America's Fiscal Obliviousness

I am genuinely confused how people in our age group/financial position tend to vote so heavily on social issues (which appear to end up being non-issues with respect to the federal government, at least for the last 20 years), and tend to ignore what will crush us and our children: the mounting national debt. Democrat or Republican, we need someone to run this country who is a pure-bred CEO-type economist. Only a businessmen-- and by no means, an idealist-- will cure this negligent over-spending. If the U.S. dollar is removed as the reserve currency of the world bank, we are all very screwed. No one seems to comprehend that. Obama does not appear to be that concerned, and I cannot understand why. $17 trillion, a reduced S&P credit rating, and a rich Chinese government foaming at the bit (i.e., could cut off the lending tomorrow!), means we are asking for very serious trouble. Solving this problem should be the President's #1 priority, and Obama does not appear to be that interested. His attitude seems to be much like the majority of America's: ignore the fundamental problem and address the "popular" ones.

As for social issues... Gay marriage is almost entirely a state-level matter. DOMA is the only influence the federal government has ever had on gay marriage, and it's hardly a killer, and even if it were, it's likely to be overturned as unconstitutional (see: Wikipedia: Same-sex marriage in the United States). Immigration is a very valid issue, but on a federal list of priorities, any reasonable person has to put it well below an impending economic disaster given the ballooning national debt. Because at that point, emigration will be the problem, not immigration. Also, immigration mostly affects a handful of states, so it's more concerning on the state level rather than federal (see: Wikipedia: Illegal immigration to the United States). Throw in the other garden variety social issues-- abortion, flag burning, marijuana legality, online gambling, racism (Obama is black, I remind you), etc.-- they are all non-issues, or at best state-level ones. The federal government needs to address three things immediately: (1) ridiculous national debt; (2) troops in the middle east and other foreign hot spots; and (3) internal economics generally, including unemployment. You could argue healthcare as well, but that could be grouped into #3. The social issues (of which I am very liberal on-- I am a libertarian when you boil it down) are not and should not be a priority for our federal government over the next decade. The states themselves can handle those in the meantime, if not forever.

A reality check: currently 40 cents of every federal tax dollar we pay goes to paying interest on our debt. 40 F&#@KING CENTS! If the interest rates go up 3 points, that number skyrockets past 70 cents. We are f*cked if we don't address this now. But every mathematically-challenged, economics-is-boring, idealist marauder out there doesn't seem to care. Seriously?! What we are doing is equivalent to Nick Hedges borrowing enough money such that $10 million of Leads360's $25 million in revenue* gets paid right back to the lenders, and Nick just saying, "Ah, we'll deal with that later." Go ahead and raise taxes everywhere, but we cannot afford as a country to spend that money. Everything must be cut across the board: military, welfare, education, healthcare, every g.d. thing. Not until this debt gets back under control, can we begin to talk about Omar Little's wedding.

We all know the religious right is idiotic, and it has crushed the Republican party. Mr. Horsey (the author of this article: L.A. Times: Obama's victory is a harsh lesson for Republicans) is the Master of the Obvious. No f#cking sh%t Horsey... Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan f&cked us a long time ago. The most important thing Horsey recognizes: "...That does not mean a conservative cannot become president. A pragmatic fiscal conservative with an enlightened view of immigration and a tolerant attitude on social issues could do quite well."

What he should have said though is that "a pragmatic fiscal conservative with an enlightened view on social issues... [is the only thing that can save this country from a catastrophic economic disaster]." A g.d. libertarian is what he means. But it's probably too late. (See L.A. Times: Fitch Ratings warns of U.S. credit downgrade from fiscal cliff.)

* fictional numbers

Lessons from Traffic Court

Another semi-interesting chapter in the history of my infinitely long epic novel of speeding tickets was written today. Here is a not-so-quick recap of the relevant past chapters and the one written today:

1. I got pulled over a few years ago in Old Town Pasadena on a Friday night at about 10 pm on my way to meet Nicky Angelos for a beer, of course. The cop, driving a patty wagon, said I was speeding, changing lanes erratically, and wasn't using my turn signal, among other things. Those accusations were all true. I was very nice to him, and dropped the standard "I was just coming from/on my way to Lucky Boy/Cameron's/Tops [insert Greek-owned fast food joint frequented by cops here] to meet my cousin the owner" line. He didn't bite, but because he realized I wasn't hammered and I was being very respectful, he said he'd just write me up for a turn-without-signal violation. He wrote me up under section 22107. Naturally, I fought it in court agreeing entirely with the officer's statement of facts, but arguing that the statute did not apply because of the final clause: "...in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement." I won because the cop admitted that I didn't affect his movement and he wasn't aware of my having affected any other vehicle's movement. Afterward, the cop shook my hand, telling me that was the first traffic case he had ever lost. Pasadena court system record: 1-0.
2. Then, about a year and a half ago, I got lasered doing 47 in a 35 going southbound on Ave 64 just past Nithsdale Rd. He wrote me up under the "basic speed law" section 22350. I filed this Trial by Written Declaration with the Pasadena court. And, probably because no traffic survey had been conducted on Ave 64 in the last 5 years, I was found not guilty (without even having to show up in court!). My record moves to 2-0 in Pasadena.
3. Finally, last August, I got lasered doing 45 in a 30 heading west on Union Ave a couple blocks from where it starts at Hill (it's one-way, for those of you unfamiliar with Pasadena). I was charged with the same section 22350 violation. I thought I'd pull the same magic with the Trial by Written Declaration, but alas, this case was very different. When I asked why they were enforcing such a quiet street, the cop told me that surveys had been done on that street. With my buddy Stelios' help, I had some lady working in the City of Pasadena records department send me the traffic surveys that were done on Union Ave. Shockingly, two different traffic surveys had been taken in the past 6 months that allegedly justified the 30 MPH speed limit (and consequently made the laser evidence of my speed admissible in court). So I had to dig deeper in my argument, and I drafted this, arguing that the surveys didn't apply because they had been taken on a much busier, very different section of Union Ave. Needless to say, I was found guilty. So I filed for a Trial de Novo, basically getting another shot in-person in court. Today I went to court for that trial, and sure enough, Officer Hsu showed up. When they took roll call before any of the trials started, and I announced my presence, Officer Hsu spotted me, pulled me aside, and opened a folder. Pointing inside, smiling, he said, "So you didn't like my response to your Trial by Declaration?" I said, "Well, I never got to see your response! But I didn't like the result, no." He said, "Well, how about this: we dismiss this charge, but you plead guilty to section 38300. No point on your record, no traffic school, no nothing. You just forfeit the $234 bail." Without hesitation, I said, "Done." Judge approved, I shook hands with Officer Hsu and left.

So I learned something new today: California has this crazy catch-all vehicle statute, section 38300, which is NOT a moving violation and puts ZERO points on your DMV record. Coincidentally, the fee is $234, the same as basic speeding violations exceeding 1-15 MPH of the speed limit. Apparently, Officer Hsu didn't want to battle it out with me today, so he figured he'd make me an offer I couldn't refuse. And I couldn't. Arguably, my Pasadena record goes to 3-0. And Officer Hsu avoids a blemish on his record.

For a full explanation of the points of all violations and bail amounts, check this out: Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules.

The moral of the story is: it's probably a good thing to know about section 38300 the next time you get pulled over for going 15 MPH over the speed limit. You might be able to talk Johnny Policeman into writing you up for that.

PS: Yes, I know: If I spent as much time writing software as I do fighting tickets, I'd be a great web developer building enterprise software for companies that go public.