These regulations, 99.999% of them politically motivated by Sacramento with total and complete disregard for all the unintended consequences have cost Californians enormously.

The gist of the report is regulations on businesses have cost the state's economy $492 billion and 3.8 million jobs.

Read the full SF Chronicle article here: http://snipurl.com/s4v3v

Read the SF Chronicle article on why the report sat for a year because it was a little embarrassing for a pet bill of the Governor: http://snipurl.com/s4v57

For a PDF copy of the report itself go here: http://snipurl.com/s4vcp

Tuesday June 23, 2009 the San Francisco Board of Supervsiors enacted new renter protection laws.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors struck again in its on-going campaign to forcibly evict residential rental property owners from San Francisco and to further restrict the availability of vacant residential rental units. The Board of Supervisors blithely and totally ignores the unintended consequences of its actions on behalf of residential renters.

The Board of Supervisors passed out legislation which would do the following:

• Property owners could not move into their property if it means evicting a family.

• Tenants will have the right to add non-family roommates.

• Rent could not be increased where it would exceed one-third of a tenant’s income.

• CPI increases in rent could not be banked and done all at once.

• Blocked rent increases with additional tenants in the same apartment.

When the Libertarian Party called for drug legalization in its first platform in 1971, even the Democrats demonized us for the position.

Today, California Assembly member Tom Ammiano presented a bill to decriminalize marijuana statewide.  Similar proposals have been made in the past, but this time it's different.  Why?

Money.

According to Ammiano, the licensing and taxing of marijuana sales, which currently represent $14 billion of the California economy, would save several programs from the budget chopping block by raising $1.3 billion.

Not a very Libertarian reason, but, hey.  We'll take what we can get.  More freedom is more freedom.

Strangely, it seems that the Democrats have decided to balance the state budget on the backs of lower-income families, while leaving those of us who they routinely deride as "the rich" unaffected for the most part.  If you're the typical San Franciscan (median household income in the $70k range, one car or no cars, and one kid or no kids), the new budget tax calculator at the Sacramento Bee website shows that your "share" of the tax increase will be far less than 1% of your annual take-home pay.  But the same can't be said for those in other parts of the state, who tend to have half the income, more cars, and more kids.  From Richard Rider of the San Diego Tax Fighters:

Try this example of a struggling young working family: $35,000 total salary, $15,000 worth of cars, use 30 gallons of gas a week and have two kids at home. This is a family living paycheck-to-paycheck, getting by as best they can.

Total tax increase? A crushing $831 a year. That's well over a week's gross wages.

Bottom line: The top priority of the Democrat[ic] Party is the public employee unions - NOT the poor, the working class, or young families.

Since the above example was published, the gas tax increase was removed from the budget proposal, but the vehicle licensing fee increase remained.  The example family would still pay an extra $660 per year, over $100 more than a hypothetical San Francisco couple making four times as much but with no cars and no kids.  In "progressive" terms, this is even worse when you consider that the tax increase will be nearly 2% of the example family's annual income, but only 4/10 of one percent of the annual income of the hypothetical San Francisco couple.