Posted on 05/21/2009 1:20:15 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
LOS ANGELES — Direct democracy has once again upended California — enough so that the state may finally consider another way by overhauling its Constitution for the first time in 130 years.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger returned home from a White House visit on Wednesday to find the state dangerously broke, his constituents defiant after a special election on Tuesday and calls for a constitutional convention — six months ago little more than a wonkish whisper — a cacophony.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That's why you won't hear a peep out of me about the fact that the only ballot measure to pass was Proposition 1F, which mandates a pay freeze on the bloated salaries of state officials in years of fiscal emergency -- or, every year, since this is California we're talking about. On Tuesday, all proposed tax-hiking schemes were utterly rejected by voters in a deep blue state even as the New York Times insists that voters yearn for higher taxes and more wasteful spending in the glorious 'Age of Obama'. But, as I already said, not a word about it from me.
And here's what else my lips are sealed about: The "Yes" campaign went down in flames despite out-fundraising and out-spending opponents by a whopping amount. The "Yes" campaign raised nearly $30 million while the "No" side raised a measly sum by comparison in a hugely expensive media market. But I'm not going to gloat about that either. And here's more good news (which I refuse to mention): The "Yes" camp -- consisting of the entire liberal ruling class in California, still shell-shocked by Miss California's smoking-hot good looks -- got defeated despite all their chicken-little, sky-is-falling nonsense scare tactics. But I'm not going to gloat about that either.
Indeed, if I were gloating, wouldn't I mention how decisively voters rejected Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E, all of which would've hiked taxes to the tune of 6 billion bucks, and the delicious irony of this happening in a state Obama won by a whopping margin? Wouldn't I mention how voters tossed out Proposition 1B, designed to ensure another $9 billion got wasted in the failed school system? By a 66%-34% margin, voters also killed Proposition 1A, designed to hike still more taxes by turning a huge 2-year tax increase enacted earlier this year into a huge 4-year tax increase -- but I'm not going to mention that either.
The "Yes" camp was especially pushy about Prop. 1A, insisting that passing this useless "reform" measure was key to "stabilizing" the state budget. Had it been adopted, Prop. 1A would have "stabilized" the budget into a teensy-weensy wittle $15 billion deficit hole, given that the "spending caps" were as hard as a wet noodle. But, of course, I haven't mentioned any of this, nor will I. No gloating!
Then again, I suppose I could mention the fact that the "Yes" camp losers not only had all the money advantages, but their well-timed proposed package of tax hikes on already cash-strapped taxpayers (in the middle of a recession) constantly received glowing coverage in the media, but my lips are sealed about that, too.
And, more good news (which I won't mention either): California's elected officials will see their salaries cut by 18 percent, after a vote on Wednesday by the California Citizens Compensation Commission, which sets the pay for state officials. The highest-paid elected officials in America will see their salaries cut from $116,208 to $95,291. Heh, heh, heh! Oops, I wasn't gloating -- honest!
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
I got a laugh out of your comments. They remind me of the movie, “The Village,” wherein the inhabitants were always speaking of “Those about whom we do not speak.”
I'm sure the media will attack the California voters for being so blind and inconsiderate.
“salaries cut by 18%”
I wonder how we can vote to do the same thing for congresscritters?
Horrible idea. Can you imagine the kind of constitution these commies would write? They want to do away with the 2/3rds majority for tax increases, end those pesky initiatives where voters have a say, like yesterday, and no doubt overturn Prop 13.
Now, the question is: will Californians also reject the revised constitution? The revision will surely undo Proposition 13 and the 2/3 vote needed for budget measures.
The Santa Clarita fireworks show this Fourth of July will be 10 minutes shorter.
If this was not so funny, I would be crying.
Unfortunately, it’s a fleeting victory at best. The libs don’t understand no.
The next thing they try will be massive cuts to police departments, hospitals, fire departments, and public transit. There will be more threats of statewide early prisoner releases, and enough actual releases to cause some high profile crimes. They will do everything they can to impact the most people and spark public outrage, while they lay the footwork for the next ballot initiative.
While that is happening, they will be preparing their ‘emergency’ changes to the constitution just in case those pesky voters still don’t get the message. In their view, the government is entitled to the funds necessary to sustain itself in whatever means it desires, and taxpayers are being selfish in withholding permission to take what the goverment ‘needs’. The libs will see that the obvious answer is to eliminate any requirement to ask for what they ‘need’.
What you won’t hear them talk about is a reduction in administrative personnel in schools. There will not be reduction in janitorial services for public offices. There won’t be a reduction in the use of state vehicles or cell phones. There won’t be any reduction in the use of air travel for state employees.
There won’t be increased immigration enforcement. There won’t be any attempt to validate citizenship eligibility for public payments and services such as welfare, SSI, medical care, public schooling, public assistance training programs, counciling services, etc.
That liberal socialist California utopia isn’t ready to make the necessary changes to their leadership yet. Things will have to get much worse before people have had enough. Until then, anyone that can afford to leave will get out while they can. Those that remain will spend an ever-increasing amount of their earnings to support those who don’t contribute. Those that don’t contribute have no reason to leave, and perhaps will grow in number.
When the state goes bankrupt, expect Obumblehead to bail them out with funds stolen from the rest of the country. Along with the bailout funds will come the regular strings that will remove any remaining states rights belonging to the citizens of California.
Overall, it’s a sad preview of the fate of the country.
Not leaders. Representatives.
I don't believe any democratically elected legislature in the modern era has "cut the size of government". By cut, I mean, downsize by restructuring including elimination of services and government departments.
We always assume that the reason they don't do this is because we don't elect enough Republicans, but this may be an oversimplification.
Maybe they don't do it because, under the constraints of the way we elect and reward them, they can't do it.
If we can control the size of the tax burden democratically but can't control the menu of services, then eventually the system will collapse.
Every public service job needs to be vut back wage wise to less than the private sector would pay including their benefits as it used to be 40-50 years ago.
The lesser pay is because the jobs are supposed to be more saecure than private sector jobs.
That would mean at least a 1/3 reduction in compensation for everyone working in government.
After that fire at least 1/3 of everone that works for government.
All of the above is for ciry county and state.
-—yep-—”As California goes, so goes the nation”—
Sure is kind of you to not gloat John,
Your usual great job sir.
Who is going to do this cutting? And after the cuts are made, who is going to prevent the affected people from funding candidates, and thereby electing candidates, to restore the funding?
The "public employees" (who are, I agree, a huge problem) have the means to get the legislature they want.
THAT'S the problem, and until you have a plan to fix it your suggestions are just a bunch of hot air.
“The “public employees” (who are, I agree, a huge problem) have the means to get the legislature they want.”
If you fire a third and cut the remaining thirds wages they won’t so able to throw out funds.
The unemployed won’t be funding anything.
I'd be mad, too if I lived in a state with this problem.
But you haven't explained to me your PLAN to get all this cutting DONE, starting with WHO is going to do the cutting.
Tom Golisano walked out of NY in protest of increased taxes. He joins Rush Limbaugh in a tax protest. If more of the “wealthy” would walk the walk, things would change ina hurry.
Nonsense - no one is calling for a concon. "Wonk" always means liberal. Instead of dealing with the enormously hard to understand concept of grotesquely insane spending and the need to trim the budget, Democrats are now trying to use their catastrophic failure as an excuse to eliminate the California constitution's restrictions on their wanton destructiveness once and for all.
You can run from Bailoutman, but you'll only pay tired. His tax increases have an effective range of 50 states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.