Imagine a faraway land that was so prosperous that almost every inhabitant had their own personal Rolls Royce parked inside the garage of a 5,000 square foot house, and had personal chefs that whipped up whatever food they wanted.

Now, imagine about 15 percent of the population of that fictional country only had a 2,000 square foot house, a low-end BMW or Mercedes, and had to go to restaurants to get what they wanted to eat. Would it seem silly to call this group "poor"?

It would seem so to people from less prosperous countries who struggle to find food and warmth on a daily basis, as well as people in the rich country who had the presence of mind not to be fooled by the laughable idea of relative poverty.

Relative poverty is not quite the same as actual poverty, as the story about the faraway land illustrates.  No matter how rich a person is, he can always be considered relatively poor when compared to someone wealthier.

Relative--not real--poverty is what many American social programs are based upon. It's a great scam--the relative poor will always be with us, no matter how rich we get as a nation.

In this country, almost zero people starve to death. Out of 300 million people, almost nobody starves to death for wont of food.

Think about that. Demagogues tell us they need more of tax dollars because children are going to bed hungry. It's nonsense. In fact, the biggest health problem facing the"poor" is obesity.

If I was from another country and worried about where my next meal was coming from, I wouldn't believe there would be people in America who thought they were poor. No wonder they hate us.

Over 90 percent of the American "poor" own refrigerators, televisions and ovens. More than three-quarters have air conditioning, and two-thirds have cable television. Thirty percent have a video game system, and over half (as of 2005) had cell phones.

Ironically, the social welfare state consumes so much money annually from taxpayers that might otherwise donate some of that money to charitable organizations that help truly starving people in other countries.

Richard Carter, Chairman of the Ventura County Democratic Party.

That should be a surprising outcome, considering he was the moderator. I've publicly criticized him in the recent past, but fairness dictates that I credit him when he performs a good deed.

Carter and his team reached out to a libertarian and a conservative Republican and invited them to debate a Democrat (and an independent, who couldn't make it to the event). They sponsored a fair and open debate, and gave each participant an even chance to convince the left-leaning audience of the superiority of their positions.

No minds were changed.

I have a soft spot for people that make an effort to try to open a dialogue with ideological opponents in good faith--it's a naivete of mine I hold onto tightly so it's not lost in the glare of the endless daily partisan political war that's fought on print, TV, radio, and online all the time. Seeing an invitation go out for a friendly debate to me is like seeing a white flag of truce. For centuries, the flag ensured that the bitter fighting could stop for a few moments and combatants could sit down to reason together, even in enemy territory with safe passage ensured. To show my support for this idea, I traveled to Simi Valley to watch the debate. And if the panel were the combatants, then that would make me a war correspondent whose role it is to publicize any incidents of disrespect to the flag of truce.

As I stated before, Carter deserved credit for refereeing a fair match. How did the audience behave? There was a lot of hooting and hollering from the heavily Democratic audience, but guess what? It's their club, their home turf. I played against other town's baseball teams in the Midwest and I never expected their fans to cheer for me. When you're the visiting team, you don't have the advantage of having the crowd on your side, but so what it's fair.

I did hear some inappropriate things from a few individual audience members, but it wasn't anything egregious. The worst breach of the truce came when a Tea Party supporter tried to start a shouting match with the Democratic debater about abortion.

Now, I realize abortion is an emotional subject. I have strong feelings about it. But let's think about this practically. I previously opined that this debate was an opportunity for Tea Partiers to show mainstream Democrats that they aren't the irrational, angry people the elite media portrays them to be.

How do you think shouting like an irrational, angry person comes across to a Democrat? Like you just confirmed every single suspicion they had about you. Great job, way to influence others.

In contrast to that unruly audience member, the Tea Party organizer who was on the debate panel embodied the exact opposite of angry. She was quiet, calm, and didn't even want to comment on social issues. However, she didn't quite have the polished talking points at her disposal that her opponents possessed, and so she did not sway the crowd.

Incidentally, I don't regard having polished talking points to be a good thing, but nevertheless that's what the debate degenerated into--the professional Republican and the professional Democrat trading statistics and cliches and getting nowhere.

I do have to point out one low blow the Democrat took. Setting aside the fact that she was perhaps the smuggiest smug that ever smugged during a debate--she couldn't help but to make childish faces during her opponents' responses--she resorted to calling her conservative opponents "tea baggers" for identifying Obama's healthcare plan "Obamacare."  As the Republican pointed out, that's a descriptive and political term, not an insulting sexual term like "tea bagger." Republicans do not get upset when Reaganomics is discussed, why should Democrats melt down when Obamacare is mentioned? Oh, and just to show you how classy this lady was, she said that trickle-down economics is when the middle class "gets pissed on," which is sort of what she did to the flag of truce.

She, and a few of the audience members, seem to be the type of people that would invite someone to a "pig party." A pig party is where some cool kids invite some nerds to a party, pretending they like them so that they can get them in a room to sneer and make fun of them in not-so-subtle ways.

She could have learned a lesson in civility from Carter, who--even though he had opportunities to embarrass the participants--compensated for her intransigence by acting appropriately and courteously to the panel. Due to that, and the absence of a masterful performance by one of the conservatives, he (and by extension his organization) walks away from this one the winner.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right.

And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, "Oh God, don't be attacking Obama." Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. 

Everybody's afraid of the government, and there's no need to soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessmen and Republican businessmen, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. 

Unions and Democrats dangled a shiny promise in front of voters so that they'd pass Proposition 25.  Legislators would not be paid if they didn't pass a budget. Voters took the bait and passed the initiative, the real purpose of which was to lower the requirement to pass a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. Some weren't fooled.

As opponents of Prop 25 predicted, Democrats passed a sham budget on time to so they could get paid. At least Controller John Chiang and Governor Jerry Brown saw it for what it was and rejected it. Legislators lost some pay before quickly passed another budget that was still bad but not quite as awful.

Proposition 25 was hailed as a success for incentivizing Democrats for finally passing a budget, although the credit probably should go to Chiang who unilaterally decided the original budget was bogus. Without him, Proposition 25 would have been unable to stop Democrats from passing fake budgets on time just so they could get paid.

That's not the worst part of the initiative. By lowering the budget-passing requirement to just a simple majority, Democrats no longer need Republican input on the budget, unless they want to raise taxes. Any other trailer legislation the Democrats wanted to tack onto the budget bill would be A-OK and take effect with the governor's signature. Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee writes:

That legislative loophole, this column and other analysts pointed out, would make it easy to push major pieces of policy legislation through the Capitol with little or no public notice. And that's exactly what has happened.

The last piece of the Democrats' June 28 budget package, placed before legislators only minutes before the vote, revised school finance to benefit the California Teachers Association and make it more difficult for school districts to manage cuts in state school aid.

Who supported Proposition 25? That's right, the California Teachers Association! Walters continues:

Democrats were so proud of their newly minted budget hegemony that they did it again Monday by drafting and quickly pushing through the Assembly another major trailer bill with no hearings and virtually no notice.

This one gathers idle funds from the state's two major university systems into a special pot from which the state could borrow for cash flow purposes.

There was no rational reason for the bill to be done so secretly or hurriedly. Seemingly, Democrats did it just because they could -- thumbing their noses not only at Republicans but also at the larger public.

The voters can be criticized for being fooled by the no-pay provision. But the real villains are those who knew exactly what Proposition 25 would do behind the scenes. Its major supporters included the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the California Faculty Association, the California Federation of Teachers, the California Nurses Association, the League of Women Voters, and the Los Angeles Times.

Who saw through the scam? The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Taxpayers' Association, and the Small Business Action Committee, and the Ventura County Star.

An astounding 20 percent of personal income comes in the form of direct payouts from the government to citizens, according to Moody's. The New York Times ticked off the types of payments that are included in the figure:

Close to $2 of every $10 that went into Americans' wallets last year were payments like jobless benefits, food stamps, Social Security and disability, according to an analysis by Moody's Analytics.

There are social and political ramifications for such reliance on the government. One only needs to look at Greece to see what can happen when governments run out of money for generous social programs.

It's a self-reinforcing cycle.  The more people become addicted to the government, the more urgent the need for reform and yet the harder it becomes to implement it.

 As more Americans get addicted to government cheese, costs skyrocket to unsustainable levels. Despite the urgent need for reform, however, politicians are reluctant to scale back the programs due for fear of political backlash.

We're seeing that dynamic play out in the Obama/GOP budget negotiations that was thrust into the center stage Monday morning as a result of the president's press conference on the subject.

What a surprise! Ventura city officials found a way to try to block a grassroots-driven initiative to removing downtown parking meters--through the courts.

Opponents to the meters tried to get the city to impose a moratorium on the meters. They gathered 10,000 signatures to qualify it for the ballot. Now, even if a hundred thousand Ventura residents vote for the initiative, it won't matter. The parking meters will stay, if City Attorney Ariel Calonne is correct that courts have ruled that the power to remove parking meters is controlled exclusively by the City Council.

The lesson here is that governments--whether they are cities, counties, states, or countries--don't really care about being responsive to the people's wishes. If the people want something the government doesn't want, the government will find a way to thwart their wishes. We saw it with Prop 187. We saw it with Prop 8. We're seeing it locally with these parking meters.

The system is rigged against the citizen, making meaningful reform difficult, if not possible.

The Star's editorial board asked readers "why not tax those making $10.8 million", prompting--as of this writing--nearly 200 comments as multiple spirited debates broke out on the newspaper's website.

One of the first commenters agreed with the Star's pointed assessment. The newspaper opined:

Common sense, let alone simple arithmetic, tells us the federal deficit cannot be brought under control by spending cuts alone; it will take some combination of cuts and revenue increases, whether by tax hikes, loophole closings or, by some devoutly wished for miracle, a really robust economic boom.

 And it criticized the GOP for a lack of a budget deal:

Maybe the GOP's tax hardliners think we're stupid. If we believe this, we are.

One commenter agreed, writing:

I'm waiting for the first conservative to comment and prove the GOP tax hardliners correct in their assessment of the public's mental abilities.

Here's my response to this commenter.

The Star said, "Common sense, let alone simple arithmetic, tells us the federal deficit cannot be brought under control by spending cuts alone..."

Arithmetic would dictate that deficits CAN be solved by cuts alone, or also solved by revenue increase alone, or by a combination of the two.  Now, politics might be dictate the deficit can't be closed by cuts alone, but not arithmetic. Consider the math:

If a household makes $50,000 but spends $75,000 a year, they have a deficit problem. To close the deficit, they can a) cut $25,000 in spending, b) try to get another job or otherwise increase their income by $25,000, or c) do some combination of cutting spending and increasing income.

Isn't that common sense? Doesn't that math add up?

Speaking of arithmetic, the Star wrote:

When it is suggested that [the wealthy's] tax rates be increased a modest 4.6 percent to the 39.6 percent rate they were paying in 2000 the Republicans scream that this is "job-killing class warfare."

Ignoring the fact that suddenly we went from talking about people making $10.8 million a year to families and small businesses making a few hundred grand in the top tax bracket, there is one small problem in that statement that has rather large ramifications for taxpayers in that bracket.

Going from a 35% rate to a 39.6% rate is not "a modest 4.6 percent [increase]." It's almost three times that amount--a whopping 13% increase (it's a 4.6 percentage POINT increase, but a 13 PERCENT increase)!

I do worry about defaulting as a country. That might be too radical of a shock the global economy.  We're in a bad position--our national spending problem threatens our solvency in the long-term. The only way anyone will have enough political courage to cut spending is through sparring over the debt limit, which risks our short-term solvency.

It's almost like torture to sit here in 100-degree weather knowing the second Annual Moorpark Beer Festival is almost three months away, but it's never too early to mark your calendars. How often do you get to drink beer AND help your community at the same time?

On September 30^th, beer enthusiasts from around the county will partake in some frosty brew on High Street at the Moorpark-Morning-Rotary-Club sponsored fundraiser.

"We are excited to once again bring this great community event to Historic Downtown

Moorpark," said club President Barbara Orechoff. "This event is a great opportunity to bring the community of Moorpark together with our neighbors in the region and to raise money to support our local schools and organizations."

The Moorpark Morning Rotary Club is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

Tickets are $50 at the door, but they can be purchased at a 20 percent discount if ordered from the festival's website prior to the event. You have plenty of advance warning to save the money. Take advantage. If the price tag seems steep, think of it this way--$40 will only get you about three beers at a Dodger game. At the Moorpark Beer Tasting Festival, not only do you get a whole lot more beer from breweries like Ventura Surf, Stone, Wolf Creek, and Enegren, but you get to help out your community all while having a good time. 

If drinking's not your thing, there will be lots of food to sample as well. Designated drivers can purchase tickets for $25.

More event details can be found here.

Members of the radical left plotted to pose as conservatives and write racist comments on the Ventura County Star's website in an attempt to further county Democratic Party Vice Chairman David Atkins' efforts to paint local Republicans as racists in white hoods.

Atkins has not apologized for his accusations; to the contrary, he told the Star he's proud for identifying the "racism" he saw at the public Redistricting Commission hearing in Oxnard on June 23^rd, in which some residents opposed the plan to lump eastern Ventura County with Los Angeles county.

He also posted a vigorous defense on his Daily Kos diary Saturday, which is popular among the radical left.  Atkins told his followers that he's not going anywhere despite calls for him to resign his seat on the Ventura County Democratic Central Committee, and renewed personal attacks on local Republicans, particularly those in Simi Valley, and especially me, since I broke the story that led to a front-page Star article about Atkins' controversial comments.

His Daily Kos followers then conspired a "psyops" campaign to trick Ventura County Star moderators into approving comments after that article that would make conservatives look racist.

"No registration is required to post stuff on that newspaper's site," one of Atkin's commenters wrote. "Use a fake name and fake email address, and come out as someone who 'just wants to live with their own kind...'"

Atkins' follower also advised, "Avoid using racial stereotypes of others to make your point.  Just stick to the point that "we want to live with who we want to live with, not with someone else," and let readers fill in the blanks themselves.  This will make Ingemunson's smear backfire, and will also bring out some of the local racists-for-real, who will soil themselves in public and make our job easier. "

Several people tried to leave such fake comments on my blog, and I have no idea how many appear after the Star's article.

Other Atkins' followers cautioned not to discuss the matter where I could read it, and Atkins himself wrote that there is "no need for psyops on these folks. Just peruse the comments section--the racism there really sort of speaks for itself."

How does he know he's not fooled by a liberal psyops campaign? Talk about a vicious cycle--the radical left writes anonymous racist comments on a website and then Atkins decries the racist comments. It's like a perpetual racism machine.

I won't do what Atkins did and take some anonymous commenters and use them to broadly smear a larger group, like he did with his conservatives "want to use minorities for target practice" piece. But I will say that it's nice to know that some on the other side are willing to lie to make their points because they can't win a stand up argument.

Suspicion of professional journalists is a big part of the conservative psyche. It goes with the territory. So when the Star announced it has a new editor, conservatives' first reaction will be skepticism. Who is John Moore? Can we trust this guy? Does he have a political agenda?

I know a little about Moore; he was my professor for two classes at California Lutheran University's graduate-level public policy program. While spending months and months studying under someone you get a feel for how someone sees the world, so I should be able to tell you where he falls on the left-right political spectrum.

There's just one problem--I have no idea.

I honestly don't know his party registration or his political beliefs. He didn't really reveal them in class, even though he engaged us frequently in discussion with a good sense of humor and affability that led   to interesting classes that I always looked forward too.

He just seemed to me like a fair and honest pursuer of truth, the way a journalist should be. We only disagreed on something one time that I recall (I'm going back six years in memory here), and that was regarding using technology to increase voter turnout.

I piped up that Internet or text message voting is a scary thing, that what we want is not simply more voters but more informed voters. I have nightmares about the American Idol crowd texting in their votes for president. The small requirement that you should stop by the polling booth and spend 10 minutes probably weeds out half the people that have no idea what they're doing, a classic small-r republican position.

Moore responded that he doesn't think greater voter participation is a bad thing and probably said something in support of using technology for that purpose.

I still disagree with that very democratic idea, mostly because I think republics are superior to democracies in that they contain structures to cool the passions of "the mob" that our Founders were concerned about. In 21^st century America, the mob is comprised of the people that can't name the vice president but devote their lives to getting Scotty McCreery elected the next American Idol. While I wouldn't support poll taxes, disenfranchising people, or subjecting voters to aptitude tests, I also wouldn't support text message voting or voting online from home. Travelling to the polling place (or even filling out and mailing an absentee ballot) increases the chance that a more deliberative, calm and thoughtful electorate will outnumber those who can only muster the effort to whip out their phones from their pocket to press a button.

But I respect his position. I think that Moore is coming from a commendable place--he wants everyone to be represented in the country.  That's hard to argue with and it belies a kind of optimism for humanity that I don't possess, although I have a soft spot in my heart for those that do.

The only other memory I have that might shed light on how he sees the world is that he seemed to genuinely want reporters to be unbiased. What more could a conservative want from an editor! I gave a presentation on a conflict of interest a reporter had over the 2007 MacArthur Park May Day incident. Fox 11 news personality Cristina Gonzalez claimed that LAPD shoved and struck her, and went on to sue the city. Fox still put her on TV as the on-scene reporter even though she had become part of the story, and in my opinion lost her objectivity (or at least the appearance of it).

Moore seemed to agree with me that Fox should have assigned another reporter to cover the story, and interview Gonzalez for her interpretation of events. That shows me that objectivity is a priority for him. He also pointed out I said "uh" too much during my speech, which is true, I do that too much.

That's the only insight I can give.  I think conservatives can rest assured that Moore isn't driven by the typical liberal ideology that infects newsrooms across the country. By the same token, we also shouldn't expect him to veer the paper to the right. Instead, I think he'll give us the closest approximation to the truth that we can reasonably expect, just like a newsman is supposed to do.

Taxation is one of those fault lines that form our political boundaries. Conservatives tend to be against tax increases and liberals tend to be for them. In this era of mounting deficits, Republicans believe that the situation can be helped by reducing burdens on businesses, while Democrats salivate over the businesses' deep pockets. In the state recent budget battle, Republicans fought against increases the Democrats wanted.

It's a battle that's waged repeatedly, at all levels of government, in all parts of the country.  Just because it's an ongoing debate doesn't mean it's a complicated issue, however. One only needs to read this article from the Star that discusses the sales tax decrease that took effect on Friday.

"By them lowering tax rates, it'll help increase sales, absolutely," said the owner of Rocket Fizz in Camarillo.

The owner of the Bunnin Automotive Group in Oxnard told the Star the same thing.

At the Bunnin Automotive Group in Oxnard, owner Leo Bunnin thinks the cut in sales tax will be a big win for auto dealers. A 1 percent reduction adds up on big-ticket items such as vehicles, he said.

I'm a little slow so help me figure this out. If lowering taxes increases sales, won't raising taxes decrease sales? And if sales are decreased..doesn't that mean tax revenues will decrease?

So why do Democrats keep pushing for higher taxes to raise revenues, like this:

Gov. Jerry Brown tried but failed to convince legislators to maintain the higher 8.25 percent rate to help close a budget gap that stood at $26 billion early this year before severe cuts were made.

I don't quite have an answer. Tax increases certainly look good on paper. Papering over the budget gap is a time-honored tradition in Sacramento because it's all that's been required to pass a budget to clear the way for more borrowing. So tax increases might be promoted for practical reasons even though the Democrats in charge know they don't work.

I suppose they could really believe it will increase tax receipts. I hope they read the Star's article and find out what happens in the real world.