Occupy – Revisited

In late 2011, I talked about the Occupy Wall Street movement.

For a while, it seemed that the “Occupy” movment had taken a break, but they are back. What is different this time, is that we know more about the “Occupiers.” Water Williams, who serves on the faculty of George Mason University exposed these “Downtrodden” folks.

Here are some interesting facts about the “Occupiers” who were arrested in NYC.

During last year’s Occupy movement, truly seedy-looking characters camped out on the streets and in the parks of several of our cities, causing millions of dollars of property damage. They committed robberies, thefts and sex crimes. Some of their lowlife acts, such as defecating and urinating in public and on police vehicles, were filmed. These people also portrayed themselves as 99 percenters. It turns out that they weren’t that at all.

Will Rahn, deputy editor for The Daily Caller, wrote an article titled “NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury” (Nov. 2, 2011). Nearly 1,000 protesters were arrested in New York between Sept. 18 and Oct. 15. Police collected information on each arrestee’s name, age, sex, criminal charge, home address and — in most cases — race. The median value of the homes of the arrestees was $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied homes of the rest of us. Ninety-five of the arrestees lived in homes valued at more than $500,000. Those who rented paid a median rent of $1,850 per month. Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. One Occupy Wall Street protester arrested — presumably, if you listen to the mainstream media, penniless and from a blue-collar family — lived in an $850,000 home in the nation’s capital.

This raises some questions – why were they in NYC causing trouble. Don’t they have a job? Do they feel guilty about their position in society? How many other posers are in the Occupy movement?

Slaves in Indiana

The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) filed a lawsuit claiming that Indiana’s right-to-work law violates the 13th Amendment, which states that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude…shall exist within the United States.” The union claims that:

The Defendants have exacted compulsory service and/or involuntary servitude from the Union through the combination of the passage of the Right to Work law and the existing federal requirement of the duty of fair representation. Through these laws the Union is compelled to furnish services to all persons in bargaining units that it represents, but it may not require payment for those services because of the Right to Work law.

Never mind that the Supreme Court has ruled that unions are free to write contracts that cover only dues-paying members. They do not have to give services to nonmembers. So why is the IUOE fighting tooth and nail against Indiana’s law?

Right-to-work laws prevent unions from forcing workers to pay union dues. The IUOE argues (with a straight face) that this is akin to slavery.

Let’s not forget that individuals who choose to work in a unionized company in a Right to Work state are not to be required to join a Union as a condition of receiving or retaining a job.

In 22 states in the Union, workers have the freedom under “Right-to-Work” laws to decide whether or not to pay union dues, and now Indiana is poised to become the twenty-third state on that list, bringing the workers there renewed hope in an economy that has seen few glimmers of light.

Indiana raises the count to 23 states.

What is interesting is the “big picture” impact of living in a Right to Work state.

The American Legislative Exchange Council recently published research completed by the National Institute for Labor Relations which provides five different forms of tangible information regarding the economic differences between right to work and non-right to work states. The research completed was based upon statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Census Bureau, United States Patent and Research Office and Bureau of Economic Analysis. Five economic factors were analyzed in right to work and non-right to work states in the Midwest, with the following statistical outcomes:

1. Percentage Growth in Non-Farm Private Sector Employees (1995-2005)
a. Right to Work States: 12.9%
b. Non-right to Work States: 6.0%

2. Average Poverty Rate-Adjusted for Cost of Living (2002-2004)
a. Right to Work States: 8.5%
b. Non-right to Work States: 10.1%

3. Percentage Growth in Patents Annually Granted (1995-2005)
a. Right to Work States: 33.0%
b. Non-right to Work States: 11.0%

4. Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income (1995-2005)
a. Right to Work States: 26.0%
b. Non-right to Work States: 19.0%

5. Percentage Growth in Number of People Covered by Employment Based Private Health Insurance (1995-2005):
a. Right to Work States: 8.5%
b. Non-right to Work States: 0.7%

As noted above, right to work states create more private sector jobs, enjoy lower poverty rates, experience more technology development, realize more personal income growth, and increase the number of people covered by employment-based private health insurance. These facts provide public policy thought leaders with compelling information regarding the importance of being a right to work state.

Unions will say that Right to Work legislation results in lower wages and benefits for everyone. If union membership is so attractive, wouldn’t people choose to pay union dues? The list (above), particularly items 4. and 5. suggest the opposite.

I think this isn’t about “equal pay for equal work,” it’s the power that the Unions have via the Union Dues. Their money pit influences legislation, elections and their employer. Any “crack in the dam” has to scare the Unions and their Union Bosses.

Peggy Joseph for President

Well, it’s actually Barack Obama, but they’re the same. They want someone else to pay for their goodies.

Generations of cradle-to-grave liberal policies and programs dispensing freebies – housing, healthcare, cash assistance, food, and new even cell phones – have succeeded only at creating huge disincentives to work.

The number of people on the dole has soared dramatically under Obama, increasing 23% in just two years. Today, more than 70% of the federal budget is spent on programs fostering dependence.

Which led Rush Limbaugh to say “Why work?”

To illustrate how the dependency programs are destroying the Middle Class. This chart, using Mississippi data is an example. If a single parent had a part time job making $14,5000 a year, the family’s eligibility for generous government benefits increased their disposable income to a shocking degree ($37,777)

And where does that $37,777 come from? …. You!

The Federal Government has made work a foolish enterprise for millions of Americans. It’s sad that you’re worse off earning $15/hr than you would be if you went on welfare. When it comes to income equality, the U.S. makes the professional couch potato the equivalent of the factory worker.

America is in danger of becoming a country of “people sitting on the couch waiting for the next government check”

I assume you are working while these folks are checking the mailbox.

In 1965, just 22 percent of all federal spending was transfer payments. Today it has doubled to 44 percent. That means that nearly half of all federal spending is simply government taking money from one person and giving it to another.

Good luck getting these “voters” to support “Welfare Reform.”

This is the road we are now on. The welfare state started with small programs targeted toward a small number of genuinely needy people. But as politicians figured out the electoral benefits of expanding programs and people realized they could let others work on their behalf, those programs grew until the point at which, today, every problem in society prompts calls for government action, response, or funding.

At the same time, as Governor Christie also noted, this implicitly tells people, “stop dreaming, stop striving.”

And it tells people to vote “what’s good for me, not what’s good for their country.”

This is the real danger of the welfare state. It’s not that it will bankrupt us — though it will. It is that it slowly and insidiously destroys our national character, saps our will to be great, and makes us content with the way things are rather than how they could be. We have seen where this road ends. As Governor Christie warns, it “will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally.” Just look to Europe today. The welfare states of Europe are imploding, collapsing under the weight of promises that can no longer be met. Their citizens riot in the streets at the prospect that their government benefits might be reduced.

And our Government is incapable to avoid the European “live action” decline.

And don’t expect any change in direction from the “Food Stamp President.”

Peggy Joseph (a.k.a. Barack Obama) doesn’t have a problem, as long as these moochers continue to vote for him, early and often.

George Constanza and Obama

I am a huge fan of the TV Series “Seinfeld,” and sometimes when I read about what Obama has to say, I think he could be a great character in a Seinfeld-like sitcom. While on Spring Break with my family, I read an editorial that made me think of this episode of Seinfeld:

Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming made some observations that made me think “Do the opposite.” Here are some excerpts from the editorial:

On Monday, the U.S. Senate will vote on President Obama’s Buffett tax. The bill is a political gimmick that’s supposed to distract Americans from the president’s miserable record instead of solving problems.

Americans know by now that the bill won’t create a single job and it won’t ease the pain at the pump. And President Obama and the White House have finally given up pretending that his new tax will balance the budget.

Even if he did put the new revenue towards the debt, it would only cover what Washington spends in about a day and a half.

All this bill does is waste time and continue to push the president’s distorted definition of “fairness.”

And it would pay for a week of interest on out debt.

President Obama thinks it’s fair that our children and grandchildren will be burdened with debt because of his unprecedented reckless spending. Washington borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends.

He thinks it’s fair to pile another $40,000 of debt onto every household in the U.S. over the last three years.

In the 39 months since Obama’s took the oath of office, Obama has generated over $5,000,000,000,000 in debt.

He thinks it’s fair to use college students as props for his campaign-style rallies, without explaining how his bad policies will leave them in debt.

He has, pretty much eviscerated the private student loan companies, which means the government will have another pool of bad loans that will be charged on the taxpayers credit card issued by China.

He thinks it’s fair to force hardworking taxpayers to subsidize a wealthy person’s purchase of a hybrid luxury car — because it fits his idea for American energy.

Those cars are so popular that they are on fire, literally. The NY Times has exposed green energy as a bad “investment.”

He thinks it’s fair to hand out hundreds of millions of tax dollars to politically connected solar energy companies that then go bankrupt.

Failed “green” companies include:

Solar Trust of America: FAIL
Bright Source: FAIL
Solyndra: FAIL
LSP Energy: FAIL
Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL
Abound Solar: FAIL
SunPower: FAIL
Beacon Power: FAIL
Ecotality: FAIL
A123 Solar: FAIL
UniSolar: FAIL
Azure Dynamics: FAIL
Evergreen Solar: FAIL
Ener1: FAIL

Guess who pays for these failures.

He thinks it’s fair to tell thousands of workers they won’t have jobs because he blocked the Keystone XL pipeline — to solidify the support of a few far left environmentalists.

He would have people on unemployment rather than have a job.

And apparently President Obama thinks it’s fair that three years of his policies have left us with more people on food stamps, more people in poverty, lower home values, higher gas prices and higher unemployment.

So much for Hope & Change, but of course, this is the fault of George Bush.

The American people strongly disagree. To the vast majority, fair means an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams. They also recognize that no man and no government can provide a guarantee of success.

To President Obama, fair requires nothing less than a totally equal outcome.

Reminds me of Karl Marx “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The waves of immigrants who came to our shores over generations did so for freedom and for a chance to succeed. They did not come here to be taken care of, or to have every decision made for them by the government. That’s what many of them left behind.

When President Obama pushes for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity, he pits one group of Americans against another. He is telling people it’s not right for someone else to have something they don’t have.

That may be a good campaign tactic, but it’s not true—and it’s bad for our country.

When you can’t run on your record, you have to resort to policies like the Buffett Rule, which won’t create a single job, if you exclude the Tax attorneys who will help the “Rich” avoid the tax.

In America, it’s possible for all of us to prosper. That is part of what made America the best from the very beginning. Here all of us can do better — not at the expense of our neighbors, but by our own effort.

That would require a vibrant economy, which will not happen in an economy that is driven by government spending, stimulus packages and unemployment benefits. Yes, Obama said “Unemployment Benefits Better Than Creating Jobs.”

Our country’s social safety net was established to catch people from falling — not to entangle them so they cannot rise. It certainly should never be used to justify burdening taxpayers with trillions of dollars in new debt.

According to the Heritage Foundation, “If the average historical level of tax revenue is extended, spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Obamacare subsidy program will consume all revenues by 2049.”

Somewhere along the way, Washington twisted the honorable American impulse to care for the least fortunate among us.

The Obama definition of “fairness” now threatens to produce a culture of dependency that weakens our society.

Today’s debate over this new tax increase demonstrates the two different approaches to this country’s future. President Obama’s may believe it’s fair for Washington to dictate the rules so that everyone is equal in the end. Republicans want to promote economic growth for everybody, not equality of outcome at everybody’s expense.

Despite what President Obama believes, true fairness requires equal opportunity, so that all may pursue their dreams. America was founded on that idea. That’s what will lead us to a more prosperous future for all.

Americans deserve policies that promote growth and opportunity, not more taxes and spending.

To get America going in the right direction, we need new leadership that thinks that liberty is more important that big government.

It’s time to do the opposite!

Obama Continues His War on Success

The core of his message is:

President Obama calls on Congress to pass the Buffett Rule, a principle that ensures that millionaires and billionaires do not pay less in taxes as a share of their income than middle class families pay — as a matter of fairness.

Since Obama is illiterate when it comes to anything related to the economy, it might help if he visited the IRS website where he will find this data:

The difference between statutory income tax rates and effective tax rates is what he is focused on. Two of the largest drivers of this difference is the tax on Capital gains and Dividends. Imagine if Obama stopped talking about raising taxes on the rich and talked about raising taxes on Capital gains and dividends.

Data from the Tax Foundation reflect these differences:

The Top 1% pay an average tax rate of 24.01%
The Bottom 50% pay an average tax rate of 1.85%
The 25%-50% (middle class?) pay an average tax rate of 5.58%
All Taxpayers pay an average tax rate of 11.06%

So, if Obama want’s the rich to pay a share of their income similar to what the middle class families pay, I’m sure the rich will be happy to oblige.

What bothers me is that Warren Buffett started this “Tax The Rich” movement with a NYT Editorial. Here is his analysis:

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

Obama has translated this “policy” into higher taxes on anyone making more that $250,000, and added that anyone who makes more than $1 million should pay a tax rate of 30%. That’s a long way from the calculation that Bufffett did, indicating that the super rich’s average aggregate income was a “staggering $227.4 million on average.”

I used to have a lot of respect for Warren Buffett, but no longer. Why has he not been critical of the twisting of his “Coddling the super rich” suggestion.

As a revenue driver, the Buffett Rule is a loser.

A bill designed to enact President Barack Obama’s plan for a “Buffett rule” tax on the wealthy would rake in just $47 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress’ official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.

That a drop in the bucket of Obama’s deficits, but Obama doesn’t care about how much revenue the Buffett Rule generates. This is what he had to say with Charles Gibson at ABC:

Obama’s Puppet Master on Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare

I got this email over the weekend. If it wasn’t so sad, I would have to laugh.

From David Axlerod, Obama’s Puppet Master:

I like Obamacare.

I’m proud of it — and you should be, too.

Here’s why: Because it works.

So if you’re with me, say it: “I like Obamacare.”

Obamacare means never having to worry about getting sick and running up against a lifetime cap on insurance coverage. It gives parents the comfort of knowing their kids can stay on their insurance until they’re 26, and that a “pre-existing condition” like an ear infection will never compromise their child’s coverage.

It’s about ending the practice of letting insurance companies charge women 50 percent more — just because they’re women.

And Obamacare can save seniors hundreds of dollars a year on prescription drugs — and gives them access to preventive care that is saving their lives.

President Obama never lost sight of the fact that this reform is about people. People like his own mother, who spent the last years of her life fighting cancer — and fighting with insurance companies, too.

That shouldn’t happen. And because of Obamacare, it can’t.

So next time you hear someone railing against Obamacare, remember what they’re actually saying they want to take away.

And, today, stand with me in saying, “Hell yeah, I’m for Obamacare”:


P.S. — Side note: Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security “Roosevelt Security”? Or if Medicare was “LBJ-Care”? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?

Let’s talk about Obamacare:

Just before President Obama’s national health care law passed in March 2010, I created a chart to visualize how Democrats had delayed implementation of the major spending provisions until 2014, so that 98 percent of its $940 billion projected cost came in the last six years of the Congressional Budget Office’s 10-year budget window. This allowed Democrats to claim the legislation met Obama’s pledge that the law would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years,” even though the true cost was far higher. Yesterday, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and with the shifted timeline, the ten-year cost of the law’s core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now escalated to $1.76 trillion. So I’ve created the updated graph below. Notice how low the numbers are in the 2010 to 2013 time period and how they quickly soar. All the spending to the right of the black line wasn’t reflected in the CBO’s estimate for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) at the time of passage.

Let’s talk about Medicare and Social Security:

ABC News’ Tahman Bradley reports: The country’s benefit programs for the elderly – Medicare and Social Security – will be exhausted sooner than thought due to the economic downturn, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees said today.
Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Fund is projected to exhaust its funds in 2024, five years sooner than last year’s estimate, and Social Security will be exhausted in 2036, a year earlier than previously thought, the trustees announced.

A few charts indicate the trouble that Social Security and Medicare are facing:

Let’s not forget that Obama’s payroll holiday further weakens Social Security and Medicare. This is in addition to the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare in Obamacare. I agree with Axlerod putting Obamacare in the same class as Social Security and Medicare . They are budget busters that are/will be budget black holes.

Until Liberals in Congress realize that doing nothing will result in the slow death of Social Security and Medicare, we will continue to dig their graves. Obamacare just makes it much more difficult to get our budget in balance and begin to reduce our growing national debt.

Sherrod Brown "an accomplished fighter for Ohio’s middle class families?"

These are the words of the former Governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland. Thank God he is the former Governor.

In 2010, the Tax Foundation rated Ohio 47th in the State Business Climate Index. This put Ohio in the Top 10 Worst State Business Tax Climate.

After John Kasich was elected Governor, Ohio improved to the 46th rank, still in the the Top 10 Worst State Business Tax Climate.

In the 2012, Ohio improved to 39th.

Now Strickland wants you to support Sherrod Brown in 2012:

Sherrod Brown an accomplished fighter for the Middle Class? I don’t think so. Here is an excerpt from another Third Base Politics post:

When Sherrod Brown was sworn into office in January 2007, Ohio’s unemployment rate was 5.4%. Today it stands at 7.7%. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website, www.data.bls.gov, Accessed 3/4/12) (Ohio Department of Job and Family Servicies Website, http://jfs.ohio.gov/releases/unemp/201202/unemppressrelease.asp, Accessed 3/5/12)

Brown predicted the stimulus bill passed in 2009 would help create 133,000 jobs in Ohio. Since then, Ohio has lost more than 81,300 jobs. (Senator Sherrod Brown Website, www.brown.senate.gov, Accessed 1/26/11) (Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website, www.data.bls.gov, Accessed 3/4/12)

Brown talks of leveling the playing field with China, yet since he went to Washington, the United States’ trade deficit with China has increased $272,679,500,000. (U.S. Census Bureau Website, http://www.census.gov, Accessed 3/4/12)

Almost two decades ago, Brown said America’s “massive national debt” was the greatest threat our country faced. When he said that our national debt stood at $4.2 trillion. Today, it is more than $15 trillion. (U.S. Department Of Treasury, www.treasurydirect.gov, Accessed 11/29/11) (U.S. Department Of Treasury, www.treasurydirect.gov, Accessed 3/4/12)

The most interesting comments from the post were:

“I (Sherrod Brown)think this whole race, as it should be, is about the five years that I’ve worked in the Senate for job creation in this state.”

“If Sherrod Brown actually wants this election to be about his abysmal record on job creation in the last five years, then that is a point on which we can agree. Only a 37-year politician like Sherrod Brown can be living in such a fantasy land that he thinks Ohioans should reward him with six more years in Washington based on his record of massive job losses, trillions more in debt, and an even bigger trade gap with China. Ohioans know that Sherrod Brown’s extreme liberal approach of bigger government, more debt, and more Washington control over our lives is killing jobs in Ohio.”

Now, if we can only get Obama to run on his record.

Uber Liberals Brown and Obama Distance Themselves From the Fallout of Their Policies

With higher gas prices turning into a campaign liability, uber Liberals Sherrod Brown and Barack Hussein Obama are trying to distance themselves from the fallout of their energy policies.

In a recent email Brown says:

With the average price per gallon of gas in Ohio topping off at $3.85, small business owners and families are eager for economic relief. Daniel Jarvis, who owns his own independent trucking company in Ohio, recently joined me at a gas station in Northeast Ohio because he’s siphoning off more and more money to afford record-high prices at the gas station.

Ohioans like Daniel deserve relief from high gas prices.

While there’s no single silver bullet, one way to help lower them is to address speculation. As Ohio families struggle to afford gas, Big Oil companies and Wall Street investors are getting rich. Every time there’s an outage in a pipeline, or a fire at a refinery, or turmoil in the Middle East, oil companies and Wall Street speculators use it as an excuse to spike the price of oil.

I would like to hear Brown explain the differences between speculation and investors and corporations hedging their exposures to higher input costs. Does Brown have any evidence that speculators are behind the rise in gas prices?

In a recent email from the current occupant of the White House says:

When oil prices go down, will Obama reinstate subsidies? Of course, the President does not understand the free market system. There are times when companies lose money and there are times where companies make money, and in some times, they make a lot of money. Does that mean that they are evil? Does that mean that the government should limit their profits?

Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post exposes the anti-oil Liberals here:

President Obama incessantly claims energy open-mindedness, insisting that his policy is “all of the above.” Except, of course, for drilling:

●off the Mid-Atlantic coast (as Virginia, for example, wants);

●off the Florida Gulf Coast (instead, the Castro brothers will drill near there);

●in the broader Gulf of Mexico (where drilling in 2012 is expected to drop 30 percent below pre-moratorium forecasts);

●in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (more than half the size of England, the drilling footprint being the size of Dulles International Airport);

●on federal lands in the Rockies (where leases are down 70 percent since Obama took office).

But the event that drove home the extent of Obama’s antipathy to nearby, abundant, available oil was his veto of the Keystone pipeline, after the most extensive environmental vetting of any pipeline in U.S. history. It gave the game away because the case for Keystone is so obvious and overwhelming. Vetoing it gratuitously prolongs our dependence on outside powers, kills thousands of shovel-ready jobs, forfeits a major strategic resource to China, damages relations with our closest ally, and sends billions of oil dollars to Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and already obscenely wealthy sheiks.

Read the rest of this excellent anaylsis by Krauthammer here:

Thank You Governor Kasich

In mid 2011, I talked about Ohio’s Liberals efforts to build “High Speed Rail.” The bulk of my message was:

In 2009, Sherrod Brown urged the Federal Railroad Administration to provide stimulus funding for a high speed rail service to connect Ohio’s largest urban areas. Brown’s motivation was “economic development and job creation.” In January 2010, Obama rewarded his fair haired boy from Ohio with $400m in stimulus funds to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. In December 2010, Ohio’s new Governor John Kasich forfeited the stimulus funding saying that “there are too many unanswered questions about how many people would ride the train, how fast the train would go, and how much it would cost.” At the time, the incoming Governor, Kasich, was facing an $8 billion budget deficit courtesy of out-going Governor Ted Strickland. Yet Strickland wouldn’t go quietly. He said “I fear that history will show that this one uninformed decision will be looked upon with regret by future generations of Ohioans.” While the future generations of Ohioans have not weighed in on this yet, it seems like Strickland was uninformed and the early returns suggest that Ohio dodged a fiscal bullet.

Where did the “stimulus” funding go?

In California, one of the prime beneficiaries of the forfeited Ohio cash, the LA Times referred to the high speed rail project as a “train wreck”, and added that “there is a powerful argument for scrapping Obama’s national rail plan,” and added “California is a test case whether high speed trains can succeed in the U.S., and so far, the state is failing.”

California’s Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), a non-partisan fiscal and policy source of analysis for the California Legislature, has weighed in in saying that “the Legislature faces challenging choices about whether even to proceed with the project, noting that the projects optimistic 2009 business plan counts on federal, state and private funding that may not materialize.” The LAO report urges lawmakers to slash funding to the project while its future is reevaluated.

Fast forward to today:

California’s distressed state budget will have to allot more than $700 million each year to repay billions of dollars that officials plan to borrow to build the first phase of a proposed bullet train, a nonpartisan government research office has found.

The new estimate is part of an analysis of a proposed statewide vote on the controversial $98.5-billion fast-train link between Los Angeles and the Bay Area. The bullet train’s impact on the cash-strapped state general fund budget, which funds schools and other basic services, could be a major point of contention in the Legislature this year.

With the state short about $86 billion to finish the initial phase, the project has faced increasingly tough questions in Sacramento, even while Gov. Jerry Brown has reiterated his support.

Gov. Brown still supports the project, but:

A recent Field Poll found that two-thirds of likely voters in the state want another chance to vote on the project and 59% would reject it because of the price tag. The results are similar to those of a public opinion survey done earlier this year by Probolsky Research of Newport Beach, which found that 62.4% of likely voters would reject the project if given the chance.

As I said in 2011, which now can be said about California’s Brown:

It’s safe to say that Sherrod Brown doesn’t think about the cost to taxpayers (Ohio & National). He wants more union jobs that will fund his re-election campaign. We now know that the CBO has increased the cost of the Stimulus program. It’s now $830b, and the CBO says that the increase in employment as a result was 3.3 million on the high side. At over $250k per job, that’s, a bargain to Progressives Democrats like Brown.

As an Ohio & Federal taxpayer, I thank Governor Kasich for avoiding this Liberal Debt trap.