The composition of the tax hikes in the 2010 budget is frighteningly similar to the Revenue Act of 1932, the much-maligned Hoover tax hikes that put the “Great” in Great Depression by putting an enormous tax burden on millions of Americans, largely through excise taxes. While the overall tax hike is smaller than 1932 (0.9 percent of GDP versus 1.6 percent of GDP) and the excise/energy component is only half the size (0.4 percent of GDP versus 0.8 percent of GDP) there is every reason to believe that the bite of the cap-and-trade tax will increase considerably beyond the initial projections, making this plan even more resemble 1932.

The cap-and-trade provisions are designed to get much, much more expensive over time, making the total impact hard to quantify but likely to be as or more expensive than the 1932 Revenue Act. In fact, Obama’s version of cap-and-trade is much more expensive than last year’s already outrageous Lieberman-Warner bill, mandating emissions cuts of 83 percent versus 63 percent in last year’s version.

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is facing and trying to deal with Sacramento's expanding "Homeless" problem.

One of the discussions that is not taking place about Sacramento's homeless is that thousands of vagrants who refuse to work, are filling up shelters, making it mpossible for those who are truly in trouble, to get better quality services and care.

Reflecting on the Tax Day Tea Parties and the gross government intrusion that most were protesting, made me think about one area of government intrusion that affects all of us, everyday.

The insanity that local government has imposed on drivers is making people nuts and causing more road problems than they solve. However, don’t make the mistake of thinking that the drastic changes on our roads are designed to solve anything: they are specifically designed to frustrate drivers to the point of finally acquiescing to leave the car at home and take public transit. It is a conspiracy – the city and county planners admit it.

Round-abouts, unnecessary traffic signals,, metered onramp signals, jutting curbs, carpool lanes: Traffic Calming projects are a farce. We are, in fact, experiencing more traffic congestion, worse air quality and are left with dangerous road conditions because of these changes. So what’s the real motive behind the innocuous sounding but fallacious “traffic calming” in Sacramento?

Traffic congestion increases fuel consumption and the release of harmful emissions. If motorists avoided idling their vehicle for just five minutes per day, millions of CO2 would be not enter the atmosphere. Yet city traffic planners keep drawing up and executing plans that create more traffic problems than they solve. Numerous traffic engineering studies in cities across the United States show that arbitrarily interrupting traffic with "nuisance" or "speed-breaker" stop signs, speed bumps and round-abouts, increase intentional violation and can actually increase the overall speed on the road where they are used. The devious plan to force us out of our cars is not working.

We should instead be working on traffic signal synchronization, removal of unwarranted traffic signals, stop signs and traffic undulations. Increasing traffic flow is far more beneficial to neighborhoods as well as safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.

When unreasonable restrictions are continually imposed, drivers become careless and/or contemptuous about the need to obey the law. Greater air pollution and neighborhood noise is created due to braking, deceleration and acceleration of vehicles. This is fact and the city doesn’t want to talk about it. They have their own agenda.

According to the National Motorists Association (NMA), another public misconception is that speed limits reduce vehicular speed and improve public safety. In fact, speed limits posted lower than dictated by California Vehicle Code leads to a greater risk of driver, pedestrian, and cyclist accidents. A driver's speed is more realistically dictated by the roadway appearance and traffic conditions than by posted speed limits. Traffic studies clearly show that reducing speed limits has no influence on vehicular speed. Unrealistically low limits cause some drivers to obey them and others to ignore them, which disrupts uniform traffic flow and increases accidents. Pedestrian and cyclists injuries increase because of their difficulty in judging the varying speed of traffic. Downtown Sacramento is a case in point.

Safety on the road should come first and foremost, and not through the indiscriminate use of traffic control devices. Instead, city officials and neighborhood activists bombard us with messages of “traffic calming,” which is nothing more than a euphemism for traffic obstruction and diversion.

A significant portion of vehicular fuel consumption is wasted due to unwarranted traffic control. Traffic engineering studies have demonstrated that in cities with excessive numbers of traffic signals and stop signs, the fuel consumed by vehicles stopping and idling accounts for approximately 40% of all vehicular fuel consumption.

However, it is obvious that the decisions for traffic control devices are made in response to undue public pressure by special interests. People who purchase a home on a major thoroughfare in a neighborhood want reduced traffic. Neighbors fear for their safety when there is no traffic enforcement. Instead, they should be advocating for realistic traffic safety enforcement and efficient traffic flow on thoroughfares.

Then there are the extreme groups of bicycle advocates, which is what’s driving Sacramento’s “traffic calming” scheme. They absurdly and unrealistically advocate for no cars on the road, and use burdensome traffic control devices as their instrument. Traffic engineers know that what the extremists are asking is actually jeopardizing public safety, but on the surface, it looks as if they are fighting for bicyclists and pedestrians, and doing their part in the politically correct fight against global warming.

Traffic signals are only an asset to traffic control if installed at intersections that really warrant a signal; stop signs are intended to help drivers and pedestrians decide who has the right-of-way and not for speed control; crosswalks are only for the guidance and control of pedestrians and not to ensure safety; lower speed limits do not slow down traffic; speed bumps are more hazardous than helpful on public streets, especially on streets designated as emergency vehicle routes; and unnecessary traffic control devices cause pollution.

The rise in road rage and the increasing dilemma of red lights runners, is linked to the proliferation of needless traffic control devices and the nonsensical “traffic calming” techniques being used across the country. Practical, levelheaded traffic control and enforcement would solve many of these problems, rather than using punishment techniques against people who drive automobiles.

“Traffic calming” devices, such as speed bumps and traffic circles (round-abouts) are being installed in communities across the United States, without regard to their risks. Deflection devices built to slow passenger vehicles, create even greater delays to large emergency response vehicles. The longer wheel-base, stiff suspension, and high vehicle weight, requires drivers to slow almost to a stop to negotiate the devices safely. On our downtown streets, large delivery trucks cannot navigate a right turn around the newly installed jutting street corners, or the many round-abouts that sit in the middle of small intersections.

Stop-and-go traffic creates an environmental impact that takes a toll on health and quality-of-life. “Traffic calming” is the tool used by city officials to regulate and deliberately inconvenience, as well as hinder, the legitimate travel of motorists. As a community, we must put an end this obstruction and abuse.

Ricks fails to acknowledge that the military academies don't just prepare young men and women to become officers, they are trained to become future senior officers - leadership.  

If anyone thinks that a ROTC grad is comparable to a West Point or Annapolis graduate is a fool. According to several military who followed this column, they think he's full of hooey, as do I.

One fellow from Blackfive writes this: Now, I'll admit it's been a while but I'm sure the dynamic is pretty much the same now as it was when I was in. I was an ROTC grad. Anyone who believes I was as well prepared as a West Point grad to function at the same level as them doesn't know what they're talking about.

Now this is news!