I don’t want to hear a bunch of nonsense about a choice between borrowing lottery proceeds and an increase in the state sales tax.

The people of California want the choice between a revenue increase (taxes, bonds, fees, whatever…) and "blowing up boxes" in state government. Let’s blow some boxes up.

If the voters of California actually have to make the decisions for our elected representatives then give us the full menu of choices that includes reductions in state government.

I would chose to completely eliminate the lottery, leave sales tax where it is, and use this opportunity to restructure numerous parts of state government.… Read More

I read a lot of political discourse that is pretty tedious and boring. I never want this blog to sink to that level. I understand that there is always a risk of that when I bring up such scintillating topics as international tax policy and mortgage origination regulations. Stop yawning!

Anyway, so here is the very first Campbell Quiz. These are a few questions about current events in Congress and politics. And no, I will not make you wait until next week to find the answers. They are all at the end of each question. Good luck, have fun…….oh yeah and maybe you’ll learn something you didn’t know too!

1) Two weeks ago, Congress passed a "technical corrections bill" that contained hundreds of new transportation earmarks including $90 million to study a "maglev" (magnetic levitation) train. This train would run a route that is currently served by dozens of daily airline flights and at a fare of about $118. If it takes $90 million to study it, imagine what it would take to subsidize it. This train would run between:

a) New York and Washington b) Anaheim and Las… Read More

…but I told you so.

In 1998, I was appointed Chair of the Republican Party’s Judicial Evaluation Committee. Specifically, the committe was asked to evaluate the Justices and Judges up for election in 1998. The most public individual up for election that year was Chief Justice Ron George, who, through a set of very ugly legal maneuverings, was able to reverse the decision of the California Supreme Court prohibiting abortions for minors without parental consent. George was not content to allow the decision of the then Lucas Court affirming the law requiring parental consent to stand. In his first act as the Chief Justice, right after the retirement of Chief Justice Lucas, George, abusing his power as the new Chief Justice, went about acting to reverse the decision. He had no scruples about ignoring the tradition of the court, stare decisis, or judicial restraint to promote his own version of how society should be organized.

Then Republican Party Chair MikeSchroederstacked committee to support Chief Justice George (after he appointed me chair), but I made my case to the committee. Iargued that a… Read More

Apparently freshman Democrat Jerry McNerney is unconcerned about being named one of Roll Call Newspaper’s most vunerable incumbents. Just in from our friends at The Club for Growth…

Jerry McNerney Adds Another Tax Increase to His Record

Washington – As if Jerry McNerney’s tax-and-spend record is not sufficiently hostile to taxpayers, today, the California representative voted for the absurdly named “Patriot Tax” in the war supplemental. The amendment is an unambiguous income tax increase, imposing a 0.5% surcharge on gross income on earnings over $500,000 a year or $1 million for a couple.

Without a doubt, this tax increase will prove harmful to the economy, stifling innovation, productivity, and job growth. To make matters worse, the tax will be especially harmful on small businesses whose owners often file their business income on their individual tax returns. In fact, the Tax Foundation reports that almost 83% of all income tax returns with over $1 million in income are business owners. A tax that is supposedly on the rich will in fact hurt everyone.

“Jerry McNerney’s disregard for taxpayers is… Read More

California’s Supreme Court ruled today that California’s statutory ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. The court also held that the term "domestic partner" creates injury for those who are so labeled in thattheir dignity is presumptively attacked bycarrying such a label.As such, thecourt held that to deny a member of a domestic partnership the legal right to call their union a marriage is also unconstitutional.

Justice Baxter, in crafting his dissent stated:

"I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental — article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,”… Read More

Yes, I know, more unsolicited and likely unwelcome free advice – it’s the bane of consultants and campaigners everywhere.

But anyway, I recently posted information from the Registrar of Voters about Paul Hegyi not actually being a Sacramento Republican for 10 of the last 13 years (for math people that 23%)… now it turns out he was also supporting left-wing candidates as well…

In his "Dear Republicans" splash page, 32-year old Paul claims that he spent his “whole life supporting conservative Republican causes and candidates..." What he should have said is "Ever since they started paying me, I’ve been supporting Republicans."

You see, it seems that Paul was a feature endorsement for uber-lefty Sean South (along with the President of the Sac State Young Democrats and former Darryl Steinberg CofS Gary Davis).

South – as many Capitol people will recall… Read More

Minutes ago the California State Supreme Court released its decision on the gay marriage question (they were looking at the constitutionality of voter-passed Proposition 22, which placed into statute that marriage shall be between a man and a woman).

On a 4-3 decision, the Supremes OVERTURNED Proposition 22, striking the language from California law.

You can read their decision here.

You can be sure that the liberal Democrats who control the legislature will have a homesexual marriage bill on the Governor’s desk as quick they possibly can, which he apparently will sign.

The Governor released this one-sentence response to the court’s ruling: “I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

Note that the Governor refrains from any subjective statements such as "I am disappointed by this… Read More

Offsetting the glee from the loony-left, Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines issued this strong statement in response to the Supreme Court decision to, in essence, prepare the way for legal same-sex marriage in California…