This it the Governor's Proposed Budget Summary for 2011-2012.
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/BSS/BSS.html
A $500 million dollar cut to both the UC and Cal State systems. Which could mean for the first time in UC history, the students will be contributing more to the university budget than the state.
This was based off of a January article, a more recent article dated May 25, 2011 states the budget might cut $1 billion.
If interested in how the recession is effecting all the states, review the below article.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Judge Sotomayor
Today is Day 4 of the Sotomayor hearings. For those of you who are lost....Sotomayor is the Supreme Court nominee appointed by Pres. Obama to replace Justice David Souter. Now I will admit I have not been watching every minute of the hearings but this is still something that I feel should be addressed. Sotomayor has an extraordinary background (there is no denying that). She is of Puerta Rican descent, raised by her mother and lived in the Bronx. Her father died when she was 9, he only had a third grade education. She graduated from Princeton and then Yale Law School. It is no stretch of the imagination that Sotomayor did not live a "privileged" lifestyle and her rich experiences I am sure is part of the attraction for Pres. Obama not to mention her ethnic background or minority status. Again, I do highly recommend that everyone take a few minutes to look over a biography of her. I know it has not been happening lately with our government but the United States Constitution is the foundation of this country and it is the job of the courts system more specifically the Supreme Court to uphold the laws set forth in that Constitution. Before I bring up the two points I want to discuss in great detail, I also want to recommend maybe taking a few minutes to look over the hearings. Sotomayor has been coached very well and has been purposely avoiding controversial questions such as where she stands on "abortion" and "gun rights" is simply responding with "it is my job to look over all the facts of the case....yada yada" basically not answering any direct questions on where she stands on issues that Americans care about most.
**I also do realize that this whole post is basically a waste since she is going to be confirmed regardless since both Houses hold a Democratic majority. Unless she does something ridiculous or says something just insane. When I say insane I mean something like ex. I support terrorism and 9/11 or that child molestors should be able to freely adopt etc.
Two Controversial Topics the Media has Been Focusing On....
**During Sotomayors ten year stay in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
1. Employment Discrimination Case-Ricci v. DeStefano
This case was about the City of New Haven's request to throw out a test for its firefighters (a test for a promotion) and start over with a new test, because the City believed that this had a "disparate impact" on minority firefighers. The City was concerned that minority firefighters would sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who passed the test sued the City, claiming their rights were violated. The panel that heard the case (which included Sotomayor) issued a brief (unsigned) affirming the lower court's ruling. Upon objection by a fellow judge Sotomayor voted with a 7-6 majority not to rehear the case. The case went to the Supreme Court in 2009 the previous panels ruling (which Sotomayor was on) was overruled 5-4, the white firefighters were found to be victims of racial discrimination when they were denied promotion.
This case bothers me. It appears to me to be a case of "reverse discrimination." If minority firefighters feel that the test given by the city had a "disparate impact" on their ability to be promoted than thats a legitimate concern. Obviously this brings up the concern of affirmative action, the "quota of diversification" that government jobs/or public jobs hold as opposed to merit based hiring or promoting. This is upsetting in itself. But then to not offer the same type of consideration when other firefighters have a legitimate claim that they are having no problems with the test is wrong. Granted that in the Circuit of Appeals ruling and in the Supreme Court's ruling it was close (separated by one) it still does not discount the fact that the Circuit Court was overruled by the Supreme Court and the ruling was one of discrimination.
2. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sonia Sotomayor October 26, 2001.
This comment has been the focalpoint of the confirmation hearing. It is important to note that this comment was stated 8 years ago at the same time is there not a grain of truth behind every joke and every lie? Otherwise...what is your motivation to say it? When I first read this I saw "that Latina woman or just Latinos make better judges than White men." Obviously this is inherently racist. Once I read it over a few times and thought about it I came to the conclusion that Sotomayor (at least trying to give her the benefit of the doubt) probably was trying to say that she hopes that someone with her vast experience could reach a more objective view than someone who hadn't had those same experiences. What is hurting her in this statement are the words "Latina", "woman", "white", "male" and "wise." Her statement is ironic since her job as a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret and uphold the constitution that was written by "wise white males" this country's forefathers.
The bottom line.
Do I think Sonia Sotomayor is racist? Maybe, maybe not. Do I think she is biased because of her "richness" in experience and personal background? Maybe. I think that the two examples I mentioned above are defnitely not helping her image as an objective party. I guess what frustrates me about this whole thing is that I feel this nation is becoming more and more polarized. Since the election of Barack Obama the amount of hate groups in this country has significantly risen. Please believe I am not saying that Obama being the first black man to hold the most powerful position in the world, aka our President is not an accomplishment, it is. At the same time I think the fact that this country made such a huge deal about it, that it was seen as a breakthrough for African Americans in this country, the "rise against the oppression of the white man" is excessive. If African Americans in this country really feel that way than we have bigger problems. Maybe I just don't see race the same as everyone else? I believe that everyone is inherently racist in some degree but I can honestly say that I use someone's ethnic distribution or race simply as a description of their physical characteristics same thing as "he has brown hair" or "she has blue eyes" nothing more and nothing less. Of course the argument can be well your white, so of course your not going to see things that way. I think that is a really ignorant comment considering if you look around whites are a minority, especially in California! I think this country has come along way when it comes to tolerance and I don't think this has been acknowledged. We are one of the few countries in this world that is a total melting pot. There are ethnic wars breaking out all around the world, somehow we have maintained peace domestically...does this not count for something? I feel that when the media, politicians, actors/actresses or everyday citizens make a huge effort to make distinctions of people based on race this only promotes the sense of polarization and discrimination in this country. We are supposed to be united, how are we to uphold any sense of nationalism if we are busy worrying about what race everyone is?
Sotomayor Learned the Ropes
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/16/sotomayor.district.attorney/index.html
Sotomayor Pushing Back Hard on Racial Bias
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_senate
Sonia Sotomayor Bio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
Sotomayor Sidesteps on Abortion, Guns in Grilling
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_senate
**I also do realize that this whole post is basically a waste since she is going to be confirmed regardless since both Houses hold a Democratic majority. Unless she does something ridiculous or says something just insane. When I say insane I mean something like ex. I support terrorism and 9/11 or that child molestors should be able to freely adopt etc.
Two Controversial Topics the Media has Been Focusing On....
**During Sotomayors ten year stay in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
1. Employment Discrimination Case-Ricci v. DeStefano
This case was about the City of New Haven's request to throw out a test for its firefighters (a test for a promotion) and start over with a new test, because the City believed that this had a "disparate impact" on minority firefighers. The City was concerned that minority firefighters would sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who passed the test sued the City, claiming their rights were violated. The panel that heard the case (which included Sotomayor) issued a brief (unsigned) affirming the lower court's ruling. Upon objection by a fellow judge Sotomayor voted with a 7-6 majority not to rehear the case. The case went to the Supreme Court in 2009 the previous panels ruling (which Sotomayor was on) was overruled 5-4, the white firefighters were found to be victims of racial discrimination when they were denied promotion.
This case bothers me. It appears to me to be a case of "reverse discrimination." If minority firefighters feel that the test given by the city had a "disparate impact" on their ability to be promoted than thats a legitimate concern. Obviously this brings up the concern of affirmative action, the "quota of diversification" that government jobs/or public jobs hold as opposed to merit based hiring or promoting. This is upsetting in itself. But then to not offer the same type of consideration when other firefighters have a legitimate claim that they are having no problems with the test is wrong. Granted that in the Circuit of Appeals ruling and in the Supreme Court's ruling it was close (separated by one) it still does not discount the fact that the Circuit Court was overruled by the Supreme Court and the ruling was one of discrimination.
2. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sonia Sotomayor October 26, 2001.
This comment has been the focalpoint of the confirmation hearing. It is important to note that this comment was stated 8 years ago at the same time is there not a grain of truth behind every joke and every lie? Otherwise...what is your motivation to say it? When I first read this I saw "that Latina woman or just Latinos make better judges than White men." Obviously this is inherently racist. Once I read it over a few times and thought about it I came to the conclusion that Sotomayor (at least trying to give her the benefit of the doubt) probably was trying to say that she hopes that someone with her vast experience could reach a more objective view than someone who hadn't had those same experiences. What is hurting her in this statement are the words "Latina", "woman", "white", "male" and "wise." Her statement is ironic since her job as a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret and uphold the constitution that was written by "wise white males" this country's forefathers.
The bottom line.
Do I think Sonia Sotomayor is racist? Maybe, maybe not. Do I think she is biased because of her "richness" in experience and personal background? Maybe. I think that the two examples I mentioned above are defnitely not helping her image as an objective party. I guess what frustrates me about this whole thing is that I feel this nation is becoming more and more polarized. Since the election of Barack Obama the amount of hate groups in this country has significantly risen. Please believe I am not saying that Obama being the first black man to hold the most powerful position in the world, aka our President is not an accomplishment, it is. At the same time I think the fact that this country made such a huge deal about it, that it was seen as a breakthrough for African Americans in this country, the "rise against the oppression of the white man" is excessive. If African Americans in this country really feel that way than we have bigger problems. Maybe I just don't see race the same as everyone else? I believe that everyone is inherently racist in some degree but I can honestly say that I use someone's ethnic distribution or race simply as a description of their physical characteristics same thing as "he has brown hair" or "she has blue eyes" nothing more and nothing less. Of course the argument can be well your white, so of course your not going to see things that way. I think that is a really ignorant comment considering if you look around whites are a minority, especially in California! I think this country has come along way when it comes to tolerance and I don't think this has been acknowledged. We are one of the few countries in this world that is a total melting pot. There are ethnic wars breaking out all around the world, somehow we have maintained peace domestically...does this not count for something? I feel that when the media, politicians, actors/actresses or everyday citizens make a huge effort to make distinctions of people based on race this only promotes the sense of polarization and discrimination in this country. We are supposed to be united, how are we to uphold any sense of nationalism if we are busy worrying about what race everyone is?
Sotomayor Learned the Ropes
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/16/sotomayor.district.attorney/index.html
Sotomayor Pushing Back Hard on Racial Bias
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_senate
Sonia Sotomayor Bio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
Sotomayor Sidesteps on Abortion, Guns in Grilling
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_senate
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Peter Schiff is Running for Senator!!!!!!!!
http://www.schiffforsenate.com/#anchor
http://www.facebook.com/schiff2010
http://www.europac.net/
When my friend told me that Peter Schiff is running for Senator against Chris Dodd I flipped out! Peter Schiff is a stockbroker and owner of Euro Pacific Capital, he was one of the first people to predict the housing bust and is one of the few economists who follow Austrian economics as opposed to the conventional Keynesian economics which has led economists into the pit it is in now. Adding to my excitement is that he is going against Chris Dodd. Let me refresh your memory on Chris Dodd. He ran for President in 2008 but his campaign came under scrutiny when the watchdog group "opensecrets.org" disclosed that many of Dodd's campaign contributions came from the financial service industry, an industry regulated by committees Dodd chairs in the Senate. Although other candidates aka McCain, Clinton and Obama have received funds from the banking/financial industry no candidate had received more funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as Chris Dodd totalling $133,900. During the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac controversies Dodd who lead the mortgage bill "Housing and Economic Recovery Act in 2008" Dodd denied rumors that these financial institutions were in a financial crisis, claiming they are "fundamentally sound." When Paulson initiated an overhaul of Freddie and Fannie Dodd was skeptical and continually denied the need for reform. When $170 billion was spent to assist AIG, originally Dodd put a "retroactive limit to bonus compensation given to executives" he later put an inclusion in the bill that which allowed AIG to give bonuses under previously negotiated contracts. Then he claimed he did not know how the amendment was changed. Dodd has been called a "lying weasel" by the New Haven Register.
This just skims the surface of the ridiculous behavior Americans have had to tolerate with Dodd in office. Dodd is corrupt and part of the problem! It is amazing that someone like Peter Schiff is going against him, I hope that the people in Connecticut realize Dodd's shady behavior and make a smart choice in 2010.
Health Care Reform Initiative a Hot Mess
House Health Plan to Boost Taxes on Rich
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
I highly recommend that you refer to the link above before reading my comments but if you trust that I can accurately sum up what the article says then read on!
House Democrats released Tuesday (July 14th) a $1.5 trillion plan that they describe will make "for the first time health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans." Now the first time I heard about this (being the true economic conservative I am is) "....great....HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT?" Especially in light of all the BAILOUTS (tarp money, $800 Billion Stimulus Package and $11.5 Trillion Deficit)etc.
The federal government will make sure that every person, regardless of income or their state of health they will have access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties. I am not sure what they mean by "affordable" I thought this healthcare plan is supposed to be free.....and what is this about individuals facing hefty penalties....Does that mean they are going to FORCE you to have insurance?
"Health care overhaul is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority."
Gee I would think that the ECONOMIC CRISIS aka Depression I mean "recession" would be TOP priority?
Democratic leaders said they would push the measure through committee and toward a vote in the full House by months end.....this seems sort of fast don't you think?
The total costs are unknown....WOW! WOW! WOW! REALLY?
The estimated total bill provided by a House Democratic aide is $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
Phew! for a second there I was unsure if we could afford that. WTF?
Here is the good part:
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average costs of a health insurance plan. House Democrats said the income tax increase in their bill would apply only to the top 1.2 percent of households, those who earn about one-quarter of all income (Who do you think pays majority of the taxes in this country already?) The tax would start at 1% for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000 than up to 1.5% above $500,000 and as previously stated 5.4% for those earning over $1 million.
I can't tell what upsets me more the fact that they actually think raising taxes in a recession is a good idea and thus are going to tax individuals 5.4% of their surplus income over $1 million or the fact that they are FORCING you to accept their health insurance plan......NO ONE CAN ESCAPE THIS TAX INCREASE!!!!!
I guess its the latter because what FREE country forces you to accept THEIR health care plan.
Let's take a moment to digest what we just read here. So If Joe owns a small business and he makes $1.5 million a year thats $500,000 over the $1 million. So Joe pays roughly 50% income tax (including state taxes) on the $1.5 million he makes and than he gets taxed an additional 5.4% for the $500,000. I don't know about you but if I had to pay almost an additional $30k just so everyone else in the country can have universal health care...WHAT IS MY INCENTIVE TO WORK AS HARD? I would be better off shrinking my business, letting go of some of my employees, cutting my inventory and make exactly $1 million so I don't have to give away $27k to the government? I love how people deny this is "re-distribution of wealth."
Just food for thought....let's say that a government bureaucracy (lmao) can provide better quality service of anything than private enterprise....hahahahaha sorry sorry so funny...let's say they can afford to keep qualified doctors on staff and not lose them to private health care providers....eventually private heath care providers will go under and the government will have a monopoly on health care (no competition no price controls) and if Republicans take over both Houses in 2012 (when Americans wake up and realize that Obama is part of this fiscal disaster) and they disassemble the health care program....than what is left?
I wonder how Americans are going to like socialism....because they appear to be tolerating fascism fine......
This guy agrees with me!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html?hpid=topnews
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
I highly recommend that you refer to the link above before reading my comments but if you trust that I can accurately sum up what the article says then read on!
House Democrats released Tuesday (July 14th) a $1.5 trillion plan that they describe will make "for the first time health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans." Now the first time I heard about this (being the true economic conservative I am is) "....great....HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT?" Especially in light of all the BAILOUTS (tarp money, $800 Billion Stimulus Package and $11.5 Trillion Deficit)etc.
The federal government will make sure that every person, regardless of income or their state of health they will have access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties. I am not sure what they mean by "affordable" I thought this healthcare plan is supposed to be free.....and what is this about individuals facing hefty penalties....Does that mean they are going to FORCE you to have insurance?
"Health care overhaul is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority."
Gee I would think that the ECONOMIC CRISIS aka Depression I mean "recession" would be TOP priority?
Democratic leaders said they would push the measure through committee and toward a vote in the full House by months end.....this seems sort of fast don't you think?
The total costs are unknown....WOW! WOW! WOW! REALLY?
The estimated total bill provided by a House Democratic aide is $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
Phew! for a second there I was unsure if we could afford that. WTF?
Here is the good part:
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average costs of a health insurance plan. House Democrats said the income tax increase in their bill would apply only to the top 1.2 percent of households, those who earn about one-quarter of all income (Who do you think pays majority of the taxes in this country already?) The tax would start at 1% for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000 than up to 1.5% above $500,000 and as previously stated 5.4% for those earning over $1 million.
I can't tell what upsets me more the fact that they actually think raising taxes in a recession is a good idea and thus are going to tax individuals 5.4% of their surplus income over $1 million or the fact that they are FORCING you to accept their health insurance plan......NO ONE CAN ESCAPE THIS TAX INCREASE!!!!!
I guess its the latter because what FREE country forces you to accept THEIR health care plan.
Let's take a moment to digest what we just read here. So If Joe owns a small business and he makes $1.5 million a year thats $500,000 over the $1 million. So Joe pays roughly 50% income tax (including state taxes) on the $1.5 million he makes and than he gets taxed an additional 5.4% for the $500,000. I don't know about you but if I had to pay almost an additional $30k just so everyone else in the country can have universal health care...WHAT IS MY INCENTIVE TO WORK AS HARD? I would be better off shrinking my business, letting go of some of my employees, cutting my inventory and make exactly $1 million so I don't have to give away $27k to the government? I love how people deny this is "re-distribution of wealth."
Just food for thought....let's say that a government bureaucracy (lmao) can provide better quality service of anything than private enterprise....hahahahaha sorry sorry so funny...let's say they can afford to keep qualified doctors on staff and not lose them to private health care providers....eventually private heath care providers will go under and the government will have a monopoly on health care (no competition no price controls) and if Republicans take over both Houses in 2012 (when Americans wake up and realize that Obama is part of this fiscal disaster) and they disassemble the health care program....than what is left?
I wonder how Americans are going to like socialism....because they appear to be tolerating fascism fine......
This guy agrees with me!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html?hpid=topnews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
