5
   

Why Obama's 'New Deal' will fail in California

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 02:13 pm
California has been mismangaed for years, at it is all the citizens fault. They want good programs but are not willing to pay for them, and they have not wanted good government enough to either put good people in nor pay for it. The programs themselves are rarely the problem.

Hopefully Obama will work to reform California
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 02:13 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I agree, you have to pay for it, but raising tax rates carries with it a huge risk, that it will not return the revenues expected, and could drive more commerce out of California, thus reducing future hopes of revenues.

I think the better solution is to cut spending in a dramatic fashion, cyclops. If I equate household budgeting, cutting spending is the most practical solution that works the best, and I don't think the principles of running a state is that different.

I am not that familiar, but hasn't stupid policies cost California billions, such as paying for the education and health care of illegals, just one example?


Uh, no. I don't believe educating illegals is the reason we're in deficit. Fiscal mis-management by the Republicans and the crazy 2/3rds system they instituted in the CA Congress are the primary culprits.

You can't cut spending in order to solve our budget problems. Sure, you could balance the budget, if you cut all money to education and all money for the prison system right out. I'm not sure how you think society would go on if that happened.

The idea that businesses will migrate out of CA en masse is a theory and not one which has been strongly borne out by the evidence. The budget deficit is real. It's time to address the deficit and worry about the theory later; we are facing problems which are not theories but actualities and we have to take action to solve them.

Same goes for the Federal level.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 02:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
According to following site, it is costing your state 10.5 bill per year for medical care, education, and incarceration for illegals. That seems pretty significant, and even if the figure isn't perfect, I doubt seriously it is off by an order of magnitude, so the cost is huge.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec

And cyclops, Democrats have been the majority in the legislature for a long time now, have they not? And the governor is hardly conservative, he bows to the Democrats, so come on, get real? I don't live there, but it isn't as if you live in secret. I have relatives there and they commonly tell me the Dems are running the state into the ground.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Dec, 2008 02:24 pm
First off, Cyclops, thanks for playing, even if you are refusing to answer the tough questions.

Unlike most of the libs/progressives here who only spend time heaping praise on one another or picking the low hanging fruit, at least you jump in on the topics that they refuse to address.

Where do you think taxes come from? Govt doesn't produce the revenues from taxes, not withstanding your Berkeley mindset.

Taxes come from the people who produce things, not the people (the govt) who consume the fruits of their labors.

Yet the State govt (the consumer of taxes) continues to grow, our schools continue to decline, crime continues to climb, our standard of living continues to fall.

You guys are doing a pretty lousy job so far. Yet you think taking more of our money will solve the problem.

Here's an idea: Cut spending! Cut the state govt workforce! Eliminate govt waste! All these things should occur before you yahoos even think about raising my taxes.

Libs/progressives in CA are unfriendly to ag, unfriendly to business, they hate infrastructure growth such as highways. While Obama's plan might work in a business friendly environment, it is doomed here, unless there is a change in the ways Dems think in CA.

Tell me why not...
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 07:23 am
Quote:
Fiscal mis-management by the Republicans and the crazy 2/3rds system they instituted in the CA Congress are the primary culprits.


Explain how "Republicans" are the cause of California's budget problems?

The Ca. State Govt is run by Democrats and it is they who spend the money.

So, how are Republicans to blame?
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 10:08 am
@Woiyo9,
Here's an instructive article which lays out how a tiny minority of Republicans in the CA senate and House manage to block the budgets from being passed with ANY tax increases EVER.

Quote:
Republicans Sabotage California Budget … Again
by Paul Hogarth‚ Jul. 23‚ 2007
Review it on NewsTrust
While the local budget fight is now behind us, Republicans in Sacramento are literally holding our state government hostage. Despite a budget proposal that has no tax increases and horrific cuts in public transportation, substance abuse treatment and disability payments, the 15 Republicans in the State Senate have refused to support what passed in the State Assembly (and is supported by Governor Schwarzenegger) " because it doesn’t go far enough. After a 19-hour lockdown of the State Capitol over the weekend, an exasperated Senate President Don Perata finally told Republicans to come back on Wednesday and write the budget themselves. Absent intervention from the Governor, we’re likely to see an even worse product before it’s all over.

There are two basic reasons why we are now in this mess: (a) an ultra-partisan gerrymander that elected Republicans who are truly insane, and (b) California’s requirement that two-thirds of the legislature must pass the state budget. Only three states don’t require a simple majority to pass a budget (Arkansas and Rhode Island are the other two), and until that changes, Republicans can blackmail the Democratic majority into passing the most draconian budget cuts " leaving local government scrambling for solutions.

California is a deep blue state, where the electorate supports spending more money on education, health and human services " even if it means raising taxes. So it’s no surprise that Democrats have a healthy majority in both the State Assembly (48-32) and the State Senate (25-15), and that Arnold Schwarzenegger was only re-elected after co-opting progressive issues.

But don’t expect the will of the people to translate into a budget that reflects their values. With a two-thirds majority requirement, Republicans can hold the entire budget hostage unless the Democrats agree to their demands. In 2003, Senate Minority Leader Jim Brulte made an infamous threat to his fellow Republicans that if any of them dare vote for a single tax increase, they would recruit a primary challenge in the next election.

And this year we’re seeing more of the same obstructionism, only taken to a whole new level.

The budget that passed the State Assembly included a $1.2 billion cut from public transportation, and slashed $40 million in drug treatment programs mandated by Proposition 36. The Democrats also agreed to a four-month delay in cost-of-living increases for SSI recipients (i.e., elderly and disabled) " which will “save” the state $247 million. To get Republican votes, the Assembly also had to pass a tax break for the film industry, and repealed a tax break for public school teachers.

“These are ugly compromise solutions,” said Assemblyman Mark Leno, “where we have to give up good things in order to get something in return. It’s a Sophie’s Choice that is caused by the two-thirds majority requirement. And it gets worse every year.”

But for Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, even these cuts are not enough for him to support the budget. Democrats only need two Republican votes in the State Senate to hit the 2/3 mark, but Ackerman has taken obstructionist tactics to an entirely new level. Now if a majority of his Republican Senate comrades have a problem with the budget, he said, none of them are going to vote for it. He’s not just holding the vote to a two-thirds requirement " he wants practical unanimity.

How unreasonable are the Republicans in the state legislature, and what vision do they have for California? They won't even say what specific problems they have with the budget, and don't appear to have a problem with private negotiations that would violate the Brown Act at the local level.

All 15 Senators and 31 of the 32 Assembly members have signed the Grover Norquist Pledge to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.” As Frank Russo noted at the California Progress Report, many have never voted for a California budget. Like Norquist, they appear to believe that we should shrink government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

And yet, the final product of the budget could hinge on seven Republican votes in the Assembly, and two Republican votes in the Senate. In a deep blue state where the voters clearly share Democratic values.

In the days of Governors Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan, Republicans in the state legislature were willing to support tax increases. But in the earlier part of this decade, while Republican Governors and legislatures throughout the country voted to raise taxes due to a recession, California’s G.O.P. legislators held up their minority power to block any effort at a reasonable budget. It's a lot simpler to play the obstructioinist when you're not "in control" and are therefore unaccountable.

In March 2004, California voters had the opportunity to lower the requirement to pass the budget from two-thirds to a simple majority - like it is in 47 states. Proposition 56 was eminently reasonable, but without an effective campaign it went down in flames. I’m embarrassed and ashamed to report that it failed in every county except San Francisco.

But it’s more complicated than just the two-thirds roadblock to pass the budget. In 2001, both parties agreed to draw the lines so that we now have “one-party” districts in the state legislature " Democrats and Republicans can keep the seats that they control in perpetuity because the partisan registration in each district is overwhelming. While this ensures that Democrats keep a majority, it also means that the Republicans who come to Sacramento are from overwhelmingly right-wing districts.

And while they’re in the minority, these Republicans are still more than one third of the legislature " and thus can hold the budget hostage if they wanted to. Because they come from solid-red districts, they are only accountable to the most extreme wings of their party. So if they get a right-wing challenge within their party for deviating from the Republican line, they take this threat seriously.

In the Senate, Ackerman is even more unreasonable because of pressure that he’s gotten from his own caucus. Last December, he came within one vote of losing his Minority Leader position to Jim Battin " because colleagues felt that he was “not partisan enough.”

With Republicans refusing to co-operate, there is one person who could intervene and help us get out of this mess " Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. “When Gray Davis was Governor,” said Leno, “his job was to keep Democrats in line and make sure they were there for him. With Schwarzenegger, it’s his job as Republican leader of the state to make sure that there are Republican votes on the budget.”

But Schwarzenegger has been completely disengaged from the process this year " leaving the Democratic leaders in the legislature to negotiate with the most right-wing Republicans who punish each other for not “being partisan enough.” While the Governor has lately sent out statements urging passage of the budget, he really needs to step up to the plate to make it happen.

Because the Democrats have compromised enough on this budget. The budget in its current form is a disaster, but we can’t afford to make the final product any worse " just because a vocal minority refuses to negotiate. And that means the Republicans need to back down … now.

Send feedback to [email protected]


http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4744

Imagine if the Dems had the same setup in the national congress; that every year, they could block any budget with tax cuts, in perpetuity. Does that sound like a healthy situation?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 12:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
So do I read your article right, a handful of Republicans can hold up a budget because the budget has not been cut enough from a budget that is far more than the state will receive in tax revenues, and you blame the Republicans for the state running up big deficits? And the Democrats almost have 2/3, so if you can't convince a handful of them to cross party lines, your budget must be pretty screwed up, cyclops, I suggest you go back to the drawing board. And can you pass tax increases without the 2/3, I am not clear on that?

I already pointed out where illegals were costing you 10.5 billion. Face, it was your policies that caused alot of that. People are mad, and Republicans are not crazy, they are there to keep the Democrats from going completely over a cliff.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 12:20 pm
@okie,
Quote:
And can you pass tax increases without the 2/3, I am not clear on that?


No, you are 100% backwards. You CANNOT pass tax increases without 2/3rds.

I would note that the state wasn't nearly as deep in deficit and debt before Ahrnold was elected and immediately slashed taxes.

The Dems CANNOT raise taxes like they would like, thanks to the CA Republicans. The CA Republican party is going to bankrupt our state. The people of CA have consistently voted for the social and environmental programs that cost money; taxes have to be raised to support what the people have voted for. The fact that they cannot be raised, due to the Republicans, is bankrupting our state!

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 04:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'm still not clear on it, cyclops. According to the article, it appears the BUDGET cannot be passed without 2/3 approval. But tax increases are not necessarily part of a budget, are they? A budget is a summary of expenditures to be dedicated to all the functions of government. Tax increases would be part of other legislation, would they not? The article does indicate Republicans do oppose tax increases, but it did not say that question is part of the budget, so do tax rates require 2/3 to pass in the legislature? You will need to provide more proof about that, cyclops. You live there, so that is up to you to prove that.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 05:16 pm
@okie,
Read the section entitled Overview of the Legislative Procedure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Legislature

From the section on Fiscal Legislature:

Quote:
California is unusual in that a two-thirds vote of both the Senate and Assembly is required by the California Constitution to increase taxes or to pass a budget.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 08:57 pm
@Butrflynet,
Okay.

Sounds like a tug of war between cutting spending and raising taxes.

I come down in favor of cutting spending, as do the Republicans in California.

And I still don't have an answer as to why 10.5 bill for medical care, education, and welfare for illegals is not a problem.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 09:09 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Okay.

Sounds like a tug of war between cutting spending and raising taxes.

I come down in favor of cutting spending, as do the Republicans in California.

And I still don't have an answer as to why 10.5 bill for medical care, education, and welfare for illegals is not a problem.


Okie, the vast majority of Californians voted for and support the social program spending that we have. We keep re-electing politicians who promise us to put more money into these programs.

Yet, we cannot fund them, for the Republicans in the CA congress refuse to vote for a tax increase, ever. They have hijacked the legislative system and are driving our state into Ruin. Ahnold is not doing his job, which is to whip them into shape.

Hell, even Reagan oversaw some tax increases while gov. of CA. You current bunch idolize the guy, but are crazier than he was.

To blame the elected Dems for doing what they were elected by the people to do, and not the small group who are strangling the state, is ridiculous, Okie.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 09:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
But do the people vote for the cost when they vote for these programs, cyclops? I am guessing the cost is left out or severely underestimated. I would like to see if the voters would vote for a tax increase, has that been tried?

And I recall the citizens voting to not provide medical care or education or welfare, or something in regard to illegals, and the courts threw the voters decision out. Liberal courts, cyclops.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 09:15 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

But do the people vote for the cost when they vote for these programs, cyclops? I am guessing the cost is left out or severely underestimated. I would like to see if the voters would vote for a tax increase, has that been tried?

And I recall the citizens voting to not provide medical care or education or welfare, or something in regard to illegals, and the courts threw the voters decision out. Liberal courts, cyclops.


So what? We keep voting Dems and Liberals into office, Okie. And not by small margins either. The populace obviously approves of our governance; you're claiming the Republicans have a moral duty to bankrupt the state?

Here in CA we pass things by proposition, and we have voted for tax increases - directly - many times. Vote for programs which we know will lead to property and other tax increases. Perhaps you should research the CA government a little more.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 09:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Depends upon whether you think spending or insufficient taxing is bankrupting the state. It seems to me that spending is at least as big of a culprit.

I think the problem goes far beyond California. There are now enough people that can vote for programs that don't have to pay for them, so they vote for them. The people that pay for them don't want to pay, so they block tax raises. Isn't it true that almost half of the population now pays no income tax whatsoever, yet they can vote themselves more money, for the rest of us taxpayers, or minority of voters, to pay for it. So the only recourse we have is to elect enough representatives to block tax hikes, we are tired of paying for everybody else's irresponsibility. We become enablers if we enable more irresponsibility, and that isn't compassion, it is bad for the people, cyclops.

If I actually think taxes would go to doing something necessary and profitable instead of being wasted, I would be in favor, but seldom do I see that happening.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 10:01 pm
@okie,
Quote:

If I actually think taxes would go to doing something necessary and profitable instead of being wasted, I would be in favor, but seldom do I see that happening.


You choose not to see.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Dec, 2008 10:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Not a choice, cyclops, its out there all the time. Given a choice, local taxes, city and county, are the most efficient monies spent, with much more visibility, they go to the schools, fire and police protection, streets, and county roads, and compared to the amounts paid to higher jurisdictions, we get far more for our money in my opinion. I don't mind paying for those things where results can be seen directly. We educate our children, we get streets, roads, and fire and police protection, thats the majority of what we need out of government, besides national defense. State and federal highways are another good function, but much more money is wasted as you go up the ladder.

So in California, I am going to guess that much of what the citizens actually need are taken care of with city and county taxes, probably at least half, and I am going to guess that the state spends far more than what city and county does?
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 06:36 pm
One part Cyclops is leaving out is the Dems control reapportionment; they decide voting districts and some of these districts, to keep a Dem majority, are ridiculous, the way they have shaped the district.

Just about every year, citizen groups try to pass a ballot initiative to put a non-partisan group of judges or other officals in charge of deciding districts. Every election cycle, Dems and their powerful public employee unions (prison guards, teachers, and state employees) run multi-million dollar campaigns and defeat these propositions.

So we keep our districts, which favor a large group of Dems and a small group of repubs and make most incumbents safe. So both sides dig in, safe for reelection, and don't bother working on comprise.

This includes both Dems and repubs. Dems want to spend money they don't have; repubs force the Dems to make cuts.

Hey, Cyclops, you're still avoiding my original statement: A New Deal/Public Works type program won't work in CA; too much bureaucracy/environmental/labor law issues put in place by left-wing Dems over the past decade…
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 08:50 pm
@A Lone Voice,
I disagree that it 'won't work.' What else do you want me to say? Your objections are ideological, not rational.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2008 11:36 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclops, have you ever run a business? Or take your own finances. Have you ever tried to spend your way out of a fiscal crisis? Businesses can't do it. We can't do it with our own personal finances. What makes you think California can? What did you say about idealogical and rational?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 01:19:51