.
.
.
This question of what kind of state California is going to be, whether democracy will be allowed here, if the citizens will even get to CHOOSE whether or not they want to keep paying a tiny bit more in order to avoid an all-cuts budget that will decimate the services we all depend on, is a serious question. And Governor Brown has offered to debate the issue with ANY CALIFORNIAN REPUBLICAN, anywhere they want to do it.
Evidently ALL the Republican legislators in the state are either painfully aware of how mentally unequipped they are to debate Governor Moonbeam, or even more painfully aware of the fact that their position is morally and fiscally indefensible. SO, they reached all the way across the nation – all they had to do was yank on their own puppet strings – and called forth their Gepetto from DC – Grover Norquist would debate Jerry Brown at this weekend’s Republican Convention!
And Brown reacted very appropriately to this offer – the offer of an out-of-state anti-tax lobbyist to explain to us Californians why we should forgo a good educational system, good roads, all the rest: the Governor delegated the task of debating Norquist to his dog Sutter, who is after all, as George Skelton vouches, a “well-mannered Pembroke Welsh corgi.”
Previously in this series:
1. Our big decision: What kind of state will we be?
2. The GOP’s Anti-Democracy Caucus, vs. a Few Republican Grownups.
I know I’ve been promising everybody under the sun that I would go after Fleischman, but I think the very real prospect of this Sutter-Grover debate is a game-changer, and I would like to think out the possibilities here. No disrespect toward the worthy Sutter, but I’m just not used to leaving such a weighty matter up to a dog. So I would like to help coach him on what Grover’s likely to say, and how he might want to respond. (Perhaps I shall come to regret my apprehension, and learn to trust more in the canine intellect.) So, Sutter, here are my humble suggestions:
*
Not yet knowing the moderator, ground rules, or exact questions, I would still advise you, Sutter, as early in the proceedings as possible, to work in Norquist’s most notorious remark, something like this: “Of course, Mr. Norquist WOULD feel this way, since he once famously expressed a desire to ‘shrink government down to the size where he can drown it in his bathtub.’ Now, Mr. Norquist, I feel I speak for the vast majority of my fellow Californians when I say I don’t want our great state’s government drowned in your bathtub.”
Grover will probably respond that that was intended as humorous, provocative hyperbole. That’s okay. It’s memorable, and it’s only a slight exaggeration of what California would look like under the ALL-CUTS BUDGET he and his puppets want to stick us with. When Grover tries to downplay the horrificness of that budget, I would advise you to give a long, deep, growl, away from the mike, just loud enough to make Grover nervous without the audience being able to catch it. And bring up the bathtub at least two more times.
We can predict many of Norquist’s lines from what he and his hapless, goofy-ass California surrogate Jon Fleischman have written recently. One thing he’ll be sure to bring up when asked why Californians shouldn’t at least be allowed to vote on this question, is that “Californians have already voted on taxes more than once, and they have always rejected them.”
Sutter, you should respond, after a quick impatient yelp, “First of all, what if they did? Times change, 2011 is not 2009. Second of all, as my friend Dan Walters has pointed out, the length of the income, sales and car tax increases wasn’t on the ballot in 2009; that election hinged largely on other issues.”
Around here, I can safely predict from watching other Norquist performances, Grover will try to interrupt you even though your time is not up. Stand your ground, get up on your hind legs if you have to, and bark: “Grover, Grover, GRRRRRover. Let me finish! Why are you folks so afraid of letting the people vote? What do you have against democracy?? Why are you so sure you’ll lose???”
At this point, pull out last week’s Field Poll from … well, okay, just memorize it. “61% of voters want to be able to vote on this issue, and 56% of Republicans want to!” Look at the audience of Republican pols here. “That’ 56% percent of YOUR CONSTITUENTS, ladies and gentlemen. They want to be able to vote on this, and most say they’ll vote no. But they believe in democratic principles and resent being treated like children by you, Grover, you and the ghost of Howard Jarvis. Does the Grand Old Party want to go to its grave denying its members the right to vote??” End that last part on a sort of howl.
Control the direction of the debate, Sutter. Good boy.
Whenever Norquist brings up the issue of taxes, how over-taxed Californians are, how lowering taxes even more on the mythical “job-creators” will result magically in economic recovery and flying ponies, steer the debate back to democracy and self-determination. It will be sorely tempting to argue back with real facts and statistics about the economy (which I’m sure you have at your paw-tips) and we will need at least once to remind the audience exactly how grim the All-Cuts scenario would be, but that debate can wait until the measure is on the ballot. We need to get it on there first, and Grover’s job is preventing a vote.
Try something along these lines, I’m just spitballing here: “In my short life, counting my seven years as ‘dog years,’ I have witnessed the immensely moving spectacle of both blacks and women getting the vote. [Just plough through this, Republicans are bad at math and history.] There is nothing like being disenfranchised to make one realize the preciousness of being part of the democratic process. If, within my lifetime, God willing, [allow tears to come to your eyes here] dogs are given the right to vote [take an emotional pause] I can tell you, looking back on this debate, we will remember which Party fosters democracy and which one stifles it.” [Should applause break out here, nod modestly and paw the floor in appreciation.]
Another clever rhetorical move you can make:
Grover is bound to bitch that a referendum this summer on a tax extension will not be a fair fight, because the dreaded UNIONS will swamp the airwaves with a multimillion dollar campaign in favor, and poor conservatives will have no chance to make their case against that. What he won’t be expecting is your comeback:
You should say that the Republicans shouldn’t be worried so much about Unions, who are going to be busy nursing their wounds already sustained in the Brown budget, as well as possible pension reform – what they should be worried about the fact that they’re losing the business community over this issue. Turn again to the audience of Republican politicians and remind them that Fleischman and Norquist’s biggest nightmare has come true: the California Chamber of Commerce, and several other influential, traditionally GOP-supporting business organizations have come out in favor of the Governor’s tax extension and have been pressuring Republicans to come to an agreement.
With your biggest sad dog eyes, and a tremulous whimper in your voice, ask the assembled pols: What is to become of the Grand Old Party if and when they lose their most dependable supporters – the business community – just from following “ideologues like my good friend Grover here” into irrelevance? Then, suddenly wagging your tail optimistically, express your confidence that “cooler heads in this room will prevail, democracy will win out, and this august Party of Lincoln will again see many years and decades of glory. Even here in California!” (Just say that, even if you don’t believe it.)
Sutter, we’re all counting on you, and we know you can pull it off! You know how they say every dog has its day? If you follow the advice in this post, yours will be the day you debate, and vanquish, the dreaded fiscal terrorist Grover Norquist!
First question:
[poll id=”301″]
Second question:
[poll id=”302″]
“… Grover will try to interrupt you even though your time is not up. Stand your ground, get up on your hind legs if you have to, and bark: “Grover, Grover, GRRRRRover. Let me finish! Why are you folks so afraid of letting the people vote? What do you have against democracy?? Why are you so sure you’ll lose???”
LOL and thinking you are definitely ready for syndication.
The voter’s have already voted, November 2nd 2010.
Representative were elected to make the decisions that effect running the state.
It is NOT up to the electorate to vote on any one or all measures before the state.
The only special election that should be held, is whether the state of California should be dissolved and restructured, by a constitutional convention. In effect cancelling all contracts and agreements and starting over from scratch.
The legislators can do their jobs, but currently all that is being done is scare tactics designed to take more money from the taxpayers so the elected elite and their bureaucratic handlers can continue living the high life.
The state of California can dissolve. The state can become a territory of the United States.
Call you representative and tell him or her to put a tax increase or extension to a vote by the people?
Screw that, call them and tell them to do their job or resign.
First off, this is a Republic, not a Democracy, Vern, try to get that concept straight in your head. We elect representatives to do the work of the people. Direct elections on issues such as this are not and never have been, in the best interests of the people in how the state works out it’s economic problems.
Mr. Cook is correct, they either need to do the job they were elected to do or vacate the position, period.
We do not have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem!
If you can’t come to grips with that, then there is very little room for debate. Grover Norquist is a good speaker on the issue and I think it would be a good debate with Gov. Brown, HOWEVER, it’s shameful that there are so few voices right here in California who could or would stand up and debate the Gov. on this issue, which should be a simple task. Now, I can think of a few R’s that could step up to the plate and deliver a head ringing home run on this topic, but it’s up to them to step up to the plate.
From an old movie, that many of us love for various reasons, a quote, that still rings fairly true;
“In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the… Anyone? Anyone?… the Great Depression, passed the… Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?… raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. “Voodoo” economics.”
Perhaps Ben Stein would step up to the plate and debate Gov. Brown…?
Hi Carl, Hi Cook. I wonder if you two ALWAYS oppose the initiative process. Even when it’s an initiative you guys would like, that would lower taxes. Like Prop 13, or the one that created our 2/3 rule for raising taxes. Kind of doubt it.
The legislature as it stands, with the 2/3 rule and the Republicans’ stupid pledges, is incapable of passing a balanced budget WITHOUT $25 billion in cuts that most Californians don’t want. And so, 61% of Californians want to have a say in that. I’m one of them.
I suspect you guys’ allergy to direct democracy is a convenience related to just not wanting to extend tax rates. You’ll be fully able to vote no on that in June.
This is not the “initiative process”
The state legislators and governor can raise taxes and extend taxes by doing their jobs.
If you bail them out again, just like what has happened over the last 7 years, then in 6 months to a year there will be another tax increase bailout to follow.
The state expects to receive 86.5 billion in 09/10 and almost 90 billion in 10/11
Ten years ago the revenue was 73 billion, there was a surplus returned by a reduction in the car tax, the budget was balanced and all bills were paid.
The private economy is living on 1998 levels, the government economy needs to roll back it increases to at least 2001 levels.
There is no guaranty that the government of California must survive.
The people can survive without the current government in Sacramento. If Egypt can do it, so can California.
Cook,
A very nice effort (and all salient points), but if Vern truly believes that the unions won’t dump tens of millions into fake tears commercials about how the world will end, firefighters won’t show up to put your house out (complete with smudges on their brows), and the state will descend into anarchy if the tax increases aren’t passed, then he really is out to lunch (or in denial) on this.
OK let’s see… maybe the dreaded, omnipotent unions WILL put “commercials” up in favor of the tax extensions. Will they need to lie, to make effective commercials? Let me once again sketch out the all-cuts budget:
– Eliminate K-3 class size reduction ($1.275 billion)
– Require that kindergarteners be 5 years old at enrollment in 2011-12 ($700 million)
– Impose a 90-unit cap on each community college student’s taxpayer-subsidized credits ($250 million)
– Increase community college fees from $26/unit to $66/unit ($170 million)
– Eliminate state subsidy for intercollegiate athletics ($55 million)
– Increase tuition another 7 percent for UC and 10 percent for CSU ($270 million)
– Reduce CSU enrollment by 5 percent ($124 million)
– Reduce personnel costs by 10 percent at UC and 5 percent at CSU ($408 million)
– Reduce state-paid In-Home Health Services provider salary to minimum wage ($300 million)
– Eliminate food and cash aid for non-citizens whom courts have determined can receive benefits ($190 million)
– Stricter income eligibility for welfare-to-work recipients ($180 million)
– Require second and third “strikes” to be serious or violent in “Three Strikes” sentencing ($50 million) – [hey that’s not bad]
– Eliminate funding for public safety grant programs ($506 million)
– Eliminate automated speed-enforcement cameras ($150 million) – [hey that’s not bad!]
– Two furloughs a month for court employees ($130 million)
– Reduce state employee pay an additional 9.24 percent, equal to two furlough days ($700 million)
– Reduce state contribution to employee health care by 30 percent ($330 million)
– End state general fund support for Small Business Loan Guarantee Program ($24 million)
– Eliminate Department of Fair Employment and Housing and state commission ($17.2 million)
– Enact another accounting swap that eliminates sales tax on diesel and increases weight fees, reducing funds for local transit and intercity rail ($400 million)
– Allow oil drilling at Tranquillon Ridge ($100 million) [ – and no extraction fee? Go jump in a lake!]
– Reduce wildland firefighting costs by imposing a new fee on residential property owners in areas protected by the state, clarifying that the state is not fiscally responsible for loss of life and property and shrinking territory for which state is responsible ($300 million)
Hm… they might be able to make the case even without the brow-smudges.
Yes I agree the voters voted. They elected Brown. Who said he would not raise taxes without a vote of the people. I thought that it was very clear at least to many voters and myself that we were to expect a vote on taxes to be a part of his proposals. And this is not even an increase just an extension!
If the voter decide that a 40 to 50 % cut in education, releasing 10-15 thousand prisoners, cutting in half senior services, closing the state parks and possiblly part of the State colleges is a better option then, Brown will have a vote that shows the legislature that this is what people want.
It is lilkely that the voters like our electeds would like a 3rd more acceptble option, but with the Bush hangover and the fact that we have put off some of the more difficult decisions by past accounting tricks makes this unlikely.
I have yet to see the Republican balanced budget plan , we should all be interested to see it. It would provide us the optional picture to extending the taxes
Great point, Jim. I suspect these guys’ allergy to initiatives is just a matter of convenience when the initiative is something they oppose and think they could lose on.
But I’m happy to see our two little polls above diverging a little more – meaning that there ARE some anti-tax people who still support democracy and our right to vote on the matter. (The recent Field Poll shows the same.)
How is giving up my hard earned money, with another “temporary” tax extension going to solve the problems? I agree Mr Benson, I would like to see a workable budget by the minority party too!
If this goes to the voters, we will be bombarded with ads from all the unions about how voting yes is the only way to get out of this mess, so they can keep all their members and benefits as long as they can. While the other side is poorly financed and is frugal with what’s left of our, non-inflation adjusted paychecks. While the truth is those elected to office will still not balance a budget nor will they fix the mess they created, even if they get their extension.
So, I ask once again, why should I believe once again, that by giving the state another temporary extension it’s going to fix the budget mess? Why should I believe this time is going to be different than last time? Why should I happily allow those, who voted in so many irresponsible politicians, vote on taking my money, again?
The initiative process wasn’t intended to be used by those elected, to shirk their responsibilities in doing their jobs. It was intended to do the peoples bidding when the elected refused to address grievances. Like requiring a 2/3 super-majority vote for raising taxes! While this might arguably be one of those cases, since the legislators certainly have not done their jobs, it certainly stinks to high heaven!
I’ve never heard so much whining in one post, and that’s saying something. You try to sound like little Oliver Twist, sidling up to the beadle with your little cup of gruel, and plaintively describe your terrifying hunger as you have so little left to eat.
As if you’re being taxed to death–as if you don’t already get a great deal for the relatively small sums that are rapaciously torn form your threadbare pockets. When the potholes get worse, when the schools close, when more people are sleeping under bridges, then–maybe–you’ll get a grip on what you are asking for–another six pack while the state collapses.
LOL… if you knew Carl… that’s just a funny image, seeing Yosemite Sam as Oliver Twist.
The initiative process is partly responsible for our current problem. A lot of our debt is because bonds approved for various projects.While many of these are good projects we must learn that going into debt is not always the best way to get these done.
Many of the spending programs that seem to go on forever without control are mandated by initiatives that have passed in previous years. Any balanced budget with or without tax extensions is going to be subject to several lawsuits, because you just cannot get to a balance without violating mandated spending passed by the voters.
There is no easy way out of this. But I think that Education is the top priority that we need to focus on. Without an educated work force there is no future.
Again this is not the initiative process.
The governor wants to by-pass the legislators and go to the voters.
Now the legislators are in the best position to make the decisions. They are actively involved with the question and know the facts and have staff to help inform them of the consequents.
The voters do not have any of that information or help.
(“Many of the spending programs that seem to go on forever without control are mandated by initiatives” Jim)
Jim you are right in your statement above, the voters have been tricked before and will be tricked again. Another reason to let legislators do the hard job their were elected to do.
I think that the current taxes may have been in part if not in total passed by the voters under Arnold’s rescue California initiatives, the case may be made that they can only be extended by a vote of the people. I would have to review the exact language of what passed.
The initiative process as currently in the California Constitution, allows a citizens vote on a proposal either put on the ballot by the legislature or by a certain number of signatures by the poeple. I think that certain items suchs as bonds and some taxes are required to be voted on by the voters, that power in many cases was taken away from the legislature, often by previous initiatives that dedicated certain taxes to specific projects only to be spent in those areas. Therefore the legislaure cannot adjust the spending or the taxes in many areas without another vote of the people.
Like the Gas tax, it has to go only to highway and transprotation projects. It cannot be increased or diverted to other areas.
Most cigarette taxes only go to specific health programs, they cannot be cut or diverted to other areas. If you do you are violating the California initiatives law which is in the constitution which you swore to uphold.
Jerry heard you guys. Here he goes
Jerry could save a lot of money by requiring state employees use their vacation each year rather than accumulate hundreds to thousands of hours which have to be paid out in lump sums when the person retires. I know people who’ve had $100K cashed out.
Of course, that’s easy for me to say since I use my vacation liberally to stay sane.
My dad used to make us kids go outside to a weeping willow tree in our yard to pick a switch that he would sting the backs of our legs with when he gave us a spanking. Kinda feels the same way …….
What is going to happen if the voters say “NO” to the taxes?
What is difference now, than last year when the voters said “NO” to the taxes?
Do you think that the state sending out “pink slips” to most state employees, including teachers next month in preparation for the cuts needed to balance the budget will have an effect on the vote?
What is the Offer?
Vote for more taxes (So the “chosen” can continue the high life)
Vote against more taxes ( and the state will cut services, so the “chosen” can continue the high life)
How about a vote to dissolve the state of California and return it to a federal territory?
Yes some districts are preparing for the worst. With schools it is up to the local boards.
San Diego I heard on the radio has informed about that up to 25 % of teachers and staff they may be laid off. And project class size average to grow to 50 per teacher.
Returning to a territory? Raise about 5-10 million and put it on the ballot I doubt if it will fly but that would take a vote of the people to do.
Cook you make my point, the Republicans are saying no to the vote, which I beleive is required by the previous propositions on extending the taxes. But where is the alternate cuts they propose?
Go to Ca.gov check out the budget, make your list of cuts to get to 26 billion, I would be interested to see them.
The state should impose a moratorium on pension plan contributions . And cut executive expense accounts 100% and cap civil service salaries at X dollars and the executive / management at 125 percent of maximum civil service. (A prop 13 on state salaries) (those saving may even have room for a tax cut)
The ones who feel they are worth more can go get the higher pay elsewhere and honest unemployed Americans can then take those open jobs.
The question for Californians is whether the state legislators and governor can or will fix the broken system they have recreated, or the people will take the matter into their own hands.
If the people make the changes, it may not be clean.
Egypt, the government was dissolved, turn over to a military junta, and they are working on a new replacement system. Surprising clean.
Libya, the government is going out in a messy fight to the death.
California, TBA
Off your meds today? All this anger over a tax extension that will not, I’m sure, deprive you of purchasing a fourteenth firearm.
Grover Norquist & the Two-Legged Dog
If you discovered q little boy of 6, 7 or 8 was chopping off the legs of cats and dogs in your neighborhood to hear the animals scream and that he was excited with happiness as he witnessed the animals pain, you’d go to the police, not just to mental health services, even if that little boy was your own son. Americans for Tax Reform endeavor to treat the poor like that young psychopath treats animals, arguing that just as the dog with fewer legs to stand on gains greater strength in the legs that remain, so the poor, with far fewer benefits from the government will develop their own resources and be better able to stand forth in American society.
The evil young man laughs at how well the crippled dog gets by on 3 legs, and then chops off another leg, leaving it to get by on just two. Now, if he cuts off legs, front and back, on opposite sides, the dog will still be able to get around, with difficulty. That dog can’t hunt, but it’ll get by. If you went to the local police about that boy, even though the dog can walk along, with difficulty, at the least they’d hold the boy for observation and consider prosecuting the parents for raising him wrong.
Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform say all of us will be better off if the poor can just get by, like that two-legged dog. Grover’s gofers, the young Republicans in the House, would defend that boy, a future surgeon destined to do as much for humanity as Mengele.
THE FACIST TRASH BROWN HAS CHARGES PENDING AGAINST HIM FOR PRACTICING RACISM AND GREED, AND TERRORISM AND RACKTERING. AND I KNOW, BECAUSE I FILED THE CHARGES.