When golfers go Depardieu.

Actor Gerard Depardieu has been putting on a big show of running from France to escape high taxation.

Now, here in America, "Golfer Phil Mickelson May Call It Quits Due To Climbing Tax Rates."

If you think perhaps Mickelson is being a bit of a baby for threating [sic] to end a career that’s earned him a spot on this list of 10 wealthiest athletes on the planet because of some tax increases, understand that he’s getting hit on the state level, too. In November, California passed Proposition 30, which increases the top income tax rate on resident millionaires to 13.3%, a drain on Mickelson’s take-home pay that may force him to sell his 9,500 square foot mansion and flee his home state in search of more friendly pastures.

Do Americans care whether Phil Mickelson lives in the United States or not? It's hardly the equivalent of Gerard Depardieu and France. Or is it? Maybe I'm not getting America's attachment to its athletes.

Which, if any, Americans are in a position to protest — effectively protest — taxes by threatening to leave the country? Threatening to leave a state seems more plausible. I would think there are a lot of athletes in team sports who could let it be known they are taking taxes into account, but presumably that's all haggled over in private negotiations. A team in a high-tax state is going to have to put up more money than a team in a low-tax state. It really is the golfer — the athlete in business for himself — who has some choices about where to live. But other than the one-off character Tiger Woods, America doesn't care about golfers.

Aggressive prosecution #1: California businessman commercially growing medical marijuana.

Adam Nagourney, in the NYT, gives very sympathetic treatment to Matthew R. Davies — "a round-faced 34-year-old father of two young girls" with "graduate-level business skills" who "paid California sales tax and filed for state and local business permits" and got the advice of many lawyers as he set up an enterprise that plainly and overtly is a felony under federal law. Davies told the NYT:

“We thought, this is an industry in its infancy, it’s a heavy cash business, it’s basically being used by people who use it to cloak illegal activity. Nobody was doing it the right way. We thought we could make a model of how this should be done.”

Cloak illegal activity? It is illegal activity. Federal law is real. Haven't you heard?!

The right way? Cloaking is the right way when you're committing crimes. With your business education, somehow you were all: Hey, what a smart idea I have — being completely out in the open about breaking the law. Why hasn't anybody else thought of this?

And I love the way the NYT suddenly has a pro-business orientation. Davies deserves special grace under the law because he's using the structure of business and because he's excited about making big profits! Compare that to all the articles anguishing over Citizens United and how terrible it is to respect free speech rights when the speech comes from a place that is structured as a business.

“Mr. Davies was not a seriously ill user of marijuana nor was he a medical caregiver — he was the major player in a very significant commercial operation that sought to make large profits from the cultivation and sale of marijuana,” [said a letter from United States attorney for the Eastern District of California, Benjamin B. Wagner, a 2009 Obama appointee.] Mr. Wagner said that prosecuting such people “remains a core priority of the department.”...

“It’s mind-boggling that there were hundreds of attorneys advising their clients that it was O.K. to do this, only to be bushwhacked by a federal system that most people in California are not even paying attention to,” said William J. Portanova, a former federal drug prosecutor and a lawyer for one of Mr. Davies’s co-defendants. “It’s tragic.”

Yes, and it is mind-boggling that those who argue for the broad interpretation of federal power and who scoff at the idea of the 10th Amendment and reserving powers to the state somehow can't grasp the meaning of their general propositions when they encounter an issue where they prefer the state policy to the federal policy. The NYT and other drivers of elite opinion ought to have to face up to the reality of what their legal propositions entail.

And quite aside from the problem of the allocation of power at the federal and the state levels, how about some consistency about equal justice under the law? Let the law — as written — apply the same way to everyone, whether they have a round face and 2 young daughters or not, whether they've gone to grad school or not, whether they have big visions of massive profits or they are living hand to mouth. If the law is wrong, change the law — for everybody. Don't cry over the people you think are nice — like David Gregory and Aaron Swartz. Nonphotogenic and low-class people deserve equal treatment, and cutting breaks for the ones who pull your heart strings is not justice.

About those states that are opting to set up the Obamacare health insurance exchanges.

It won't be easy! Consider California:

Under the federal law, the state-run exchange aims to fundamentally reshape the health insurance market by negotiating with insurers for the best rates and assisting consumers in choosing a plan. The exchange must also help millions of Californians figure out whether they qualify for an expansion of Medicaid, the government insurance for the poor, or federally subsidized private coverage....

[If California doesn't get enough people enrolled, it] could lose billions in federal dollars and insurance premiums could soar. The task is daunting, given the size and diversity of California's population, said Paul Fearer, an exchange board member. "It's critical to get it right," he said....

[In] focus groups of consumers recently in San Diego and Sacramento[, o]nly about 20%... had even heard of the exchange....

About half of California's 7 million uninsured are Latinos, according to the exchange. To reach those who are eligible for coverage, the state may sponsor professional and recreational soccer leagues and court bloggers popular with Latino mothers. Officials also may hit up Hollywood to get TV shows such as "Modern Family" or "Grey's Anatomy" to weave the health insurance expansion into their scripts.

Recreational soccer leagues? Bloggers popular with Latino mothers? Health insurance plotlines on "Modern Family"? Does that sound like the way an insanely huge, complex, and comprehensive program will successfully penetrate a vast population quickly and pervasively? Oh, but the billions in federal dollars is such an incentive! Except that if you don't succeed, you won't get that money....

"Forced to Early Social Security, Unemployed Pay a Steep Price."

This is a front-page NYT story that seems like it will speak generally about many people choosing early retirement over continuing to search for employment, but it concentrates on one woman, which — for me, least — invites the reader to examine and critique this one woman's choices. Unless she represents most people who go the early-retirement route, the headline is meaningless.

Clare Keany has chosen to retire at age 62 in Palm Springs, California on $1,082 a month in Social Security. An immigrant from Britain, she worked for "nearly three decades" in the United States and was earning $64,000 a year when she lost her job. And she blew "the last of her savings" on a $19,000 mobile home and proceeds to pay $336 a month to park it in Palm Springs.

We're told she's youthful and energetic and doesn't like "living like this." But she was "Forced...."

I don't want to be too critical of this one individual. My problem is with the NYT. I know this is one way they write articles, and I myself have been the one woman in a NYT article. But what do we know when we know what happened to one person?

"Foie-mageddon: California in one last foie gras binge before statewide ban."

"... There have been protests, warnings of future black market bootlegging, and even death threats against non-compliant chefs."

... California's only foie gras producer is Sonoma Artisan Foie Gras, which is going out of business, despite business booming with clients placing bumper orders at $60 a pound in the weeks before the ban starts.

Owner Guillermo Gonzalez told The Daily Telegraph: "Our farm is being forced to shut down at the end of June, and the most unfortunate fact is that science has not been given a chance to play a role in this debate.

"Ultimately, chefs' and consumers' freedom of choice is being taken away. Who knows what food product is next?"

California voters have "buyers' remorse" over over a $68.4 billion high-speed "train to nowhere."

"The project is still $54.9 billion short of what is needed, raising fears that the state will be unable to find the funds to finish later sections, and could be left with a futuristic rail line linking minor cities and farming communities."

A new poll shows almost three fifths would oppose the bullet train and halt public borrowing if given another chance to vote.

Almost seven in 10 said that, if the train ever does run between Los Angeles and San Francisco, they would "never or hardly ever" use it.

Not a single person said they would use it more than once a week, and only 33 per cent said they would prefer the bullet train over a one hour plane journey or seven hour drive. The cost of a ticket, estimated at $123 each way, also put many off. Jerry Brown, California's Democrat governor, has championed the project as a way to create jobs and is backed by unions.

Democratic governor... backed by unions... Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, we rejected the Democratic gubernatorial candidate who wanted the high-speed train. We rejected him in November 2010, and we re-rejected him yesterday.

Here's Tom Barrett in October 2010, just before his first loss to Scott Walker, touting high-speed rail — "a defining issue" — where "Wisconsin was the biggest winner" — bigger even than California — in getting an offer of federal money to pay for a leg of a rail system.



And here is one of the most effective political ads I've ever experienced, the ad from Scott Walker, in late summer of 2010, rejecting the high-speed rail:

George Lucas: "I’ve been surprised to see some people characterize this as vindictive."

"I wouldn’t waste my time or money just to try and upset the neighbors."

Very funny. The liberals of Marin County blocked his expansion of his film studios, and he gave up and said he'd sell the land to a developer to bring "low income housing" to the area.

Ha ha ha. Whatever you do... don't call them "hot tubbers."

"Not even a busted state fisc can stop Jerry Brown's train to nowhere."

"Transportation experts warn that the 500-mile bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles could cost more than $100 billion, though the Governor pegs the price at a mere $68 billion. The state has $12.3 billion in pocket, $9 billion from the state and $3.3 billion from the feds, but Mr. Brown hasn't a clue where he'll get the rest...."

Mr. Brown is hoping that Washington will pony up more than $50 billion, but the feds have committed only $3.3 billion so far—and Republicans intend to claw it back if they take the Senate and White House this fall. If that happens, the state won't have enough money to complete its first 130-mile segment in the lightly populated Central Valley, which in any event wouldn't be operable since the state can't afford to electrify the tracks....

What a disaster! Remember a year and a half ago, when Wisconsin elected a new governor who said he'd kill the high-speed rail deal? I was a single-issue voter for Scott Walker then, and that was my issue. Here's a newspaper article from December 2010: "High-speed rail funds scatter to other states... California gets lion's share."

Wisconsin will keep only a fraction of the $810 million it won in federal high-speed rail money.... California is the big winner, with up to $624 million....

[Exiting Democratic Governor Jim] Doyle called the loss of the high-speed rail funds a "tragic moment for the state of Wisconsin. Eight hundred and ten million dollars that would have gone to create thousands of jobs in Wisconsin will now create jobs in other states... I obviously am deeply saddened to see us take a major step backward."

Ha. It's been so not tragic.

"My congratulations to the workers in California and Florida. As a result of this decision, you will have a merry Christmas," Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said at a news conference. "I'm just sad the same won't happen here in Wisconsin."

Tom Barrett is, of course, the Democratic Party candidate in the recall election against Scott Walker, but back then, he'd just lost the regular election to Walker. The recall election is in 2 weeks. I wonder if he's been asked about these old statements about the damned train and how lucky California was to get that federal cash infusion Scott Walker spurned.

"Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the 'Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich'..."

"... which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. Today, that tactic is used by hundreds of other corporations — some of which directly imitated Apple’s methods...."

Apple is only taking advantage of opportunities that exist in the tax code. Why do they exist?

A completely separate question, woven through the linked NYT article, is the way some states — notably California — take so much in tax that they drive businesses away. There's a competition among the states, and it punishes them for getting too greedy.

I get the impression the NYT would like to shame corporations into willingly forking over more money to the government. Here's a great anecdote:

In one of his last public appearances before his death, Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s chief executive, addressed Cupertino’s City Council last June, seeking approval to build a new headquarters.

Most of the Council was effusive in its praise of the proposal. But one councilwoman, Kris Wang, had questions.

How will residents benefit? she asked. Perhaps Apple could provide free wireless Internet to Cupertino, she suggested, something Google had done in neighboring Mountain View.

“See, I’m a simpleton; I’ve always had this view that we pay taxes, and the city should do those things,” Mr. Jobs replied, according to a video of the meeting. “That’s why we pay taxes. Now, if we can get out of paying taxes, I’ll be glad to put up Wi-Fi.”

He suggested that, if the City Council were unhappy, perhaps Apple could move. The company is Cupertino’s largest taxpayer, with more than $8 million in property taxes assessed by local officials last year.

Ms. Wang dropped her suggestion.

Cupertino, Ms. Wang said in an interview, has real financial problems. “We’re proud to have Apple here,” said Ms. Wang, who has since left the Council. “But how do you get them to feel more connected?”

Feel more connected.... Absurd! The article ends with a quote from the president of a Cupertino area community community college complaining that companies like Apple are "philosophically antitax, and it’s decimating the state." I'd love to hear what Steve Jobs would say to that. It's the pro-tax philosophy that decimates a state.

IN THE COMMENTS: Maguro said:

Needs an "Apple is like Elizabeth Warren" tag.

California bumper sticker: "California: It's All True."

A proposed bumper sticker, deemed brilliant by Peggy Noonan, who adapts it for her column "Gingrich Is Inspiring — and Disturbing":

That's the problem with Newt Gingrich: It's all true....

Ethically dubious? True. Intelligent and accomplished? True. Has he known breathtaking success and contributed to real reforms in government? Yes. Presided over disasters? Absolutely. Can he lead? Yes. Is he erratic and unreliable as a leader? Yes. Egomaniacal? True. Original and focused, harebrained and impulsive—all true.

The question isn't what it is, but: Do you want it?

It's all true, but do you want it?
	Not California, but Gingrich.
	Not either.
	Both!
	Just California.
pollcode.com free polls

California's high-speed rail project nearly triples in cost — to $98.5 billion.

And the new projected completion date is 2033, not 2020.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday was expected to endorse the long-awaited plan, the first major update to the project in two years and the last before the federal deadline to begin construction next year. But state legislators, who were already skeptical, will tear through the plan starting Tuesday before deciding whether to start building, or to kill the project.

Obviously, they need to kill the project. Speaking of governors, remember this guy?



That's the ad — from August 2010 — that clinched my vote for Scott Walker.

The "parent trigger" law lets 51% of parents petition to change a failing school and replace all the teachers or close it or turn it into a charter school.

A strange experiment going on in a California, Texas, Ohio, and Connecticut (and under consideration in many more states):

In essence, the law creates a parents’ union, which advocates say will provide powerful and needed counterweight to teachers’ unions and district bureaucracies....

[W]ith opponents and skeptics arguing that parents lack the expertise to make important policy decisions better left to career educators, the Compton case is a prime example of how challenging it can be to create change.

“We’ve been waiting for this for a very long time,” said Gregoria Gonzalez... “We are very tired of being told if we want to help we simply should stand outside watching recess or making something for a bake sale.”

California trumps San Francisco on circumcision.

The city has a ballot initiative that would outlaw circumcision, with no exemption for religion, and the state legislature has now barred cities from adopting a such a law (assuming Gov. Brown signs on).

"A Mendocino County woman who transformed her home into a bear bohemia with wading pools and specially prepared banquets..."

"... of corn meal and peanut butter sandwiches will not do jail time for doting on her hairy friends, but she will remain exiled from her property."

[Lynne Gravier, 77], known to almost everyone as the "Bear Woman," has been feeding bruins and other animals for decades, but nobody realized the extent of her devotion until neighbors began complaining. Last Aug. 24, seven fish and game wardens raided Gravier's home. They stumbled on what was essentially an animal hippie commune and shack-out pad.

In all 15 loafing black bears hung out with Gravier inside the house and on her deck, and lumbered around the compound like kings at a feast. Gravier named her oafish friends things like Smiley, Goofy, Connie, Biggie and Wombat. She admitted setting up a kiddie pool for wallowing. She fixed peanut butter sandwiches for her guests, sometimes mixing in glucosamine to ease the arthritis pain in older bears.

Some 6,000 pounds of rolled and cracked corn was delivered every month from a ranch supply house. Gravier stored the food in a 40-foot-long shipping container that she used as an ursine food dispensary.

Knight-errantry was not in evidence among the hulking chowhounds, who turned Gravier's home into a reeking outhouse. The cabin-style home was piled high with filth by the time of the raid and immediately condemned by county authorities.

Gravier also fed 18 cats, three dogs, 40 peacocks and a steady stream of visiting turkeys and deer.

And yet it took decades for the neighbors to begin complaining? And then, in the end, she gets no real punishment, after animal lovers protest the prosecution on behalf of the well-meaning lady. According to the neighbors, her loving ministrations were turning bears into problem bears that break into houses, chase sheep, and end up needing to get killed.

Bothersome bears are a particularly volatile issue in this cattle- and pot-growing town of 1,300 near the South Fork of the Eel River, in the heart of redwood country.

Pot-growing, eh? Seems like you can get away with breaking all kinds of laws these days... at least if your criminality has enough of a hippie vibe.

When a Republican draws the map of "South California" — his proposed 51st state...

... he leaves Los Angeles in the north.

Picture the political gerrymandering that could be done if it were feasible to redraw state lines!

Now, California is way too big. It's population is 37,253,956, according to the 2010 census. That's nearly 10 times the size of the entire United States at the time of the first census in 1790 (3,929,214). At the time of the founding, of course, there was much talk of the United States as a "large" republic. (See, e.g., Federalist #10.) The states were supposed to have an important role offsetting some of the problems of that largeness. How is that supposed to work today, especially in the absurdly overlarge California?

But redrawing the lines now? One look at Jeff Stone's South California map should tell you what chaos lies there.

"It is my high priority to find a new venue —and bring the Surfing Madonna and her important message of 'Save The Ocean' — back into public view in our community as soon as possible."

The unauthorized mosaic is "uniting the Latino community, surfers, ocean-lovers, environmentalists, and promoting ocean awareness in a way that's playful."

California already requires its public schools to teach women's history and black history, so why not gay history?

There's a bill in the state legislature that has already passed the senate.

Advocates say that teaching about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in schools would prevent bullying and shatter stereotypes that some students may harbor. They point to several students who have committed suicide after being taunted by peers for being gay. But the bill has drawn vociferous criticism from opponents who argue that when and how to talk about same-sex relationships should be left to parents.

So the motivation behind forcing this study of history has little to do with history. It's about controlling behavior.

I have this idealistic belief that young people would behave better if they were respected as students, if the study of history would be premised on the value of studying history, and if, when history is studied,   historical principles determined the subject matter. 

A similar bill was approved by the Democratic-controlled Legislature in 2006, but vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that school curriculum should be left up to local schools. But there is a new governor now. And both supporters and opponents of the bill expect it will sail through the heavily Democratic Assembly and be signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat who has been supportive of gay rights.

How much easier it is for a politician to sign a bill than for students to slog through political lessons year after year instead of learning what truly belongs in a history class. It's disgusting to compel young people to go to school and then to treat them like this.

And don't tell me that the gay rights movement genuinely belongs in a history course. Let that topic be integrated into history courses to the extent that they truly belong in a history course, not because some politicos wanted to score points or because their emotive constituents feel that there's an epidemic of bullying and suicide and it can be cured by making heroes out of Harvey Milk and his ilk.

“It is very basic to me that people dislike and fear that with which we are less familiar,” said Mark Leno, who sponsored the bill and is one of the first openly gay men elected to the State Senate. Students who come to view their fellow classmates as regular members of society, rather than misfits, will find that “their behavior changes for the better,” Mr. Leno said.

Leno just intuits cause and effect. "It's very basic to me" isn't a good enough foundation for a law that appropriates and exploits millions of hours of the time of other human beings. I could just assert that it's very basic to me that when young people are compelled to spend day after day, year after year, under the control of adults cranking out what sounds like state indoctrination, that they will rebel against authority. And then where's the good behavior you had your warm heart set on?

ADDED: Shouting Thomas cites "South Park":

The parents in that series are all veterans of the 60s, and they think that rebellion ended with them. They think that all of the issues of authority versus kids were solved when they were adolescents. So, they are constantly astonished to discover that their kids think they are pompous windbags preaching bullshit. Their kids are rebelling against them.

Click through to see what Shouting Thomas thinks about bullying.

Anxieties over the the high-speed "train to nowhere" in California.

Reported in the NYT.

I talk about the appellate argument in the Prop 8 case with Emily Bazelon.

The argument in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took place yesterday, and Emily and I gabbed about it this morning for Bloggingheads.

The oral argument in the 9th Circuit in the Prop 8 case is about to begin.

The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger. You can watch live on C-SPAN. I'll update with comments soon.

UPDATE: You can read some details about the case here. I'll have some of my own impressions in a little while.

UPDATE 2: You can watch the whole oral argument here. The first hour of the argument dealt with the threshold question of standing. California Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown were the original defendants in the case, and they have opted not to appeal. Proponents of Prop 8 (which banned same-sex marriage) need a way to intervene using some other party with a personal stake in the outcome or the decision of the district judge, finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, will be the final word on the subject.

It seems as though there should be appellate review, but the constitutional limits on federal court jurisdiction don't depend on how important it is for an issue to be heard. There are technical requirements, and it seems as though the plaintiffs' lawyers did a clever job of setting things up so a district court decision in their favor would be insulated from appellate review. But listening to the oral argument, I got the impression the judges thought it was too clever.

In the second hour, the substantive question boiled down to whether there was a rational basis for excluding gay people from marriage. The pro-Prop 8 side rested heavily on the fact that only heterosexual couples produce babies accidentally. But that has so little to do with the value of excluding gay people from the status of marriage. It's hard even to understand why reserving marriage to heterosexuals would make them do a better job of deploying their reproductive powers. Why should gay people, who aren't even the problem, bear the burden?