As the final embarrassing days of the special legislative session slip away with no state budget solution in sight, the 40 members of the state Senate and 80 members of the Assembly have once again proved the wisdom of my call to abolish the Legislature. They are a worthless group that individually and collectively have ignored the state's toughest problems. On Tuesday's budget vote, some didn't even bother to show up.
The Democrat's budget bill didn't get the required two-thirds votes to pass and the Republicans didn't offer up an alternative. This is the best our lawmakers can offer: A budget bill that had no chance of passing, and childish sniping by both sides.
The Democrats wouldn't even fix sick leave and overtime abuse that costs the state close to $100 million a year, and the Republicans could have had their spending cap, but they changed their demand to an "economic stimulus," which showed they weren't serious about getting a budget agreement in the first place.
Meanwhile, the budget gap grows, and the state could run out of money in February. Right now, the deficit will be about $28 billion over the next 20 months. State government is going to collapse and legislators can't get out of town soon enough. Let's get rid of them all.
The Big Five -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem-designate Darrell Steinberg, Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines and Senate Minority Leader Dave Cogdill -- must be very proud. Their leadership has given Californians a Big Fat Nothing. They are presiding over the bankruptcy of California.
A new batch of legislators will get sworn in Monday, but they will be led by the same inept five people who have yet to produce a budget solution. If these were baseball players they'd be zero for the season. If they were football running backs, they'd have minus yardage.
But they are politicians so it's okay to have a losing record. At least the Democrats squirm at the do-nothing label. The Republican think it's a badge of honor.
I say abolish the Legislature as we know it, and replace it with a single house similar to Nebraska's unicameral system. How much worse could it get? At least a single house would be cheaper without the redundant committees and staff that we get now in the Assembly and Senate.
Will somebody in Sacramento say the obvious? The current legislative system is not designed to get solutions to difficult problems. It's designed to protect politicians from having to do anything risky.
Throw them out -- all of them. And don't let them leave town with their state-leased cars and taxpayer-funded credit cards.
It is late at night, and perhaos I should have a shot of VO instead of posting. But I cannot share your frustration. I do not think that bicameral legislature has been designed to give a free ride to lousy legislators. It was meant to be a safeguard. It is my opinion that the legislature is no more corrupt that our entire culture. There was no Roma eterna because of her corruption. America is not going to fare any better if we don't get back to the basic Jeffersonian principle. Perhaps my sense of hostory is peculiar to this individual, but I happen to believe it is because I am a Euro. We have been around longer. And we paid; and we gained and we lost for a couple a thousand years longer than this nation that is not wiser but much richer. And Bush squanderd that on a useless war.
I have suggested this to Jim Boren before, but this latest fiasco only makes it seem more reasonable. Kick all 120 of these guys and gals out (massive recalls?) and replace them with some folks that demonstrate they have brains.
The fact is the state in in a fiscal emergency and the no-give attitude of the Republicans (and I have been one for all my long life)verges on the criminal.
Sack 'em all.
David H. Provost
As a disgusted Republican, I cannot agree more with David Provost. Something has to change, the results of Proposition 11 will be horribly slow to help us at this point in time. A major recall movement could be the state's only salvation.
Roy V. Bailey
I have no objection to replacing those 120 public trough feeders and replace them with legislators who understand whom they are serving. But I am not so sure that I want to change California's form of government that appears to offer more safeguards and citizen input than many of the other states?
It is time that we really start taking removal of these 'children' seriously. In light of the current fiscal crisis, we need leadership in Sacramento that will take the steps needed to avert a financial disaster. We don't have time for partisan wrangling.
The credit default spread for State of California debt is trading at 165. CDS data measures bankruptcy risk. To put this in perspective, the debt market is pricing California debt as having a greater risk of bankruptcy than debt issued by Slovakia. This is alarming.
I am sure the children in Sacramento are betting on a bail-out from the Fed to cover their ineptitude. However, I would argue that this is less than guaranteed. Look at what happened in New York in the seventies. New York was faced with the same predicament we are in now and they were denied bail-out funds by the Federal Government.
Looking at the actions of the Federal Government, there seems to be no interest in bailing out anybody but financial intermediaries or banks, brokers and investors. The state of California can't 'change our charter' as GMAC, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs did to become a bank to access bail-out funds.
In light of the events of the past year, we have seen that the impossible can indeed become possible. Hopefully the kids in Sacramento can see this before it is too late.
We keep replacing the faces, the results are the same. So what good will it do to "sack" all 120 legislators, and replace them with 120 different ones (whoever they would be)?
What should be on the ballot for the next special election is to get rid of the 2/3 majority requirement. Make it 55% if we think we need some sort of supermajority, but 2/3 is an almost impossible standard in today's hyper-partisan political climate.
Let the majority pass a budget, and if the people don't like it, we can elect a different majority the next time (Prop. 11 would presumably make that easier). Isn't that how representative democracy is supposed to work?
This causes me to think of a slogan associated with Guy Fawkes: “Citizens should not be afraid of their government… Government should be afraid of their citizens.” I am in no way recommending or condoning Fawkes methods; however, Sacramento continues their ways because we let them. If ever there was a time to take to the streets to be heard (peacefully)… now is it.
“Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The gunpowder, treason and plot,
I know of no reason
Why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.”
Is there any way we can bring suit against each and every one of them for breach of contract? Lack of conscience? Acting irresponsibility? Etc.????
Jim--I have advocated a unicameral legislature for years--even before I served as state chairman of the California Republican Party (1979-1981). Our legislature as constituted, is dysfunctional at best. The passage (I hope) of Proposition 11 may help, but will not stop the inneffective antics of our legislators. The calibre of most of those in office, with their pursuit of re-election their primary interest, precludes benefical attention to the problems facing our state. As you may recall, I also championed term limits. In practice, that has not met my expectations, one of which was to re-establish the concept of the "citizen Legislator"--serve, and return to the place from whence he/she came. I still decry the "professional", entrenched legislator. The system must be "changed"--the watchword of the prevailing political climate. Truman
Jim - I agree. Leadership requires individuals who know how to work through problems and create a solution path. In this case it may be difficult and the path rocky but no solution IS a path to nowhere. Whether they are one of 120 or the big five they're responsibility is to achieve an agreement. No cannot be rewarded nor condoned. The three interest groups, D's, R's and the Govenor continue to say no to each other. This is not government nor is it leadership.
They say that one definition of insanity is doing something the same way each time, but expecting different results. Term limits, recall threats and “throw the bums out” all focus on changing the individuals in charge. But each time we do, things seem to get worse, rather than better. So maybe the problem is the way the system is set up, rather than the personalities.
Jim is on the right track when he advocates attacking the gridlock. But he goes after the wrong source. The roadblock in passing the budget isn’t conflict between the two houses of the Legislature – it’s between the two parties and their entrenched positions. So why don’t we attack the actual source of the gridlock – the 2/3’rds majority requirement, instead of just demonizing the “Big 5” (all of whom won reelection handily except termed-out Perata) or advocating major changes that won’t solve the problem (like a unicameral legislature).
Mike D...would you feel the same if the Republicans were in the majority?Sure you would.
Sure, why not, Brian? My guess is that if the Republicans get to impose their philosophy of government, they'll either become more moderate or they won't be the majority for long in this state. That's the way it's supposed to work, rather than the current system where a minority can prevent anything from getting done.
"Your guess?" Mike D...So I guess we are where we are because the Dems have imposed their philosophy on us(perhaps with 2/3 they could impose more)and it must be what the majority wants or why haven't they become more moderate or lost their majority? So we are getting the government we want because the majority(Dems)must be doing a "Great Job"...I guess.
Sure, it's a guess. Anything we say about the future is a guess, unless you have a crystal ball or something.
And please pay attention. The Dems haven't been able to impose their philosophy, moderate or otherwise. That's what the word "gridlock" means.
And (here I go again), my guess is that if the gridlock ends, and the Democrats are able to pass a budget, they'll soon find that they need to be a bit more fiscally responsible (i.e. moderate) when they can't blame the bad budgets on the gridlock anymore. And there's also the line item veto the Governor weilds in case they don't get that point.
Mike D...why do I find no comfort in your suppositions?Probably because the majority of the CA voters and legislature appear to be idiots.
I'm not here to comfort you, Brian. If you don't like the people of this state, there's 49 others to choose from.
All you posters don't seem to understand something. The problem is not fixable. The hole is finally too deep. If the feds gave us $30 billion we would be right back where we are today in a year.
Tax revenues are plummeting. There are not profits to tax. High earner incomes are down. Property taxes are headed off of a cliff. Local governments have already raised sales taxes. Arnold has hired 57,000 people over the past six years to do what I haven't figured out yet.
There is no market for our bonds, and California voters keep proving their stupidity by approving more and more - there are $60 billion in bonds authorized AHEAD of the ones we just passed.
There is no demand for loans - remember the "bailout" was to "unfreeze" the credit markets but guess what? Almost nobody wants to borrow money - ask any banker.
There is not a solution - you can't tax in this economy enough and the Democrats won't make the spending cuts necessary. We could open up our vast energy reserves and gain some revenue there but that will never happen.
Dr. Provost, a man I greatly respect, is in error about the Republicans. They are closer to the real economy than the Democrats because most of them came out of the private sector and almost none of the Democrats have worked outside of the law, or government. Republicans know absolutely the danger of raising taxes right now.
This is a bleak post but I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. It's over. California is headed for bankrupcty in the Spring.
Dittos Michael...and what are most worrying about in this state? "Homosexual Marriage".
Mike D.How mean spirited... but that is to be expected from the majority aka."Idiots"
Brian, I think I've mentioned it before, but it bears repeating: you are the last person here who should be complaining about "mean-spirited" posts from others here.
As for Mike DerManouel's post, it's hard to say that the situation is "unfixable" when we haven't actually tried fixing it yet. It's also hard to say that drastic spending cuts won't hurt the economy worse than a tax increase. Both are bad in a severe repression. But there are probably some cuts that can be made, and some taxes that can be raised that won't hurt as badly as others.
It's a bit disingeneous to claim that local governments have tried sales tax hikes and they didn't work. I'm sure you know that those sales tax increases were mostly used for transporatation projects and other special purposes (like our library and zoo taxes). And they have worked very well for the most part for their intended purposes. They were never meant to cover shortfalls in local general funds.
We can adopt the cynical, pessimistic approach that nothing will work, or we can collectively put pressure on our elected representantives to do the right thing. Since I live in Villines' district, I'm not optimistic that anything I say will influence my representative to do anything for the state, but I'm not ready to give up yet.
Btw, when I said "repression" I meant "recession," in case it isn't obvious.
(Although if anyone wants to use the word "repression" to refer to something between a recession and a depression, they are welcome to it as long as they give me attribution.)
How about increased taxes on commerical insurance companies?
One idea that's been floated around is a "sales tax" on services. Since we are increasingly a service-oriented economy, does it make sense anymore to tax goods but not services (if it ever did)? Some services, like medical care, could be exempt, I suppose. But why not modest tax on things like legal and insurance services? It's not like they will be driven out of state, either. If you're in the business of providing a service, you go where the people are.
Any day that Mike D. gets thoughtful about taxes and their impacts is a good day.
If only the editors of the Bee took the same 2 seconds to ponder our state and local tax systems before pontificating about legislative "solutions."
For the record, Tony, The Bee's editorial board opposes the sales tax increase that the governor has proposed, and we've said that several times in editorials. We don't think this economic climate is one in which we should be raising the sales tax. We should be giving incentives to consumers to spend money with retailers.
Jim, this governor is the last person to look to for an educated discussion about California's tax system. As long as the editorial board continues to avoid thinking about the hard questions of equity, justice, and consequences of the most basic funding strategies for public services, the editorials will continue to be worthless.
The question is not simplistically "Should the sales tax be raised to close a so-called budget deficit?" Mike D. asked a more fundamental question: Why is the tax selectively applied? Is there an economic reason? Or any reason?
Why do the Bee editors think "we" should be giving incentives to consumers to spend money with retailers, but not give incentives to people to save money, and not give incentives to people to work? What do the Bee editors think "we" should about the incentives to own real property? To accumulate assets? To invest in new businesses? To pass on wealth to children? What about to donate money to charity?
What do the Bee editors think about reducing the percentage amount of sales tax but broadening it to cover all goods and services, staying revenue-neutral but becoming much more fair to the sellers?
What do the Bee editors think about increasing the percentage amount of sales tax but eliminating income taxes (again, revenue-neutral), so that people who work are not penalized but instead consumption is the basis for taxes, encouraging savings as well as work and "progressively" putting the burden on the highest-spending members of the economy?
What do the Bee editors think is the difference (social, political, economic, historical) between property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes? What exactly is the rationale for vehicle license fees, or transient occupancy taxes, or documentary transfer taxes?
In all of the Bee's editorials, when did you all ever articulate the principles you believe should determine California's choice of means for funding public services? The principles that should determine which services should be publically funded at all? The principles that should determine what is the government's role in the economy?
None of the above questions take more than 2 seconds to raise, but all take a lot more effort that that to answer. In all the time that I've read the Bee, I can't say I've ever seen that intellectual effort made. But editorial opinions, recommendations, and judgments on public policy and elected officials are published daily nonetheless.
Tony, it is difficult having a discussion with you. You raise one point about Bee editorials.I answer it, and then you leap to several other subjects and ask why I didn't answer those questions, too. Here's an example:
Fron Tony's post: "Why do the Bee editors think "we" should be giving incentives to consumers to spend money with retailers, but not give incentives to people to save money, and not give incentives to people to work?"
I said we should be giving incentives to help retailers. How do you draw from that statement that I also said we shouldn't give incentives to people to save money or to work? Of course, we should give incentives to encourage people to save and to work. That has been said many times in Bee editorials. In fact, I doubt many people would disagree with those positions.
I'm going to withdraw from this discussion. I jumped in to clarify The Bee's position on taxes when you raised the issue, and you took it in a totally different and misleading direction. I'll pass if that's going to be the level of discussion on this item.
Those were just a sampling of basic questions, Jim. There was only one subject: Bee editors don't seem to think deeply about the issues they opine on, to the detriment of the community at large.
Discussions take a lot of thought, and a lot of effort. Our editorials don't seem to. I really don't believe it's unfair to expect more out of the newspaper in Fresno.
Editorials are but opinions, and do not have the function of setting socio/political policy. They are not bells to bring the cows in from the pasture. I could not more disagree with Mr. Boren's idea of doing away with California's bi-cameral legislature. But his support in favor is not binding upon me, and my opposition is not binding on him. And none of our different opinions should be called worthless.