Obama '08?

It would be best for the country to sit back and let California go bankrupt.

I am curious about something.
To fund all of the current programs, to pay off or pay down the huge deficit, and to fund all of the programs and spending that the state wants to do...what would the individual tax rate have to be in Ca?

But ican, you have never told us how a law passed by Congress and signed by the President is NOT "due process of law".

Are you saying the Constitution is in violation of the Constitution?

REALITY!
The passage of an unconstitutional law--that is a law that itself violates the Constitution--is unconstitutional regardless of the fact that it was passed by a constitutional process.

I don't know what the exact number would be now, because the debt has mounted to the point where it's a little ridiculous. Interest payments on the debt are something like 5.5 billion a year, which is a huge dent in any state budget - hell, that's more than many state budgets entirely!

At this point we likely will have to cut back on some services AND raise taxes considerably in order to get our fiscal house in order. It's not a good solution - not one that the people wanted - but we're left in a situation for which there are no good solutions.

Here's a little tool you can use to play with the budget:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl,0,95571.htmlstory

I eliminated the budget with $17 billion in new taxes (higher taxes for the rich, gasoline tax increase, ciggie tax increase, reduction of withholding for independent contractors and broadening the sales tax base) and 7 billion in cuts (almost entirely in education and some small law enforcement cuts).

One thing they don't list on this is our massively overcrowded, for-profit prison system. We ought to slash that in half and stop throwing people in for drug crimes entirely.

Cycloptichorn

You don't just get to declare something unconstitutional. What more, you think a LOT of things are unconstitutional, which clearly aren't - the SC has ruled against your position on many issues time and time again. So why should anyone take your word for it?

Cycloptichorn

When Ahnold recended the higher car registration tax, that cut revenues for the state by over $10 billion dollars, and he went south from there. His record is worse than the man he replaced by recall, Davis.

Is it a due process to pass the law or not?

An apt description of the health insurance system that the US has suffered under for many years.

This might be an acceptable statement if cyclo wrote things like "he don't," "she ain't got no," or was guilty of subject-predicate disagreement or of writing run-on or fragmentary sentences. He is never does and he is not.

However, confronted on a regular basis with your faulty logic and your sadly minimal knowledge of history and your inability to interpret data, it is reasonable that cyclo's language should become less than gentlemanly at times.

Sometimes, your posts are amusing but most of the time, they are frustrating, disgusting or all of the above.

Are you still looking into that mirror hanging next to your computer?

There's an interesting article in today's San Jose Mercury News Editorial titled "'Death panels' are back, and that's good news."

In summary, it talks about the ugly rumor that was started by Palin, Glenn Beck, and Charles Grassley, that the HC legislation takes control out of the hands of patients and doctors to the government. Grassley called the end-of-life provision "a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma."

This was a complete lie, and opposite of the truth.

Conservatives still spread this rumor - even after learning they are lying to the public - and especially to seniors, They have no ethics or shame.

It's up to Obama to communicate this issue properly this time.

That's what conservatives do: spread lies.

My parents are in their late 80s. They no longer have email because they decided that they had better use for the money they spent just to read the daily round of senior citizen jokes. However, while they had email, every once in a while, my Dad would send me something that circulated among the senior brigade.

When they sent me something that allegedly quoted Nancy Pelosi, I thought, wait a minute. First of all, there was nothing under that name -- it was allegedly a piece of legislation -- which, while it sounded familiar, also sounded "off" or inexact. Secondly, as Pelosi has been in the public eye for several years, her speech patterns are familiar and this quote did not sound like her. I ran the post through snopes.com and discovered that, by the time it was sent to my Dad, that it had already been in circulation for two years. It was a total fiction.

Now, the right is good at making up stuff in just this way, combining more than one name to create a somewhat familiar-sounding and, therefore, plausible piece of legislation.

The right is pure evil and totally unethical.

I taught my parents how to double check any and all political quotes. I also wrote back to the person who forwarded the piece to my Dad and explained to him why it was not true and how he should check items before forwarding them. (My parents had WEB-TV and not a computer, so it was easy to see who else was on their list.) The man wrote back to me. He had no idea that anyone would send false material like that.

Yours are similar, but generally less amusing.

Following a legal process to adopt an illegal law is not due process. In other words, it is not due process to pass an illegal law.

You haven't provided proof they are illegal laws.

Why should I take your word for anything when you provide zero evidence to support your word?

The Constitution of the USA as legally amended in accord with its Article V, says what it means and means what it says. The Supreme Court has not been granted by the Constitution the power to amend the Constitution or its meaning. For the Supreme Court to do that is unlawful.

The Constitution as amended says what its adopters said it means.

Study the Federalist Papers and the Constituion as written to learn what it actually means.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

ican, You didn't provide any evidence by your last post. It's evident to all of us that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes down to the interpretation of our constitution.

Your interpretation is all wrong; the SC has it right. You can't even understand our constitution, and you're a citizen of this country?

You need to stay in your cave - where you belong. Our society is doing fine without you.

You are right! I haven't provided PROOF that Obama Healthcare Reform, TARP, Stimulus, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are illegal laws.

But you have provided neither EVIDENCE or PROOF they are legal laws.
I have provided EVIDENCE they are illegal laws.

Here is only some of the EVIDENCE I have provided:

The Constitution does not delegate power to the federal government to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not and do not earn it.

Amendment V. No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article III (1791)
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ...

Article VI
This Constitution ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives ... and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution ... .