California voters exercise their power -- and that's the problem

[Bushknew]

Source: LA Times

Rightly or wrongly, voters in the special election refused either to extend new tax hikes or to cap state spending. They also declined to unlock funds that they had voted in better financial times to set aside for special purposes.

On Tuesday, Californians showed they were unwilling to scale back their demands in tight times: Voters turned down propositions that would have freed up money that they set aside years ago for mental-health and children's programs.

"The irony is that the more the hands of the Legislature and governor are tied up, the more frustrated people are," said Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at Cal State Sacramento.

Together, voters' piecemeal decisions since the 1970s have effectively "emasculated the Legislature," said John Allswang, a retired Cal State L.A. history professor.

"They're looking for cheap answers -- throw the guys out of power and put somebody else in, or just blame the politicians and pretend you don't have to raise taxes when you need money," he said.

"This is what the public wants, and they deceive themselves constantly. They're not realistic.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-analysis20-2009may20,0,5578614.story

---

Now What?

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. They're not pretending, they really believe it

Politicians have won on that claim for hundreds of years. Of course it's true. All you need to do is throw the wastrels out!

[Bushknew]

2. In the mean time though, what about the budget?

[ChrisF66]

3. in the meantime...

The state will continue to lose what few qualified professionals it has left.
The schools continue to starve for funding. Well off districts will make it up locally, poor districts won't.
The roads will continue to disintegrate (driven the Bay Area recently?)

But we'll always have money for more prisons.

It's going to be so bad, I don't think even legalizing and taxing cannabis would fix it.

But it's worth a try, ain't it?

[Soylent Brice]

12. you said it all right here:

"But we'll always have money for more prisons."

BTW, welcome to DU.

:hi:

[question everything]

52. I don't know about prisons

I've read that Arnold want to transfer many, especially illegals, to other states or to federal facilities.

[No Elephants]

13. One of the ways that Arnold won, in fact.

[flyarm]

4. so many have and are losing their jobs..how the hell can that state after throwing a governor out

give a tax raise to the governor who bitched about the former governor???????? And this thug governor was part of the financial problem with ENRON..and yet covered up his complicity in putting the state in debt.

Los Angeles and Riverside have one of the worst unemployment rates in the nation..how the hell can the State Of Calif ask people losing their jobs for a tax increase?
If people have to stay within their budget, so should the State..and maybe Arny should have gotten the big bucks back from Enron when he could have! AND SHOULD HAVE!..after all that was a big part of the debt Davis was stuck with because of the likes of crooked Arny!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Right.

Can't ask for a tax increase. Can't ask to reduce spending. Therefore the solution is more unsustainable debt. We are not the Federal government. We can't ask the Fed to issue more debt when we're broke.

[tomm2thumbs]

5. what struck me was the impotence of Mayor Villaraigosa - his candidate lost

The candidate who the Democratic party threw money at, and who Mayor Villaraigosa supported lost. Jack Weiss. It shows that the 'establishment' of either party does not have a lock on the issues and substance of elections. I would think that Obama should think twice before he ignores what just happened in California this cycle. People will not give an endless rubber stamp to folks trying to dictate rules that affect them negatively. They are tired of dumping cash on a burning fire and want real solutions, not just check-written kind.

Also, this seems to be an op-ed piece (analysis) and not a 'breaking news' piece, but who am I to judge. :)

[aggiesal]

6. I was a delegate at the CA Dem. Party Convention about a month ago, ...

The debate at the convention was the we should approve measures 1A - 1E because
this was the best we could get out of the Republicans.

Get that!

The minority Repugs get to control the budget. If we voted this down, the next time
the Dems go back to get a better budget, the Repugs would not give as much.

The delegates only approved 1B and 1F while all others failed.

I voted against 1A-1E at the convention, because I believe we could do better once
the Obama stimulus package money reaches CA.

So send the budget back and come up with a better budget. And lets force the
Repugs to get rid of the tax loopholes they have built in for the rich.

[No Elephants]

14. I don't get how the Republicans get to control when they are in the minority and also

when they are in the majority. Doesn't speak very well of Democratic leadership in California (or in Congress), does it?

[Odin2005]

17. You need a 2/3 majority to raise taxes in California.

That and Prop. 13 are the reason California is going to Hell in a hand basket.

[aggiesal]

38. Amen, ...

Prop 13 saves the long time home owners from paying high taxes when their property value goes through the roof.
But corporations abuse the system.

In CA. the property taxes are assessed when property changes hands.
Property taxes can not change more that +/- 1.5% between years, for the same
property holder.

But when property is sold, the value of the property is re-evaluated and property taxes
are determined on the new value of the property (i.e. price of property when sold).

Corporations have figured out that when they purchase another corporation, they purchase
all the assets except the property so that they don't have to pay the new higher property taxes.
They leave the old corporation in tact, and make the corporation sold a sub-corporation.
Then the purchasing corporation, pays the sub-corporation rent money on the property.
That way it appears that the property never changes hands.

[slackmaster]

51. We are the most heavily taxed working middle class in the USA in spite of Prop. 13

The problem is not that we don't pay enough in taxes.

[diane in sf]

7. The props weren't good enough, time to tax the rich, not cut services and education

Also it's time to get rid of more pugs in the state legislature. That day can't come to soon.

[Xithras]

33. Taxing the rich won't help. We're about to see an armageddon in state services.

First, California is one of the few states that DOES tax the rich. A lot. More than half of our income-tax derived budget comes from the top 5% of wage earners.

Second, that's actually part of the problem. The Controller publicized this problem last year. California, today, is unusually dependent among states on income tax revenue, and especially revenue from the wealthy. The problem is that the "wealthy" don't work 9-5 jobs with regular paychecks, and most make their money from investments like land, the stock market, business investments, etc. In case you haven't noticed, none of those are doing particularly well lately. Real income for the top 5% has plunged the last couple of years, and tax receipts have plunged along with them. John Chiang gave a speech last fall where he gave a few examples, including a real estate investor who typically paid in over $2 million a year in taxes, but is paying ZERO currently. Why zero? Because land isn't selling, so he has no income to tax. Increasing taxes on a declining revenue stream is a losing proposition mathematically.

Finally, none of it matters now anyway. Even if we imposed a 100% tax on the rich, effective today, those new revenues wouldn't be collected fast enough to actually make an impact this year. The state is going to need to close a $20 billion gap over the next two months, and the only way to accomplish that is through massive and painful cuts. We're going to see entire state departments cease to exist, and the plan to shutter schools statewide a week and a half early for summer already has substantial bipartisan support.

Karen Bass, the Democratic Speaker of the Assembly, has already made it clear that the Democrats are onboard for major cuts and service interruptions. The only real debate will be which services, and where. If you're expecting our party to stand its ground and defend these services from cuts, you're about to be sorely dissappointed.

[radhika]

8. Most Progressives & Dems Said NO too

The No-Tax-No-Way Repugs are partying hearty in a local hotel as I write this. They are claiming that the defeat of the props was a strong message that Californians are in their camp. Let them laugh and hoot - they'll learn soon.

Here in SoCal, most Progressive and Democratic Clubs have been strongly saying NO. The state government is hugely dysfunctional. The R-team all signed lobbyist Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes, no matter the needs of the state. No Dems signed it; Democrats were committed to not cutting education, health and social services - hence the stalemate that kept the state without a working budget for 10 months.. The only reason the legislature signed off on a tentative budget was to not lose Obama's stimulus funds. The 3 Repugs that agreed to the fake compromise are being hit by recall petitions from their base. Schwarzenegger's recall will be placed on a future ballot.

We Progressives are sick and tired of ineffective, impotent, non-strategic governance that refuses to transcend Party machines. The props were meaningless towards solving the problem and deceptive in intent. Close analysis identified tax loopholes that were quietly slipped in for special business interests while demanding cutbacks and Rainy Day savings. We demand the state go back to the drawing board under much closer public scrutiny. One critical factor in CA is something I call the 1/3 Veto. Others call it the 2/3 rule. It applies only to tax and budget matters - on other topics including the death penalty the state can legislate at 50%+1. Since no Party has had 2/3 of the legislature, cooperation is required. It just plain doesn't happen in today's polarized state. Effectively 1/3 (as with the Grover kids) can block even the most modest tax increases or closing of loopholes.

Already the Shock & Awe folks are trying to dial-down our living wage rules to federal levels and lay off many more thousands of employees. This state NEEDS to fall into the sea!

[shanti]

30. that seems to be their only answer

lay off many state employees :(...even tho they're only 8% of the state budget.

[roseBudd]

9. Sounds like Republicans...

They're looking for cheap answers -- just blame the politicians and pretend you don't have to raise taxes when you need money

[beyurslf]

10. I don't understand why the state even has a Legislature. It seems that

everything ends up on a referendum at some point. Maybe they should get rid of all of them to save money and just have a public vote on everything.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

49. This is similar to something I suggested yesterday.

California should do away with its elected government and conduct its affairs via a series of Facebook quizzes.

[Robb]

11. California: It's the New Colorado

Welcome, brothers! :rofl:

[LeftHander]

15. Right Wing Radio has "helped" WaaaYYyyy too much....

[Odin2005]

16. This shit really damages my faith in Democracy.

The average person is a fucking moron.

[depakid]

19. This has been true in California for several decades now

[roody]

23. These were irresponsible measures sent to the voters by an

irresponsible legislature and irresponsible governor. Many smart people voted no. They were also dishonestly named.

[Exultant Democracy]

29. What do you expect, most people can't trade and eye for wisdom.

[raccoon]

35. I fear you are right. nt

[ContinentalOp]

69. It restores my faith..

because despite all of those morons, voters did the right thing and rejected Arnold's plan.

[hadrons]

18. "This is what the public wants, and they deceive themselves constantly. They're not realistic."

Basically the majority of voters are 'Joe The Plumber' because that's the type of voter what's-his-name represents (not the specific views, but the unrealistic expectations)

[bemildred]

20. My heart bleeds for the poor mistreated politicians.

One wonders why they don't all pull a Galt so we could find out just how terrible things would be without their creative genius.

[PassingFair]

21. I call bullshit on ANYONE who uses the term "emasculated the legislature".

"Together, voters' piecemeal decisions since the 1970s have effectively "emasculated the Legislature," said John Allswang, a retired Cal State L.A. history professor."


What the hell does GENDER have to do
with running effective government,
Mr. AllSWANG?

Penis=good?
Anything else=ineffective?

:WTF:

[bemildred]

22. Indeed.

:thumbsup:

[WriteDown]

26. Quit being hysterical.

:evilgrin:

[PassingFair]

27. I CAN'T, I'm spasming!!!

:evilgrin:

And STOP trying to efeminate me!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

62. so some reference to vagnial dryness would be perferable?

[Throd]

24. I voted "NO" on all but 1F

[anigbrowl]

47. Funny, so did most of the Republicans I know

They just did it for different reasons, like not approving of the idea of paying more taxes to make up the shortfall later.

[xchrom]

25. until we get rid of the initiative process -- this is what we get here.

i voted 'no' on all the initiatives.

and i have donated money to organizations that are trying to get rid of it.

we have to deal with the perpetual fuck up that pro 13 had caused, find a way to put our elected reps TO WORK -- and stop handing back responsibility to the people.

[totodeinhere]

31. Yes, let's eliminate the initiative process and take decision making out of the hands of the people.

A dictatorship would be better. Then the big corporations would have even more control than they do now.

[xchrom]

37. that is a really dumb response to what is happening in california.

prop 13 is what we get.

and -- um -- a representative democracy -- in case you're from mars -- isn't a dictatorship.

that isn't even what you call a government that's ruled by corporations.

[totodeinhere]

42. Look what your so-called representative democracy has got us.

The vast majority of the politicians we elect are bought and sold by the special interests and the big corporations. I would trust the instincts of the people much more than politicians.

BTW, I will let your insult to my intelligence pass.

[anigbrowl]

48. I don't. People are stupid and selfish.

It doesn't help that our education has been gutted in recent years and almost 50% of high schoolers drop out before graduation. Ou problems stretch way back, even before Reagan. While I like the idea of direct voting, the way it's implemented in California isn't working out and mainl benefits those who have a lot of money to throw at advertising. Most people don't even sit down and read the text of what they're voting on with any degree of care. This is how we wound up with proposition 8, among other dumb things.

[Ignis]

44. Nice strawman.

Look, if you don't understand how very badly Prop 13 has fucked over CA's economy for the past few decades, perhaps you should do a little research before you post.

Or you could just spout strawmen, instead. Whatever floats your boat. :hi:

[totodeinhere]

63. The move to establish the initiative process was a progressive one.

The 1890s and early 1900s saw the establishment of the Populist and
Progressive movements. Both were based on the people’s dissatisfaction
with government and its inability to deal effectively in addressing the
problems of the day. The supporters of both these movements had
become especially outraged that moneyed special interest groups
controlled government, and that the people had no ability to break this
control. They soon began to propose a comprehensive platform of
political reforms that included women’s suffrage, secret ballots, direct
election of U.S. Senators, recall, primary elections, and the initiative
process.

http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/Drop%20Down%20Boxes/Quick%20Facts/History%20of%20I&R.pdf

The initiative process is the only guarantee that the people have that the big corporations won't run roughshod over people's lives. Do the people make mistakes sometimes at the ballot box? Of course they do. But IMO it would be elitist to try to take the people's direct power away from them. And do you really think that the dysfunctional California legislature could do any better than the people do through the ballot box?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

67. Ever heard of Enron? Ever heard of Pete Wilson?

Ever heard of the California energy crisis? Does the phrase "rolling blackout" mean anything to you? The initiative process isn't a guarantee of anything. Hell, half of the budget propositions are sponsored by corporations or industry lobbying groups anyway.

Do the people make mistakes sometimes at the ballot box? Of course they do.

Of course. The problem is that if a politician makes a mistake I can vote to kick them out of office. I can't kick the idiots who vote for these stupid ballot propositions out of the state.

But IMO it would be elitist to try to take the people's direct power away from them.

Representative democracy is inherently elitist. Deal with it.

And do you really think that the dysfunctional California legislature could do any better than the people do through the ballot box?

I think a ballot box full of rabid gerbils could do a better job.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

54. Hey, fascism isn't looking all that bad these days.

Call it Weimar California.

[IDFbunny]

39. We need a Chavez

That knows whats best for us and will liguidate greedy corporations and end these stupid initiatives that empower the public.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. I have a simple rule for all budget initiatives.

If I think I actually understand what it means and what it will do, I vote no. If I don't understand it, I don't vote at all. So this time I didn't even bother to vote. Have you actually read the text of these goddamn things? It's insane.

[Blue_Tires]

28. well, they DO keep Arnold in power for some strange reason...

[totodeinhere]

32. Why not? There is nobody on the political scene in California from either party who has shown that..

they could do any better.

[Blue_Tires]

34. or worse, from my humble observation...

[raccoon]

36. California in four decades went from the golden state of the Beach Boy songs to

something out of a Bruce Springsteen song.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. More like something out of Kafka

[ItNerd4life]

40. Wow! Insult the voters because the government is incompetent.

What a joke. If the government in California actually new how to manage money they wouldn't be in this mess.

We've put up with Bush mismanagement for 8 years and got rid of him.

[totodeinhere]

43. Correction - We did not get rid of Bush. He was termed out.

And the same applies to Arnold, who is bing termed out after this term. And God help whoever replaces him. I doubt if anyone will be able to effectively govern that dysfunctional state.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

53. The government of California does not have the authority to manage its money.

Why do you think these stupid ballot propositions exist? For fun?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. "All politics is local." Tip O'Neill

It's pretty hard to get people to cough up more money when they're either hurting or are afraid to be hurting.

[riverdeep]

45. And how does this affect those of us that don't live in California?

It affects us tremendously. They say that if California were an independent nation, it would rank anywhere from 7th to 10th in the world in the world's economies. If California has problems, we all have problems. How much of our produce comes from California, how much innovation comes from California? A lot. It generates enormous tax revenue for the nation as a whole.

And here's something to think about- California is blue. The next state in ranking of economic output is- Texas, a red state (and then New York, Florida and Illinois). California's economy is tanking, while Texas is one of the few states doing reasonably well.

The problems they are experiencing are the fruits of the seeds sown long ago. While times were good, people never really tackled these fundamental problems. If anything good does come from this, maybe it's that a workable system could finally be in place. Maybe if you remove Orange County?}(

[book_worm]

46. It's tough times Californians need to make tough choices--govt. by proposition is

not healthy imo.

[ContinentalOp]

57. So the Republican LA Times is crying that their Republican propositions didn't pass?

:cry: Gee maybe their hero, the Governator is going to have to stop vetoing every budget, and maybe their fucked up minority party will have to stop holding our entire state hostage.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

58. Uh, that's not really what the editorial is saying.

[ContinentalOp]

60. It sure sounds to me like the writer supported the propositions...

and as far as I can tell most Democrats didn't. He implies that these props would have actually fixed our problems which is not the case, and he ignores the fact that these were just more cuts to education disguised as a budget fix.

"Instead, they are consumed by yet another budget crisis, one that voters worsened Tuesday."
"The results Tuesday fit Californians' long-standing pattern of demanding what is ultimately irreconcilable, all the more so in an economic downturn: lower taxes and higher spending."

These props had nothing to do with raising taxes. It was all spending cuts targeted at education and mental health.


..."Davis and many other elected officials bear some responsibility for that. But so do voters."

Oh really? Still trying to blame Davis are we?

This editorial is pure bullshit.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

66. The premise is right there in the title of the article.

He implies that these props would have actually fixed our problems

No he doesn't. He implies that the initiative system created the problem in the first place. The premise is that the initiative system is not working. As for your specific complaints:

"Instead, they are consumed by yet another budget crisis, one that voters worsened Tuesday."

They did indisputably worsen it. The failure of 1A means that the temporary sales, use, etc. taxes are not going to be extended (unless the legislature decides to do it, which the likely won't.) Lost revenue from those taxes = worsens the budget crisis.

"The results Tuesday fit Californians' long-standing pattern of demanding what is ultimately irreconcilable, all the more so in an economic downturn: lower taxes and higher spending."

This is exactly how they voted. They voted not to cut the programs and not to keep the temporary taxes in place, let alone actually raise taxes. That is, assuming they even understood the ballot measures. I still can't make heads or tails of half of the fine print, and I enjoy geeking out on this stuff.


These props had nothing to do with raising taxes. It was all spending cuts targeted at education and mental health.

Thank you for proving my point that the voting residents of California do not even understand half of the ballot propositions on which they are expected to vote. From Ballotpedia:

If Proposition 1A had passed, $10 billion in "temporary" sales, use, income and vehicle taxes imposed as part of the 2009-2010 budget agreement would each be extended for one or two years, resulting in a further tax increase of some $16 billion.

Proposition 1B would have mandated supplemental payments of $9.3 billion to schools and community colleges. This figure is the difference between the amount actually appropriated in recent budgets, and the amount that, under some interpretations of California Proposition 98 (1998), should have been spent. If approved by a popular vote majority, the measure will only be enacted if California Proposition 1A (May 2009) also wins. That proposal would allow an extension of tax increases imposed as part of the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget agreement, resulting in an additional tax increase of some $16 billion.


You are referring to 1D and 1E, which cut services. Have you actually read the ballot measures? I have, and as confusing as they are, it's quite clear that 1A is about taxes, not cutting spending.

Also, how to put this delicately...

How in the flying fucking fuck do you think people are going to vote to RAISE TAXES when they won't even VOTE TO KEEP EXISTING TAXES IN PLACE???


..."Davis and many other elected officials bear some responsibility for that. But so do voters."

Why don't you put that quote in context, eh?

"We all want a free lunch, but unfortunately that doesn't exist," said former Gov. Gray Davis, whose 2003 recall stemmed largely from a budget crisis brought on by the dot-com bust. For decades, Davis said, Californians have been "papering over this fundamental reality that the state has been living beyond its means."

Davis and many other elected officials bear some responsibility for that. But so do voters.

In the Proposition 13 tax rebellion of 1978, Californians voted to require a two-thirds approval by the Legislature to raise taxes, a major obstacle to budget agreements. Over the last couple of decades, voters have also passed a patchwork of ballot measures directing billions of dollars to favorite causes, among them public schools and transportation projects.

It sounds quite like the author agrees exactly with the sentiments expressed by Davis, and further to the point he seems to be taking a shot at prop 13, which is the sacred cow of Republican politics in California.

[ContinentalOp]

68. These props were nothing but a bullshit Republican plan to further cut programs

"They voted not to cut the programs and not to keep the temporary taxes in place, let alone actually raise taxes."

Of course we're not going to vote to cut programs just because our state is being held hostage by the Republican minority! And there was no tax increase on the ballot. The temporary taxes are still in place for two years. Prop 1a simply would have extended that to four years. So it would have had NO EFFECT until two years from now. And there was no way to vote for that without also voting for a permanent SPENDING CAP that would have further crippled our state well into the future.


"If Proposition 1A had passed, $10 billion in "temporary" sales, use, income and vehicle taxes imposed as part of the 2009-2010 budget agreement would each be extended for one or two years, resulting in a further tax increase of some $16 billion."

Yeah, two years from now! How does that help our current crisis?

"Proposition 1B would have mandated supplemental payments of $9.3 billion to schools and community colleges."

Contingent on the passage of the spending CAPS in prop 1A! That's money that they were supposed to get anyway!

"How in the flying fucking fuck do you think people are going to vote to RAISE TAXES when they won't even VOTE TO KEEP EXISTING TAXES IN PLACE???"

Are you somehow under the impression that the failure of these propositions removes existing taxes? :shrug:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

70. Again, you continue to prove my point.

Of course we're not going to vote to cut programs just because our state is being held hostage by the Republican minority!

Agreed. And it's only possible for them to hold us hostage because of the useless ballot initiative system. In the absence of the initiative system, they would not be able to do what they are doing now.

And there was no tax increase on the ballot. The temporary taxes are still in place for two years. Prop 1a simply would have extended that to four years. So it would have had NO EFFECT until two years from now.

That would be true if it weren't false. You can borrow against future tax earnings. That's money that could be used to pay down debt, and now it is not available.

And there was no way to vote for that without also voting for a permanent SPENDING CAP that would have further crippled our state well into the future.

I fail to see what is wrong with a spending cap. This state has historically splurged in good times, but then in bad times, well, you get this clusterfuck. Again, had I actually bothered to vote (which I didn't) I would have voted NO on all of these measures as well, but that's only because I refuse to support any ballot initiative that concerns the state budget.

Are you somehow under the impression that the failure of these propositions removes existing taxes?

Yes. Oddly enough, I'm under that impression because that is what the initiative does. If you had actually bothered to read it, you might understand. But obviously you haven't. We are now going to lose $16 billion in future revenue that could be borrowed against to alleviate the current crisis.

Look, services are going to be cut. This is not arguable. They will either be cut in a systemic way via the budget or by layoffs and office closings when the state runs out of money in a couple of months. I'd rather have it done with some kind of plan. Unfortunately, planning is impossible in California because you never know what you're going to get in terms of revenue and in terms of your financial commitments because the current system does not allow for that.

So fine, blame the Republicans. It's all their fault. It has nothing to do with voters approving incongruous ballot initiatives that simultaneously raise spending while prohibiting taxation. Please, show me another state that is going bankrupt in the same way as California.

[ShadowLiberal]

59. This is why letting the voters vote on ballot initiatives is a horrible idea

Seriously, the fact is the American voter wants too many stupid things they don't need and that they can't afford. If you let the voters in most states decide how to run EVERY part of government then I'm willing to bet that most state's voters would vote to do the following.

-Cut taxes for everyone, maybe even eliminate them, while at the same time voting to spend money on expensive things like free health insurance for all the state's kids.

-Ban sex offenders from living anywhere in the state, maybe even ban anyone with a criminal record from living in the state.

-Take away some rights for certain minority groups that aren't very popular (like Muslims, atheists, gays, immigrants, probably Mormons to)

-Pass laws picking on groups that are currently getting a lot of negative TV coverage, like wall street executives, maybe the voters would pass an uber tax hike on them

-Pass anything that someone puts on the ballot that sounds good when you first hear it (and when you go to vote it'll probably be the first time you hear it), but is actually a horrible idea in practice (pissed off at getting bad service at the DMV? Why not vote for a bill to cut their employees pay in half if too many visitors fill out bad comments on a customer comment card! So what if the threat of constantly getting your pay cut in half will make no competent person want to work there, and make the problems even worse at the DMV, it still takes a stab at someone who you don't like!).

[cagesoulman]

61. California is ground zero of the housing crash.

People losing their homes can't take extra taxes too.

The state needs to get its fucking act together.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

64. California is in an impossible situation from top to bottom,

At the highest level California is getting fucked by the federal government, in the balance of tax dollars to federal spending we subsidize the rest of the country 25 cents on the dollar - and much of the federal spending in California is military related with few benefits to the public at large. If any state needs some protection from the Federal Government it is California. So while California is decaying our tax dollars are going to teach abstinence to Bristol Palin, break rubble into smaller pieces in Afghanistan and subisidize worthless federal spending that compensates for low taxes in red states that produce nothing but crystal meth. Getting a fair return on our federal tax dollar would make a huge difference in all maters financial.

It doesn't get any better at the state level where all levels of elected officials are just about universally terrible, low quality partisan hacks dominate politics and serve only their personal patrons or mystical forces unknown, or when were lucky just don't do anything at all. Mayors are more interested in using the office to advance personal agendas - administering the city is secondary or overlooked entirely. Same with Governors who want a jumping off point for the presidency. Davis was so weak because he was more interested in his second term as president than his second term as governor. He was completely blindsided by energy deregulation - i'm not sure he was even aware that Pete Wilson had deregulated electricity until the crisis struck, but oooh boy could he talk about his foreign policy goals.

Then there is the voter who will sign just about any petition shoved in their face as they leave the mall and from there we get our ballot propositions. Which is a great deal like dropping a teenage girl outside South Coast Plaza with your credit card. Look at bullshit like Proposition 1A last year that saw voters support $10 billion dollars in bonds for fucking trains. We can't afford this shit but people keep voting for propositions that place extreme financial obligations on the state while having already ensured the state couldn't fund them.

Then there is Proposition 13, which we will be stuck with in some form forever - it has its positives and negatives for individuals, but is extremely destructive to the financial health of the state.

[riverdeep]

65. Nice post.

So, red states that boast having a lower tax rate, lack of unions, lack of environmental protections, etc., and thereby attracting industry, can do so because other needs are being met by blue states like Cal. They're getting the benefit both ways, at least temporarily- when a hog farm's shit drain flows into the drinking supply they may sing another tune. Interesting.