Yes. I don’t think spending as a percentage of total state income has changed much in 20 years. It’s the deficits that are the problem. But don’t blame the legislature: Don’t you think they’d be delighted to raise taxes if that’s what their constituents wanted?
California is enormously wealthy. Its crisis should cause citizens to question fiscal policies but I think the average voter reasons: “Cut my taxes! Duh … it’s a no-brainer.”
No. The system might work much better if the “will of the people” could be ignored. Review the above explanation for the fiscal crisis.
septimus - I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Are you saying that the general population mostly want their taxes lowered and ignore the fiscal crisis? And that listening to that is part of the problem the state has?
If that is what you are saying, I agree that the sentiment contributes to the problem, but only just so. Taxes in CA have gone up either via income or other taxes and I see no end in sight. When I said ‘the will of the people’ I mainly was talking in the context of elections and who is voted into office with respect to fixed districts and prop 14.
I responded to your message as talking points, rather than in opposition. And I’m speaking to the systemic problems that led to the present crisis, rather than proposing any immediate fix.
I realize California is now in severe recession with no easy solution. That’s why you don’t build up public debt during periods of prosperity. You save in good times in order to have somthing left over for a “rainy day.” That’s common sense for an ordinary family, common sense for the Federal government, and common sense for the State of California. (J.M. Keynes even developed this common sense analytically 75 years ago, though you’d hardly know it now, the 'Net being overrun with right-wing idiots claiming to have economics degrees.)
But discretion was thrown to the winds during the Epoch of Foolish Greed. And when one contrasts the enormous wealth generated by California and its huge number of multi-millionaires with the condition of its public-financed institutions, surely we can agree that something went dreadfully wrong.
I have no specific solution to offer now except to hope we finally learn from our mistakes. I was saying “don’t blame the legislature” … they just do what voters want. (And don’t blame the voters: they vote the way right-wing media tells them to vote, though that’s an oversimplification to dispute in another thread in another forum.)
Re: open primaries…just on general principles, the idea seems unfair and absurd. I’m not a member of the Peace & Freedom party, so why should I get to have a vote on who the P&F wants to run for office? Now extrapolate that logic to Reps & Dems.
But back to the real world: I don’t see how this helps the “logjam in Sacramento”. The real fix to that problem is to get rid of the supermajority requirement for a budget.
The Prop-14 system lets the parties choose whoever they want to run. The primary is simply choosing which two candidates get to run in the general election. The state will no longer subsidize primary elections for the parties.
The thinking is that the current batch of legislators have no incentive to compromise on the budget. Any Republican who votes for any tax increase will lose in his party’s next primary. Any Democrat who votes for any spending decrease will lose in his party’s next primary. The proposed primary system is supposed to bring in more moderate voters who will give moderate candidates a chance to win.
Getting rid of the supermajority requirement would still be helpful, though.
I believe the supermajority is only a requirement for raising taxes, not passing a budget. A budget that is balanced on cuts rather than tax increases could pass with a simple majority.
The deficits have two components, too much going out and not enough coming in. I think any honest assessment has to examine both of those things. I think the focus on the supermajority requirement to raise taxes exists because it seems like a minority in the legislature is able to derail the budget process. The idea that we can cut spending to 2003/4? levels (less than 10 years ago) and have a balanced budget makes the deficit seem ludicrous.
But yes, getting more moderates in office may incentivise compromise. Hopefully. If not, we’re just as screwed as before.
On 14, I don’t like it because it further entrenches a 2-party system by allowing only two names onto the November ballot. I could be in favor of it if it put 5 names, or everyone who gets at least 5%, or something, but this is poor. It also continues the trend of suggested initiatives to change voting systems that appear to have been thought up by someone who’s never even bothered to read through the Wikipedia page on voting systems.
Everything else I’m voting “no” on based on similar reasoning to Icarus’. If it’s not really obviously a good idea, it’s not worth the potential unintended consequences and further idiocy of the California public.
I remember the energy crisis of 2000-2001 when prices skyrocketed and there were rolling blackouts. I live in Los Angeles, plugged into the city-run DWP, unaffected by rolling blackouts and prices were much more stable. (obligatory YouTube link)
As a city-run operation, wouldn’t it be financially backed by the city rather than the state? Does the L.A. DWP actually receive state funding, or is this just the state sticking its nose into city business?
What are you asking? It sounds like your questions may be in relation to the commercials for prop 16. If that’s the case, know that the Yes on Prop 16 campaign itself is propably the most dishonest I’ve seen this year. It really should win an award for that.
Under prop 14, the top 2 vote-getters go on to the general election even if they are from the same party. What that means is that the party with fewer candidates is the one that has the edge – which is pretty arbitrary.
On average, the party with greater internal discipline will have an advantage. But there will be a lot of swings from year to year. After all, insane millionaires hail from both parties. The party with the incumbent in power might also be able to repress same-party challenges with greater facility.
You’re right about my question being based on the ads. The way they’re presented, it would seem as if city-run utilities take money from California’s budget, contributing to the financial crisis, and that cities are taking that money without any voter approval. Of course, the wording is vague enough to only imply that, not actually saying it. I smelled BS the first time I saw the Yes On 16 commercial and was against it the moment I heard the name “Taxpayer’s Right To Vote Act”. This thread has only helped to better understand the deception.