My Rant About California Government

If you don't care about California or what I think of it then you won't get much out of today's post.

People keep saying that California may be too big to govern as a state or too complex or too diverse or [insert excuse here]. California has been designed to fail, and it's poised to do that brilliantly.

The kids' mom and I had just bought our first home in 1975 and, at the point that my son was due and his mother unemployed and our property taxes had damn near doubled already, I voted for Proposition 13 to roll back and cap property taxes. I don't remember exactly when the 2/3rds requirement to raise taxes in the legislature was passed, but we did that, too. The only sources of new revenue left then were 'fees' and property reassessments on most transfers or sales.

California has also gerrymandered its legislative districts to protect the incumbent parties so that, although the Republicans may never gain a majority, the Democrats will never have a 2/3rds majority. (I went to a community meeting in January and representatives of both Assemblymen spoke. The Democrat's staff was asked what part of Rowland Heights he represented and they didn't know, which is not surprising because he represents a narrow strip along the 60 freeway connecting the Democratic enclave to the east and the one to the west and in which I happen to live.)

For years now California voters have been asked if we want to spend X percent of revenue for schools to which we say yes, and it gets 'borrowed' and spent elsewhere. We've been asked if we want to commit gas taxes to transportation infrastructure to which we say yes, and it's been 'borrowed' and spent elsewhere. We pass a tobacco tax for anti-smoking programs and it gets hijacked into the general fund. Every election cycle they ask us what we want to spend the money on and, immediately afterward, they 'borrow' it and spend it elsewhere, because it doesn't matter what a majority of Californians want if we can't get 2/3rds of the legislature to vote for a way to pay for it all.

The chickens have come home to roost now. With revenues below 2003 levels, and our existing debt service and fixed expenses, there is no discretionary money and there is no recourse in the legislature. Thirty years of smoke and mirrors and fancy accounting moves have run their course, and California is broke.

I would encourage whomever is left here after the 2010 census to keep control of reapportionment completely out of the hands of the political parties. (I would make party affiliation disqualifying for participation.) By then one might hope that Californians will be ready to rebuild their state... or not because by then I have no intention of being a Californian.

Other Points of View I Don't Get

Is there a class in liberal economics somewhere that I could take? I ask because I'm obviously missing something, and when I ask people about it they just look at me like I'm speaking Croatian.
Phil Angelides is running for the Democratic slot in November's gubernatorial election, and his platform seems to consist in large part of "making the multi-millionaires and large corporations pay their fair share." I can see why that sings to voters, but I have no idea why anyone would give it any credence.
I try to point out that corporations do not pay taxes, that corporations are not people, that consumers pay the taxes levied on corporations. I point out that the last two airliners that will ever be built in California have just been flown out to their buyers. Corporations and their multi-millionaire corporate officers and investors can live anywhere while having their product (to the extent that we still create products) manufactured anywhere. If I win the Lotto I can buy a condo in Nevada for residency purposes and still enjoy the California lifestyle.
I'm also having an issue with the people whining about the "farmland" in South L.A. Los Angeles takes 14 acres to build a trash-to-energy plant, but the environmentalists blocked that. (Way to go, guys. Still have the trash and no new energy sources, but what the hey.) The courts tell L.A. to give the owner his land back, but now there are squatters gardening there. The owner agrees to sell to them, but they can't afford to buy so now we have Joan Baez, Daryl Hannah, and a couple of tree-sitters protesting. I am mindful of last year when we were all ready to tar and feather Justice Souter for ruling against propery rights. I still believe the Supreme Court was wrong then, and that the squatters have no legal claim now.
So... what am I missing?

Too Many Alternatives

So much to talk about and so little time... There are so many offenses at so many levels and I can choose only one at a time to explore.

The President's nomination of Gen. Hayden to head the CIA is a natural for me. Mr. Bush, in clear violation of FISA and the "Patriot Act," sets the NSA on a program of domestic spying; and now he nominates his director of that program, an officer of the U.S. Air Force sworn to defend the Constitution, to head the CIA. On the other hand, the neo-fascists have done their preparation well, and more than 60% of Americans are more in fear of their "enemies" than of losing their civil liberties.

I'm leaning toward state or local stories.

A Bay-area judge has suspended the California high school exit exam because it discriminates against... well, basically kids who can't pass it. His points are well-taken, that English-learners and the poor have a harder time passing the test. In my opinion, it is this kind of thinking that has made a high school diploma worthless. The exit exam tests English and math competency at the ninth grade level, and if a "graduate" can't pass that then how on Earth can I give him a job? How does he break out of the cycle of poverty?

The California Governor contest exemplifies why I stopped working on campaigns. Steve Westly appears to be a fiscal conservative who sings to a majority of voters in the polls, but Angelides is getting the Democratic Party endorsement apparently because... in the tradition of Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamente... he's next in line, works well for or with public employee union leaders, and has a ton of money from his real estate developer connections.

Meanwhile, Arnold, whose only virtue was that "his heart is in the right place," has also suddenly found a ton of money for next year's budget to pay off/pay back the money he "borrowed" from public programs during the first two years of his administration. The poorest and most disadvantaged? Well, they need better connections, don't they?

Both parties are stumping for the ultimate election-year lie: the $37 Billion building program with "no new taxes!" Why is California's bond rating right down there with Louisiana's? Could it be because Californians... as many Americans... don't recognize that debt must eventually be repaid? "Win-Win" my ass. It's at least 30 years of debt-service (interest), and hopefully an eternity of refinancing so you never have to repay the principal.

P.S. I didn't mention that the levee repairs at New Orleans won't be ready by June 1st after all.
When you see people such as Secretary Rumsfeld complaining that criticism of the Administration is damaging the U.S. position overseas you just want to scream: "Then stop lying! You are accountable to us! We're supposed to challenge you! That we catch you at it is your fault!"

Where to start...

Thoughts on Values

I keep thinking that I'm going to get more disciplined in my writing. There are several things I mean to address, but then I get distracted as something catches my eye and then things seem to coalesce into another subject entirely... or perhaps not entirely.
I've been ruminating on Tamar's post the other day regarding the pervasive nature and global extent of politics. The next thing I'm reading is this piece in The Guardian about U.S.-Sudanese cooperation in the "Global War on Terror." Now today's MSN Quote of the Day is from Emmanuel Levinas: "Politics is opposed to morality, as philosophy to naïveté." It came to me that this could account for a lot.
I had intended to ask the six percent of voters who voted for GW six months ago but who now feel that he sucks in his job for an explanation. What changed? What was concealed from them in November that is apparent to them now? (Like they're all reading my blog!) It came to me that in run-up to November the talk was all about "values." The neocons just did a superb job of distracting people from their politics. Men who never served a minute in combat... who avoided service... were able to impugn the character of a decorated veteran by challenging his freedom of speech. They had better salesmen.
No WMD? Never mind because Saddam was a dictator and the U.S. doesn't do dictators... except throughout the 1980's when he was gassing Iranians, Shi'ites and Kurds somewhat indiscriminately. The U.S. is all about human rights and the principles of democracy... except in Saudi Arabia and China and Russia because business is business. In public we seek to condemn the Sudanese government in the U.N. for genocide while in the background we still do business with their intelligence apparatus.
Core values dictate that we must not take life, that we must not steal, that we must not bear false witness, etc. Politics dictate that "you have to go along to get along" and that the end justifies the means. You clean up Iraq as much as you can before you leave and you can write off the whole damn war as a humanitarian effort, and in a few years who will remember the lies?
Does it make any sense then for me to rant because politicians are amoral? Yeah, it does. It does because this is a republic, and these people do not in fact represent my values. From elementary school I've been told that we hold certain truths to be self evident, but there is little testament that our government values those truths. Our government is made up of politicians. Our government is made up of politicians because we are too damn lazy or distracted or otherwise engaged to think beyond buzzwords and sound bites.
Would it kill us to make the effort to identify and elect people to represent us who weren't so flagrantly for sale? I refuse to believe that George W. and Arnold Schwarzenegger represent our best and our brightest hopes for the future. Is it not possible to elect people you would allow to sit your kids?