Post Scripts

Report shared by Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party

Major Study Predicts Job Gains if Prop 23 Passes

Respected economist Ben Zycher recently completed this study for the Pacific Research Institute. It shows the massive numbers of jobs we stand to gain if Proposition 23 passes in November, or how many we stand to lose if it doesn’t.

Here is the forward from Zycher here:

“The California electorate next month will vote on Proposition 23, which would suspend the implementation of the state’s global warming (i.e., energy taxation) law (“AB32) until the unemployment rate reaches 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. My new paper on the employment effects of this initiative can be found in the link below.

In a nutshell: Based upon official estimates of the reduction in state energy use attendant upon implementation of AB32, Proposition 23 would increase California employment by over half a million in 2012, and over 1.3 million in 2020. (Total employment in 2009 was about 16.2 million.) Not a trivial benefit from suspending a law the original justification for which was — I am not kidding — “California has to be a leader,” a shallow rationale even by the standards of political sloganeering. The California unemployment rate stands at 12.4 percent; it will be interesting to see if the voters in this deep-blue state will choose to turn away from a regulatory juggernaut promising massive costs and, literally, no benefits”.

And here is the full report here
Continue reading “Republican Corner: Major Study shows Prop 23 will save thousands of jobs” »

by Jack Lee

Recently Post Scripts received a surprise visit by Joseph Randolph (see pic at left) the famous American author of “Debilitating Democracy” that is now offered in hardback on Amazon. It was a delight to read Mr. Randolph’s comments and I wanted to share them with you now. They are as follows:

“In the traditional conflict between vying political philosophies the liberal represented
the progressive idealist while the conservative epitomized the unmovable realist. This
scenario predates the prominent progressivism in conservatism of late, and misses the
evolving dimension of a contemporary liberalism resembling generic and crusty conservatism. Today different postures jeopardize the conventional portrait of stagnant conservative minds stuck in the past and fluid liberal minds itching for something better tomorrow. Today’s conservative is a movable realist and has the ear of the young because of it; today’s liberal is an unmovable idealist calling for more of the same, despite empty prattle about “reinventing government.” Thus the nouns still hold, but the adjectives are courting ideologies new to them. The still politicians impugn change as irresponsible risk, and thus have limited vision for the country and the citizens.

Conservatives, however, are willing to risk something to have something greater or to scrap failed programs because of their commitment to counting consequences.

Other politicians are prone to present the risks of uncertainty as reason for staying
put. As such, these politicians are increasingly offering more provisions for voting
blocks frightened to leave home without their politician. Young people, however, are
frequently willing to risk certainty for bold opportunity, while resenting attempts to be
patronized with fear. Pessimistic politicians who thus tout bold government,
necessitated by predictions propagated to induce fear, remind them of protective
mothers warning of life outside the womb. The young are as socially-minded as they
are independent, but they do not want to be herded anymore than they like herdsmen
crying wolf.

The most vocal of these loud politicians demands security for the frightening future
they portend for voters. As these same politicians degenerate, they have skidded
increasingly toward a materialist manifesto that seizes political opportunity in the
anxiety of the voter, and particularly the voter’s kitchen table. The urgency of the next
election makes these politicians talk as if disaster is close, but any conservative answer,
such as allowing the table setters to keep more of their money, is rejected. Thus, tax
cuts are assailed by politicians reminding us that we could not predict with certainty the
economic future, and thus we would be hasty to give money back to the owners that
government might need later for the citizens.

Meanwhile, citizen appetites are whetted when candidates define themselves “for the
people.” The young prefer to pick their own candidates; there is something
condescending about candidates picking them, which might explain why opportunistic
candidates target older voters first. As protectorate of the people, such politicians submerge followers in fears that prod them to huddle behind rather than take charge.
Joseph Randolph, author of Debilitating Democracy

Review of Debilitating Democracy: In chunks of Machiavellian political cunning, politician Ramon Purefoy provides musings from the pen that salvaged Purefoy’s own nearly disastrous campaign. With his mentor’s instructions for luring wanting voters to the politician wanting votes, Purefoy’s teacher explains that nothing is ever denied citizens in exchange for their vote, and that political power can escalate tremendously after election.

To guarantee nearly permanent occupancy of elected office, the savvy politician continuously provides for the people’s every need, until such time as they realize he is the greatest need they have for taking care of their needs. The winner who creates this kind of dependency among citizens can find his political future assured as voters increasingly refuse other political alternatives. Offering trenchant advice on posturing for votes, Purefoy’s mentor treats the reader to a shocking display of disdain for responsible democracy while maneuvering for political gain. Enabling Purefoy to emerge as the winner and unmovable incumbent of any future political contest, Purefoy’s mentor now shows other political aspirants how to manipulate voter weaknesses for permanent political victory.

by Jack Lee

If you think you have seen more political ads this year you are probably right. That’s because there has been a huge infusion of corporate and union cash into PAC’s aka 501c3 and 501c4’s, non-profit groups, to spend on influencing elections.

In January of this year the Supreme Court of the United States held by the narrowest of margins, 5/4, that corporations and labor unions had the right same right to free speech as you. The ruling overturned decades of restrictions on campaign finance and now allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political ads.

Elections spending this year is up by about $18 million over the previous election cycle. Democrats are blaming their low poll numbers at least in part on this unlimited spending by corporations. They say it has established a shadow republican party that is removed from scrutiny. Donations to 5-01-C4 non-profits can be made anonymously and they in turn can use the money to run ads against a candidate or for propositions or however they wish. This is known as a form of “soft money” laundering to conceal the source of funding.

Since the time of the SCOTUS ruling polls show 80% of us have an unfavorable feeling about it and this would include many republicans.

Posted by Tina

Here come the seventies…

As Fed Prints Money, Gold, Oil Soar – IBD

During that troubled decade(1970’s), huge amounts of money moved from productive assets into inflationary hedges such as gold and oil to protect investors’ capital. Central banks printed money like mad. The result was raging inflation, shortages and lower standards of living. Not to mention disco…

Just barely stayin’ alive…stayin’ alive…

from CLOVA

The one question I have for Scott Grundl and his supporters is “how do you define conflict of interest?”

I do not see any difference between being a government employee in one county and an elected official in a city outside that county being any different from (example only) being a government employee in Nevada, Oregon,or Arizona and being elected Governor of California. Only the size of the job is different. You still protect your number one pay check. Scott and Mary, are you aware that re-development money that you are putting into low cost housing is about the most expensive money available? It cost the taxpayer and takes away from the tax base. And you wonder why the budget is a problem. Yes, it is time to change directions in Chico.

by Mike W.

Jack, you really hit it on the head when you referred to 3 of the candidates as the “dream team”. Bob Kromer, Bob Evans and Mark Sorensen really came across as thoughtful adults who have experience and public welfare in mind.

We certainly need this type of leadership to lead Chico out of the financial messes caused by the liberal majority on the City Council. Compared to the dream team, there were 2 candidates who are the nightmare team. If we re-elect Scott Grundl and Mary Flynn, we’re asking for more of the same misguided policies that are wrecking Chico.

At the forum, Mark Sorensen rightly pointed out a few of the damaging City Council actions that Grundl and Flynn supported – -“Millions of dollars spent to purchase HUNDREDS of ACRES OF land that has been fenced off for years”. -“Humboldt Road Burn Dump. Once a $4 million dollar clean up project, when all of the law suits are settled it will have cost the city of City of Chico WAY over 20 million dollars.” -“The City builds 600-800 Square Foot apartments for up to a quarter million dollars each and call it low cost housing. There is nothing low cost about it, it is merely subsidized with millions of your tax dollars. ” -“$600 thousand dollars wasted fighting against people trying to play Disk Golf in a public park.” Let’s replace these big spending folks supported by the far left machine with 3 folks with some common sense and judgment.

The light turned yellow, just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection.

The tailgating woman was furious and honked her horn, screaming in frustration, as she missed her chance to get through the intersection, dropping her cell phone and makeup.

As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up.

He took her to the police station where she was searched, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in a holding After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects.

He said, ”I’m very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the guy in front of you and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the, ‘Hugs are all the Arms We Need” and “make Love Not War” bumper stickers and all those Peace signs, so naturally…. I assumed you had stolen the car.”

Posted by Tina

The WSJ reports some intriguing ideas put forth by John Boehner at a recent American Enterprise Institute conference. One would reform the policy put forth during the Nixon years that removed presidential power to stop congressional spending:

Mr. Boehner suggested that “we ought to start at square one and give serious consideration to revisiting, and perhaps rewriting, the 1974 Budget Act.” Now he’s getting somewhere. That law, passed over the veto of a Watergate-weakened Richard Nixon, further rigged the budget process to abet spending. It killed the President’s impoundment power not to spend money, and it established the annual “budget baseline” that makes spending increases automatic. Thus even a reduction in the amount of spending increase in a program becomes a budget “cut” that special interests can attack.

This one idea alone would put a big smile on a lot of American’s faces. Let’s hope they win the opportunity to do this and a lot more to limit spending and the size of government.