The State Budget Mess -- Continued

Townhall.com ^ | July 14, 2009 | Debra J. Saunders

[Kaslin]

When California voters rejected five measures on the May 19 special election ballot, but passed a sixth measure that barred legislative pay raises in budget deficit years, the message to Sacramento was clear: Voters did not like what Sacramento had to offer.

I thought that the 1990 term-limit measure that restricted Assembly members to three two-year terms and state Senate members to two four-year terms would produce better representation in Sacramento. I thought term-limited lawmakers would pass better budgets. Instead, legislators have passed budgets later than ever and more gimmicky each year -- until gimmicks no longer could hide the gaps between income and spending.

The state budget mess has prompted me to rethink term limits. Maybe it's not a plus when roughly one-third of Assembly members and one-half of state senators are no longer eligible for re-election.

State Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, believes the answer is for voters to pass his open-primary measure on the June 2010 ballot. Primary a la Maldonado would pit the top two vote-getters -- even members of the same party -- against each other in the general election.

Under the system now, Maldonado explained, Democrats have to woo the hard left to win their party's primary; Republicans likewise have to win the hard right -- with the result that most lawmakers are "working very hard making 13 percent of their electorate happy." But if voters chose between the top two vote-getters, lawmakers would have to reach out to all constituents, not just to their party's overly influential base.

I called Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies -- my go-to guy on good government -- and he suggested that I rethink my rethinking on term limits. Stern referred me to his center's 2007 report "Termed Out: Reforming California's Legislative Term Limits." It found that term limits brought fresh faces to Sacramento and reduced the potential for corruption -- but suggested longer term limits to enhance legislators' expertise.

Rather than term limits, Stern blames the two-thirds vote needed to pass a budget for the state's fiscal woes. He also faulted voters' reluctance to make shared sacrifices. Look at President Obama, Stern added: "Cutting taxes and raising spending. What does that tell people? You can have it all."

Besides, every time I might go for longer term limits, state lawmakers cook up some underhanded scheme like last year's Proposition 93, which would have extended terms to 12 years, while selling it as a tougher measure. Such dishonesty cannot be rewarded with a yes vote.

But if voters think they were voting against Sacramento in May, Stern noted, they should notice that the problem is not "just the people who are there -- because you're bringing in new people all the time and they're not doing any better than the people they're replacing."

Maybe the problem isn't term limits, but voters in a state where some oppose spending limits, others oppose higher taxes, but all agree they should not have to compromise.

I've heard from voters who saw their no-on-everything stance in May as a repudiation of politicians who haven't gotten the job done -- odd, as passage of the May measures would have encouraged compromise.

In May, we got the government we deserved -- and it still wasn't good enough for us.

[ExTexasRedhead]

From the L. A. Times

1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal , whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border...
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County.

(All 10 of the above are from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.. Over 70% of the United States ‘ annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

We are a bunch of fools for letting this continue all over the country by career politicians who are power hungry and who care nothing for this country.

HOW CAN YOU HELP ?
Send copies of this to your address list and ask them to pass it on as well. If this doesn’t open your eyes nothing will. And you wonder why Nancy Pelosi and her power-hungry cohorts wants them to become voters!

[556x45]

“I thought that the 1990 term-limit measure that restricted Assembly members to three two-year terms and state Senate members to two four-year terms would produce better representation in Sacramento. I thought term-limited lawmakers would pass better budgets.”

Clearly term limits are (and always have been) a non-starter. First, they’re not a substitute for an electorate thats awake and engaged. Second, they’re superfluous b/c voters (those who are awake and engaged) have always been able to vote out representatives who aren’t representing.

Sadly, both libs and so called conservatives who look to govt. for solutions will always be disappointed. Real change doesn’t come from DC or any state capitol.

[justkate]

"Rather than term limits, Stern blames the two-thirds vote needed to pass a budget for the state's fiscal woes. He also faulted voters' reluctance to make shared sacrifices.

Look at President Obama, Stern added: "Cutting taxes and raising spending. What does that tell people? You can have it all."

I've been hearing this argument more & more from LIBERALS here in CA. It is a devious argument meant to sway Independents & Conservatives, who are becoming increasingly more frantic about government spending, into believing that the ONLY problem is the 2/3 majority required to pass a budget.

In essence, what these people want to do is lift the 2/3 majority requirement so that Dems in CA are free to RAISE TAXES AND SPENDING...so CA residents will be FORCED to make “shared sacrifices“…BY PAYING HIGHER TAXES so they can endlessly INCREASE SPENDING.

Obviously, CA voters DO NOT think we can “have it all”. We were inundated with apocalyptic scenarios of rapists & murderers running rampant through the town square if we did not approve another tax increase. Of starving, naked children & the elderly being pushed off 40 story buildings when the funds for their care ran out. We still said “NO”.

Voters had a choice…more spending, more debt and higher taxes or cut spending, stop borrowing and keep your money grubbing mitts off my paycheck. We chose the latter.

And it was ONLY the 2/3 majority requirement that forced the politicans in Sacramento listen to us.