Liberal democrats showing their true colors..

[Toadman]

4/22/03 (Los Angeles, CA) -- Frustrated with Republicans who don't want to raise taxes to boost the budget, California State Democrats are threatening to attach fees to everything from diapers and light bulbs to bullets and bracelets. The "Los Angeles Times" says a 1997 Supreme Court ruling would allow the fees without Republican or taxpayer approval. Other items that Democrats propose attaching fees to include dry cleaning, cocktails, disposable cups and bags, and gasoline. Republicans say the fees would be horrific for the economy.

[Theophylact]

Republicans showing their true colors: Since in California, any budget requires a 2/3 majority, the Republican minority (a hair over 1/3 in each house) is blocking any new taxes in a state that has a $35 billion shortfall.

So the Democrats, playing the same stupid game, are passing "fees" instead of "taxes".

Shame on both parties.

[osprey4]

I say let them secede. San Francisco is their own country as it is.

The problem the states are having is that during the fat years of the 90's, all of them allowed spending to get out of control (Reps and Dems both). Then when the bubble burst, those with less foresight failed to tighten the belt.

[Chuckiechan]

As osprey4 said, they spent all of the money! When the money was rolling in the Democrats spent on every special program that would buy them votes. And they traded program support for votes from the Republicans when needed. The Republican caucus lobbied them to pay off bonds and long term debt that could be re-financed in bad times, but didn't have the political clout to influence the spending votes - a 50 %+ vote.

Now, the only thing they are cutting are things the voters see and get riled up about, rather than their pet programs. For example, new teachers go to LA all expenses paid to see the "Mueseum of Tolerance". We can afford the air fare and paid days off but the same teacher has to buy crayons for the kindergarten class because "there is no money"! Someone's brother in law is making a huge paycheck!

I am not voting to impeach Grey Davis! California is a poster child for what happens when you have a one-party state! There is no way you can raise taxes (33%+of vote required) enough to make up the shortfall, you must make cuts. But you can only cut those people who don't support you or give you money. In Grey Davis's and the Democrat's case, they can't cut anyone because they all gave him and his party tons of money!

California can be described as a drowning retard! It wouldn't be able to find the rope if it was thrown to them!

[Toadman]

Republicans showing their true colors: Since in California, any budget requires a 2/3 majority, the Republican minority (a hair over 1/3 in each house) is blocking any new taxes in a state that has a $35 billion shortfall.

Common sense says if you're low on funds you don't raise your credit limit, you trim the fat and balance the budget. Guess who gets demonized for cutting or reducing funding for education/welfare, etc. for sticking to such a budget?
I agree that the late 90's was rampant excess spending that both parties should be held accountable for, and the whole thing is a mess.

[caddmannq]

Yup. Graft, greed, & nepotism are the rule here. You've got to admire Gay Davis: he's raised it to an art form.

[Omardeth]

they never lay the blame on the real problem . the money was spent because of deregulation . which was writen by gop and signed into law by a gop gov. but surely hat doesn't matter right ?

[Chuckiechan]

No, the state already had a surplus when deregulation started, and the state revenues were already in steep decline. Money for long term contracts was spent by Davis rather than letting market forces bring things into balance. He blew through the state surplus in about 90 days, because he felt he could not bring himself to take political heat.

Deregulation was a mess but came at the end of the problem.

[Omardeth]

market force would have kill the utilitys , because the rules of deregulation mad ethem sell power at a set price and only let the buy it on the spot short term market . what would you have rather been done . not spend the money to stablize the market somewhat or had 1000$ elc bills ?