A bad bill is still a bad bill. I tend to agree with The ex-Hollywood Liberal, who states his opposition to Prop 1A's State "Rainy Day" reserve as "nothing more than another pot of money to feed the big government monster." Allow me to provide an example which would fit this description.
Central Valley farmers are currently clamoring for relief from environmental water usage regulations and regulations, and they will expect their pet "conservatives" in the Legislature to ensure that they get their way - at public expense - as was past practice. The most likely way the necessary funds would be raised would be to hike the user fees for water customers in a manner which doesn't require the legislature to take any action. If the benefiting farmers truly believed in the free market, they would find ways to compete in it. Stiffing their work force on their wages is already a current and on-going strategy, so lowering their expenses in other ways is now all they could do. Changing the ways they waste water would be a wonderful way to begin, but as long as they can pilfer the public purse to cover their willful ignorance, this isn't going to happen.
But then, an ignorant public suits private business concerns. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's Office announced in early March that tax revenues are down significantly. California's government appropriated $8 billion more for education than realized by tax revenue. Ergo, in the on-going effort to avoid their benefactors paying for a public benefit in which they share, attacking education is a constant goal of the lapdogs of "private" enterprise, the Republicans. Blaming the teachers for the high costs of education is a frequent tactic used by them, but it's clear that those who advocate reducing teacher salaries as a solution don't teach. The job is so frustrating that many teachers have gone into other lines of work rather than continue as teachers. Usually, it's the good teachers you don't want to lose who leave. (Disclosure: many of my relatives are teachers, and this observation comes from their reports)
In many cases, I'd rather see the overpaid-and-under-productive administrators get their bloated salaries cut. Look at former LAUSD Superintendent David Brewer, who demanded $500,000 to leave. A member of the LAUSD Board described Brewer as "[saying] all the right things, but the issue was ... his lack of follow-through." And you still want to blame the teachers?
Article comments
1 - Bliffle
Words to live by:
"Damn Party affiliation to Hell! Turn off the TV! Vote the issues and not the party!"
You are exactly right. Until voters realize that their principles are only mimicked by cheap politicians currying votes, the politicians will continue to victimize us with fakery.
Politicians come and go, but the evil they do lives on long after them.
In CA Arnold has used a trick developed long ago in DC: separate all spending into 'contracts' and 'entitlements'. 'Contracts' are the no-bid handouts to your friends that are backed by 'Full Faith and Credit' and cannot subsequently be cancelled or re-negotiated. "Entitlements" are programs for the general public or needy groups in the public who have weak political influence, like children, aged, disabled, crazy, etc.
Then, later, when the budget squeezes come, you say "we can't cut or negotiate those contracts, they're backed by Full Fail And Credit. But those 'entitlements' are charity to the leeches, let's cut them!" So, school budgets are cut, tennis courts closed, city parks deteriorate.
See, it's easy to be a swindller: study politicians.
The only way to control them is to reject their dilatory politicking (over junk issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc.) and vote the issues.
2 - roger nowosielski
It's almost incredible how Arnold has squandered his star power. He could have easily broken the California legislature's stronghold on the state within his first two years in office. But it takes a principled person to do it. Instead, he took the easy way out, trying to please everyone.
3 - Bliffle
Arnold was partly victimized by his own naive preconceptions, partly by the absurd requirement for 2/3 legislative approval on budgets, and partly by Grover Nyquist twisting arms on republican legislators to make them SIGN a document saying they will never vote for a tax increase.
4 - roger nowosielski
Well, wasn't he stuck with the "2/3" part?
5 - Bliffle
Yes, Arnold was stuck with it.
I think the CA finances have become so screwed up that the state has to be divided up into several new states (which would also improve our representation in the senate - if the damn thing has to be retained we should at least get better representation equity).