Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My most interesting experiences happened in the Capitol while testifying in legislative policy and fiscal committee hearings and dealing with the Governor's Office. What I learned over the years was that well thought out, analytical testimony didn't really get heard because the votes were already decided in caucuses before the hearings. Your elected representatives hard at work for the People ~ NOT!
If I have a somewhat jaundiced view of California governance (and the federal as well), now you know why!
If I can try to bend this tread back towards relevance...
Does anyone believe that there will come a time when our "REPRESENTATIVES" will actually preform the duty of their office... Which I believe would shift the "Bay Area" to "left of center" and not "so liberal" as the country perceives and was the OP's initial question.
Junk-bond status? Bankruptcy? A second "Moon-Beam" malaise?
If I can try to bend this tread back towards relevance...
Does anyone believe that there will come a time when our "REPRESENTATIVES" will actually preform the duty of their office... Which I believe would shift the "Bay Area" to "left of center" and not "so liberal" as the country perceives and was the OP's initial question.
Junk-bond status? Bankruptcy? A second "Moon-Beam" malaise?
Well, right now there is a serious attention being directed at speculators who deliberately manipulate the market in order to negatively affect bond ratings.
The same banks that underwrite govt bonds it turns out, also bet against those same bonds in the hopes that they will default.
That is totally shady and being investigated as we speak. Not just in California but all over the world.
Also,
California is not bankruptcy-we arent even near that point.
Well, right now there is a serious attention being directed at speculators who deliberately manipulate the market in order to negatively affect bond ratings.
The same banks that underwrite govt bonds it turns out, also bet against those same bonds in the hopes that they will default.
That is totally shady and being investigated as we speak. Not just in California but all over the world.
Also,
California is not bankruptcy-we arent even near that point.
As has been explained before the state constitution prohibits the state from declaring bankruptcy. If it was possible it probably would have already happened.
The state of a person or firm unable to repay debts.
bank·rupt
/ˈbæŋkrʌpt, -rəpt/ Show Spelled[bangk-ruhpt, -ruhpt] Show IPA
–noun 1. Law . a person who upon his or her own petition or that of his or her creditors is adjudged insolvent by a court and whose property is administered for and divided among his or her creditors under a bankruptcy law.
2. any insolvent debtor; a person unable to satisfy any just claims made upon him or her.
3. a person who is lacking in a particular thing or quality: a moral bankrupt.
–adjective 4. Law . subject to or under legal process because of insolvency; insolvent.
5. at the end of one's resources; lacking (usually fol. by of or in ): bankrupt of compassion; bankrupt in good manners.
6. pertaining to bankrupts or bankruptcy.
–verb (used with object) 7. to make bankrupt: His embezzlement bankrupted the company.
Bankruptcy is not literally the process of "getting out" of one's responsibility for certain debts...
The point is "Liberal policies" tend to lead to over-spending. Since our collective public attention is about 3.75 milliseconds, the politicians get away with over-promising, over-spending, over-lining their own pockets...
Where, when, how does the process end?
I tend to favor that the pendulum must swing back and forth between the two parties, but in recent memory, no party has had a fiscal conscious... which in my opinion is why the "tea-party" strikes a chord with many...
The state of a person or firm unable to repay debts.
bank·rupt
/ˈbæŋkrʌpt, -rəpt/ Show Spelled[bangk-ruhpt, -ruhpt] Show IPA
–noun 1. Law . a person who upon his or her own petition or that of his or her creditors is adjudged insolvent by a court and whose property is administered for and divided among his or her creditors under a bankruptcy law.
2. any insolvent debtor; a person unable to satisfy any just claims made upon him or her.
3. a person who is lacking in a particular thing or quality: a moral bankrupt.
–adjective 4. Law . subject to or under legal process because of insolvency; insolvent.
5. at the end of one's resources; lacking (usually fol. by of or in ): bankrupt of compassion; bankrupt in good manners.
6. pertaining to bankrupts or bankruptcy.
–verb (used with object) 7. to make bankrupt: His embezzlement bankrupted the company.
Bankruptcy is not literally the process of "getting out" of one's responsibility for certain debts...
The point is "Liberal policies" tend to lead to over-spending. Since our collective public attention is about 3.75 milliseconds, the politicians get away with over-promising, over-spending, over-lining their own pockets...
Where, when, how does the process end?
I tend to favor that the pendulum must swing back and forth between the two parties, but in recent memory, no party has had a fiscal conscious... which in my opinion is why the "tea-party" strikes a chord with many...
Ok, you have made some good points. And yes whether or not the state technically declares bancruptcy or not, our deficit is obviously out of control.
But I don't think any of these things are limited to one party, be it liberal or conservative. While the "idea" of less spending is a conservative one the execution in real world politics can and has been quite different. Whether Bush or Obama, liberal or conservative, all leaders pretty much agreed on the bail out of the banks then auto industry. Especially in the financial sector this appeared outrageous to many Americans, including those who struggle to make ends meet and continue making their mortgage payments, etc... during difficult times such as these. Would our economy have imploded as many were predicting had we not spent billions on bailouts? That is a question which we will never really know the answer to. But I'm sure it will discussed for many generations to come. To me it seemed like excessive spending and that some large companies should simply be allowed to fail.
So yes, the tea partiers appeal to many at least in part. Although alot of frindge radicals seem to attach to them. The problem is these are complex issues without easy campaign slogan solutions. Complex problems can take years to resolve and invovle many distastefull decisions effecting thousands, even millions.
Whether one likes Arnold or not he at least has been trying to make some spending cuts. Of course where and how the cuts are made are what really comes into question. But I think at least most Californians realize out of control spending has to be curbed in some way. Whether or not we will see any real attempts made by the next Governor (likely moonbeam) and our legislature is questionable.
The other distastefull part is that it sometimes takes spending money to make money. So simply cutting spending doesn't necessarily make problems go away. Rather a combination of responsible spending/investing in our State's future along with targeting cuts and even some tax increases will be necessary. And IMO cutting education/teachers isn't a smart way to prepare for our state's future. But yes, some cuts are absolutely necessary.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 05-26-2010 at 11:49 AM..
I find this an interesting historic sketch of our State's economy and Brown's involvement in it:
Quote:
Voters passed Proposition 13 during Brown's tenure as governor, and Brown was criticized for not decreasing the state's surplus by cutting property taxes and thereby paving the way for the success of the proposition. Wrote Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post, "As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue soared—but the parsimonious Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, neither spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians grumped to the polls and passed Proposition 13, which rolled back and then froze property taxes—effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue. Ranked fifth among the states in per-pupil spending during the 1950s and '60s, California sank to the mid-40s by the 1990s.
-- Meyerson, Harold (May 28, 2009) "How the Golden State Got Tarnished." Washington Post. (Retrieved 7-22-09.)
Can you imagine our state actually sitting on a multibillion dollar surplus now?
Fringe groups often try to associate with new legitimate movements to try to establish some credibility by association (In my opinion, it is rarely effective for long).
My concern with "liberal" leaning policies is that there is little reinforcement to temper their growth. Actually, I believe most applications of government primarily function to reinforce their own growth, until the money runs out...
Education is a classic example... there is NO end to the money you could spend. Private tutors, breakfast/lunch/diner, after school programs, tenure, adult education, less teacher to pupil ratios...
Without regard for "liberal" or "conservative" points of view, the Legislature in California has been selling the farm for going on three decades. In 1983, on his way out of office, Jerry Brown (aka: Governor Moonbeam) gave the labor unions the rights to represent government workers. Gray Davis was, if nothing else, a coin-operated governor who increased their power and the subsequent costs to the tax payers and the three, intervening Republican governors have either raised taxes or miserably failed to take back the momentun towards the state living within its means.
The Legislature is now made up of dynasties in which brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, wives and husbands have followed their family members to the political trough and the voters -- short of memory and long of submission to political and partisan influence -- have not just permitted but promulgated this.
Unless California cleans political house, the next two-to-four years will be no different and the last thing the state needs is another retread at the helm. But then again, what's the alternative? The contenders fail to impress.
Is my annoyance/frustration showing? I hope so. We still, through family and friends, have a huge stake in California. Could it, please, just grab a much needed and independent brain?
Without regard for "liberal" or "conservative" points of view, the Legislature in California has been selling the farm for going on three decades. In 1983, on his way out of office, Jerry Brown (aka: Governor Moonbeam) gave the labor unions the rights to represent government workers. Gray Davis was, if nothing else, a coin-operated governor who increased their power and the subsequent costs to the tax payers and the three, intervening Republican governors have either raised taxes or miserably failed to take back the momentun towards the state living within its means.
The Legislature is now made up of dynasties in which brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, wives and husbands have followed their family members to the political trough and the voters -- short of memory and long of submission to political and partisan influence -- have not just permitted but promulgated this.
Unless California cleans political house, the next two-to-four years will be no different and the last thing the state needs is another retread at the helm. But then again, what's the alternative? The contenders fail to impress.
Is my annoyance/frustration showing? I hope so. We still, through family and friends, have a huge stake in California. Could it, please, just grab a much needed and independent brain?
Curmudgeon,
I agree. I am not quite yet ready to leave (although soon, I may not have a choice...). My question is if the present course continues (which I seen no way in which it can't), what will occur?
Downgrading of bond rating, IOU's, the producers continue to leave the state (hint, hint), taxes increase (with less than 1/2 paying taxes?)... And the shortsighted public reflexively vote for republicans "promising" fiscal responsibility?
I agree. I am not quite yet ready to leave (although soon, I may not have a choice...). My question is if the present course continues (which I seen no way in which it can't), what will occur?
Downgrading of bond rating, IOU's, the producers continue to leave the state (hint, hint), taxes increase (with less than 1/2 paying taxes?)... And the shortsighted public reflexively vote for republicans "promising" fiscal responsibility?
At the very least, continued degradation of the infastructure.
For years I've found it nothing less than embarassing that you could drive into CA on smooth highways and past the border, start hitting ruts, seams and bone-rattling uneveness.
Beyond that it's a crap-shoot. There really isn't the collective determination to either increase revenues (read: taxes) or cut spending, and both are required in lieu of some constitutional changes for which there's little political support. So, as Ahnold has said repeatedly, the can will continue to get kicked down the road -- perhaps until the reconquistas take over and all you can buy is Pemex gas and oil.
Even after almost 20 years in CA politics I havern't a clue at this point. Political will surges and ebbs but true political courage appears non-existant. Pandering doesn't equal governance!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
rʌpt, -rəpt/ 
