In an Op-ed in the LA Times yesterday, Joe Mathews asked if the failures of Arnold Schwarzenegger will save the state. He argued, “Nothing worked for Schwarzenegger because the system itself doesn’t work.”
He went on to argue, “On fiscal and budgetary matters, Schwarzenegger suffered defeat after defeat. The state’s fiscal record after his seven years — California has the same budget deficit now as in 2003, with a much larger debt — has led commentators across the political spectrum to write him off as a failed governor. That conclusion has a factual basis — and is deeply wrong. And it obscures the most interesting and important lesson of his governorship. Put simply: The sheer number and surpassing scale of Schwarzenegger’s failures to fix the state budget constitute a grand and peculiar success, especially if Californians heed the lessons they provide.”
I do not completely agree with Mr. Mathews’ evaluation of the Governor’s defeats. He cites a “relentless political pragmatism” that he says was “unrestrained by ideology, consistency and other obsessions of the small-minded” and that this “led him to try virtually every budget-balancing policy possible under California’s governing system.”
The problem is that he ignores the role that the Governor’s personality played in his demise. He had the policies of a moderate, but the rhetoric and conduct of an extremist. He had the you’re either with us or against us mentality, but policies that lay somewhere between the Democrats and Republicans.
That is not to say there is not a good deal of truth in the view that the system is broken. I certainly believe there is. I do not think that California is structurally governable. Not with the polarization between the Democrats and the Republicans politically, which will not be resolved with changes to either redistricting policies or the non-partisan ballot.
There are too many geographic residential partisan patterns for such tactics to work, other than in a few very marginal districts. But the fact of the matter is, California is largely a blue state these days with a few very discernible pockets of Republicans – Republicans who are just as right-wing as any in the nation.
The problem that Governor Schwarzenegger had was that he was not one of them. When he tried to be one, he got his butt kicked in 2005. But because he was not one of them, he could not bring them to the table.
And that is the other problem that California faces, that even with strong control of both houses and every branch of government by the Democrats, the Republicans have had just enough strength to keep the Democrats short of the two-thirds vote requirements needed to pass a budget prior to 2011 and to raise revenue.
The result is that the Republicans had nothing to gain by following the Governor, and nothing to lose by stalling government. In fact, they had a lot to lose by going along, as the few legislators who did finally allow a budget to pass very quickly learned.
Governor Jerry Brown walks into the Governor’s mansion with several advantages that his predecessor never had.
First, experience. Governor Schwarzenegger lacked both the experience and the mentality to be able to go into a room and hammer out a negotiation. He was too arbitrary and attempted often to rule by decree and assertion rather than by the nitty-gritty of politics. Jerry Brown understands the political world and he is better equipped to deal with these challenges.
Second, Jerry Brown will be able to bring his party further than his predecessor when it comes to political negotiations. That is not to say that the Democrats will always follow him. People who are older than me will remember better his feuds with his legislature and the fact that he was largely a cheapskate. But in these times that may be a strength rather than a weakness.
Finally, we got one and only one structural change, but it is huge. We can now pass a budget without a two-thirds vote. We cannot raise revenue without it, but we can pass a budget.
However, as we will quickly see, that is okay. It will force the Democrats to have to cut spending and if they cannot cut it by enough they can raise taxes by going to the voters and winning their support. If they cannot win their support, they cannot raise taxes. Jerry Brown is already making plans to do so.
Is California broken? Perhaps. But Governor Schwarzenegger was too inept to be a true test of that. If Governor Brown fails to get budgets passed and get things done, then I think you have to come close to concluding that the system is broken and we have to fix it. But I am not there yet, because I see too many things that Governor Schwarzenegger could have done differently and I think people such as Mr. Mathews are too narrow in their analysis.
Joe Mathews concludes by suggesting, “In the end, questions about Schwarzenegger’s legacy have very little to do with him personally. They are queries for the rest of us. Will we come to recognize that it doesn’t matter how smart or famous or experienced or moderate a governor is if the underlying system of government is broken? Will we learn the lessons of Schwarzenegger’s defeats?”
“If we do, history may look upon Schwarzenegger as a governor who pushed us down the painful path to fixing our governance crisis. And his failures may be seen for what they were. Heroic.”
But the reality is that he simply looks at personality in terms of political positioning rather than approach. While it is true the Governor looked at a wide variety of different approaches, the problem was that his attitude, his personality, his personal weaknesses never changed.
It is not that I disagree that California has too broad a power in the initiative system, that the tax system is problematic, that the two-thirds voting system makes the state difficult to govern, it is simply that at the end of the day, try as he might, the Governor had neither the skills nor the capital with the right people to make things work. Brown has both of those and so if he fails, I am much more likely to conclude it was the system’s fault.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
California is broken. Make no mistake about it.
Brown will need to fix it or he will be judged a failure as well. Let’s hope he can.
dmg: “Finally, we got one and only one structural change, but it is huge. We can now pass a budget without a two-thirds vote. We cannot raise revenue without it, but we can pass a budget. However, as we will quickly see, that is okay. It will force the Democrats to have to cut spending and if they cannot cut it by enough they can raise taxes by going to the voters and winning their support. If they cannot win their support, they cannot raise taxes. Jerry Brown is already making plans to do so.”
I very much doubt the policy change of being able to pass budgets with only a majority vote is going to somehow “fix” the problems in CA. Point blank, the Democrats have been in charge of the legislature, and are responsible for the out of control spending, but refuse to take responsibility.
As long as: the legislature thinks the answer to every problem is to raise taxes in order to fund every new project/issue the legislature can dream up; the unions continue their stranglehold on controlling what monies the legislature allocates to salaries/benefits of those in the powerful public employee unions; the water wars continue unresolved and in a quagmire bc of various vested interests who attempt power grabs; people in CA continue to demand ridiculously high levels of service, many of which are unnecessary; CA insists on being the most “green” state and never knows a green project they won’t pay for no matter how much it costs and the law of diminishing returns; CA insists on paying for a myriad of services for illegal aliens it cannot afford to pay its own citizens, and the list goes on – CA will continue to be ungovernable no matter who is in charge.
For instance, CA is insisting on building a high speed rail, even tho other states have understood the absolute foolishness of such a venture in the middle of an economic crisis. The city of Davis has a special recyclable garbage truck, w citizens having a separate garbage can for recyclables. Only the best and most expensive for Davis. Only the best and most expensive services for CA. Salaries in CA are beyond the pale, just about the highest in the nation. And you wonder why CA has the worst credit rating of all 50 states (except Illinois)?
The governor is not the problem. CA has to start grappling w its underlying pentient for caving to union demands, grow a fiscal spine, and start cutting out Cadillac services and prioritize what is truly needed. And it must encourage business above all else – to start creating jobs, jobs, jobs. Sacramento was rated as the 4th worst city for employment – w a 16.7% jobless rate.
I wish Jerry Brown the best of luck, but don’t have much faith he will do any better than Schwartzenegger. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, this is an entrenched “pigs feeding at the public trough” issue. And frankly, our federal legislature is not much different. The latest omnibus budget bill had over 6000 earmarks in it – pure pork – as if there were no economic recession. The media pretends the recession is somehow “over”. LOL, COTI (crying on the inside)…
Arnold is just an egotistical opportunist, or in his world an actor/producer. If California is broken, it was broken by “we, the people.” not Arnold or Gray or any other politician. The culture of self-indulgence and immediate gratification, that has permeated the state for the four decades that I have lived here, invigorated by the passage of Prop 13, convinced us that not only could we have it all, we deserved it. Now that the boom has come to an end, too many of us, unable to formulate a solution, are settling for scapegoats. If a solution is to be found, it will be by rolling up our sleeves and starting to work on what’s in front of us; public safety, education, and jobs. We can argue who’s at fault while we work.
“California is largely a blue state these days with a few very discernible pockets of Republicans – Republicans who are just as right-wing as any in the nation.”
First, geographically, California is more red than blue. It is unclear if high-density living causes liberalism, or if people with tendencies toward a left political view have some magnetic attraction to each other and lower personal-space requirements. But just looking at the map of voting records it is clear that the more dense, the more left (no pun intended =).
However, California is filled with more center and independent voters than extremist on the left and right. This larger block of voters (identified, for example, by the election results of Prop 22 and Props 74-77) can be easily swayed toward their moderate sentiments. Both liberals and conservatives are constantly flabbergasted by election results that seem to defy their ideological logic backing drastic measures.
The elephant in the room is the the large and well-oiled political apparatus of the Democrat-public employee union consortium (including the related, giant and quickly expanding, population of government employee retirees), combined with the increasing population of uneducated and unskilled immigrants that vote with their hand out – both relative to a declining number of non-government-contracting, private-sector-employed, middle class.
People vote for their own self interests before ideology. I talked to a number of smart right-leaning moderates that told me they voted for Brown because they had a close relative working in state or local government, or they had contract work with the government. They all told me they voted this way even though they agreed that CA’s finances were a mess from out of control spending and too-high public employee compensation and benefits compared to the private sector, and that they considered the state very business unfriendly.
Florida and California are two states to watch for getting their fiscal house in order. Californians elected a union-friendly governor with zero private-sector business experience. Floridians elected a business-friendly governor with zero government experience. My bets are on Florida. I don’t hold out much hope for CA at this point.
JB: ” I don’t hold out much hope for CA at this point.”
Me either…I swear most of CA is in a state (pun intended) of denial…
I think the main reason Arnie failed is the same reason Meg Whitman would have also failed … not one iota of political experience. You can’t just jump into the highest political office in the state and expect that your personality and wealth will carry you. A government is not a business, it isn’t run the same way and having business experience will not make up for lack of political know-how.
These are all under discussion from reports that have emerged.
Budget cuts Brown is likely to propose:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/03/3295079/brown-to-propose-broad-list-of.html[/url]
Brown proposal to retain tax hikes:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/30/3288273/brown-plans-to-take-tax-hike-to.html[/url]
Jerry Brown is a pragmatist. The unions will probably be surprised and some of them will likely oppose his proposals. Republicans will surely oppose his continuation of the tax increases. Hopefully the voters will recognize the gravity of the situation and vote for a reasonable compromise of budget cuts and tax increases.
[i]”I do not think that California is structurally governable. Not with the polarization between the Democrats and the Republicans politically, which will not be resolved with changes to either redistricting policies or the non-partisan ballot.”[/i]
Our new redistricting scheme should produce a larger number of districts which are closer to 50-50. Given the large advantage Dems have in California, you are right to suggest that we will still have a great number which are not competitive on a partisan basis.
I disagree with you that the non-partisan ballot won’t make things more moderate (and hence more governable). My expectation is that in districts which are now very strongly favoring one party, and hence favoring the strongest partisans of the favored party, we will start to see a rise of less partisan and more moderate alternatives, some of whom will win office when they face non-incumbents.
I could well be wrong about this, but I think our Assembly district a few years ago was a good example. In the partisan Democratic primary, the more liberal, more union-oriented ([url]http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2008/05/labor-opens-ie.html[/url]) Mariko Yamada* defeated the more moderate and more business-friendly Chris Cabaldon. She then went on to easily win election in November by a 2:1 vote, and has since been re-elected.
If we had in place in 2008 the non-partisan primary ballot, I doubt Yamada would have won more than 50% of the primary vote. The 30% of voters who are or lean Republican probably would have voted in the primary for Manuel Cosme or some other conservative. Yamada likely would have won more of the remaining 70% than Cabaldon, but not enough to avoid a November run-off.
That would have meant a general election pitting Yamada against Cabaldon. With 40-45% of the Democratic Party vote and most of the non-Democratic vote, I think Cabaldon would have beaten Yamada by at least 10%, if not more.
A different, but reasonable question, is how different Cabaldon would have voted in the Assembly than Yamada. No one will ever know. However, I am fairly certain he would not have been a co-author or supporter of AB155 ([url]http://www.halfwaytoconcord.com/do-ab-155-and-sb-88-protect-the-public-or-union-interests/[/url]), the bill the fire unions pushed to prohibit municipal bankuptcies.
*No matter how much I dislike her politics, Mariko is not an extremist. However, she is on the very liberal side of the Democratic Party; and she has no philosophical or practical problem with taking a lot of union money and then voting how they would like her to on bills they care about.
It’s interesting to note how supposed moderates–and Schwarzenegger supporters –now are offering their lukewarm support to Jerry Brown. He was the unionist-socialist a few months ago when battling against e-Meg, but now….after making many assurances to wealthy conservatives and corporate people Brown appears ready to continue the Schwarzenegger austerity program (that is, depending on who you speak with. Jerry’s a conservative in Orange County, but a pal of Caesar Chavezites in Fresno).
As with Davis’s own Byronius, log cabin Demopublican, e-Meg and Mitt Romney fan, and Schwarzenegger supporter. He’s set for the Jerry party in the Big Tomato [url] http://new-worlds.org/blog/?p=8948 [/url]–tho like most business-types he doesn’t quite realize what Jerry and his union boys most likely have in store for the private sector–tho in B-ron’s case he’s a bit more delusional than most.
“Our new redistricting scheme should produce a larger number of districts which are closer to 50-50. Given the large advantage Dems have in California, you are right to suggest that we will still have a great number which are not competitive on a partisan basis.
I disagree with you that the non-partisan ballot won’t make things more moderate (and hence more governable). My expectation is that in districts which are now very strongly favoring one party, and hence favoring the strongest partisans of the favored party, we will start to see a rise of less partisan and more moderate alternatives, some of whom will win office when they face non-incumbents.”
The problem is that when you look at residential patterns, I don’t think you end up with a lot more 50-50 type districts. You may end up with a few, but look at the maps in california, I think you are hard pressed to find a lot.
In terms of open primary, is there empirical evidence that places like Louisiana produce more moderate candidates than places with partisan primaries? Again, I have not seen evidence to support this claim.
First, geographically, California is more red than blue. It is unclear if high-density living causes liberalism, or if people with tendencies toward a left political view have some magnetic attraction to each other and lower personal-space requirements. But just looking at the map of voting records it is clear that the more dense, the more left (no pun intended =).
Generally when you live in more densely populated communities, there is greater incentive to share resources; in less densely populated areas, the incentive to share in the same way isn’t as great.
From blogs.sacbee.com: “Gov. Jerry Brown suggested before a meeting with county officials this morning that his budget-reducing bid to shift responsibility for some state services to local governments could be far-reaching.
“To realign responsibilities, it involves welfare, it involves Medi-Cal, it involves parole, probation, many other things,” Brown said. “So, it’s the kind of complex reordering that I want to be very careful about.”
Brown is meeting with county leaders at the headquarters of the California State Association of Counties. He said, “I’m coming here today to get the ideas of the supervisors.”
Asked about concerns expressed by local officials that a shift in responsibilities might not be accompanied by an equal shift in funding, Brown said, “Everybody’s concerned about everything, and I think when they see the budget they’ll have even more concerns.”
But he said, “I’ll listen. That’s why I’m coming here.””
Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/01/jerry-brown-realignment-a-comp.html#ixzz1A6LGj8mc
How does Jerry Brown think counties are going to pay to perform state functions, when it is the state who is withholding funding from counties to fix its own budget problems at the expense of the counties? To me, this shows woeful ignorance of the situation…
“Ignorant” is not a term I would generally apply to Jerry Brown. Clearly if you shift responsibility and shift control, you have to shift funding. Throughout the campaign he stressed returning control to local governments, and going to the voters for tax increases. Since the election sources also are suggesting deep budget cuts. The broad outline of a budget plan is emerging. It will please nobody, because there is no budget solution that will please anyone. So a major compromise is going to be necessary. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this, especially 24 hours into his term. Any group that adopts an intransigent position might as well be frozen out of the process, since intransigence is a big part of what got us where we are today.
“Generally when you live in more densely populated communities, there is greater incentive to share resources; in less densely populated areas, the incentive to share in the same way isn’t as great. “
I think I agree with this. When living in a high density city you cannot survive without lots of government services. It makes sense that urban folk get more used to government running more of their lives. When living in a rural area, I think you tend to need and desire fewer services from government. That being the case, as the population of the US continues to grow and shift to urban areas, the more left-leaning we will become. Great!
[i]”When living in a high density city you cannot survive without lots of government services. It makes sense that urban folk get more used to government running more of their lives.”[/i]
I am willing to bet–a cup of good coffee–that rural Americans are more dependent (on a dollars per capita basis) on government aid programs than are urban residents. You have to keep in mind we give hundreds of billions of dollars every year in welfare to farmers plus all the indirect subsidies through ag marketing schemes and ag research. Through federal and state water projects, we greatly subsidize water which goes to farmers. We also have expensive federal programs to provide rural health care (with no equivalent for urban health care) and rural schools and rural postal delivery and so on. We also have crazy federal programs like the ethanol fuels projects which are designed to raise the prices of certain crops. And we also have huge tax credits designed to subsidize the search for natural gas and crude oil and other minerals, all effectively welfare programs for rural Americans. … And then last year, if all of that were not enough, the Obama stimulus package included a massive subsidy–I think it was more than $1 billion–to provide high-speed internet service for rural America. The list of giveaways to the rural folks seems to never end.
“I am willing to bet–a cup of good coffee–that rural Americans are more dependent (on a dollars per capita basis) on government aid programs than are urban residents.”
Rich: Good point. Big cities benefit from economies of scale looking at this from a per-capita perspective. However, I think that oversimplifies the argument. How about the cost per square mile as an alternative?
In any case, give people free stuff and they will generally take it and become addicted to it. In terms of farm subsidies, is that money for the farmers or another way to subsidize the true cost of food to feed all the hungry urban people? Talk to most Republican farmers and they will tell you they hate the subsidies, but their business and industry has been corrupted by them and they have been trained to expect them.
Water is another issue. I’m not sure I have a big problem with the government subsidizing farming water rights given the alternative use for the water (filling pools in LA?).
But this was/is not realy my original point. I think rural living requires less day-to-day services and gives people a greater sense of self-dependency. You don’t find any volunteer fire fighters in downtown LA. And people dump their trash and plow the snow from their own roads in many rural areas. This might be a better approach for New York too given the recent antics of the public union employees there.
“I am willing to bet–a cup of good coffee–that rural Americans are more dependent (on a dollars per capita basis) on government aid programs than are urban residents.”
Here’s one way to look at it. Federal Taxes paid/received for each State:
[url]http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state/[/url]
It shows that some solid blue states (California, New York, New Jersey) are in a more sharing mood, while some solid red states (Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama) are in a more taking mood.
[i]”… the Obama stimulus package included a massive subsidy–I think it was more than $1 billion–to provide high-speed internet service for rural America.”[/i]
For the record, I looked it up and it was $7.2 billion for rural broadband ([url]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100739283[/url]). That’s equal to $13,228.73 for every man, woman and child in Wyoming.
On a related local note … we have this huge scam to enrich rural landowners by purchasing from them “conservation easements.” The Enterprise reported last week on yet another one of these deals for a small farm (140 acres) west of Davis owned by Bruce and Judy Clark. We the taxpayers handed them a check for $867,000.
I posted a response to that news on The Enterprise website:
“So we in the general public gave Bruce and Judy Clark $867,000 in cold hard cash so they would not build a lot of houses on their land which is already zoned for agriculture and thus it is already illegal for them to build houses on? That’s a very nice deal for the Clarks.
“Where can I get the government to give me $867,000 in cold hard cash to prevent me from building a chemical factory on my home lot in Davis? I know it is already illegal for me to build a chemical factory on my home lot. However, that reality did not seem to stop the government from enriching the Clarks.”
Keep in mind that I don’t blame the Clarks for taking the money. I don’t blame anyone for legally enriching themselves, unless they are doing something unethical, which (in my opinion) the Clarks are not doing simply by accepting a check. My complaint is with the people who are giving away taxpayer money for this scam. I’d far rather see 867 poor residents of Yolo County get an extra $1,000 in food stamps than giving this bounty to a rich family.
He had the you’re either with us or against us mentality, but policies that lay somewhere between the Democrats and Republicans.
that’s pure speculation on your part, and that is pure democrat partisan rhetoric.
DMG: That is not to say there is not a good deal of truth in the view that the system is broken. I certainly believe there is.
the system is largely run by democrats. don’t they deserve a certain amount of blame for CA’s problems?
DMG: it is simply that at the end of the day, try as he might, the Governor had neither the skills nor the capital with the right people to make things work. Brown has both of those and so if he fails, I am much more likely to conclude it was the system’s fault.
in other words, if the democrats fail to deliver it is “the system”, but if arnold of the GOP fails to deliver it is the GOP’s “failure”
I’ll say it again: “the system” is run by DEMOCRATS. they own the state government now. your tax and spend philosophy is being put to the ultimate test.
“I’ll say it again: “the system” is run by DEMOCRATS. they own the state government now. your tax and spend philosophy is being put to the ultimate test.”
The system is not run by Democrats. It’s run by a strange conglomeration of rules. Part of the system is run by the initiative process. Part of it is run by Democrats, but within that up until this year, it had to be approved by a Republican governor AND a few members of a Republican legislature, who used the process to essentially force policy-decisions and concessions. The result was a very strange witches brew of policies which gave corporate tax breaks, could not raise revenues, and paralyzed the system. Stating that the system is run or has been run by Democrats, shows a grave misunderstanding of the very comple dynamics that govern the system and may ultimately make the state ungovernable.
DMG: it had to be approved by a Republican governor AND a few members of a Republican legislature, who used the process to essentially force policy-decisions and concessions.
yes, its called the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. are you telling me that everything the Democrats wanted would have yielded positive results, but everything the GOP wanted would not?
DMG: Stating that the system is run or has been run by Democrats, shows a grave misunderstanding of the very comple dynamics that govern the system and may ultimately make the state ungovernable.
the democrats now run the whole show. its not complex, its very simple. you know that CA is in trouble, and your party is going to preside over that trouble, and you fear that things will not turn around, and thus will take the blame. and you don’t want them to take that blame.
my understanding is you voted for and supported an expensive high speed rail system that is now going to cost the state a boat load of money. isn’t that part of the current budget problem?
the system is largely run by democrats. don’t they deserve a certain amount of blame for CA’s problems?
The system is set up so that you can place blame wherever you feel comfortable doing so and ignore whatever consequential role your side had in the matter. It allows everyone to go about their day with a clear conscience.
“The system is not run by Democrats… It’s run by a strange conglomeration of rules.
First, great letter in the Enterprise last night from the UCD grad (PHD) that fled to Texas and couldn’t be happier. Texas is kicking our ass and will likely continue to do so.
I would say that California government IS largely controlled by Democrats, AND it is run by a strange conglomeration of rules. The same is true for New York and Illinois… two states with about the same level of fiscal dysfunction. You also don’t get to ignore the Democrat sweep of the last election… this happening when most of the rest of the country was turning more red. The party of the left has had their way with California since after Pete Wilson. Thank the public employee unions for working hard to protect their pay and benefits.
I suppose you can make the case that a Republican governor and a measly minority of GOP legislators blocked certain tax increases and Democrat spending priorities that many on the left believe to be necessary to solve California’s fiscal mess… and that makes Republicans culpable. You could also make a case that the CA initiative system creates another roadblock for Dems to get their way… and that makes the people culpable. However, on the first point, the Tax Foundation recently reported that California has the second worst business tax climate of the 50 states, with only New York more hostile to employers. Democrats should be grateful that our (faux) Republican governor prevented us from eclipsing New York as having the worse business climate. On the second point, isn’t CA comprised of a much higher percentage of registered Democrats than Republicans? It is mostly Democrat voters passing all the “spend but don’t tax” propositions.
All this partisanship aside, I think sustentative change will happen only when private-sector labor stops supporting public-sector labor. This is already happening in many states as more unemployed private-sector workers begin to understand that they are paying for the public employee union sky-high wages and benefits. Today the Democrats have most labor in their pockets… tomorrow they will only have government labor in their pockets.
“It shows that some solid blue states (California, New York, New Jersey) are in a more sharing mood, while some solid red states (Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama) are in a more taking mood.”
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I think Marx would be happy that his disciples are following his principles well.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I think Marx would be happy that his disciples are following his principles well.
Or to use a Randian perspective, maybe we know who the real moochers and producers are.
Yes, good old Texas:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion[/url]
Wow. Maybe Rick Perry won’t be running for U.S. President in 2012?
Thanks DS, my wife and I lived in Texas for a year when she taught at Tarleton State University. I won’t comment on the healthcare or University system in the state except to say that most Californians would consider them inadequate to their respective tasks. I will mention that although the legislature meets only part-time and they’re not wasting any money on prisoners, I did not experience a lower cost of living, only drastically lower wages and a poorer quality of life. I encourage those who like hard work, hard water and mind-numbing ignorance to immigrate!
biddlin: “I encourage those who like hard work, hard water and mind-numbing ignorance to immigrate!”
I encourage those who like hard work, and like retaining more of what they earn from it to move to Texas. Besides, it seems many have a different oppinion than yours…
Note the following letter to the editor from the Davis Enterprise:
[quote]Move to Texas for a better future
Paul Chauvel | Lake Jackson, Texas | January 04, 2011 08:39
I am one of many graduates (Ph.D. in chemistry) who benefited from an excellent education at UC Davis. Twenty-five years ago I had job offers in the San Francisco Bay Area, Michigan and Texas. Due to the high taxes, high cost of living and uncertainty of long-term employment in chemistry in California, I decided to move to Texas.
For myself and my family, the decision turned out to be a good one. I have a great career, three wonderful children, low taxes, a nice house on a lake, chickens (you can’t take the Aggie out of the chemist) in a very nice county with high employment and low crime.
I have been watching the situation in California over the past decade with some despair. I wish you luck with what you are trying to do out there. If you are expecting the rest of us to bail you out when the state goes belly up, don’t count on it. Many of your colleagues are making the same choice I did 25 years ago – moving to Texas for better opportunities and jobs!
Paul Chauvel
Lake Jackson, Texas[/quote]
I can just keep posting this, since there seems to be a popular conservative theme that the fiscal situation in Texas is better than that of California.
[url]http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/[/url]
California budget deficit: $25.4 billion
Texas budget deficit: “as high as $25 billion.”
The problems?
— over-reliance on sales tax
— structural deficit (they cut their property taxes, replaced them with business taxes)
— solutions being discussed: drastic budget cuts, cost-shifting, raise fees.
— oh yes, “Republican leaders in the Texas Legislature are insisting that it will be a no-new-taxes session.”
“If you are expecting the rest of us to bail you out when the state goes belly up, don’t count on it.”
We’ll keep that in mind.
Don: RE: Texas versus CA
Texas is a low-tax state experiencing state budget problems because of the recession. California is a high-tax state experiencing state budget problems because of structural finance problems that are being exacerbated by the recession.
Texas can temporarily raise taxes for emergency budget solutions (and still be a low tax state), but they have not done so yet because the conservatives in charge of government believe that the recession will end and revenue inflows will allow them to be back to balanced budget. California requires permanent solutions to either reduce spending or increase taxes… but the liberals in charge of government have not done so yet because…???
Both deficits are structural in that the legislators and voters made changes in the tax systems that led to expenditures exceeding revenues. Both states are experiencing budget problems because of the recession.
Both states can solve their deficit the same way: increase revenues, decrease expenditures. Neither can wait for revenues to increase by the recession ending, because both states have to balance their budgets by law.
We have a high-tax state with a strong safety net, they have a low-tax state with a weak safety net. Neither seems to be better in terms of fiscal outcome. Which is better in terms of protecting their lower-income residents from the effects of the recession? Moreover, do you believe what conservatives in Texas have been doing is responsible governance?
Interesting to say that the “liberals” in California are “in charge of government.” Both parties have been responsible for the budget outcome, since it has taken a 2/3 vote. Even with the voter-approved change, it still will take Republican votes to get to any increase in revenue.
Texas has a better credit ratings and $10 billion banked in the Rainy Day Fund. They also haven’t yet sliced their budget by near as much. Lastly, they have capacity to increase taxation while still being a low tax state.
California is fully leveraged. There are no cards left to play. If taxes are raised, then the once great attracter of business becomes the new plague of enterprise and we will own the crappy distinction of being the highest-taxed state. The Laffer Curve will kick in and ensure we damage our long-term economic viability as well as our short-term returns on any tax increase “investment”.
The structural problems in California are sky-high taxes, sky-high public employee high wages and sky-high unfunded pension liabilities. Texas does not have these problems. Now, if California politicians were talking about making significant cuts to public employee wages and pensions, we could consider this as a relief valve similar to Texas’s taxation capacity relief valve. However, the Democrats in charge are not talking about it.
You are correct that California Republicans share responsibility for not allowing additional tax increases as a method to reduce budget deficits. Voters too (you can thank us all later). But thanks to the largess of their union benefactors, liberal Democrats have owned the majority and are wholly responsible for the structural overspending.
Here is a good article explaining some reasons why Texas is in better shape.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/13/news/economy/california_texas_economy.fortune/index.htm
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/13/news/economy/california_texas_economy.fortune/index.htm[/url]