Today on Blogcritics
Home » California’s Prop. 56: ‘Satan made ‘em do it.’

California’s Prop. 56: ‘Satan made ‘em do it.’

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

This is a replay of my CALIFORNIA SCAMMING story from last October. California
Democrats are still at it – and the vote comes up in a few days – so here
it is again:

California 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 that assure 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% legislative 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 until at least the next census).

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
+235%
(Population + Inflation)

STATE
REVENUES
448% increase

STATE
SPENDING
473% increase

Since then, spending has jumped from $60 billion in 1999 to

$100 billion in 2003. That’s a far greater increase than population plus
inflation or revenues, and the cause of the state’s 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 the Proposition 56 state initiative,
will be voted on [in a few days]. It 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 the Democratic majority accountable.

Based on the 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.

The L. A. Times continues to run stories on how bad this would
be for the state [Millions
Spent in Battle Over Making It Easier to Raise Taxes
02/20/2004 subscription]
but
continues to support the give-away of control to the Democrats in a further
display of their lack of integrity [ELECTION
RECOMMENDATIONS; Yes on Proposition 56
02/08/2004 subscription]
.

 

Powered by

About Hal

  • http://dirtgrain.com/weblog Dirtgrain

    What can we do to get the focus of these political parties off of power seeking initiatives and onto relative issues that impact us all?

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Nader notwithstanding, running for president ain’t it :-)

    It’s tough, but love ‘em or hate ‘em, the only way to get access to power is likely through the parties that have it.

    To me, that indicates that it would be useful to find the few reasonable, rational politicians in the legislature and work with them while you work at dumping the ones who are doing the damage.

    In California I think that means dumping the state Democrats and working with Tom McClintock and others who are with him on the issues, even though Arnie has already been elected.

    During the recall, he had a huge lead in favorability (wasn’t he at 59%), but “somehow” the rumor started that he couldn’t be elected so the Davis backlash swung to Schwarz.

    At the federal level, we’re seeing a similar thing. The first step is to get rid of the folks doing the damage.

    At this point, it seems to me that the “spend and spend and spend” approach of Bush and the Republican congress is doing far more harm than the alternative.

    Kerry’s current positions on many issues, however, go against his grain, he’s been dragged over against his innnate will.

    But he’ll probably be the candidate since the “electability” issue surfaced early and Edwards positioned on the wrong side of it.

    “Anybody but Bush” may not work considering the history Kerry brings with him, and the unthinking support an incumbent brings (“I’m out of work? Yeah, but what a great guy W. is and he’s The President.”)

    As Yakov Smirnoff used to say: “What a country.”