Sunday, May 15, 2011
Los Angeles may close some Fire Stations
The City of Los Angeles has a structural deficit. That is, there isn't enough money to pay for all the services that Angelenos expect and desire. The elected officials have been struggling with the current deficit for months and have finally come to some unpopular decisions. Some services will have to be curtailed. Big surprise!
I am wryly amused to see the reactions of many of my liberal Democratic friends. They are outraged that some fire stations are going to be closed. They are outraged that some teachers are going to be let go, although it isn't the city but rather the Board of Education that is the target of their wrath. Their plan is to have big demonstrations in favor of keeping fire houses open, keeping the police staffed, keeping libraries open, keeping hospitals and emergency rooms operating, etc., etc., etc.
It's much too late for demonstrations. The city doesn't take in enough revenue to pay for all the firehouses, policemen, libraries, hospitals, and tree-trimmers that city dwellers demand. We Californians voted ourselves into this mess during Jerry Brown's first two terms as Governor. We deliberately created a revenue deficit for local governments, otherwise known as Proposition 13. In addition to limiting future increases in property taxes this proposition made it nearly impossible for either the State or the City or the County to raise general revenue taxes. State taxes could thenceforth be increased only by a 2/3 vote in both Houses of the State Legislature. Local taxes could be raised only by a 2/3 vote of the public. An exception was made for "special purpose" taxes, such as an increase in the sales tax to pay for improved public transit.
Fire houses are going to be closed and we Californians are getting what we deserve. Instead of demonstrating for fire houses we should dress up in "sackcloth and ashes" to express our collective guilt and shame.
I am wryly amused to see the reactions of many of my liberal Democratic friends. They are outraged that some fire stations are going to be closed. They are outraged that some teachers are going to be let go, although it isn't the city but rather the Board of Education that is the target of their wrath. Their plan is to have big demonstrations in favor of keeping fire houses open, keeping the police staffed, keeping libraries open, keeping hospitals and emergency rooms operating, etc., etc., etc.
It's much too late for demonstrations. The city doesn't take in enough revenue to pay for all the firehouses, policemen, libraries, hospitals, and tree-trimmers that city dwellers demand. We Californians voted ourselves into this mess during Jerry Brown's first two terms as Governor. We deliberately created a revenue deficit for local governments, otherwise known as Proposition 13. In addition to limiting future increases in property taxes this proposition made it nearly impossible for either the State or the City or the County to raise general revenue taxes. State taxes could thenceforth be increased only by a 2/3 vote in both Houses of the State Legislature. Local taxes could be raised only by a 2/3 vote of the public. An exception was made for "special purpose" taxes, such as an increase in the sales tax to pay for improved public transit.
Fire houses are going to be closed and we Californians are getting what we deserve. Instead of demonstrating for fire houses we should dress up in "sackcloth and ashes" to express our collective guilt and shame.
Labels: demonstrations for keeping fire houses open, Jerry Brown, Los Angeles budget deficit, Prop. 13
Monday, March 21, 2011
What will Jerry do?
Jerry Brown, recently elected governor of California, has some bit problems. He has to present a balanced budget to the legislature for the next year. At present the revenue collected in the form of taxes is less than the annual expenses of the state by about twenty or more billion dollars. Governor Brown would like to distribute the pain somewhat fairly between rich taxpayers and relatively poor people who depend on state services. A minority in the legislature does not share Mr. Brown's belief in spreading the woe and oppose that part of his budget that calls for some increases in taxes. Not only does this minority reject having the legislature enact the increases in taxes, but even refuses to agree to submit the proposed increases to the voters in the form of a legislative initiative.
If the minority has its way (in case you've forgotten, the California legislature can enact a tax increase or propose a ballot proposition only if 2/3 of the members agree) certain services will have to be drastically reduced. State universities, public schools, and community colleges all depend on the state for most of their revenue. They will have to accept big cuts. Medical, assistance for handicapped persons, and other medical services will be cut. I won't try to describe the hardship and misery that these cuts will make.
What can Jerry do? At least, if the additional revenue is not forthcoming he must make sure that the minority in the legislature are shown to be largely to blame. Even though the Democrats have majorities in the Senate and Assembly, and even though Jerry is a Democrat, independent voters (i.e., voters who don't pay enough attention to politics to belong to a political party) will naturally blame the party in power for the misery and the protection of the rich from experiencing any of the misery. Some will conclude that the Democrats are incompetent and will try to put the Republicans in charge of running the state.
If I thought the Republican intransigence were merely a political trick to discredit the Democrats and that, if Republicans were given power to propose and pass budgets, they would act responsibly and let everyone share the misery, I wouldn't bother writing this post. Evidence indicates that the Republicans are not interested in acting responsibly. The previous governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, had just as much trouble with the Republicans as Jerry Brown is having. Instead, Republicans are hewing to the line laid down by such leaders as Grover Norquist and the late Howard Jarvis. The line is that people depend too much on government and that government should stop trying to relieve the misery of being both poor and disabled, of being poor and poorly educated, of being unable to pay for needed medical care, and the like. The way to make government stop doing such things is to cut off the supply of money.
Jerry Brown, as governor, must make sure that every California voter understands what the Republicans in the legislature are up to and that they, making use of the 2/3 vote requirement, are bent on putting California at the bottom of the list which ranks states on how much they spend per pupil on education, how much they spend per person on health care, etc.
If the minority has its way (in case you've forgotten, the California legislature can enact a tax increase or propose a ballot proposition only if 2/3 of the members agree) certain services will have to be drastically reduced. State universities, public schools, and community colleges all depend on the state for most of their revenue. They will have to accept big cuts. Medical, assistance for handicapped persons, and other medical services will be cut. I won't try to describe the hardship and misery that these cuts will make.
What can Jerry do? At least, if the additional revenue is not forthcoming he must make sure that the minority in the legislature are shown to be largely to blame. Even though the Democrats have majorities in the Senate and Assembly, and even though Jerry is a Democrat, independent voters (i.e., voters who don't pay enough attention to politics to belong to a political party) will naturally blame the party in power for the misery and the protection of the rich from experiencing any of the misery. Some will conclude that the Democrats are incompetent and will try to put the Republicans in charge of running the state.
If I thought the Republican intransigence were merely a political trick to discredit the Democrats and that, if Republicans were given power to propose and pass budgets, they would act responsibly and let everyone share the misery, I wouldn't bother writing this post. Evidence indicates that the Republicans are not interested in acting responsibly. The previous governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, had just as much trouble with the Republicans as Jerry Brown is having. Instead, Republicans are hewing to the line laid down by such leaders as Grover Norquist and the late Howard Jarvis. The line is that people depend too much on government and that government should stop trying to relieve the misery of being both poor and disabled, of being poor and poorly educated, of being unable to pay for needed medical care, and the like. The way to make government stop doing such things is to cut off the supply of money.
Jerry Brown, as governor, must make sure that every California voter understands what the Republicans in the legislature are up to and that they, making use of the 2/3 vote requirement, are bent on putting California at the bottom of the list which ranks states on how much they spend per pupil on education, how much they spend per person on health care, etc.
Labels: California budget, cuts to necessary and compassionate services, Jerry Brown
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Debates, Jobs, Lies
I rarely listen to or pay attention to debates between opposing candidates for office. There was a time when I eagerly watched the television set to see and hear debates among such pairs as Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale, George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis, and, most famously, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. I don't know whether those debates influenced the outcome of any elections but they were fun to watch and listen to. I'll never forget Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle that "you're no Jack Kennedy" or Michael Dukakis wavering before George Bush the Elder accusing him of membership in the ACLU.
These days are memory. I have learned that one can't learn what a candidate will or won't do in office from what he or she says in a debate. The aim of the debater is to persuade voters who haven't made up their minds and who have not concerned themselves with some of the more intricate problems in the success or failure of government to provide needed services. Quite often debaters spend a lot of time on an issue that they will have no control over if they are elected. A good example is the claim to create jobs for Californians. Neither Jerry Brown nor Meg Whitman want to be tarred with the accusation that his or her election would cause Californians to lose jobs, particularly because businesses decide to move out of California because of high taxes or excessive regulations. They both favor more jobs. That's commendible of them, but neither one will have the power as Governor to create a single private sector job. The best either can do is to start work on some infrastructure project that will require lots of workers and lots of money. And, where is the money to come from?
Many people in politics who favor the interests of businesses claim that California loses jobs to neighboring States because of (a) high business taxes and (b) excessive regulation, especially regulations relating to creating a clean environment. Environmental laws are said to be bad for business.
I assert that the claim that taxes and regulations drive businesses out of the State is a lie. Regulations and taxes are a problem for a person running a business, especially a small business. However, they are a minor irritant compared with the major cost to any business: the high cost of labor. One can cite many cases of businesses that have left the State because of labor costs. They have gone mostly not to other States but to foreign countries that have really low labor costs. Jolly Green Giant used to can peas in California. A number of years ago it moved its operation to Mexico to take advantage of lower costs for labor and for raw peas. Although it made a profit in California, it made MORE profit by moving to Mexico.
There is nothing that Governor Whitman or Governor Brown could do about high labor costs. I suppose she or he might propose lowering the minimum wage to 25 cents an hour. Her or his term of office would end soon after that suggestion. Remember how the voters got rid of Gray Davis after he raised the auto license fee?
These days are memory. I have learned that one can't learn what a candidate will or won't do in office from what he or she says in a debate. The aim of the debater is to persuade voters who haven't made up their minds and who have not concerned themselves with some of the more intricate problems in the success or failure of government to provide needed services. Quite often debaters spend a lot of time on an issue that they will have no control over if they are elected. A good example is the claim to create jobs for Californians. Neither Jerry Brown nor Meg Whitman want to be tarred with the accusation that his or her election would cause Californians to lose jobs, particularly because businesses decide to move out of California because of high taxes or excessive regulations. They both favor more jobs. That's commendible of them, but neither one will have the power as Governor to create a single private sector job. The best either can do is to start work on some infrastructure project that will require lots of workers and lots of money. And, where is the money to come from?
Many people in politics who favor the interests of businesses claim that California loses jobs to neighboring States because of (a) high business taxes and (b) excessive regulation, especially regulations relating to creating a clean environment. Environmental laws are said to be bad for business.
I assert that the claim that taxes and regulations drive businesses out of the State is a lie. Regulations and taxes are a problem for a person running a business, especially a small business. However, they are a minor irritant compared with the major cost to any business: the high cost of labor. One can cite many cases of businesses that have left the State because of labor costs. They have gone mostly not to other States but to foreign countries that have really low labor costs. Jolly Green Giant used to can peas in California. A number of years ago it moved its operation to Mexico to take advantage of lower costs for labor and for raw peas. Although it made a profit in California, it made MORE profit by moving to Mexico.
There is nothing that Governor Whitman or Governor Brown could do about high labor costs. I suppose she or he might propose lowering the minimum wage to 25 cents an hour. Her or his term of office would end soon after that suggestion. Remember how the voters got rid of Gray Davis after he raised the auto license fee?
Labels: canned peas, excess regulation, export of jobs, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Fox News, Jerry Brown, etc.
Unless you are brand new to this site, you know that I am an opinionated old Democrat. Today I have several things to rant and opinionate about.
A few days ago Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco and bright young hopeful to become the successor to Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California, announced that he was abandoning the race. He hasn't been able to raise enough money to put on an effective campaign. That leaves the Honorable Jerry Brown as the sole major contender for the Democratic Nomination.
Mr. Brown was governor before, following Ronald Reagan and preceding George Deukmegian. Brown didn't do such a good job as governor the first time. Perhaps he wants to correct some of the mistakes he and other former governors have made. Proposition 13 was passed during Brown's terms of office. He wasn't able to persuade the legislature to put in place something as a substitute for 13. Well, actually, there was a Proposition 8 that year that addressed the same problem, but it went nowhere. The public was gung-ho to cut taxes, protect the business interests of landlords, and all that. Perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on poor Jerry.
My problem now, as a Democrat, is that I don't believe Jerry can win. I don't believe the voters are about to give him his second chance. I have to look at the Republicans in the race and try to decide which one of them I dislike the least.
I heard Meg Whitman the other day on the radio. Patt Morrison was interviewing her. Unlike nearly everyone who has commented on the disfunctionality of California's government, she didn't subscribe to the idea that California has become ungovernable because of the very structures that voters have put in place with our easy initiative process. Her idea is that what is needed is someone as governor who will show leadership. What she means is the kind of leadership she has shown running a large corporation. To her leadership means the willingness to fire 10,000 or more state employees if that's what is needed to keep expenses within the limits of the tax revenue the Republicans in the legislature are willing to accept.
I know very little about Steve Poizner. He has been the state Insurance Commissioner, a position first held by John Garamendi. Mr. Garamendi made the office an advocate for the users of insurance rather than the purveyors. Those of his successors who were Republicans have tilted the advocacy toward the insurance companies. I can't say the same about Mr. Poizner. As the only Republican among the state-wide elected officials, he has managed to keep a low profile.
I think I know a little about Tom Campbell. He used to have the reputation of being a rather "liberal" Republican when he was in the state legislature. I don't know where he stands today on the question of getting rid of the 2/3 vote in the legislature, universal single-payer health insurance for California, legalization of gay marriage, the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy, and other issues that I care about. Based on what was said and written about him a dozen or more years ago, I tend to believe that his positions on these things are closer to mine than are those of Meg Whitman or other "real" Republicans.
Sometimes I fantasize about changing my registration to Republican just so I can vote for Campbell in the Republican Primary next year. Of course, that's just a fantasy and it wears off quickly. My father and his father would both roll over in their graves if I were to leave the Democratic reservation.
Another issue that nags at me is the rather extreme partiality of Fox News for Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans. I often argue with H and R that Fox puts out a lot of "news" that just isn't so. My friend S points out that Fox presents both regular news and news comment. The comment is provided by such pundits as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Mr. Obama has recently taken on Fox News and is trying to discredit the organization. That's probably a mistake. Make Fox a martyr and people will flock to watch and listen to it. Better to take the position that the existence of Fox News is a small price to pay for the blessings of free speech.
A few days ago Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco and bright young hopeful to become the successor to Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California, announced that he was abandoning the race. He hasn't been able to raise enough money to put on an effective campaign. That leaves the Honorable Jerry Brown as the sole major contender for the Democratic Nomination.
Mr. Brown was governor before, following Ronald Reagan and preceding George Deukmegian. Brown didn't do such a good job as governor the first time. Perhaps he wants to correct some of the mistakes he and other former governors have made. Proposition 13 was passed during Brown's terms of office. He wasn't able to persuade the legislature to put in place something as a substitute for 13. Well, actually, there was a Proposition 8 that year that addressed the same problem, but it went nowhere. The public was gung-ho to cut taxes, protect the business interests of landlords, and all that. Perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on poor Jerry.
My problem now, as a Democrat, is that I don't believe Jerry can win. I don't believe the voters are about to give him his second chance. I have to look at the Republicans in the race and try to decide which one of them I dislike the least.
I heard Meg Whitman the other day on the radio. Patt Morrison was interviewing her. Unlike nearly everyone who has commented on the disfunctionality of California's government, she didn't subscribe to the idea that California has become ungovernable because of the very structures that voters have put in place with our easy initiative process. Her idea is that what is needed is someone as governor who will show leadership. What she means is the kind of leadership she has shown running a large corporation. To her leadership means the willingness to fire 10,000 or more state employees if that's what is needed to keep expenses within the limits of the tax revenue the Republicans in the legislature are willing to accept.
I know very little about Steve Poizner. He has been the state Insurance Commissioner, a position first held by John Garamendi. Mr. Garamendi made the office an advocate for the users of insurance rather than the purveyors. Those of his successors who were Republicans have tilted the advocacy toward the insurance companies. I can't say the same about Mr. Poizner. As the only Republican among the state-wide elected officials, he has managed to keep a low profile.
I think I know a little about Tom Campbell. He used to have the reputation of being a rather "liberal" Republican when he was in the state legislature. I don't know where he stands today on the question of getting rid of the 2/3 vote in the legislature, universal single-payer health insurance for California, legalization of gay marriage, the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy, and other issues that I care about. Based on what was said and written about him a dozen or more years ago, I tend to believe that his positions on these things are closer to mine than are those of Meg Whitman or other "real" Republicans.
Sometimes I fantasize about changing my registration to Republican just so I can vote for Campbell in the Republican Primary next year. Of course, that's just a fantasy and it wears off quickly. My father and his father would both roll over in their graves if I were to leave the Democratic reservation.
Another issue that nags at me is the rather extreme partiality of Fox News for Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans. I often argue with H and R that Fox puts out a lot of "news" that just isn't so. My friend S points out that Fox presents both regular news and news comment. The comment is provided by such pundits as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Mr. Obama has recently taken on Fox News and is trying to discredit the organization. That's probably a mistake. Make Fox a martyr and people will flock to watch and listen to it. Better to take the position that the existence of Fox News is a small price to pay for the blessings of free speech.
Labels: Fox News, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, Prop. 13, Steve Poizner, Tom Campbell
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Role of the Attorney General in the Unitary Executive
Advisors to President Bush argue in favor of the “unitary executive” as the model for the American Presidency. There is some support in the federal constitution for such an interpretation. In contrast to a typical State constitution (e.g., the California State Constitution) the federal constitution gives the President the power to choose the various heads of Departments. In particular the Attorney General is chosen by the President. In California and most other States, the Attorney General is elected. The Attorney General of a State is not necessarily a member of the same Party as the Governor. We have an example today in California, with Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor and Democrat Jerry Brown, a former governor, as Attorney General.
Until the emergence of a possible scandal in the Bush Administration’s firing of several US attorneys, perhaps for political gain, I looked askance at States in which many of the heads of government departments were elected instead of appointed. Why shouldn’t States be more like our central government? Why, in California, should the Treasurer, the Controller, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and other officials be elected rather than appointed by the Governor?
Now, I know. A few weeks ago some pundit on television pointed out that the Attorney General of the United States is supposed to work for the American People and not for the political advisors to the President. I have learned that many career lawyers in the Department of Justice have resigned since the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General. It is reported (I can’t cite any references) that morale among the remaining career lawyers is low, due to the feeling that the department is being politicized and that the path to job safety lies in pleasing the political consultants of Mr. Bush rather than in impartial pursuit of justice. Gonzales apparently feels that his primary obligation is to George W. Bush rather than to the American People.
This is a situation up with which we should not put. Absent any change in the present procedure for choosing and confirming Attorney Generals, the Senate must be much more skeptical of Presidential nominees for the position. The Justice Department must not become a fruitful target for political appointees. The President’s personal political philosophy must not be imposed on the non-political career lawyers of the Department.
A desirable change would be to make the office of Attorney General non-partisan and permanent, like the director of the FBI. Because of the special nature of the Department of Justice, the leader should not be changed to suit the philosophical bent of a new Administration.
Until the emergence of a possible scandal in the Bush Administration’s firing of several US attorneys, perhaps for political gain, I looked askance at States in which many of the heads of government departments were elected instead of appointed. Why shouldn’t States be more like our central government? Why, in California, should the Treasurer, the Controller, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and other officials be elected rather than appointed by the Governor?
Now, I know. A few weeks ago some pundit on television pointed out that the Attorney General of the United States is supposed to work for the American People and not for the political advisors to the President. I have learned that many career lawyers in the Department of Justice have resigned since the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General. It is reported (I can’t cite any references) that morale among the remaining career lawyers is low, due to the feeling that the department is being politicized and that the path to job safety lies in pleasing the political consultants of Mr. Bush rather than in impartial pursuit of justice. Gonzales apparently feels that his primary obligation is to George W. Bush rather than to the American People.
This is a situation up with which we should not put. Absent any change in the present procedure for choosing and confirming Attorney Generals, the Senate must be much more skeptical of Presidential nominees for the position. The Justice Department must not become a fruitful target for political appointees. The President’s personal political philosophy must not be imposed on the non-political career lawyers of the Department.
A desirable change would be to make the office of Attorney General non-partisan and permanent, like the director of the FBI. Because of the special nature of the Department of Justice, the leader should not be changed to suit the philosophical bent of a new Administration.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Arnold Schwarzenegger, attorney general, career lawyers, firing US Attorneys, Jerry Brown, unitary executive
