A bad bill is still a bad bill, and I turn again to The ex-Hollywood Liberal: "... cuts to education made now will be added back to the education budget later and taxpayers will receive the bill..."
Let's take a moment to examine the false solution of charter schools. Public education has been one of the best bargains the American taxpayer ever funded, and misguided efforts to gut that system will only result in a very expensive blowback. As charter schools have the right and ability to select the students they will accept, there is an inevitability that the slowest and most-unruly will quickly fall out of favor. Without even a semblance of a public school system to take them, just what are they to do? Stay home? Too many of these kids don't have adequate adult supervision now!
Inevitably, many of these kids will get into serious trouble, necessitating the involvement of the criminal justice system. As this sector is also already underfunded and over-tasked with protecting the public, you, the taxpayer, will be expected to cover those increased costs. So you get to make a choice here. Pay now for adequate school facilities and staff, or instead have to pay for more prisons and the guards to staff them. Unfortunately, Prop 1B is not the solution to this dilemma. It will only make things worse across the board.
Spinning the wheel to Prop 1C, let's toss the loaded dice and see show what card is hiding up the sleeve. A bad bill is still a bad bill. As Ballotpedia properly notes: "Proposition 1C would authorize borrowing against future lottery proceeds as a way to avoid state government spending cuts." California's legislators must not be paying attention to the drop in lottery revenue, or they wouldn't be so quick to make promises to pay debts out of that fund.
Subjective observation on my part indicates that Lotto revenues are down during these trying times, as the jackpots increase less every time no one wins than it used to. If people aren't playing now, there is no way to assure that funding will be there when it is needed in the future as a result. The ex-Hollywood Liberal again cuts the cards: "'modernizing' means increasing the public debt by writing IOU's in the name of California taxpayers". Amen, Brother! Your deal!
Nor should the Legislature be offering to sell portions of the lottery to private vendors. The only possibility for a safe and secure game is one run by a publicly accountable entity. Selling off the lottery is a recipe for graft and corruption worse than we already have. Have you forgotten Enron already? Prop 1C: truly a bad deal off the bottom of the deck.
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).