CA: Who killed the Golden State? The federal government

Mercury News ^ | 7/29/03 | Pat Buchanan

[NormsRevenge]

With Gov. Gray Davis facing recall, a budget $38 billion in deficit, and a bond rating dropped three notches by Standard & Poor's to near junk-bond status, the lowest of all 50 states, the Golden State is no more.

Who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs?

[NormsRevenge]

Californistan.. T'urd Whirled Nation State ... Ping

[rellimpank]

--a hearty amen to this, even though I disagree with Pat Buchanan on many subjects, especially his choice of running mates--

[Chewbacca]

Wasn't it some Cali judge who thwarted the will of the voters by rejecting the enactment of a law to ban illegals from free medical care and wellfare?

[bedolido]

Start-Rant: Pure clap-trap... California did it to themselves. True the USA should be stopping illegal immigration, but it's the tree-hugging, long-haired, magot-infested, Dope-smoking liberals that have made California a magnet for kooks, gays, and all forms of evil. I honestly believe California is reaping the years of sowing evil. You can't allow evil to prosper and than be surprised when it over powers you. The innocents do not deserve the evil that's just starting to destroy such a great state. end-rant.

[Acolyte]

"For what killed California as the golden land was massive and unrestricted immigration"

Funny, that's what the Mexicans said in 1850.

[EvilOverlord]

Wasn't it some Cali judge who thwarted the will of the voters by rejecting the enactment of a law to ban illegals from free medical care and wellfare?

And it was Gray Davis who increased the budget by 40% during his first term in office, not the federal government. And Gray Davis who wants to give illegals Driver's Licenses. And it was California that decided that illegals should get in-state tuition at California universities. And it was California that decided against building new power plants. precipitating a power crisis (along with the illegal activities by the power companies).

It's not the federal government's fault that California is in the shape that it's in. If I were president, I wouldn't bail California out of its problems with money from taxpayers in other states either.

[hedgetrimmer]

California's largest growth industries are the illegal alien workforce and indian gaming. Neither of which pay taxes into the infrastructure of California to support it.

[hedgetrimmer]

California didn't exactly do it to itself.

Leon Pannetta, Sam Farr, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein had a lot to do with it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Socialist attitude of many of the residents is the biggest ingredient in the California problem!

And they didn't come from Mexico!

calgov2002:

calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. 

calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

[hedgetrimmer]

Gray Davis, Bill Clinton's understudy in political corruption?

[bedolido]

Leon Pannetta, Sam Farr, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein had a lot to do with it.

better said. Good point. thanks.

[DoughtyOne]

To: NormsRevenge

"For what killed California as the golden land was massive and unrestricted immigration"

Funny, that's what the Mexicans said in 1850.

6 posted on 07/29/2003 9:57 AM PDT by Acolyte
 

Perhaps you can tell us which side of the border looks most dead to you, Baja California, Mexico or California, USA?

[truth_seeker]

"During Bush I's term, millions of Mexicans began to flee north to seek jobs and take advantage of the health care, welfare and free education American citizens provided for their people."

Make that under the terms of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and under REAGAN.

Recall the amnesty during Reagan's term? I didn't think you would. Pat spins and rewrites history, to fit his agenda.

Mexicans have been coming to California, for decades. My mother's elementary school picture in the 1930s has about a third little brown-skinned kids. That was in Whittier, CA about the time Nixon was in college there.

Pat, on the other hand, resides in plush suburbs of Washington, D.C. Who are the gardeners in the suburbs?

It is more PB BS to blame this on Bush I. Simply BS.

[Ditter]

Your post #5, just what I was going to say, only you said it better. Thanks.

[ServesURight]

Make that under the terms of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and under REAGAN.

Yeah but back then Mexicans weren't the conniving leftists and border smugglers that they are now.

As usual, those who despise Pat resort to ad hominem, unsupported claims, and personal attacks rather than taking the time to understand Buchanan and getting the truth.

[ServesURight]

Ride to the sound of the guns!!!

[freekitty]

How about a bunch of greedy, sleezy crooks.

[Snerfling]

Funny, that's what the Mexicans said in 1850.

I detect a hint of moral equivalency, but if you're going to play that game, please get your facts straight:

1. Spain controlled the entire southwest until the Mexican revolution in 1820.
2. Starting around 1830, a significant number of Yankee sailing ships were engaged in trading in hides from the rancheros for the East coast markets. Even at the point, thrifty Yankees noted how lazy and corrupt the Mexican government was (source: Two Years Before the Mast).
3. The Bear Flag revolt occured in 1846, two years before gold was discovered. It was an attempt by Americans to rest away CA from what they thought was an undeserving and corrupt Mexican govt.
4. 1846 - Mexican-American War. Mexico loses entire southwest, which they had held ONLY since 1820.
5. 1848 - Gold discovered.
6. 1850 - CA admitted to Union after Polk was informed about how important the state really was (natural resouces, Pacific ports, etc).

[Bernard Marx]

Wasn't it some Cali judge who thwarted the will of the voters by rejecting the enactment of a law to ban illegals from free medical care and wellfare?

Make that a Cali FEDERAL judge.

[Pubbie]

The problem for the Worthless Illegal Mexicanoids is that mass illegal immigration is a double edged sword for THEM.

On the one hand, the higher their population grows, the more inclined politicians will be to Hispander to them.

On the other, the more and more Illegals there are, the fewer and fewer governmetal Gooooooooodies there will be for them to leach off of.

Eventually there are so many illegals, that the whole Welfare Pyramid Scheme capsizes under the weight of the invasion - as is happening in California.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Other than illegal immigration, Buchanan is wrong when it comes to trade.

Reagan protected the auto industry - but he also told them to get their act together and compete or die. American cars in the 70s and 80s were CRAP - when government plays favorites and protect industries they become complacent and lazy. Look at Big Steel now for example. Bush should not have imposed tariffs to protect this monolithic industry. Even Slick didn't do that.

[Hostage]

The author convenieintly ignores the overwhelming passage of Prop. 187 and how it was set aside and allowed to die without followup by Davis.

[DoughtyOne]

I will agree with Pat to a point, the federal government hasn't been any help and that's putting it mildly, but Gray Davis can't run for cover under the idea that the federal government sold him and his state down the river.  They have, but that's not the problem that faces California.  No, that's not nearly the full story here.

One point that Buchanan makes should be commented on.  Traditionally California has taken 50% of all new immigrants to the United States.  Only in the last decade has that figure slipped to 33%.  This is not an indication that California is being swarmed any less, but rather that the full U.S. is now suffering from the effects of a massive influx of immigrants that couldn't be contained in one state any longer.  We could spend months on this issue, but let's move on.

When Gray Davis took office 4.5 years ago, the California state budget was $65 billion per year.  Today it's around $95 billion per year.

If Davis had held state spending at $65 billion and state revenues fell short of supporting that, he could complain that Fed policies had contributed to a point.  The fact is, Davis and his Legislature cronies outspent revenue increases.  Obviously California's revenues went up in the last 4.5 years, or the current stated debt would be larger.

This year alone the state budget is $30 billion more than under Wilson's administration.  We are not adding new deficits at the rate of $30 billion per year.  It's actually about $1.17 billion per month, or $14 billion per year.  That indicates that state revenues increased at least $16 billion per year in 4.5 years.  In light of that, it's a weak argument that supports the Feds screwing California into the ground.  Nope, Davis and his Legislature cronies deserve full credit here.

About this time in 2002, the state budget was $24 billion in the hole.  Today it's $38 billion in the hole.  That's $14 billion worth of deficits in one year.  Spending is up $30 billion per year.  That indicates that the state is actually taking in $16 billion more than it did 4.5 years ago.  Davis and his cronies are just outspending increased revenues by $14 billion per year.

Davis and the other Democrats in the Democrat controled legislature are incompentents.

[Acolyte]

Those are indeed facts.

But that doesn't change the problem that Spain and Mexico had with illegal immigration from the US in the 1830s and 1840s.

[truth_seeker]

"As usual, those who despise Pat resort to ad hominem, unsupported claims, and personal attacks rather than taking the time to understand Buchanan and getting the truth."

I do not despise Pat, I made no ad hominem or unsupported claims, or personal attacks. I have stated many times on FR that PJB is an excellent writer, and a poor politician.

Actually, Pat is WRONG in his opening claim, that this started under Bush I. Why should I pursue his line, when HE mistates the TRUTH? Does he get carte blanche excuse to twist history?

As a lifetime SoCal resident, I understand the impact of illegal immigration. I voted for each Republican administration.

Neither party has solved the immigration mess. That much we probably all agree with.

I REJECT Pat Buchanan's claim it started under Bush I.

That is the unsupported claim.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

It's not the federal government's fault that California is in the shape that it's in. If I were president, I wouldn't bail California out of its problems with money from taxpayers in other states either.

Great points about Davis. We must not let national "pundits" try to hijack our recall to suit their own pet projects. While I agree that illegals are a huge problem here, he overstates the point relating to our budget problem for his own ends.

Recall Davis.

[hedgetrimmer]

While serving as military governor during Mexican rule, he established an open immigration policy that encouraged and facilitated the American entrada to northern California. Dissatisfied with the remoteness of Mexican sovereignty, Vallejo believed that only the United States could unleash California's untapped economic potential.

General Vallejo and the Advent of the Americans

[SierraWasp]

"Californistan.. T'urd Whirled Nation State ... Ping"

And here, all this time, I was thinking it was turning into Mexifornia!!!

[DoughtyOne]

It looks like he was right. Thanks for the comment and the link.

[hedgetrimmer]

Another thread on the topic:

Today is California's Fourth of July (America's intention to occupy and annex California)

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Funny, that's what the Mexicans said in 1850.

You must have read that in the 1850 issue of the New York Times. The Mexican government was trying to get Mexicans to move north, even resorting to offering payment to move there, but few were willing. The only things there when the gringos settled the area were a few Spanish, established by the country of Spain, missions in isolated areas. The myth of pushing the Mexicans out is just that, a myth. The Mexicans simply laid claim to all the Spanish controlled before the Spanish were booted from Mexico. The Mexicans never controlled those areas.

[DoughtyOne]

One thing that oftens goes unsaid with regard to the annexation of Mexican territory to the US, is the fact that all land owners retained their property and disposed of it as they saw fit, with the exception of American Indian land.

As for that land, I don't think the Indians faired any better under Mexican occupation than they did under U.S. occupation.

[Z-28]

Right on, Patrick.
--
Z-28
San Diego, CA

[eskimo]

Make that under the terms of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and under REAGAN.

Recall the amnesty during Reagan's term? I didn't think you would. Pat spins and rewrites history, to fit his agenda.

Simply because one administration was mentioned and not others is not a rewrite of history. Your accusations are obviously born out of some errant emotional perspective instead of an objective analysis of the statements.

[hedgetrimmer]

Actually I have been doing some research in that area. The indians fared much worse under the Mexicans than under Spanish rule. Before the Spaniards, the indians eked out a very meager subsistance hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The Spaniards with the intent of civilizing them fed the indians and taught them how to farm. Indians in the Santa Barbara mission actually left the mission to become truck gardeners for the growing city and actually made a nice profit doing so. When the Mexicans secularized the missions, the indians lost their connection with Western civilization and agriculture and began to starve again. Some particularly sad tales are told of the faithful and their padres falling into want and starvation after secularization.

Here is a very interesting website:

California Mission Studies Association

[eskimo]

I REJECT Pat Buchanan's claim it started under Bush I.

That is the unsupported claim.

He did not say that all imigration started at that time, just that a large wave started at that time. Do you really believe that is false?

[Snerfling]

problem that Mexico had with illegal immigration from the US in the 1830s and 1840s.

One, it wasn't illegal; just as in Texas, Yankees were welcomed with open arms because of the trade they represented to markets back east for ranchero products ie hides;

Two, it was a relatively small number;

Three, they were diligent, hard working (again, refer to Dana's book on working conditions) New Englanders with a strict moral code;

Four, again as in TX, the Yankees thought the Mexicans completely corrupt and unworthy of the territory.

Trying to compare that era with today shows how far you are willing to go to apologize for the invasion.

[Little Ray]

No, it is the People's Republik of Kalifornia, or PRK for short.

[SteveH]

The Spaniards with the intent of civilizing them fed the indians and taught them how to farm.

Hmmm... Actually... the Spanish padres with the help of the Spanish military rounded up aboriginals from the surrounding countryside where they had lived in relative peace for centuries. Then they destroyed their native cultures, forbidding them to worship their native religions and practice their native customs. Instead, they were introduced to European culture in the form of forced servitude (looms, weaving, adobe construction, tending fields,cooking, cleaning, etc.). During this time, they were exposed to European diseases.

Diseases wiped out most of the California Indians.

This was not unknown to the padres. Their cultivated fields and cattle required large numbers of workers. The workers (Indians) were dying at the missions (cholera, dysentery, etc.) as fast as they could be rounded up from increasingly remote villages. The padres demanded that more Indians be rounded up to replace those who died at the missions from diseases.

But this was OK with the padres, because their stated goal was to save the Indians' souls, and not to improve their standard of living in the corporeal world.

Missions during the Spanish era were profitable ventures. The economy (based on hides) favored the system; the system did *not* favor the Indian.

The Mexicans may have had their problems but the problem of what to do with the Indians was inherited from Spanish rule; Indians during the Mexican era suffered from benign neglect as much as anything else.

[null and void]

From where I sit in San Jose, it looks more like we did it to ourselves.

High taxes. Promises of higher taxes. Promises of new taxes (among other things, on diapers!!!)

A regulatory structure that would make a Commissar blush.

Environmental regulations far beyond what the federal government requires.

Cities that PAY homeless to stay there.

Higher fees - TRIPLING car registration by fiat.

A deeply ingrained NIMBY culture - San Jose couldn't get a clean burning natural gas power plant approved during the peak of the energy crisis.

Very high property taxes on new sales (Thank God for Prop 13!) Yet despite per student expeditures in the top 10, California's students rank 49th in academic acheivement.

Very high gasoline taxes and road use fees, worst roads in the nation.

I could go on and on...

[NormsRevenge]

I sit in the foothills myself, and can see the valley below, now run into the weeds by unproductive and harmful legislation passed by our own leaders in this state and nation.

We haz met the enemy,, and we IZZ dem' !

[usurper]

Wasn't it some Cali judge who thwarted the will of the voters by rejecting the enactment of a law to ban illegals from free medical care and welfare?

Yes it was. Pat also failed to mention that the State government did everything they could to undermine what little enforcement there was and keep the door open. By offering countless freebees to illegal aliens and even going so far as to shield them from the federal government the State shares much of the blame.

[hedgetrimmer]

Are you quoting Howard Zinn?

[hedgetrimmer]

More recently, scholars have emphasized the victimization of the Indians by the soldiers, settlers, and the church. ...[See] Thrown among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1991), for a more balanced view of the Mission San Gabriel and the founding and evolution of Los Angeles, and enthusiastically recommend the wonderful collection of documents that Rose Marie Beebe and Robert Sankewicz have edited, Lands of Promise and Despair: Chronicles of Early California, 1535-1846 (Berkeley, 2001). Each has a strong bibliography.

[expatpat]

Actually, it's what the American Indians said in 1620, or thereabouts.