If only our predicament in California were conveniently blamed on one person. Arnold has his failings but I think he has actually tried. I lay most of the blame on the legislature.

I think California's biggest problem is the majority of people living there. Arnold wanted smaller government and tried to make changes, but his ideas were voted down. McClintock would have experienced the same thing. It seems that aside from a few Randians living in Silicon Valley and a handful of people like Amy, the state is crawling with socialists (or government employees).

You can blame the initiative system too. I think most people really don't understand the implications of what they're voting for.

Arnold is such a disappointment. That speech he gave at the convention about being a Republican years back was tremendous.
If he tried to give the same speech today it would be nominated for a "Best Comedy" award. He's totally compromised himself just to stay in power.
He could have gone down swinging and with dignity. Instead, now his name will forever be associated with the collapse of a once great state.
Great legacy, Arnold.

Of course the elected representatives are idiotic, socialist, pandering nimrods -- the problem, as Sean notes above, is that Schwarzenegger rolled over like a kitten instead of using the media and other resources he would've had entirely at his disposal (had he not been such a ball-less disappontment as governor).

Schwarzenegger badly miscalculated with his big initiative push early in his term, and it damaged his credibility greatly when, as a popular governor, all of the initiatives he pushed failed. He probably could have gotten less heavy-handed measures passed, but he swung for the fences and missed. But then we had the housing bubble to help paper over the structural budget problems.

Our problems are multiple, but the basic causes are 1) non-competitive legislative districts, which means legislators rarely get punished for their failures, 2) ballot measures that must be funded regardless of the state's fiscal health, and 3) the supermajority requirement for passing a budget that permits the minority party to dictate terms in budgeting. The supermajority requirement impedes the sort of dealmaking that normally goes on in governance, and when combined with a lack of accountability due to gerrymandering, is fatal to the budget process. Unintended consequence of well-meaning legislation.

That's an interesting place in your argument to put a sentence fragment!

> Unintended consequence of
> well-meaning legislation.

Why are liberals always so eager to be judged on the sweetness of their intentions rather than the wretchedness of the results? (Besides the fact that the results suck, I mean.)

The road to hell is paved with what?

There was a series I saw years and years ago, telling the story of Charlamagne's rise to power. Charlamagne's wife got into a dispute with his mother at one point in the series, and she shouted at the King's mother, "I am NOT a fool." His mother said, "No, you're not a fool...you're worse...you're well meaning."

That always stuck with me.

Why are liberals always so eager to be judged on the sweetness of their intentions rather than the wretchedness of the results? (Besides the fact that the results suck, I mean.)

I don't know who owns prop 13 that created the supermajority requirement to pass a budget. Was passed long before I moved here. Doubt it's liberals though.

oh please cheez, prop 13 has absolutely nothimg to do with california's problem. Property tax revenue is up over 800 percent since that prop passed. The so called hyper majority is the only thing that keeps these asshats from their orwellian designs. This state needs to kick out of the the illegals and then needs to give IQ tests before allowing people to vote

"needs to give IQ tests before allowing people to vote"

Whatever a man's gifts, those are no measure of his rights.

The so called hyper majority is the only thing that keeps these asshats from their orwellian designs

Prop 13 is one of the 3 major roots of our budgetary crisis. It is simply wrong to think otherwise.

The supermajority requirement in Prop 13 allows a minority of our legislature to block the budget. And they do it every year. Because our legislative districts are gerrymandered to the point that few are competitive, nobody gets voted out for apocalyptic failures like the one we are going through now. And because they face no electoral consequences, they don't face any pressure to make a deal. If the supermajority requirement were removed, then the minority party would have to deal.

If the supermajority requirement were removed, then the minority party would have to deal.

If a simple majority were required to pass a vote, the minority party would have no say in the matter whatsoever...by definition.

> If the supermajority requirement
> were removed, then the minority
> party would have to deal.

Interesting that you don't think gerrymandering is the problem to be corrected.

needs to give IQ tests before allowing people to vote
Posted by: ron
\
Whatever a man's gifts, those are no measure of his rights.
Posted by: Robert

Voting isnt a right, case in point? Felons.

Everyone has a right to live their personal life the way they want.

But quite frankly it wouldnt bother me in the slightest if the knuckledragging morons here in phx no longer had a say in how I live it

"Voting isnt a right, case in point? Felons."

Actually felons can vote as long as they've met the standards for reinstatement (varies from fiefdom to fiefdom).

What they can't do is apply to have their gun rights restored, since Congress refuses to fund the only Federal (BATF) program mandated to deal with their requests, thus preventing Martha Stewart from grabbing a goose gun and killing hundreds of schoolchildren in a crack-addled rampage.

Does this bother me? Yes. Does it really apply to this discussion? Well, no. No it doesn't.