It never rains in California

Haven't read any detailed accounts of this event yet, but have heard reports that Californians have stated a resounding "NO!" to a whole spate of new taxes designed to pull the state's fat out of the fire. Including one proposal that would withhold future lottery winnings. (Like, how many people would buy lottery tickets just as a donation to the state?) So apparently now the Governator is compelled to resort to Plan B: cutting government spending.

What a novel idea. Damn, Sam, cut spending? Eureka! Who the heck thought that one up? Put him on the payroll!

The trouble with California is that ever since residents of the state discovered the referendum process, they used it to vote themselves any number of "free" goods and services. I remember when California truly was the Golden State, but that goes back to the days when Reagan was governor.

Now it's bankrupt. And the climate has made it attractive to all kinds of loonies who want a handout, including illegal aliens. I mean, it's a lot more comfortable to live in an old Maytag box in L.A. than it is in Chicago or Boston.

I mentioned before that I have relatives who live in California. I've been there a few times and am not too crazy about it. Too hot and dry for me. Even the flowers out there have all the color scorched out of them (compared to what you see elsewhere), and the "grass" is all yellow and dried up. Kinda like what we'd call "hay" in the Midwest. I do really like the freeways, though, if you drive them in non-rush hours. I could just coast around from Long Beach to Pasadena and be perfectly happy... in non-rush hours.

Anyway, I'd be shocked to learn that Californians voted any other way than the way they did. Nobody wants a tax increase. Now let's see if they'll be happy to see all the government-sponsored goodies disappear. If they do. I suspect that California is like any other government enterprise and usually finds a way to spend four times as much as necessary for any product or service, so maybe the government largesse will be missed by only a very few people, and they might not even be US citizens.

Fox and Republicans have been cautiously optimistic about the vote in California all day. But, as I said, I would have been very surprised if anyone would answer "Yes" to the question: "Would you like to pay more taxes?"

Rather, I suspect that many of the citizens believe that everything that comes from government is free of charge, so why on earth should they be asked to pay more taxes? Duh?

And damn, all those manic-liberal movie stars out there... didn't they vote? Or have they moved to Nevada and Texas where the taxes aren't quite so bad?

I find it very bizarre to hear movie stars -- who won't do six weeks work for less $1 million+ -- whining about the poor. What the hell do they know about it? Or why don't they fund poverty programs themselves? They can afford it easier than most other people.

Same with many members of congress. If they're really committed to helping the poor and disenfranchised, all those millions of people they con into voting for them, why don't they pool their extra cash and open a trade school or co-op pantry for the poor, or a clinic for the homeless? Why do they insist that everyone else pay for these kinds of programs while they horde their bucks in tax shelters?

Hypocrisy. And in Hollywood, hypocrisy writ large. Those in "The Industry" are even worse than congress. At least the people in congress actually suffered through the whole election process and have to live in DC in summer, doing all the incredibly tedious work of government. Movie stars just flap their jaws on TV, or make a big show of support for poverty-stricken third-world nations -- flying in and out in First Class seats on airliners.

And, actually, if you've tried to listen to liberal movie stars "discuss" their political principles, most of them have almost no idea what a political principle is. Like Cher. Someone asked her why she was a Democrat. Her profound and insightful answer: "Who would want to be a Republican?"

I saw about 10 minutes of Sean Penn on "The Larry King Show" a while ago. I'd heard that Sean Penn was a really serious liberal. So Larry King asked him why he was against the War in Iraq, or something like that, and Sean Penn's response was something like.... "Uh.... hmmm... well...." and then it was time for a commercial break. But Sean Penn didn't seem able to get out a complete sentence when he won the Oscar, either.

Makes me wonder what he gets paid for. Well... reciting words that other people write. Yeah. So it does make sense that he's a liberal.

So anyway, let's hope a good many of these blockheads have surrendered California to the "real" people who live and work there 9-to-5, and who've been required to pay for all the stupid policies the elite rich support.

By the way, for those who don't know anything about 60's & 70's rock'n'roll, the whole line goes: "It never rains in California. It pours."