Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 05:01pm PT
|
Most people don't have the time or energy to spend on really understanding different initiatives. They are a nice idea, but they fail because many are driven by special interests and or big business. Who has the most money often wins. This screws things up royally. Just as our politicians are driven by special interest and or big business. So both are failures at this point.
And DMT also has a good point. The public good isn't always understood by the public. Try serving on your local board. What a mess those places can be.
Not that I would vote for a king. Democracy is the best thing going, but it has loads of problems, such as how campaigns are financed.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 05:08pm PT
|
Apogee,
The world isn't black and white. I generally agree with the left on most fiscal policy debate these days, at least insomuch as I think the Republicans are completely insincere in their goals and irresponsible in their tactics.
But not all issues fall neatly into the "my side is always correct" paradigm.
Although there are common themes, state budget issues do not always parallel the federal issues (e.g. the states don't pour obscene amounts into military spending) and the left/right dynamic can be different at the state level.
I do think state employee compensation is a problem, and I think it would be wise for CA residents to do some homework and look objectively at the facts. Yes, it means you may end up agreeing with the likes of fattrad on one issue, but if we always take the position of our "team" every time, we are really no better than him.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 05:19pm PT
|
John, I think you've hit on one of the big problems in contemporary American politics. Do we have a public capable of rational political decisions? If not, how do we make it so?
I've dealt with all sorts of people with anywhere from a grade school education to multiple advanced degrees. On that basis, I doubt that education alone qualifies one to make good decisions. Nonetheless, the general level of public ignorance should appall one. "Jaywalking" on the Tonight Show may not be as extreme as we think!
I personally think that almost all of the people with whom I've dealt are capable of making rational choices. They won't always agree with me, any more than climbers on ST do, but they can process rationally if they have the proper information. Unfortunately, our sound bite age puts a premium on superficiality over substance.
Look at political reporting over the last 25 years. No one makes a serious inquiry into policy differences any more (perhaps because the modern journalism graduate doesn't understand the policies ). Instead, they report on who's ahead, and what the latest, usually biased, poll results portend. It would astound me if the general public had any idea how much California's revenue depends on capital gains, or how international economic trends affect California's economy.
Ultimately, if we want to fix California, we need to start by getting rid of some of our moral indoctrination in school (e.g. "say no to drugs" -- not to mention political correctness teaching) and insist on some serious study of history, economics, finance and math, taught by people who know the subjects. With luck, that will rub off on the media, and then it won't matter so much whether we have a direct or a representative democracy.
John
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 05:21pm PT
|
I'm astounded that so many really believe that direct democracy (i.e. initiatives) is the root cause of California's budget mess. If it is, why have democracy at all?
Then you've had less exposure to political science and US history than I would hope to find in a literate high school student. Sorry to be so frank, but I suspect you're being disingenuous here.
Plebiscites (i.e. "initiatives," i.e. "direct democracy") were commonly associated with the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of Imperial Rome. Caesar dissolved the Senate and reduced its citzens to subjects by building up the military and throwing entertainment and plebiscites to the mob ("plebs.") The collapse of the Roman Republic and its replacement by an Imperium was part of the catechism of 18th century political philosophy and a recurring trope in the writing of the Federalists, their peers, many of the predecessors, and great sections of American public political debate through the 19th century.
For those 18th century thinkers sympathetic to republican forms of government (as opposed to monarchies or oligarchies), the great intellectual challenge was that the best known examples of antiquity had degenerated into tyranny. The problem of political theory was to imagine a constitutional form that could prevent what folks from Locke to even Jefferson worried was the natural tendency of republican forms of government to collapse into mob rule that could then be manipulated ("bread and circuses") by oligarchs or tyrants.
Those most sympathetic to the idea of "pure" democracy believed that even the smaller American colonies were already far too large for direct democracy to be functional.
California as "direct democracy"? One of the world's largest economies with a population so large, diverse and geographically expansive is one of the least likely candidates.
Among policy folks, California is notoriously a "media buy" state, unlike, say, a New Hampshire or even an Iowa where comparatively small populations are pressed into relatively small areas and thus more amenable to being worked through what most of us would call "grass roots" style politicking.
In other words, there is nothing, and I mean nothing, on the current political scene farther from 18th century Federalist and even anti-Federalist ideals than the initiative system.
Today, of course, the initiative system is ruled almost entirely by the wealthiest (and frequently out-of-state) special interests that can afford to finance the insanely expensive process.
Want an initiative on the ballot? Going rate is $7 million.
Pony up.
edit for typing. i'm under deadline and dont really have the time for more remedial history lessons to folks too frickin lazy to read a textbook. "f" for the course. im out
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 05:37pm PT
|
Today, of course, the initiative system is ruled almost entirely by the wealthiest (and frequently out-of-state) special interests that can afford to finance the insanely expensive process.
I beg to differ. I know enough about California history to know why California adopted the initiative process. It started when the people were confronted with a government beholden to special interests. The government still is. Please don't insult my intelligence by arguing that the legislature as currently constituted is in any way representative of the people, or has their best interest at heart in their decisions.
You've offered what I call "the grass is greener fallacy" -- the initiative system is flawed so we should do something different. How do we know that something different will be better? Initiatives are about the only way the people of California -- and particularly the moderates -- can have any appreciable effect on government. The fact that special interests -- in state at least as much as out-of-state -- use it too does not change the safety-valve nature of the initiative process. The public employee union's use of their puppets in the Democratic party to undermine it speaks far more eloquently of its need than anything I can say, and is far more damning of your position.
So get over it. The problem is that we've promised too much and collected too litte. Concentrate on that.
John
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 05:37pm PT
|
California is broke because of plate tectonics, glaciation, earthquakes, colliding island arcs, and chemical, wind and water erosion. Any other questions?
Oh, and also because they have the perennial taxpayer fantasy that they can have a high level of public services and very low taxes at the same time.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 05:39pm PT
|
Oh, and also because they have the perennial taxpayer fantasy that they can have a high level of public services and very low taxes at the same time.
Actually, Anders, we have the opposite: High taxes and poor public services. I exaggerate, of course, but your point is well-taken. We want it all, and want someone else to pay for it.
John
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 05:49pm PT
|
But don't come here, unless invited, and maybe not then.
Kalis ain't very well liked in Idaho, by Idahoans.
AS has been pointed out many times by many people.
You like our welfare for you just fine,
so I guess you're not to proud to grovel in
the dirt and take a handout, since you can't
make do for yourselves.
If we didn't have to
hand over billions of dollars for our poor idiot
states that couldn't take care of themselves, our
budget would balance just fine, every time, every year.
So go stuff it, or go pay for all your stuff yourself,
instead of begging for it from us, then telling
us how much better than us you are, and how much
better and more self sufficient you are, when you
never were, idiots.
State/Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes/Rank
New Mexico $2.03 1
Mississippi $2.02 2
Alaska $1.84 3
Louisiana $1.78 4
West Virginia $1.76 5
North Dakota $1.68 6
Alabama $1.66 7
South Dakota $1.53 8
Kentucky $1.51 9
Virginia $1.51 10
Montana $1.47 11
Hawaii $1.44 12
Maine $1.41 13
Arkansas $1.41 14
Oklahoma $1.36 15
South Carolina $1.35 16
Missouri $1.32 17
Maryland $1.30 18
Tennessee $1.27 19
Idaho $1.21 20
Arizona $1.19 21
Kansas $1.12 22
Wyoming $1.11 23
Iowa $1.10 24
Nebraska $1.10 25
Vermont $1.08 26
North Carolina $1.08 27
Pennsylvania $1.07 28
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05 30
Ohio $1.05 31
Georgia $1.01 32
Rhode Island $1.00 33
Florida $0.97 34
Texas $0.94 35
Oregon $0.93 36
Michigan $0.92 37
Washington $0.88 38
Wisconsin $0.86 39
Massachusetts $0.82 40
Colorado $0.81 41
New York $0.79 42
California $0.78 43
Delaware $0.77 44
Illinois $0.75 45
Minnesota $0.72 46
New Hampshire $0.71 47
Connecticut $0.69 48
Nevada $0.65 49
New Jersey $0.61 50
District of Columbia $5.55 na
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 06:25pm PT
|
It would be easy to protect grandma by tying her property tax to her net worth and her annual income.
Why doesn't the majority of voters just gang up on the wealthy and make them pay ALL the state taxes? Actually this has already happened, in California. The wealthiest 1% pay over 50% of taxes. What we need here is a broader and flatter tax so that everyone who votes themselves benefits through the initiative system here has to bear the costs. As long as we vote ourselves benefits and send the bill to corporations those corporations will continue to leave the state.
Property taxes are already a top heavy tax on the wealthy, because they are the ones that own the most property. What should be the top rate for the wealthy? 5%? That is more expensive than a mortgage, and it goes on forever, not 30 years. Do you want to live in a state where you can only lease land from the government? Do you really think a wealthy person would?
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 06:31pm PT
|
klk,
You fail to mention that Unions have often ponied up the 7 million. Right now Amazon has ponied up the 7 mil to avoid collecting sales taxes.
indeed.
the initiative system is a failed experiment. when it was first instated, during the progressive era and partly in response to the ability of corporations like the railroad to visibly own individual politicians by the score, it was a reformist measure. that was before mass media, of course. and the initiative system was used remarkably little prior to the late 1960s.
prop 14 was huge-- in 1962 california voters repealed a very modest new law that banned racial discrimination in housing sales and rentals by large developers and slumlords (the rumford act didn't even come close to banning racial discrimination in individual home sales let alone rentals).
but prop 13 was the blockbuster-- it demonstrated, among other things, that the initiative system in california could be used to leverage issues in federal election cycles as well as those in other states. since then, we've developed an actual electioneering industry that you can't find in any other state. the other initiative states, like or, wa and wi, were mostly too small to generate the weird maelstrom we've created for ourselves.
i know you like game side of all of this-- read bill bagley's memoir if you haven't already. parts of it are a bit sentimental, but still a good but depressing read.
waste of ink, though, since there's not a snowball's chance of the initiative system going away. even modest reforms are probably impossible. even a measure that forced all initiatives that would expand govt. services to also specific actionable cuts or new revenues sufficient for funding-- a pay-as-you-go-requirement -- would be aggressively opposed by the most conservative wings of the GOP in the state. and of course, by millions of dollars from out-of-state special interests and PACs on the Right.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 06:44pm PT
|
JohnE, I agree about the reasons for the existence of the initiative system, I just don't think that it has done us that much good, versus the cost. Its too easy to sway public opinion with enough money.
I also know what you mean about public servants. My father worked very hard at his job and was often frustrated by those who didn't. We see that also in unions. But just as with initiatives, what was the option? Before unions we had serious abuse of the worker. And just because unions exist doesn't mean that abuse of the worker has now ended and we can do away with them. What we need are mechanisms to help balance the power of a union, just as we need mechanisms to make certain the publics voice is heard.
As for having the publics voice heard, I think the solution needs to involve campaign finance reform.
Plus, wasn't there a fairly recent change in the laws governing media news? By recent I mean the last 30 years or so. A change that lead to news outlets having more bias. Does anyone know what I'm referring to? I'm trying to find it, but just don't know how to.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 07:16pm PT
|
Property taxes are already a top heavy tax on the wealthy, because they are the ones that own the most property.
CA, you miss the very important reality that non-property owners pay the tax, too. They pay it in the form of rent, when that tax is passed on, as it certainly is. It is part of the cost of doing the business of renting a property. So every poor person who is renting, is paying that tax, too. It is simply disguised, and they do not get the equity in return.
Same as someone renting a hotel room. Leasing a storage facility.
And I'm not sure it is reasonable to characterize the Initiative Process as one that has produced a failed state. The last time I looked, it has produced the economy that, if failed, has failed less than every other economy in the history of the
ENTIRE KNOWN UNIVERSE, except for seven.
That ain't bad.
You guys have gotta keep some perspective.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 07:27pm PT
|
"I do think state employee compensation is a problem, and I think it would be wise for CA residents to do some homework and look objectively at the facts."
Like the issue of the Federal debt, I doubt that there are many who disagree with this (except maybe those few who have exorbitant salaries & benefits that are threatened- which really isn't a huge percentage). The question is what to do about it...
The problem with finding solutions these days is that environment for productive discourse is so polarized and toxic, and so resistant to compromise, that considering any fiscal issue objectively is nearly impossible.
Edit: In the face of this impossibility, and the fact that any elected leader is more interested in preserving their job and serving the special interests that put them there, about all that can be expected of them is to figure out some short-term solution that won't blow up until after they leave office. That's what we seem destined for....implosion due to inaction.
The Right has turned a flamethrower of vitriole and hyperbole onto every issue they can, as if to somehow distract that they are as complicit (and I would strongly argue, moreso) in our situation as those on the Left. It's pretty hard to take any Right-leaning leader seriously these days, because a) they have been forced to join the extremists or leave, or b) their motives are so obviously biased towards corporate special interests and the uber-rich that only the most programmed droid has any real trust in them.
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
Sac town
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 07:28pm PT
|
I don't have time for homework, only you retired old farts do...
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
Sac town
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 07:45pm PT
|
no more smoking time, all used up these days, just got time for workin, drinks and climbin...and I need to take a break from all of it..
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 07:54pm PT
|
The shallowness of understanding of State employee compensation would funny if it weren't so sad.
These sweeping declarations that "the state employees" pension/pay whatever is TOO this or TOO that are ridiculous. They are not a monolithic group. When I worked for the State, there were occupational groups within my building that were vastly underpaid and others that were vastly overpaid when comparing total compensation to private sector equivalents, and the avg worker was slightly underpaid.
Show me a prison guard making $100k and I'll show you environmental and transporation planners with 10yrs experience making $38k. When I was in a professional engineering postition there I was making about 30% less than the private sector rate for equivalent work.
You see plenty of "studies" (*propaganda) that compare public sector pay to total private sector without ever bothering to mention that the public sector is heavy on white collar professionals compared to the total private sector. Not exaclty a lot of fast food workers, roofers, and window washers on the public payroll.
From a recent study at UCB:
"“The story of public sector workers in the U.S. and in California is, in large part, one of education,” Allegretto said, noting that of California’s full-time workers, 55 percent in the public sector hold at least a four-year college degree, compared to 35 percent in the private sector.
More from the same study:
"Their regression-adjusted results made possible “an apples-to-apples comparison” that accounts for education and age as well as for gender, race and other critical factors that influence pay, Allegretto said.
The key findings of their report, which is available online, include:
California’s state and local government employees are paid 7 percent less than their private sector counterparts, but when benefits are included, total compensation between the two sectors is similar.
Public sector workers, on average, are more educated: Of full-time workers in California, 55 percent hold at least a four-year college degree in the public sector, compared to 35 percent in the private sector.
Private sector workers earn 70 percent of their total compensation in wages and 30 percent in benefits such as vacation, retirement benefits and health insurance, while public sector employees’ corresponding percentages are 64.3 and 35.7.
State and local government workers are more experienced: The median age of state and local government workers is 44, compared to 40 in the private sector.
Public sector workers in California average more hours on the job each year than private sector employees.
Retirement benefits account for 8.2 percent of public employee compensation and 3.6 percent of private sector compensation, while public workers earn considerably less supplemental pay and vacation time, and their employers contribute much less to legally-mandated benefits."
And I especially love the dipshits who complain that "there were five guys leaning on a shovel while two paved the road"...well guess what genuises, the actual contruction, repaving, etc are done by private sector companies who won a bid for the job...i.e your Randian wet-dream Johnny Galt supermen capitalist heroes.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 07:58pm PT
|
"your Randian wet-dream Johnny Galt supermen capitalist heroes. "
Nice!
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 08:29pm PT
|
If you all are truly interested, read "While America Aged" by Roger Lowenstein. He breaks down the history of the pension excesses that started with the rail and auto industries, then spread to the public employee unions. They almost bankrupted GM and Chrysler. The problem spread to cities and states, where it could be corrupted by weak politicians who's votes are essentially bought. San Diego is actually one of the three cases examined in the book, and the most corrupt. Sickening, actually - makes you almost agree with Roxy.
It could have been avoided - one of the early union leaders foresaw it. But everyone got greedy - and I don't mean the CEO's and shareholders. And EVERYONE took the easy way out and put the problem off as long as possible. Now the day off reckoning has come, a recession hit public revenues and the stock market decline hit pension assets. In the end, the current employees are the ones who will pay for it. Meanwhile we have prison guards retired at 50 earning six figure plus pension payouts.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 30, 2011 - 08:30pm PT
|
Of course, I mean the CHP is only an example of how Cali spends money.
There are plenty of other examples, such as prisons and water authorities. But some departments have reasonable pay and some are way beyond.
And if you even looked at the link I posted, it shows Cal parks & rec workers are paid only half of CHP.
Arguing that it's hard to get a cush state job justifies exhorbitant pay in some departments? That's just like firefighters in most Cali cities.
The reason it's hard to get in is because so many people want a job where they can be overpaid.
Here are some reasonable state patrol pay levels in other states
http://www.dps.state.ok.us/ohp/tngrct/ohpweb/pdfs/OHPWebSalary.pdf
WA state patrol median 2010 looks like about $55000 gross pay.
record #1400 out of 2800 at
http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundinfo/statesalaries/?appSession=024126603022622&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=1&cpipage=57&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=
I do not see how we can easily blame the public for high pay levels, since the public gets only a very indirect vote. Initiative spending is a different matter. These benefits were usually increased by insiders who benefited themselves. They pretended during the boom years that government revenues would increase 10% per year indefinitely. That is how most public employee boards are set up. The public will ultimately swing wasteful government spending the other way, long past the time when action was due. Even then it will take 60 years for cuts to fully take effect, because employee benefits are often locked in for the rest of their career plus their retirement.
On Prop 13,
if the intent was to just make property taxes increases gradual, then it would have been written that way. The way it was written now makes it a huge subsidy to the "haves." Young people trying to buy their first house will often pay 5-10 times as much in property tax as the seller, who bought or inherited years ago when it was cheap.
On average public pay,
wrong argument: - I am specifically not averaging pay.
I am selecting out those departments that are overpaid.
Show me a private company with equivalent workers to the CHP where the median pay is $103K, plus massive vacation, medical, and pension.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011 - 09:06pm PT
|
Elcap,
You make a few valid points, but the gist of your response is just about as shallow and general as any on the opposing side.
Public sector workers, on average, are more educated: Of full-time workers in California, 55 percent hold at least a four-year college degree in the public sector
I've heard this one before and I don't doubt that it is true at face value. But look deeper and you will notice something. The quality of the four-year degrees of public sector employees is not necessarily equal to the public sector. Why is this?
Many government employees' compensation is tied to their education - get masters degree, automatically get a raise. In the private sector, pay scales are rarely tied directly to education level.
This has been a big contributor to the massive growth of the for profit, "diploma mill" education industry. We see the ads everywhere: "Get your masters at University of XYZ - no admission standards, flexible schedule, (read:going to class is optional) and everybody passes!" I'm not knocking people that have degrees from certain schools - you can get a good education through them. But you you can also get a degree without learning anything.
To make matters worse, the government often pays the tuition for these degree programs as an educational benefit. So the taxpayer pays for the process that results in giving taxpayer-funded employees a raise (and gets no better service in return.) And then there are the government-subsidized student loans...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!