Quote :

"LOS ANGELES, May 20 -- California leaders are preparing painful cuts to deal with a ballooning budget crisis after voters rejected a handful of ballot measures that would have accounted for less than half of the state's $21 billion deficit. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) met with legislators in closed-door meetings Wednesday after voters resoundingly snubbed five of the six measures -- a combination of tax increases, borrowing and earmarks for education -- in Tuesday's special election. Most of them received more than a 65 percent "no" vote. The only measure approved was one that prevents legislators and the governor from receiving pay raises in years when the state is running a deficit. "

Are voters waking up to the their thoughts that more gov't spending is not the answer? Democratic leaders in Calif will cry that voters are short-sighted and stupid for not giving more money to the bloated gov't.

And, as usual when shrinking the size of gov't gains popularity, gov't leaders will threaten to fire the police, shut down fire departments and release murderers from prison- because those are the ONLY things that can be cut from the budget.

Arnold is really in a bind. Obama won't let him fire any union workers, and the Governor can't convince voters to hike higher taxes on themselves.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052001891.html?hpid=topnews

5/20/2009 9:40:50 PM

The voters of California have no to blame but themselves for their retarded voter referendums that placed unfinanced burdens on the State's coffers.

5/20/2009 9:53:10 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzhbBbZJVN4&feature=channel_page

5/20/2009 10:18:43 PM

Aren't you the same guy that is forever in this section crying about the oppressive government like the public won't do the right thing come vote time when it really matters?

5/20/2009 10:26:03 PM

I think california still wants to party like its an open bar but doesnt want to pay their tab. Im sure there will be some more federal funds on the way to that state.

If this forces them to shrink the size of their govt and scrap thier union contracts.. im all for it. However, I fear this will only result in you and I paying for the crap in cali.

5/20/2009 10:31:22 PM

this is like the credit card, housing, etc crises....

american citizens want this, that and everything, but without any responsibilities that come with it.

i have to admit, i'm not immune to that mentality, but it's certainly widespread.

5/20/2009 10:33:16 PM

^yep. People are shouting "I dont care HOW you get it to me, but get it to me!!!" .Then mumble "just dont expect me to pay for it or do anything to earn it."

5/20/2009 10:36:05 PM

Quote :

"I think california still wants to party like its an open bar but doesnt want to pay their tab."

Seriously, what makes you say this? What information is in the main stream media that would have you come to this conclusion? I'd normally say is this the crap you got from Fox News recently, but I personally think it's your usual partisan politics being a drama queen about the liberal panacea that is California.

5/20/2009 10:42:30 PM

This could be a warning of things to come.
For years, California has led the way in liberal social spending. Now the state is drowning in debt. Obama is doing the same thing bloating our budget deficit by 4 times.

I hope Obama doesn't force the rest of the states to bail out California, forcing the rest of us to us to pay for all their wasteful social spending.

5/20/2009 11:37:48 PM

Quote :

"Are voters waking up to the their thoughts that more gov't spending is not the answer?"

maybe, but it's more likely that the only people who bothered to vote at all were coming out specifically to oppose the measures. This was a special election - there are certainly a lot of people who didn't want new taxes, so they came out and voted them down. I mean, who wants new taxes so much that they would go out of their way to vote for them?

I imagine the results would have been basically the same if these measures were during a normal election, but it probably would have been closer. I wouldn't take this special election result as any kind of "shifting tide" or anything more significant than a "yeah, no shit" moment

5/21/2009 12:00:37 AM

Quote :

"The voters of California have no to blame but themselves for their retarded voter referendums."

Yeah, I moved out here from San Francisco. Before the referendum bill passed special interest groups had to do the normal thing and bribe the legislators - oops, I mean give them campain contributions. After the bill they found it was cheaper to pay people to sign petitions. In the end, everyone and their brother found that they could get anything on the ballot and they could then use campain ads to emotionalized complex issues and get their legislation passed (nobody has ever lost money underestimating the intellegence of the American Public).

I was shocked when I moved here and found out there was no way for a grassroots organization to change anything without going back to the smoke-fill rooms with the good 'ole boys (and good luck with that since grassroots means low finance). There has to be some middle ground somewhere.

[Edited on May 21, 2009 at 1:02 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

5/21/2009 12:56:22 AM

I have read that almost half of that budget shortfall could be made up by denying services to illegal immigrants. Interesting to see what comes of it. Looks like some areas have already started the trend.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immighealth27-2009apr27,0,3560878.story

5/21/2009 1:08:05 AM

Ok fail boat, I guess the fact that there is no outrage over increasing programs in california while opposing every bill to pay for thier services is such a poor conclusion in your world. The level of spending is not sustainable, at this state level or our federal level. Its time to become upset with increasing in spending, just not increases in taxes.

5/21/2009 9:13:29 AM

Quote :

"Ok fail boat, I guess the fact that there is no outrage over increasing programs in california while opposing every bill to pay for thier services is such a poor conclusion in your world."

Are you an idiot? They can't in a matter of weeks to maybe a couple/few months wipe out all the programs that were funded in the last budget, and in some cases (think roads and infrastructure projects) it would be stupid to do so.

Quote :

"The level of spending is not sustainable, at this state level or our federal level. "

It was more or less sustainable (sans SS) under the previous economic boom that turned out to be a sham.

Quote :

"Its time to become upset with increasing in spending, just not increases in taxes"

We don't have to be upset with increases in spending. If we decide that the taxes can't be increased it is up to the legislatures in the states to fire up the chopping saw. If they try to do this on the Federal level, we'll do the same thing. I love how you people always act like Democracy is dead...the irony being you do a lot of bitching and moaning on this website and I've not ONCE heard any of you being any sort of an advocate or volunteer come election time. Maybe you do it and just don't talk about it, I find it hard to believe.

[Edited on May 21, 2009 at 9:34 AM. Reason : .]

5/21/2009 9:34:10 AM

California press now having a temper tantrum over the voters having a temper tantrum...

Quote :

"California voters exercise their power -- and that's the problem By Michael Finnegan May 20, 2009 Californians are well known for periodic voter revolts, but on Tuesday they did more than just lash out at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature over the state's fiscal debacle. By rejecting five budget measures, Californians also brought into stark relief the fact that they, too, share blame for the political dysfunction that has brought California to the brink of insolvency. Nearly a century after the Progressive-era birth of the state's ballot-measure system, it is clear that voters' fickle commands, one proposition at a time, are a top contributor to paralysis in Sacramento. And that, in turn, has helped cripple the capacity of the governor and Legislature to provide effective leadership to a state of more than 38 million people. "No one's really stepping back and confronting the harsh realities that face our state in a critical sense, because of constraints put on our elected leaders," said Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California. "We're unable to focus on the long term and the big picture at a time when we desperately need to do so." "

See that's the problem... the voters! If we could only get them out of the picture and let our wise leaders make all of the really important decisions, everything would be fine. We have too many "restraints" on gov't. We need to let them loose and really run with the whole power thing.

Quote :

""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. "

I don't recall that phrase being Gray Davis' campaign motto during his election.

Quote :

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

Just think of all the great things the state legislature could've done by now if they hadn't been emasculated. When things are going good, the politicians grab the credit. But when things tank, it's the voter's fault.

Quote :

"To John Hein, a veteran Sacramento campaign consultant, the absence of any master vision by voters appears to be a key flaw in the state's recent history with ballot measures. "They kind of take each issue in a microcosm, rather than relate the decision to prior decisions, or future decisions that they might make," he said. ""

"Master Vision"? Sounds a bit Orwellian.

Quote :

""Voters don't think about the consequences of how one thing fits with another.""

Does this explain Bush? Obama?

Quote :

"As for the cumulative problems created by the last few decades of ballot-measure voting, she said, "I certainly don't think this is what the Progressives had in mind.""

Where were all the editorials lambasting voters when they voted for democrat spending projects and gov't expansion? Where were the criticisms then about the ballot-measure system? Seems like the only time the Calif. press shakes its collective heads at the voters is when the hapless taxpayer votes to reign in spending.

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

[Edited on May 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

5/21/2009 10:50:49 AM

the ballot initiatives are stupid especially considering that only 50%+1 is needed to pass them, when it takes 2/3 of their congress to actually pay for these initiatives. also someone i was reading about this mentioned that their term limits meant that there is no long-term culpability for representatives who pass bad legislation because they're usually long gone before the problems become apparent.

5/21/2009 11:13:09 AM

Quote :

"They can't in a matter of weeks to maybe a couple/few months wipe out all the programs that were funded in the last budget"

Yeah, this has been a problem for only the last budget. Not an ongoing one.


Have a nice day fail boat.

5/21/2009 12:20:27 PM

I hate to sound like a hack, but the problem truly is the incredibly powerful public sector unions and their pervasive influence in Sacramento.

The referendum system certainly doesn't help. We are a representative democracy for a reason. The special elections have brought us Prop 187, Prop 8, and numerous other ridiculous pieces of legislation approved by uninformed voters in knee-jerk reactionary fashion. Let the politicians do their jobs and stop allowing a fickle populace to decide on spending proposals, among other things.

[Edited on May 21, 2009 at 12:44 PM. Reason : 2]

5/21/2009 12:43:03 PM

"Now California's mostly Democratic political class will petition Washington for a bailout to nourish the public sector that is suffocating the state's dwindling -- and departing -- private sector. The Obama administration, which rewarded the United Auto Workers by giving it considerable control over two companies it helped reduce to commercial rubble, will serve the interests of California's unionized public employees and others largely responsible for reducing the state to mendicancy."

"Last November, as the dark fiscal clouds lowered, they authorized $9.95 billion more in debt as a down payment on a perhaps $75 billion high-speed rail project linking San Francisco and Los Angeles -- a delight California cannot afford."


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/21/californias_dependency_culture_96597.html

5/21/2009 12:48:18 PM

Quote :

"It was more or less sustainable (sans SS) under the previous economic boom that turned out to be a sham."

It wasn't sustainable, because as anyone who knows anything about history will tell you, economic booms do not last forever. Consumers, tax payers and politicians all ignored this in favor of passing the buck and hoping they could cash out before it all came tumbling down.

5/21/2009 1:03:24 PM

come on 1337, we all know the only boom of substance was the clinton dot.com boom.

5/21/2009 1:23:56 PM

I love how people who don't even live in California act as if they can offer meaningful solutions to ameliorate this mess

Unless you've actually lived there, you probably should just keep your mouth shut

you sound like a bunch of monday morning quarterbacks...

5/21/2009 6:42:27 PM

I don't know, plenty of people living outside California called the state going bankrupt years ago. It doesn't take living in a state to know that spending more than you bring in and promising more and more unsustainable projects and policies will bankrupt you, nor does it take living in that state to know that to stop spending more than you make, you have to stop some spending.

5/21/2009 7:31:56 PM

^^ I live there (here).

Now fuck off.

5/21/2009 8:55:42 PM

But I don't live in CA and I do know how to ameliorate the problem.

5/22/2009 12:28:57 AM

This is why you don't put tax increases to a vote, you just do it.

5/22/2009 2:07:25 AM

It takes a 2/3rds majority in the California legislature to approve new taxes. California already has some of the highest state taxes in the country, so Republicans will never go along with another tax increase. They have already run off enough businesses as it is.

Ultimately some projects will need to be axed, and many thousands of state employees will need to be fired. But then they still have to deal with a ridiculous retiree health benefits and pension plan, the kind that has bankrupted Chrysler and GM.

5/22/2009 3:13:12 AM

Yes, about that. I have found it somewhat correlated that the harder it is for a state to raise taxes, the higher they seem to be. Yes, there is probably a historical cause/effect there (we tend to have high taxes, so we make it harder to raise them). But the california constitution is from 1879, and I doubt they had high taxes before that. As such, maybe the cause/effect runs this way: in states where it is easy to raise taxes, they do so to the extreme, and cause a massive backlash/punishment, and therefore taxes get cut back to moderate/low levels. But, where it is hard to raise taxes, they never get so high as to cause a backlash, also they produce a strong hesitation against cutting taxes because it would be so hard to raise them back up in an uncertain future.

5/22/2009 10:06:17 AM

Quote :

"Unless you've actually lived there, you probably should just keep your mouth shut "

you might have a point if there was no chance of federal dollars going to bail them out.

5/22/2009 10:47:42 AM

Quote :

" Are voters waking up to the their thoughts that more gov't spending is not the answer?"

Who knows?

There's this tendency to assume that because California tends to go for a Democratic majority that the whole state is San Francisco. Actually SF is ~700,000 people, and the entire state is on the order of 30 million people. Did you know that you can't easily treat a polity of 30 million people as one homogeneous mass with a singular viewpoint on complex issues? Really!

Some parts of this state are very conservative. California sends more Republicans to the congress than North Carolina sends congressmen. Other parts are very liberal. There is also a messy middle.

I think it's more likely, as has been suggested, that the more conservative and concerned voters turned out for this one. Believe it or not, California isn't all liberal automatons that turn out and vote blue on whatever is put in front of them. There are people who care about political issues and have specific stances on them, and therefore act accordingly.

Having said all that, what is it that keeps California in a budgeting morass?

It's the legislature, stupid. These guys are too secure in their jobs overall. Now one might argue that's because California voters are blue-bots and vote Democratic reflexively and that keeps them in power. One might argue that.

But I prefer the viewpoint that the voters really just don't have any meaningful alternatives. The Republican party has written off California (except where it has safe seats) and doesn't really try. The GOP candidates in the Bay Area are so sad that, at least one of them just blithely Photoshops a new year over the old one on his web site for each election.

One might even go so far as to say that it's the reflexive unwillingness of the GOP to target meaningful "middle ground" voter bases that has killed them off nationwide. The Bay Area, for example, went for Hillary Clinton in large numbers over that dirty ideological liberal Barack Obama Do you mean to tell me there are no chances in an area with over 10 million people to run moderate GOP candidates?

Like everywhere else, the GOP has a reputation for fried chicken moralizing and in particular, Californians don't like that (except where they do -- see above). Moreover, you can hardly blame voters for electing the only _serious_ candidate, regardless of ideology. Why would someone vote Republican if the candidate himself doesn't even take the race seriously?

(for the record, I do vote Republican here, but for God's sakes -- look at the SF GOP candidate's web site, http://www.danawalshforcongress.com/ -- talk about a pitiful showing. Bloomberg can win NYC, but SF can never have viable GOP candidates because ... ??? ...)

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 2:16 PM. Reason : foo]

5/25/2009 2:12:48 PM

Quote :

"In a report two years ago, Philip J. Romero, who had been economic advisor to California Gov. Pete Wilson, determined that “The average illegal immigrant receives $8-to-$12 in public services for every $1 they pay in taxes. Annually, this amounts to a special “tax” on legal Californians of tens of billions of dollars—perhaps totaling 20 percent of the entire state budget.” In his report, Romero estimated illegal immigrants ate from $9.6 billion-$38.2 billion out of the state tax base annually. If we split the difference between Romero’s low-ball and high-ball numbers, we get $23.9 billion. Adjust that two-year-old figure for inflation, and the projected budget deficit is erased entirely, with “tip money” to spare. In 1994, California voters overwhelmingly passed Prop. 187, which was then illegally sandbagged by Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer and killed by Gov. Gray Davis. The state’s fiscal problems derive from its illegal policy of offering sanctuary to criminal foreign invaders, and will never be solved, or even limited, as long as that policy is not reversed. In April 2008, economist-statistician Ed Rubenstein wrote, “Inescapable conclusion: Deport California’s illegal immigrants and the current $8 billion budget shortfall would become a $13 billion budget surplus.”"

5/25/2009 7:02:46 PM

1) source?
2) i'd say those numbers are suspect, given the number of times I see polar opposite figures quoted elsewhere. More than likely the result is somewhere in the middle.

5/26/2009 10:40:57 PM