Thursday, November 5, 2009

Zero for Thirty-One


Last Tuesday, 11/3/09, the voters of Maine voted YES ON QUESTION 1 which voted down same-sex marriage. It was the 31st time in a row that state voters would ban same-sex marriage through a state referendum. After 31 straight defeats, perhaps the gay-rights activists would take a hint. I don't have a problem with gays wanting to be recognized. They claim that they they want equality. My problem is them changing the meaning of marriage:

noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Gay couples have been allowed to have all the same rights that traditional heterosexual couples: Property, insurance, adoption, wills and living trusts, etc. through civil unions and domestic partnerships. What gay couples don't have is the name MARRIAGE which has belonged to traditional couples for thousands of years. Gay activists tell us that their relationships are exactly the same as a man with a woman. I disagree. Two apples are not the same as two oranges.

Having worked in the entertainment business for many years, I've met many gay people. Some were very nice. Some were flamboyant. Some were closeted. Some were complete in-your-face activists. It's those activists we need to worry about.

Back in the 90s, my company was bought by a large entertainment company which in turn merged with an even larger company that recognized domestic partnerships. I was meeting with an HR manager (Bob, not his real name)that was helping us with our restructure. After knowing each other a few months, we started talking about our kids. He told me he was in the process of adopting two brothers. The conversation went something like this:

Trace: "That's awesome. What made you decide to adopt?"

Bob: "We've been their foster parents for awhile. They're great kids who've had it rough and we want to raise them as our own. Because one of them is a little older, most couples want to adopt younger kids. We don't want to see them split up."

Trace: My wife and I talked about it. You just never know what the kids have been through before you meet them. Your wife must be really special."

Bob: "I don't have a wife."

Trace: "Wow, a single man wanting to adopt..."

Bob: "No..."

Trace "I don't understand..."

Bob: "Life partner." (a 90s term)

Right then I had a decision to make. I was genuinely suprised. Bob looked and acted just like any guy I'd known. He was gay, not evil.

Trace: "You've got guts. I'd rather see those kids with two men that love them than be stuck in foster care."

Bob: "I appreciate that..."

I meant it then and I mean it now. Many gay couple live similar mundane, everyday lives like straight couples. Most of them are fine with domestic partnerships. They live their lives pretty much like the rest of us.

I became an adult in the 80s. When I met my first openly flamboyant in-your-face gay guy, it was at work. One lunchtime, he introduced me to his "lover". "Lover" was the term gays used at the time to let you know "HEY, I'M GAY". They invited me to lunch with a few others. since I was new to the company, I went. After talking with the "lover" during lunch, I found that he was a lot like me--he was into playing sports, fixing cars, boxing, and firearms. Big difference--he liked sex with men. I still say that if you're gay, not my issue. If you're a guy who wants to spend his wintry nights in the arms of another man--enjoy.

Later "lover" was switched to "life-partner" to show that they were in a committed relationship. Then one day their terms would no longer suffice. Civil Union--not good enough. Domsetic Partnership--not good enough. They wanted our term, marriage. Two apples are not two oranges.

My biggest problem with changing the definition of marriage is that the great majority of us have to break with time honored tradition to accomodate a tiny minority of a minority. Most gay people don't even want to get married.

Another issue I have is that while some gays want to change marriage so that they can be part of mainstream society, they also want their own community:


LGBT--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgendered. I thought lesbians were gay. Bisexuals--what's their problem? The buffet is always open. The transgendered have their own set of issues which the rest of this group tend to muddy. Gay rights parades make Mardis Gras look tame. Cities in my home state, California, have sizeable gay populations. San Francisco, West Hollywood, and Palm Springs went crazy before the November 2008 election. California voted YES ON 8 to strike down same-sex marriage. These same voters still voted for Barack Obama. So much for HOPE and CHANGE.


I hope to be a grandparent someday. I don't want to be talking with my future 6 year old granddaughter and have her tell me that someday she and her friend Briana might get married because the definition of marriage has been changed...

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Cash For Clunkers Didn't Work! NO MORE WASTED TAX DOLLARS FOR POLITICAL SCAMS


An analysis was recently done about the cash for clunkers program by edmonds.com. A total of 690,000 new cars were sold under the program last summer, but only 125,000 of those vehicles would not have been sold had the cash for clunkers program not been available. The average rebate was $4,000 but the majority of the sales would have taken place some time in 2009. That means the government spent about $24,000 each for the additional 125,000 cars that sold. You didn't have to spend $4,000 on the other 565,000 cars because they would have sold anyway! We spent $4,000 on a half a million people that were trading their car and getting a new one without the rebate! The only thing the program really did was it caused some people to wait, and others to speed up their time frame for trading up. Believe it or not the auto industry agrees with the study, but that it still helped the economy (huh). The only thing this did was boost numbers for one quarter by squeezing the yearly sales into a single quarter. This is all the government can do. They can waste billions of dollars of tax money to squeeze a year's worth of sells into three moths so that for a few days they get an artificial higher number for output.

The White House has fired back saying edomonds is wrong. "This is the latest of several critical analysis of the cash for clunkers program from edmonds .com which appeared designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable t.v." What a stupid analysis!. Of course they're going to grab headlines and get on cable t.v. because they're pointing out the truth!  And the truth matches what any rational person would come up with themselves. The White House also said that people were drawn into dealerships because of the program and endued up purchasing cars even if their trade in didn't qualify them for the program. Edmonds said there is no hard evidence of consumers buying cars after they discovered that their car didn't qualify for the rebate.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

I Learned the Truth at 21

In October of 2005, I began working for the William S Hart Unified School District as an instructional assistant. I remember my disbelief at the amount of deductions I saw on my first pay check.  There was the usual Social Security and Medicare deductions. I learned that lesson at 16. I remember my father showing me his paycheck and how much was taken out of his check. He told me to get used to it and that it would "only get worse."

The two new deductions I saw were union duties and something called CALPERS. I never signed up for any union, and I was pretty pissed about the whole situation. I went to talk to the HR lady and told her I wanted to opt out of the union. She gave me this crazy look and asked, "Why would you want to do that when the union does so many great things for you?"  I told her that I didn't believe in unions and that I didn't want to be in it. She then told me that there was no way out of the union, that it was mandatory, and part of the agreement I signed by becoming an employee of the school district. So much for individual liberties.

I was now a part of something I despised, a big bloated corrupt public employee union. I had no say in how my union dues were spent. A ray of hope appeared with the 2005 ballot with several initiatives to limit the power of unions. One of them was a measure that would allow public employees to have a say and vote in how their union dues were spent on political campaigns. I thought it was a for sure win. I mean who wouldn't vote for that? Well, the union launched a big media blitz and portrayed anyone voting for the measure as hating teachers and firemen. The measure was defeated, and I was stuck.

CALPERS turned out to be the state public employee retirement fund. I was against Social Security and certainly against this fund. At 21 I needed my money to be liquid. I tried to opt out of CALPERS and couldn't. I even asked if I could set up my private retirement fund instead of CALPERS. I was once again stuck. The government knew better than I did.

Fast forward to today where CALPERS has lost over a 100 billion dollars. CALPERS had  investment losses of over 50 billion dollars for the fiscal year ended June 30th. The difference has to come from taxes, or in wother words, you. The state has already allocated 3.3 billion dollars from the general fund to make up for CALPERS  poor performance, and they're expected to cover fiscal losses in the next fiscal year. 

The investment losses didn't just come from stock market investments. They were extracurricular investments. CALPERS is about to lose a half a billion dollars on a New York real estate deal for an apartment complex. They purchased it for 5.5 billion and now its worth 2.5 billion. The whole deal went bust. Tax payers are of course on the hook to make up the difference. With pensions you always invest conservatively. By November 2006, the market was already looking flimsy. CALSTERS (the teacher equivalent of CALPERS) lost a billion dollars on one bad real estate investment on its own! CALSTERS real estate holdings lost 43% during the year.

All these public employee organizations bribed the legislature and governor Gray Davis years ago and all kind of other officials with campaign contributions and they won these huge pension benefit increases. You can't roll them back unless the union agrees to it. They're federally protected. So we're suppose to divert more and more tax dollars each yeah to make up for the losses of these greedy bozos. As what point do people blow their tops? They have to spend over 3 billion to prop up the state retirement system. The city of Fullerton has been told they have to pay 5.5 million more starting in 2011 to fund the city employees' retirements. Fullerton is already in the red and now they have been hot with another bill.

Al Villalobos, who was on the CALPERS board back on the 90's, acted as a middle man to steer CALPERS to invest in come companies (Arco Financial Ventures) which have had huge losses. Villalobos made over 50 million in fees for arranging these investments. He made his money so it doesn't matter if it collapses. So CALPERS will just ask for more money from the tax payers. Not ask, demand, since they're entitled. It's corrupt. Massive corruption for state employees.

In 2001 CALPERS decided it would allow local govs. to inflate the value of their pension investments by 1/3. They would allow the governments to arbitrarily say, "You know my pensions investments, They're worth a 1/3 more today than yesterday." The gov agencies could the turn to the employees and tell them that they could give them more benefits. In 1999 the state government was spending 160 million in pensions (with tax money) in 1999. They said that 10 years later they would be spending 350 million. Today, the state is spending 10 times the amount at 3.4 billion!!  It's likely to climb to 5 in the next couple of years. 10 years ago, the government hacks thought the stock market was going to explode forever. They took a pencil, erased the old numbers and said that everything was worth a 1/3 more.California employees have the most extravagant pension benefits of any state employee. People are retiring at 50 with more than their salary with annual cost of living raises and life time health benefits.

The retirement age should be raised back to age to 58 when police officers and firefighters retired before the 1999 legislation passed. For regular employees, set the age consistent with social security at 65-67.
The Wallstreet Journal had an article written by Stu Wu and Jim Carlton "The cost of shoring up CALPERS." "The troubled 200 billion dollar pension fund for California public employees will ultimately fall on the state's 38 million residents who are already dealing with increased tax increases and reduced public services." The state and local governments are contractually bound to increase their payments to CALPERS to make up for investment losses of more than 50 billion for the fiscal year ended June 30th. There is no market correction here. There are a lot of public employees willing to work for a $75,000 pensions instead of a $150,00 pension. They'd do a great job too. They should be replaced by people who are willing to earn less money. We can't do that though. There is no invisible hand. Governments destroy free markets. We have an irrational system that is going to collapse.