The voter sentment on Tuesday was clear: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders need to fix California's fiscal mess without taxes and without gimmicks. That means deep, deep spending cuts that will not exempt any program.
This election was a referendum of California's political leadership, and voters gave a big thumbs down to Sacramento.
Every measure except the one to withhold legislator pay during a fiscal emergency failed. That means voters didn't approve of the budget compromise the governor and the Legislature crafted in February -- the one that was based on a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. The voters said they won't pay more until Sacramento politicians get their spending in line.
Yes this confirms that Mike Villines' cowardly and intellectually dishonest actions have been rejected, not only by the constituents in "his party" but from the overwhelming majority of California voters. I say good riddens Mr. Villines and I hope his efforts to become the commissioner of the California Department of Insurance fail as well.
A complete repudiation of the results of liberalism, yet we continue to vote them into office. Amazing!
With all due respect, Mr. Boren, I am not sure where you got the idea that Californians want to "exempt any program". Those of us that voted are tired of the "slight of hands" rouse that we have been getting over the past 15+years. That's the message we sent. We are tired of robbing Peter to pay Paul, while Judas can't balance his checkbook!!! I know of many programs that we can exterminate in order to balance our budget without raising taxes on those of us left working.
I would have liked to see 1f eliminate ALL legislature pay until the budget is balanced, not just the raises. No retro pay, no stipend, no pay what-so-ever! If they can't do the job we hired them for in the time we give them, then no pay.
Some observations:
1. The Feds will probably bail us out - making us all completely subservient to Obama’s almighty socialist state. But if Uncle Sugar Daddy bails us out, California will not fix its problems. Not that it wants too! Obama will probably want to bail us out because Cal Dems are a huge part of his governing coalition. (It is well known that state leaders have already been lobbying the feds to guarantee California's bonds).
2. We are all on the road to serfdom. The taxpayers will continue to pay for our state government’s incompetence.
3. The compliant go-along-to-get-along, drive-by media and the state government will attempt to blame the voters; They will still be unable to see their own "sins." I understand that Britney Spears was unavailable for comment!
4. The media is "upset" at the electorate. Do we know how many of the state-wide media entities (print, TV, etc.) advocated "Yes" votes on all ballot initiatives? Do we recognize that those recommendations, mark those media entities, as opponents of fiscal responsibility?
5. The defiant mood of the taxpayers, even in the face of Arnold’s doomsday scenarios, is going to bring retribution from our elected officials, who still just "don’t get it."
6. The state of California is in a death spiral, the brain-dead elected, think they are just on another joyride.
7. When will our elected officials learn that you can’t spend what you don’t have. If we ran our lives and businesses like the lunatic fringe in Sac town does, we’d all be in jail.
To TC Morgan:
I know that you think we need to cut the state budget -- a lot. I'd really like to hear more specifics about what you think should go. I'm talking about BIG things, because we're more than $20 billion in the hole. Sure, it's easy to rail against incompetent legislators, but even if we totally killed their pay it would be a drop in the bucket compared to how much we're going to have to cut. Same goes for legislative cars and per diems and bloated state commissions and all the lightning-rod talking points that are easy to complain about. Even if we cut those things, it's a tiny amount. What I'd like to hear from you is specific, big-ticket things that we should slash. Example: Cut prison guard and teacher salaries by a third? Close a few of the Cal State campuses? Eliminate prison medical care? Shave three weeks off the elementary school year? Cut the salaries of home-health care workers? I want to know what you'd do to cut BILLIONS, not MILLIONS. I ask this in all seriousness, not in the interest of mere partisan bickering. I just think we have to get practical about these cuts: They're going to be severe, and I'd like to know from your point of view the big-ticket things that should go.
My other question for you is this: What SHOULD state government look like? You've said it's incompetent. Would you abolish the initiative process, which some budget experts blame for tying up general funds for designated constituencies? Should we dispense with an elected legislature? How can we make things better?
I have absolutely no idea what the answer is or what to do! I have no idea what should be eliminated or kept. My sense is - that it’s all over - finished, done! We are ungovernable! We are about to take a walk thru hell in a gasoline suit.
I do know two things however: (1) Whatever "they" are doing, IT AIN’T WORKING!; (2) The Kumbaya liberals, gangsters and moonbats in Sacramento regard taxpayers as the enemy!
"I predict future happiness for Americans IF they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson
DW-
I'll take a shot at your challenge to find $15-20 billion in savings.
Let's start with the services this state provides to illegal aliens. That amount is conservatively estimated at $10- 15 billion per year for social programs, incarceration, and education. Before you label me a racist, please understand that the first responsibility of the state is to its legal residents. In this situation the illegals, regardless of race or ethnicity, go to the back of the line. I personally think educating illegal aliens is a good thing, but not if the state is going bankrupt. The voters don't seem to have a problem with this, given the vote on Prop 187. An equally attractive option is to bill the federal government for the costs of illegals if California is required by the feds to provide the services.
Next, let's re-negotiate all union agreements, regardless of the services provided. Again, this is simply necessitated by the fact that the state doesn't have the money. The non-union state employees have already taken cuts, so the unions should "belly up to the bar". Admittedly, I do not know how much costs can be reduced through re-negotiation, but I do know that in one program alone the increase in unionization has resulted in $3 billion more in annual costs. The fact is that government costs are primarily comprised of salaries and benefits and the deficit cannot be resolved with impacting these costs.
Next, let's slow down the updating of infrastructure in the state to a pace that can be fully funded by tax receipts, except those improvements funded by bonds where the state would not see reduced costs.
Last, let's pass a substantial tax reduction so that the productive segments of the state's remaining private sector economy can be unleashed before the remaining segments leave the state. This state should start feeding the goose that lays the golden eggs, rather than trying to figure out how to butcher it.
Let the catterwalling begin.
What about the smelt?