in response to my previous post, reader hubbard provided me with a link to a wsj article which, in its own way, sums up what can go wrong when the dems get their hands on unchecked power, and i wanna talk about that a minute--and you should read it whether you live here or not, because it's instructive in terms of what can happen when any one faction gets outta hand.
and yeah, yeah, yeah, i know--the republicans have made such a fucking mess of things nationally that it's really tempting to think that if we achieve our goal of "hope" and "change" this november, we can start to clean up everything that's wrong with america--but lemme tell you, with congress and the executive being controlled by democrats, we're basically just gonna be trading one set of problems for another.
how do i know this? i'll tell you how: because i live in a state that's been controlled by democrats for as long as i can remember, that's why. even though california as a whole really isn't that liberal (reflected by the fact that we elect a fair share of republican governors), the majority of our legislative districts are gerrymandered in such a way as to ensure that the democrats cannot lose--and they never do; seriously, there is virtually never any turnover from democrat to republican (or, in those relatively few districts that republicans control, vice versa) from election to election.
hell, the democrats in this state are so powerful that, when arnold schwarzenegger took 'em on in a special election shortly after he became governor, he got his balls cut off and handed to him--seriously, every proposition he put forth to correct the balance of power and control spending in this state (all of which were eminently sensible, btw) was, due to the overwhelming power of the democrats' negative ads, defeated--and he's basically given up any hope of reform and done their bidding ever since (governator, my ass; he's proven himself to be an approval-hungry, pussy-ass girlyman, and he should be ashamed--but, of course, he's too busy basking in the glow of his new-found reputation as global-warming visionary to be bothered by such petty concerns as the fact that he sold out the constituency who put him into office).
so basically, we have us some brazen-ass democrats running this state who, unhindered by such petty concerns as having to answer to their constituents at election time, have pretty much led us down the road to economic ruin.
consider: since 2000--due to the insane appreciation of california real estate (and its concomitant effect on property taxes)--our state has enjoyed an enormous influx of revenue, unprecedented in the state's history; i'm talking increases outta all proportion to what anybody could have expected. we should be rolling in cash, folks. and yet, here in 2008, not only has our legislature spent it all, we're facing a $10 billion budget deficit this year--because, in response to this huge influx of cash, our lovely legislators grew the government with the assumption that all that money would just keep coming in forever.
then the real-estate bubble burst, and property-tax income increases came to a screeching halt.
our legislature's response: decrease spending, maybe? adjust the budget so that it doesn't automatically increase each year? hell, no--now they're looking for ways to tax us more so they can keep spending. in the midst of a recession, yet.
now, in any normal situation, we'd be able to vote the bums out, restore some sanity--but not in california. the dems can't lose, and they know it. so, arrogant and unrepentant, they push on with their vast social and government programs, even though their policies are destroying the economic viability of what once was the greatest state in the union.
seriously, folks--businesses are fleeing california for more favorable climates, as are the middle-class taxpayers who make all this spending possible. and soon, all that's gonna be left here are the very rich who can afford all the taxation, and a vast pool of the very poor; i.e., welcome to the third world, california.
and you know what? for years, i thought that the dems were merely deluded, that they didn't realize they were killing the goose that laid the golden egg. until i realized the truth: dems fucking love poor people--the more the better. because it's the poor, looking to the dems to grab from the rich for their benefit, who keep 'em in office, and--fuck what happens to the state--because the way their districts are drawn, they'll still have their office, their prestige and their salary, guaranteed.
and when you look at it that way, all of a sudden what's happening in california--decreased revenues, increased taxes, floods of poor illegals--makes so much more sense.
and, as has been said more than once, and proven over and over: as goes california, so--sooner or later--goes america.
[and yes, this is a slightly-drunken post, but it doesn't make it any less true, goddammit]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, that's a screed for you.
There are a couple of problems with your post, Guttermorality. First, whatever some hack from the Manhattan Institute says in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal is not to be taken as fact.
Second, California contributes a substantial portion of its state budget to education -- particularly K through 12 education.
Why?
Because of Proposition 13. As a result of Prop 13, California has some of the lowest property taxes in the country. As Warren Buffett has said, he pays more in property taxes for his house in Omaha than his beach house in Laguna even though the Laguna house is worth several times more.
Disney pays pennies on the dollar in property taxes. Indeed, businesses generally are the biggest beneficiaries of Prop 13...with Pacific Gas and Electric benefitting more than any other entity. Why? Because commercial property turns over much less often. Also, you can set up a building as being owned by a company and, when you sell the company, the building's ownership does not technically change. As a result, no new owner and no new reassessment.
California is out of whack because people want something for nothing. People do not want to pay property taxes on their million dollar homes, but they sure want all of the services that government provides.
Guttermorality, you are seriously off-key on this one. The Republican caucus in Sacramento has refused to kill the yacht sales tax loophole.
noblesavage--oh, you dems love to blame everything on prop 13, and i know you all salivate at the thought of its repeal--god, just think of how you could grow the government with all that resultant new money.
in truth, the recent real-estate boom put the lie to your argument. we saw property appreciation in the last five years the likes of which would take 30 anywhere else, and with all the resultant flipping and accompanying reassessments, california was awash in more new tax revenue than it knew what to do with.
and what happened? the legislature went through it like drunken sailors.
the problem isn't revenue, noblesavage, it's spending. since 1990, our budget is compelled to grow each year by a variety of constitutional and statutory mandates, whether we have the money or not. but virtually all of them could be suspended by the legislature at any time by the same vote that it takes to enact the budget--but is that gonna happen? not a chance.
and education? we spend more per student than virtually any state in the union, and our schools are in the bottom five nationally. the reason? well, aside from the illegal problem (a topic for another day), the vast majority of education dollars spent in this state never even get anywhere near the classroom--and the way things stand, they never will.
this state needs an overhaul from top to bottom--but what i'd settle for at this point for is a restoration of two-party tension.
Let's take a single argument you have in your response: per pupil spending on K through 12 education. California ranks 46th out of 51 states and DC in per pupil spending. This includes an adjustment for cost of living. Even the best analysis has California spending 25th out of 51.
See:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20080413-9999-1n13pupil.html
We spend so little on education due to Prop 13.
There is a little bit of wishing the data supported the Republican argument here.
Is the problem state spending? No, the problem is that there are a lot of pressing needs in this State that are not being funded. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our traffic congestion gets worse and worse and our schools, hospitals, parks, universities, and just about everything else are underfunded.
The hit the University of California is going to take for this next budget is going to be very painful. UC is one of the world's great research universities and its quality has been compromised because of Republicans refusing to budge on tax increases -- including for millionaire yacht buyers.
You may hate paying taxes. But other than your own self-interested appeal, I just don't see how you can bitch and moan with so much conviction. And you do it well, by the way.
i did a little research, noblesavage: in 1990, california spent approximately 20% of its budget on education; today, it's almost 50%, yet the quality of education has plummeted. why do you suppose that might be? and yes, i definitely have a few ideas of my own.
oh, and i also found this; you might find it amusing:
http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/archives/2005/05/tom_mcclintock.html
Post a Comment