California's tax commission

Last year, California's governator, with legislative heads, formed a tax commission whose assignment was to study California's tax system and try to come up with improvements. Specifically, the commission was to solve the boom/bust cycle of tax revenues which relied in large measure on about 150,000 individual California taxpayers to pay most of California's bills.

The commission announced its findings yesterday and today there are two op-ed pieces on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page reflecting positively on the commission's work. Californians should be so lucky.

Judging from the legislature's past work, it isn't likely that the commission's recommendations will be adopted. Lord knows, Democrats and Republicans in California's legislature can't seem to agree on the time of day. But Californians can always hope.

One thing that scares this Californian (formerly a Texan): The commission argued for a new 4 percent tax that would replace the sales tax. But 4 percent taxes have a way of becoming 5 percent taxes, then 6 percent, etc. Some way must be found to prevent this happening.

Goings on

Obama, Brown and Sarkozy paraded to the podium Friday to denounce Iran over the newly discovered or newly revealed installation that Iran is using to enrich uranium. The LAT says that Obama has had it up to here with Iran and will no longer negotiate but instead will enforce sanctions against Iran with European, Russian and Chinese help.

Which raises the question: Why is Obama so slow? Apparently the Bush administration knew about this secret installation. The Bush administration seemed to understand what kind of regime it was dealing with in Iran. Apparently it had no false hope, no false beliefs. But Obama always seems to assume that whatever the Bush administration did must have been wrong. It seems pretty stupid. Why not pick up where Bush left off instead of starting off all over from scratch? Fear of granting Bush any credit probably explains it.

Time Out

Having lost some of the old fire, this old fool took a little time off, but now intends to resume posts, not daily but perhaps once or twice a week. We'll see how it goes.

Meanwhile, little has changed. Obama, after a vacation, is back on television daily. It doesn't seem to help his popularity but it doesn't appear to hurt much either. Maybe people just tune him out.

Pelosi is on television nearly as often as Obama, and her remarks are as idiotic as ever. Her latest: she's concerned that someone will murder a gay San Francisco politician, as happened in the late 1970s. Wait! Maybe that's not what concerns her but isn't it her responsibility to make her concerns clear? Let's cut her some slack, though. She was bawling when she announced her concerns. Probably couldn't help herself. Is there no Democrat in the House who would make a more competent Speaker? If there is, why isn't that person Speaker?

Harry Reid isn't any better than he used to be. Actually, he's a laughing stock but a dangerous one. He's behind in the polls for re-election. Maybe Nevadans will solve our national problem by dumping Harry Reid. That's this old fool's fond hope, anyhow.

Then there's the Bozo who speaks for Obama before the press daily. And Ram-it-through Rahm. And a thousand czars -- well, thirty or so -- all unconfirmed. Are any better choices than Van Jones was? By the way, what does a green jobs czar actually do?

Why is Obama angry at the American people? He isn't? He appeared angry during his non-SOU speech to a joint session of Congress. Can't remember the exact words but he seemed to say that none of us is sincere when we oppose his policies and none of us is very smart, otherwise we'd do what he tells us to do.

Poor Joe Wilson, Republican Congressman from South Carolina. His party leaders forced him to take one for the team and apologize to Obama, who really did lie about health care for illegals and lots of other things. Joe got even though, by filling his re-election coffers with money, lots of it. Good for Joe.

Obama lies almost daily. You'd need a truth squad to counter all his lies. His biggest lie: We must reform health care to save money. Then we learn from the CBO that Obama's reform will cost $1 trillion in the first 10 years and more after that.

Another lie: We need a government plan to increase competition. Come again?

More later.

LAT: Blame governator for CA budget deadlock

According to LAT editors today, California's budget deadlock is the fault of Arnold the governator. Forget that Democrats in California's legislature repeatedly submitted budget proposals they knew Republicans would not approve -- they need Republicans because of the two-thirds requirement -- and/or the governator would veto, including an attempt to pass tax increases illegally, that is, without the required two-thirds of the legislature approving them.

LAT: Sotomayor stands up to GOP grilling

That's the headline from today's LAT. Impartial, no?

Obama at the All-Star game

Obama throws the first pitch at the All-Star game. He winds up to do it. Who is he imitating? His pitch barely reaches home plate, though he practiced before the game. What a fraud. Surely he used Air Force One to get to St. Louis from Washington. Surely he took the Secret Service with him. Surely, St. Louis police helped insure the president's safety. It was expensive and it accomplished nothing except it got the president on television again. He could have gotten on television from Washington, though the All-Star game probably drew a larger audience than he could have drawn alone..

Lexington's leaving, thank God

The Economist's Lexington columnist is leaving America after 13 years. Good riddance. In his final column, Lexington passes on his observations about America's pluses and minuses. It appears he has learned a little but fails to understand some aspects of America's culture. See the column.

Meanwhile, a new Lexington takes his place. His first (presumably) column is about Sarah Palin, wouldn't you know. Lexington admits he lives and socializes with "highly educated liberals" who call Palin “moron”, “idiot”, “megalomaniac” or worse. Then he proceeds to offer "expert" testimony about the kinds of people who support Palin. They're uneducated, he says, and the job market has been unkind to them for years. Too often they're white and male, they're under privileged and they object to reverse discrimination. They make up the Republican base and there aren't enough of them to elect a candidate. Republican Party bigwigs don't want Palin as a presidential candidate, Lexington argues. They're too smart for that. They want someone who is less polarizing and more competent.

Which raises the question? How does Lexington know these things. From talking with his liberal friends?