Arnold Schwarzenegger

Every Day nearly 400 people move FROM California.

Every Day over 1000 people move TO Texas.

Which Model Works Better?!?

OMG, the Lakers are going back to the finals!!!

It's good to know that, even in Schwarzenegger's state, decent hard working people can still acheive a decent outcome when they work hard.

Note to Cleveland and Orlando: Suck on my Male Body Parts.

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

Priceless line from Krugman's column today:

The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.

...

Even more important, however, Proposition 13 made it extremely hard to raise taxes, even in emergencies: no state tax rate may be increased without a two-thirds majority in both houses of the State Legislature. And this provision has interacted disastrously with state political trends.

Riiiiiiight...the state with the highest income tax rate in the country has a massive budget problem because taxes aren't high enough.  It can't have anything to do with state spending.  Apparently, there's no problem government has that can't be solved with just a little bit more of our money.

I hope this helps.

That is all.

Cahnman out.

With the recent defection of Arlen Specter and the entry of Charlie Crist into the Florida Senate race, much has been recently made of an alleged split between moderate and conservative Republicans.  While I think there's some truth to this argument, I also think it misses the point.  The problem is that "Republican Moderate" is such a broad category that it doesn't mean anything.

With that in mind, I want to differentiate between two types of Republican Moderates.  For the sake of clarity, I'm going to define them as the "Rudy Giuliani Moderates" and the "Arlen Specter Moderates."

Who are they?!?

Rudy Giuliani -- These are the Republicans who are Conservative on most issues and have a few issues where they legtimately disagree with the Republican base.  In Rudy's case, he's GREAT on National Security, the Economy, Health Care, Education, Crime, and a whole host of other issues.  At the same time, there are a few issues where Rudy differs from the GOP mainstream: Life, Gun Control, and Cross Dressing.

Moderates like Rudy are our friends.  When people talk about a big tent, that's fine.  We need to be inclusive of people who are with us on most of the issues even when they differ on a few.  Reagan said it best when he said: "My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy."

Recruiting candidates who fall into the Rudy Giuliani mold who are well suited to a particular district or state is a essential.  We can't be excessively doctriaire in who we recruit.

(Author's Note: John McCain, Lindsay Grahmnesty, Mark Kirk, and Sheriff Dave Reichart all fit into this category.)

That said, there's another type of "moderate" candidate we need to avoid like the plague.

Arlen Specter -- These are "Republicans" who find it politically expedient to run for office with an R after their name and are nothing more than gloified prostitutes seeking power and personal aggandizement.  While Specter was a respectable Judiciary commitee chairman and backed most of Reagan's defense buildup in the 1980's that's the only useful thing he's ever done in the United States Senate.  Otherwise, he's been a thorn in the side of Conservative reform for the past three decades.  Beyond his vote for Porkulus, Specter led the Smear Campaign against Judge Robert Bork, and he sold his soul to the trial lawyer lobby over the asbestos bailout.  Unlike the Giuliani style moderates, who actually care about Public Affairs, people like Arlen Specter are in Politics to increase their personal power and will do or say whatever it takes to make that happen.

Arlen Specter style prostitutes shred our credibility and dilute our message.

(Author's Note: George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Colin Powell all fit into this category.)

As I said several months ago: Apostates are O.K.; Grandstanding RINO's are not.

Thoughts/Suggestions?!?

Cahnman out.

Fearless Prediction: Within a year, the Gross State Product (GSP) of Texas will Surpass the GSP of California.

Do Not Doubt Me.

Which model works better?

That is all.

Cahnman out.

California's unemployment rate is 10.5%

Texas' unemployment rate is 6.5%

I've said it before, I'll say it again, which model works better?!?

Thanks to T D Williams for finding the link first.

California is the new France; so sez the WSJ.  Money quote:

Even discounting for the impact of global recession, the most populous state's ills are unique and self-inflicted -- and avoidable. In the last three decades, California expanded the public sector and regulation to Europe-like dimensions. Schools, state employees, health care, even dog kennels, benefited from largesse in flush times. Government workers got 16 official holidays, everyone else six. The state dabbled with universal health care and adopted strict environmental standards. In short, California went where our new president and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco want America to go.

Texas, meanwhile, is the new Austria.

Which Model works Better?

Uodate: When I called Texas the new Austria (which was, of course, a reference to the school of economics, NOT the economic policy of the country), I forgot that was Schwarzenegger's country of origin.  Oh the irony....

Arnold Schwarzenegger rattles the tin cup around D.C.

Rick Perry...ehh, not so much.

Which model works better?

California is now, basically, a third world economy.  Money quote:

Those in the other 49 should take note. This is what a high tax, overregulated, union dominated economy looks like. And in the information age it is increasingly easy to relocate businesses — to another state or another country. So as we look to the federal government it might be a good idea to keep the California experience front and center. Do we want to dramatically increase the size of government, pass volumes of new environmental and other regulations, pass card check to give unions an even greater influence in the economy, and ( if the Congressional Democrats have their way) raise taxes?

In Texas, meanwhile, the economy continues to churn along; albeit at a slower rate.

Which model works better?

California lawmakers spend the weekend trying to get one more Republican to vote for a tax hike.  Money quote:

The impasse has revolved around a bill, out of the nearly 30 in the budget proposal, that would generate $14 billion in revenue by temporarily raising the sales tax by one percentage point, by increasing the gasoline tax by 12 cents a gallon and by adding a surcharge of up to 5% on income taxes, among other steps. Republican legislators have contended that Californians can't afford new taxes during the recession, while Democrats countered that it would be impossible to close such a massive deficit without revenue increases.

These are the same Democrats, of course, who have run the state into the ground over the past decade.

Texas, meanwhile, has done such a good job of fiscal management that we don't need "stimulus" money.  In addition, our Governor is leading a national effort against bailouts.

Which model works better?