To be fair, that’s how I read alphaboi867’s post as well.
“We need to be ruled by an enlightened [and presumadely benevolent] elite, instead of the unwashed masses.”
Kind of the way the rest of the country runs.
You don’t have to talk about elites and unwashed masses to understand that complex proposals don’t do well when voted on by the masses, driven by advertisements that are reduced to soundbites for and against, almost always inaccurate.
Sure Joe the Ditchdigger doesn’t get why he isn’t as good a judge of these issues as those elitists with law degrees who spend all their time studying the problem, with years of experience backing them up. This is where term limits come from too - and the result here is that the lobbyists are the only group in Sacramento with any real experience.
I am pretty sure that other states are having fiscal problems too.
I also recall claims be made (and supported) that even the elites within the vaunted halls of Congress don’t read the Bills they are voting on.
An elite benevelent government, patting us on our heads and telling us not to eat that because it’s not good for us sounds patronizing and insulting to me.
I hate the bond approach to funding programs. Living on the credit card does not have a happy ending, usually. But I also hate the nanny state approach to governing.
They may be near a collapse but the federal government will bail them out if absolutely necessary because of the “too big to let them fail” mentality. California is too big of a state with too big of an economy to let them fail! Wyoming, Alaska, etc will all have to chip in (indirectly) via more debt, higher taxes, etc to pay for California’s fiscal problems.
I don’t know how close system collapse is, but I do know that things are very bad, and every year there are no real fixes, just postponing the inevitable. For example, as part of this year’s budget, the government moved the payout date for the last month of the fiscal year to the next fiscal year, so they only have to pay their employees for 11 of the 12 months this fiscal year. Look! Cost savings!:rolleyes:
When I am declared dictator of California, the following will happen: New constitution, no more 2/3 majority for budget approval, eliminate all current propositions and amendments (yes, prop 13 included), get rid of the initiative process and term limits, and require a balanced budget. That should just about do it. 
Don’t mean to be smart, but, are you saying just raise taxes and everything will be OK?
A balanced budget, now that is a new Idea. Ops wait isn’t that already called for. I know we can use smoke and mirrors that will do the trick.
Maybe requiring a linkage between mandates and funding for said mandates might help? Decoupling the referenda from taxation begs a problem with unfunded or underfunded programs.
And it’s mob rule versus constitutional republic (with elective representation). Unrestricted referenda remove the restrictions in play when things must go through legislatures.
Could advances in biotechnology industries revive the California economy? The UC education system (as well as CalTech) are extremely good and cities like the San Francisco bay area (including Berkeley and San Jose) and San Diego are good growth areas for fields like biotech.
Could that field possibly create jobs and new tax revenues that would offset some of the lost revenue?
As far as California’s budget crisis, single payer healthcare would possibly save California $344 billion over 10 years according to the Lewin group.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=3
So, in an ideal world (assuming those savings materialize) you just replace health insurance premiums with taxes and pocket the other $344 billion to fix the budget shortfall. Boom, you have a budget surplus of $10+ billion a year and universal healthcare. Everyone is happy. Except insurance companies and republicans.
double post