Broke California Finds $250M+ in "Lost" Funds

via Channel 6 News:

California Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration on Friday announced that $119 million more in untapped money was found in a sweeping audit of state accounts, bringing to more than $286.5 million the sum lawmakers were unaware of as they repeatedly cut government services.

The state of California is an absolute disaster. It imposes one of the highest levels of taxes (both corporate and sales taxes) in the nation, has been in constant danger of failing to meet its financial obligations, and, Oh!, just happens to have a slew of tax increases on the November ballot. Our illustrious Governor said:

“I am going directly to the voters because I don’t want to get bogged down in partisan gridlock as happened this year,” said Brown in a statement. “The stakes are too high.”
He suggested that the state can’t make any more cuts responsibly. “Spending is now at levels not seen since the ’70s,” he said. “Schools have been hurt, and state funding for our universities has been reduced by 25 percent. Support for the elderly and the disabled has fallen to where it was in 1983.”
“The stark truth is that without new tax revenues, we will have no other choice but to make deeper and more damaging cuts to schools, universities, public safety, and our courts,” he added.

Is this anything less than insanity? Why should we vote to give more money to a government that has shown itself to be completely incompetent, specifically in the area of handling money? If it is even remotely possible that a quarter of a billion dollars could be unaccounted for in a state that is desperately trying to make up for a billion dollar deficit, then I refuse to allocate any more funding to the state.

The most frustrating thing to think about is that whatever outcry that comes from this won't last until November. Instead, we'll hear the same hostage negotiations political speeches demanding higher taxes in order to "save" our "schools, universities, public safety, and our courts."

And the California bullet train to fiscal calamity rolls on ....

Obama vs. SCOTUS on Healthcare Ruling

via ABA Journal:

President Obama took on the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday with a declaration that a decision to overturn the health care law would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary” step of judicial activism. Obama said he was confident, however, that the law would be upheld, report the Washington Post and the New York Times. “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Yahoo News writer Susan Graybeal weighs in:

Obama's Health Care Comments are Insulting to the Supreme Court:

I think such language on the part of the president is tacky and insulting, not only to the Supreme Court justices but to the American people as well. 

The American public realizes the president supports the health care law and believes it is constitutional. Additionally, I think we understand the notion the Supreme Court justices are "unelected" and the health care law was enacted by an elected Congress. What the president doesn't seem to understand is there are an awful lot of us who also get the idea of checks and balances and that one of the appropriate checks of the judicial branch of government is to make sure that the laws passed by the legislative branch are constitutional.

So Obama is being mean, but is he at least being "fair"? That's one of his buzzwords. Is the Supreme Court really acting out of line here in considering striking down Obamacare? The WSJ offers Mr. Obama a lesson in constitutional law:

Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison

Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented'? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed be a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities. 

Also at the WSJ, our pal James Taranto had this to say:

President Obama made a statement today whose ignorance is all the more stunning for his once having been a part-time professor of constitutional law. . . . Unprecedented? . . . Did he sleep through the Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison? 

For that matter, did he sleep through his own 2010 State of the Union Address, in which he upbraided the Supreme Court for striking down portions of the Taft-Hartley and McCain-Feingold laws, both of which passed Congress by wider margins than ObamaCare did?

Even Politico is skeptical of the president's challenge, or at least the timing:

Obama, the left take on Supreme Court

Obama made an unusual pre-emptive [sic] strike Monday that previews the Democratic strategy if the high court nixes all or major parts of his signature domestic achievement. his volley, coming less than a week after the oral arguments wrapped up and while the justices are still deliberating, injects a high-level dose of politics into the most anticipated ruling since the court settled the 2000 presidential race.

His message was simple: The Roberts Court is on trial. . . . 

But the approach, while cheered by the left, risks aggravating justices who recoiled at the president's last attempt to take them to task for a ruling he didn't like.

Obama isn't doing himself any favors here. His statements can't possibly hold any sway over the justices themselves, and make the president look like he's whining. I'm sure some on the left are happy to see him out throwing political punches, but those people are already going to vote for him in November. I'm sure he isn't worried about pissing off conservatives--they're already chomping at the bit to put anyone BUT Obama in the White House, but how is this supposed to help him with independents? He should be sticking with the emotional appeals: save the children, help the poor, stop pushing grandma off a cliff. Challenging the authority of the Court is the wrong move, at least until a decision has been made.

UPDATE: Speaking of aggravating judges ...

Althouse: 5th Circuit reacts to Obama's remarks on the Supreme Court case and orders response on whether the Administration thinks courts may strike down a federal law.

A COUPLE OF CHARTS TO SET THE TONE FOR THE WEEKEND.

via Instapundit:

A COUPLE OF CHARTS TO SET THE TONE FOR THE WEEKEND.

From James Pethokoukis:



And from the House Republican Study Committee:



"Just a reminder that there’s a lot more at stake than who pays for birth control."

Well put.

Why the official 8.3 percent unemployment rate is a phony number—and what it means for Obama’s reelection

via The Enterprise Blog: Why the official 8.3 percent unemployment rate is a phony number—and what it means for Obama’s reelection "In January 2011, the unemployment rate was 9.1 percent with a participation rate of 64.2 percent. If that were the participation rate today, the unemployment rate would be 8.9 percent, instead of 8.3 percent. As an analysis from Hamilton Place Strategies concludes, 'Most of the shift of the past year is due not to the improvement in the labor market, but the continued drop in participation in the labor force.'" [Emphasis in original]

I commute every day to a temporary job where I work with 20 other people who, like me, would rather have a permanent position. On the weekends, I work at a part-time job that doesn't even require a high school diploma. I graduated magna cum laude from a top 20 law school and, according to everyone willing to speak to me about it, I have an excellent resume. What I don't have is anywhere to send it. From my experience, the "surge" in job production has yet to change the terrible lack of opportunities available out there for recent graduates. It's nice to know that someone out there is getting hired, but I won't feel better until I find something myself.

Joe Scarborough Schools Donny Deutsch on Media Ignoring Obama's Negative Ads in 2008

From Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters:

Joe Scarborough Schools Donny Deutsch on Media Ignoring Obama's Negative Ads in 2008: (read the whole thing)

"Morning Joe viewers Wednesday were treated to a truly marvelous demonstration of the media's hypocritical double standard concerning negative campaign ads ..."

Scarborough: "We've been using negative ads all week when attacking Mitt Romney, and when I brought up the simple fact that every objective outside reporter has stated that Barack Obama ran more negative 30-second ads than anybody in the history of American politics, suddenly it's, 'Oh, let's not call them negative ads.' Was that a coincidence?"

Not likely.

On a side note, I have to point out that Scarborough is routinely lampooned by conservative bloggers for being a RINO shill on MSNBC.  Whether that's true or not, I have to give him credit for going to work every day in hostile territory.  On the other hand, it does provide him with myriad opportunities to call out BS like this.

JIM VANDEHEI: Why Obama Should Be Worried.

via Instapundit:

"JIM VANDEHEI: Why Obama Should Be Worried. His other problem is that the press will bend over backwards — or just plain bend over — in order to save his presidency, but if it looks like he’s going down they’ll turn on him and try to prove their objectivity by reporting all the bad stuff they’ve been soft-pedaling to date."

I thought this was interesting:

"Let’s rewind six months for a moment. Back then, Obama advisers talked privately of their decisive fundraising advantage for the general election, how the combination of the reelection campaign, the DNC and a web of outside groups set up by Obama intimates would together raise north of $750 million and possibly $1 billion to bury the GOP.

This could still happen. But Obama fundraising has not been as strong as many Democrats had hoped or anticipated. More troubling for Democrats, there are signs that Republicans, especially if front-runner Mitt Romney wins, could match the most prolific fundraiser in the history of presidential politics, thanks to rich businessmen and their handy-dandy super PACs.

Look at the latest numbers: Romney, the RNC and the super PAC run by his allies have raised a total of $175.7 million during 2011; Obama, the DNC and the super PAC run by his allies have raised $209.3 million. As far as cash on hand, Obama enjoys an edge but not a decisive one: $96 million to $63.5 million."

What? A false narrative? I thought that only Republicans were "stealing" elections with all their evil corporate money ... Turns out Obama has more money than anyone, at least for now.

How to Think about Private Equity

How to Think about Private Equity: If the overall pattern is so positive—for investors, companies, and even employment—why is private equity so controversial?

First time I've been completely impressed by Romney.

He delivers a great line during his victory speech in Florida. (Scroll down for video) Great use of the Rule of Three.

"Thomas Paine was reported to say, 'Lead, follow, or get out of the way.' Mr. President, you were elected to lead, you chose to follow, and now it's time for you to get out of the way."

UPDATE:  Link to Romney's complete victory speech in FL.  The quoted line comes at 3:15.

The Problem with Bambi-nomics

From The American:

"We tend not to teach children about vultures, fungi, slime molds, or maggots. More importantly, we do not teach them why such things are every bit as important to the ecology as Bambi."


Interesting centrist article about Bain Capital, idealists, and politicians.  And nature.  


To summarize:  What Romney did wasn't pretty, but it was necessary.

Romney Tax Return–Lots of Deception In Comments

Romney Tax Return–Lots of Deception In Comments

Gird your loins for the attack of "the 99%." Going to be a long election year, as always.