I've been posting to a forum wherein I've been debating with a lefty from California (where else?) about the nature of the problems California has and the recall effort. My comments are in italics
In 2000, the bubble burst. The population continued to increase, but the state began to lose jobs. Revenues declined, but the pressure on infrastructure, social services, and government functions did not.
More accurately, Davis increased spending as revenues increased rather than restrain himself. Had he any forethought he would have hedged against a market downturn and acted more responsibly.
The problem was aggravated in 2002 when the deregulation of power, worked out behind back doors between a Republican governor and industry pimps, and rolled over all but a handful of Democrats in the legislature with nary a hearing in which consumer or environmental advocates could provide input. The result was a one sided "deregulation" in which prices were artificially propped up by provisions preventing the smaller companies from underselling the companies with costly nuclear power obligations (which contrary to popular belief cannot compete on the open market without federal subsidy).
This is absolutely backwards. They created an artificial price ceiling which gutted the margins of power companies. It was costing them more to produce than they were allowed to charge. As a result, they sold the excess capacity out of state. That was deemed to be against the regulations so they reduced capacity to prevent bankruptcy. It is possible that non-nuclear (read: evil, dirty, nasty, greedy, non-green, fossile fuel companies) can provide power cheaper. Why? Because the nuclear industry is probably the most over-regulated industry on the planet. They are enmired in myriad regulations designed to put them out of business. Green groups have admitted that they don't want any nuclear power plants anywhere and their strategy is to regulate them to death.
It also allowed the major power producers to move towards middle man business structures, so that the grid itself was neglected. The mantra has been that power companies didn't create new sources or revitalize old ones because of excessive regulation. However, they haven't applied for permits. They don't want to produce power. They want to broker power. Less overhead to worry about. They can't point to projects defeated by environmentalists, because they don't exist.
You got this one half right. Nobody wants to produce power in California because it's too costly with no return. The regulations have made the industry unviable. As such, the power companies now rely on out of state power companies to create capacity which they buy in bulk and then redistribute. They don't apply for permits anymore because it is simply too costly. Prohibitive costs for regulations and fees and fines are what killed power in California, nothing else.
Consequently, with dramatic increases in the population and power use, the grid started to fail. We also suffered several drought years in a row, reducing our hydro power output, which accounts for a large portion of the power production.
Don't give the greens a pass here either. They were incensed that some fish might be inconvenienced by the hydro power plants and fought to have them removed. In some cases, they were successful. That means reduced capacity. Combine that with a drought and you have a recipe for disaster.
So Davis, the perennial conservative Democrat was faced with a crisis.
That you can type that in all seriousness makes me wonder just how far left you are. By your reckoning, Castro is a centrist.
Instead of seizing the damn grid and running the power as a public utility (like the MUDs which consistantly outperform the privatized areas), he spent 7 or 8 billion to buy into long term contracts at exhorbitant prices. Hindsight being 20/20, it turns out we didn't need the extra power. The rains came that year, and certain projects were accelerated, and the problem was "solved." But this aggravated the budget problems severely. By the election of 2002, there was a projected budget deficit of 21 billion, which grew to 38 billion.
So that's the answer? Seize private property? Great. Baseball strike? Seize the Angels and Dogers et al. Let them be the Anaheim Activists and the Los Angeles Bureaucrats. Hmm...what else...automakers have had a rough year, let's just have the state take over and they'll sort things out. What's that? It's not a public utility or necessity? Ok, let's just sieze all the farms and have them grow food "for the people."
Thing is, we knew about the budget problems last year. Nothing new has happened, except that we have cut government services to the bare bone, and raised a few taxes to solve a problem that was mostly caused by forces well out of the
Do you read this stuff before you post it? Be serious. To say that they have "cut services to the bare bone" is just daft. California has the strongest social welfare sector in the nation. You have NO IDEA what bare bones social services looks like. Try living in flyover country and you'll see. The problems were not "mostly caused by forces well outside the governor's control". Imainge I get a job for 100,000 per year and my spending is for 100,000. Then I get a raise to 150,000 and I spend, 200,000 but then I lose my job. Do I blame "forces beyond my control" for being broke and in the hole? No. I blame my reckless spending.
governor's control. I blame Davis for lack of leadership, but certainly no gross incompetence or malfeasance that warrant a recall. Republicans lost all of the statewide races last year, the first Democratic sweep in state history. The Republicans know that the lunatic right wing dominates their party, so they have found a way to bypass the primaries to get someone like Schwartzenegger elected. Ironically, it's the cutbacks in government that have led to the sentiments carrying the recall effort.
Ugh. Are you talking about California Republicans or Nationally? Either way smearing an entire party with a broad brush is beneath you. You can't say that about the GOP nationally. Bush signed Teddy Kennedy's pet education bill to the tune of billinos. Coming up we have Hillary's wet dream of prescription drug coverage for seniors that is going to be the most destructive tax on our future to date. It makes Social Security seem tame. Bush has yet to veto a single bill! Not one! CA GOP is merely seeking to curb illegal immigration (the horrors!) and reduce taxes and spending. Wow, they really are radical aren't they?
Meanwhile, today Schwartzenegger held an "economic summit" with some big name think tank hacks "working" on the "problem." He's been under fire for the lack of details - specifically what he would do differently than Davis to resolve the deficit. So what did he have to offer at the press conference afterwards? He's going to hire a private company to audit the state spending practices, to "find out where the money is going," and then decide what to cut even further at that time. He chided those demanding more details equating those demands with a desire for a quick fix (he knows better than to repeat his mantra of "leadership" after comedians have been slamming him for the past week). Okay, so that's the program. Fork out some money to consultants, ostensibly to find out how the money is being wasted, and then what? Micromanage each service or department? Is that what he did way back during his allegedly successful business ventures? Please!
Yeah, he's a little thin on details but no less so than anyone else. I think he's being hounded b/c he scares the pants off of Democrats. He has tremendous popular appeal and that's all you need in CA to win anything. Image trumps all. Second, you cannot dismiss him as a business man. He was a millionaire before he ever started acting. He came to this country with virtually no money and didn't speak the language and now he's one of the biggest stars in the world. He has numerous successful real estate ventures all over the place. Damn him for his politics and lack of 'vision thing' but there's no way you're going to use the label "alleged" with his success in business.
If he wants to know where the money is being spent, all he need do is view the budget itself and prioritize. The Council for the Arts for instance has had over 95% of its funds cut for this year. No audit is going to produce any wisdom on whether the program should be eliminated in its entirety. If he thinks this is a bad use of government resources, he ought to propose its elimination. It would be a mistake in my opinion. The Council fund has developed cultural endeavors all over the state that may actually generate revenue to pay for itself and more. That's certainly the case in my area, where the Mateel Community Center was using the grants to promote youth theater and music, where the schools have eliminated all of their electives due to declining enrollment and statewide budget cuts.
If it is fiscally solvent, it shouldn't need any government funding at all. It makes no sense to say that you have a profitable venture that will fold if the government doesn't give it money.
Arnie has said he won't touch education, but I think that accounts for something like 1/3 the budget. He has yet to propose the nixing of any particular program. Apparently, he will keep that a secret until after he's elected.
I also haven't had much enthusiasm for the lackluster career of Cruz Bustamente, who is reminiscent of the "Oatmeal Man" of Gil Scott Heron fame (referring to President Ford - "Anytime you have someone who's been in congress for 20 years and nobody ever heard of him, you have Oatmeal Man."). But he's surprised me in this process. First he decided to run. The man hasn't taken a chance like that in his political life! Then he attacked Davis' "minions" for undermining his fundraising efforts by discouraging donors. Then he did something few pols have ever done with success - he told the truth. We have to raise taxes, at least temporarily. We won't climb out of the red anytime soon otherwise. It's basic math. And he's calling it "tough love." This is a gutsy campaign, and if we were living in a state with a less sophisticated electorate, I would assume that he's lost already. But he's ahead in the polls, slightly.
He "told the truth" in that, he admitted that he's going to raise already punitive taxes. The real "truth" is that there is tremendous overspending that needs to be curtailed. That is the painful truth but that doesn't enter his brain because for leftists, spending is not the problem, it's taxation. Also, depending upon which polls you read, Cruz is behind Arnold.
I won't be voting Green this year. I'm not Bustamente's biggest fan, but I have some respect for him now. The vacuous candidacy of the movie star may yet prevail, despite the splitting of the lunatic vote with other Republicans. People might not be ready for Bustamente's honesty. I will be voting against the recall, a blatantly partisan power grab attempt. And I will be voting for a centrist Democrat, with a certain amount of pleasure. I may not vote for him later.
Might not be ready for his honesty = Greedy people think they are overtaxed and cannot afford to give more of their hard earned money to politicians for pet projects and wealth transfer schemes.
It's rare that character trumps platform for me.
This speaks volumes.
In 2000, the bubble burst. The population continued to increase, but the state began to lose jobs. Revenues declined, but the pressure on infrastructure, social services, and government functions did not.
More accurately, Davis increased spending as revenues increased rather than restrain himself. Had he any forethought he would have hedged against a market downturn and acted more responsibly.
The problem was aggravated in 2002 when the deregulation of power, worked out behind back doors between a Republican governor and industry pimps, and rolled over all but a handful of Democrats in the legislature with nary a hearing in which consumer or environmental advocates could provide input. The result was a one sided "deregulation" in which prices were artificially propped up by provisions preventing the smaller companies from underselling the companies with costly nuclear power obligations (which contrary to popular belief cannot compete on the open market without federal subsidy).
This is absolutely backwards. They created an artificial price ceiling which gutted the margins of power companies. It was costing them more to produce than they were allowed to charge. As a result, they sold the excess capacity out of state. That was deemed to be against the regulations so they reduced capacity to prevent bankruptcy. It is possible that non-nuclear (read: evil, dirty, nasty, greedy, non-green, fossile fuel companies) can provide power cheaper. Why? Because the nuclear industry is probably the most over-regulated industry on the planet. They are enmired in myriad regulations designed to put them out of business. Green groups have admitted that they don't want any nuclear power plants anywhere and their strategy is to regulate them to death.
It also allowed the major power producers to move towards middle man business structures, so that the grid itself was neglected. The mantra has been that power companies didn't create new sources or revitalize old ones because of excessive regulation. However, they haven't applied for permits. They don't want to produce power. They want to broker power. Less overhead to worry about. They can't point to projects defeated by environmentalists, because they don't exist.
You got this one half right. Nobody wants to produce power in California because it's too costly with no return. The regulations have made the industry unviable. As such, the power companies now rely on out of state power companies to create capacity which they buy in bulk and then redistribute. They don't apply for permits anymore because it is simply too costly. Prohibitive costs for regulations and fees and fines are what killed power in California, nothing else.
Consequently, with dramatic increases in the population and power use, the grid started to fail. We also suffered several drought years in a row, reducing our hydro power output, which accounts for a large portion of the power production.
Don't give the greens a pass here either. They were incensed that some fish might be inconvenienced by the hydro power plants and fought to have them removed. In some cases, they were successful. That means reduced capacity. Combine that with a drought and you have a recipe for disaster.
So Davis, the perennial conservative Democrat was faced with a crisis.
That you can type that in all seriousness makes me wonder just how far left you are. By your reckoning, Castro is a centrist.
Instead of seizing the damn grid and running the power as a public utility (like the MUDs which consistantly outperform the privatized areas), he spent 7 or 8 billion to buy into long term contracts at exhorbitant prices. Hindsight being 20/20, it turns out we didn't need the extra power. The rains came that year, and certain projects were accelerated, and the problem was "solved." But this aggravated the budget problems severely. By the election of 2002, there was a projected budget deficit of 21 billion, which grew to 38 billion.
So that's the answer? Seize private property? Great. Baseball strike? Seize the Angels and Dogers et al. Let them be the Anaheim Activists and the Los Angeles Bureaucrats. Hmm...what else...automakers have had a rough year, let's just have the state take over and they'll sort things out. What's that? It's not a public utility or necessity? Ok, let's just sieze all the farms and have them grow food "for the people."
Thing is, we knew about the budget problems last year. Nothing new has happened, except that we have cut government services to the bare bone, and raised a few taxes to solve a problem that was mostly caused by forces well out of the
Do you read this stuff before you post it? Be serious. To say that they have "cut services to the bare bone" is just daft. California has the strongest social welfare sector in the nation. You have NO IDEA what bare bones social services looks like. Try living in flyover country and you'll see. The problems were not "mostly caused by forces well outside the governor's control". Imainge I get a job for 100,000 per year and my spending is for 100,000. Then I get a raise to 150,000 and I spend, 200,000 but then I lose my job. Do I blame "forces beyond my control" for being broke and in the hole? No. I blame my reckless spending.
governor's control. I blame Davis for lack of leadership, but certainly no gross incompetence or malfeasance that warrant a recall. Republicans lost all of the statewide races last year, the first Democratic sweep in state history. The Republicans know that the lunatic right wing dominates their party, so they have found a way to bypass the primaries to get someone like Schwartzenegger elected. Ironically, it's the cutbacks in government that have led to the sentiments carrying the recall effort.
Ugh. Are you talking about California Republicans or Nationally? Either way smearing an entire party with a broad brush is beneath you. You can't say that about the GOP nationally. Bush signed Teddy Kennedy's pet education bill to the tune of billinos. Coming up we have Hillary's wet dream of prescription drug coverage for seniors that is going to be the most destructive tax on our future to date. It makes Social Security seem tame. Bush has yet to veto a single bill! Not one! CA GOP is merely seeking to curb illegal immigration (the horrors!) and reduce taxes and spending. Wow, they really are radical aren't they?
Meanwhile, today Schwartzenegger held an "economic summit" with some big name think tank hacks "working" on the "problem." He's been under fire for the lack of details - specifically what he would do differently than Davis to resolve the deficit. So what did he have to offer at the press conference afterwards? He's going to hire a private company to audit the state spending practices, to "find out where the money is going," and then decide what to cut even further at that time. He chided those demanding more details equating those demands with a desire for a quick fix (he knows better than to repeat his mantra of "leadership" after comedians have been slamming him for the past week). Okay, so that's the program. Fork out some money to consultants, ostensibly to find out how the money is being wasted, and then what? Micromanage each service or department? Is that what he did way back during his allegedly successful business ventures? Please!
Yeah, he's a little thin on details but no less so than anyone else. I think he's being hounded b/c he scares the pants off of Democrats. He has tremendous popular appeal and that's all you need in CA to win anything. Image trumps all. Second, you cannot dismiss him as a business man. He was a millionaire before he ever started acting. He came to this country with virtually no money and didn't speak the language and now he's one of the biggest stars in the world. He has numerous successful real estate ventures all over the place. Damn him for his politics and lack of 'vision thing' but there's no way you're going to use the label "alleged" with his success in business.
If he wants to know where the money is being spent, all he need do is view the budget itself and prioritize. The Council for the Arts for instance has had over 95% of its funds cut for this year. No audit is going to produce any wisdom on whether the program should be eliminated in its entirety. If he thinks this is a bad use of government resources, he ought to propose its elimination. It would be a mistake in my opinion. The Council fund has developed cultural endeavors all over the state that may actually generate revenue to pay for itself and more. That's certainly the case in my area, where the Mateel Community Center was using the grants to promote youth theater and music, where the schools have eliminated all of their electives due to declining enrollment and statewide budget cuts.
If it is fiscally solvent, it shouldn't need any government funding at all. It makes no sense to say that you have a profitable venture that will fold if the government doesn't give it money.
Arnie has said he won't touch education, but I think that accounts for something like 1/3 the budget. He has yet to propose the nixing of any particular program. Apparently, he will keep that a secret until after he's elected.
I also haven't had much enthusiasm for the lackluster career of Cruz Bustamente, who is reminiscent of the "Oatmeal Man" of Gil Scott Heron fame (referring to President Ford - "Anytime you have someone who's been in congress for 20 years and nobody ever heard of him, you have Oatmeal Man."). But he's surprised me in this process. First he decided to run. The man hasn't taken a chance like that in his political life! Then he attacked Davis' "minions" for undermining his fundraising efforts by discouraging donors. Then he did something few pols have ever done with success - he told the truth. We have to raise taxes, at least temporarily. We won't climb out of the red anytime soon otherwise. It's basic math. And he's calling it "tough love." This is a gutsy campaign, and if we were living in a state with a less sophisticated electorate, I would assume that he's lost already. But he's ahead in the polls, slightly.
He "told the truth" in that, he admitted that he's going to raise already punitive taxes. The real "truth" is that there is tremendous overspending that needs to be curtailed. That is the painful truth but that doesn't enter his brain because for leftists, spending is not the problem, it's taxation. Also, depending upon which polls you read, Cruz is behind Arnold.
I won't be voting Green this year. I'm not Bustamente's biggest fan, but I have some respect for him now. The vacuous candidacy of the movie star may yet prevail, despite the splitting of the lunatic vote with other Republicans. People might not be ready for Bustamente's honesty. I will be voting against the recall, a blatantly partisan power grab attempt. And I will be voting for a centrist Democrat, with a certain amount of pleasure. I may not vote for him later.
Might not be ready for his honesty = Greedy people think they are overtaxed and cannot afford to give more of their hard earned money to politicians for pet projects and wealth transfer schemes.
It's rare that character trumps platform for me.
This speaks volumes.
Comments