Wisdoma

California Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a bill that would require Google to “fuzzy” its online mapping services so would-be terrorists cannot clearly see (at least online) buildings they may want to target. Anderson wants to impose prison time and fines of $250,000 a day for violations.

Why stop there? Banning the Internet, cell phone service, all communications, weapons, and maybe even food, would also serve to thwart terrorists.

How many terrorist attacks have there been in California due to online mapping services? Zero.

I’m sure that if the bill passes (even if not struck down as unconstitutional infringement on free speech and/or interstate commerce), would be terrorists will be saying “Shucks. Now that Google’s online mapping services are not as clear we’ll have to give up our planned attacks and play tiddlywinks instead.”

Usually, such pea-brained ideas from lord legislators deciding what the California flock cannot do, say, hear, or participate in – come from Democrats. Joel Anderson, though, is a Republican from Alpine – a tiny rural county no terrorist has ever heard of or cares about.

Instead of attacking a California success story – Google – our mighty protector of freedom Joel Anderson might want to consider what happens if a non-California based company, perhaps from China, offers similar online mapping!

Whoops. No increased security. Just more damage inflicted on California business and the economy. Thanks Joel.

According to the California Department of Finance, California’s state expenditures have risen from $57.3 billion in 1999 to $104.5 billion for 2009.

That is an 82 PERCENT INCREASE IN SPENDING OVER 10 YEARS.

Yikes.

State revenue (taxes) have increased from $58.6 billion in 1999 to about $97 billion in 2008, dropping to $82.7 billion in 2009. Using the 2009 figure, that is a 41 percent increase. Using the 2008 revenue figure, a 65 percent increase.

Any way you look at it, 82 percent is far, far higher than the rate of inflation.

During the past decade the aggregate inflation rate has been 32 percent.

In other words, California’s spending has increased at 156 percent the rate of inflation.

California has a spending problem.

John McCain suggested during the second Presidential debate that the government should buy existing mortgages from lenders and then issue new loans to homeowners based on the current, reduced value of their home, and at a lower interest rate.

Let me put this straight – this idiotic idea is not from a conservative.

Wouldn’t it be nice if your mortgage principal, and interest, ratcheted down just because your home temporarily became worth less. Or, because you were behind in payments because you weren’t paying your loan.

He wants to soak all taxpayers, including responsible homeowners, to help a few.

Who gets helped? Ah, the golden question.

Apparently, only those behind in their payments, or those owing more than their home is worth, or those with rates about to adjust up beyond what they can afford.

So, if you want a better loan and lower interest rate, better stop paying your mortgage!

Who cares. The lender will be paid in full by the government. The taxpayers (you, me, and everyone else) absorbs a huge loss, and you get a better mortgage loan.

Sign me up.

Who values the homes? When is the valuation made? Who determines if a future rate adjustment is too much? Who determines if you can’t afford to make payments, or are being sneaky and just not paying? Who came up this? I can’t believe it came from a Republican. Oops, my mistake. It wasn’t. It came from a maverick – whatever that is.

John McCain. American Idiot.

Joe Biden said today that paying higher taxes is patriotic – referring to Obama’s plan to soak the “rich” with higher taxes.

Does that mean if you’re not “rich” you’re not patriotic?

Does that mean Biden will voluntarily pay more in taxes than what he has too?

But then Joe Biden had this to say:

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

Unbelievable.

He wants to take my money. Money I earned. I give it to someone else who did not earn it.

The Democrats want to take my money, forcibly through higher taxes, and give it to someone else. Not because they’re needy. Not because they’re disabled. Just because they earn less.

The Nanny Government in California is proposing to limit children under 13 from riding in the front seat of a car, and requiring kids under 8 or 4 feet 9 inches from riding in a booster seat. Currently, kids under 6 and 60 pounds must ride in the car seat.

As any parent knows, it is difficult enough now to keep in a 6 year in a baby seat. Reported in various sources is the fact that hardly anyone now complies with the law for children who are not infants. Why? Because parents have the best judgment about the situation and know this law is not workable.

But there is another issue, as the legislature spends countless hours on this issue: more bureaucracy. Just check out the proposed law for the punishment and allocation of fines:

Section 27360.6 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
27360.6. (a) (1) For a conviction under Section 27360, 27360.1,
or 27360.5, a first offense is punishable by a fine of one hundred
dollars ($100), except that the court may reduce or waive the fine if
the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he
or she is economically disadvantaged, and the court, instead, refers
the defendant to a community education program that includes, but is
not limited to, education on the proper installation and use of a
child passenger restraint system for children of all ages, and
provides certification to the court of completion of that program.
Upon completion of the program, the defendant shall provide proof of
participation in the program. If an education program on the proper
installation and use of a child passenger restraint system is not
available within 50 miles of the residence of the defendant, the
requirement to participate in that program shall be waived. If the
fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the court shall report the
conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803.
(2) The court may require a defendant described under paragraph
(1) to attend an education program that includes demonstration of
proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system and
provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented
for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets
applicable federal safety standards.
(b) (1) A second or subsequent conviction of the same section is
punishable by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250), no part of
which may be waived by the court, except that the court may reduce or
waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of
the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged, and the
court, instead refers the defendant to a community education program
that includes, but is not limited to, education on the proper
installation and use of child passenger restraint systems for
children of all ages, and provides certification to the court of
completion of that program. Upon completion of the program, the
defendant shall provide proof of participation in the program. If an
education program on the proper installation and use of a child
passenger restraint system is not available within 50 miles of the
residence of the defendant, the requirement to participate in that
program shall be waived. If the fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the
court shall report the conviction to the department pursuant to
Section 1803.
(2) The court may require a defendant described under paragraph
(1) to attend an education program that includes demonstration of
proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system and
provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented
for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets
applicable federal safety standards.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the fines
collected under this section shall be allocated as follows:
(1) (A) Sixty percent to health departments of local jurisdictions
where the violation occurred, to be used for a community education
program that includes, but is not limited to, demonstration of the
installation of a child passenger restraint
system for children of all ages and also
assists an economically disadvantaged family in obtaining a restraint
system through a low-cost purchase or loan. The county or city
health department shall designate a coordinator to facilitate the
creation of a special account and to develop a relationship with the
court system to facilitate the transfer of funds to the program. The
county or city may contract for the implementation of the program.
Prior to obtaining possession of a child passenger restraint system
pursuant to this section, a person shall attend an education program
that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of a child
passenger restraint system.
(B) As the proceeds from fines become available, county or city
health departments shall prepare and maintain a listing of all child
passenger restraint low-cost purchase or loaner programs in their
counties, including a semiannual verification that all programs
listed are in existence. Each county or city shall forward the
listing to the Office of Traffic Safety in the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency and the courts, birthing centers,
community child health and disability prevention programs, county
clinics, prenatal clinics, women, infants, and children programs, and
county hospitals in that county, who shall make the listing
available to the public. The Office of Traffic Safety shall maintain
a listing of all of the programs in the state.
(2) Twenty-five percent to the county or city for the
administration of the program.
(3) Fifteen percent to the city, to be deposited in its general
fund except that, if the violation occurred in an unincorporated
area, this amount shall be allocated to the county for purposes of
paragraph (1).