High Gas And Egg Prices Caused By Liberal Policies Are Crushing California’s Poor

Eggs have long been understood to be an inexpensive yet highly nutritious food that helps stretch the family budget. But eggs aren’t so cheap in California anymore, and buying them is making poor people poorer in the state, thanks to liberal Democrats. In fact, California egg prices have soared 150% in the last year, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture study reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, up from $1.46 a dozen in May 2014 to $3.61 today. The Safeway in the Diamond Heights district of San Francisco is charging $5.99 a dozen now. This spike in egg prices is having the biggest negative effect on California’s lowest wage earners, who are seeing their already meager disposable incomes dwindle in the face of the state’s ever increasing cost of living, which is only being driven higher and higher by the policies enacted by liberal Democrats who control the state. Egg prices have been driven up, in no small part, by the enactment of Proposition 2, which was promoted by liberal elites and now requires all eggs in California to be produced only at farms where the chickens can move around freely. California’s law requires that farms ensure hens have almost twice the space required for sale in the country’s other 49 states, and the result is fewer farms able to sell in California and significantly higher costs to California’s consumers. The poor are of course hurt the most.

And at the same time as the price of eggs are going through the roof, liberal policies have made California’s gasoline the most expensive in the nation. Californians already pay among the highest gas taxes at the pump in the country, about 62 cents a gallon. Add to that the additional cost, as a result of our unique environmental laws, that require our gas be specially manufactured to reduce emissions. In mid-August, the average price for a gallon of regular gas nationwide was $2.61; but in California, the average price was $3.63, if you could find it! Low income wage earners often depend upon transportation to find employment and to keep their jobs. One study showed that in the Central Valley, poorer residents can spend as much as 10% of their disposable income just on gasoline. Yet while emissions in Los Angeles caused by automobiles have been reduced by over 98%, and the air is just getting cleaner as more low emission vehicles enter the market, California’s expensive and outmoded environmental rules keep the cost of gasoline at the highest in the nation–and the poor suffer the most.

California’s high cost of living has only been made worse by the tax policies of the liberal Democrats in control. Our state sales tax is the highest in the nation, which raises the cost of most every retail transaction. The high cost of living in the state has made it the poorest in the nation according to the Census Bureau, with 24% of Californians living at or below the poverty line.

But liberal Democrats just continue to enact policies that make living in California more expensive. Now, liberals are seeking to crush California’s poor even more. In Sacramento, rather than rearrange spending priorities, liberal Democrats are planning to raise the gas tax another 12 cents a gallon, and raise vehicle licensing fees as well. They intend to raise property taxes on commercial real estate too, which will make renting an apartment more expensive. These policies will drive up the cost of living even more, and make our state’s low income wage earners even poorer. When government pushes the cost of food, transportation, and housing to such an extreme that poverty only worsens, it means other bad things are going to happen in the state, like rising violent and property crime rates; and we all ought to start taking notice.

James V. Lacy is principal author and editor of the new book, “Taxifornia 2016: 14 Essays on the Future of California,” now available at the CreateSpace eStore here: https://www.createspace.com/5497002, and at Amazon and other outlets after Labor Day.

This commentary originally appeared on CaliforniaPoliticalReview.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hillary Just Rolled Out A Big New Plan. But She Forgot About THIS Damning Fact From Her Past…

On the heels of Hillary Clinton’s big announcement earlier this week calling for a taxpayer funded $350 billion debt-free tuition plan comes the revelation of just how much the candidate has charged universities in speaking fees.

Fox News reports that, since leaving office as secretary of state in February 2013, Clinton has received over $2 million from universities to speak at their campuses.

The price tag for these appearances has been significant. She received $275,000 for her speech at the University of Buffalo in October of 2013. Critics point out that her fee could have covered the tuition of many students for an entire year.

Former three-term New York governor and 2016 presidential contender George Pataki tweeted:

George Pataki Twitter Clinton

The Republican National Committee also seized on the matter, saying Thursday, “Americans deserve a real leader, not someone like Hillary Clinton who will simply call for a tax hike to check a political box after pocketing millions in speaking fees from struggling universities for her own personal benefit.”

Clinton’s response has been that every dollar she earned in college speaking fees went to the Clinton Foundation for philanthropic work. However, that organization has come under scrutiny for the extravagant salaries and expenses racked up by its employees, some of whom are associated with Clinton’s campaign. Breitbart reports that in 2013, only 6 percent of the foundation’s expenses actually went toward helping people in need. 

The University of Buffalo also defended Hillary’s fee in a July 2014 release: “The speaking fee and all other appearance costs are financed entirely through ticket sales, sponsorships and endowments established specifically to support the university’s Distinguished Speakers Series.”

The Clinton Foundation reported a salary range for some of Hillary’s other speaking appearances, including Hamilton University, which paid between $275,001 and $500,000, and Colgate University, which paid between $100,001 and $250,000, both in 2013

The following year, colleges that paid hefty fees to the former secretary of state included the University of California, Los Angeles – $300,000 – and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) – $275,000.

Elias Benjelloun, UNLV’s student body president at the time, told the Washington Post he thought Clinton, as a former public servant, ought to speak for free at the public university.

“The students are outraged about this,” he told the Post before the speech. “When you see reckless spending, it just belittles the sacrifices students are consistently asked to make. I’m not an accountant or economist, so I can’t put a price tag on how much we should be paying her, but I think she should come for free.”

As reported by Western Journalism, Former President George W. Bush gave his first university commencement address since leaving the White House at Southern Methodist University in May for free. SMU is the location of his presidential library and leadership center.

Bush quipped as he began his address: “So I got a call from my landlord, [SMU President] Gerald Turner. Rather than raising the rent or threatening to withhold our security deposit, I was relieved to hear President Turner ask if I believed in free speech. I said yeah. He said, ‘Perfect. Here’s your chance to give one.’”

Also reported by Western Journalism, millennials were shocked to learn just how wealthy Bill and Hillary Clinton are. The couple has owned or leased four mansions in the New York City area alone. Much of their wealth has come through speaking fees which, according to the New York Times, have totaled approximately $125 million since 2001.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: A CNN Host Pressed Trump To Reveal Specifics Of His Platform, And Here’s What He Got

Presidential candidate Donald Trump was pressed by CNN’s Chris Cuomo on some specifics regarding his platform, but the candidate chose to answer more from a bird’s eye view.

Cuomo first brought up an editorial written by National Review’s Rich Lowry that accused the billionaire of being a whiner. “I do whine,” Trump said, “because I want to win, and I’m not happy about not winning. And I am a whiner, and I’m a whiner and I keep whining and whining until I win. And I’m going to win for the country, and I’m going to make our country great again.”

The candidate also continued to stand by the fact that he has not ruled out a third party run. “I’m running as a Republican, I’m leading in every poll… I’m leading all over the place and I want to run as a Republican,” Trump said. “If I am treated fairly that’s the way it’s going to be, but I want to keep that door open. I have to keep that door open because if something happens where I’m not treated fairly I may very well use that door.” The businessman told Sean Hannity last Thursday that he is not willing to relinquish that leverage “at this time.” 

Cuomo then tried to get Trump to pin down some specifics of his policy agenda. Regarding tax reform the candidate said, “Our tax code is too complicated, and we can simplify it so easily.”

“How?” the host followed up.

“By using intelligence, by having common sense,” Trump replied. “I want to put H&R Block out of business.”

Cuomo would not let the issue go, so Trump finally said, “I know exactly what I want to do [with the U.S. tax code], I just don’t want to announce it yet.”

The two also covered the topic of Planned Parenthood, with the candidate stating, “The biggest problem I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. I mean it’s like an abortion factory, frankly, and you can’t have it and you just shouldn’t be funding it. And that should not be funded by the government. And I feel strongly about that.”

Cuomo followed up by asking Trump about the non-abortion services the organization performs. Trump said he would be willing to “look at the individual things…maybe some of the things are good, I know a lot of the things are bad.”

Trump indicated last week he would be willing to shut down the government to defund Planned Parenthood as a whole. 

Regarding abortion itself, Trump said, “I am for the exceptions” — rape, incest and “the health of the mother and the life of the mother. I absolutely am for the exceptions, and so was Ronald Reagan for the exceptions, by the way, there’s nothing wrong with that; you have to do it, in my opinion.” 

As reported by Western Journalism, last week Trump listed some of the top items that would be on his agenda were he to be elected president. They include strengthening the nation’s military forces, repealing and replacing Obamacare, securing the border, and implementing fairer trade polices with nations like China and Japan.

CNN reports Trump holds strong in the polls, “even topping Scott Walker in Iowa for the first time, claiming 17% of support to Walker’s 12% according to a Suffolk University poll released Monday. In New Hampshire, Trump continues to lead the pack, taking 18% in the Boston Herald/Franklin Pierce University poll also released Monday.”

You can watch Trump’s interview with Chris Cuomo in its entirety below:

h/t: TheBlaze

Do you think Trump needs to be more forthcoming about his plans for America? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Trump’s Startling Announcement – He’s ‘Probably The First Candidate In The History Of Politics’ To Admit This

Many people have suggested that Donald Trump’s big appeal — the reason for the candidate’s polling success — is that he says what so many frustrated Americans feel. He cuts loose with politically incorrect, unpolished, unfiltered comments that sound as though they come from fed-up folks who feel they just aren’t heard by the political class.

Now, despite his incredible wealth that clearly puts him in a different economic class than the vast majority of people who ardently support him, Trump has said he does something that again sounds like what most Americans try to do. He says he fights “like hell to pay as little as possible” in taxes.

TheBlaze reports on The Donald’s Sunday phone interview on CBS News’ Face the Nation, in which the GOP front-runner for the 2016 presidential nomination said he goes against the grain of many mainstream candidates in their politically correct practices.

According to the post on TheBlaze, “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he is ‘probably the first candidate in the history of politics’ to admit he fights hard to ‘pay as little’ in taxes as possible.”

Trump was apparently referring to the fact that many politicians seeking high elective office appear to show off how much they pay in taxes, especially federal taxes. Those ritualistic revelations seem to be a kind of badge of honor in their show of support for government by dutifully turning over vast sums of money to the federal treasury.

In typical Trump fashion, the billionaire businessman told Face the Nation moderator John Dickerson:

I fight like hell to pay as little as possible for two reasons. Number one, I’m a businessman. And that’s the way you’re supposed to do it… The other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes. I hate the way they waste our money. Trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse. And I hate it.

The discussion came as a result of Dickerson’s asking Trump whether he would do what Hillary Clinton just did — release tax returns showing how much he sent Uncle Sam. Trump indicated he hadn’t yet decided whether he would engage in what has become something of a political must-do for presidential hopefuls. He also said he may tie his decision to the release of what congressional investigators have been demanding from Mrs. Clinton.

“We’ll see what I’m going to do with tax returns. I have no major problem with it, but I may tie it to the release of Hillary’s emails,” TheBlaze quoted Trump as saying.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

What’s Happening In 2015 America Meets Sam Adams’ Criteria For Armed Rebellion

Samuel Adams, one of the fathers of the American Revolution, specified four criteria (conditions) for citizens to determine when armed rebellion is justified to respond to a tyrannical and illegitimate government.

Adams and others of a special committee wrote to the governor of Massachusetts, expressing their disapproval of the Shays Riots. Adams specified four criteria for the justification of armed rebellion, which were printed in a circular letter and reproduced by the Massachusetts Gazette on September 12, 1786.

All four criteria are easily met today, in 2015 America:

1. When laws are no longer made by a legislature elected by the people 

Today, no Senator or Congressman writes the laws they claim to sponsor or vote for or against. Bills are written by lobbyists and staff members of companies, and sometimes legislators’s staff. However, the majority of laws enacted are through regulations created by unelected bureaucrats of federal and state agencies.

2. When our form of government exists without our consent

For every law Congress enacts, 56 rules and regulations are enacted by unelected federal and state agency bureaucrats. In fact, in 2013, 65 bills were signed into law; but federal agencies enacted 3,659 rules and regulationsUnelected regulatory bureaucrats and/or lobbyists write America’s laws, without citizens’ consent and most often against the will of the people.

3. Taxation without representation

Obamacare is one obvious example. Congress, against the will of the people, imposed a tax by mandating that individuals must purchase from a selection of government-classified health insurance policies. Congress intentionally substituted a mandate by imposing a penalty for anyone who fails to comply. In response, the U.S. Supreme Court denied due process to Americans.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is another obvious example. Its numerous scandals evidence egregious abuse of power committed by unelected bureaucrats. Unelected bureaucrats have been targeting and discriminating against citizens by selectively enforcing regulations Congress did not create.

In response to the IRS’ abuse of power, an outraged public submitted a record-setting number of comments expressing their opposition to IRS rules. A Center for Competitive Politics study found that 94 percent of public comments opposed some aspects of proposed IRS rules; 87 percent opposed them outright; and of all participants, opponents outnumbered supporters by a 2:1 margin. Yet, their opposition has not prevented unelected bureaucrats from enforcing laws Congress did not create.

4. When authority is no longer derived from ourselves

The 2014 $1.1 trillion quid pro quo omnibus spending bill is an obvious example. (It was not a budget; Congress has not submitted or passed a budget since 2009). The Washington Post calculated that each legislator who voted for the bill received approximately $322,000 from the finance/insurance/real estate industries PACs and employees of firms in those industries. It writes: “On average, members of Congress who voted yes received $322,000 from those industries. Those who voted no? $162,000. Here’s the split by party. House Speaker John Boehner received the most money for ensuring the bill passed.

One provision of the bill written by Citigroup, ZeroHedge reported, could cost taxpayers nearly “$303 trillion in gross notional derivatives as a result of ‘siloing’ swaps, and their associated risks, in FDIC-insured operating companies.” Taxpayers would again (as they were in 2008) be responsible for bailing out financial institutions for losses they incur from these contracts.

Its editors write:


The laws that Congress does pass are written by industry professionals to benefit those industries, not the people they represent in theory only. American citizens, according to Samuel Adams, are justified in rebelling against what the Founders considered an illegitimate, unconstitutional, and tyrannical government ruled by evil men.

Abraham Lincoln warned Americans that they were responsible for losing their freedom. He stated: “America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

The question remains: will Americans heed his warning before it’s too late?

This column was first published by Constitution.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth