California tax revolt: Voters crush Schwarzenegger’s budget proposals at the polls
posted at 8:20 am on May 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Of the six propositions offered, only one passed — the one to freeze pay raises for legislators when the state’s running a deficit — despite Arnold and his allies having outspent critics 10 to 1 in pushing the initiatives. To paraphrase a hip-hop classic, California knows how to tea-party:
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was dealt a crushing defeat as voters rejected a series of ballot initiatives designed to help plug the state’s spiraling budget deficit…
Schwarzenegger had warned that failure of the proposals would leave California grappling with a budget shortfall of around 21.3 billion dollars.
But weary voters were unwilling to heed Schwarzenegger’s deficit warnings and came out broadly against the ballot proposals, by margins of around 60-70 percent to 40-30 percent, local media reported.
The LA Times is naturally upset — with voters:
By rejecting five budget measures, Californians also brought into stark relief the fact that they, too, share blame for the political dysfunction that has brought California to the brink of insolvency…
The results Tuesday fit Californians’ long-standing pattern of demanding what is ultimately irreconcilable, all the more so in an economic downturn: lower taxes and higher spending.
“We all want a free lunch, but unfortunately that doesn’t exist,” said former Gov. Gray Davis, whose 2003 recall stemmed largely from a budget crisis brought on by the dot-com bust. For decades, Davis said, Californians have been “papering over this fundamental reality that the state has been living beyond its means.”…
The public’s contradictory impulses were laid bare by a recent Field Poll. It found that voters oppose cutbacks in 10 of 12 major categories of state spending, including the biggest, education and healthcare. Yet most voters were unwilling to have their own taxes increased, and they overwhelmingly favored keeping the two-thirds requirement for tax hikes.
As noted by Karl, the same Field Poll showed fully 72 percent of Californians treating this as a chance to send a message to Sacramento that they’re tired of higher spending and higher taxes. In fairness to the Times, though, Mark Steyn has long lamented this same tendency among European and, increasingly, American voters: They love their government goodies even though they manifestly can’t afford them, with the total paralysis here over social security reform the grimmest example. Californians don’t really have to make a hard choice between cutting spending and raising taxes since The One will surely force you and I to bail them out, but per that gruesome Heritage graph illustrating his own deficits over the next decade, the national reckoning’s coming. And given the likelihood that universal health care will pass sometime soon, creating a dependency among the public even more profound than social security, it’s not hard to guess how that choice will go when the time comes to make it. How’s that for a pessimistic thought from your favorite eeyore blogger? In the meantime, your exit question: Republican revival in California next year? Meg Whitman’s got to like the headlines this morning.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Not to worry a liberal judge will rule the election un constitutional and all will be well./s
heshtesh on May 20, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Then you ruled out most of the GOP, Bush, and most of the people running in the last GOP primary… I knew there was a reason I was unhappy last year.
Upstater85 on May 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM
———-
Bush – Statist. Big Government. Not conservative.
McCain – Same.
Can’t speak for most of “the poeple running in the last GOP primary”, but .. yeah. There are a LOT more statists in the GOP than there are small-government types. That doesn’t mean the small-government types should give up, just that a better job must be done in getting the message out.
A government, state or federal, big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take everything away. …
Mew
acat on May 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
It’s meaningless unless the legislature changes, too.
irishspy on May 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
It’s meaningless unless the legislature changes, too.
irishspy on May 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
—–
Agree. Early days, though.
Mew
acat on May 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM
The end of the great liberal experiment in California government? Any great quotes from the celebutard bunch on the results of the election. I understand Alec Baldwin was unavailable for comment. He was too busy picking out his Filipino mail order bride.
Mallard T. Drake on May 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM
No problem Arnie . . . i see in the LA Times that your buddy Obama is going to give you some of our hard earned money to help cover up the mess you’ve made in that state. I suspect that this is just temporary life support and that nothing can keep California from it’s well earned demise.
rplat on May 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Hopefully the resolution Californians sent yesterday will relate to votes for a Conservative state government and that’s the California dream’n message that makes its way to DC instead of the Obama fantasy validation the Pres. is hoping for.
Speakup on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Canary in the coal mine
notagool on May 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Prop 1F did not go far enough; It should have limited legislature members pay to $1 per month when the state budget is in deficit.
Dasher on May 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Seems like the sentiments at the Tea Party’s was real.
Now lets do the same on a national level in 2010 and 2012.
Yakko77 on May 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Classic ain’t the word for it!
I LOVED that song . . . brings back a lot of memories of high school.
Ryan Gandy on May 20, 2009 at 12:18 PM
The Left (and their La Raza accomplices) have set things up so that the people of CA aren’t able to know exactly how much illegal aliens are costing taxpayers. Since CA does not require recipients of taxpayer services to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, nobody knows for sure how many billions of CA taxpayer dollars are being used to support illegals. If I were a CA taxpayer, I’d fight for legislation to require the state to keep track of how much tax money it’s spending on illegals every year. The taxpayers have a right to know how and on what/whom their money is being spent.
AZCoyote on May 20, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I’m glad these people had the sense to vote down these tax hikes. However, it’s hard to feel bad for anyone in that state. They’ve essentially had a one-party system, and the moochers and looters have had their way for far too long. And this is the result. I just hope that the people that over the years, voted for the type of programs/spending that have trashed California don’t move here to Ohio and and trash this state too. When will people learn that you can’t spend what you don’t have, and if you take the incentive to earn money away from the contributors to society, that they eventually go galt, or pack up their shit and move somewhere else. It happens every stinking time.
moonbat monitor on May 20, 2009 at 12:29 PM
/is his best Surfer Boy accent…
Hey… Like… Dude… Govenator… how about we drill… for like oil or sumthin…
Romeo13 on May 20, 2009 at 12:30 PM
You guys spinning this as some sort of victory for conservatism are f’n high. CA voters are nothing, but the typical leftist manchildren with pubic hair. They want everything provided for them as long as nothing comes out of their own pocket. That is how to interpret these results.
Remember these same voters consistently vote for far left politicians and spending programs that resulted in the financial collapse they are currently suffereing from.
ClassicCon on May 20, 2009 at 12:31 PM
They won’t pay more, but the other 49 will.
marklmail on May 20, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Obama and crew will bail out the state for the most part.
However there still is a silver lining, no make that a gold lining, Arnie has threatened to release 19,000 illegal alien prison inmates!!! They would have to be deported!!!
Oh lucky day!!!
Mexico would/is having a heart attack. Dems who are against deportation would be forced to agree to save the money for their other pet projects.
If successful, other states would follow suit. Get the buses!
patrick neid on May 20, 2009 at 12:33 PM
The old broken clock/blind squirrel theory holds true once again.
roninacreage on May 20, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Time to lay off about 30% of ALL state employees and cut all state employees benefits by 30% as well. Make them pay a larger portion of their healthcare and retirement plans.
roninacreage on May 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Tom McClintock is a career politician too. He has never worked in an actual business, created a job, or made a payroll. Meg Whitman has. Why not give a business person a shot at fixing California’s balance sheet?
rockmom on May 20, 2009 at 12:39 PM
To be fair, California has the most extreme gerrymandered legislative districts in the country. This produces very liberal Democrats and very conservative Republicans who can’t agree on anything. This is the root cause of almost everything that is wrong with the California legislature. Conservatives and even moderate Democrats and independents who live in Democratic districts have no chance of ever electing someone who agrees with them, so over time they stop voting.
rockmom on May 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM
RCP linked you Allah. I got here from there.
If Arnold could really cut California’s budget… that would be the model for the rest of us. I’m hoping there is enough fiscal conservative in Arnold to do the right thing!
This is what got him into office.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 12:43 PM
I don’t think that’s what happened here.
Turnout was extremely low. The only people that came out and voted were the people that usually vote no matter how ’sexy’ or ‘exciting’ an election is – the conservatives.
It’s roughly the same number of people that always vote no on crazy spending spree initiatives, but, this time, since the liberals stayed home, they actually won.
JadeNYU on May 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Stop paying for illegal alien benefits. Geez, that was tough. Problem solved. Next.
HornetSting on May 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Possibly, however the end result is the same in either case. There was no shift in political ideology to the conservative side.
ClassicCon on May 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Meg Whitman has called for layoffs of 20,000 – 30,000 state workers.
New Jersey is furloughing all state employees for one day a month. Last Tuesday all the DMVs were closed for a day. Some people were inconvenienced, but nobody really suffered. Why should even “essential” government offices have to be open 5 days a week when there is a budget crisis?
I heard a caller on Michael Medved’s show on Monday, saying his wife is a California community college teacher and makes $90,000 a year, with summers off. Her pension eventually will be 90% of her highest salary. If she takes on another course she could make over $100,000 a year. And he said teachers bitch about their crappy salaries and benefits! He said both he and his wife planned to vote against all the ballot propositions. They know state spending is out of control. People in other parts of the country would be outraged if they knew how many state employees there are in California and how high their salaries, benefits, and pensions are.
rockmom on May 20, 2009 at 12:49 PM
That’s true, rockmom. It’s all rigged. And the Repubs this time secretly gave Arnie money to pass his initiatives while on the record opposing them!
It’s not so much the people who want unlimited services, it’s the activists, and these boondoggles are largely hidden from public view. But I think everybody woke up this time. I hope.
PattyJ on May 20, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Yes, voters do share the blame — by voting in these big spending liberals and RINOS! How about giving conservatism a chance in that State?
Richard Romano on May 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Not too long after he took office, I admitted that I had been duped. I don’t think he is a fiscal conservative at heart or conservative period.
The state could cut so many excessive programs like stem cell research and all the “green” nonsense, but instead they are going to cut firefighters and teachers jobs to stick it to the rebellious voters.
BakerAllie on May 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM
To be fair, the cost of living in parts of California is very high. So $90k / year might not be so much. But that pension is definitely out of whack.
I met a couple of NYC cops not long ago. They told me they are paid $125k / year to start.
UltimateBob on May 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM
i was so pleased to see the results on TV here last night. i hope it’s a sign of a republican/conservative resurgence here.
but i have been sadly noting that most people here that i meet are clueless liberals (of course) and blame “republican” policies and the “republican” governor for the mess.
sad but true…
homesickamerican on May 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM
There was extremely low turnout. Several people at the office did not even remember there was an election when I mentioned voting. My polling place was pretty empty and I think I was one of few people under age 50 voting.
While I don’t think the turnout indicates a furor of conservatism erupting in CA, it certainly hints that a bit of the liberal fervor has faded into apathy.
BakerAllie on May 20, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Just follow the law. California could survive, IF THEY’D ROUND UP AND BOOT the 10mil illegal aliens that have been draining the system dry.
byteshredder on May 20, 2009 at 1:11 PM
To be fair, the cost of living in parts of California is very high, so $90k / year might not be that much. But that pension plan is way out of whack with the private sector.
I recently met a couple of NYC cops. They told me that their starting salary is $135k / year. I make just over half that. But then again I’m not being shot at every day.
UltimateBob on May 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Sorry for the duplicate posts. There seems to be a delay in my posts going through. They’re showing up several minutes after I click the “submit” button.
UltimateBob on May 20, 2009 at 1:14 PM
That teacher can get a summer job and make more money though. Or if she has kids she can stay home with them and not have to pay for day care or summer camps like the rest of us working moms.
I have no problem paying police officers that much, especially if they are required to live in the city. They put their lives on the line for us every day. But there are way too many government employees making that much who don’t.
rockmom on May 20, 2009 at 1:15 PM
That’s almost unfair. They constantly face what we, as a nation, have been facing in our elections. When you have the choice of crap or crap-lite what are you supposed to do?
vapig on May 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Honestly that’s about second on my priority list. At least some illegal aliens work and contribute to the economy. They may not pay income taxes but 9% of everything they buy is still going to Sacramento.
The real problem here are the thousands of overpaid, underworked, unionized state employees. They are supposedly servants of the state but they receive above-market wages, top-of-the-line health benefits, and a gold-plated pension program that allows workers to retire at 60 and receive nearly 100% of working income.
This means we are financing 20 to 30 year retirements of an ever-increasing population of state employees. The more the state continues to hire the worse it will get.
Fiscal responsibility will start with ejecting the unions from state services, and paying state employees at market wages. As long as we treat state employees as a privileged, protected overclass instead of public servants this whole cycle will continue.
TheMightyMonarch on May 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM
qft. The socialist experiment in Californy didn’t work out too well, and it’s not going to work out too well for the US.
popularpeoplesfront on May 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM
TheMightyMonarch on May 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Exactly, one battle at a time, and right now we need to regain control an out of control government.
Unions should be outlawed in the public sector.
Conservative Voice on May 20, 2009 at 1:25 PM
What makes me mad is the GOP is a joke in California. Fact is the majority of Californians have a libertarian spirit…
Conservative Voice on May 20, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Hmmmm…. interesting point on the illegals paying sales tax…
Could that be part of the solution? Get rid of the Income Tax all together, and increase the sales tax?
If it could be shown to work… it could be an arguement for a Natinal Sales Tax in place of the Fed Income Tax.
Romeo13 on May 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM
How about a new ammendment.
If congress can’t balance the budget, then instead of simply freezing their salaries, how about firing the whole bunch.
Snap elections with the current incumbants ineligible to run.
MarkTheGreat on May 20, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Yep, IMO, a Fiscal Con / Libertarian party could take over Califormia very very quickly.
What is interesting is that the last two elections in California showed that even the BIG money was spent on the “Progresive” viewpoints… they lost…
Romeo13 on May 20, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Now wait a second…
I see everyone in here saying we in California (Moved out here four years ago) get what we deserve.
I’m the first one to point out the “f’d-up-ness” of my own state, but come on.
I’m a 21 year old college republican. A gun-clinging, tea-party protesting, “bitter”, rush-listening, malkin-reading, palin-adoring, unabashed conservative.
There is a movement for “change” (and dare I say…hope?) in California, but we have to beat back all the nut jobs first.
The tea parties here were a phenomenal success. We (we as in social and fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and national security minded dems) are basically having to pull Cali out of a 30+ year stranglehold of the far-left’s clutches.
I mean come on, we are represented by San Fran Nan, Jane Harman, Feingold, Boxer, and Waxman, among many others, but many of them are career politicans, everyday working to bring your tax dollars back to Los Angeles, and San Francisco to win more votes. And Ah-nold isn’t a dream either, as you all know.
So give us a little credit, huh guys?
And if you want to know, the state tea-party movement was responsible for protests (not covered by the MSM) and sending out literature to beat back these propositions.
And we are now assembling all our resources to keep gavin newsom as far away from the governorship as possible (he announced his exploratory committee a few weeks ago)
YIKES!
So it may not seem like it, but there are many of us here in Cali that are fed up too!
chilly_willy on May 20, 2009 at 1:34 PM
The liberal Dems in Sacramento have a F*CK YOU! attitude towards anyone who opposes their march to Socialism.
infidel4life on May 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Now wait a second…
I see everyone in here saying we in California (Moved out here four years ago for college) get what we deserve.
I’m the first one to point out the “f’d-up-ness” of my own state, but come on.
I’m a 21 year old college republican. A gun-clinging, tea-party protesting, “bitter”, rush-listening, malkin-reading, palin-adoring, unabashed conservative.
There is a movement for “change” (and dare I say…hope?) in California, but we have to beat back all the nut jobs first.
The tea parties here were a phenomenal success. We (we as in social and fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and national security minded dems) are basically having to pull Cali back piece by piece from a 30+ year stranglehold by the clutches of the far-left.
I mean come on, we are represented by San Fran Nan, Jane Harman, Feingold, Boxer, and Waxman, among many others, but many of them are career politicans, everyday working to bring your tax dollars back to Los Angeles, and San Francisco to win more votes. And Ah-nold isn’t a dream either, as you all know.
So give us a little credit, huh guys?
And if you want to know, the state tea-party movement was responsible for protests (not covered by the MSM) and sending out literature to beat back these propositions.
And we are now assembling all our resources to keep gavin newsom as far away from the governorship as possible (he announced his exploratory committee a few weeks ago)
YIKES!
So it may not seem like it, but there are many of us here in Cali that are fed up too!
chilly_willy on May 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Funny how lost in all this is what the proposals were actually designed to do. Those that were designed for immediate relief — 1C, 1D, and 1E — were not designed to raise taxes or increase debt; quite the opposite. They were designed to break down the restrictions on how money could be spent so that programs in need could take money from programs not in need to help balance the budget without raising taxes. Some conservative die-hards are against all of them, because they would have reversed the original will of the people. But others were for most of them: Tom Campbell, fiscally to the right of most national Republicans, let alone California Republicans, favored 1A, 1C, and 1D (if I recall correctly). So don’t treat these all as tax increases or ways of avoiding making the tough choices. They were the tough choices and California voters refused them, meaning that now others will have to be made. And those others are far more likely to involve tax hikes than if 1C through 1E had passed.
calbear on May 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Here’s why Arnold was in DC yesterday: to beg for the stimulus money after SEIU objected to their guys in CA getting a pay cut. Seems it worked. SEIU, under the bus!
Obama Reverses Decision
PattyJ on May 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM
chilly_willy on May 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Rush agreed somewhat with you today. He said that often when CA voters shoot something down it goes to the liberal courts in the area who declare it unconstitutional or otherwise find a way to circumvent the voter’s wishes. Guess the only way to show them is to vote the whole lot out, out ,out and put the fear of God into those who take their places.
jeanie on May 20, 2009 at 1:48 PM
So Californications deficit can now be blamed on the citizens for not wanting to tax themselves into the stone age?
I hope they remember that come 2010 and 2012.
I’m still having trouble believing they want to opt for any sort of fiscal conservatism. I mean look, they put Arnold in there pretending to be a fiscal conservative with a wink and a smile….
Spiritk9 on May 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM
The CA teaparties were very mixed. It was NOT GOP. It was NOT racism.
It WAS about fiscal responsibility. It WAS clear heads up that voters are ready to face whatever.
It costs 1.8 million PER state rep, factoring in perks, reimbursements, salaries, aides, etc. 2.4 million per senator.
And they have the audacity to say that cutting firefighters is the only way to cut expenses?
Voters not only handed them the reply, but from everything I heard, voters were adamant and angry.
Buckle up, America. Your state is next.
AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Californians have never known a school, highway or rail bond measure they didn’t like.
Billions for a L.A. to S.F. (mono)rail?
You bet your life, my Hindu friend!
Yup.
The Ugly American on May 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM
This is the crux of the problem. People voted for Obama, because they’re gleefully excited, to be taken care of, and to live off the Government dole. Yet…when it comes down to it, they want others to pay for it.
Voters must decide. Do you want to keep liberties, or let government decide for you, what’s best for you? It’s simple. And remember…if you let government decide for you, that goes right down to deciding, who’s born, who dies, and everything in between.
capejasmine on May 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Thanks for the link. What a bonehead move on Obama’s part.
AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM
You obviously missed the point.
The vote was to tell legislators to tighten up, learn not to spend…it doesn’t matter what the “bills” were for (sounds like you read all the states propaganda), the theme was “knock it off, spend less”…why is that so hard to understand?
right2bright on May 20, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Borrow, transfer, but not one on restraining…sorry but the lottery was for schools, remember that proposition?
So the shortfall will be to the schools.
And here is the Taxpayers response:
How about this calbear, show restraint and show that you know how to make reasonable budget cuts and then ask for these propositions.
I bet you are the type of parent who gives their kids anything they ask for, whether they deserve it or not because you want to be “liked” by them.
right2bright on May 20, 2009 at 2:36 PM
They’d leave themselves if California would stop giving them free health care and scholarships.
Chaz706 on May 20, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Why do I constantly find myself calling you out on your consistently wrong gut sense of things? The polls going into the election were the same as the outcome. This is Reagan country. Get a clue.
John the Libertarian on May 20, 2009 at 2:55 PM
I live in
MexiforniaCalifornia and have my entire life. That would be a hair less than half a century. The voters here didn’t bring about this situation. Nor did we vote in legislator’s whose campaign promise was, “I promise I’ll be totally incompetent and bankrupt the state for you!”It’s not a 3rd world cesspool either, yet, to be sure.
I work. I make too much money to ‘qualify’ for any state services whatsoever, not that my conscience would allow me to even consider applying for any just to ‘git some’ anyhow.
I pay exhorbitant taxes on everything here. From state income tax, to state AND city sales taxes, to vehicle taxes and registration fees (not to mention mandatory smog checks that cost 60 bucks every two years… unless you be on welfare then you get it for less than half cost), to feul taxes, to you name it, it’s taxed. And it’s still not enough to pay for the massive welfare state that California has become. The magnitude of the numbers of people on the public dole here is staggering. And being that California hands out housing, food stamps, free medical care, clothing allowance, and welfare cash money to anyone who can justify the asking for it, including for the millions of Illegal Immigrants in California, it’s no wonder that so many people from other states as well as everywhere else in the world land here first.
This is a blue dog state run by blue dog politicians on the state and federal level, and the blue dogs feel all warm and fuzzy gfreely iving away services and money for the asking. Plus, ALL the state agencies from the DMV, to Cal-Trans, to Social Services are the most inefficient and incompetently run departments anyone can imagine.
And as that reprobate Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsome would/will say, “…whether you like it or not!”
SilverStar830 on May 20, 2009 at 3:15 PM
+1, I have voted conservative in every election here since 1972, even though I knew most of the time conservative voters would be outnumbered by the majority kooks that buy into the lefty propaganda.
Those of you who label ALL Californians as kooks deserving of this coming disaster don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
infidel4life on May 20, 2009 at 3:39 PM
rockmom, I just threw out the name of McClintock. I’m not “married” to him. I would like to vote for someone that has a voting track record; what we see is what we get.
You ask, “Why not give a business person a shot at fixing California’s balance sheet?”
No, don’t want to really to give a shot to just “any business person”. Think Jon Corzine of New Jersey, the head of Goldman Sacks, supposedly a true capitalist and, on paper, would do a good job getting the venture out of the red, w/o politics involved. These are libs, rockmom. So is Meg Whitman. Whitman, Larry Ellison of Oracle, are all top businessmen and would do the same as Arnold.
I have been to many a retreat, and boardroom, in the background, taking minutes of the meeting, with these top officers. Most times, I was the only conservative in the room, and I’m just one of the little people.
Taking chances on people, giving people a shot, that we are not sure of is self-evident. It’s why we have BO. Wasn’t BO going to govern from the middle. That’s what Colin Powell told us. It’s why you have Arnold. Hoping things work out is not an option any longer for this country.
luvstotango on May 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM
When are the States going to challenge the Fed’s for using their citizens tax dollars to pay for another State’s financial problems. How this could pass the constitutionality test I don’t know. Maybe with the current court we might have a chance. State’s rights need to be preserved or we’ve lost.
hillbilly on May 20, 2009 at 3:45 PM
So apparently the fact don’t matter if you can delude yourself that this was a “tax revolt” even though it wasn’t. The propositions were about specifics. A vague proscription to “tighten up, learn not to spend” is as concrete and useful as the paper it isn’t written on. It seems to me that in order to cut spending, you have to name the specific cuts that would be made. Many of the props did just that. Funny thing, virtually no one here can meet even that standard.
calbear on May 20, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Hillbilly…….I can’t imagine that CA will truly go bankrupt. Here’s why. They will cut services that affect people, not gov’t salaries.
You’ll see homes burning up on TV. It’ll be Katrina times 4.
Meanwhile, nobody will bother to ask, “Did the congress actually sacrifice secretarial staff to avoid this?”
AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Before the republic dies, I’m hoping the 3rd branch steps up to the plate and tries to do what it can to help save us, although I’m not counting on it.
JiangxiDad on May 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Californians say enuf is enuf?
Next up San Francisco secedes.
Limerick on May 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM
.
A 900 lb. Canary.
ronsfi on May 20, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Naive. 1C, 1D and 1E were shell games. Take from one fund to avoid cuts in another. One of the funds to be raided was the California Child and Families Program. If 1D was approved and money was diverted from CCFP, the legislature would have been back for a tax increase to help the “defenseless children.” This is the game liberals are so very good at – creating victim groups, generating sympathy and trying to guilt people into paying higher taxes to support those in need.
BardMan on May 20, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Unbelievable. You scold me for saying that there should be a program with a “shortfall,” as well as for my alleged tendency to give people whatever they want! Somehow you think there’s a world in which the budget shrinks without actually decreasing funding of any given program through the magic of “structural cuts” (which, according to you, can’t be done in schools, by far the biggest part of the budget).
Here’s the problem: California voters want everything. Lower taxes, yet guaranteed continued funding for all programs, even those which don’t actually need it. 1C through 1E aimed to break down a few of the constraints which ensured that California’s budget would be unbalanced without tax increases. But of course we don’t want those temporary cuts, because they’re “gimmicks.” We want magical rainbows from Obamaland to save us all. If that happens, the joke will be on you, as you’ll be paying for it — literally.
calbear on May 20, 2009 at 4:09 PM
HERE IS A NOVEL IDEA FOR YOU!
DON’T RELY ON THE DAMN GOVERNMENT!
daesleeper on May 20, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Dare, we have no other choice.
Sorry, but I’m not individually bigger than fire or earthquakes. :)
AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Republican Revival? They wouldn’t help the Budget Crisis or curb spending but here’s what they would waste their time on.
1. 10 Commandments in every courthouse.
2. 300 ft “Condom Free Zone” around every public school.
3. Introduce “Biblical Science” as a mandatory class in all secondary education.
4. Elevate the “War on Drugs” to a “Holy Mega Sacred Cosmic Apocalypse on Drugs”
5. Build enough prison space to incarcerate Half the population.
6. Hire the other half to guard them.
I am so hopeful for a third way.
ronsfi on May 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Clear the brush around your house and don’t build at the edge of a mud cliff – there problem solved.
dpierson on May 20, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Anyone notice that it was the Democrat party and the unions that got California in the mess that it’s in……?
Seven Percent Solution on May 20, 2009 at 4:18 PM
You are making the boilerplate idiot liberal argument. Do you think for yourself? Do you provide for yourself or a family? Quit being so easily manipulated.
Ther eare so many damned wasteful and redundant social services that have enormous budgets when compared to first responder budgets. THINK!
daesleeper on May 20, 2009 at 4:19 PM
No it was the approach that for every problem there is a government solution – that got CA into this mess.
dpierson on May 20, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Let me guess: You think this could be solved by 20% cuts across the board, regardless of the need or the consequences. News flash: Some programs can be cut without much harm, while others can’t. Take 20% away from the prisons without a good plan and you’ll have chaos. Take 20% away from a program not using the money and you’ll have sanity. Sorry if that’s a “shell game” to you; to me, it’s common sense. And anyone who voted for a tax because it was for something in particular — schools, cigarette addiction prevention, mental health services, rail — is the one being naive about how government works.
calbear on May 20, 2009 at 4:20 PM
She created a business which excels at alienating its customers, one whose stock steadily declined for the last three years of her chairmanship, a time during which the tech sector in general rose. And what better first government job to give such a person than the leader of the government of one of the biggest economies in the world!
If she really wants to make a political career, let her start by building up a track record in a less critical position to show she can function as a political being. Remember, governor was also Arnold’s first elected position.
calbear on May 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you get a multi billion dollar deficit.
One billion a year in only one county (admittedly the largest, but only one of 64 counties).
http://www.the-signal.com/news/article/12489/
Why would ANYONE move to California, especially LA County?
fred5678 on May 20, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Prop 1F was written by a politician. All of the props were. That’s why they all sucked.
Burn Sacramento down. Vote everybody out. Fed, State, County, Local, Dogcatchers. Start Over.
Jimmy Doolittle on May 20, 2009 at 4:51 PM
ROFL
Want a picture postcard example of what is wrong with the media?
The Sacbee wrote an editorial that bashed the people of CA and it’s readers for being idiots because they didn’t vote the way the Sacbee editors recommend.
Well it appears they pulled the original editorial fast after getting comments on the website and did a complete replace of it. They claim it was a work in progress they decided not to publish.
Here is the original articles comments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2254828/posts
and here is what they replaced it with
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1878225.html
JeffinSac on May 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Californians get it.
Why can’t Massachusetts voters get it?!?!?!
ToddonCapeCod on May 20, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Well, there are enough “kooks” there to lend a huge helping hand to any Dem presidential candidate to come down the pike. Voting for Obama and then saying you don’t want high taxes and bigger government? How kooky is that?
It’s not as if there haven’t been workable alternatives to Social Security offered. It’s that once they’re mentioned, out come the Democrats and their butt boys in the media to say how heartless the Republicans are to threaten a Democrat party constituency.
People don’t have a gripe with core or essential services. They just know all too well that government all too often equals dead asses engaged in perpetual waste and self-preservation. These are usually the last to be let go in an emergency, while the most deserving to be let go.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Democracy works well until the people discover that they can vote themselves gifts out of the treasury. California has been passing initiatives for decades that mandate some kind of spending.
Public employees unions sponsor the initiatives that mandate lining their pockets.
1. The initiative process should not include the ability to appropriate funds.
2. Public employees labor unions should be prohibited.
The republic cannot survive otherwise.
The Rock on May 20, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Sadly this happens regardless of their party affiliation, the only difference is how they try to line their own pockets.
dpierson on May 20, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Pass proposition 187 in the form of a Constitutional amendment ala prop 8 and they will well be on their way to fixing their budget crisis despite the oppressive court system.
Though I agree the California electorate is schizophrenic and deserves plenty of blame, the LA Times are the last people to be pointing fingers. For years the LA Times have promoted liberal social policies/politicians convincing the people that they need them, all the while toning down how taxes would have to be raised. This is how Democrats run for election, promise the world while throwing in some assuring words about fiscal responsibility and the people fall for it everytime. Obama not only promised to pay peoples mortgages and healthcare bills but also promised tax cuts.
Daemonocracy on May 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM
I thought Southerners are supposed to be the stupid ones.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 5:32 PM
The kooks who voted for their Messiah didn’t show up for this election, they can’t be bothered with actually thinking about specific issues. It was the smarter, more informed voters with heads on their shoulders who voted down these measures.
Lumping ALL Californians into the same boat is naive. There are clear distinctions between red and blue here just as there are across the USA. Unfortunately we are outnumbered here.
infidel4life on May 20, 2009 at 6:12 PM
No we are not all Kooks but non-Californians long jealous of our sun, mountains and beaches and tanned women feel better when they denigrate us.
Whatever.
Truth is we are a mess here. Unions have run up the cost of running the state.
We have prison guards taking in 100k with overtime, firefighters in the major cities taking in 150k in many cases with overtime.
We have cops making 100k by just taking an extra shift now and then.
Teachers in most cases pay ZERO deductible and no co-pay for Dr. visits or pharmaceuticals.
School administrators draw 80 to 100k with layers of staff making nearly as much in some cases.
We imprison illegal aliens and instead of deporting them upon release send them back on OUR streets.
School children from K through grade 3 enjoy a 20 to 1 teacher student ratio even though no studies exist to measure if there is an added benefit to the kids.
As a matter of fact I know from personal experience it is a tremendous benefit to teachers and many jockey by seniority to get into a K – 3 class because it is an easier shift.
We are not all kooks but we are a spoiled lot. Time to pay the piper I say
FireBlogger on May 20, 2009 at 6:20 PM
I live here in CA (not for long).
Believe me, there are many kooks and just plain ignorance by the boatloads around here. Even in the conservative valley you get a lot of people that are just plain liberal/left wingers, but then you go to the coast and the big cities, forget it. They might as well paint the sidewalks blue.
This state is doomed and its not going to get better anytime soon.
There’s like 240,000+ state employees and Arnold said he’s going to cut 5000?
5000?
How about 80,000?
That would be a good start. I think they actually hired more than 5000 govment employees this year alone!
Out of all the 57 states, we pay the most for public education, to the teachers unions, etc. Yet we rank almost damn well last as far as high-school graduates go – yet they want even MORE money for schools?
And that’s about the same for every government run agency and entity in this state. They soak money like a sponge, hire even more government employees (even this year – can you believe that?) to the point of multiple redundancy and they still want more.
We need a governor and legislature with some friggin big cahones and big axe, but it ain’t gonna happen.
RedbonePro on May 20, 2009 at 6:25 PM
JeffinSac,
That is awesome! The truth shows up every now and then, and then they yank back the curtain.
I sent this on to Instapundit. This needs bigger play in the blogosphere. Hopefully Allah or Ed elevate it also.
Kudos to FreeRepublic too.
Jimmy Doolittle on May 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Of course it is. CA’s a huge state. Even NYC isn’t completely moonbat. I do recognize the danger of overgeneralizing things. Anyway, kudos to those Californians who voted yesterday.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Funny how lost in all this is what the proposals were actually designed to do. Those that were designed for immediate relief — 1C, 1D, and 1E — were not designed to raise taxes or increase debt; quite the opposite. They were designed to break down the restrictions on how money could be spent so that programs in need could take money from programs not in need to help balance the budget without raising taxes. Some conservative die-hards are against all of them, because they would have reversed the original will of the people. But others were for most of them: Tom Campbell, fiscally to the right of most national Republicans, let alone California Republicans, favored 1A, 1C, and 1D (if I recall correctly). So don’t treat these all as tax increases or ways of avoiding making the tough choices. They were the tough choices and California voters refused them, meaning that now others will have to be made. And those others are far more likely to involve tax hikes than if 1C through 1E had passed.
calbear on May 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Prop 1 c:
Allows the state lottery to be modernized to improve its performance with increased payouts, improved marketing, and effective management.
Requires the state to maintain ownership of the lottery and authorizes additional accountability measures.
Protects funding levels for schools currently provided by lottery revenues.
Increased lottery revenues will be used to address current budget deficit and reduce the need for additional tax increases and cuts to state programs.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Impact on 2009–10 State Budget: Allows $5 billion of borrowing from future lottery profits to help balance the 2009–10 state budget.
Impact on Future State Budgets: Debt-service payments on the lottery borrowing and higher payments to education would likely make it more difficult to balance future state budgets. This impact would be lessened by potentially higher lottery profits. Additional lottery borrowing would be allowed.
Potentially? Borrowing ?
Higher payments ?
When you are broke you do NOT BORROW.
Prop 1 D
PROTECTS CHILDREN’S SERVICES FUNDING. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.
Provides more than $600 million to protect children’s programs in difficult economic times.
Redirects existing tobacco tax money to protect health and human services for children, including services for at-risk families, services for children with disabilities, and services for foster children.
Temporarily allows the redirection of existing money to fund health and human service programs for children 5 years old and under.
Ensures counties retain funding for local priorities.
Helps balance state budget.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
State General Fund savings of up to $608 million in 2009–10 and $268 million annually from 2010–11 through 2013–14, from temporarily redirecting a portion of funds from the California Children and Families Program in place of state General Fund support of health and human services programs for children up to age five.
Corresponding reductions in funding for early childhood development programs provided by the California Children and Families Program.
Protect a gov program???
Redirect tax monies? From where ?
Prop 1 E
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.
Amends Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for a two-year period, from mental health programs under that act to pay for mental health services for children and young adults provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program.
Provides more than $225 million in flexible funding for mental health programs.
Helps balance state budget during this difficult economic time.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009–10 and 2010–11) from redirecting a portion of Proposition 63 funds to an existing state program in place of state General Fund support.
Corresponding reduction in funding available for Proposition 63 community mental health programs.
transfers funds ?
savings for 2 years, what happens on the 3rd year???
Sorry for the LONG post, but ya have to do your home work!
WE SAID “NO MORE.”
ColdWarrior57 on May 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM
I’m sure there are plenty of ways we can cut 20% out of the prison system without compromising security. We can start by getting back to basics…prisoners should receive no more than the absolute minimum of necessities. Food, shelter, medical care, and hard labor in lieu of exercise.
I’d say for 55% of the population, that is probably quite accurate. The other 45% are the ones who make six figures but still struggle to make a mortgage payment, small business owners who can’t expand because it’s too damned costly to hire anyone legally, and a lot of middle class folks who understand that our ridiculous property tax system, taxes and fees on everything under the sun, and housing regulations are pricing us out of home ownership.
There is also a sad lack of understanding about many initiatives. Many people see state bond measures as free money, but fail to realize that the state must find buyers of that debt, and eventually pay it back with interest.
Perhaps you’re right, and thanks for bringing up an alternate viewpoint on this. However, even if what you are suggesting is true, I would still have a problem with it. All of those propositions involve less transparency, not more. Sacramento does not need restrictions lifted on how they can spend our money, they need more.
Even if the propositions do indeed serve the purposes you suggested, no sane person would trust our state government with that much freedom in moving around funds from program to program. There’s already enough potential for fraud in the system. What we need is to force Sacramento to regain budget shortfalls with actual cuts, never through tax increases. This way the state budget is more likely to fall in line with economic reality instead of the pie-in-the-sky wishes of legislators.
TheMightyMonarch on May 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Arnold’s solutions weren’t solutions. He lied to the public about the last tax hikes.
It’s just really not complicated. People said, “Stuff it.”
If the teacher’s unions wish to continue to protect benefts, etc., then the state stats will continue to decline.
But don’t ask me for more.
And, if they don’t get the message that they aren’t going to make this up through city taxes, then watch a bunch of them get voted out.
We do get what’s happening.
We said NO.
AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 7:04 PM
And,for the record, that’s what the teaparties are about, too.
Just say no.
We want healthcare reform. No question about that. We are not interested in the current system.
In CA, it costs every taxpaer 1.8 million for a STATE representative and 2.4 for a senator.
Gimme a flipping break.
AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »