California (again)

[3rdnlng]

[DC Tom]

11 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

 

And DC.

 

I take extra plastic straws when I stop anywhere, and carry them with me when I go in to DC.  I have 12 with me right now - so concealed carry, and a high-capacity magazine.  Put a pistol grip on one of these straws, and I'm a terrorist.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

And DC.

 

I take extra plastic straws when I stop anywhere, and carry them with me when I go in to DC.  I have 12 with me right now - so concealed carry, and a high-capacity magazine.  Put a pistol grip on one of these straws, and I'm a terrorist.

By their very nature those would be hollow point straws, reducing your ability to penetrate the + on the top of the lid. Do you really want to be known as that guy?

[B-Man]

CALIFORNIA KEEPS DIGGING

The “First Law of Holes” (“If you’re in one—stop digging”) is usually attributed to the late British politician Denis Healey, but whatever. One thing is certain: California never heard of the First Law of Holes.

 

• Item, from the Washington Post a while back:

The One Issue Every Economist Can Agree Is Bad: Rent Control

By Megan McArdle

There aren’t that many things you can get economists to agree on. Fiscal stimulus, minimum wages, monetary policy, health care, bank regulation — on almost all the major issues of the day, you can find a respected economist to argue for either side.

But there are a few questions where there’s near unanimity, and rent control is one of them. Pretty much every economist agrees that rent controls are bad. And in the last decades of the 20th century, economists had some success persuading state and local governments to curb these policies.

 

• Item, from the New York Times:

California Approves Statewide Rent Control to Ease Housing Crisis

 

California lawmakers approved a statewide rent cap on Wednesday covering millions of tenants, the biggest step yet in a surge of initiatives to address an affordable-housing crunch nationwide.

The bill limits annual rent increases to 5 percent after inflation and offers new barriers to eviction, providing a bit of housing security in a state with the nation’s highest housing prices and a swelling homeless population.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has made tenant protection a priority in his first year in office, led negotiations to strengthen the legislation. He has said he would sign the bill, approved as part of a flurry of activity in the final week of the legislative session.

 

 

Of course, it is overwhelmingly California’s bad government policies on housing, going back more than 40 years now, that have created the “housing crisis.” So yeah, let’s have some more bad policy. I’m sure it will work great this time.

 

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/california-keeps-digging.php

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

California Approves Statewide Rent Control to Ease Housing Crisis

 

California lawmakers approved a statewide rent cap on Wednesday covering millions of tenants, the biggest step yet in a surge of initiatives to address an affordable-housing crunch nationwide.

The bill limits annual rent increases to 5 percent after inflation and offers new barriers to eviction, providing a bit of housing security in a state with the nation’s highest housing prices and a swelling homeless population.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has made tenant protection a priority in his first year in office, led negotiations to strengthen the legislation. He has said he would sign the bill, approved as part of a flurry of activity in the final week of the legislative session.

 

 

I'm assuming the inflation of "after inflation" doesn't include property taxes or state and municipal taxes and fees (permitting and such)?

Which means this is tailored to allow the state to squeeze landlords out of property ownership.

 

Never mind the fact that the CPI is includes rent/housing costs...so indexing to the CPI creates a second-order circular dependency.  Good luck with the unintended consequences of that.

 

How ***** stupid is California, anyway?  

[LikeIGiveADarn]

35 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm assuming the inflation of "after inflation" doesn't include property taxes or state and municipal taxes and fees (permitting and such)?

Which means this is tailored to allow the state to squeeze landlords out of property ownership.

 

Never mind the fact that the CPI is includes rent/housing costs...so indexing to the CPI creates a second-order circular dependency.  Good luck with the unintended consequences of that.

 

How ***** stupid is California, anyway?  

 

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[B-Man]

8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

California’s Ban on School Suspensions Invites Another Parkland

by Andrew Pollak

 

Original Article

 

My daughter Meadow was murdered in the Parkland school shooting in Florida last year. It was the most avoidable mass murder in American history. And last week, Governor Gavin Newsom just forced into every school in California the policies that made it inevitable. The Parkland shooter was a known-wolf. Before the massacre was over, students knew who did it. He was considered so dangerous when he attended Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that school administrators banned him from bringing a backpack and frisked him every day for fear that he’d bring a deadly weapon.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[DC Tom]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

That's bull####.  States can set whatever standards they choose, just so they don't violate federal standards.  And federal emissions standards are a minimum, not a maximum.  This is a clear-cut violation of states' rights.

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's bull####.  States can set whatever standards they choose, just so they don't violate federal standards.  And federal emissions standards are a minimum, not a maximum.  This is a clear-cut violation of states' rights.

When they rebel, Trump is going to sue them in an Iowa court and win by default when they don't show up.

[TakeYouToTasker]

32 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's bull####.  States can set whatever standards they choose, just so they don't violate federal standards.  And federal emissions standards are a minimum, not a maximum.  This is a clear-cut violation of states' rights.

 

You beat me to it.

 

This is exactly what horrifies me about Trump.

 

Queue up mindless shills chanting some version of “abandon conservative principals in favor of statist overreach to own the libs!!!!”

[GG]

46 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's bull####.  States can set whatever standards they choose, just so they don't violate federal standards.  And federal emissions standards are a minimum, not a maximum.  This is a clear-cut violation of states' rights.

I'm not up on the exact language of the EPA statutes, but why would CA need a waiver if they could set their own policy in the first place?

[DC Tom]

26 minutes ago, GG said:

I'm not up on the exact language of the EPA statutes, but why would CA need a waiver if they could set their own policy in the first place?

 

Because the Clean Air Act includes the authority to grant states waivers from EPA standards (since air quality is ultimately local).  It shouldn't...but it does.  And frankly, I hope CA's challenge establishes that - federal regs are for the states to meet or exceed, not just "meet."

 

But this isn't about the CAA, it's about CAFE.  CARB uses their CAA waiver as a de facto CAFE waiver by arguing that car emissions fall under the authority of their waiver, and thus brow-beats the rest of the country in to following along.  It's not uncommon - it's why extension cords in VA carry a prop 65 "causes cancer in California" warning, and textbooks in Rhode Island are written to TX and CA standards.  You want to do business in all 50 states, you meet the regulatory requirements of the most strict.  But Trump doesn't want the auto industry beholden to California (even though the largest auto companies have already agreed in writing to follow CARB's CAFE standards.)

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You beat me to it.

 

This is exactly what horrifies me about Trump.

 

Queue up mindless shills chanting some version of “abandon conservative principals in favor of statist overreach to own the libs!!!!”

 

As is usual, he is using and abusing the precedents predecessors set in place.  

 

Imagine what Kamala Harris would do with the precedents he's setting.

[GG]

50 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Because the Clean Air Act includes the authority to grant states waivers from EPA standards (since air quality is ultimately local).  It shouldn't...but it does.  And frankly, I hope CA's challenge establishes that - federal regs are for the states to meet or exceed, not just "meet."

 

But this isn't about the CAA, it's about CAFE.  CARB uses their CAA waiver as a de facto CAFE waiver by arguing that car emissions fall under the authority of their waiver, and thus brow-beats the rest of the country in to following along.  It's not uncommon - it's why extension cords in VA carry a prop 65 "causes cancer in California" warning, and textbooks in Rhode Island are written to TX and CA standards.  You want to do business in all 50 states, you meet the regulatory requirements of the most strict.  But Trump doesn't want the auto industry beholden to California (even though the largest auto companies have already agreed in writing to follow CARB's CAFE standards.)

 

As is usual, he is using and abusing the precedents predecessors set in place.  

 

Imagine what Kamala Harris would do with the precedents he's setting.

 

That's why I think that the waivers are dangerous in the first place.  If they exist in federal law, then you can make an argument that the waiver can be denied.  It's perfectly clear that CA's state requirements are defacto federal laws, which flies in the face of federal regulations 

[Buffalo_Gal]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Rockprincess818/status/117444485830543360

 

 

Your letter seeks more Federal dollars for California from hardworking American taxpayers but fails to admit that your State and local policies have played a major role in creating the current crisis," Carson wrote in a letter to Gavin Newsom

 

 

That was was the Trump administration rejecting California's request for more money to "deal with the homeless problem".

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Rockprincess818/status/117444485830543360

 

 

Your letter seeks more Federal dollars for California from hardworking American taxpayers but fails to admit that your State and local policies have played a major role in creating the current crisis," Carson wrote in a letter to Gavin Newsom

 

 

That was was the Trump administration rejecting California's request for more money to "deal with the homeless problem".

In the meantime they have a fiscal year budget surplus of 21 billion dollars.

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/10/california-state-taxes-budet-surplus-21-billion/

 

Gov. Gavin Newsom is in an enviable position: a record surplus of $21.5 billion in his first proposed budget.

But as his plan moves toward the June 15 deadline for approval by a friendly Legislature dominated by his fellow Democrats, Republicans and taxpayer advocates are pushing back against what they say are more than $2 billion in new taxes and other levies tucked within the voluminous document.

“Despite a budget surplus of $22 billion,” the governor is asking for billions in new taxes, said Senate Republican Leader Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. “California is already unaffordable for too many people.”

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

In the meantime they have a fiscal year budget surplus of 21 billion dollars.

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/10/california-state-taxes-budet-surplus-21-billion/

 

Gov. Gavin Newsom is in an enviable position: a record surplus of $21.5 billion in his first proposed budget.

But as his plan moves toward the June 15 deadline for approval by a friendly Legislature dominated by his fellow Democrats, Republicans and taxpayer advocates are pushing back against what they say are more than $2 billion in new taxes and other levies tucked within the voluminous document.

“Despite a budget surplus of $22 billion,” the governor is asking for billions in new taxes, said Senate Republican Leader Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. “California is already unaffordable for too many people.”

 

Maybe they plan on putting that toward their $1 trillion  unfunded pension plan liability? ?‍♀️

[B-Man]

 

 

 

California judge blocks law requiring Trump to submit tax returns to compete in state's 2020 primary

by Danielle Wallace

 

Original Article

 

 

.