Legislators make new push to gut Prop. 13

Dec. 27, 2012

By Katy Grimes

180px-Howard_Jarvis_magazine_cover

The final votes from the November election were not even counted before state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced a constitutional amendment to Proposition 13 to forever alter the landmark tax-revolt measure.

Let the debate begin.

Even after passage of Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s $10 billion sales and income tax increase measure, Leno claimed that the state needs even more taxpayer funding for local schools.

Leno’s legislation, SCA 3, would allow local property taxes to pass with a 55 percent voter majority instead of the two-thirds majority as currently required for all tax increases in the state. “Education funding across California has been decimated in recent years, with severe consequences for students and our local schools,” said Leno in a press statement.

Proposition 13, the landmark ballot initiative that limited property tax increases to 1976 levels, and required a two-thirds majority to pass local measures in communities and taxes through the legislature, has been under fire since its passage in 1978.

The state’s Democrats are feeling emboldened with supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature, and Prop. 13 is their first target.

Opposition to tax limitations

Under Prop. 13, all property is reassessed in value only upon change in ownership or a sale.

Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the pro-tax California Tax Reform Association, has been a vocal proponent of assessing commercial property to at higher rates than homes. Known as a proponent of the “split-roll,” Goldberg has consistently said that, because so many commercial properties are held in limited-liability partnerships and trusts, true ownership is unclear when partners sell off ownership interest. Over time, commercial property partnerships bring in all new partners which, according to Goldberg, is an unfair way to avoid being subjected to property tax assessments.

But California Taxpayers Association Chief Consultant David Doerr says that, at the same time Prop. 13 was on the ballot in 1978, there was also a measure to split the tax roll, which voters did not approve.

Who really gets taxed

Ninety-seven percent of all California businesses are small businesses.  These small businesses are always under attack because they are easy marks for tax-and-spend politicians. Small businesses don’t have high-powered, well-connected lobbyists to work special legislative deals, and take the brunt of tax, fee and utility increases.

Currently, small businesses are under a vicious assault from state government with a 50 percent increase in electric rates thanks to AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; 15 percent higher water rates; new storm water taxes in Los Angeles County; and an Obamacare surcharge of $5,000 to $8,000 per employee, according to CalWatchdog.com’s Wayne Lusvardi.  Eliminating Prop. 13 would be just another nail in the coffin for struggling small business.

Under a split-roll tax, residential properties would continue under the system outlined by Prop. 13. But commercial properties would be reassessed at least every three years.

Opponents of tax limits like Goldberg, Brown and Democratic lawmakers continually say publicly that big corporations get away without paying their “fair share” of property taxes. It’s a common theme today in politics.  But any decent lawyer will admit that just changing title on property is not considered a legal ownership transfer under state law.

And since 1978, all legal challenges to this have been overturned by higher courts of law, according to Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Coupal said that Prop. 13 has been one of the most adjudicated laws in the history of the state, yet continues to hold fast.

There’s a myth that property taxes disproportionately fall on homeowners instead of commercial property owners. But the California Business Property Association found that the opposite has happened.

“Using data obtained from the California Board of Equalization, we calculated the disparity between assessed value and market value for two classes of property: owner-occupied residential, and commercial/industrial. We found that the assessed-value-to-market-value ratio for owner-occupied residential property in the 2006-2007 roll was 53 percent, while the ratio for commercial and industrial property was nearly 60 percent.”

In other words, commercial and industrial property is being assessed for tax purposes at values that are closer to market values than is the case for owner-occupied residential property.

Politics and Prop. 13

When control and government expansion are the real goal, the facts and politicians don’t always get along.

CalTax and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association warn that, if the Legislature splits the tax roles and commercial property is taxed at whatever rate politicians claim they need, large employers will flee the state, while small employers and businesses, which can’t afford to move, will be burdened with unsustainable tax increases.

Prop. 13 does not shift the property tax burden to homeowners. “The assessed value on non-homeowner property subject to Prop. 13 has grown an average of 8.5 percent per year, while homeowners’ property tax has grown an average of 8.3 percent,” reports CalTax. “Thus, the Prop. 13 property taxes paid by non-homeowners have outpaced homeowners’ property tax burden. In fact, Prop. 13 has prevented a property tax shift to homeowners.”

What will be the result of this next round of attacks on Prop. 13? Only the data over the next two years will really tell.

55 comments

Write a comment
  1. Wayne Lusvardi
    Wayne Lusvardi 27 December, 2012, 09:59

    Good article. Stay tuned for a simple solution to a reform that would leave Prop. 13 untouched but reduce or eliminate the state’s cash flow problem. More later.

    Reply this comment
  2. Lou Sylvestri
    Lou Sylvestri 27 December, 2012, 10:01

    If they over turn Prop 13 it’s off to Nevada or Arizona.

    Reply this comment
  3. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 27 December, 2012, 10:03

    Katy says,
    Proposition 13, the landmark ballot initiative that limited property tax increases to 1976 levels
    =================================
    And the BIGGEST reason California struggles today!!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  4. Hondo
    Hondo 27 December, 2012, 10:06

    Katy, quit boring us with these pesky facts. No one pays attention to them anyways. The dems will send the Amish mafia after you if continue with this reality based reporting.
    Better watch out.
    Hondo….

    Reply this comment
  5. simon
    simon 27 December, 2012, 11:19

    Yes, tax more = spend more.

    Reply this comment
  6. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 27 December, 2012, 12:05

    NTHEOC-

    Just look up per-capita, inflation-adjusted state spending. Do the same with state tax revenues. Now compare across time: 1990, 1980, 1970 even. In other words, pre- and post-Prop 13.

    And you’re gonna tell me – with a straight face – that Prop 13 is the “biggest reason”?

    Axiom Number One: One cannot argue fiscal policy with the innumerate.

    Reply this comment
  7. Greg in LA
    Greg in LA 27 December, 2012, 12:30

    Katy,
    The reason the California State government struggles, is because they spend way too much, not because we are taxed too little.

    What people who are in favor of repealing Prop 13 are not realizing is when the Democrats in Sacramento repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties, the owners of commercial residential properties 5 units or more will just pass on the added tax expense to their tenants. In effect it will be a major tax increase on tenants and small business. Businesses will close and rents will go up! Thus making it harder on all people who rent.

    Reply this comment
  8. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 27 December, 2012, 16:56

    I haven’t seen the details but I don’t think there is any organized move afoot to repeal Prop. 13. I think they are looking for away to reassess commercial properties when they are sold, in the same way that homes are reassessed, after sale. I had read a report that Long’s Drugs is still the owner of record since it was sold to CVS–so CVS is getting advantage of the current property taxes. Homeowners don’t have those loopholes. Otherwise, I don’t know any other person or any Democratic group that is pushing for repeal of Prop. 13. I will reserve my judgement until I see the actual details and the pros and cons of what is intended.

    Reply this comment
  9. us citizen
    us citizen 27 December, 2012, 17:53

    This will just give me one more reason to leave Taxafornia

    Reply this comment
  10. dltravers
    dltravers 27 December, 2012, 18:08

    Could it be that CVS is leasing the property? Most of these old line companies retail properties are under long term leases. A 100 year lease is not unusual. That happened way before Prop 13.

    Having worked at an old line retail company that anchored next to many Longs Drugs I can tell you that it was advantageous for them to lease long term.
    In that case they take over the lease, it is not a property transfer recognized by the legal system.

    They are not buying the property, they are buying the business, the inventory and the lease. They do pay a tax to California on their inventory every year if that makes you feel better.

    It could be that Longs owned some of their properties outright but many of them were located in strip malls. If the Longs family leases the properties they owned back to CVS then that would be perfectly legal and acceptable.

    Reply this comment
  11. eck
    eck 27 December, 2012, 18:35

    “Education funding across California has been decimated in recent years, with severe consequences for students and our local schools,” (I wonder if he even knows the meaning of the word, decimated). Can someone point me to some data that shows this is even close to the facts? My impression is that funding is at least, about constant.

    Reply this comment
  12. BobA
    BobA 27 December, 2012, 19:08

    eck:

    My request is even simpler than yours. I’d like for someone to show me the data that equates increased spending to improved education. All the national data I’ve looked at suggests otherwise.

    The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in science and math education yet we spend more on education than any other country in the world. That tells me that we’re throwing good money after bad and getting a negative return on our investment.

    Reply this comment
  13. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 27 December, 2012, 19:51

    I don’t have any feelings about the drug store situation–just reporting what I had read. Have no reason to doubt your version either. I don’t need to be made to feel better.

    Reply this comment
  14. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 27 December, 2012, 20:35

    NTHEOC says:
    Katy says,
    Proposition 13, the landmark ballot initiative that limited property tax increases to 1976 levels
    =================================
    And the BIGGEST reason California struggles today!!!!!!

    NTHEOC, II have told this to you before, in fact many times, State revenue went UP after Prop 13 b/c “fees” for everythig under the sun were add in if they were not already there, and then they were jacked 10 fold if they were already in place.

    $300K comped GED edcuated employees is what killed this state.

    Reply this comment
  15. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 27 December, 2012, 20:37

    beck says:“Education funding across California has been decimated in recent years, with severe consequences for students and our local schools,” (I wonder if he even knows the meaning of the word, decimated). Can someone point me to some data that shows this is even close to the facts? My impression is that funding is at least, about constant.
    ==
    That is propaganda from the CTA union. Teacher salary averages $80/hour today, some make $150/hour (including benefits)

    Reply this comment
  16. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 27 December, 2012, 21:34

    Rex:

    Let us never forget that propaganda works.

    Look how Governor Buzzard was able to con millions of LIVs (Low Information Voters) on Prop 30.

    Come to think of it..maybe California is creating a whole new strain of LIV….the dreaded Ultra LIV!…lol

    Reply this comment
  17. Donkey
    Donkey 27 December, 2012, 22:19

    The trough feeders have no concept of math and now we know why, here is their take of math: The different branches of Arithmetic — Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.
    Alice in Wonderland.

    🙂

    Reply this comment
  18. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 01:25

    Rex’s propaganda is the best. He has yet to show an actual document, from an actual school district with a salary scale showing that a rank and file teacher makes $80/hr.

    Reply this comment
  19. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 01:51

    NTHEOC, that is not the case. Prop. 13 froze the assessments of homes at the 1976 levels for those who had owned their homes at that time, to the time of the passing of the Prop. For others, their assessments were frozen at the levels they were when they purchased their homes between 1976 and 1978. Then going forward, all residential property in CA was taxed at 1% of the assessed value, with a maximum increase of 2% allowed, per year. New construction and parts of homes that are remodeled, are raised in assessed value, accordingly. When a respective house is sold, the assessment is upgraded in keeping with the purchase price. Also, after the passing of the Prop. in 1978, hordes of fees for programs offered by cities and counties were enacted–fees that did not exist prior to Prop. 13. Individual tax districts are allowed to pass special assessments and parcel taxes for maintenance, etc. by a vote of those residing or owning property in such districts. All in all, the Prop. has worked very well, and the majority of us certainly do not want to see the Prop. repealed.

    I have figured what the taxes on my own 50’s era tract house would be today, using the forumla that was in affect in my county in 1978. Compared to my present tax bill which is a little less than $500/yr., my taxes would be $6,000–that is using an estimate of its current market value–not the market value it was from 2003-2007, which would have resulted in a $12,000 tax bill. I think you must not own a home in CA, NEOTH–if you did, you could understand what I am talking about.

    We surely don’t want to see our properties reassessed every year, as was the case prior to Prop. 13. Such is the case today in the State of AZ. I own a vacant residential lot in Bullhead City, that is reassessed for tax purposes every year. In 2007, it was assessed at $80,000, and the taxes were about $795. The value has gone down every year since the financial collapse of 2008. The current assessment on the lot is now $10,000 and the tax bill is less than $200.

    Reply this comment
  20. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 01:58

    Jimmy, I not a LIV. It would help if you just gave your argument without the usual degrading of other posters as though they are dumb and you are smart.

    Reply this comment
  21. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 28 December, 2012, 02:11

    Seesaw-

    Read carefully- I was not referencing you, nor any other poster, but the electorate at large.

    Though as Mr Marley said back in ’76——

    Who the cap fit….let them wear it.

    Reply this comment
  22. BobA
    BobA 28 December, 2012, 07:32

    Seesaw:

    You and I don’t often see eye to eye but I agree your above argument about property taxes. If prop. 13 had not passed at the time, my mother,who lived on SSI and a meager retirement income, would have eventually lost her house. I wouldn’t have hesitated to quit college at the time to keep that from happening. Thankfully, prop. 13 passed and I count it as a blessing from God.

    I know of many other folks who would lose their homes if prop. 13 was repealed and their property tax went up. These are tough times and not everyone is as fortunate as I have been and they don’t deserve to have the state tax them out of their homes.

    As much as I would like to, I can’t help everyone but I do have a voice and I don’t hesitate to speak out whenever our “taxaholic” politicians get the notion to raise taxes just because they’ve overspent and need to make up the difference.

    Reply this comment
  23. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 28 December, 2012, 08:15

    SeeSaw says:

    …. It would help if you just gave your argument without the usual degrading of other posters as though they are dumb and you are smart.

    OMG seesaw, you are so funny! How about YOU take YOUR OWN advice seesaw 😉

    Reply this comment
  24. NTHEOC
    NTHEOC 28 December, 2012, 08:58

    SeeSaw says,
    I think you must not own a home in CA, NEOTH–if you did, you could understand what I am talking about.
    =================
    I do own a home here in California SeeSaw. But as a newer homeowner I do not reap the full benefits of Prop 13 that you and the others who fall under Prop 13 do!! I understand you not wanting to give up the Benefit since you get the most out of it. I’m cool with everyone not paying their fair share of prop 13, But we should reform it so that the corp’s don’t find ways to cheat with it…

    Reply this comment
  25. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 09:27

    NTHEOC, I voted against Prop. 13, in 1978–I saw it as “overkill”, and a compromise measure called the, “Behr Bill”, had been put forth. I voted for the “Behr Bill”. There was so much consternation occuring among the voters then. I hate the thought of revisiting Prop. 13, in any form, right now. Your property-tax formula is capped, and your house will not be be reassessed until you sell the property. The citizens are always going to be faced with circumstances that affect them in different, respective, ways, and some will benefit more than others. There will never be a perfect way.

    Reply this comment
  26. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 09:30

    Do you see me calling other posters, trough-feeders, thieves, low-life liars, etc, Rex? How about, “Calturds”? Real classy man, you are, Rex.

    Reply this comment
  27. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 09:34

    I stand corrected Jimmy. I obviously do not like the attitude that because you are of one particular political party, the voters of the opposing political party are stupid if they don’t look at an issue the same way you do.

    Reply this comment
  28. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 28 December, 2012, 13:52

    Rex’s propaganda is the best. He has yet to show an actual document, from an actual school district with a salary scale showing that a rank and file teacher makes $80/hr.

    Seesaw hates being exposed!!!!!!! (I have told you a million times the SacBee has the data on their website)

    Reply this comment
  29. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 28 December, 2012, 13:56

    Do you see me calling other posters, trough-feeders, thieves, low-life liars, etc, Rex?

    Yes I do, in fact you do it often.

    How about, “Calturds”? Real classy man, you are, Rex.
    CalTURDS is a state program, it is not a live, living person, as such it can withstand as many terms of endearment as I can label it!

    It is actually an evil empire 🙂

    Reply this comment
  30. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 14:05

    I do it often? Let’s see the proof!

    You are the evil one, Rex.

    Reply this comment
  31. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 14:09

    I have told you before, too, Rex, I am unable to access the Sac Bee. Referring me to a site I cannot access is quite a cop-out. That’s because you are unable to provide any documentation to prove that the average CA teacher earns $80/hr. in salary. You can’t show it, because it is not fact, and no documentation exists.

    Reply this comment
  32. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 28 December, 2012, 15:45

    You are the evil one, Rex.

    seesaw, you made me cry with that comment ;(

    Reply this comment
  33. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 28 December, 2012, 17:26

    Seesaw…..you don’t need a site.

    Follow along – you claim you’re not innumerate. We’ll see.

    Assume average teacher makes $60k/yr.

    180 days worked.

    7 hours per day

    That brings you to $47.62. Add in health care, retirement, sick time, and other non salaried benefits, and you can get pretty close to that $80 figure.

    Done. Please have a seat and learn from the Master, Grasshopper.

    Reply this comment
  34. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 28 December, 2012, 18:12

    Seesaw…..you don’t need a site.

    Follow along – you claim you’re not innumerate. We’ll see.

    Assume average teacher makes $60k/yr.

    180 days worked.

    7 hours per day

    That brings you to $47.62. Add in health care, retirement, sick time, and other non salaried benefits, and you can get pretty close to that $80 figure.
    ==
    Thnak you.

    Reply this comment
  35. BobA
    BobA 28 December, 2012, 19:31

    jimmydeeoc

    Based on the normal work year of 2080 paid hours of work, that $47.62 per hour comes out to $99,049.6 dollars per year. Add in the benefits and I’d say teachers are justly compensated for the number of hours they work when compared to the private sector.

    To me it’s simple: if teachers want more money then they should quit teaching and go into something that pays more.

    Reply this comment
  36. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 21:42

    Sorry Rex–a $60,000 salary computes out to approx. $29/hr. Benefits are added to salary figures when budgets are prepared–the worker never gets all of that in his/her pocket. If you ask someone what their salary is, they know what they make–they do not know what their salary, plus benefits is. $80/hr. for the average, teacher–my foot! Put forth documentation, Rex.

    Reply this comment
  37. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 21:44

    Sorry Rex. Looks like I should have been addressing Jimmy.

    Reply this comment
  38. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 28 December, 2012, 21:46

    Or the both of you!

    Reply this comment
  39. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 28 December, 2012, 23:24

    Sorry Rex–a $60,000 salary computes out to approx. $29/hr. Benefits are added to salary figures when budgets are prepared–the worker never gets all of that in his/her pocket.
    I already did the math for you in another thread where you closed your eyes to reality. And benefits are job costs, they count. When they are FREE we will no longer count them.

    Sorry seesaw, your trougher spin won’t work here, as this is the no spin zone baby 😉

    Reply this comment
  40. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 29 December, 2012, 07:09

    Seesaw – You Ignorant ****! LOL LOL

    Your Calculations are based on 52 weeks/yr, 8 hours day

    BUT THEY DON’T WORK FIFTY-TWO WEEKS A YEAR / EIGHT HOURS A DAY!

    THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT! THEY ONLY WORK 180 DAYS PER YEAR.

    And as to hours – My dad was a high school teacher for 25 years. He taught about 3 miles from home. He left around 7:45 and was home by 3pm or shortly thereafter.

    THAT AINT NO EIGHT HOURS A DAY!

    DID YOU GO TO SCHOOL FOR EIGHT HOURS A DAY, K-12?

    OBVIOUSLY NOT……….LOL LOL……BUT I MUST CONFESS – NEITHER DID I. NOR DID ANY OF YOU.

    Reply this comment
  41. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 29 December, 2012, 07:23

    This is what we’re are up against, folks. Everyone accepts arithmetic as a universal truth. But troughers fervently believe they can make 2+2=5 if they only wish hard enough.

    I must commend them for their faith. They stick to it despite every bit of evidence to the contrary.

    In that way they are like jihadists without the boxcutters and without the bombs strapped to their chests.

    Reply this comment
  42. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 29 December, 2012, 07:26

    BobA—

    “To me it’s simple: if teachers want more money then they should quit teaching and go into something that pays more.”

    Yeah, and good luck with that, what with the Sociology or English or History degree.

    Reply this comment
  43. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 29 December, 2012, 13:39

    Teacher contracts in CA are for 37 weeks, at 36 hours per week. That is the contracted rate.

    Reply this comment
  44. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 29 December, 2012, 13:41

    This is what we’re are up against, folks. Everyone accepts arithmetic as a universal truth. But troughers fervently believe they can make 2+2=5 if they only wish hard enough
    ==
    🙂

    Oh…don’t forget seesaw doesn’t want to count any of the “benefit” compensation, as that is not $$$ in their pocket – as if it is FREE 😉

    Reply this comment
  45. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 29 December, 2012, 13:47

    Jimmy, Teachers spend hours and hours of their own time at home making lesson plans and grading papers. They spend lots of their own money buying school supplies that the kids cannot afford.

    You can bleep and whale all you want, you bleeping jerk! I am grateful for every moment I ever spent in a public school classroom!

    $60,000/yr is still $29 an hour–no matter how you cut it.

    Reply this comment
  46. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 29 December, 2012, 13:49

    Jimmy, I spent 10 hours a day going to school, from the time I boarded the bus at 7:00 a.m. to the time I got home at 5:00 p.m. And, that did not include time for homework.

    Reply this comment
  47. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 29 December, 2012, 20:08

    “$60,000/yr is still $29 an hour–no matter how you cut it.”

    Right, Seesaw. And I’m a-gonna make 2+2=5 until I turn blue in the face.

    And this:

    “They spend lots of their own money buying school supplies that the kids cannot afford.”

    Don’t blame me for the fact that school budgetary procedures are so inept that they fail to prioritize spending – in the case of LAUSD, a $6.5 billion annual budget. Those teachers are, in a word – saps. They SHOULD be 8itching up and down at their Union reps for allowing such budgetary practices in the first place.

    Reply this comment
  48. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 29 December, 2012, 21:07

    It is really not up to you to decide how many hours a day any one teacher puts in. A yearly salary is still what it is, and if figured on an hourly basis for a standard 40-hr. week, $60,000 will compute to $29/hr. So stop your smart cracks–I can add, multiply, and divide.

    Reply this comment
  49. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 29 December, 2012, 23:13

    SeeSaw says:

    Jimmy, Teachers spend hours and hours of their own time at home making lesson plans and grading papers. They spend lots of their own money buying school supplies that the kids cannot afford.
    Lesson plans are prepared ONCE, and used over and over and over again. Seesaw Fail-again 😉

    You can bleep and whale all you want, you bleeping jerk!
    LOL..there is that seesaw name calling again (which she CLAIMS she never does!!!!)

    $60,000/yr is still $29 an hour–no matter how you cut it.

    $108K per year for a 37 week work year at 36 hours per week=AVERAGE. Some are gettng DOUBLE HAT ($160/hour). Seesaw, I know you have only a 3rd grade math education, but do the math!

    Reply this comment
  50. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 29 December, 2012, 23:14

    So stop your smart cracks–I can add, multiply, and divide.

    No, you cannot add, or divide.

    Reply this comment
  51. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 30 December, 2012, 00:08

    Arguing with a liberal……….

    “….arguing with liberals must sometimes feel like a complete waste of time and energy. You can make your point over and over again and yet find the argument inevitably circling back to the same places for yet another round, as if you hadn’t said anything at all. It can be immensely frustrating.”

    —-and—-

    “Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play chess, the pigeon just knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, spews some unintelligible profanities, and struts around like he won.”

    lol lol lol……

    Reply this comment
  52. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 30 December, 2012, 20:53

    “Arguing with Ted Steals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play chess,Ted Steals just knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, spews some unintelligible profanities, and struts around like he won.”

    🙂

    Reply this comment
  53. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm)
    The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) 1 January, 2013, 11:02

    Poodle— You play chess with pigeons?

    I can imagine that you do. At least you admit it. Refreshing!

    Reply this comment
  54. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 1 January, 2013, 18:55

    Teddy, nice reply 😉
    BAM!

    Reply this comment
  55. American
    American 26 March, 2013, 10:25

    Democrat immigration and public employee unions are going to destroy this state before they are through.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Incentives eyed to spur job growth

Feb. 18, 2010 By KATY GRIMES In spite of the federal stimulus money invested in California, unemployment is still in

State tax receipts down sharply

March 31, 2010 By JOHN SEILER A new study by the U.S. Census Bureau found that the tax receipts of

California’s public pension jackpot

Sept. 21, 2012 By Jennifer Kerns Last spring, three Maryland co-workers won the Mega Millions lottery and, as the old