My Asshat Governor

As if it hasn't been proven time and again, here is more proof that Governor Schwarzenegger is in way over his head. In light of the special election a few weeks ago that delivered a crushing defeat to all but one of the his ballot initiatives, Schwarzenegger has announced a new series of cuts-- to the state's welfare-to-work program, low income children's health insurance, and higher education. Why are these cuts needed? Because he and his slimy band of reptilian Republican obstructionists refuse to raise taxes.

Especially galling is that the cut to the welfare-to-work program cuts only $1.3 billion from the budget, but cuts the state out of a $4.2 billion matching grant from the federal government. And the children's health care cuts? A savings of $250 million that cuts health care for around 1 million low income children. This looks awfully bad in light of one of Schwarzenegger's first moves as Asshat In Chief: cutting registrations fees for cars (a move that costs California $3.6 billion a year).

I know what the right says-- Californians are over taxed as it is. California's tax burden is second only to 'Taxachutsetts' in grand socialist mythology. As LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik pointed out only a few days ago, California actually has the 18th highest tax burden, and that the wealthiest in California have the lowest effective tax rate of all Californians. The poorest have the highest tax burden, and that divide has increased in the last round of budget cuts and tax hikes-- the recent deal raised the effective rate on the rich to 7.8%. The rate for the poorest Californians is now 11.1% (compare that to the previous rates, 7.4% and 10.2%). Hell, cigarettes are cheaper in California than in Texas. A lot of this has to do with property taxes, which are much lower in California. I owned a home in Texas, and the property taxes were almost twice as high as those I pay now-- and I paid more than double for the home here. The idea that Californians have an excessively high tax burden is one myth that needs to die. Seriously, are cheap car registration fees worth forgoing billions in federal welfare aid and cutting health insurance and college educations for California children?

Well done, gov. Insert slow, sarcastic applause here. Recall, anyone?

Bad News Coming (sort of)

Tomorrow the California Supreme Court will give a ruling on the case challenging Prop 8-- the talking heads and legal eagles mostly seem to think that it won't turn out well for the forces of marriage equality. The ruling will most likely uphold the voter-approved constitutional amendment banning marriages based on non-privileged configurations of genitals.

I'm not terribly upset, however. At this point in history, I'd rather have a rematch in 2010. If the court struck down the voter approved ban, the wingnuts would have some ammunition in other states and that could hurt the positive momentum we've seen lately. It will be much more meaningful to the marriage equality movement to have the people of California vote for the equality of their gay brethren than for the court to unilaterally correct the bigoted parade of asshattery that is Prop 8 (as gratifying and justified as it would be, assuredly).

I think 2010 will turn out much differently. For one, proponents of marriage equality won't be fooled by a large and early lead in the polls like in 2008. We all know now that right-wing nutjobs and some religious groups (like that "magical underwear" wearing outfit that shall remain nameless) will raise piles of cash. A similar fundraising effort will need to be put in place to fight it. Plus, I think the shock of Prop 8 passing will force many people out of complacency and mount a better offensive.

As a resident of California, there is another reason I would like this on the ballot in 2010: to point out the sheer and utter insanity of ballot initiatives for constitutional amendments. Let me put it this way: we have an budgetary clusterfuck in this state not in the least part because of the two-thirds "Supermajority" required to raise state taxes, but we can vote down previously granted civil rights for a portion of the population with a straight up and down vote and a simple majority.

Ahh-nold is a Veeee-nie

Governator, wherefore hidest thou?

Dates and times of Gov. Schwarzenegger's "State of the State" addresses:

January 6th, 2004, 5:00pm
January 5th, 2005, 5:00pm
January 5th, 2006, 5:00pm
January 9th, 2007, 5:05pm
January 8th, 2008, 5:04pm

January 15th, 2009, 10:00am

Come on. Hiding it during a workday like that? Weak.

A problem solved by art, then jacked up by government tools

I caught this story in the LA Times, which has also made it on the local news rotation here in Southern California.

A small family-owned grocery business in Highland Park (a north east Los Angeles neighborhood) was having a difficult time with graffiti—the owners told the LA Times that the store had been hit by “taggers” over 100 times. After some research, the Antonio family found that buildings in the area with murals were not being hit by graffiti. As it turns out, murals are highly respected in the world of street art and are generally untouched out of respect for the creators. The Antonio family spent $3,000 hiring some local artists to create a mural on the side of their grocery store. The plan worked—after mural was finished, the store went untouched for three months. Art solving real-world problems, very cool.

Enter The City. The LA Times article reports that after about three months, the city threatened the Antonio family with a $1,000 fine and/or imprisonment if it the mural wasn’t removed. City crews then came by and whitewashed the side of the building. Why? Usually the city doesn’t go after murals unless someone complains.

A Highland Park resident did complain. She said that the mural was “gang looking” and made her “nervous”. The kicker here is that she is with the Highland Park Neighborhood Council (bletch).

There are a several of things that bother me about this. First of all, the director of the city’s Office of Community Beautification had this to say about the mural—“There’s obviously some talent here, but that’s just graffiti”. How condescending—to demure enough to admit that there is some artistic talent behind the object, but then to negate completely its status as art. That we have city officials to decide what is and is not art is completely appalling; I find this (at the risk of hyperbole, I admit) rather terrifying as an artist. That the art in question was on private property is even more heinous. How is it that someone can use an “excessive advertising” ordinance to force a private citizen to remove something of artistic value (and commercial value—remember the $3,000 price tag) from his or her own property? I’m terribly sorry if it made some (probably white) neighbor “nervous”, but seriously.

If you want to live in a community where things like this are controlled very carefully, the United States has thousands of KB Home/DR Horton/etc. communities available with very stringent and proto-fascist Home Owners Associations. You can even run for HOA president, where being a complete asshole will garner you lots of praise. Outside of that, however, I would hope that the rights of private citizens to decide for themselves what constitutes art without prior consent of the government would prevail over the at best unaware, and at worst, racist “feelings” of a member of the Highland Park Neighborhood Council.

And just for the record: since the city painted over the Antonio family’s mural, the wall is getting tagged again. I hope that lady from the Neighborhood Council likes looking at that.
(photo of mural by Jacob Antonio Jr., of the Antonio family)