Since When is Our Dining Room Table a Nexus?

Nexus—a level of commercial activity within a legal jurisdiction that is sufficient to require a business to meet the jurisdiction’s tax regulations, including the collection and remittance of a sales tax.
The American Heritage Dictionary of Business Terms.


It’s all my wife’s fault. She created a website for heart shaped rings (www.heart-rings.net). That site provides photos and descriptions of heart-shaped rings from sellers such as Amazon and Kohls and Target and others.

Shoppers do web searches and come across her site. If they click on one of her listings they get taken to the site where the item is actually for sale. If they purchase the item Carolyn gets a “commission”. Not bad. She’s got hundreds of hours invested in creating the site. She makes a little bit from sales.

The State of California wants to declare our dining room table a “nexus” or a place of business. That’s where my wife’s laptop sits and where she does her work—except for when she moves her laptop over to the couch to work on the computer and get her daily “Criminal Minds” or “Lenny” fix. What California is trying to do is come up with a way to require online retailers like Amazon and Overstock to collect sales tax on its sales. And they’re using Carolyn to try to do it. Good luck.


Amazon says that if California does that then they will terminate their arrangement with all “affiliates” in California.

Oops, a tug of war between Amazon and California centered over the activities that go on at our dining room table.

Now I know that the state of California is just about broke and is doing everything and anything it can to scare up a few billion bucks. But this is ridiculous. Right now Carolyn is putzing around on her computer 5 feet away from me at the other end of the dining room table, hair pulled back, in a blue bath robe and pajamas, reading glasses halfway down her nose. Yep, she’s a retail dynamo. And by the way, the few hundred dollars she’ll make this year from her site will be duly reported on our income taxes.

That’s how ridiculous this is. Amazon has already terminated affiliates in a few states which have declared affiliates to constitute a “nexus” in order to require sales tax collection. California’s legislation will be moot about 5 minutes after Gov. Brown would sign the bill. That’s how long it’ll take Amazon to terminate affiliates and negate any tax benefit California would derive.

Now I can’t fault the state of California or any other state from wanting to see sales taxes collected and remitted. If a product is being purchased online and used at the point of delivery then sales taxes should be paid. If there’s any real greed or tax avoidance going on here it’s on the part of Amazon and Overstock and other online only retailers. My problem comes in the manner in which California and other states are attempting to define as a nexus.

The world of business has changed markedly in the last decade. There is now a tremendous volume of retail activity on the internet. There needs to be a different and better definition. The old definition of “nexus” is at best obsolete in online retail buying and selling. State government efforts which would define our dining room table as a nexus are legislative legerdemain and throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. It’s also harder to define what constitutes “interstate commerce” as subject to regulation by the federal government.

How about this then? Rather than the tenuous nexus of our dining room table that California would like to see, how about approaching it on a federal level. It doesn’t matter where a seller of goods on the internet has an actual location. Amazon has no retail locations (unlike WalMart or Target or thousands of other retailers who also engage in internet sales and collect sales taxes). Amazon by its very nature is an online enterprise.

What that means is that the “nexus” for Amazon starts with a buyer accessing Amazon.com through whatever portal, affiliate or search engine that person is using. That is the point of sale. It proceeds to the placing of an order and ends when the merchandise is received by the buyer. As far as I’m concerned, that is the nexus and the point of sale is essentially the address to which the product is going to be delivered. That is the presumed point of use. Amazon should collect the appropriate sales tax on that transaction and then remit it to the appropriate state.



The remedy is Federal not state. It concerns the interstate commerce provisions in Article I Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Let’s acknowledge that this is an issue never envisioned by the framers of the Constitution and regulate it properly.

Interestingly, Amazon claims that this is an onerous burden fraught with complexities between the various taxing bodies (i.e. states). Isn’t that amazing for a company which employs hundreds, if not thousands of programmers. In fact, an article on a website called “The New Rules Project” entitled “Internet Sales Tax Fairness” had the following comment:

“Today, software has largely eliminated the difficulty of calculating and remitting sales taxes for the country's many state and local jurisdictions. Indeed, Amazon.com, which opposes extending sales tax to online retailers on the grounds that it would be "horrendously complicated," collects sales taxes nationwide for Target as part of its management of the chain's online business.”

Come on Amazon, get real. Come on California, get real and stay out of my dining room. My wife isn’t a nexus and neither are the 10,000 other Amazon affiliates in California. We’re just going to be the losers in the state’s tug-of-war over sales taxes.

California Dreamin'--What a Freakin' Nightmare

Not that anyone else on the North American continent cares but that bastion of culture in which I live, California, continues to remind me more of a break-away former Soviet Republic or what used to be called a Banana Republic in Central America than the “Bear Republic” which joined the union in 1850.

It’s going on 100 days now that the State has been without a budget. OK, so let’s take a pause here to consider how the rest of this is going to go: Do I degenerate it into the profanity laced rant, which those wonderful guys and gals elected to the Legislature in Sacramento so thoroughly deserve? Or do I remain somewhat academic and philosophical, staying above the putrid political parsimony? I’m not sure yet.


Oh, to hell with it. Here’s the bottom line: The State of California is without a budget. It’s been 100 days. The amount of budget deficit the Legislature and Governor have to close is $19 billion. No progress has been made. The longer it goes the worse it gets. And no one seems to care in Sacramento. There is absolutely no thought or consideration given to the citizens and taxpayers of this state. Elected officials apparently couldn’t care less about the needs of the citizens and taxpayers of this state.

And the media devotes scant attention. There was a story in the paper today (San Diego Union Tribune) which was one column wide and maybe 8 inches long on about page 6. Of course the amount of attention given to Meg Whitman’s “scandal” of having employed a domestic worker who may be an illegal immigrant garnered plenty of front page attention.

You know, California has a long tradition of referred measures showing up on the ballot on all manner of different issues. I can think of 2 which might be more than welcome.

The first would be the “None of the Above” Amendment to the State’s Constitution. All State and local elections would require an additional option and box for each position on the ballot. That would be an option to vote for “None of the Above”. If “None of the Above” wins, then that contest would have to start over again from scratch. None of the candidates who were on the ballot could run for the office again in that election. Just a thought. When I think of choosing between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, I crave and yearn for a “None of the Above” option.

The other is a throwback to something that was a legislative tradition for decades in both the 19th and 20th centuries in many states. It would be the “Cover the Clock” law. If the Constitutionally mandated date for a balanced budget is not achieved the clock in the chambers of the legislature will be covered at 11:59 p.m. on the deadline date. That way the clock, officially, does not move.

Date and time are legally frozen until the members of the Legislature perform their duty. Oh, by the way, that also means that the budget for the Legislative branch stops at that point in time too. Legislators do not get paid. They do not get their car allowance. Their staffs do not get paid. And so forth. Let the Legislature be the first to sacrifice for its own intransigence and incompetence.

The bottom line, quite frankly, is that these people just really, flat out, don’t care. It’s all about power and the trappings of the office rather than safeguarding “the people’s” money and providing the best public service at public expense possible. By the way, I’m totally OK with the idea that you might think that naïve. And, finally it seems that lameduck Governor Arnold Swartzenegger has pretty much given up. He ran for the office to clean up Sacramento and bring fiscal responsibility back to California’s government and has dismally failed. He’s neither brokering nor leading an effort to solve an impasse or to create the prudent fiscal policy that California’s dire economic straits require.

I just can’t wait to see the TV commercial next year of some scruffy guy opening up a box delivered by FedEX and taking out the Deed to the State of California and then proudly proclaiming, “I got it on E-Bay”. Hmmm, problem solved.

Streetlights, Nightlights and a Congressman

Part 1: Quiet Night, Nightlight
For some reason I woke up at about 2 a.m. this morning after having dozed off again on the couch. The quietness got my attention. By quiet I mean that there was no traffic noise, no kid noise, just some night birds out on their rounds. So I went out on the balcony to absorb it. I loved the peacefulness of that quiet.

Looking around while breathing in the fresh nighttime air, I noticed something that I first spotted about a month ago. The City of Vista, California where I live is building a new $55 million City Hall (in California they’re called “Civic Centers”). OK, nothing wrong with that because the City has been using an old decrepit elementary school for a City Hall for about 25-30 years.

3:00 a.m. The lights are on at City Hall construction site--nobody's home

So what’s bugging me? Well, the new City Hall is about 300 yards in a straight line from my balcony. It’s 3 stories high so I can see it from where I live. Why do the construction people have to leave the lights on in the entire structure 24/7? Can’t someone turn the lights off at night except for necessary security lights? How much is that costing the taxpayers?

Part 2: Dark Tunnel, No Light
One stinking, lousy streetlight. That’s all I wanted and all I asked for. What I got was a painted line. A painted line is better than nothing. But it doesn’t diminish the darkness.

What the hell am I talking about? Just a little difference of opinion I had with the City of Vista, California where I live. You see there’s this intersection a couple of blocks from where I live. The intersection of South Citrus Ave. and Eucalyptus. It’s 2 blocks from the downtown. There are no streetlights. And at night it’s dark. Real dark. Spooky dark.

I’m consider myself to be a really good driver and this intersection (especially turning right from Eucalyptus to Citrus) is scary. As soon as you start to turn right, the street starts to descend to where you can’t see the right shoulder. You have to know it’s there and how far you can or can’t get over.

Just 1 stinking, lousy streetlight--Please!

So, I sent an e-mail to the City Street department which got bucked over to the Engineering Department which contacted me to tell me that there wasn’t any money in the budget for a streetlight there but that I was welcome to contact the power company and pay for it myself. Say what? My response that I was referring to public property was met by an offer to paint a white line along the shoulder at the turn to mark it better. OK, better than nothing.

Well, I hadn’t driven through there in a good 6 months until recently. And I had forgotten just how dark it is. It’s dangerous dark to the point where I’m uncomfortable driving it. It’s also dangerous for any pedestrians who might be out at night. And, there’s been at least one mugging there too.

Is it too much to ask for one stinking, lousy street light at this intersection and for the damn city to turn off the lights at the City Hall construction site at night?

Part 3: To My Congressman
Darrell Issa is the Congressman for my district. He lists his address as the city where I live, Vista, California. Rep. Issa was vehemently opposed to the new HealthCare legislation recently passed by Congress.

Now, if and when Rep. Issa is “home” in Vista, I’m sure that he lives in a pretty good neighborhood. (Let’s put it this way, if you’ve ever bought a security alarm for a car, there’s pretty good odds that it’s a “Viper” made by Issa’s company). This guy is, according to Wikipedia, the wealthiest Congressman.

So, I’m guessing that Rep. Issa has rarely, if ever, been into my neighborhood of Vista (it’s an area that my wife described as “semi-barrio” when we first started dating). He’s got his. And his constituents tend to be the affluent Republicans who tend to flock together in this area.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of them and all he has to do is keep them happy. The type of people who live in my neighborhood tend to be less likely to vote and less likely to complain. They’re too busy trying to make ends meet.

But, I’ve always had this thought that a Congressman or Legislator or City Council member needs to represent all of his or her constituents (pretty damn naïve for someone with a Master’s degree in Political Science, isn’t it).

So here’s my point—it’s an invitation. Congressman, come on over to my apartment. It’s just a half-block off Vista Way and you won’t have to go too far into the Hispanic Townsite neighborhood that the paper invariably refers to as “hardscrabble”.

Let’s hang out on the balcony for about an hour and just observe. I’ll even throw some burgers or sausage on the grill. But, let’s observe the people of this neighborhood. They’re your constituents too. Who are they? What are they?

They’re overwhelmingly brown. They’ve got families. They walk more places than you do because they don’t have much money. Many don’t have cars. The hold their children’s hands as they walk. The little girls look like gorgeous dolls and the boys like mischievous rascals. You can sense and feel the love they’re given. Love has nothing to do with economics. Except that if you don’t have much to give, you can still give love—it’s inexhaustible.

The teens are typical and normal. Even though they might not have much, they’ve got i-Pods and cell phones. Someone sacrificed to get them too. It’s not like a lot of other neighborhoods were there is no economic sacrifice and people have plenty.

So this is our neighborhood. Notice the young Moms with toddlers who are pregnant again. I wonder what kind of health insurance they’ve got? I wonder what kind of pre-natal care they’re getting.

Come on over, Rep. Issa. We won’t make a big press deal out of it or anything—that’s not the point. Just observe (no entourage or security). And maybe you can wander out and talk to a few. Find out what’s on their minds. Don’t worry, most speak English. It’s cool to listen to the kids going to school or coming home seamlessly switching back and forth from English to Spanish all the while sounding like what they are—kids.

And after you hang out for a bit, head on back to Shadowridge Country Club. Maybe some of the guys there who are trimming the bushes live in my neighborhood. And maybe, you’ll be able to understand just a little bit better.

Come on over, Rep. Issa. Just for an hour.

Cheap Bastid's What to do on a Rainy Day Off in California

Well, today was my day off. And, it’s been raining all week. The hardest and most rain was today. That’s winter in Southern California. Truth be told, as a transplanted Midwesterner, I’ve been rather enjoying it.

And today’s the only day off I have until next Friday. I’ll spend the next 7 days straight trying to sell cars, develop business and earn a pay check. But that’s OK, it’s a schedule you can get used to (just like any other old hound dog laying under the porch). So, what to do today when it’s rainin? Well, the tryst with my bride this afternoon was fantastic.

Most of the day though, I was the Cheap Bastid. I’ve been cooking. Right now the apartment smells fantastic because I’ve got a whole chicken roasting in the oven (77 cents a pound at Stater’s) and I’m cooking down the giblets into a broth to use in the gravy for the mashed potatoes that are waiting to be cooked on the stove.

Cheap Bastid also went grocery shopping today. And, I made a big casserole dish of Baked Ziti that Carolyn will pop into the oven tomorrow evening for dinner when I get home at 9. And I baked an apple crisp for dessert tonight.

Hmmmm, a pretty busy day. I loved it. It’s supposed to stop raining sometime tomorrow. The hummingbirds won’t look so bedraggled stopping by the feeder. Hopefully they’ll be hungry after several days of hunkering down. The TV news will have to find some topic for their hyperbole other than eucalyptus trees falling down, flooded streets, rocks, mud and how bad the Chargers suck.

And we’re going to enjoy some pretty good eating! That always makes Cheap Bastid happy.

Law & Order: Take Back the Night

Last Tuesday was the “National Night Out”. It’s billed by organizers as “America’s night out against crime.”

This event is held nationwide and according to the group’s website, it is “celebrated” in over 15,000 communities including my own city of Vista, California.
(North County Times Photo)

One of the things that kind of bugs me a bit is that, at least in the San Diego area, communities mainly hold a citizen’s walk against crime often dubbed “Take Back the Night”. They usually march on a street in a neighborhood with the highest crime in the area. In Vista, they walk up my street, right in front of our apartment. Of course, the walk is held starting at 5 p.m. and in early August that’s not night! Most of the walkers wouldn’t be caught dead in our neighborhood anyway.

I know what the crime statistics say about our neighborhood. But I don’t see it. Although a tagger nailed our mailbox sometime in the last week. If I see anything at all it’s what I would term “crimes of fashion” from some of the get-ups that the kids wear who walk up our street to get to school each day.

Mostly what I see are hard-working families who are just getting by. Granted there are a lot of young men wearing what some see as “gang apparel” but again I think that a guy who’s 5’6”, 150 lbs wearing XXL plaid shorts that come halfway down his shins and a XXXXL white t-shirt than comes most of the way down to the bottom of his shorts is committing one of those “crimes of fashion” more so than being a gang-banger. And long ago I gave up any notion that kids on skateboards are nothing more than hooligans. It’s just a means of transportation now. (By the way, Moms all over Vista wonder just how they keep those t-shirts so damn snowy white).

My wife is always reminding me that just a couple blocks up the street the neighborhood changes dramatically—but I’ve never really experienced it nor do I necessarily believe it. I just keep seeing these young families pushing strollers in the evening or walking home from the 99 Cent Only store with their bags or walking their dogs—everything from chihuahuas to pit bulls. And both of those critters tend to walk their owner rather than the other way around.

(North County Times Photo)

So this year there were 250 people trooping up the street, talking, waving signs and gawking. It was preceded by a phalanx of cops on bicycles, a couple of motorcycle cops and a couple of “black and whites”. With the exception of the bike cops it was about what they usually use for a traffic stop around here.

Now the bike and motorcycle cops were going up the street at a pretty good clip ahead of the marchers as if they had to clear traffic so that they could get this thing done. At this community relations event, one of the bicycle cops stopped in the middle of the cross street a half block from my balcony. I watched as he “blocked” the street with his bike and shouted at the lone vehicle approaching the stop sign. “Stop! Stop! What’s the matter with you!” he shouted as the pickup stopped 10-12 feet away. “You can’t turn here. Go back or wait!” Yep, real good community relations.

These folks seemed to be in a hurry to march up the street, turn around and come back, almost as if they were running a gauntlet and taunting all of us miscreants who live along Citrus Ave. I kept waiting for a chant of “Hell no, we won’t go!” but that was from a different era.

One of the goofy things around here is that the population is a good 2/3 Hispanic. I’m often referred to as the “lone Gringo” by my non-Spanish speaking, 100% Hispanic wife. But people are reasonably friendly even though we have a bit of a language barrier. All the babies and toddlers bring out the “inner Grandpa” in me and are a source of amusement. The kids in our apartment building are typical laughing and shrieking for no good reason other than they’re alive just like any other kids.

So, the “parade” passed by and about a half hour later came back. I don’t think they wanted to “take back the night” because it was still broad daylight and they seemed eager to get done and maybe to go out for pizza (that would have been the only way they were still out after dark) before disappearing into their gated enclaves.

We do get some occasional excitement though. I woke up early on the 4th of July and happened to spot a police car slowly rolling up the street just a bit before 6. I was sipping my first cup of coffee and waiting for the newspaper when another police car came along. Then 2 more. No lights. No sirens.

Then officers were heading for a duplex about 2/3 of a block away. It kind of reminded me of a scene from “Tombstone”. Handguns were out and being brandished in that 2 handed grip. Shotguns where being cautiously waved as if the deputy were expecting a quail to flush any second.
I got out my camera and started taking a few pictures as the police began calling for people in the home to come out, hands-up. I was thoroughly ready for gunfire and was glad I had stayed on my balcony rather than go moseying up there like a true “lookieloo”. Anyway, apparently the person they were looking for wasn’t around because after about 45 minutes the cops were gone. I had to wait until that night for my 4th of July fireworks.

Here’s the bottom line. So we’re the street that the march against crime comes down. So there are more brown people around here than anything else. So there’s probably some gang related stuff that goes down. We love this neighborhood. We’re not the types to go live on the other side of the highway down in the gated communities with their Lexus driving pretentiousness.

Besides, this place keeps life interesting.

And the Beat Goes On--California's Smoke & Mirror Budget

(Note: You might like scrolling to the bottom and clicking on the YouTube video then reading this post while you listen)

Remember “Cheers”? I’ve always been more Cliff Claven than anyone else, but I’m thinking about Woody. There were times when stuff would happen to Woody, either with a girlfriend or some other personal disaster.

Sam or Diane or Norm would ask him something like, “Aren’t you really mad about that?”

To which Woody would respond, in that flat, monotone, Midwestern way, “I’m a little ticked.”

Well, I’m more than a little ticked and it’s been bugging me all morning. You see, I have the misfortune to live in California. The State of California just announced yesterday that the Legislature and Governor’s office have agreed to a balanced budget for the fiscal year that started 3 weeks ago. And we’re all supposed to rejoice.

Except that it’s a crock. It’s a sham. It’s a subterfuge. It’s fraud.

Our grand-glorious Governor and Legislature have put together a budget which does not contain tax increases and yet manages to close a $26 billion deficit. Sure, and I’m going to wake up tomorrow with a full head of hair.

Granted, as AP reported, “the plan cuts $15 billion from government programs by slashing spending on schools, universities, health care, welfare and in-home support for the disabled and frail.

They just don’t get it. The time for “smoke and mirrors” and sleight of hand are over. But that’s exactly the kind of budget that has been created. The most egregious example of that is a proposal to “save”$1.2 billion by paying state employees on July 1, 2010 rather than on June 30, 2010 (in other words pushing their paycheck one day into the following fiscal year).

The state is also going to take $4 billion worth of payments to local governments and use it to balance the budget—repaying it with interest over 3 years.

But the good news is that legislative Republicans prevailed. There are no new taxes or tax increases. No, that will be left to the municipalities who will have to increase fees and taxes in order to balance their own precarious budgets.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are thinking like so many failed businesses who focus on cost cutting rather than on revenue increase. You’ve got to think on both sides of the ledgerbook in order to make a budget work. That’s basic and fundamental.

And without belaboring it there are ways to increase revenues. California is a major oil producing state yet has no severance tax. Put an increased tax on alcoholic beverage purchases (I smoke but don’t drink so I prefer a booze tax!).

No, what the state wants to do is accelerate the collection of 2010 personal income and corporate taxes to bring in revenue earlier. This would give the state an “interest free loan” until taxpayers claim the money on tax returns. More hocus-pocus.

Public employee unions have far too much influence in California. They forget that their jobs exist to serve the public. It’s that basic. And yet their complaints about schools and prisons are thinly veiled blackmail attempts primarily motivated by a desire to keep their jobs.

This kind of legerdemain will prevail until California fundamentally addresses its system of governance. And this state cannot wait much longer. Proposition 13 and 98 must be revisited. The State’s basic “operating structure” must be scrutinized, streamlined and made to work better. And the State must take a fundamental look at how it ought to be serving its citizens and reflect that in its organizational and fiscal structure. Until that happens, this state and especially its citizens are screwed. And maybe that’s why all morning I have had a song from the late Congressman Sonny Bono going through my head: “The Beat Goes On”. And it does. But it doesn’t get us anywhere.

This rant won’t make any kind of difference but at least I “officially” got it off my chest. I’m still more than a little ticked.

California's Budget Solved!! Welcome to CalDakota

(Note: This, of course, is totally "tongue in cheek" and is purely from the demented mind of the author. With quasi-apologies to Reps. Pelosi and Pomeroy, Sens. Feinstein and Dorgan and Gov. Schwarzenegger)

Like Cinderella’s coach turning back into a pumpkin, California’s budget woes went from bad to worse at the stroke of midnight July 1 as the new fiscal year for the state began without solution for a budget which is $25 billion out of whack.


Frustrated by the state’s dismal attempts at alleviating the debacle, two of California’s congressional leaders hosted a press conference this morning in Washington, D. C. to announce that they have taken the initiative to broker a resolution to the morass.

Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, D-CA and U. S. Senator Diane Feinstein, D-CA met with the media in a press conference which was also carried live at the California State Capital in Sacramento to announce the plan. Pelosi and Feinstein opened the conference and then introduced their key partners in this unprecedented plan. Following is a transcript of the press conference:

Gov. Schwarzenegger

Pelosi: Good morning and thank you for coming on such short notice. Diane and I have been up all night finishing the agreements and we just got done informing Gov. Schwarzenegger of the plan.

Feinstein: We’ve worked hard to get to our positions of leadership in the Congress and we’ve gotten tired of being embarrassed by our state’s fiscal woes. So we decided to take the initiative and get something done—which the legislature and governor in our home state apparently don’t have the balls to do.
Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Pomeroy

Pelosi: What we’ve done is brokered a deal that makes GM and Chrysler look mild. Let me introduce two gentlemen who have become our partners in assuring the rejuvenation of California. Ladies and gentlemen, Rep. Earl Pomeroy and Senator Byron Dorgan of the great state of North Dakota.
Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Dorgan

Dorgan: Good morning, good morning to you all. I’m sure you have a lot of questions but let us outline the agreement before you start. OK? Good, you betcha.

Pomeroy: Thanks for coming. Let me start out by saying that this is quite the opportunity. Right up there with Seward’s Folly and the Louisiana Purchase. Except we’re calling this a short-term annexation.

Dorgan: That’s right. For the next 50 years, North Dakota will be annexing the state of California. During that time, it will be known as CalDakota. Government will be transferred from Sacramento to Bismarck with the statehouse in Sacramento being the seat of the region known as NorCalDakota. There will be a similar seat in Los Angeles with that region to be called SoCalDakota.

North Dakota and CalDakota Capital, Bismarck, ND

Pomeroy: So why did we agree to do this? Because it makes sense and it’s time for North Dakota to take its rightful position of leadership which, quite frankly California; oops I mean CalDakota; has squandered. We know how to be frugal with our money in North Dakota and yet still take care of our people. We’re going to show California how to do it. I mean, right now North Dakota is running a surplus of about $2000 per person while California has a deficit of about $750 per person. We’re going to leverage funds, kind of like a kindly uncle co-signing for a car loan. But that means we’re in charge until the loans get paid off.

Pelosi: OK, that’s the short version. What we’re looking forward to is being able to get things back on track for California with the least amount of pain possible.

Dorgan: That’s right Nancy. And we know that things will get a bit tense for a while but that’s why we’re also starting an “Adopt a CalDakotan Program” which will be co-headquartered in Fargo and Fresno so that citizens of North Dakota can adopt kids or families in CalDakota and provide them with a break from life in the west. Participating North Dakotans will exchange places with CalDakotans in January and February. It’ll give North Dakotans a chance to be somewhere warm and will show CalDakotans what the term “a cold day in hell” means.

Pomeroy: What about Tijuana?

Feinstein: That’s in Mexico, nitwit. Jeez, it’s like you guys think you own us or something.

Dorgan: Don’t call my colleague from the House names. Who do you think you are, Cher? By the way, did you know that Angie Dickinson lived in North Dakota.

Pelosi: I don’t care where Angie Dickinson lived. It’s not like she’s Peggy Lee or something.

Pomeroy: She was from Jamestown! Look, let’s settle down. We’re talking about making Lawrence Welk Resort and Village between San Diego and Temecula as big as Disney. North Dakotans won’t be able to wait to get there and spend money. They’ll even buy all the leisure suits you can make.
Feinstein: OK, OK, OK. This isn’t getting us anywhere. What next?

Dorgan: I have a check here in my hand in the amount of $26 billion, enough to take care of the deficit. It’s in North Dakota dollars though and I just need to get Gov. Schwarzenegger to endorse it and everything will be set.
Pomeroy: Yeah, let’s get it done. I can’t wait to get out to Napa Valley, CalDakota and go to some place that sells lutefske tacos.

Excerpts from Cali Prop 8 Court Ruling (Strauss v Horton)

It’s interesting that there is so much flying around the media, online and in blogs about the just issued ruling on California Proposition 8 Case. The decision in Strauss v. Horton (the Prop 8 Case) was 136 pages long with 40 pages of concurring opinions and 1 dissenting opinion.

So what exactly did California’s Supreme Court say? As is so often the case, the actual opinion isn’t as horrific as those on either side of the issue might suspect. The Court was pretty narrow in its opinion.

According to the Court:
“the principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.”

The argument which was presented to the California Supreme Court was whether the issue in Proposition 8 (that a marriage as defined in California is between a man and a woman) was an amendment to the Constitution or a revision of the Constitution.

It was a narrow case as such cases by their nature tend to be. It was the best chance that the appellants believed they had to challenge the restrictions of the successful Prop. 8 election.

According to the Court’s decision:
“At the same time, as numerous decisions of this court have explained, although the initiative process may be used to propose and adopt amendments to the California Constitution, under its governing provisions that process may not be used to revise the state Constitution”

“Petitioners’ principal argument rests on the claim that Proposition 8 should be viewed as a constitutional revision rather than as a constitutional amendment, and that this change in the state Constitution therefore could not lawfully be adopted through the initiative process.”

“…in resolving the amendment/revision question, a court carefully must assess (1) the meaning and scope of the constitutional change at issue, and (2) the effect — both quantitative and qualitative — that the constitutional change will have on the basic governmental plan or framework embodied in the preexisting provisions of the California Constitution.”

“Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage”

“Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.”

Ultimately the Court has concluded the following:
“… we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision. As a quantitative matter, petitioners concede that Proposition 8 — which adds but a single, simple section to the Constitution — does not constitute a revision. As a qualitative matter, the act of limiting access to the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment. Contrary to petitioners’ claim in this regard…”
“We agree with petitioners that the state constitutional right to equal protection of the laws unquestionably represents a long-standing and fundamental constitutional principle (a constitutional principle that, as we already have explained, has not generally been repealed or eliminated by Proposition 8)”.

OK, so now we have the benefit of the Court’s rationale on this issue. By ruling that Prop 8 was an amendment rather than a revision, there is almost no way the Court could have agreed with the appellant because that was the crux of the argument made against Prop 8 in the Court filing.

However, the rationale that the strictures of Prop 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process strikes me as a stretch and potentially grounds for future appeal. In my limited knowledge, this strikes me as somewhat akin to “separate but equal” which Brown v Board of Education long ago found to be anything but equal.

For now, I would think that, based upon the wording of this ruling, advocates for benefits for same-sex couples can and should use it to make sure that all of the rights held by “married” couples are assured and guaranteed to same-sex couples. That seems to me to be a clearly worded element of this decision.

I haven't spent much time actually analyzing this ruling or doing a cross reference back to what the Court called the "Marriage Cases". It's also too bad that the media hasn't yet gone through the decision and reported on what indeed the Court said rather than just to say that Prop 8 was upheld. Maybe the media actually wanted all hell to break loose because it makes for better cable news and front page fodder than does a careful reporting of the actual decision.

Hopefully, we can use these actual words of California’s Supreme Court for more informed discussion and debate upon this important ruling and issue.

Is California "Too Big to Fail"?

I think I’ve got it figured out finally. I’ve been worrying on the California special election like a hungry dog on a steak bone, just gnawing away looking for a solution.

You see, I just don’t like the 6 questions which are being put before the voters. It seems to me that the so-called “solution” is a cop-out by the Governor and Legislators who have now tossed it to the voters to validate. Unfortunately, if the voters validate the smoke and mirrors put forth by the 6 measures then the voters will take ownership of a pitiful excuse for solutions which will allow elected officials to wash their hands in the best Pontius Pilate fashion.

Of course, it’s California’s government by referred measure which has had more than a little to do with the budgetary debacle that the state is experiencing.

So, what to do about it? Well, the first thing is to do what I’ve been thinking about for several months. Defeat measures 1A through 1F. Just vote No! Turn down every one of them. Then, as the budget gets worse, as the economy of California tanks further, have Governor Schwarzenegger make a call to President Obama.

The Governor can tell the President that the world’s 5th largest economy is tanking. The state with almost 1/8th of the nation’s population is broke. He can then tell the President that, like AIG, California is “too big to fail”.

AIG got something like $85 billion and that’s a lot of money. According to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget, California only needs a little less than half that--$41 billion—a bargain. And for a whole state. If the Federal Government would just write California a check, from TARP funds or wherever, the state’s books would be balanced and we could maybe, just maybe, manage to make ends meet until we have to engage in a budget debacle again for next year when we might, or might not, be able to generate enough money. Oh, and by the way, no executives in California will be paid 7 or 8 figure bonuses. There are already enough 6 figure State employees and retirees as it is.

Let’s see, last week Pres. Obama suggested that we cut $17 billion from the Federal budget. He was criticized because that’s only about ½ of 1%. So $41 billion would be what—about 1 ¼%? That ain’t bad for the world’s 5th largest economy with 1/8th of the nation’s population. Of course, we won’t tell Pres. Obama that California’s budget is 37% in the red; that might tend to tick him off just a bit.

And who knows, maybe the President will put some things in motion to bail us out just like AIG or GM. Although he may say that, like GM, the first thing is that top management has to go and a re-structuring plan has to be presented within 6 weeks or California will have to go the route of Vallejo and declare bankruptcy.

That being the case, I was wondering who would come on board as new CEO/Governor. Robert Nardelli is going to be available in a couple of months when Fiat finishes its acquisition of Chrysler. Rob Blagojevich is looking for work, has run a large state and knows how to solicit funds. I don’t think either of those would do. How about Clint Eastwood? Also an actor, but he was mayor of Carmel. And he would call the situation what it is (to use the edited version)—a clusterflub.

Too big to fail? We’ve already failed. Can it be fixed? Not by continuing to put a bandaid on a hemorrhage. But nobody’s going to bail out California but Californians. Let’s start by putting the politicians on notice that we expect them to do it right—for a change.

Now, I’ve been trying to be sarcastic in an Art Buchwald kind of way (I knew I couldn’t get to Dave Barry). Governing California is like trying to herd cats. But we’ve done it to ourselves. So maybe sarcasm won’t work but it definitely helps to keep you sane

1000 Hours Labor Will Pay University of California Tuition

The San Diego Union Tribune reports today that the University of California Regents approved a 9.3% tuition increase for next Fall’s school year. That 9.3% represents a tuition bill of $8,720 for the year.

I wonder what that does to the dream of a college education for high school and community college students as well as their families throughout California? That’s an incredible amount of money.

Let’s put it into just a bit of context. At the California minimum wage of $8.00 per hour it will take 1087 hours to earn the money to pay for tuition. That’s working full time for 6 months, and it’s before taxes. Plus, that doesn’t even touch other education expenses like books or room and board.

How do kids do it? Loans? Work part-time and go to college part-time? Family help? Actually, it’s all of the above.

A little more context. I started college in fall 1969 at the University of North Dakota. Tuition for the year was right at $450. Working at $1.50 an hour (minimum wage was $1.30) I could earn my tuition working a total of 300 hours. That amounts to 7 ½ weeks full time. So I worked full time all summer (about 12 weeks), had a pretty enjoyable summer and managed to save about $600.

This is absolutely mind boggling to me. We are pricing college beyond the means of most families and most kids. And yet, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that we can do about it. Especially now with the economy and budgets in the mess that they’re in.

California students get a huge break by going to community college first where tuition is set at $15 per credit. Two years in that system really lessens the burden. The basic math is $15 per credit at community college vs. $360 per credit for the same Freshman English or Algebra class in the University of California system. That math is pretty obvious.

We run the risk of pricing college degrees out of the range of many if not most of our young people. The current economic morass will just make it worse—fees continuing to escalate while income for many families declines.

My generation (baby boomers) were often the first generation of our family to enjoy the opportunity of pursuing a college education. The risk is that current and future generations may find that dream fading.

California Special Election & Budget--Shut it Down!

My first “real” job was with the State of North Dakota as a community development specialist. One of the things I loved about it was how intimate the government was.

The state had a “bi-ennial” budget and the legislature met for 100 days every 2 years. True citizen law-makers. The standing joke in government circles was that the state constitutional provision calling for a 100 day session every 2 years was really a misprint. The punchline was it was supposed to read a 2 day session every 100 years.

But, there was a true emphasis on governance. Not government. We had one of those. The issue is how government will govern—governance. As a state employee (and I had more than a little to do with putting together my department’s budget) we were engrained with a keen awareness that we were spending “the people’s money” and there was an expectation that we would spend it as frugally and efficiently as possible on behalf of the taxpayer.

Anyway I have lived in California for the last 11 years. In that time I have witnessed one budget debacle after another crowned by the recall of a sitting governor because of his inability to achieve a consensus to resolve budget conflict.

It’s May, 2009. The state’s economy and budget are both in tatters. The current state budget was “balanced” (as is required by the state’s constitution) using smoke and mirrors. Now we are coming up on a special election later this month to make it official and to extend some of the “band-aid” fixes so that the precarious house of cards might be able to teeter like the world’s biggest game of Jenga for a little longer.

But like all games of Jenga, the pieces will eventually tumble to a pile. That’s guaranteed. That’s how the winner is determined in Jenga. But for the people of the State of California, that will be the symbol that we’ve all just lost.

I have tried to make sense of the 6 proposed measures on which we are being asked to vote May 19. Basically, the way I read them is that they are gobbledegook, smoke and mirrors and short term solutions with long-term financial repercussions. About the closest I can come to an analogy is that they’re like trading off a car on which thousands are still owed and taking a loan for a new car where you are paying off both the new car and the old car you just got rid of. A lot of people have done that and have found out that they just dug themselves a big hole.

Public radio had a story yesterday that suggested that the reason many voters are undecided are that many people are waiting for their favorite organization to come out with a position, or that they’re waiting for their least favorite organization to come out with a position and will vote the opposite way. Why is it that it seems as though the “organizations” who make endorsement tend to be organizations who have the most to gain or lose financially (i.e. public employee unions)?

All this is being done to balance a budget. Little or no thought has been given to governance. There is an increasing call for a constitutional convention to address some of these issues. Some are saying solve this current crisis and then address some of the issues via a “con-con”. Nope.

Let’s do this. Defeat all the measures on the ballot. Shut down everything but essential services (and don’t let unions try to define what is essential and what isn’t). Turn them down and then shut it down. Shut it down until the politicians come up with a solution which isn’t couched in platitudes, legerdemain and electoral blackmail.


Shut it down. Look at the governance of the State of California from top to bottom and come up with some solutions. There have to be some people of good intentions out there, people who have no axes to grind, who can and will look into how we presently govern and how we ought to govern.

It couldn’t hurt. Not any worse than it already does.

Water Conservation California Style

(Dear Mom, Please don’t read this post.)

It’s Saturday morning. We just got done cleaning in the apartment and Carolyn is back from a run. And we just got done saving precious California water by taking a shower together.

This is something we’ve enjoyed doing together ever since we’ve known one another. Quite frankly, there is very little that is erotic or sexual about taking a shower with your spouse (wink, wink). Rather there’s a tremendous sense of togetherness and intimacy which is even better along with the water conservation. Plus, there’s the added bonus of someone else using the scrubby on your back—man, it’s better than grinding your back against a door jamb.

I’m not sure how much water we save by showering together. My solo showers typically last maybe 2 minutes and I’m not sure how long Carolyn’s solo showers last. But occasionally I enjoy taking a little longer solo shower—a guy shower. A solo guy shower typically includes something I remember from my dad when he would be in the shower—nose blowing and sounding like an angry elephant trumpeting towards the “Great White Hunter”. Now if you do this you have to be a bit careful and make sure that any “detritus” that comes out of your nose is washed away by the shower and doesn’t stick into a semi-permanent nugget on the wall of the shower (that’s a sure way to get “busted” and get in trouble and have to take over all shower stall cleaning duties for the indefinite future).

Additionally, the solo guy shower features a more languid approach to cleaning up “down there”. Taking one’s time. Carefully cleansing “fore and aft” and luxuriating in the soap and water.

Finally, one thing you can (obviously) never, ever do unless it’s a total solo shower is—hmmmmm, how to delicately put this—take a wizz while the water cascading out of the showerhead rinses it down the drain.

So, to shower together or not? If I had to choose one rather than the other it would have to be showering together. I would imagine that Gov. Schwarzenegger would approve of the water conservation—along with the Metropolitan Water Authority. But, a couple of times a week it’s a nice treat to have a “solo guy shower”. Sorry water advocates, but you just can’t always be water-patriotic.

WTF? or Water, Water Everywhere but...

This morning’s newspapers had a couple of articles about issues here in San Diego County that literally caused me to ask myself the classic question—WTF??

One article dealt with the Metropolitan Water Agency which serves most of Southern California and apparently has a great deal of control over water supplies which come via both the Colorado River and the California Aqueduct from northern California. It said that the winter’s snowpack in NorCal was only about 80% of normal, water supplies were critical and that the San Diego area would see a reduction in water supply in the 10 to 15% range.

That in and of itself is pretty ominous. This is a desert climate with low levels of annual rainfall. Of course, municipalities have never seen fit to require things like drought resistant yards and landscaping (like seen in areas like Phoenix or Albuquerque) or the use of grey water for non-drinking water purposes like irrigation. Or even (gasp!) some sort of restrictions on pubic water use for residential swimming pools or spas. Hey! Drinking water is for drinking and cooking not golf course greens or pools. But that’s a whole other rant for me.

The other article dealt with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and its ongoing skirmishing with Poseidon Company which is trying to get approval to build a seawater desalination plant next to a power plant in Carlsbad. The plant would re-use the seawater that the power plant currently uses for cooling and would desalinate the water into drinking water and could provide for up to 9% of the freshwater available in San Diego County when it goes online.

Well, apparently the Water Quality Control Board has some issues (like for the last 6 years) on “mitigation lands” the plant has to buy and restore so that endangered species have a refuge. The Board now wants to require a doubling of the lands from 55 to 110 acres. It’s because of fish which may be harmed by the plant’s intake which, according to experts, comes to the amount of fish that would be eaten each day by 2 pelicans.

You can kind of see where this is heading can’t you? Let’s see—not enough water from sources hundreds of miles away. A whole big ocean at our back door. A bureaucracy putting more impediments in place. 2 pelicans. Yep. WTF?

The bad news is that there is less fresh water available from traditional sources. The good news is that there’s a whole ocean out there and the technology exists to take the salt and minerals out of it and make it drinkable fresh water, even though it’s expensive. The better news is that global warming will mean that there’s more ocean water on its way as the ice caps melt, etc. The technology for desalination is expensive (too bad the investment wasn’t made a quarter century ago when this same problem existed but the technology was cheaper), but it’s only going to get more costly and the need is only going to become more acute.

You’d think that…Oh for crying out loud, nevermind. It’s all kind of ridiculous the way things are approached isn’t it? But, let’s see, 2 pelicans vs. 9% of the County’s water supply. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. Yeah, right. My opinion and $2.00 will buy me a cup of coffee at any Denny’s.