The Consequences of Democratic-Socialism Are Becoming Apparent in California

The Consequences of Democratic-Socialism Are Becoming Apparent in California

© David Burton 2020

Fleeing the Results of Democratic-Socialism

     “Bernie Sanders has won California’s Democratic presidential primary. The state has 415 delegates at stake, the biggest haul on the electoral map.(Ref. 1) So said the late-night news from the People’s Democratic Republic of California at the end of “Super Tuesday”, 4 March 2020. Unlike the Communist People’s Democratic Republics around the world, people in California are free to vote for whomever they want and for the form of government under which they live. The most arguably left-leaning state in the union had once more shown its love of Democratic-Socialism, despite the growing evidence that this form of liberalism is having very dire consequences in the no longer not-so “Golden State”. Those Democratic-Socialists who have been leading the state of California down the primrose path are also called liberals, progressives, and leftists. Sometimes, they may even be called Democrats.

     Here are some facts – a bit outdated - about this most liberal of states. Since 2014, when this was written, the situation in California has not gotten any better.

“From the L.A. Times.

  1. 40% of all workers in LA County (10.2 million people) are working for cash; and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card. (Donald Trump was right)
  2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
  3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
  4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
  5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals; they are here illegally.
  6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
  7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
  8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
  9. 21 radio stations in LA are Spanish-speaking.
  10. In LA County, 5.1 million people speak English; 3.9 million, speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people, in LA County.
     “Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth, (and over 90% of California, Florida and New York), results from immigration. Also, 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.” (Ref. 2)

     Last year, a former resident of California wrote the following that tells of many consequences of Democratic Socialism that has been ruining California.

     “Having lived in California two different times, it was a beautiful and prosperous state. The last time we lived in California was from 1979 to 1989. In the early ’80s George Deukmejian was the Republican governor and the state was doing so well that California was sending money back to the taxpayers.
     “Between 1967 and 1999, California had three Republican governors: Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson. Jerry Brown was the only Democrat to hold the governorship in the three decades between 1967 and 1999.
     “A tipping point occurred in California when Democrat Gray Davis was elected governor and then recalled, which brought into office Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. Davis had been a huge disappointment and there were high hopes that Schwarzenegger, the ‘Terminator,’ would get the state back on track. But Arnold was no Trump and the Democrats controlled the state legislature. Any hopes for returning California to Republican principles of fiscal responsibility disappeared. [Emphasis mine]
     “So what has led to the erosion of California as a state of opportunity and a desirable place to live? The clear-cut answer is liberalism. The evidence of California’s falling into the fiscal abyss is not due to the San Andreas Fault. [Emphasis mine]
     “California is among the highest tax states and several existing programs, such as the High Speed Rail boondoggle and the proposed program by their new ultra-liberal Gov. Gavin Newsom — which will pay the medical expenses of illegal aliens ages 19 to 25 and projected to cost $98 billion dollars in its first year — is liberalism run amok.
     “How will this be paid for? This program would be partially paid by fines collected from Californians who passed up health insurance coverage similar to the Obamacare plan. Another first in California is enlarging the eligibility for health insurance subsidies to middle class families earning up to 600% of the federal poverty level. A family of four can earn $154,500 a year and still get the discount.
     “Apparently California wants to become the Mecca for illegal aliens, sanctuary state, and the homeless. When you see sections of San Diego, L.A. and San Francisco where homeless tents line the sidewalks for blocks you would think that you’ve just been dropped into a Third World country. The sidewalks and streets contain used needles, human feces and garbage. The inability of these cities to safely handle the homeless situation presents a huge health risk and only encourages even more abuses of public property.
     “If you want to live in California here are the median home prices: in San Diego, $575,000; Los Angeles, almost $1 million; San Francisco, $1.6 million; and Silicon Valley, $935,000. Obviously a buyer’s market!
     “Commuting in these areas is a nightmare and the time of day often dictates your lifestyle. California has the second highest gas tax in America and you don’t talk in terms of mileage from point “A” to point “B” you talk in terms of driving time.
     “Being a Democrat leader in the California House or Senate certainly has benefits. Senate leader Democrat Toni Atkins, from San Diego, got $21 million for a downtown rail crossing, $7.3 million to demolish a building in a state historic park, $5 million to prevent suicides along a local bridge, $8.7 million for unspecified projects in Balboa Park and $500,000 for a dog park. Maybe they can convert that $500,000 dog park to a facility to handle the swelling homeless problem.
     “But that $500,000 dog park in San Diego pales compared to the $3 million dog park in Rancho Cucamonga.
     “While the proposed California budget anticipates a $22 billion surplus over the next year there is no mention of the states unfunded obligations to retirement programs. The state’s largest public pensions have staggering unfunded liabilities exceeding $246 billion. Nearly 1 in 9 Californians is a member of a public employee pension program.
     “California’s state nickname is ‘the Golden State.’ Very appropriate today, as it takes a lot of gold to live in California. The Democrat legislature seems to believe that if it moves or breathes in California, tax it. Liberalism is ruining the beautiful Golden State. (Ref. 3)

     The city of San Francisco has long been a bastion of Democratic-Socialism, funded in large part by the wealth generated in nearby Silicon Valley. Freebies for all was a magnet for many who wished to live off the largess of the socialistic policies of the city and the state. I can remember visiting San Francisco several times during the 1990’s and almost always being accosted by the innumerable “homeless” looking for handouts to supplement the city’s liberal benefits. Being without employment in San Francisco was no hindrance there. After all these years of Democratic-Socialism, San Franciscans are now wondering if their city can be saved.

     Now in 2020, “London Breed is making the case for tough love. It’s early January, and the first African-American woman to be elected mayor of San Francisco is giving an inaugural speech that neatly encapsulates the hope and despair that define San Francisco today. The city enjoys a thriving economy with low unemployment . . .
      - - -
     “Hours later, Breed is onstage again, this time a block away . . . to swear in Chesa Boudin, a former public defender who’s been elected district attorney against a candidate favored by Breed. Boudin, 39, vowed during his campaign not to prosecute so-called quality-of-life crimes like public urination and sex solicitation. It has been much commented on that Boudin’s parents were members of the Weather Underground, the radical-left militant organization, who were sent to prison on murder charges when he was an infant. And the rapturous crowd that has come to cheer for him represents the city’s ‘progressive’ wing, a left-of-the-left cohort that mistrusts Breed’s centrism. Housing isn’t on Boudin’s agenda, but social justice is. He promises to end the system of cash bail and blames a wave of car break-ins on wealth inequality. Breed, who grew up in San Francisco public housing, has called for a crackdown on lawlessness. But Boudin, who is white, a former Rhodes scholar, and a transplant to the city, tells the crowd that San Francisco ‘is ready to leave the racist, inhumane, ineffective ‘tough on crime’ policies in the past.’ {Boudin is also obviously another bleeding-heart Liberal and is like the other Democratic-Socialists who have been leading San Francisco and California toward the usual socialist promised land, which has almost always been economic ruin!}
     “It is tempting to call out the contrast between Breed and Boudin as a continuation of San Francisco’s unique left-vs.-left politics, a battle that has raged for years. Yet the city’s squabbles lay bare bigger problems. San Francisco’s crises are getting worse, with no end in sight and little indication its leaders plan to work together to solve them. Even as the local economy soars on the strength of the technology industry that dominates the Bay Area, homelessness levels have surged. Housing is so scarce and expensive that many lament the increasing inability of cops, teachers, and the like to afford a home. [Emphasis mine]
      - - -
     “Already there are signs of a business backlash. Companies from $35 billion-in-valuation tech-payments startup Stripe to stalwart brokerage Charles Schwab have announced plans to move their headquarters out of the city. They’re following in the footsteps of drug distribution giant McKesson, which relocated its HQ last year to tax-friendly Texas. Another gut punch came in December when Oracle announced that this year it would hold its annual OpenWorld developer conference — a massive tech gathering and mainstay in the city for more than two decades — in Las Vegas. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has told investors his company will look to expand outside its home city, saying ‘Our concentration in San Francisco is not serving us any longer.’ And serial entrepreneur Chris Larsen, the executive chairman of fintech startup Ripple, frets that a tech exodus could mimic the earlier departure of another once-dominant industry. ‘If tech leaves, it could be like banking leaving in the 1980s,’ he says, referring to a dark era in the city’s economic past.
     “Though colored by local politics, San Francisco’s challenges resonate well beyond the Bay Area. The city’s problems are hardly unique — {not-so-surprisingly, they also exist throughout} California, where nearly 27% of the country’s homeless population lives . . . [Emphasis mine]
      - - -
     “. . . The ‘supportive housing’ the city funded is a public sector triumph, putting roofs over the heads of 7,700 people at any given time. Everywhere, though, {there} are squalid tent encampments that never fail to shock in such a rich city. . . {Conditions} have deteriorated dramatically. {On its streets, there are} human feces, a commonplace occurrence that, together with ubiquitous intravenous drug needles, has taken on metaphorical power for civic failure. . .
     “The official charged with mending what is most broken is Jeff Kositsky, head of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. Mayor Ed Lee, Breed’s predecessor, who died suddenly in office two years ago, created the department in 2016 and tapped Kositsky, a former nonprofit executive, to take on an assignment several others had turned down. Kositsky’s unenviable task is to simultaneously figure out how to house a growing homeless population while also responding to community anger over the unsanitary and possibly dangerous encampments in their midst.
     "Kositsky’s overall approach . . . {focuses} on data. He has built a ‘coordinated entry system,’ a database of people on the streets that documents their needs and problems. He says for too long the city hosted a kind of ‘homeless talent competition,’ a system where the best nonprofit case managers, including himself, helped land their clients preferred spots—as opposed to a more efficient allocation of resources. ‘From about 2005 to 2016, the time our department started, San Francisco nearly doubled its spending on homelessness,’ says Kositsky. ‘But during that time, we saw a 13% increase in homelessness.’ {What a surprise! Spend more money on homelessness and the number of homeless goes up!
     “For all the years of trying, the city’s approach amounts to an endless series of experiments—and a tragic game of Whack-A-Mole. It has built a network of ‘navigation centers,’ shelters with up to 200 beds that allow residents to bring their pets, belongings, and partners. (Other shelters have stricter rules, causing many to opt to stay outdoors.) Kositsky says in late 2016 there were 39 encampments with six or more tents. ‘Today there are zero,’ he says. ‘There are no large encampments that have been in place for a month or longer.’
     "Statistics, of course, don’t always tell the full story, and it is Kositsky’s ‘for a month or longer’ qualifier that undermines his assertion. The city’s public works arm, in conjunction with the homelessness department, conducts frequent sweeps of the camps — moves opposed by homeless advocates for their cruelty — that effectively serve to push people from one sidewalk to another. {There are still} multiple squalid encampments, some above and some below the six-tent marker. For all the efforts, the city’s homeless population has grown from below 7,000 to more than 8,000 over the past five years.
     “As with everything else in San Francisco, solving homelessness is deeply political. A citywide ballot initiative in 2018 to tax businesses with more than $50 million in annual revenue to pay for additional homeless services won 61% of voter support. {Like all socialist efforts, the idea is to take money from the wealth producers and distribute it to those who produce little or nothing.}
      - - -
     “It all seems so simple. If housing is the problem, then what’s needed is more housing. But in San Francisco, nothing is simple. Finding places to build has always been a problem in the city, surrounded as it is by water on three sides and packed into a scant 47 square miles. The politics of NIMBYism (‘Not in my backyard’) exacerbated matters, pairing the strange bedfellows of homeowners wanting to preserve the tranquility of their neighborhoods with activists opposed to gentrification and the perceived greediness of real estate developers. Some 75% of the city, most of it in the western reaches approaching the Pacific Ocean, was ‘downzoned’ years ago, meaning it is next to impossible to build anything there other than single-family homes.
      - - -
     “City governance itself is a structural problem. A municipality that is also a county of just under 900,000 residents, San Francisco has 37,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $12 billion. It is governed by a complicated and often duplicative web of 52 departments and 27 commissions. There is a police department and a police commission, for example. Mass transit, the airport, and the port are three separate entities. And a favorite response to crisis is to create more bureaucracy. [Emphasis mine] In late January, when the powerful head of the city’s public works department was arrested by the FBI on corruption charges, a supervisor suggested creating a new commission to oversee the department and, for good measure, breaking it in two. {Such is the solution to nearly all problems besetting socialist and Communist regimes – more bureaucracy!}
      - - -
     “San Franciscans have attempted novel fixes for even the most severe problems. Six years ago Doniece Sandoval, a veteran public relations executive, decided to help the homeless by creating a mobile shower service called Lava Mae. The nonprofit emulates the best practices of the hospitality industry by calling the people it serves ‘guests’ and ‘unhoused neighbors.’ {Here again, we see the emulation of Communist regimes, which call themselves People’s Democratic Republics when these totalitarian regimes do not represent the peoples they control nor are they in any sense democratic.} It has expanded beyond showers by hosting periodic ‘pop-up care villages’ outside the main branch of the San Francisco Public Library, featuring services including wound care, haircuts, massages, hot lunches, and even a snappy jazz band.” (Ref. 4)

     Two years ago, in January 2018, another Californian took note of his state’s continuing deterioration when he wrote: “I hate to say, ‘I told you so.’
.      “Well, that’s not really true. I love saying, ‘I told you so.’ But in this case I hate that a headline I wrote more than a year ago is still (mostly) correct.
     ”One of the first pieces I wrote for RedState was titled ‘California Dems Got a Supermajority, and All I Got Was This Lousy Bullet Train.’
     “I haven’t received the promised bullet train yet, but they assure me they’re trying! (And in liberal land, that’s all that matters.) I have received a higher gas tax and higher registration fees for my car, but the roads are still filled with potholes. And soon I’ll receive higher energy prices because of the carbon bribe law passed with the help of a few idiot Republicans this past summer. But I digress.
     “In another early post for RedState, I warned the Dem supermajority that if they tried to secede from the United States (as they were threatening pre-Trump inauguration), that it would not go well for them because of their economic policies. They scoffed.
     “But this week, in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Kerry Jackson of the Pacific Research Institute asks a great question. If liberal policies are the key to eliminating poverty, why is the liberal paradise of California ‘the poverty capital of America’? [Emphasis mine]
     “Jackson highlighted four liberal policies that are destroying California’s middle class and creating a state with only two classes – the super-rich and the poverty stricken.
  1. No-Strings-Attached Welfare. When many other states and the federal government created work requirements for welfare recipients and succeeded in reducing their welfare rolls, California #resisted. In addition, a huge amount of cash is going to poor immigrant families.

    ‘California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.’

    Why didn’t California follow successful welfare reform models? Easy. There are close to a million full-time-equivalent state and local employees in California who don’t want to lose their jobs. They’d rather not help families out of poverty. [Emphasis mine] {Here again, a strong analogy with the bureaucrats who comprise the socialistic elite of the regimes.}

  2. Land-use Regulations. Since so many other natural laws (like winter) don’t apply to much of California, its rulers seem to think economic principles of supply and demand don’t apply to housing here either. Um, wrong.

    ‘Counties and local governments have imposed restrictive land-use regulations that drove up the price of land and dwellings,’ . . . “Middle-income households have been forced to accept lower standards of living while the less fortunate have been driven into poverty by the high cost of housing.’

    California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations are so overbearing that they can add $1 million to the cost of a housing development . . . While liberals seem to think that big scary corporations should eat that cost and not pass it down to the customer, that’s not how the real world works. With housing costs soaring, middle class families are forced to either share a home with extended family members or move further away from the cities, which drives up the cost of commuting and increases the state’s already legendary traffic problems.

  3. Energy Regulation. ‘California blend’ gasoline in the winter, carbon taxes, etc., combine to create a huge burden on burden the middle and lower class.

    ‘By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average. . . in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced … energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15% of all households . . . the rate could exceed 17% of median income in some areas.

  4. Minimum Wage Hikes. The minimum wage in California is set to increase to $15 from $10 by 2022. The implications of these government-mandated wage hikes (even in some California cities) are already known, but, again, California’s rulers seem to think natural laws don’t apply to them.

    . . . ‘higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants’ in the Bay Area, where more than a dozen cities and counties, including San Francisco, have changed their minimum-wage ordinances in the last five years. ‘Estimates suggest that a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14% increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant.’

    A higher minimum wage will do nothing for the 60% of Californians who live in poverty and don’t have jobs.

    But since the welfare administrators don’t want them to find jobs, it’s all cool. Besides, we’ll have the bullet train.” (Ref. 5)

     “It seems all the issues of liberalism translate into homelessness, inequality, racial injustice, poverty, violence, and sexism. No mention is ever given to the initiators of these issues who are generally idiotic, incompetent, and inevitably destroy businesses and jobs.
     “They almost always can be pointed to as the purveyors of over-regulation, waste, fraud and abuse. Government is the answer to all problems and there is never enough of it. Socialism is all that matters, although there are few who espouse it that will admit the label. Why is that?
     “Liberal policy is an abysmal failure that can only survive with the recruitment of fresh faces usually on the downside of the economic ladder. This base of support is more enthusiastic about government intervening and social programs paid by working taxpayers. It should come as no surprise to thinking Americans that foreign-born residents make the ideal voters for a liberal’s perspective of this country.
      - - -
     “To many of these people who are newly here, the social welfare system becomes a way of life. . .
      - - -
    ”{In} California . . . {the} destruction of society and individual lives has become so overwhelming. The liberal lawmakers now spend more time covering up their chaos than governing sensibly.
     “For instance, since 2013 . . . the Los Angeles homeless population has skyrocketed 46 percent. Unchallenged liberalism and the lack of a two-party system have created the new normal. The social structure has completely broken down while liberals push for the banishment of plastic straws and protecting undocumented felons. They call it ‘sanctuary cities’ in their politically correct dialect.
     “Is this the mandate of middle-class Californians who pay taxes and support the public schools and institutions? Is this what families consider issues that will protect their loved ones from harm’s way?
     “The answer is of course not. But liberals exist because of the have nots. Without that voting base of individuals who believe their good fortune is due to this ‘liberal’ group of Americans, there is no mandate for their policies.
     “Liberalism has been advanced almost unchallenged in California . . . Twenty-five percent of the nation’s homeless live in California. The liberals claim a booming economy and ignore the stark underground of the state’s desperately poor.
     “Yet California has some of the highest state taxes in the country. Last year alone, the state witnessed nearly 300,000 taxpaying residents vote with their feet and flee the state. [Emphasis mine] Billions in revenue lost. California is a disgrace.
     “Liberals are quick to blame the economy as the reason for the state’s financial woes. In reality, actual people are the reason. A government cannot be sustained on the backs of a few while the many rest on their laurels. It doesn’t take an economist to understand this sort of society is one bent on utter destruction and financial chaos. [Emphasis mine]
     “But a liberal’s debate is unique. For those who cry out for reasoning, the reply is accusations of racism and bigotry. Their grandiose idea of utopia is unreachable only because of perceived demagogues who do not accept their demented ideology. For liberals, social chaos is their friend and base of ongoing support.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 6)

     But isn’t California still the land of sand, sun, surfboarding, “California Dreaming”, and glorious Hollywood? Apparently not even Hollywood is so glorious anymore.

     “Ah, Hollywood. The Mecca of filmmaking. Thousands of would-be actors, screenwriters, and directors flock to Los Angeles, California to fulfill their dreams of becoming a star because, after all, that’s where movie-making happens. Everyone knows this.
     “And for close to a century, it was true. But today, Hollywood—the way we generally think of it—is fading away and going elsewhere. In fact, in 2017, only ten of the top 100 movies produced that year were made mostly in California.
     “It’s no secret that the entire state of California is experiencing a large and sustained out-flow of residents, but Los Angeles County, in particular, is showing the biggest losses. The question is why.
      - - -
     “{One reason was high labor costs, driven by unionization with its restrictive work rules.} And it’s not just unionized labor that’s expensive in California. Sticking with labor costs, California has the second-highest minimum wage in the country at $13 an hour, though that’s set to increase to $15 an hour by 2022. And . . . many businesses in the state are being told they need to hire their freelancers as (far more expensive) permanent employees.
     “Not only that, but California’s real estate and housing markets are among the most expensive in the country, a trend that shows no real sign of improving. The state’s zoning and building regulations make innovation difficult. . .
      - - -
     “And let’s remember,} California has the highest poverty rate in the US.
     "It isn’t that filmmakers don’t want to film in Los Angeles — they do. But all of these combined constraints significantly increase the total costs of filming and producing in California. Heck, not even films set in Los Angeles are being shot in Los Angeles these days.
     “So, take the barriers and high costs in California, combine it with fewer and fewer people going to the movies anymore, and the result is a shrinking profit margin for production studios. Something was bound to give.
      - - -
     “Outside constraints — whether from tyrannical patent trolls . . . micromanaging union guidelines, or well-meaning but poorly-considered legislation — made making movies expensive enough that a reduction in production costs was enough to outweigh the hassle of relocating. . .
     “Though the film industry is one of the most visible ones to ease its way out of California, it’s by no means alone. The entire state is seeing residents of all kinds leaving. In 2018 alone, the state saw a net loss of about 190,000 residents. That’s slightly more than the entire population of Shreveport, Louisiana. According to a recent . . . poll, about half of the people still living in California have considered leaving. When asked why, 71 percent cited the high cost of housing and 51 percent said it was because of the high tax burden. [Emphasis mine]
     “At the end of the day, filmmakers are just trying to make a living creating art. That’s already a difficult path to navigate. It should surprise no one that when a smoother route opens up, a lot of people would choose it over the more difficult one.
     “And the same is true for every industry everywhere. Instead of making life more difficult and expensive by putting up barriers like high taxes, occupational licensing requirements, compulsory union membership, expensive building requirements, and so on that satisfy special interest requests without doing much to improve life for everyday people, California could just let individuals, businesses, and industries succeed or fail based on their own merits in the market. With fewer obstacles to overcome just to get started, individuals and their businesses would stand a much better chance of improving their lives. {In other words, a return to free market capitalism in place of California style Democratic-Socialism would likely alleviate many of the state’s woes!}
     “For Hollywood, history is repeating itself. California used to be a safe haven for those looking to escape the control freaks of the Edison Trust. Now California itself is the control freak that entertainment entrepreneurs are fleeing as they seek refuge elsewhere. The exodus of talent (and tax dollars) from California won’t stop until it restores the relative economic freedom that allowed Hollywood to become the entertainment capital of the world in the first place.” (Ref. 7)

     The hell-hole created by California liberalism is driving out its middle class. With so many of these middle-income people leaving, what is left over in California is a two-tiered system of rich and poor in which the rich thrive and the poor muddle along on the crumbs dropped by the super-rich. Notably, this rich state now has the country’s highest poverty rates and lowest rating for “quality of life” in the U.S. As in the world’s Communist nations, California’s liberalism has resulted in its de facto status as a one-party state – a Democratic party state – and therein lies the heart of its poverty problem. With little or no opposition, the Democratic progressives have been free to conduct their policy experiments unopposed. The results are proving to be much less than desired – as have all experiments with extreme socialism. California is standing out as an extremist and increasingly dysfunctional basket case. Its super rich residents can withstand the state’s failures, but everyone else is paying the price of bad policy – a Democratic-Socialistic policy. “California’s fall from being the quintessential American dream to a series of gated communities surrounded by poverty is no model for the rest of the country. To the contrary, it is a dire warning.(Ref. 8)

  1. The Latest: Sanders wins Democratic primary in California, Dwight L. Schwab Jr.,, 11:00 p.m., 4 March 2020.
  2. California ….Largest Insane Asylum in the World, From the Trenches World Report, 6 November 2014.
  3. From the Right: Liberalism is ruining California, Russ Sloan, Daily Commercial, 23 June 2019.
  4. Can San Francisco be saved?, Adam Lashinsky, Fortune, 17 February 2020.
  5. California: Further Proof that Liberal Policies Ruin Everything They Touch, Jennifer Van Laar, RedState,
    16 January 2018.
  6. Liberals' Refusal to Govern Sensibly Drives People Out of California, Dwight L. Schwab Jr., Newsmax,
    9 March 2018.
  7. Why the Movie Industry Is Fleeing California, Jen Maffessanti, PANAM POST, 14 February 2020.
  8. The Changes That Made California Become a Liberal Fiasco, Jarrett Stepman, The Daily Signal, 17 April 2018.

  23 April 2020 {Article 410; Suggestions?_41}    
Go back to the top of the page