California spits at its leaders

It seems those few who voted, voted against most of the propositions that were the content of yesterday's special election.

Of course the blame game is raging today. Voters are blamed for wanting services without wanting to pay for them (imho, this is the legacy of a part of voodoo economics; the idea that cutting taxes somehow generates enough new income to pay for the services the taxes used to pay for. Voters were promised this WOULD happen and are no longer used to paying for what they wish to receive from their government.)

There is the usual bitter liberal-bashing from the fanatically anti-tax as well as the blame-it-all-on-the-illegals contingent.

There is some evidence that illegal immigrants make a net positive contribution to government revenue. I think we need to find out for certain if this is the case before making policy concerning them. I don't see what the problem is with deporting the ones who have committed major crimes, however.

As for prisoners in general, can't we send minor offenders home with ankle bracelets instead of paying for three hots and a cot for each?

I personally am ok with legalizing marijuana, since the demand for it never seems to go away, and therefore we may as well get the tax money for it and take some of the easy money away from criminal gangs. However, I don't think children should have to be exposed to it in their homes or that anyone should have to endure smoke in public (FWIW I feel the same about tobacco.) License its use to places which get permits for it. Some of us are allergic! and we also don't want anyone to be trying to drive a car with a "contact high."

I know this is heresy but I'm ok with cutting some school days. I don't remember having so many school days in my youth. It would be better than teacher layoffs. I do think our schools need a review of their administrative expenses.

Selling our state assets seems a bit silly. Once gone you can't get them back.

It's time for a lot of freebies in Sacramento to be curbed (cars and other perks) if only to help people feel that they are not tightening their belts at a time when their representatives are not. And I think elected officials should have to face the same health insurance market citizens and their employers have to face.

As for state workers, we need to remember that massive layoffs will only result in further economic contraction. Some of those workers are your customers, business owners! We could look at reforming the pension system and trimming salary/benefits at the top levels.

Citizens might be willing to bear a temporary burden of modest tax increase but only if they are certain the money is going to reduce the deficit and/or the state debt. One problem with the current crop of propositions is that more borrowing was suggested. The costs of borrowing, and the state's bottom-of-the-barrel credit rating, are one of the things that are worrying people. Our taxpayers at this point would probably rather ask for a legislature which served for free on weekends and did not get paid rather than finance any more borrowing!

Some structural reform is needed. Past propositions have hamstrung the budget in various ways. But this has to be explained clearly to the people in a nonpartisan manner. The 2/3 requirement to pass a budget has to go. It is silly to pay legislators all year to do little more than argue about the budget.

I am not sure the Prop. 13 tax savings should have applied to commercial property, although the only way to rescind this would probably have to be a slow process done in stages due to the weakness of the economy.

I would like us to consider making an affordable health insurance available for small businesses, including one-person businesses. We need to increase employment to get out of the death spiral of job cuts, contraction, lower state tax revenues received, more job cuts...

Most people probably are willing to temporarily pay a small amount more in taxes and user fees, if they don't have the radical right screaming that they don't really have to, and also have some reductions in services.

Life-saving services such as health care, firefighting, police really should be off of the chopping block, in a sane world. And the very poor should be left alone, unless you want more desperate homeless people and/or to have killed some vulnerable citizens to pass the damn budget. A courageous and moral leader has to come right out and say this to voters.

But likewise, taxpayers' money has to be carefully accounted for, to prove that it is going for necessities rather than bloat or incompetence, and to reduce deficit and debt. Or the votes are always going to be "NO."

Will Somebody Fix The Fricking Budget Already?

Yes, our dear Governator is gearing up for another round of even MORE draconian budget cuts. Raise your hand and join me if you are sick and tired of this. I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone in Sacramento that possibly the more cuts are made, the more contractions on the huge part of the economy based on state funding happen, the more that job losses and pay cuts affect what state employees have to spend--which means they can default on homes, patronize fewer businesses, pay less in taxes, and then those banks and businesses pay less in taxes, and so on, and so forth, and suddenly...another massive budget deficit looms ahead! Surprise, surprise. We are on the merry-go-round of DOOM.

I know he will hit health care services first because that is his preference and pattern. It is ALWAYS what he does first. Maybe the guy is never sick and has no clue. He hits at the disabled pretty much whenever he can and, if he can get away with it, without benefit of consultation or warning.

This is why I am already very concerned personally regarding how I'm going to continue to pay for Medicare copays and also pay what will be 15% of my prescription costs (atm about $2000/month) under Medicare Part D. I only have Medi-Cal every other month right now (due to a really crazy way my income is being calculated based on the Gov's action which the above link explains) and I can pretty much count on not having it at all next year, so it's Part D or the highway.

Medi-Cal is California's Medicaid program. It is not the worst one of the fifty states, but is ungenerous enough that we no longer qualify for a lot of federal matching funds that would be ours if we did not cut so much from the program. I believe it is one of the largest items in our budget, however. I don't know why there are so many people on it. Some say it is due to undocumented workers and their families but there is debate about this. Perhaps our health insurance companies in this state leave many uncovered, or a lot of people with small businesses go without coverage for financial reasons, or we simply have a lot of people on the program because we are also the most populous state. I would be interested in seeing any research that has been done on this.

Anyway, he will slash Medi-Cal. Healthy Families will probably be hit as well. I have nothing but contempt for a budget process that lets the sick get sicker or die before doing anything else, or which leaves children at risk, or for a person who supports such a process.

The governor has some sort of special way he wants to reduce pharmaceutical costs. Not really sure why he has it in for antipsychotic medication in particular. We have so many people in the street who seemingly could use more of it. Odd man.

Cutting family planning services under Medi-Cal would be funny if the guy weren't serious about it. Guess magical fairy dust delivers the babies and provides for them until they turn 18.

It seems he is finally considering turning undocumented prisoners over to federal authorities (I wonder why this had not been done earlier?) but I haven't heard anything about sending nonviolent criminals home with ankle bracelets, which is what I had been told could save a lot of $.

Yes, I did read about the proposal to legalize marijuana and tax it :) I'm of mixed feelings. The first is a personal bias; I would like to see all smoking of any kind banned from the planet forever since it triggers my horrible asthma! I wish I never had to sport this embarrassing "sea lion" cough again! And I'm very concerned about children who are now trapped as I once was in homes where the parents smoke. Not all of us can breathe air with smoke in it.

On the other hand, what consenting adults do behind hermetically sealed doors and windows is none of my business. It does seem a pity that the illegal status of recreational drugs is in effect creating well-financed gangs who are following the business model of Al Capone while society as a whole also loses the opportunity to tax the stuff. Recreational drugs do not interest me in the slightest, and if you had my miserable load of prescriptions to carry around any extra drugs probably wouldn't tempt you either (I'm much more interested in seeing if I can get away with NOT taking something) but the demand for them doesn't seem to wane.

Some of our park usage fees are already high. There are beaches I can't go to because I can't pay the $8 and don't have the strength to hike there. But that's another one of Ahnold's favorite targets. He's also now proposing to sell off state-owned properties, some quite famous. It's like he is trying to punish someone, but it is unclear exactly whom.

Anyway, here's the latest.

I am not sure why there is such an outcry against shortening the school year since it was relatively recently that it was lengthened. I also think it is probably time for schools to restructure a bit so they are not so top-heavy in administrative costs while making life hard for teachers and students. However, I don't think we can afford to cut education very much, since our per-pupil spending has gone down so far.

I did vote for putting a stop to legislators giving themselves pay raises during deficit years (Prop 1F.) I also would be ok with seeing them having to look for their own health coverage; kind of a "we're all in the same boat now" sort of thing...I would rather see that than state workers be thrown out of jobs in the middle of a serious economic downturn. Those workers have no power over the budget.

None of this would make me more inclined to vote YES for the budget-cutting propositions; in fact I resent the attempt at being forced into a YES vote. They are poorly written and do not reflect where I think cuts should first be made. And I don't like blackmail.

Does Anyone Know How Much This Election Is Costing Us?

Even MORE California propositions. I'm deciding between a straight NO ticket, and a NO ticket with one YES for 1F.

1A gives the Governor way too much power and also is too restrictive; one reason the budgets are hard to balance is that we already have so many restrictions on what must be spent here and not be spent there blah blah blah.
1B is short-term savings; long-term higher costs: exactly the kind of thing that has us in some trouble now. It is not needed to restore education funding; the Legislature can do that. And it depends on 1A, and 1A is badly written.
1C -- more borrowing. Nix.
1D -- there are more responsible ways to balance the budget than robbing kids.
1E -- ditto for the mentally ill. Sheesh.
1F -- well the Gov cut the poor and the sick on Medi-Cal immediately, and now proposes to cut kids and the mentally ill...so why SHOULD elected officials still get pay raises when there is a deficit? My one YES vote, I think. No pay raises, gang. Not while you are all so willing to stiff the rest of us.

Heck, even I took the budget challenge and balanced easily w/out killing anybody. Give ME your pay raises if you can't do the same, and I'm also wondering why we pay for your health care.

Confession

I lost my temper.

I can't believe Dems are willing to give up not only single payer, but a public insurance option, before even getting to the negotiating table. Aren't you supposed to ask for MORE than what you are willing to settle for? Would someone please get in there and demand to nationalize a bunch of industries immediately? This country has absolutely no memory of what the "far left" actually looks like.

We could start by nationalizing all of the failing ones. It would probably be cheaper than bailouts.

And Downward Pressure On Wages

How do firms cut costs? Well...

What's Goin' On

Another point of view