California breakup? (school, tax, live)

[sonoranrat]

breakingviews | California breakup (http://www.breakingviews.com/2009/05/21/california%20break-up.aspx?sg=nytimes - broken link)

California breakup: California's ballot results highlight a simple fact: Californians like electing big-spending state representatives but hate paying the bills when they come due. This natural voter preference is universal, but is exacerbated by a wealthy polity of 37m inhabitants that is not fully self-governing, but subject to a distant central authority in Washington. Its discontent cannot be removed through restricting the right of referendum, which would further alienate voters from their government. More radical surgery is needed: splitting the state into more accountable government units......

[4beanie]

Originally Posted by sonoranrat

breakingviews | California breakup (http://www.breakingviews.com/2009/05/21/california%20break-up.aspx?sg=nytimes - broken link)

California breakup: California's ballot results highlight a simple fact: Californians like electing big-spending state representatives but hate paying the bills when they come due. This natural voter preference is universal, but is exacerbated by a wealthy polity of 37m inhabitants that is not fully self-governing, but subject to a distant central authority in Washington. Its discontent cannot be removed through restricting the right of referendum, which would further alienate voters from their government. More radical surgery is needed: splitting the state into more accountable government units......

My biggest concern with voters is I'm not sure they understand that when they vote for a something that includes a bond they are voting for a tax increase. It's like borrowing from yourself to pay your own bills

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by sonoranrat

breakingviews | California breakup (http://www.breakingviews.com/2009/05/21/california%20break-up.aspx?sg=nytimes - broken link)

California breakup: California's ballot results highlight a simple fact: Californians like electing big-spending state representatives but hate paying the bills when they come due.

I would call that "an oversimplified view," not a fact. The implication that Californians like electing representatives that don't actualize their wishes just doesn't pass the sniff test. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of Californians actually want the services that the capital outlay provides. If Californians didn't want these government-provided services, but their representatives defied them, then the problem would be easy to solve.

The real problem is the free-lunch issue. People want government services (at least the ones that serve their personal interests), but want someone else to pay for them. Government is not a buffet. You can't just take what is useful to you personally and leave the rest.

Maybe the solution is to cantonize California so people wouldn't have to pay for services they find objectionable. There can be a part of the state for people who don't want parks or sidewalks or sewer systems. Another part of the state could be for libertarians who think that personally-owned firearms obviate the need for government law enforcement. Yet another part of the state will deny social services for the needy and privileged folks can live on streets lined with beggars. Another part of the state could be school-free for residents who have no children. Perhaps Humboldt County can be a "Medi-Cal-Free County" since medical marijuana seems to provide adequate relief for almost any ailment that strikes that part of the state.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Well in a corporate break up, what you do is identify logical groupings of lines of business and then spin off the parts to go their own ways. I guess it would work the same in the case of a state.

[Den Mathias]

Perhaps Humboldt County can be a "Medi-Cal-Free County" since medical marijuana seems to provide adequate relief for almost any ailment that strikes that part of the state.[/quote]

Excellent observation! And, pretty darn funny!