Boxer, Fiorina tussle over economy in first debate

Citing both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal Constitution, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, on Wednesday, held that Prop 8's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. 

Next stop, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, then on to the US Supreme Court.  When Prop 8 was passed in the Fall of 2008, I wrote a piece for F&HD predicting this result on these very grounds and my article here provoked, shall we say, just a bit of controversy - some very critical comments were posted concerning my constitutional law analysis.  Now that the formidable legal talent from both sides of Bush v Gore have combined, the results, at least at the Federal Trial Court level are in. 

You can read Judge Walker's Decision and Order here and likely in many other places in cyberspace by the time you get around to reading this.

To address the issues raised by the courts, Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot after Proposition 22 was deemed unconstitutional by the courts. It is clear that the Judge's political correctness agenda prevailed at the expense of the will of the people.  Ultimately, it will be up to the United States Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Thomas Jefferson warned that radical judicial activism would undermine the will of the people.  He said, ‘When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.'  Today's ruling was a direct assault to the over 4.5 million voters in 2000, and the over 7 million who turned out in 2008 to vote on this vital issue.

"What's the deal with Mel Gibson?" is probably the most common question being asked by Californians.

But in the six blocks surrounding the State Capitol, the most common question is, "When will we have a budget?"

I'll leave the mysteries of Mel to the deep thinkers on ETV. But for the rest of you, here are simple answers to your questions about when the state's budget will emerge.

On Tuesday, Aug. 3, the Los Angeles City Council will discuss two items that cut to the heart of the City's ongoing budget crisis - ballooning public pension obligations and the chronic inability of the City of Los Angeles to collect outstanding debt.

Action or inaction on these two issues will let voters know whether Councilmembers are committed to major changes that will put the City on the right track toward solving what has become an annual and perpetual budget crisis.

The Council will discuss next steps on public pension reform. Pension contributions by the City of Los Angeles to the three city employee pension funds are growing by more than $300 million per year, with no end in sight. By 2014, the contributions will amount to more than 25 percent of the general fund.

California may have one of its closest elections ever this November.  Most polling shows a virtual dead heat for both governor and senator.  So turnout may well be the deciding factor this fall, and the apparent decision of one county not to encourage absentee voting could easily be a deciding factor in who wins.

There is no question that absentee voting, especially by permanent absentee voters, has become a very popular way of casting your ballot.  Nearly 58 percent of voters in the June primary cast their ballots by mail (absentee.)  The percentage of Californians voting absentee has risen in nearly every election over the past 30 years.

It's not hard to understand why. Permanent absentee voters have a whole month to send in their ballots.  They can decide how to vote at leisure, making their decisions over the kitchen table.   Election Day voters must find their precinct, may have to stand in line, and must make their decisions in a polling booth.

Legislative leaders released their latest budget proposal, called the "Jobs Budget," which again is heavy on tax increases and light on boosting the state's economic competitiveness. Touted as "saving 430,000 jobs," the plan would increase taxes by more than $5 billion and continue speculative and one-time spending to support ongoing programs.

Key tax changes include:

• A permanent tax rate increase of one percentage point for every personal income tax bracket except the top bracket. This increase in personal income tax rates would be for the 2010 tax year, so would in effect be retroactive to all income earned this year, even thought it would be implemented in the fourth quarter. Also, the one-quarter percentage point "temporary" increase in PIT rates enacted in 2009 would be made permanent.

On Saturday night, a crowd of 400 or so GOP stalwarts gathered in Atherton at "The Rising Tide" to see Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Damon Dunn and Abram Wilson.  This event, an annual ritual for many years, brings together GOP stalwarts and elite for a fun night of barbecue, dancing, and fun.  For years, the event has been short on real politics and long on fun, largely due to a lack of serious, viable candidates for key positions.

This year was different.  Republicans have two women business icons in Silicon Valley running as heads of their ticket.  Adding flair and common sense were are two amazingly competent African Americans running for Secretary of State and Assembly in the 15th District.  For once, this event wasn't about a bunch of white guy career politicians - instead it focused on achievers who are different, who have solved problems, and who can win.

I know it sounds weird to most progressive Democrats.  It's not like Republicans have shined in California elections with women and minorities.  But - here's the thing.  It's a new California and Republicans somehow seem ready to embrace this change:

Last Friday, the news wires carried this from Newt, while speaking at an AEI event: a call for a US war now on both North Korea and Iran, now - re-labeling the War on Terror as a War on Radical Islam.

Now, let me get this right.  Newt just broadcast into the whirlpool of our 24/7 21stC Media, a call for our economically troubled nation of some 300 million, to declare a War against Islam (the Arab Street will not hear the word "Radical") - the religious belief of 1+ Billion people, out of nearly 7 Billion currently crowding this planet?  Did I read that right? 

Would you take on three or four guys in a street fight tonight when you leave the restaurant at which you have enjoyed dining?  Will we really force our truly exhausted military (and their beleaguered families) who have served 3, 4, 5 or more tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan (literally, the ends of the earth) to now make ready for, not one, but, two more wars, one against a Hermit Kingdom, run by a little Madman who thinks he is John Wayne; the other against a huge, intensely mountainous country, run by a little Wise Guy in a cheap golfing, zip-up jacket, who is shilling for a bunch of Mullahs with attitudes, but not much else in the way of guts or brains?

If you like mystery and suspense, I think you'll enjoy Lincoln's Hand.

Take a break from California politics and business when you read Lincoln's Hand.  There is not a word about California politics in it.

Echelon Press published my first mystery/suspense novel. This column is a shameless self-promotion. While the "official" launch is this Saturday, Aug. 7 with a book signing at the Mystery Bookstore in Los Angeles, the book is now available in paperback and e-book formats, which you can link to from the book's website www.lincolnshand.com.

Some public pension funds like to blame the 2008 stock market crash for the pension cost crisis but as the chart below shows, pension costs started rising well before the 2008 stock market crash.

In fact, those pension costs increased sharply through the decade even though CalPERS and other public pension funds earned money for the period including the 2008 crash. This is because public pension costs rise whenever public pension funds earn less than they expect to earn. Put another way, when it comes to pension costs, what matters is the "spread" between expected returns and actual returns.

When pension promises are made, employers and employees make contributions into pension funds.  The size of those contributions is based upon an expected return from investment of those contributions so that, together, the contributions and investment earnings on those contributions are supposed to be enough to pay the pension when it's due. The higher the expected investment return, the lower the contributions when the promises are made. But if the actual investment return falls short of the expected return, the employer must make up all the difference.