California, as most of us already know, has this huge budget deficit – thanks to the blind and drunken spending of Democrats in the state Assembly.

And as if that problem isn’t substantial enough, the state is very close to adopting a green code which is designed to reduce water usage, mandate the recycling of construction waste and increase enforcement of energy efficiency in hospitals, homes, schools and commercial buildings.

Interestingly enough, that isn’t good enough for the left-leaning environmental groups as they think that the green code isn’t tough enough. The report states:

Critics say the rules fall short of rigorous standards adopted by Los Angeles, San Francisco and more than 50 California jurisdictions in league with the U.S. Green Building Council, a national non-profit group of architects, engineers and construction companies.

The council’s voluntary Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards have become an industry norm in recent years, with architects and construction firms competing on four levels — LEED basic, silver, gold or platinum — to market their buildings as green.

In 2004, Schwarzenegger ordered that all new state buildings meet at least a LEED silver level.

But parts of the state’s new code, which would take effect in January 2011, would amount to “a setback for California’s leadership on green building,” according to a Dec. 22 letter from six groups. They included the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Global Green, along with two non-profit certification groups, the Green Building Council and Berkeley-based Build It Green.

For the life of me, I do not understand what these groups’ motive is, besides wanting everything run by windmills and solar panels. They are so self-centered as they do not think about what the state population wants. They’re only thinking about their agendas. And quite frankly, the Governor is complicit in all of this, to some degree.

Does he think that offering a family of four up to $1,000 to reduce their energy usage will actually solve our so-called energy problems? I think not. This is nothing but a short-sighted idea which is in effect a bandaid. And who is the state of California to try and change consumer behavior? I think Schwarzenegger has taken a toke or 3 of that Dutch weed. After all, he did make a presence at that shameful climate change meeting in Copenhagen.

The state of California has much more important things to worry about. Things such as:

• Illegal immigration.
• Making good use of the stimulus money that the federal government has sent them.
• Working on getting our state budget in the black.

Until those issues are addressed, this “green code” crap is nothing but a pet project, signed off by our Governor, which serves no real purpose. But on the bright side, Ah-nold leaves office in November.

The Marine Corps is getting a chance to put the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the test.

Security preparations in western Iraq’s Al Anbar province are already underway for January’s national elections.

The Army’s Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli joined other Army leaders Tuesday for a roundtable on suicide prevention at the Pentagon.

The Nation’s largest USO facility celebrates 10 years of service.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger returned to Iraq to visit the troops.

The clock is ticking for up to six million children in California public schools as Arnold Schwarzenegger decides whether to sign or veto “Harvey Milk Gay Day” by his Oct. 11 deadline.

SB 572 pressures every California K-12 government school to teach students to honor the extreme homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda of San Francisco gay icon and sexual predator Harvey Milk.

That’s the bad news. But the good news is, if you take action right away, there’s a realistic chance to kill this terrible bill.

Be encouraged that SaveCalifornia.com is fighting very hard to urge Schwarzenegger to veto “Harvey Milk Gay Day.”

On behalf of the California children and families we serve, SaveCalifornia.com’s work against this perverse bill has been featured in WorldNetDaily, the LA Times, New York Times, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, CNN.com and more.

Now, with only 6 days from today until Schwarzenegger’s deadline to sign or veto, we need him to receive a FLOOD of phone calls demanding that he veto SB 572.

Will Schwarzenegger listen to his lesbian chief of staff and actor Sean Penn? Or will he hear from tens of thousands of pro-family Californians and decide to veto “Harvey Milk Gay Day” like he did last year? It’s time to ring his phones, day and night!

There’s still time to ensure that Harvey Milk Gay Day does not get signed into law:

Call the Governor right now. Please drop everything and call his State Capitol office at 916-445-2841 to register your opposition to SB 572. You can call 24/7, day or night, because Schwarzenegger is conducting his own “poll” on where Californians stand on “Harvey Milk Day.”

So much for getting those tax deductions for those kids in your household if you’re a resident of California.  24 billion reasons why households will not get these deductions, more or less.

Effective this year, taxes will increase for each dependent in a household by $210 compared to 2008; a good example here is that a family with one dependent that normally gets a tax refund from the state will get back $210 less than in previous years.  Multiply that by the number of dependents in your household and it tends to add up.  And by the way, this applies only if your income is if you’re a couple with dependents whose annual income is less than $326,400 in adjusted gross income and singles whose income is less than $163,200.

The tax change basically takes us back to the rates that were in place prior to 1998.  Before ‘98, the credit was the same for both adults and dependents while in 1998 – when the state had a cash surplus – it roughly tripled the amount for dependents.  Just last year, the amount for adults was $99 while dependents was at the $309 rate.

Now that we’re $24 million in the red, the state has decided to take away that exemption to families and set the dependent tax credit to the adult amount ($99) for the years 2009 and 2010.  The amount is indexed for inflation, so the final numbers will come out later this year.  Assuming you’re a resident of California and fall within these parameters, you have some options.

If you don’t want to be saddled down with a big tax bill early next year, then you may want to consider paying more state tax this year.  You can do this by either increasing the amount withheld from your paycheck; now if you’re self-employed, you can make larger estimated quarterly tax payments. 

If you want to increase your withholding, simply file a new Form DE 4 with your employer (this form is the state equivalent of the federal W4 tax form); as of right now, the State Franchise Tax Board will not slap you with an underpayment penalty that may result from this change on your 2009 taxes.  However, this will probably change in 2010.  So basically, if you do not increase your withholding, then you should save enough money to pay the tax next year.

California, besides the decrease in this tax credit, has also decided to raise all tax rates by 1/4 of 1%.  To illustrate this increase, a married couple whose taxable income is $100,000 annually that paid roughly $4,689 in state taxes will pay around $4,939 in 2020 – a $250 increase.  The state already sent out new withholding tables reflecting this change and employers should have already started using them in May.

More than likely, many employees will have been under withheld for the first four months of the year – which means either a larger tax burden or a smaller refund when they file their 2009 taxes.  Fortunately, California will not penalize individuals for under withholding that results from this tax change; assuming that you have no dependents, then there’s no real need to fill out a Form DE 4.

So in essence, the new withholding tables do not account for the decrease in the dependent credit.  So if you have dependents and want to avoid the tax shock, then you might want to file a new DE 4 form as soon as possible.  Because the state is in so much red ink, there’s no way of knowing right now how long this change in the dependent credit or the tax increase will be in effect for. 

But I think it is safe to say that 2009 and 2010 are a lock.  Now 2011 and beyond?  It is hard to say right now.  But one thing is for certain – times financially will be very hard, especially if you’re a resident of California, whether you have dependents or not.

Times must truly be desperate within the state of California.  To recap just a bit, the voting populace of the state struck down 5 measures last Tuesday, in effect telling the state government, “No you may not tax us any further.”  Now it appears that state governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to “Plan B”.  I bet you’re wondering what Plan B is, aren’t you?

Well folks, it looks like Ah-nold is proposing that the state borrow $2 billion from – get this – municipal governments over the next fiscal year.  And you can rest assured that local officials here in California are pissed about the scheme.

Here’s what Ah-nold has in mind.  He wants to revive a 2004 law that’s in the books that lets the state demand loans of 8% of property tax revenue from cities, counties and special districts; under this same law, the state must re-pay these loans with interest within three years.  See folks, that’s where the problem lies.

California is around $21 billion in the red.  So it stands to reason that if the state is in the red, then you can safely assume that the cities, counties and special districts aren’t exactly swimming in black ink themselves.  By the state borrowing money from these jurisdictions, that would severely strain on monies that are usually set aside for fire, police and other essential services located within the cities, counties and special districts.

By the way, borrowing from municipalities requires approval from the state legislature.  I also have some examples of how this would affect governments at a local level:

• Los Angeles County could very well lose around $500 million; add that to the $300 million shortfall in their $23.5 billion budget – of which supervisors control about $3.5 billion – and that would obviopusly mean a reduction in services for the county.
• Contra Costa County stands to lose about $25.6 million from Ah-nold’s scheme.  This county has already, out of necessity, slashed around $156 million from their overall budget while laying off 600 workers.
• The city and county of San Francisco would take a $90 million hit under this proposal; currently, they are currently facing a $438 million budget gap.  They would more than likely have to borrow money to keep their deficit to a minimum.
• Kern County is affected, as well.  Their budget deficit would swell by $26 million under this scheme, with the end result likely to be more layoffs – both county and city-wide.

So in essence folks, this is again the case of “robbing Peter to pay Paul”.  If there’s a lesson to be learned out of all of this, it is this: Democrats are lousy at money management.  They run the general store at the State House and because numbers do not lie, getting yourself $21 billion in the hole is all the evidence that you need to prove that the legislators here in Sacramento have no idea on how to balance a budget.

Once again, I am going to get redundant here.  Folks, you have some options here.  You can:

• Either e-mail or telephone your local lawmaker (congressman/senator) and tell them to leave your jurisdiction’s money alone.
• Call in to your local talk radio station and voice your displeasure.
• Protest in front of your local city hall and/or legislator’s office.  If you live near or in Sacramento, do one better – protest in front of the State Capitol.  I can tell you from passing by there on a semi-regular basis that legislators have a hard time avoiding the general public when they leave the Capitol.

The message from the population here in California should be abundantly clear – state government, leave our local money alone!!

Funny thing about California voters.  They have been accused of being a lot of things.  Depending on what part of California that you’re from, then you probably are familiar of some of the wacky measures that show up on your ballot during election cycles.  And as a resident of California, I have had to vote on some myself.  That aside, California voters put their foot down on Tuesday as the six budget measures crafted by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and others within the State Capitol got soundly squashed in polling places statewide.  Although to be fair, one measure – eliminating pay raises to legislators – was approved by a huge margin.

What propositions got squashed on Tuesday?  Here they are:

• Prop 1-A: Rainy Day Fund.  The proposition would require lawmakers and the governor to increase the state’s rainy-day reserves during boom times to 12.5% of the general fund (the current amount is 5%). New restrictions on tapping the reserves would be imposed to keep money on hand for emergencies, such as natural disasters, or for years when revenue is down. The measure would let the governor cut up to 7% from many types of state operations and cost-of-living adjustments. The measure also would trigger an extension of billions of dollars in recent increases in sales, income and vehicle taxes for up to two additional years.  Defeated 65.8-34.2%
• Prop 1-B: Education Funding.  This measure would have restored $9.3 billion to schools if Prop 1-A had passed.  If both measures pass, annual “supplemental” payments to K-12 schools and community colleges would begin in 2011 to make up for recent cuts. The state would have several years to get its books back in order before starting the new payments, which would be drawn over several years from the larger rainy-day fund that Proposition 1A would establish. In putting this measure on the ballot, the governor and legislators won the backing of the powerful California Teachers Assn. for all six ballot measures.  Defeated 62.5-37.5%
• Prop 1-C: Modernize Lottery.  This measure would have been a big source of revenue for the State of California.  The proposition would authorize state officials to borrow $5 billion that would be repaid by profits from a revamped California State Lottery. The measure proposes to increase lottery profits with better marketing and bigger prizes to attract more customers. The measure guarantees that money provided to schools by the lottery — typically less than 2% of the education budget — would come instead from the state general fund.  State officials say that if Proposition 1C fails, they will have to cut billions of dollars more from the current budget.  Defeated 64.6-35.4%
• Prop 1-D: Child Services Funding.  This is designed to shift around $1.7 billion away from early childhood development programs over the next 5 years and use it to balance the state’s budget.  The California Children and Families Program, established by voters in 1998, would lose $608 million in 2009-10 and $268 million a year for the next four years. That represents about 70% of the program’s revenue, which comes from a tax on cigarettes. The money would go to the general fund to finance health and human services programs for young children.  Defeated 65.7%-34.3%
• Prop 1-E: Mental Health Budget.  This measure would temporarily shift money away from a mental health program established by voters in 2004, paid for with a 1% tax on personal income above $1 million.  About $460 million would be diverted from mental health programs over the next two years — roughly a quarter of the program’s revenues during that period — to help balance the state’s books. The redirected money would fund screening, diagnosis and treatment services for MediCal patients younger than 21, including those in need of mental health help. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says the measure would temporarily reduce money available for mental health programs.  Defeated 66.4-33.6%
• Prop 1-F: Elected Officials’ Salaries.  The proposed measure would freeze pay raises for legislators and statewdie officeholders in deficit years.  Near the end of each fiscal year, the state finance director would determine whether the general fund is expected to run a deficit. Declaration of a deficit would mean the California Citizens Compensation Commission is not permitted to raise the salaries of top elected leaders, which currently range from $116,000 for legislators to $212,000 for the governor (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not take his salary).  Approved 73.9-26.1%

I am not only beginning to wonder if California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has truly lost his mind, I am also counting the days when he leaves Sacramento.  That’s been my mindset, especially since he signed that budget bill last Friday and it is further ingrained when on an appearance ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”, he said he defended his decision to sign the budget – which included raising taxes -  and said that GOP leaders in Washington should be “team players” with President Obama.

Schwarzenegger added that if it means violating the GOP’s principles, then so be it.  The governor’s answer when reminded of his vow back in 2003 not to raise taxes, his reply was:

“I hate tax increases. Why? Because I said, if there’s an emergency, I want to have the options to raise taxes if there’s an emergency. Right now, you have to admit, we have a fiscal emergency. We have a financial crisis. We have a housing crisis, all of those things. And we had a $42 billion deficit. That’s the same as having an earthquake or some other disaster. It’s an emergency. And under those circumstances, we can raise taxes.”

Then he had the audacity to say that even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he was California governor.  He also offered some advice to the national GOP – like they’re going to listen to him – by saying that the party “must listen to the people”, which is more important than remaining stuck in their “ideology”.

There’s a lot of flaws to Arnold’s statements.  First of all, back in 2003, if you knew that at some point in time that you’d raise taxes, you shouldn’t have made that “no tax increase” pledge.  We, the public – especially here in California, don’t have short-term memories. 

Also – Reagan did make a tax increase while governor of this state; but unlike Schwarzenegger, I am pretty certain that he didn’t make a “no new taxes” pledge.  That was a different time when financial circumstances were much different than they are right now.

In addition, the U.S. taxpayers are hamstrung because they did not get a genuine chance to really know specifically what this economic stimulus plan was all about, so this isn’t a case of the GOP not listening to the citizenry here in the U.S.  And Schwarzenegger cannot really say that he went along with the people here in California when signing the budget last Friday. 

Did he commission a special poll or something?  I doubt it.  I know this much – he certainly didn’t speak for me.  So I’ll just maintain the patience of Job and count the days when Schwarzenegger leaves Sacramento – which cannot come soon enough for my liking.