As Ballotpedia reminds us, the state's portion of the federally-mandated "Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program" will be affected by Prop 1E. This program is intended to cover the mental health needs of low income persons under age 21 — the group most likely to make up gangs and whose behaviors are the most risky. Throwing these kids into the streets is yet another opportunity for those who think taxes only go to welfare cases to earn the privilege of paying more for police, courts, and jails.
If these civic-minded folks become worried about those higher expenses, maybe they would like to volunteer to be an unpaid prison guard in the public interest? Prop 1E - yet another example proving that a bad bill is still a bad bill.
Rounding up the Prop 1 family of scam-law is Prop 1F. Under Prop 1F, the public is misled into thinking that when the Legislature does - as it did this last year — produce a deficit in the state fund, they will suffer a pay loss. California's legislators are among the highest paid, "earning" $116,208 annually along with $170/day "per diem" for living expenses. For that per diem amount alone, I could more than match my current income.
But of course a bad bill is still a bad bill, and none more so than one which misleads. The ex-Hollywood Liberal noticed that there is a glaring red light in Prop 1F: "The measure only empowers the Director of Finance to prevent the Citizens Compensation Commission from recommending an increase when a deficit year is declared." The real issue is public complacency, as the group at www.stoptaxingus.com clarified when they correctly observed that "Proposition 1F gives a false impression that voters were somehow punishing their legislators. With voters laboring under such a delusion, they may be less inclined to exact real accountability from their elected officials at the ballot box."
I am a firm believer in the elected officials of our various levels of government having to come before the people every year to justify our paying them for their services. No OK, no pay. This should keep the shysters and the partisan puppets of entrenched interests out of office, and only those who thought they truly had what it takes to truly represent the people would present themselves as candidates. Those who lied to themselves - and by extension, to the voters - would quickly resign to seek a more fitting position for themselves.
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).