|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 10, 2009 16:33:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 11, 2009 10:48:53 GMT -8
Something has to be done pretty soon. California is coming apart at the seams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 11, 2009 12:15:40 GMT -8
Something has to be done pretty soon. California is coming apart at the seams. Best sentence in the piece: How do you govern a state of 40 million people with a constitution written for 1.5 million; with an initiative system designed to defeat special interests that has come to be dominated by them?The state is just too damn big. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 11, 2009 14:50:30 GMT -8
Something has to be done pretty soon. California is coming apart at the seams. Best sentence in the piece: How do you govern a state of 40 million people with a constitution written for 1.5 million; with an initiative system designed to defeat special interests that has come to be dominated by them?The state is just too damn big. =Bob And as is pointed out the government is dysfunctional. I was suprised to read that San Diego County was poorer than LA County. I guess we just don't see all of the poor areas here at home but are exposed to the poorer parts of LA thru news and what we must drive thru to get around up there. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 11, 2009 16:59:08 GMT -8
Best sentence in the piece: How do you govern a state of 40 million people with a constitution written for 1.5 million; with an initiative system designed to defeat special interests that has come to be dominated by them?The state is just too damn big. =Bob And as is pointed out the government is dysfunctional. I was suprised to read that San Diego County was poorer than LA County. I guess we just don't see all of the poor areas here at home but are exposed to the poorer parts of LA thru news and what we must drive thru to get around up there. I think it's that Smell-A County has a ton more rich people than we have here and it offsets the poverty, despite how ugly it is in places like Southgate. What I found back in the early '90s, when I was dealing with a lot of minor subdivisions, was a lot of people who were land rich but dollar poor. I ran into a lot of people living in trailers on land given to them by a parent and who were spending most everything they had in order to subdivide their land, sell it as individual parcels or to someone who was willing to pay the price for land with an approved subdivision map. Most of them talked about selling here and buying a farm in Norcal or Oregon (a fair number of them in Valley Center). It's not just a political or cultural divide. The wife of a friend of mine from college is pretty much in agreement with me on everything political except when it comes to the politics of water. Mention the Peripheral Canal to her and you'd likely get a 20 minute lecture (she is quite overbearing, to tell the truth). Neither Norcal or Socal liberals or conservatives think exactly the same because the distance is too great between us. While, for example, the conservatives in Boulevard most likely would agree with conservatives in Modoc County, the local issues would be very different. And when the differences are as wide as they are, it becomes damn near impossible for the state government to mediate between competing demands. It's not as if East County conservatives can much identify with the concerns of loggers in Eureka County. Maybe on an ideological level, but the local issues are so different that it's close to impossible to get consensus (same thing works with Liberals). Putting an end to gerrymandering, which is nothing more than offering "safe ridings" as is done in parliamentary systems would help, but it's not enough. This state need to become at least two states but better would be 3 states. North California, South California and East California (although the last one would be so damn poor it would make Mississippi look rich). =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 12, 2009 8:20:19 GMT -8
There is no easy answer. One thing for sure is that the state has got to find a way to get out of debt. They can't raise taxes unless it is consumption taxes and the fools in Sacramento seem to think that a penny in the front door is reason to spend a dime.
The politics and the real issue of water, politics aside, has no easy answer either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 13, 2009 9:40:38 GMT -8
There is no easy answer. One thing for sure is that the state has got to find a way to get out of debt. They can't raise taxes unless it is consumption taxes and the fools in Sacramento seem to think that a penny in the front door is reason to spend a dime. The politics and the real issue of water, politics aside, has no easy answer either. Yeah, and that's the downside to splitting the state. Would Socal get any water at all from Norcal? I would tend to doubt it. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 13, 2009 14:35:42 GMT -8
I can't seem to find any reference to it now, but years ago their was a ballet initiative that would have voted Norther California Water to the South end of the State. It was defeated for environmental reasons. What would happen if that kind of thing were to come up again with an environmental solution?
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 13, 2009 15:15:58 GMT -8
I don't want to see California "repaired", like some flat tire requiring a camel patch on the inner tube.
I want to see it go totally off the rails... crash and burn to the ground.
California, after all, "leads the way". The sooner it self-destructs, the better the chance the rest of the nation will pay attention to the insane folly of California.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 13, 2009 15:40:38 GMT -8
I don't want to see California "repaired", like some flat tire requiring a camel patch on the inner tube. I want to see it go totally off the rails... crash and burn to the ground. California, after all, "leads the way". The sooner it self-destructs, the better the chance the rest of the nation will pay attention to the insane folly of California. Will you spare my neighborhood?  I have tried to imagine what would happen if we really did go belly up here in California. Would Obama have us bailed out and the rest of you end up paying for our folly for generations? I hope we never find out. Sacramento just has to get the message and cut spending, cut taxes, and learn to live well within our means. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 13, 2009 15:46:52 GMT -8
I don't want to see California "repaired", like some flat tire requiring a camel patch on the inner tube. I want to see it go totally off the rails... crash and burn to the ground. California, after all, "leads the way". The sooner it self-destructs, the better the chance the rest of the nation will pay attention to the insane folly of California. Will you spare my neighborhood? I have tried to imagine what would happen if we really did go belly up here in California. Would Obama have us bailed out and the rest of you end up paying for our folly for generations? I hope we never find out. Sacramento just has to get the message and cut spending, cut taxes, and learn to live well within our means. Agreed, but I'm afraid it will take a "crash and burn" scenario (fiscally speaking) for the jack-assed crazy people of this state to finally "get the message" that they are running out of other people's money. Starve the beast. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 13, 2009 17:36:31 GMT -8
Personally, I am totally against breaking the state in two.
Here's a factor that has not been mentioned in this discussion. If you split the state in two at the Tehachapis, you would see two more Democratic Senators in the U.S. Senate. If there is any conceivable way that the GOP could defeat this idea, they will do it.
No, breaking the state in two is not the answer. Making it easier for Sacramento to raise taxes every time it becomes clear that the legislature was guilty of outrageous overspending is also not the answer.
We must reducing spending, which likely means (among other possibilities) the unfortunate tactic of drastic pay cuts for state employees. There is no doubt that such a plan would be painful. . . very painful. But that is just what happened here in the '30s. Sometimes a painful cure is better than allowing the patient to die.
The state must absolutely NOT embark on costly new programs, even if such programs are popular and perhaps even worthwhile.
Part of the problem is that everybody seems to think that asking them to sacrifice is off the table no matter how bad the situation gets. That's not sensible.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 13, 2009 18:25:19 GMT -8
I don't want to see California "repaired", like some flat tire requiring a camel patch on the inner tube. I want to see it go totally off the rails... crash and burn to the ground. California, after all, "leads the way". The sooner it self-destructs, the better the chance the rest of the nation will pay attention to the insane folly of California. Will you spare my neighborhood? Um, Castle Creek is not a "neighborhood". It's a retirement community. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 13, 2009 18:26:50 GMT -8
I can't seem to find any reference to it now, but years ago their was a ballet initiative that would have voted Norther California Water to the South end of the State. It was defeated for environmental reasons. What would happen if that kind of thing were to come up again with an environmental solution? It wasn't defeated for environmental reasons. It was defeated because Norcal people hate Socal people and our wasteful water usage. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 15, 2009 15:12:45 GMT -8
I can't seem to find any reference to it now, but years ago their was a ballet initiative that would have voted Norther California Water to the South end of the State. It was defeated for environmental reasons. What would happen if that kind of thing were to come up again with an environmental solution? It wasn't defeated for environmental reasons. It was defeated because Norcal people hate Socal people and our wasteful water usage. =Bob Had to be some other reason. The people down here could have voted NoCal water south just by the overwhelming population numbers in the south. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 16, 2009 16:53:17 GMT -8
I don't want to see California "repaired", like some flat tire requiring a camel patch on the inner tube. I want to see it go totally off the rails... crash and burn to the ground. California, after all, "leads the way". The sooner it self-destructs, the better the chance the rest of the nation will pay attention to the insane folly of California. Gee, that's nice. Do you have any solutions to offer? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 16, 2009 17:04:23 GMT -8
Personally, I am totally against breaking the state in two. Here's a factor that has not been mentioned in this discussion. If you split the state in two at the Tehachapis, you would see two more Democratic Senators in the U.S. Senate. If there is any conceivable way that the GOP could defeat this idea, they will do it. We must reducing spending, which likely means (among other possibilities) the unfortunate tactic of drastic pay cuts for state employees. There is no doubt that such a plan would be painful. . . very painful. But that is just what happened here in the '30s. Sometimes a painful cure is better than allowing the patient to die. AzWm Break it into 3 and there would be two new Republican Senators from East California. What makes you think state employees make huge salaries? Certainly the execs do, but there are a lot of clerical workers and such who don't make all that much money while attempting to deal with living in a very expensive state. What sort of drastic cuts would you suggest making for a clerical worker earning under 40 grand a year? =Bob |
|
I have tried to imagine what would happen if we really did go belly up here in California. Would Obama have us bailed out and the rest of you end up paying for our folly for generations? I hope we never find out. Sacramento just has to get the message and cut spending, cut taxes, and learn to live well within our means.