Posted on 06/27/2006 7:15:28 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO
State lawmakers were poised to approve a $130.9 billion spending plan Tuesday that uses a tax windfall to fund one of the largest-ever increases for California schools and sets aside billions to pay down debt and build up reserves.
Leaders of both parties say they expect it to pass with the required two-thirds vote, setting the stage for California's first on-time budget in six years.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office said if it passes, officials will work around the clock to complete the governor's line-item review of the budget bill in time for him to sign it before midnight Friday, the start of the new fiscal year.
Schwarzenegger predicted success in advance of Tuesday night's vote and said he was pleased lawmakers had supported his twin goals of paying down debt and increasing school funding.
"This is a huge victory for both parties, for the Democrats and the Republicans. But especially this is a huge victory for the people of California," Schwarzenegger said at an event in Oakland.
Signing the budget before the deadline would clear Schwarzenegger's last major governing hurdle before the November election. The record spending for schools might also curb attacks from one of his most well-funded political enemies the California Teachers Association, which spent $50 million last year to help defeat his special election initiatives.
During a series of briefings at the Capitol on Tuesday, lawmakers attempted to lay out who won and lost in budget negotiations.
The budget handed Republicans a victory by eliminating plans to pay for health care coverage for children of illegal immigrants, but Democrats largely won in deciding how to carve up billions in unexpected revenue. In doing so, they largely followed the governor's lead in increasing funding for schools and other areas.
More state dollars will go to foster care, child care and reducing fees at community colleges. Another $250 million is earmarked for overdue maintenance at state parks.
Fiscal conservatives said the budget, which increases general fund spending by 12 percent, does not go far enough to correct the imbalance between state spending and revenue. California will spend $7.4 billion more next fiscal year than it takes in, continuing its so-called structural deficit.
The deficit is largely covered next year by a $7.5 billion tax windfall from stock gains and rising business profits.
General fund spending will increase from $90 billion to $101.3 billion; the remainder will go to bond payments and special funds.
The budget contains no tax increases, maintaining Schwarzenegger's pledge to hold the line on taxes.
Mike Genest, the governor's finance director, acknowledged the state still has work to do to fix the state's chronic budget problems, but said the 2006-2007 fiscal plan was sound.
"This is a balanced budget," he said.
Legislative leaders announced they had reached a deal on Monday after breaking logjams on children's health care spending and debt repayment. The budget came together more quickly than in recent years thanks largely to the tax windfall.
The extra money allowed Democrats to increase spending on popular programs, while allowing Republicans to set aside funds for reserves.
Under the agreement:
_ Schools will receive $55.1 billion next year, an increase of $5.1 billion from the current year. About half of that will go to programs the governor and legislative leaders agreed had been neglected as the state struggled with record budget deficits.
Schools will receive $445 million, for example, to restore music, art and physical education programs, hire guidance counselors and expand teacher recruitment and preschool programs. Schools also will be able to apply for more than $1 billion in grants to buy new textbooks and musical equipment, and improve facilities and teacher training.
_ Lawmakers will set aside nearly $4.9 billion, or 4.7 percent of the budget, to repay debt and build reserves. That represents the largest percent of the budget set aside for savings in more than 25 years, administration officials said.
It also hands a victory to Schwarzenegger, who ran on a platform of putting the state's fiscal house in order. The savings plan will give the state its largest reserves since the mid-1970s, while the repayment plan will allow the state to pay off most of a multibillion dollar debt owed to the state's transportation fund.
The budget, however, does not include a $1 billion payment Schwarzenegger proposed using to make accelerated payments on the bonds voters approved in 2004 to balance the budget. Schwarzenegger had touted that plan as a way to make sure California could afford the $37.3 billion infrastructure bond package voters are being asked to approve in November.
Schwarzenegger's finance director said that it was unclear how the change would affect the state's ability to afford the bonds.
The Associated Press
California lawmakers are scheduled to vote Tuesday on a $130.9 billion state budget. Here are some of the key provisions of the 2006-2007 spending plan if it is approved and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as expected:
EDUCATION Increases school funding from $50 billion this year to $55 billion in the fiscal year that begins Saturday. The funding includes $445 million to restore music, art and physical education programs, hire guidance counselors, and expand teacher recruitment and preschool programs. Schools also will be able to apply for more than $1 billion in grants to buy new textbooks, musical equipment, and improve classroom facilities and teacher training.
DEBT AND RESERVES Sets aside nearly $4.9 billion, or 4.7 percent of the budget, to repay debt and to build up reserves. It's the largest amount set aside for savings in more than 25 years. The budget also creates a budget-stabilization account and projects ending the fiscal year with more than $2 billion in reserves, the largest amount since the mid-1970s.
TRANSPORTATION Pays the full $1.4 billion owed to transportation projects under Proposition 42, and repays another $1.4 billion owed to transportation funds from past years.
SOCIAL SERVICES Improves foster care for 70,000 children ($75 million), increases income levels for subsidized child care eligibility ($67 million) and pays cost-of-living increases for the elderly, blind and disabled ($42 million).
COMMUNITY COLLEGES Cuts community college fees from $26-per-credit to $20-per-credit. Spends $130 million to keep University of California and California State University fees at current levels.
JUSTICE Hires up to 50 new judges ($5.5 million). Also expands anti-gang programs ($6 million) and increases efforts to catch methamphetamine dealers ($6.5 million).
DRUG TREATMENT A provision attached to the budget would send drug offenders to jail for brief periods for violating requirements of their treatment programs. The bill would amend voter-approved Proposition 36, which prohibits incarcerating first- and second-time nonviolent drug offenders. Overall, however, it would increase funding for treatment programs to $151 million.
TAXES The budget does not raises taxes, but it extends for one year the so-called "yacht tax," which will charge Californians an estimated $28 million in taxes on boats, aircraft or other vehicles purchased outside the state.
Are there any "fiscal conservatives" left in this country?
apparently not in higher elected offices.. well not many, anyway. ;-)
That's a tax payer victory led by the Republicans. Democrat taxpayers benefit too, but your agenda stopped you from seeing that, I guess. AP sucks.
I can remember when JFK had the country's first peacetime $100,000,000,000 budget.
I'm comforted that California can only borrow money, not print it.
Borrowing has consequences that must be addressed. Unfortunately, not by this generation of lawmakers, executives and pundits.
Printing money, on the other hand, has consequences that can't be addressed by our domestic political class. Those consequences are addressed by the international community.
I keep asking the same rhetorical question. Why would a prudent taxpayer elect a convertible nincompoop like Schwarzenegger? The juvenile: He's better than the other guy; doesn't have much appeal in an adult world.
Typical Republican wussies, the Government takes in a lot more money. Let's spend all of it and more. Buttwipes deserve to lose
PORK budget gets passed.
I'm supposed to be getting Tom McClintock's floor speech any minute now. I'll post it here as soon as I get it. Maybe check back in the morning
http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California2/CA_State_Budget_243198CA.shtml
California Senate approves $130.9 billion state budget
By AARON C. DAVIS
The Associated Press
SACRAMENTO
Published: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 20:39 PDT
The California Senate approved a $130.9 billion spending plan Tuesday night that uses a tax windfall to fund one of the largest increases ever for California schools and sets aside billions to pay down debt and build up reserves.
The budget bill passed the Senate 30-10 after five Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the spending plan. The Assembly was also expected to approve the plan Tuesday night, clearing the way for California's first on-time budget in six years.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office said if the plan passes the Assembly officials will work around the clock to complete the governor's line-item review of the budget bill in time for him to sign it before midnight Friday, the start of the new fiscal year.
"This is a great budget," said Sen. Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata. "This is as close to a bipartisan budget as we have gotten in many years."
Schwarzenegger said earlier Tuesday that he was pleased lawmakers had supported his twin goals of paying down debt and increasing school funding.
"This is a huge victory for both parties, for the Democrats and the Republicans. But especially this is a huge victory for the people of California," Schwarzenegger said at an event in Oakland.
Signing the budget before the deadline would clear Schwarzenegger's last major governing hurdle before the November election. The record spending for schools might also curb attacks from one of his most well-funded political enemies the California Teachers Association, which spent $50 million last year to help defeat his special election initiatives.
Before the vote Tuesday, lawmakers attempted to lay out who won and lost in budget negotiations.
The budget handed Republicans a victory by eliminating plans to pay for health care coverage for children of illegal immigrants, but Democrats largely won in deciding how to carve up billions in unexpected revenue. In doing so, they largely followed the governor's lead in increasing funding for schools and other areas.
Under Democrat proposals, more state dollars will go to foster care, child care and reducing fees at community colleges. Another $250 million is earmarked for overdue maintenance at state parks.
Fiscal conservatives said the budget, which increases general fund spending by 12 percent, does not go far enough to correct the imbalance between state spending and revenue. California will spend $7.4 billion more next fiscal year than it takes in, continuing its so-called structural deficit.
The deficit is largely covered next year by a $7.5 billion tax windfall from stock gains and rising business profits.
"We are within reach of putting the state's books back in order," said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, in urging lawmakers to oppose the budget. "Shouldn't we use this money sitting in the bank to pay off the credit card before we start on a new spending spree?"
General fund spending will increase from $90 billion to $101.3 billion; the remainder will go to bond payments and special funds.
The budget contains no tax increases, maintaining Schwarzenegger's pledge to hold the line on taxes.
Mike Genest, the governor's finance director, acknowledged the state still has work to do to fix the state's chronic budget problems, but said the 2006-07 fiscal plan was sound.
"This is a balanced budget," he said.
Legislative leaders announced they had reached a deal on Monday after breaking logjams on children's health care spending and debt repayment. The budget came together more quickly than in recent years thanks largely to the tax windfall.
The extra money allowed Democrats to increase spending on popular programs, while allowing Republicans to set aside funds for reserves.
Under the agreement:
_ Schools will receive $55.1 billion next year, an increase of $5.1 billion from the current year. About half of that will go to programs the governor and legislative leaders agreed had been neglected as the state struggled with record budget deficits.
Schools will receive $445 million, for example, to restore music, art and physical education programs, hire guidance counselors and expand teacher recruitment and preschool programs. Schools also will be able to apply for more than $1 billion in grants to buy new textbooks and musical equipment, and improve facilities and teacher training.
_ Lawmakers will set aside nearly $4.9 billion, or 4.7 percent of the budget, to repay debt and build reserves. That represents the largest percent of the budget set aside for savings in more than 25 years, administration officials said.
It also hands a victory to Schwarzenegger, who ran on a platform of putting the state's fiscal house in order. The savings plan will give the state its largest reserves since the mid-1970s, while the repayment plan will allow the state to pay off most of a multibillion dollar debt owed to the state's transportation fund.
The budget, however, does not include a $1 billion payment Schwarzenegger proposed using to make accelerated payments on the bonds voters approved in 2004 to balance the budget. Schwarzenegger had touted that plan as a way to make sure California could afford the $37.3 billion infrastructure bond package voters are being asked to approve in November.
Schwarzenegger's finance director said that it was unclear how the change would affect the state's ability to afford the bonds.
You nailed it oh so succinctly.
Who were the 5? Maldonado was apparently not among them.
http://www.newwestnotes.com/non-random-notes-schwarzenegger-crime-victims-webcast-today/
** The California State Senate passed the state budget, 30 to 10. Five Republicans joined with the Democratic majority to pass the budget favored by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Somewhat surprisingly, state Senator Abel Maldonado, a key Schwarzenegger ally, voted no. Maldonado, perhaps miffed that the governor did not do more to help him in his near-miss bid for the Republican nomination for state controller, declared that the budget "does not move California closer to fiscal responsibility."
That's more than every other country except the US spends on defense (including China)
I haven't located the 5 names yet..
--
California Legislature approves $130.9 billion state budget
http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California2/CA_State_Budget_243215CA.shtml
By AARON C. DAVIS
The Associated Press
SACRAMENTO
State lawmakers approved a $130.9 billion spending plan Tuesday night that uses a tax windfall to fund one of the largest increases ever for California schools and sets aside billions to pay down debt and build up reserves.
The budget bill passed the Senate 30-10 after five Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the spending plan. Ninety minutes later, the Assembly approved the bill 54-22, surpassing the needed two-thirds majority, and setting the stage for California's first on-time budget in six years.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office said the administration will now work around the clock to complete the governor's line-item review of the budget bill in time for him to sign it before midnight Friday, the start of the new fiscal year.
Assembly Republican leader George Plescia, R-La Jolla, summed up the sentiments of legislative leaders on both sides of the aisle in urging lawmakers to approve the plan.
He said the budget met the very definition of a compromise: "We can point to things we do like and things we don't like. Is this the best budget that we could get this year? Probably," he said.
Assembly Budget chair John Laird was more positive, calling it a "great budget."
"It's not just an on-time budget, but a budget that really deals with foster care issues, pays off debt and makes good on the education deal to fully fund schools," Laird said. "The budget does an amazing number of things."
Schwarzenegger said before the vote that he was pleased that lawmakers supported his twin goals of paying down debt and increasing school funding.
"This is a huge victory for both parties, for the Democrats and the Republicans. But especially this is a huge victory for the people of California," Schwarzenegger said in Oakland.
Signing the budget before the deadline would clear Schwarzenegger's last major governing hurdle before the November election. The record spending for schools might also curb attacks from one of his most well-funded political enemies the California Teachers Association, which spent $50 million last year to help defeat his special election initiatives.
Before the vote Tuesday, lawmakers attempted to lay out who won and lost in budget negotiations.
The budget handed Republicans a victory by eliminating plans to pay for health care coverage for children of illegal immigrants, but Democrats largely won in deciding how to carve up billions in unexpected revenue. In doing so, they largely followed the governor's lead in increasing funding for schools and other areas.
Under Democrat proposals, more state dollars will also go to foster care, child care and reducing fees at community colleges. Another $250 million is earmarked for overdue maintenance at state parks.
Fiscal conservatives said the budget, which increases general fund spending by more than 12 percent, does not go far enough to correct the imbalance between state spending and revenue. California will spend $7.4 billion more next fiscal year than it takes in, continuing its so-called structural deficit.
The deficit is covered by a $7.5 billion tax windfall from stock gains and rising business profits.
"We are within reach of putting the state's books back in order," said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, who is running for also a candidate for lieutenant governor. "Shouldn't we use this money sitting in the bank to pay off the credit card before we start on a new spending spree?"
General fund spending in the budget will increase from $90 billion to $101.3 billion; the remainder will go to bond payments and special funds.
The budget contains no tax increases, maintaining Schwarzenegger's pledge to hold the line on taxes.
Mike Genest, the governor's finance director, acknowledged the state still has work to do to fix the chronic budget problems, but said the 2006-07 fiscal plan was sound.
State Treasurer and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides issued a statement Tuesday night accusing Schwarzenegger of being insincere with his funding increases for education and blaming the governor for leaving the state with another multibillion-dollar deficit next year.
Legislative leaders announced they had reached a deal on Monday after breaking logjams on children's health care spending and debt repayment. The budget came together more quickly than in recent years thanks largely to the tax windfall.
The extra money allowed Democrats to increase spending on popular programs, while allowing Republicans to set aside funds for reserves.
Under the agreement:
_ Schools will receive $55.1 billion next year, an increase of $5.1 billion from the current year. About half of that will go to programs the governor and legislative leaders agreed had been neglected as the state struggled with record budget deficits.
Schools will receive $445 million, for example, to restore music, art and physical education programs, hire guidance counselors and expand teacher recruitment and preschool programs. Schools also will be able to apply for more than $1 billion in grants to buy new textbooks and musical equipment, and improve facilities and teacher training.
_ Lawmakers will set aside nearly $4.9 billion, or 4.7 percent of the budget, to repay debt and build reserves. That represents the largest percent of the budget set aside for savings in more than 25 years, administration officials said.
It also hands a victory to Schwarzenegger, who ran on a platform of putting the state's fiscal house in order. The savings plan will give the state its largest reserves since the mid-1970s, while the repayment plan will allow the state to pay off most of a multibillion dollar debt owed to the state's transportation fund.
The budget, however, does not include a $1 billion payment Schwarzenegger proposed using to make accelerated payments on the bonds voters approved in 2004 to balance the budget. Schwarzenegger had touted that plan as a way to make sure California could afford the $37.3 billion infrastructure bond package voters are being asked to approve in November.
Schwarzenegger's finance director said that it was unclear how the change would affect the state's ability to afford the bonds.
Published: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 22:10 PDT
Hmmm... that article looks familiar! ;-)
(See post #12)
The deficit is covered by a $7.5 billion tax windfall from stock gains and rising business profits.
---
The SS California steamed on into the night through the ice field, the reflection of the stars in the sky danced off the ice waters
Damn the Icebergs , Full Spend, uhh Speed Ahead!
lol.. latest update after the assembly committed hari kari too.
Fiscal conservatives said the budget, which increases general fund spending by more than 12 percent, does not go far enough to correct the imbalance between state spending and revenue.
--
12%..
We had been running at close to 10% the last 3 years. Oh shoot! What was I thinking? It's an election year. :-}
How much of that graft goes to the teachers/NEA, colleges, universitys and college grants.
a pretty good chunk of it,,
---
Hearing Handouts
State Budget
The 2006-07 Budget Package
June 27, 2006
Full Report: PDF
Summary of the 2006-07 budget package considered by the Legislature on June 27, 2006.
California's Legislative Analyst's Office
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2006/floor_packet/062706_floor_packet.pdf
and...Mike Genest, the governor's finance director, acknowledged the state still has work to do to fix the state's chronic budget problems, but said the 2006-07 fiscal plan was sound. "This is a balanced budget," he said.
Does not compute.
"We are within reach of putting the state's books back in order," said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, who is running for also a candidate for lieutenant governor. "Shouldn't we use this money sitting in the bank to pay off the credit card before we start on a new spending spree?"
agreed
does not compute..
G'nite :-}
LOL. They lie about the most basic of things. I see they've not only redefined what a "balanced budget" means, but they've also redefined what constitutes an "on-time budget."
State budget tardy, as usual
On-time predictions dashed by disputes on immigrant health care, debt service.
Sacramento Bee, June 15, 2006
THE DEADLINE • June 15: The constitutional deadline for lawmakers to approve the state budget bill • July 1: The beginning of the new fiscal year PASSING DEADLINE State lawmakers have met the June 15 constitutional deadline to pass a budget only four times since 1977. YEAR, DATE PASSED ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R) '06, ??? '05, July 7 '04, July 29 GRAY DAVIS (D) '03, July 29 '02, Aug. 31 '01, July 22 '00, June 22 '99, June 16 PETE WILSON (R) '98, Aug. 11 '97, Aug. 11 '96, July 8 '95, Aug. 2 '94, July 4 '93, June 22 '92, Aug. 29 '91, June 20 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN (R) '90, July 28 '89, June 29 '88, June 30 '87, July 1 '86, June 12 '85, June 13 '84, June 15 '83, July 19 JERRY BROWN (D) '82, June 25 '81, June 15 '80, July 16 '79, July 11 '78, July 5 '77, June 24 Source: California Department of Finance
Budget Speech
Senator Tom McClintock
June 27, 2006
Here is the great paradox of the budget before us: despite a 23 percent increase in revenues in the last three years, we’re running the biggest deficit in California’s history.
Let’s review the numbers.
Income: $94.4 billion
Spending: $101.3 billion
Deficit: $6.9 billion
We’ve enjoyed astounding 23 percent revenue growth these past three years – thanks in large part to the Governor’s determination to roll back the illegal tripling of the car tax, to hold the line on new taxes and to relieve some of the burdens of our Workers Compensation system. And the economy blossomed.
We’ve taken in an extra $7 ½ billion of new revenues that nobody dreamed of.
But the legislature’s budget spends all of that new revenue and then nearly $7 billion more for a three-year spending increase of 29 percent.
Now, after a 29 percent increase in spending, are we to see a 29 percent increase in highway capacity? Or a 29 percent increase in education quality. Or a 29 percent increase in anything the government is supposed to be doing?
But we’re told not to worry – almost $3 billion is being used to prepay debt. Well that is a very good thing, except that virtually all of that is debt that we owe to other government funds – those are transfers – not debt. We’re actually doing very little – less than a half a billion dollars – to prepay the $9 billion of actual hard debt that we owe to lenders.
And even if you deduct all of that from the actual deficit – that still makes this the third largest budget deficit in California history.
If we are spending $7 billion more than we are taking in, where’s the money coming from? The good news is that we’re carrying over about $9 billion from the prior year. And that’s a good thing too – except the only reason we have that in the bank is because we borrowed $9 billion through Prop. 57.
So, in a very real sense, our state is a family that went on a spending binge a few years ago and suddenly got laid off. We ran up about $9 billion of credit card charges.
Today, we’re enjoying a better job and a nice bonus, and as we look forward to next year, we’ve got a comfortable income and roughly $9 billion in the bank. But we also have a credit card statement of about $9 billion. Question: shouldn’t our family use that money that’s sitting in the bank right now to pay off the credit card bill before we start in on another spending binge?
Last year, the legislature overwhelmingly agreed that a $90 billion budget was quite adequate for the current fiscal year. $90 billion – that’s the budget you voted on one year ago in this room. Starting with that consensus figure and adjusting for inflation and population growth – that should come to roughly $94 billion for the upcoming year – which, coincidentally, matches our projected revenues. Holding spending to this level would allow for the immediate retirement of the Davis debt and close that sorry chapter of our history.
But that’s not what this legislature is about to do. Rather, it is about to adopt a budget that runs up the biggest single-year deficit in our history, even amidst a bumper crop of new revenues.
If this budget is passed today and signed intact, it will consume all but $2 billion of our remaining funds by the end of the year and leave us starting the 2007 budget debate – just six months from now – facing the exhaustion in the budget year of not only our remaining cash liquidity but our Prop. 57 borrowing capacity as well.
And that assumes there’s no downturn in the economy. In that event, our prospects would quickly turn from grim to dire. Lest we forget: the budget crisis of 2000 was triggered by a revenue decline of just 7/10ths of one percent. Given the debt load and the deficit we are NOW carrying, the same decline next year would leave us billions of dollars short.
And here’s the fine point of it: at this fleeting moment in our history, having just enjoyed a huge surge of revenues, we’re within reach of putting the state’s books back in good order. We have the revenues to accommodate a brisk 23 percent increase in spending over just three years and still have the money in the bank to pay off the Davis debt in full. We can start fresh – and put all the damage of the Davis years behind us.
But if you adopt this budget and run up spending at the unsustainable rate of 29 percent – while producing a record budget deficit in a time of plenty – then that moment of opportunity will slip from our fingers and we will expose the next session of the legislature to the very real risk of an unprecedented and intractable fiscal crisis.
And I have to ask, in all earnestness, why in the world would you want to do that?
# # #
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1657169/posts?page=1
Tom Bump
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
You could safely call this "a vast, left wing conspiracy!" (take that, Hitlery!)(Or should I say, Maria!)
MEASURE: AB 1801
AUTHOR: Laird
TOPIC: Budget Act of 2006.
DATE: 06/27/2006
LOCATION: SEN. FLOOR
MOTION: Conference Reports AB1801 Laird By Chesbro
(AYES 30. NOES 10.) (PASS)
AYES
Ackerman Alarcon Alquist Ashburn
Bowen Cedillo Chesbro Denham
Ducheny Dunn Dutton Escutia
Figueroa Florez Kehoe Kuehl
Lowenthal Machado Migden Murray
Ortiz Perata Poochigian Romero
Scott Simitian Soto Speier
Torlakson Vincent
NOES
Aanestad Battin Cox Harman
Hollingsworth Maldonado Margett McClintock
Morrow Runner
hmmmm? Them be the 5.. Thanks!
Neat, huh?
Works much better than firing ten or fifteen thousand of these useless leeches.
Tell me again how state government employees are "way behind" private sector pay and benefits...
And, answer the crapweasels in Sacramento, "because that's us being us".
It's on days like these that I remember how much fun it used to be when I was all niaeve and oblivious to the obvious. I used to feel our system was actually a good thing. Well, I guess it's still way ahead of whatever's in second place around the world!!!
It is, but it has been perverted by a political class that has become more corrupted with every passing year. As a consequence, we no longer have a government that serves the best interests of the country or our citizens, but only the best interests of the political class. Something is going to have to be done--and soon--to return this government to the people. To do so will involve changing out around 85% of the Senate and maybe half of the House.
Those now in positions of authority were considered jokes and outcasts in our pre-1960 society. They still are jokes and social outcasts in California 2005 A.D..
I personally prefer starting closer to home. In fact, I exert my influence first on local government electeds, then state, then finally national. I certainly don't EVER want to have to try to exert ANY influence over UN/One-World government. I want that mess stopped cold! Now!!!
If we could just stay focused on the trouble makers and stop milling around in the yard like a buncha dumbed-down inmates in the danged asylum, we might actually get somewhere in pulling the rug out from under the serious bad apples, at least in Sacramento. Whataya think???
I am indeed.
"If we could just stay focused on the trouble makers and stop milling around in the yard like a buncha dumbed-down inmates in the danged asylum, we might actually get somewhere in pulling the rug out from under the serious bad apples, at least in Sacramento."
My own view is you have to start in Washington, but I certainly have no objection tying a can to the tail of any useless local whenever the opportunity presents itself. Doing so, however, is not so easy. Most of the worst ethnic incumbents, for example, have barricaded themselves behind safe gerrymandered walls--and you will never convince those particular constituents to dump their keepers, putting welfare benefits, foodstamps and other freebies, at risk. But you're right, they're going to have to be removed, one way or the other.
And either way takes resources... lots and lots of resources...
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.