Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

The litany of reasons California is broken is well documented. The highest cost of living and the highest taxes. The highest percentages of homeless people and people living in poverty. Unaffordable homes and unaffordable rent. High crime and failing schools. A hostile business climate and record migration out of state as people and businesses flee.

But not often enough are we reminded of the countless small things that have gone wrong. Small things that add up to a big problem: a state legislature that is out of touch with the people it represents; a state legislature that, for all practical purposes, holds its constituents in contempt; a state legislature that is doing everything in its power to make life difficult.

Just a few days ago, the latest in this long train of abuses arrived. No more plastic bags. Although 2026 is still a few weeks away, this grocery store has already converted to paper only—heavy, fragile paper bags with handles that tear off under the slightest stress. Everything was double-bagged just to lower the probability of catastrophic failure of the handles.

The problems with this are more than the inconvenience of having to pay 20 cents for every double-bagged bag full of groceries. With plastic bags, you could loop their handles around your fingers and carry several of them securely in one hand. Try that with a paper bag. And there are no uses after the first use for a paper bag. Shall we use paper bags for cat litter? Trash can liners? Maybe, but they won’t work very well. And storing them uses up space fast.

So what’s the advantage? Are we saving oil? Certainly not much. And if savings are what we’re after, why did they ever force us in 2014 to stop using ultra-thin plastic bags in favor of “reusable” bags that nobody reuses for groceries, yet have 10-15 times as much plastic in them per bag? Funny how the plastic industry rolled over on that one. “Please don’t regulate us” morphed into “Never mind, we’ll split with the state that dime we’re charging now per bag.” Corporation wins. State wins. Misanthropic regulations abuse the rest of us.

Now the plastic bags are gone. But the dime per paper bag? That stays.

Does this law reduce the “footprint” of plastic? Yes. Marginally. Meanwhile, it increases the footprint of paper bags, which are actually worse for the environment. And maybe that’s the biggest problem here: California’s corporate special interests, their lobbyists, and their fanatic green marionettes are all too ready to force “solutions” onto the public before the technology has caught up.

Are there bags that look like plastic bags and work like plastic bags—convenient to use and durable—but aren’t made of plastic? That’s certainly possible, but could we wait? No, of course not. We had to let the special interests consolidate their power and profit, while the usual crowd of useful fanatics beat their chests and crow about how they’re saving the planet. What would we do without them to rescue us all?

When taken to such extremes, these laws have little to do with the environment. It’s about control. It’s about money. It’s a shakedown.

Last weekend I had to refill the gas tank in my rototiller. Could I just uncap my gasoline can and fill it up? That would be too easy. The State of California mandates “automatic sealing nozzles” on five-gallon gasoline cans. Have you ever tried to fill the tank of a small engine tool with gasoline out of one of these overdesigned, utterly dysfunctional cans? To save time, you’re better off removing the entire nozzle assembly, as if you’re at the gas station refilling your can from the pump, and then pouring from the nearly two-inch diameter opening in your partially disassembled gasoline can into a funnel you have inserted in the tank of, in this case, a rototiller. It’s messy and time-consuming. And that’s just another example of the idiocy our supposed representatives force us to endure.

Do you want to install new windows on your house? Not cutting a new window where there once was a wall. No. Just replace an existing old window with a new one. Guess what: you need a permit. You have to submit plans to the city or county bureaucracy. Are you kidding?

Read this summary of the steps you have to take to get a window replaced in a California home:

Step-by-step procedure for replacing old windows with new ones without changing the opening size (most common, fewer forms).
Gather the required documents and use the online portal to submit the application.
Plans: Drawings showing window location, size, and framing (if structural changes).
Window Specs: Manufacturer cut sheets, energy efficiency ratings.
Title 24 Compliance: Documentation showing energy efficiency.
Contractor Info: License details if using a contractor.
Lead Paint Info: If your home was built before 1978, be prepared for lead-safe work requirements and paperwork.
Create an online account with the county and submit your application and documents electronically.
Plan Review: County staff will review for code compliance (Structural, Life Safety, Energy, etc.). You’ll be notified of any needed corrections.
Permit Issuance & Inspection: Once approved, pay fees and get your permit. Schedule required inspections through the portal as work progresses.

The same goes for all of these and more: ceiling fans, patio covers, carports, water heaters, retaining walls, landscape irrigation, and shower or tub replacements. What percent of people doing these jobs get these permits? How many? I’m waiting. How many? Who was that Russian who said, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime”? Welcome to California.

Let’s be clear. The time it takes to fulfill all these steps is often greater than the amount of time that it takes to do the actual work. In many cases, the expense for the excessive designs and disclosures and fees also adds up to more than the actual labor and materials.

This petty tyranny extends to almost everything in California. Do you have a pool? Better put a permanent fence around the entire pool and alarms on any doors that open into that enclosure, or you have not complied. Do you have a gate into your pool enclosure? It has to be “self-closing,” or you did not comply. Make sure the enclosure’s fencing is at least 60 inches high (60 inches! five feet!). Is there a latch on your self-closing gate? Better make sure it is at least 54 inches off the ground, and no plants are allowed, not even in planters, within five feet of the enclosure. New pools even have to have “an approved cover.” Because that’s safe! I’ll never forget the time I saw a grown man, overwhelmed with grief, carrying his soaking wet dead dog into the waiting room at a local veterinary hospital. The poor animal got trapped under their pool cover.

It’s not just bags and buildings where the long arm of California’s regulatory state interferes with your life and induces honest citizens to reluctantly become petty criminals. It also tempts honest contractors who just want to do good work for a fair price, instead of charging three times as much, to spend more than half their time on “compliance.” We aren’t talking about new homes or major remodels, where obviously some regulations are called for, although nothing like what the California legislature has done to basically kill the home building industry. We’re talking about windows. Who do you trust more? The guy with good references who will just replace your window with no fuss? Or the guy who wants to charge you triple and jump through every regulatory hoop? And why should any of us—vendor or customer—have to be put in such a tough position? Get it done efficiently and be a crook, or take three times as long and pay three times as much and be a sucker?

Consider the new law governing kitchen waste. Residents are now required to save their kitchen waste—oops, their “organics”—and discard it in their green waste containers, along with grass cuttings and leaves. Don’t bag it up and put it in the trash, because that increases the quantity of methane that comes out of landfills. Never mind that landfills are still going to emit methane, with or without kitchen scraps, or that methane rapidly degrades in the atmosphere, or that its alleged impact on the global climate is based on theories still wide open to debate, or that even if you are desperately concerned about methane emissions, there are far more cost-effective and less intrusive ways to capture it.

Some of these laws are literally unbelievable, but they’re all too real. According to a thoroughly house-broken reporter for the Sacramento Bee, the potential fine of up to $5,000—five thousand dollars—for someone who, say, repeatedly fails to put their empty pizza box in the right container, “speaks to the seriousness of the matter.” This is pure corruption, meant to enrich public sector unions who get to staff up to implement these laws, and sold to brainwashed “environmentalist” advocates, many of them masquerading as objective journalists who actually think they’re helping the good guys.

California’s intrusive laws are far too numerous to catalog. They are selectively enforced, for the simple reason that the quantity of violations in this supposedly enlightened state numbers in the hundreds of millions. And if you have a business open to the public? Then you may expect the intrusive government regulations to multiply by orders of magnitude. No wonder so many people are leaving, heartbroken that they and their children live in a place where the government is doing everything it can to drive them out. A government that has made the state they love a state they can’t stand to live in anymore.

California’s policymakers aren’t technically criminals—or at least not all of them are. But what they’re doing to the people who live here is a crime. A crime that is split into so many thousands of petty offenses that it is sometimes hard for us to realize how truly monstrous it has become.

On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to end federal taxes on tips and overtime. Democrats dismissed it as an election-year ploy to win votes, but Trump delivered on that promise when he signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, which eliminated taxes on tips and overtime for service and hospitality workers.

However, blue-state Democrats like New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis are, in the words of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, “deliberately blocking their own residents” from accessing the “historic benefits” promised under the law.

“President Trump’s tax cuts bill is the most pro-worker, pro-family legislation in a generation,” Bessent said. “It puts more money directly into the pockets of hardworking Americans through No Tax on Tips for dedicated service industry staff, No Tax on Overtime for linemen and factory workers, and a new tax deduction for seniors who depend on Social Security.”

 Bessent continued, “This partisan stonewalling is a direct assault on the very families and workers liberal politicians claim to champion. By denying their residents access to these important tax cuts, these governors and legislators are forcing hardworking Americans to shoulder higher state tax burdens, robbing them of the relief they deserve and exacerbating the financial squeeze on low- and middle-income households.”

Bessent demands that these holdouts conform immediately and quit punishing citizens for political spite. 

“President Trump’s vision is clear: real relief for the forgotten men and women of America, certainty for businesses, and momentum for growth,” Bessent added. “The American people voted for bold change, not bureaucratic roadblocks.”

Bessent also hinted that there would be consequences for states that refuse to comply with the law.

“Treasury stands ready to work with any state committed to delivering on that promise, but we will not stand idly by as this obstructionism drags down the national recovery,” he said. “This is about fairness. This is about opportunity. And this is about putting America first, starting with the families and workers who make our economy the envy of the world.”

Bessent doubled down in a post on X, and compared Govs. Hochul, Pritzker, and Polis to the Dr. Seuss character, the Grinch.

“Courtesy of their Scrooge-like tendencies, America’s seniors, along with all workers who would benefit from No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Overtime, will be robbed of the tax relief they deserve,” he wrote. “The Christmas season should be a time of great cheer. But due to the Trump Derangement Syndrome of these Governors and other radical leftists, too many low- and middle-income households will receive nothing but coal in their state tax stockings.”

Thanks to @POTUS, ‘tis the season to be jolly – unless you’re a taxpayer in New York, Colorado, Illinois, or the District of Columbia.

For millions of hardworking Americans, @GovKathyHochul, @GovofCO @jaredpolis, and @GovPritzker are The Grinches Who Stole Christmas.

Courtesy… pic.twitter.com/eVtKYcHc4w

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) December 10, 2025

Ironically, Trump wasn’t the only one who wanted to relieve service and hospitality workers of paying taxes on tips and overtime. Two months after he proposed his No Tax on Tips plan, Kamala Harris pitched her own version of the idea at a rally in Las Vegas in August 202. She pledged, “It is my promise to everyone here when I am president, we will continue our fighting for working families of America including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.” 

While many Democrats were already on the record opposing Trump’s plan, Harris’s proposal had the backing of both of Nevada’s Democratic U.S. Senators, Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto. Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre even said that if such a proposal to eliminate taxes on tips had passed Congress, Joe Biden would have signed it.

Trump, however, called Harris out immediately for stealing his proposal.

“Kamala Harris, whose ‘Honeymoon’ period is ENDING, and is starting to get hammered in the Polls, just copied my NO TAXES ON TIPS Policy,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social at the time. The difference is, she won’t do it, she just wants it for Political Purposes! This was a TRUMP idea – She has no ideas, she can only steal from me. Remember, Kamala has proposed the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY – It won’t happen. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

The Trump administration sees the new law as a straightforward win for workers, yet this standoff with blue states ensures the debate is far from over.

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The national press was overtaken with hullabaloo following the recent meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This is a committee that serves under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), providing a check of outside expertise on what would otherwise be a bureaucratic edict.

Dr. Robert Malone speaks during a meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in Atlanta, Ga., on Dec. 5, 2025. Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

It brings together outside experts from academia and medicine to provide guidance on how the CDC should advise doctors and parents on vaccines. As part of the new committee formed by Health and Human Services director Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., there are strict rules against conflict of interest.

The new committee has voted to make a small, common-sense change in the childhood vaccination schedule. It is seen as hugely significant because it has taken issue with a particular shot that has been on the schedule since 1991.

The shot concerns Hepatitis B. Instead of a universal recommendation, the committee suggested that it should not pertain in the first months of life provided the birthing mother has tested negative for the disease. After that time, the shot should only be given when there is informed consent.

Stated that way, it does not seem even slightly controversial. Indeed, one wonders why the shot was ever on the schedule, especially given the paltry data on effectiveness and safety. On March 1, 1991, the New York Times reported on its addition to the childhood schedule: “If adults won’t go for the shots, then give them to babies.”

As part of the childhood schedule, they are automatically granted immunity from liability, as legislated in 1986 on fear that lawsuits could bankrupt the whole industry. With such a shield in place, there was a gold rush to move shots from targeting adults to being given to children. Most kids in the United States since those days have taken the shot, even those at no risk of the disease in question.

That it should be removed from the schedule for mothers testing negative would seem entirely non-controversial. It certainly does not warrant panic that the entire schedule is being shredded or that the industry will collapse. The response of the industry is entirely disproportionate to the threat. In addition, the committee had open public debate for two full days. It was hardly ill-considered.

The committee had invited a variety of perspectives. One was from a schedule skeptic, attorney Aaron Siri, who is a lawyer and author who has testified widely on the topic. To balance that out, ACIP invited Paul Offit, of the Vaccine Education Center in Philadelphia, and Peter Hotez of Texas Children’s Hospital. Both are famous for their uncritical attitude.

The trouble is that Drs. Offit and Hotez refused the invitation. That is strange. They were invited to speak for up to 45 minutes without interruption to the entire world because the meeting was livestreamed. This was the perfect opportunity for them to make their case to the committee, to the CDC, and to the world. They said, each in his own way, that they did not want to legitimize the committee by honoring it with their testimony.

This is taking place even as a coalition of coastal states have pushed a secessionist measure to impose their own vaccine schedule against the efforts of the HHS, CDC, and ACIP to pare back some recommendations to pre-1986 levels.

Donald Trump has meanwhile weighed in on the controversies.

“Today, the CDC Vaccine Committee made a very good decision to END their Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendation for babies, the vast majority of whom are at NO RISK of Hepatitis B, a disease that is mostly transmitted sexually, or through dirty needles. The American Childhood Vaccine Schedule long required 72 ‘jabs,’ for perfectly healthy babies, far more than any other Country in the World, and far more than is necessary. In fact, it is ridiculous! Many parents and scientists have been questioning the efficacy of this ‘schedule,’ as have I! That is why I have just signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Health and Human Services to ‘FAST TRACK’ a comprehensive evaluation of Vaccine Schedules from other Countries around the World, and better align the U.S. Vaccine Schedule, so it is finally rooted in the Gold Standard of Science and COMMON SENSE! I am fully confident Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the CDC, will get this done, quickly and correctly, for our Nation’s Children.”

Thus can we see that Trump himself wants to go much further.

We are confronted with a fascinating historical paradox here. Trump has said many times that he is very proud of Operation Warp Speed that brought a shot for COVID to market in record time. Many of his supporters, however, do not agree with this opinion. And to be sure, the effectiveness and safety of this injection has not scored high marks on anyone’s scale.

That said, Trump is now leading the charge for a full rethinking of the place of vaccines and shot mandates in national life. His own Food and Drug Administration has sounded the alarm on the COVID shots for kids, which were never necessary in the first place. They were often mandated for school attendance. It turns out that there were at least 10 deaths definitively traceable to this shot and probably many more. People are understandably scandalized.

Beneath all this debate, there is a much broader meta-narrative at work. Vaccines had long expanded in use without too much public debate. It was the COVID response and the mandates for millions to accept an untested technology (modified mRNA) else lose their jobs. This was a bridge too far. To top it off, the shot did not stop transmission or infection and has revealed a poor safety profile.

As a result, many aspects of the entire system of public health have come into question. What’s on trial here is not just one shot or the childhood schedule or even vaccines only. What’s come into question is the credibility of the expert class of medicine men who shepherded this entire regime into operational legitimacy. If anyone believes that there would be a return to the status quo ante following all of this, that person is woefully naive about the relationship between the public mind and structures of governance.

What is unfolding right now is the consequence of a loss of trust. That does not mean that everything government has said is thus rejected. What this does mean is a dramatic shift in the burden of proof. The Hepatitis B shot needed to prove that it was necessary, safe, and effective for all newborn children, even those of mothers who have tested negative. Under that standard, the shot simply could not survive.

As we look at the entire schedule, it is true that there are other formulas and diseases that will be subjected to what is called shared decision-making between parents and medical doctors. Which is to say: We are watching the emergence of choice and volunteerism to primacy of place where they should have been all along.