CA: A Glimpse To The Nation's Future?

[Annie]

Many think that the 'TEA Parties' are non-events. Perhaps more amusingly is the vehemence used to paint them as 'right wing' partisan events. Ravi goes out of her way to find or rather to spread the posters that are missing from most events and often berated by others where they do appear.

But enough of the discussion, polls across the spectrum show a growing anger at the spending going on in Washington, this is NOT just from the right. Indeed, most people care much more about their children and future generations than the ijits sitting in DC. In fact those 'leaders' have been emulating CA in major ways and will produce the same type of results much more quickly. So how are Californians feeling about what's happened to their state?

California Screaming: The Golden State's political class comes unglued in the face of a citizens' revolt. - Reason Magazine

California Screaming

The Golden State's political class comes unglued in the face of a citizens' revolt.

Matt Welch | August/September 2009 Print Edition

On May 19, California voters went to the polls to decide whether to pass a package of six tax-and-gimmick ballot propositions. Its supporters—Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democratic legislative leaders, the California Teachers Association, and the overwhelming majority of the state’s major newspapers—billed it as the last best hope to plug Sacramento’s $24 billion budget deficit. “Either pass it,” warned the Los Angeles Times editorial board, “or risk fiscal disaster.”

Those who believe that either money or the media determine political outcomes should pay close heed to what happened next: Although opponents were outspent by more than 7 to 1, they trounced the state’s political class, rejecting five of the six measures by an average of 30 percentage points. The only proposition to pass was an anger-driven new law that limits elected officials’ salaries.

Faced with such thorough repudiation, California’s best and brightest then did a telling thing. They lashed right back.

The Los Angeles Times headlined its morning-after news analysis, “California Voters Exercise Their Power—and That’s the Problem.” Sacramento columnist George Skelton argued that “voters helped get themselves into this fix” by “passing feel-good ‘ballot box budgeting’ initiatives” and sanctioning “heavy borrowing” for “infrastructure projects.” Business columnist Michael Hiltzik averred that “far more blame for the deficit belongs to California voters” because “year in, year out, they enact spending mandates at the polls, often without endowing a revenue source.” Missing from any of these critiques was the fact that the Times’ own editorial board endorsed more than 90 percent of the very same ballot-box bond measures during the last decade. No matter: A perpetrator had been located.

“Good morning, California voters,” The Sacramento Bee’s post-election editorial began. “Do you feel better, now that you’ve gotten that out of your system?” The Bee, which (like the Times) had endorsed four of the five losing measures, came under immediate attack for its heavy-handed, citizen-blaming sarcasm. (A sample: “So, now that you’ve put those irksome politicians in their place, maybe it’s time to think about this: Since you’re in charge, exactly what do you intend to do about that pesky $25 billion hole in the budget?”) Rush Limbaugh gleefully read passages on his show, San Diego Union-Tribune editorial writer Chris Reed called it “staggeringly juvenile, arrogant and revealing,” and commenters on the Bee’s website were full of reactions like, “What an obnoxious editorial. Nevertheless, it illustrates that the Bee is completely in favor of bigger government and higher taxes.”

Then another funny thing happened: The Bee scrubbed the editorial off its website, replacing it with a much more conciliatory piece, addressed this time to legislators. The original editorial had been posted in “error,” the paper explained, and the new piece was the one that appeared in the print edition. “That [first] article was a draft prepared for internal discussion among members of The Bee’s editorial board,” a brief note said. “Such discussions are a routine part of our work, and frequently lead to editorials that are considerably different from writers’ first drafts.”

...

 

[Aristophanes]

It just goes to show you - liberals don't trust the voters. Hell, they don't even trust THEIR OWN voters. A full 20% of the electoral votes in the Democrat presidential primary, known as "superdelegates," aren't even controlled by the popular vote. That means Democrats can use superdelegates to "fix" the voters' "mistake" if need be.

Here's an idea for plugging the budget hole - take a fire axe to the state employment rolls. Currently, CA employes over 225,000 people, and NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN LAID OFF.

But, in true dictatorial fashion, the state will "get back" at the voters by cutting the programs they SHOULD be funding - roads, police, fire protection - and keeping all the pet projects, pork, and actual bloat.

 

[strollingbones]

Superdelegates: Who are they? Why do they matter so much this year? - UB NewsCenter

"The Republicans have created a different system designed to produce a decisive front-runner early in the process. This system reputedly was designed to prevent a repeat of the bruising 1976 convention fight between Ford and Reagan. The Democrats, on the other hand, designed their system to prevent early dominance by a weak candidate, as happened in 1988 with Michael Dukakis."

 

[Aristophanes]

Superdelegates: Who are they? Why do they matter so much this year? - UB NewsCenter

"The Republicans have created a different system designed to produce a decisive front-runner early in the process. This system reputedly was designed to prevent a repeat of the bruising 1976 convention fight between Ford and Reagan. The Democrats, on the other hand, designed their system to prevent early dominance by a weak candidate, as happened in 1988 with Michael Dukakis."

And yet regardless of what the author of the article you posted thinks about the Republican primary system, it is 100% tied to the popular vote, making it a superior process to the 80% of the Democrat party.

Here's something else to ponder. How many times has the spread of primary electoral votes been GREATER than the amount of superdelegates, rendering the vote of the superdelegates meaningless?

I'll save you the trouble. Since the superdelegates were instituted in 1980, such a situation has happened 0 times. Every election, the superdelegates (Washington insiders and party cronies all) can throw the primary vote to someone the people DID NOT PICK.

Oh, and I reject the assertion that the Republican primary system picks its winner early on. Ask Reagan, or McCain. Both were dark horse candidates who lost big early on.

 

[RodISHI]

Many think that the 'TEA Parties' are non-events. Perhaps more amusingly is the vehemence used to paint them as 'right wing' partisan events. Ravi goes out of her way to find or rather to spread the posters that are missing from most events and often berated by others where they do appear.

But enough of the discussion, polls across the spectrum show a growing anger at the spending going on in Washington, this is NOT just from the right. Indeed, most people care much more about their children and future generations than the ijits sitting in DC. In fact those 'leaders' have been emulating CA in major ways and will produce the same type of results much more quickly. So how are Californians feeling about what's happened to their state?

California Screaming: The Golden State's political class comes unglued in the face of a citizens' revolt. - Reason Magazine

California Screaming

The Golden State's political class comes unglued in the face of a citizens' revolt.

Matt Welch | August/September 2009 Print Edition

On May 19, California voters went to the polls to decide whether to pass a package of six tax-and-gimmick ballot propositions. Its supporters—Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democratic legislative leaders, the California Teachers Association, and the overwhelming majority of the state’s major newspapers—billed it as the last best hope to plug Sacramento’s $24 billion budget deficit. “Either pass it,” warned the Los Angeles Times editorial board, “or risk fiscal disaster.”

Those who believe that either money or the media determine political outcomes should pay close heed to what happened next: Although opponents were outspent by more than 7 to 1, they trounced the state’s political class, rejecting five of the six measures by an average of 30 percentage points. The only proposition to pass was an anger-driven new law that limits elected officials’ salaries.

Faced with such thorough repudiation, California’s best and brightest then did a telling thing. They lashed right back.

The Los Angeles Times headlined its morning-after news analysis, “California Voters Exercise Their Power—and That’s the Problem.” Sacramento columnist George Skelton argued that “voters helped get themselves into this fix” by “passing feel-good ‘ballot box budgeting’ initiatives” and sanctioning “heavy borrowing” for “infrastructure projects.” Business columnist Michael Hiltzik averred that “far more blame for the deficit belongs to California voters” because “year in, year out, they enact spending mandates at the polls, often without endowing a revenue source.” Missing from any of these critiques was the fact that the Times’ own editorial board endorsed more than 90 percent of the very same ballot-box bond measures during the last decade. No matter: A perpetrator had been located.

“Good morning, California voters,” The Sacramento Bee’s post-election editorial began. “Do you feel better, now that you’ve gotten that out of your system?” The Bee, which (like the Times) had endorsed four of the five losing measures, came under immediate attack for its heavy-handed, citizen-blaming sarcasm. (A sample: “So, now that you’ve put those irksome politicians in their place, maybe it’s time to think about this: Since you’re in charge, exactly what do you intend to do about that pesky $25 billion hole in the budget?”) Rush Limbaugh gleefully read passages on his show, San Diego Union-Tribune editorial writer Chris Reed called it “staggeringly juvenile, arrogant and revealing,” and commenters on the Bee’s website were full of reactions like, “What an obnoxious editorial. Nevertheless, it illustrates that the Bee is completely in favor of bigger government and higher taxes.”

Then another funny thing happened: The Bee scrubbed the editorial off its website, replacing it with a much more conciliatory piece, addressed this time to legislators. The original editorial had been posted in “error,” the paper explained, and the new piece was the one that appeared in the print edition. “That [first] article was a draft prepared for internal discussion among members of The Bee’s editorial board,” a brief note said. “Such discussions are a routine part of our work, and frequently lead to editorials that are considerably different from writers’ first drafts.”

...

The link has links to each department with each department having links to breakdowns on the budget proposal.

Governor's Proposed Budget Detail Proposed Budget Detail
The following table presents budget year positions and expenditures for each agency area. These totals are comprised of State funds which include General Fund, special funds, and selected bond funds. These totals do not include federal funds, other non-governmental cost funds, or reimbursements.
State Agencies 2009-10
Positions

General
Fund*

Special
Funds*

Bond
Funds*

Total
State Funds*
K thru 12 Education 2,876.1 $39,720,811 $510,212 $505,423 $40,736,446
Higher Education 132,384.5 12,389,105 46,672 652,341 13,088,118
Health and Human Services 33,319.8 29,995,962 7,926,050 63,491 37,985,503
Corrections and Rehabilitation 62,706.3 9,615,169 241,620 1,646 9,858,435
Business, Transportation & Housing 44,541.9 2,335,467 5,695,212 3,932,604 11,963,283
Resources 17,621.1 1,921,585 2,154,903 1,539,890 5,616,378
Environmental Protection 4,955 79,266 1,188,096 263,988 1,531,350
State and Consumer Services 16,835.9 576,755 829,998 19,183 1,425,936
Labor and Workforce Development 12,113.8 104,383 347,609 - 451,992
General Government 14,340.2 -4,987,191 10,823,990 2,056 5,838,855
Legislative, Judicial, and Executive 16,988.4 3,772,252 2,252,787 242,743 6,267,782
TOTALS 358,683 $95,523,564 $32,017,149 $7,223,365 $134,764,078
* Dollars in thousands

To view previous budgets in California http://www.osp.dgs.ca.gov/On-Line+Publications/finalbudsummary0809.htm