California Political Review hit a milestone in January when our Page views by readers hit 3 million and growing.  Since our founding online in late 2011, CPR has also published over 25,000 reader comments, and our Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/CaPoliticalReview) is robust and has over 20,000 friends.

Our readers have come to rely on the Top Stories we publish and republish that give insight into California policy, usually from a well-considered conservative perspective.  We send out two daily newsletters that summarize our daily content, to a combined email list of about 30,000 people.  In this regard, we have really appreciated our partnership with Steve Frank’s California Political News and Views, which is incorporated into CPR with its own daily newsletter and webpage.   Steve generates terrific original commentary on the news and it is great to work with him.

CPR keeps its doors open through dedicated sponsor advertising including a partnership with Google.  Though we are focused and dedicated to California issues, we have recently signed an agreement with the well-known national news source Newsmax and are now including links to Newsmax advertising content on our “right rail.” Please click away!

Thank you, our readers, for your continued interest in California Political Review!

As a result of ObamaCare in California, taxpayer-subsidized free government health care benefits are now being provided to the 12.7 Californians who signed up.  That’s 1 in 3 Californians, according to the Los Angeles Times.  Provided through “Medi-Cal,” a state welfare program which is intended for the poor and indigent, and funded by state and Federal tax dollars, this “explosion” of free medical benefits has reached a $91 billion annual cost, with California taxpayers contributing $18 billion, according to the state Department of Health Care Services.  In a state already troubled by underfunded public employee pension funds for state workers and teachers, the state’s financial obligation to provide free health care to California’s growing poor population could have drastic results for taxpayers going forward.

There is little question that California’s poor population is growing.  For two years in a row, California ranks as the poorest state in the nation according to the Census Bureau’s tabulation, when cost-of-living is taken into account.  These Federal statistics show that about 24% of the state lives at or below the poverty level.  But now the new statistics from the state Department of Health Services indicate many more Californians, about 33% of state residents, are taking advantage of the Medi-Cal benefits program supposedly intended to provide health insurance to the state’s poorest residents.

The hugely expanded cost of the program to taxpayers, given the massive influx of new patients as a result of the mandates of ObamaCare, appears already to be taking some toll.  The Times reports that “Medi-Cal is seen by many as underfunded, with patients struggling to find doctors and sometimes receiving low quality of care. A group of activists and others recently filed a federal civil rights complaint alleging that Latinos are being denied access to healthcare because the program does not pay doctors enough.”

ObamaCare or “The Affordable Care Act” allowed states to open up Medicaid or their own welfare programs to anyone making less than 138% of the federal poverty level — for a single person, a couple or a four-person family, that means an annual income of less than $16,243, $21,983 and $33,465, respectively.

Donald Trump not only held his own at the CNN debate in Las Vegas on Dec. 15, he gave a hugely important answer to moderator Hugh Hewitt when he said he would run only as a Republican.  I believe that was one of the most important statements of the night, and made him a debate winner, because Republicans can now put to bed fears of a divisive third party candidacy that might hand Hillary Clinton the election.  Trump’s timing on the statement could not have been better to help himself.

I was sitting in the live audience, and I thought Marco Rubio was the best communicator, and he surely received the most positive responses from the live audience.  Yet television commentators seem to tip the scales in favor of Ted Cruz over Rubio.  I did not see Cruz doing better at the debate than Rubio, but many I talk to feel he did.  I do see a growing interest in him among my conservative friends, many of whom are less open to Rubio’s position on one issue: immigration reform.

Both Kasich and Fiorina seemed annoyed and off-kilter, perhaps because they felt they weren’t getting enough time, and it seemed to show.  Fiorina had a good line calculated to appeal to women voters about “going to a woman to get a job done,” quoting Margaret Thatcher.  But as she has done in previous debates, she interrupted questions and answers repeatedly to draw attention, and at one point drew soft “boos” from the crowd for doing so.  Kasich seemed overly animated at times, using his hands to “karate-chop” points for emphasis.  Carson started with a well-meaning gesture of a very brief moment of silence for the victims of the San Bernardino attack.  It was a “miss” for the organizers of the debate to not do that themselves, on their own time.  However if there was any candidate that “lacked energy,” it was Carson.  He handled tough questions in much too moderate and uninspiring a manner.  These were the candidates that probably did not gain ground at the debate.

Chris Christie once again addressed himself directly to the television audience, and highlighted his experience as a Federal prosecutor during the 9/11 attack in New York.  In a low moment for the debate, Rand Paul attempted to minimize Christie by bringing up “slowing bridge traffic” or words to that effect, in a blunt reference to the so-called “Bridgegate” scandal in New Jersey whereby Christie staffers concocted a bogus traffic-slowing study to get even with a Christie political opponent.  Paul’s line was ignored by Christie, rightly so, who has not been directly implicated in the matter.  Christie had a good night, Paul had his usual night.

Some observers feel Jeb Bush had a good night.  I must say I did not think his referring to Trump as the “chaos candidate” reflected the class that we usually associate with the Bush family, particularly George H.W. Bush, Jeb’s father.  It was a line not in keeping with what you think Jeb’s temperament really is or should be.  I thought Jeb handled questions well on the substance (when he wasn’t attacking Trump), but he had a weak close with two or three vocal cadence trip-ups.  I don’t think he was a loser in the debate, but I do not think he gained ground.  He surely has not slowed down Donald Trump, which was his goal.

I attended both debates: the first “undercard” and then the mainstage debate, and I am grateful to have attended these as a guest of Mike Huckabee’s campaign and my old friend Floyd Brown.  And I felt Huckabee was a winner too, by his solid performance in the first debate.  I also think Lindsay Graham would make a terrific Secretary of Defense, is funny and intelligent, but according to polling probably won’t have much of a campaign going down the line.  Though on the undercard, Huckabee remains the “mature man” in the race, and the “shout out” Donald Trump gave him from the mainstage (along with Rick Santorum) a few hours later was significant.

California Political Review Publisher Jim Lacy before start of CNN Presidential debate, Venetian Hotel, Las Vegas, 12/15/15.

Be sure to follow me on Twitter.com at @JamesVLacy1 to receive my live commentary on the CNN GOP Presidential debates, which I will be attending, in Las Vegas at the Venetian Hotel on Tuesday, December 15.  Also look for me to post my own analysis of the debate in this column the next day on Wednesday, December 16.  I’ll look forward to your comments on the post too!

I had a chance to join in on a half-hour conference call today with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who took questions from a group of American Conservative Union and Americans for Tax Reform board members that was organized and moderated by Americans for Tax Reform leader Grover Norquist.  McConnell made his view clear from the start that the Senate is no longer dysfunctional as it was when Democrat Harry Reid was Majority Leader, and that this is an important achievement.  McConnell said that in Reid’s years as Majority Leader, not much got done, and Reid only allowed 15 roll-call votes on amendments, yet this year alone Republicans have allowed 165 roll-call votes on amendments.  In the last five years the Senate under the Democrats didn’t pass one budget.  But this year the Republicans did pass a budget. McConnell said these were important accomplishments even with Obama in the White House.  Though Democrats have been able to filibuster and stall some legislation, McConnell notes that Republicans “got enough Democrats to weigh in on the Iran treaty” in opposition, and that this could encourage a new President to scrap the bad Iran deal entirely, because it is an executive agreement that can be changed by the President, and is not a treaty.

McConnell said the idea that nothing has changed in Washington as a result of the last election is inaccurate.  He said the policy agenda in the Senate is totally different from Harry Reid’s.  What can change further is winning the White House.   More than just stopping Obama’s liberal legislative agenda today, “we really have to win White House,” said McConnell.

The Majority Leader cited debate on the upcoming Budget Control Act as very important.  The Budget Control Act has indeed reduced federal government spending without raising taxes.  But there is pressure to undue the caps from some conservatives who want more military spending and from liberals who “want to increase spending on everything else.”

McConnell said he would not support tax increases, including a proposed tax increase for a highway bill and also on the capital gains tax.  He said, “what we need to do is scrub the whole code.”  But he said that won’t happen with Obama in the White House because “we can’t do comprehensive tax reform since Obama won’t allow a ‘tax neutral’ change” – he wants more tax, and he basically wants to tax job creators more, and not treat all taxpayers the same way.

Asked if he had endorsed a Presidential candidate, McConnell said he has not endorsed anyone.  He said he likes his friend from Kentucky Rand Paul, but he is more focused on holding the Senate and especially the “purple state incumbents,” as in New Hampshire, with a chance for a pick up in the Senate in Nevada, and a chance in Colorado.

The Majority Leader said he opposed new gun control laws, which he sees as not addressing the real problem of the recent rash of violence as at the community college in Oregon.  He said if there is to be new legislation, it should concentrate on the problem, which is mental illness,  as “none of the gun control bills” he has heard about would have any impact at all reducing such crimes.  Rather, focus might be given on the seriously mentally impaired people who commit the crimes.  “Let’s talk about addressing mental illness, keeping people on their medication, getting them help” to try to avert such tragedies.

My new book, “Taxifornia 2016: 14 Essays on the Future of California” has just been released and is now available for purchase at CreateSpace here.  “Taxifornia 2016” is a collection of 14 essays authored by a dozen prominent conservative and libertarian writers on the future of California. Understanding that liberal Democrats and their public employee union allies wield great control on state policy, these writers see California in deep crisis and in need of reform, and tackle the state’s problems in 2016 with an eye toward new solutions that are faithful to the transformational value of limited-government and personal freedom. This book exposes the truth about California’s problems and offers detailed common-sense solutions to fix them.  I am so excited to have it published and to share it with reform minded Californians!

Contributing authors also include Floyd Brown, President of the Western Center for Journalism; Brian Calle, Opinion Editor of the Orange County Register; Joel Fox, former President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Publisher of www.foxandhoundsdaily.com; investigative journalist Katy Grimes, a Senior Correspondent for www.flashreport.org; Chris Reed, who has been an editorial writer for the San Diego Union-Tribune since 2005; John Hrabe, who publishes www.CalNewsroom.com; Michelle Moons, who writes for Breitbart California; Shawn Dewane, an elected director of the Orange County Water District; Ben Boychuk, associate editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal; Stephen Frank, editor of California Political News and Views; Jon Fleischman, Publisher of www.flashreport.org; and Thomas A. Fuentes, Jr., an official of the Republican Party of Orange County.

The fact is, California is really not as liberal as the politicians it continues to elect.  According to a little reported March, 2015 poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (“PPIC”), a respected bi-partisan organization, an eye-popping plurality of 35% of Californians consider themselves to be “conservative”, while 34% consider themselves to be “liberal”, and 30% identify themselves as “middle-of-the-road.”

Looked at another way, a huge majority of 65% of Californians identify themselves as center or right!

Respected public opinion polls conducted by organizations like PPIC, USC/Los Angeles Times, and The Field Organization reveal a markedly more politically diverse, moderate and even conservative outlook of the populace than reflected by the cast of characters California routinely now elects to office.  Actual voter sentiment on many issues is in some cases startlingly different from the actions of its elected leaders.  It is these opinions of Californians themselves that give hope for reforming the state.  It is not such an extreme statement to make in saying that just as the personal views of the East German people themselves were not reflected by their own distant and abusive communist government before these citizens tore down the Berlin Wall, it is these voter sentiments in California that serve as the reason for me not giving up on the state, and in urging my conservative and Republican friends to stick around and join the fight!  Voters are actually with us on many issues.

For example, other important findings in the PPIC poll conflict with the policies California’s elected leaders in control seek to impose. While Sacramento politicians still introduce new tax increase measures by the dozen, 62% of voters think the tax burden is already near the top or above average compared to other states; 57% think they are paying more taxes than they should be; 78% think that the state and local tax system should be changed and of that 47% favor major changes; 81% oppose raising the state gasoline tax; and 74% oppose increasing vehicle registration fees.

A Field poll confirms PPIC’s findings, and shows again that 76% of Californian’s think the gasoline tax is too high, while just 4% think the state’s gas taxes are lower than those in other states.

Though voters accepted Governor Jerry Brown’s arguments in November, 2012, to “temporarily” raise taxes to record levels, 56% of Californians today either oppose the taxes or are against making them permanent.

After years of liberals trying to lay the blame on the Proposition 13 tax cut, a recent poll showed 58% of Californians today still support Proposition 13.

“Taxifornia” author Jim Lacy, Publisher of California Political Review

The contrast today in voter attitudes and the philosophies of the people Californians elect could not be starker than in the case of voter sentiment in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline.  The pipeline is favored by Congressional Republicans, but opposed by environmentalists and President Obama, and both of California’s liberal U.S. Senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, who voted against it. While the majority of Californians approve of the job Obama, Boxer and Feinstein are doing, 54% favor building the pipeline.  And though Feinstein and Boxer are indeed popular, when voters were asked whether the state would be better off if California’s two U.S. Senators who have served for 22 years continued to run for re-election or if new candidates should become senators, nearly 60% voters said the state would be better off with new candidates, as opposed to 29% who said California would be better off if the long-serving senators continued to run. And 48% of voters said they felt “strongly” that the state would be better off with new candidates, according to the poll.

So take heart my conservative and Republican friends in California.  You are not alone and we have plenty to work with to reform this state!

The editors at California Political Review were a little perplexed late last week when we had a disruption in our daily email system.  Then on Monday morning we lost our entire site, it just went blank on the Internet.  Sadly, we learned that a computer hacker had somehow managed to secretly sabotage our website, and just shut us down.

California Political Review has become a significant news and opinion content provider.  In the last two years, our site has received over 1 million Page views and our readership grows every day.  We have published over 20,000 reader comments.  Our daily email subscription list stands at 23,000, and we have a robust Facebook page with close to 20,000 fans.  We are very grateful for the loyal support of our readers and regret that our website has been disrupted this week.  Thank you for your support!  Please know we are back now and as ever, absolutely committed to offering the best we can on news and views on California politics!