SamF, We had a budget surplus in the near past so those props are not the only things that have decreased revenues. When things started going downhill for California Davis, instead of decrease spending, raised taxes on business. The cost of business in CA have caused many businesses to go under or to move to another state(Nevada, Texas). The cost of employement in CA have also become absurd in comparison with other states. The labor unions are causing this with the help of Davis. I do not blame Davis for the economy, downtures can happen to anyone. I dohowever blame him on how he has dealt with small business.
Well, I've never thought the voters were blameless. I thought you were trying to make a different point. I agree they are hypocritcal though, when the next governor makes the cuts we will hear a lot of whining.
I was under the impression that Californians didn't know the state was in such a huge defecit to begin with and that Davis hid these facts from them. If that is true, it wouldn't be inconceivable that they thought they had the money to spend. If not, well then you can open the window and let my argument through. Also, I feel weird addressing Californians as if they're a different species.
Poor Californians, misled by city slicker Gray Davis and his cockamamie schemes. Who knew that you can't limit taxes and increase spending and get away with it. Next thing you know, he'll try to dupe them into having a MONORAIL!!
Again, what's the difference between Davis' terrible handling of budget and Bush's? One has a $30 million shortfall, and the other has a $500 million shortfall. Why is one wrong and the other right? Davis did a *horrible* job handling the budget, and he should be held accountable. Why isn't Bush?
Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car Monorail! What'd I say? Ned Flanders: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: What's it called? Patty+Selma: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail! [crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically] Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud... Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud. Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend? Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend. Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs? Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs. Abe: Were you sent here by the devil? Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level. Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can. Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man. I swear it's Springfield's only choice... Throw up your hands and raise your voice! All: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: What's it called? All: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: Once again... All: Monorail! Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken... Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken! All: Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! [big finish] Monorail! Homer: Mono... D'oh!
Well, I support tax cuts before liberals could spend the (no longer existing) surplus. If Gore had won, I don't doubt we'd have all types of new programs lined up, plus some tax increases. I don't like how much Bush has increased spending however.
On a different tack, here's more negative proof of the "liberal media", this is from the CNN story on the decision. The first half of this statement is accurate to a degree, however, the second half is not. It's a common theme of right wingers to decry the 9th circuit and state that they're a bunch of out of control liberals "they get reversed all the time", yada,yada,yada. Rush does it, O'Reilly does it, they all do it. Rush, O'Reilly, and the rest of the right wing demagogues know that if you repeat something long and loudly enough, it slips in to common discourse and becomes accepted as fact. (see the myths about taxes and government spending in the Krugman thread) Unfortunately for this "fact", it's got one problem. It's not true. There was an article in the National Law Journal from the summer of '02 (not linkable, sorry, I read it in the paper version, so trust me on this) which contained a survey of 9th cir. decisions and other Appellate decisions. It turns out that the 9th circuit is firmly in the middle of the pack as far as reversals go. Another conservative myth, given credence through repetition, and incorporated into every day discourse by the "liberal" mainstream media.
Trying to define the term "often" by posting part of an article from the Center for Individual Freedom Foundation. http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/9th_circuit.htm U.S. Supreme Court Keeps a Watchful Eye on the 9th Circuit Long considered the federal court breeding ground for judicial activism, the 9th Circuit has been the federal appeals court most often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. And, as shown by statistics compiled by the Center for Individual Freedom Foundation, the High Court’s recently completed October Term, 2002, proved to be no exception to the 9th Circuit’s disfavored place amongst the justices. Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%). Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.
If you note their source data, at http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/reversal_rates.pdf the ultra conservative 4th circuit was reversed 3 out of 3 times. I wonder why a right wing think tank left that out? Do you think if a controversial 4th circuit decision came out, the story would read, "the conservative 4th circuit, which is ALWAYS reversed in front of the supreme court"? According to that study, that is a true statement. But I doubt anybody would write it like that. In addition, the 9th circuit is the, biggest, busiest and most litigious. 50-60 million people reside within its borders, that's about 1/5 of the US population. So, just going by population, the 9th circuit should result in at least 20% of all cases before the supreme court. Given that its share of litigation is probably even higher than its population, 30% of all written decisions is not an unnatural outcome. But anyway, the study to which I referred covered a MUCH longer term period. Not one term, but 5-10 years.
But it wasn't left out; witness... It is true that the overall reversal rate of the 9th Circuit (75%) was lower than that of other federal appellate courts — most notably the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits, which were all reversed 100% of the time this past term. Yet these “complete” reversal rates are likely due to much less frequent review of those circuits by the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, the High Court decided only eight cases from the 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits combined (three from the 4th, three from the 5th, one from the 8th, and one from the 10th), compared with the 24 cases the Supreme Court took up from the 9th. Thus, the 9th Circuit’s lower overall reversal rate does not demonstrate the justices’ greater agreement with the decisions of the 9th Circuit, but is likely attributable to that circuit’s much higher review rate. Such a conclusion is only reinforced by the fact that the more than half (57%, or 8 of 14) of the federal appellate decisions the Supreme Court unanimously overturned came from the 9th Circuit. This means that a full one-third (8 of 24) of the 9th Circuit cases decided by the High Court were unanimously overturned. Good question; I suppose the answer is debatable. Anyway, just a few thoughts I would like to point out. Funny now how all of a sudden the machines are no longer appropriate to use. Last November, they used punched-card ballots and have been for the past 50 or so years. But just now after the recall came to light...the ACLU has challenged the use of punched-card ballots. And while I'm on the subject, Cook County, home of the Chicago Democratic Machine, where those punch card ballots for decades have been used, at least back to the 70's. They were used in the most recent election, and as far as I know they will be used in the next one. So if they're good enough for Chicago Democrats, then why the problem in California? Funny how the punch cards were fine when Grayout Davis was elected but now that the poll numbers are down and there's real momentum to recall him, they're so bad that the recall can't be allowed to proceed. What cracks me up is that the 9th Circuit Judges, in essence, are saying that all methods of balloting other than this latest electronic method are "prone to mistakes"............well DUH!!! Any device or method that is either used by humans or designed by humans is prone to error.........even electronic ones. Does any of this mean that California voters are disenfranchised? California law has a process by which the people can trigger a recall election, and the people have performed that process. It's time for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to recognize that their job is to enforce laws and not create laws and allow the recall to continue.
The best I can get on the issue is below, I remember a different article by Prof. George but this one is similar. In any event, the 9th circuit's reputation is mixed at best. However, conservative attempts to demonize it have obviously paid off, as CNN, a "liberal"media source appears to have accepted their view.
California is the prime example of what happens when a state becomes wealthy under the rise of greed, and greedy under the rise of wealth.
What in hades are you talking about? The Republican controlled congress has been a rubber stamp, either that or Bush has, given that he hasn't vetoed even a single piece of legislation in the past two and a half years. Bush is spending money like no other president has, including Clinton, and has the gall to cut taxes for his cronies and the rich people that got him elected. I think that the entire tax cut (of which I saw exactly $0 even though I did make more than enough to pay taxes) should be scrapped in order to get our fiscal house in order. I would welcome this happening this year even though I would not get as much of a benefit from the child we are likely to add this year.
I thought that I heard that Davis and the legislature balanced the $30 billion shortfall and had reduced next year's estimate to $8 billion. is this true or not?
