PDA

View Full Version : According to LA times, voters in California the problem


JonIrenicus
05-20-2009, 03:53 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-analysis20-2009may20,0,5578614.story


the guy is insane


I voted down all but that last proposition, and was HAPPY to do so. Time to make painful cuts, time to get the state back down to a fighting weight.

AemJeff
05-20-2009, 04:54 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-analysis20-2009may20,0,5578614.story


the guy is insane


I voted down all but that last proposition, and was HAPPY to do so. Time to make painful cuts, time to get the state back down to a fighting weight.


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.

So in a state in which referenda are an important part of the governing process, the voters have no responsibility for outcomes? I think you might want to check your assumptions, not to mention the essential logic here.

graz
05-20-2009, 06:02 PM
Time to make painful cuts, time to get the state back down to a fighting weight.

Alternate solution: Greater fees on teen drivers and make this a statewide proposition:
No ifs ands or butts. (http://newsblaze.com/story/20090519092116reye.nb/topstory.html)

O.K. it's not just your fault:
Prop 13 anyone? (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/blame-institutions-for-the-california-budget-mess.php)

nikkibong
05-20-2009, 07:16 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-analysis20-2009may20,0,5578614.story


the guy is insane



dude, this is apparently available:

http://twitter.com/jonirenicus

TwinSwords
05-20-2009, 07:19 PM
Well played.

JonIrenicus
05-20-2009, 07:56 PM
So in a state in which referenda are an important part of the governing process, the voters have no responsibility for outcomes? I think you might want to check your assumptions, not to mention the essential logic here.

How's the reflex mode going for you?

jon says A

AEM--> B


You said yourself, "a part of the governing process." This is Not the same as "the Whole of the governing process"



Anyway, there was one good point in the article, Californians seem to want far more services than they are willing to pay for.

But in this vote

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/59.htm

with essentially a 2 to 1 margin against the props even liberally minded California is saying no to increased taxes. They are not blind, they know cuts will follow, and they are OK with that, in fact, that is what they apparently think needs to be done.


Some reporters at the la times are upset at them for not staying on the same track as they are on, get low on cash? just increase fees, raise taxes (cause California is a low tax state right?) Anything BUT large cuts, anything but that.

Imagine that, state workers will face job losses and possible reductions in pay. Welcome to the club.

Lyle
05-20-2009, 09:54 PM
I hate to say it Joe, but you guys are kind of 'stupid'. Governing by plebiscite is asking for trouble, and you've guys have got it now.

This should have all been in the hands of the legislature or the governor, and then if people didn't like it, they could elect a new governor or a new legislature.

JonIrenicus
05-21-2009, 12:22 AM
I hate to say it Joe, but you guys are kind of 'stupid'. Governing by plebiscite is asking for trouble, and you've guys have got it now.

This should have all been in the hands of the legislature or the governor, and then if people didn't like it, they could elect a new governor or a new legislature.

The legislature is static, and not going to change in a major way due to the numbers in most districts. And they did elect a new governor, and will again.


As to potential trouble, that too will pan out in time. But if it is just a general opposition to instances of direct democracy, fine. Depending on the nature of the electorate it could be a disaster. But it could also serve as an additional check.

This particular check I think is a step in the right direction though.

Lyle
05-21-2009, 12:10 PM
Perhaps, perhaps. However, what exactly is the legislature and the governor going to do now? Can they really cut government programs enough to cover the budget deficit? I think the plebiscite deal in California is one check too many perhaps. Although it can do good in on certain issues perhaps, it also makes governing from Sacramento less flexible and/or more difficult.

One of my favorite moments in direct democracy was when Mississippi voted to keep the Confederate battle flag in their State flag. Georgia, on the other hand (about at the same time) changed their flag without a statewide vote, and just did it secretly in some legislative committee. I kind of think Mississippi did it the right way, but Mississippi still has the Confederate battle flag in their flag.

rcocean
05-21-2009, 09:31 PM
As usual the people who blame the problem on the referendum process don't know what the 'F' they are talking about.

The budget is screwed up because of the legislature. The Referendums were put on the ballot by the Governor. They didn't get there because of a grass roots revolt. Nor does the referendum process keep the legislature from doing their jobs. Their number 1 job is the budget. They get paid mucho Dinero to make the hard decisions.

People expect the state government to balance the budget. State Spending has gone from $60 billion in FY 1996 to $136 Billion in 2009. The problem isn't revenue - its spending.

It must be great to live in State without a referendum run by "Responsible" legislatures. Y'know like NY and NJ.

Lyle
05-21-2009, 10:36 PM
I realize the people of California didn't force the governor to put these referendums on the ballot. I'm speaking about having laws made by referendum in a state with many millions of people. My criticism is more about having a direct democracy in heavily populated state. I agree with you that the legislature and the governor should be the ones making the tough decisions.

Explain the situation more if you can. What options does Gov. Schwarzenegger have now? Are their programs he can't cut by law?

rcocean
05-21-2009, 11:56 PM
Arnold working with the legislature can:

1) Get a Fed bailout
2) Borrow more money
3) Raise Taxes (limited)
4) Deeply Cut General Fund expenditures

There's no point going into details. Its all bluff and PR at this point - obviously the favored Arnold solution is a fed bailout. The least favored alternative is deep cuts in social programs, prisons, etc.

Lyle
05-22-2009, 12:36 AM
Somewhat similar take as the LA Times article. Less harsh on the citizenry maybe.

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/is_california_too_big_to_fail.php

Lyle
05-22-2009, 12:37 AM
A Fed bailout... hopefully not going to happen. No offense Californians.