My Choice For California Governor
That would be Chris Christie. From a column in the LA Daily News by Doug McIntyre:
Here's a tale of two states - the Garden State and the Golden State.Last week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie canceled the nation's largest public transportation project. The $9 billion commuter rail tunnel to New York had been in the planning stages for decades. But Christie smelled a rat.
New Jersey's governor has pledged to restore fiscal sanity to a state with a huge tax burden, a gigantic deficit, a famously hostile-to-business culture, a notoriously corrupt and polarized legislature, and a population fleeing to more tax-friendly states like Florida, the Carolinas, Texas and Arizona. Sound familiar?
The difference is New Jersey's governor meant it.
An audit revealed the tunnel project was going to be billions over budget, and New Jersey taxpayers would be on the hook.
"I cannot place upon the citizens of New Jersey an open-ended letter of credit," Christie said. "And that's what this project represents."
And that's why Christie could never win an election in California. He's actually willing to make tough decisions.
And that's the real problem with the mindset of Americans. Tough choices will always hurt somebody, and that group will always rally the sympathy of the masses such that a majority will never elect a politician who is willing to make those tough choices.
I've been in Beijing for the past couple of weeks. The government here is running itself like a large corporation who is mostly interested in making maximum profits. They have the will to do whatever it takes to make those profits everybody else be damned. And it's working a charm. Now I'm certainly not in favor of communism, but they're making wiser choices than most of the other governments in the world right now.
We better figure out how to earn our keep and get off of the government teat, or learn how to speak Chinese.
AllenS at October 31, 2010 2:55 AM
Christie would be a great California governor, but I suspect the Jerseyites aren't going to let you have him.
My wife and I were talking last week about a proposed amendment to the Alabama constitution that will be on the ballot next week. Background: Alabama receives a certain amount of royalties from offshore drilling off of the state's little bit of Gulf coast line. Back in the early 1980s, when this drilling began, a constitutional amendment established that all such royalties would go into a trust fund. Money can be drawn from this trust fund only by a further constitutional amendment. To date, no such amendment has ever been approved by the voters, and over time, the fund has grown to $3.5B -- that a lot for a low-population state like Alabama.
The amendment on the ballot this week proposes tapping the trust fund in the amount of $100M per year for 10 years, for the purpose of road and highway construction. It's a seductive argument; the part of the state I live in is constantly in need of new highway construction, the jobs would benefit the state, and by drawing from the trust fund it could all be done without new taxes or incurring bond debts.
But, with some regrets, we're both going to vote no. That trust fund is one of the state government's few significant assets. Like most other states, Alabama is facing the possibility of a pension bomb in another decade or so, and if no other way can be found to work it out, that trust fund might be the state's saving grace. Or it might be needed for some purpose to attract business if the economy gets worse. I'd rather retain it as a rainy-day fund, and I'd be willing to pay higher gas taxes (there, I said it) to fund needed highway projects -- *if* I can be sure that said tax revenues will be spent properly. Which is actually another problem with using the trust fund: there won't be as much diligence over how it's spent if it's "free" money.
Cousin Dave at October 31, 2010 8:05 AM
I'm quite content to allow California to circle the drain and get flushed out to sea. Too bad all the rats will leave the sinking ship before the end, and move to other places, and start demanding the same policies that got California in a world hurt.
Ye have sown the wind, ye shall reap the whirlwind.
Actually, I supsect the rest of the country will be called upon to bail out California. Too big to fail?
I R A Darth Aggie at October 31, 2010 8:31 AM
California alone produces 80% of the United State's agricultural products. They would probably be better off splitting off from the rest of the country and forming their own nation.
archer at October 31, 2010 9:46 AM
Let me know how that's working out for you when you represent an impediment to the government and are dealt with the way many Chinese citizens have already been dealt with.
A nation that would immediately have to apply to the US for foreign aid.
Conan the Grammarian at October 31, 2010 11:37 AM
"Let me know how that's working out for you when you represent an impediment to the government and are dealt with the way many Chinese citizens have already been dealt with."
Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
Maybe you want to live in New Haven, CT - and have your property seized because some big company can pay more taxes?
Hey, just search for the terms "abuse of power" attached to "Federal" or "state". Plenty of Americans get steamrollered by some idiocy. The difference is that there's no reason for most of it.
Radwaste at October 31, 2010 12:41 PM
I R A Darth Aggie -- California pays more in federal taxes than what it receives in federal funding (note the years 1999 to 2005 especially).
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
Jason S. at October 31, 2010 1:03 PM
Oh I have.
And that Court decision was possibly the most egregiously bad decision since Dred Scott.
At least Dred Scott was in accordance with the Constitution (as interpreted in that day). Even then, it as greeted with as much protest as agreement.
But, here (and in New Haven) the people can lead a protest and agitate for laws that would negate the decision. In China, if you try that, you'll discover what life in a Chinese prison feels like.
Conan the Grammarian at October 31, 2010 1:19 PM
"California alone produces 80% of the United State's agricultural products. "
Patently nonsense. A quick look at a map shows how impossible that statement is. And besides, California is doing its damndest to use enviro regs to convert good farmland to wasteland, e.g., the Imperial Valley.
Cousin Dave at October 31, 2010 3:25 PM
I know a lot of nice Californian people who work hard, pay their taxes, and don't deserve what may be going to happen.
It's sad. Arnie ran for governator saying he was going to do a line by line review of what was spent. Did he ever do it? Did he do it and just not have the guts (or the ability) do get rid of the nonsense?
KrisL at October 31, 2010 4:44 PM
@KrisL - he didn't have the ability. Between a hostile state legislature and the public proposition system, his hands are pretty much tied.
Because of California's experiment with direct democracy, they're completely boned with no way out of it.
Grab your ankles, and learn to relax. There's less pain when it goes in that way.
brian at October 31, 2010 7:52 PM
@KrisL - he didn't have the ability. Between a hostile state legislature and the public proposition system, his hands are pretty much tied.
Because of California's experiment with direct democracy, they're completely boned with no way out of it.
Yep, Brian is right here. Arnold tried to govern as a center-right moderate, and was a hostage to the proposition system and entrenched interests. However, he did help pass some policies around redistricting and public employee pensions that should bear dividends in the future. Given the fundamental weakness of the governor's position in California, I don't blame Arnold for our fiscal problems; the legislature and the people mostly own that. Our founders avoided direct democracy for a reason.
Christopher at October 31, 2010 10:06 PM
Insanity- Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
California Dreamin? They must be as they keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over.
David M. at November 1, 2010 5:22 AM
Because I am one, I can say it...
Loud-mouthed, opinionated, educated Italians from Jersey rock. More of us should run for public office. If for no other reason than to debunk the image of all Italian Americans from New Jersey being like those human petri dishes on "Jersey Shore".
Christie in 2012!!!
UW Girl at November 1, 2010 3:08 PM
Leave a comment