HHS? The explanations of the Props make it clear. The programs getting cut, aren't getting the axe because someone studied ALL programs and concluded that these were the least harmful to cut. Rather, they are getting cut because they were found in the wrong column on the ledger sheet: They were being paid for by special funds, not General-Fund money. So the money was taken from them and given to the General-Fund programs.

Why didn't they just cut the General-Fund programs themselves? Damned if I know. Apparently General-Fund programs are sacrosanct.

I'm voting NO on all of them, because that's no way to run a budget. (Except I'm voting YES on 1F, the joke).

Hmmm, $52 billion for education? That's around $1,700 for every man, woman, and child in the state... most of whom are not in school. And $30 billion for HHS? That's slightly less than $1,000 for every man, woman, and child... most of whom aren't sick.

I may start probing into the budget in more depth. Seems like an awful lot of money to spend, per person.

[hjmick]

Mick's a Hick! Get yer ass home boy!!!:poke::beer:

In lieu of Montana, my first choice, it is the south to which I will head. Most likely Texas. Though, should my wife land a job elsewhere, well, that's where we go.

[April15]

Until RR was governor this was a very nice state with no financial problems.

[MtnBiker]

And then the liberals took over.

[Binky]

Maybe the old terminator should've sent those illegals packing and headin' 'em back to where they crawled from. That being the case, I'd venture a guess off the top of my head, that CA would've saved an obscene amount of money spent on their medical care and other ammenities.

[crin63]

Maybe the old terminator should've sent those illegals packing and headin' 'em back to where they crawled from. That being the case, I'd venture a guess off the top of my head, that CA would've saved an obscene amount of money spent on their medical care and other ammenities.

Illegals cost us 3 emergency rooms in my area. They just shut them down. Now we only have 2 and it takes about 6 hours for someone to be seen.

[April15]

And then the liberals took over.Actually it was the other way around. Southern California has a very well financed conservative base. The governors have all been republican save Gray Davis. In general it has been a republican run legislature.

[Jeff]

Actually it was the other way around. Southern California has a very well financed conservative base. The governors have all been republican save Gray Davis. In general it has been a republican run legislature.

I have only been there one time, but must admit, the saying, the land of fruits and nuts fits well with what I have seen

[April15]

I have only been there one time, but must admit, the saying, the land of fruits and nuts fits well with what I have seen
Thats OK. You did what most of us Californians like people from other states to do; Go home!
As for the fruits and nuts we do produce more than any other two states combined. Good way to make money too.

[Jeff]

Thats OK. You did what most of us Californians like people from other states to do; Go home!
As for the fruits and nuts we do produce more than any other two states combined. Good way to make money too.

LOL, hell the friggin traffic wouldn't let me out quick enough, lol

Actually I understand North of LA is beautiful, I would like to see it someday

[Little-Acorn]

Actually it was the other way around. Southern California has a very well financed conservative base. The governors have all been republican save Gray Davis. In general it has been a republican run legislature.

Looks like the leftist extremists are running for cover. You can always tell: They start pretending California Republicans are conservatives.

SO transparent.... :lol:

BTW, all the ballot propositions are losing, around 35% to 65%, except for 1F (the joke) which is passing 70% to 30%.

[hjmick]

1F passing? Sounds like the people are sending a message to Sacramento.

[Agnapostate]

Maybe the old terminator should've sent those illegals packing and headin' 'em back to where they crawled from. That being the case, I'd venture a guess off the top of my head, that CA would've saved an obscene amount of money spent on their medical care and other ammenities.

That's not an especially sound analysis. Illegal immigration is promoted through national wage differentials, which is itself a consequence of excessive trade liberalization. Hence, the "Minuteman" approach would merely be a wasteful inefficiency.

[red states rule]

Voters said NO to higher taxes - and the liberal media is attacking the voters

Seems like it is the same old same old with liberals - only higher taxes will solve all our ills



Calif. Voters Reject Measures to Keep State Solvent
LOS ANGELES — A smattering of California voters on Tuesday soundly rejected five ballot measures designed to keep the state solvent through the rest of the year.

The results dealt a severe setback to the state’s fragile fiscal structure and to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislators who cobbled together the measures as part of a last-minute budget deal passed in February.

The measures, which would have prolonged tax increases, capped state spending, earmarked money for education and involved the state in a complex borrowing scheme against its lottery, were rejected by roughly 60 percent of those who voted. The failure of the measures, combined with falling revenues since the state passed its budget, leaves California with a $21 billion new hole to fill, while foreclosure rates and unemployment remain vexing problems here.

“Tonight we have heard from the voters, and I respect the will of the people who are frustrated with the dysfunction in our budget system,” Governor. Schwarzenegger said in a prepared statement. “Now we must move forward from this point to begin to address our fiscal crisis with constructive solutions,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said.

While the governor was a strong supporter of all the measures, he was not the public face of the effort, as he was in 2005 when he took on the budget issues, and well as the state’s unions, in another failed effort at the ballot box. This time the Republican governor let teachers and firefighters do his talking for him in advertisements, and indeed was not even in the state the day of the vote.

Instead, he was a guest of President Barack Obama at the White House, where the president was announcing tough new federal standards on automobile emissions that emulate California’s environmental standards. He updated his Twitter account through out the day ("Just landed in DC. Look forward to updating you tomorrow, hopefully with pictures or video") but made nary a mention of the propositions there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/20vote.html?_r=1&hpw



and ABC took its shots

ABC Regrets California's 'Unwillingness to Raise Taxes'

A Tuesday story on ABC's World News, which ignored soaring state spending, reflected frustration with California voters for the anticipated rejection of ballot initiatives to raise taxes as reporter Laura Marquez blamed the Golden State's budget deficit on an “unwillingness to raise taxes” stretching all the way back to 1978's Proposition 13. In fact, though personal income tax collections “dropped 14% last year,” a Tuesday Wall Street Journal article noted they “soared 70% from 2002 to 2007.”

In the story pegged to Tuesday's vote on a series of initiatives to raise or extend an income-tax surcharge, a big hike in the car tax and one point sales tax jump to 9 percent, Marquez fretted that “polls show five of six initiatives aimed at reducing the budget gap are likely to be voted down,” leading Schwarzenegger, Marquez relayed, to warn “the defeat of these measures will mean billions of dollars in cuts to social services and education, and will force thousands of layoffs from the state rolls.” From San Francisco, Marquez rued:

Coast to coast, state governments are swimming in red ink, overwhelmed by the tanking economy. Here in California, the problem is even worse because of its sheer size and an unwillingness to raise taxes. Thirty years ago, Californians passed Proposition 13, mandating an almost unachievable two-thirds vote by the legislature to raise taxes.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/05/19/abc-regrets-californias-unwillingness-raise-taxes



With more Tea parties set for the 4th of July holiday, and Dems in DC talking about jacking up taxes - how will this play in Obama's plans to pay for his pork s[ending, and government run health care plan?

[crin63]

Me and my friends went out and voted NO on the propositions.

Seems there was more interest in voting against higher taxes than for more government and higher taxes.

I find it interesting that the threat is always to cut firefighters, police, teachers and health care rather than bureaucratic jobs if they don't get the tax hikes they want. Then they cut firefighters, police, teachers and health care to punish folks for not giving them what they wanted.

[Jeff]

Me and my friends went out and voted NO on the propositions.

Seems there was more interest in voting against higher taxes than for more government and higher taxes.

I find it interesting that the threat is always to cut firefighters, police, teachers and health care rather than bureaucratic jobs if they don't get the tax hikes they want. Then they cut firefighters, police, teachers and health care to punish folks for not giving them what they wanted.

LOL, crin they do that everywhere, it is a scare tactic, you would think they might get the hint were on to it, lol

[Little-Acorn]

Hence, the "Minuteman" approach would merely be a wasteful inefficiency.

What's the "Minuteman" approach?

[glockmail]

Kudos to California!

The last time this happened Reagan ran the bandwagon all the way to the Presidency!

[Agnapostate]

What's the "Minuteman" approach?

A heavily militarized and barricaded border and deportation of all currently illegal immigrants. Of course, such options are neither feasible nor ethical, and are ultimately wasteful. The repeal of trade liberalization and decriminalization of border crossing is a far sounder course of action.

[glockmail]

A heavily militarized and barricaded border and deportation of all currently illegal immigrants. Of course, such options are neither feasible nor ethical, and are ultimately wasteful. The repeal of trade liberalization and decriminalization of border crossing is a far sounder course of action. Why is it unethical to abide by the Constitution?

[Agnapostate]

Why is it unethical to abide by the Constitution?

You'll have to tell me; you seem to be the resident expert.

[Little-Acorn]

A heavily militarized and barricaded border and deportation of all currently illegal immigrants. Of course, such options are neither feasible nor ethical, and are ultimately wasteful. The repeal of trade liberalization and decriminalization of border crossing is a far sounder course of action.

???

I've been a member of the Minutemen for years now. Have yet to see ANY military presence, other than Mexican Federales on the other side of the border. We mostly sit around and play cards, and scan with night-vision glasses for illegal crossers. When we see one (there have been lots), we call the Border Patrol, tell them what we saw and where, and then go back to our card games. We HAVE given food, water, and blankets to quite a few cold and hungry Spanish-speaking people (plus a few who speak languages none of us know) who stumble into our camps, and turned them over to the BP.

As for barricades, the govt was building those long before we ever showed up. Not enough, but it's a start. And they've been increasing the number of Border Patrol personnel, which is also a good start. Though the last BP guys to actually shoot at an illegal crosser (who was pointing something at them as he ran), got sent to Federal prison for it, for years. This was the **BP** people who got jailed, not the illegal crosser, go figure. That's put quite a dent in BP recruitment, who wants to go to jail for doing your job?

Perhaps you have your countries confused. The old Soviet union had "A heavily militarized and barricaded border". We don't. And they had one to keep their own people from leaving, not to keep outsiders from coming in. More and better barricades, and BP personnel to patrol them adequately, would certainly help. But there's no place, or need, for the military on the border.

[glockmail]

You'll have to tell me; you seem to be the resident expert.Doesn't the Constitution require the Feds to secure the border?

[Agnapostate]

???

I've been a member of the Minutemen for years now. Have yet to see ANY military presence, other than Mexican Federales on the other side of the border. We mostly sit around and play cards, and scan with night-vision glasses for illegal crossers. When we see one (there have been lots), we call the Border Patrol, tell them what we saw and where, and then go back to our card games. We HAVE given food, water, and blankets to quite a few cold and hungry Spanish-speaking people (plus a few who speak languages none of us know) who stumble into our camps, and turned them over to the BP.

As for barricades, the govt was building those long before we ever showed up. Not enough, but it's a start. And they've been increasing the number of Border Patrol personnel, which is also a good start. Though the last BP guys to actually shoot at an illegal crosser (who was pointing something at them as he ran), got sent to Federal prison for it, for years. This was the **BP** people who got jailed, not the illegal crosser, go figure. That's put quite a dent in BP recruitment, who wants to go to jail for doing your job?

Perhaps you have your countries confused. The old Soviet union had "A heavily militarized and barricaded border". We don't. And they had one to keep their own people from leaving, not to keep outsiders from coming in. More and better barricades, and BP personnel to patrol them adequately, would certainly help. But there's no place, or need, for the military on the border.

I don't care what the Minutemen as a specific organization do. The mentality of "securing our borders" lends itself to policies that are wasteful and inefficient, considering that they fail to note the role of trade liberalization in destabilizing the Mexican working class.


Doesn't the Constitution require the Feds to secure the border?

You'll want to provide evidence that border security will be impaired through the decriminalization of crossing. Considering that it would encourage use of legal checkpoints rather than dangerous pathways that cut through private land, you might have trouble with that.

[glockmail]

You'll want to provide evidence that border security will be impaired through the decriminalization of crossing. Considering that it would encourage use of legal checkpoints rather than dangerous pathways that cut through private land, you might have trouble with that.

It was a simple question. Can't you answer it?

[chloe]

Is it ethical to enter a country illegally?

[hjmick]

Is it ethical to enter a country illegally?

By who's standards?

[chloe]

A heavily militarized and barricaded border and deportation of all currently illegal immigrants. Of course, such options are neither feasible nor ethical, and are ultimately wasteful. The repeal of trade liberalization and decriminalization of border crossing is a far sounder course of action.

sorry about that. I was asking agnapostate if he believes entering a country illegally is ethical.

[hjmick]

sorry about that. I was asking agnapostate if he believes entering a country illegally is ethical.

My guess is, Agna will say it is, judging by his desire for the "decriminalization of border crossing," which any thinking person will recognize as ludicrous since it is only a ciminal offense to cross the border if you do so while ignoring the immigration laws of our country. No matter what country you are from.

[Agnapostate]

It was a simple question. Can't you answer it?

I have answered it. My preferred policies would result in a more secure border than currently exists.


Is it ethical to enter a country illegally?

I'd say that the ethical status of individual entries would vary from person to person, depending on the nature of their activity within the country. However, I'm of the opinion that prohibition of entry is decidedly unethical, consistent with my utilitarian ethical perspective.

The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer has constructed an interesting analogy for the purpose of illustrating the costs and benefits of accepting immigrants into another country. His scenario involves a nuclear fallout in the Middle East that severely endangers and sickens those exposed to it. Only those who are in fallout shelters can expect to live in a reasonably healthy manner. Those who were farsighted enough to predict the nuclear conflagration in the Middle East, having observed previous international conflicts, have purchased accommodations in the fallout shelters. Each shelter can accommodate about 10,000 people for 20 years, and have elaborate and sophisticated security systems that allow them to admit whosoever they choose and prevent others from entering. Now suppose that word came that the effects of the nuclear fallout would not last as long as was initially anticipated, and will instead last from eight to ten years. Above-ground, a mass of about 10,000 people have gathered pleading to be allowed inside a certain shelter. The 10,000 could be accommodated since the shelter for the 8 to 10 years since the supplies were initially supposed to last for 20 years, and only half would be used should the original 10,000 be the only inhabitants. However, it should be noted that the shelter was designed to function as a luxury retreat when not used for a real emergency, and the current inhabitants are making full use of the tennis courts and swimming pools contained therein. If the 10,000 outsiders were to be permitted inside, the tennis courts and the swimming pools could no longer be used for their intended purpose, as they would instead function as accommodations for the outsiders. However, if the 10,000 are not permitted to enter, they will live a wretched existence above-ground. Many will starve to death, or suffer from excruciating disease and eventually wither away. Would you hold that the 10,000 ought to be permitted inside the shelter, even though they have no "property rights" claim to the shelter? I would say so. It is morally unacceptable to deny the 10,000 admittance to the shelter, because of the consideration of marginal utility that must be taken into account. Permitting the outsiders to enter the shelter would incur a far lesser burden of suffering, in terms of duration and intensity, upon the current inhabitants, than would be incurred on the outsiders were they forced to remain above-ground.

If you were to permit the entry of the above-ground victims, I would question why or how one can have a profoundly different opinion on the issue of immigration, especially considering that the analogy represents a worst-case scenario for immigrants. In the analogy, the outsider group intended to represent foreigners was partially responsible for their own plight because they did not invest wisely. In American society, Mexican immigrants (the majority group), are not directly responsible for their plight in the same manner. Quite the opposite, in fact. The trade treaty that forced them to relocate because of the destabilization of the Mexican economy, (the North American Free Trade Agreement), was passed against their will. It was the callous decisions made by governmental authorities, including American governmental authorities, that forced them to relocate. Moreover, we are assuming that the outsiders will cause at least some degree of suffering to the shelter inhabitants, even if the marginal utility of their suffering pales when compared to that of the outsiders if forced to remain above-ground. Honestly, the very opposite may often be true, depending on the specific policies enacted in regard to such immigration. The immigrants may very well bring increased happiness rather than increased suffering. We also held that the immigrants had no legitimate "property right" whatsoever to the underground shelter. This is untrue in the case of Mexican immigrants descended from indigenous tribes. They have been robbed of their right to land inheritance by past generations. In the same vein, if Jim's grandfather were to steal something from John's grandfather and pass it down to Jim, the fact that Jim had not personally stolen it would not change the fact that the possession should righfully belong to John. This is true for Mexican immigrants both in the sense that their land was stolen from them in the course of European conquest, and in the course of broken promises of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I wouldn't seek to "restore" the land to them, but it does present an effective counter to those who harp on about nationalism and private property rights if they support just acquisition, at least in principle.

Hence, while considering these additional factors, the denial of the right to emigrate seems especially unjust and brutal, an addition of insult to injury, and it is difficult to conceptualize how any morally just person could oppose it.


My guess is, Agna will say it is, judging by his desire for the "decriminalization of border crossing," which any thinking person will recognize as ludicrous since it is only a ciminal offense to cross the border if you do so while ignoring the immigration laws of our country. No matter what country you are from.

The "immigration laws of our country" have changed drastically from a previous era of little certification or "documentation," which understandably negatively impacts current immigrants. My own proposal involves an open border and the extension of amnesty to all current illegal immigrants.

[chloe]

Thanks for answering my question Agnapostate. So if the North American Free trade act was not in effect then would you think it unethical for people to enter the country illegally? Also in your opinion do people who enter illegally have the same ethics as people who apply for immigration through legal channels?

[glockmail]

I have answered it. My preferred policies would result in a more secure border than currently exists. ..... So your answer for "Doesn't the Constitution require the Feds to secure the border? " is to make it legal for anyone of any country to cross it at any time. Is that your position?

[Binky]

Actually it was the other way around. Southern California has a very well financed conservative base. The governors have all been republican save Gray Davis. In general it has been a republican run legislature.


Let's put it another way then.......they have put forth a huge amount of liberal activity over the years. Quite possibly, that is one big reason why millions head out that way to live. Not only does the weather attract them, but so does the "do as you damn well feel like it lifestyle". That's the sort of example they've put out there for the rest of the country, one where anything goes.

[Agnapostate]

Thanks for answering my question Agnapostate. So if the North American Free trade act was not in effect then would you think it unethical for people to enter the country illegally? Also in your opinion do people who enter illegally have the same ethics as people who apply for immigration through legal channels?

I don't presume to ascribe any mass ethical description to illegal immigration as a whole; it's necessary to analyze the nature of specific cases of illegal immigration. I'd say that prohibition of illegal immigration would probably be somewhat less unethical were NAFTA not in place, though an autarkic scheme would be similarly unsatisfactory. I'm certainly in favor of globalization as a component of reduction of international wage differentials, simply not excessive trade liberalization. I'm also not fond of the implication that I often hear that all have some equality of opportunity to utilize legal means of immigration; that's certainly not the case.


So your answer for "Doesn't the Constitution require the Feds to secure the border? " is to make it legal for anyone of any country to cross it at any time. Is that your position?

Inasmuch as it would promote border security as immigrants would no longer have an incentive to use unauthorized and dangerous crossings through private land, thereby reducing confrontations with border landowners, I'd have to say so.

[mundame]

A heavily militarized and barricaded border and deportation of all currently illegal immigrants. Of course, such options are neither feasible nor ethical, and are ultimately wasteful. The repeal of trade liberalization and decriminalization of border crossing is a far sounder course of action.


You want us to be invaded by hordes of illegal aliens.

That's a lot of California's problem. California should make a big push to get rid of all its illegal aliens; that would solve a lot of its budget problems. The Mexicans are coming in to get medical care and many other government services that Mexico doesn't supply to them free from the U.S. taxpayers.

[Agnapostate]

You want us to be invaded by hordes of illegal aliens.

That's a lot of California's problem. California should make a big push to get rid of all its illegal aliens; that would solve a lot of its budget problems. The Mexicans are coming in to get medical care and many other government services that Mexico doesn't supply to them free from the U.S. taxpayers.

By no means. The reduction of international wage differentials would in fact reduce excessive migration from the Mexican labor classes.

[chloe]

I don't presume to ascribe any mass ethical description to illegal immigration as a whole; it's necessary to analyze the nature of specific cases of illegal immigration. I'd say that prohibition of illegal immigration would probably be somewhat less unethical were NAFTA not in place, though an autarkic scheme would be similarly unsatisfactory. I'm certainly in favor of globalization as a component of reduction of international wage differentials, simply not excessive trade liberalization. I'm also not fond of the implication that I often hear that all have some equality of opportunity to utilize legal means of immigration; that's certainly not the case.



Inasmuch as it would promote border security as immigrants would no longer have an incentive to use unauthorized and dangerous crossings through private land, thereby reducing confrontations with border landowners, I'd have to say so.

ok I understand your position better.

[glockmail]

Inasmuch as it would promote border security as immigrants would no longer have an incentive to use unauthorized and dangerous crossings through private land, thereby reducing confrontations with border landowners, I'd have to say so. So your answer to my question is "no"; but that's incorrect.

[MtnBiker]

By no means. The reduction of international wage differentials would in fact reduce excessive migration from the Mexican labor classes.

You want congress to abolish all minimum wage laws? Do you believe Obama will sign such legislation?

[Agnapostate]

So your answer to my question is "no"; but that's incorrect.

I've no idea what you're referring to now. I've already addressed the role of a relatively open border in promoting security by providing a strong incentive for the use of authorized and monitored checkpoints.


You want congress to abolish all minimum wage laws? Do you believe Obama will sign such legislation?

Oh. Perhaps you're of the typical rightist opinion that the minimum wage has some adverse effect on employment? In reality, the minimum wage serves to reduce the adverse effects of monopsony on unemployment/underemployment. It's the insufficient rightist focus on market failure that prevents them from acknowledging this.

[sgtdmski]

Actually it was the other way around. Southern California has a very well financed conservative base. The governors have all been republican save Gray Davis. In general it has been a republican run legislature.

Check ur facts. There may have been Republican Governors, but the legislature was run by Dems. Even during Gov Reagans two terms, the legislature was run by, you guessed it, Dems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dmk

[glockmail]

I've no idea what you're referring to now. I've already addressed the role of a relatively open border in promoting security by providing a strong incentive for the use of authorized and monitored checkpoints. . An open border means that the US could be overrun with immigrants. For example 100 million Chinese could walk in, register to vote, vote in unison for communists candidates who could then declare the Constitution to be null and void. That's certainly not in accordance with the federal governments mandate to provide national security.