Home / CA Scamming: This Time, It’s the Dems

CA Scamming: This Time, It’s the Dems

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

CA Democrats, taking a page from the DC Republicans’ playbook, want to take
full control of the state with no checks, no balances.

It started with redistricting, as described by the L. A. Times:

Redistricting: A Satan’s pact between Republicans and Democrats
in 2001 led to a redrawing of legislative and congressional district lines
the parties mostly safe seats throughout the state. [How
the Engine Derailed (10/8/03)

What this means is that Democrats will have their current 60% majority in
Sacramento for the foreseeable future.

The only defense against uncontrolled spending by the majority has been California’s
constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote to adopt the state budget
and related tax legislation. Without this safeguard, we’d be at the mercy
of an uncontrollable majority (thanks to redistricting, now effectively enthroned

As it is, we have suffered through a "Spend-and-Tax" binge
for at least the last 25 years. Here’s what happened between 1977 and 1999:

(Population + Inflation)
448% increase
473% increase

Since then, spending has jumped from $60 billion in 1999 to $100 billion in
2003. That is a far greater increase than population+inflation or revenues,
and the cause of the
current fiscal crisis.

Let me repeat that: spending is the problem.

Apparently that’s not bad enough for California Democrats. Using a trick they
learned from DC politicians, they came up with a proposed act that does the
opposite of what its name says it does:

The Budget Accountability Act

This proposed act, now an initiative that will be voted on next year, would
reduce the required majority for imposing new taxes to 55%. With the Democrats
holding a 60% majority as far as the eye can see into the future, thanks to
the "Satan’s pact" on redistricting, the "Accountability" act means that there
would be no way to hold them accountable.

Based on their earlier editorial, I would have expected the L. A. Times to
support the existing constitutional limit on uncontrolled spending. Instead,
they let party politics get the best of them and supported the (No) Accountability
Act in Primed
for Fiscal Overhaul (10/12/030)

They seem to have missed the point that had the Democratic majority been on
the recall ballot, they’d have been voted out, too.

Powered by

About Hal