In California’s case, at least, it doesn’t help that residents can directly vote on their own tax relief (eg, Proposition 13, which severely limits increases in property tax).
[quote=“jeff”][quote=“mod lang”]
The states are in debt because the federal government is in debt. Lost federal money must be made up with an increase in state money. Lower federal taxes & expenditures for basic services that must be met = bankruptcy for the states or a massive hike in state taxes (which would be political suicide for any governor who tried it).
[/quote]
In California’s case, at least, it doesn’t help that residents can directly vote on their own tax relief (eg, Proposition 13, which severely limits increases in property tax).[/quote]
Prop 13 passed years ago (1978, I believe), and it isn’t directly responsible for the mess California is in. Those limits on taxation should have been hardwired into the state’s economic planning.
But I like your instincts, Jeff. When the state government is in a financial crisis, blame the people.
[quote=“Cold Front”]
But I like your instincts, Jeff. When the state government is in a financial crisis, blame the people.[/quote]
The government didn’t elect itself…
As for the referendum system in general, have you voted in CA? Prepared voters do have a chance to read a couple paragraphs or so about the numerous propositions on the ballot, but I seriously doubt that the majority of voters take the time to fully educate themselves about each issue.
I’m trying to bring this back around to GWB, but can’t find the proper segue.
post-post note: okay, this auto-correction function has gone haywire–I distinctly remember typing in segue with a small “s.”
post-post-post note: D’oh! It did it again!
ever try reading one of my posts, jeff? it really shows the amazing logic of the auto correct since i don’t ever capitalize anything unless i capitalize a WHOLE word. 
edit: notice it chose to capitalize one of my “i”'s, but not the other? why? i typed them both in lower case and in this edit window they’re STILL both in lower case. go figure. 
[quote=“jeff”][quote=“Cold Front”]
But I like your instincts, Jeff. When the state government is in a financial crisis, blame the people.[/quote]The government didn’t elect itself…[/quote]
Yes, but even with referendums, it’s still a representative government, and those representatives can do their job poorly or do it well.
Yes, I’m a tax-paying citizen of California.
Many don’t vote on all of them, and others have general political beliefs that make it easy to vote on topics they know little about. Do you have very strong feelings against more taxes? Then you really don’t need to know a lot about an issue in order to vote against it, if you know it will raise your taxes. Do you have strong feelings in favor of more government support for public education? Then you don’t need to know a lot about an issue to vote for it, if you know it will support public education.
So if you are a tax-paying citizen of California, it automatically means you’ve voted?
CF, what I was trying to say is that voters have a definite role in the economic situation of the state.
I’m against tax increases but for improvements in the education system and deficit reduction (mutually exclusive?), but not all economic and education reform referendums are created equal. I think that voting on the basis of a general attitude is dangerous and usually refrain from voting if I don’t have a good idea of the issues. Not everyone shares this approach.
This type of comparison is not valid. I often see this ‘thank you lucky stars your not N.Korean’ argument.
The fact is the US is supposed to be democratic and uphold the rule of law. However it just chooses to uphold it when it sees fit (as is so bloody obvious to most people, especially outside the states).
Comparing to another country is a cop out. Plus the US has the most dangerous military and nuclear capability so has an added responsibility to ensure checks and balances.
Being a European we have our faults in foreign policy but I would hate to see the state of the world if Europeans were even half as jingoistic and self righteous as Americans. I always always get the feeling that most Americans views are formed as a result of their predominant military might and reaction to criticism rather than a thought out and considered viewpoint.
What happens when good ole patriotic middle aged flag pole in the garden joe soap in middle america can’t get his job back cos all those jobs are in Asia now. Is Joe soap going to wake up to reality he’s being screwed by the wealthier people in the country when his kids go to gun toting clapped out public schools.
Headhoncho:
Don’t flatter yourself that Europeans are not jingoistic. In fact, pointing to Americans as jingoistic and nationalistic is the sort of self-righteous jingoism that Europeans specialize in.
Notice a country in Europe called France?
Then Germany with its self-righteous dogmatism which lead to Italy and Germany engaging in sophisticated debate regarding Berlusconi and the German Parliamentarian that on the other side of the pond would surely have been just jingoism?
Let’s see Russia? Not nationalistic or jingoistic?
Austria and its hard right fighting immigration? Ditto for Hungary and foreign control of industry and banks? Ditto for Czech Republic and banks and Poland and land ownership? Finally, what about Greece? Remember the 2000 Olympics which went to Atlanta. Read the Greek newspapers back then?
I think you get my point. Don’t flatter yourself as a superior being above mob thinking and tendencies. Happens every day all across Europe.
freddy
He’s a smarmy, smirky, slimeball. Illiterate and unfit to lead.
The 3% increase in federal government outlays from 1992-2000 has a simple explanation: more seniors = a massive increase Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending. It’s the demographics - short of slashing SSI benefits, which is politically suicidal as we all know, the Federal Budget is going to continue to expand and we’re going to be in a rough spot trying to support all these aging boomer pensioners. Of course, Europe and Japan have a much worse problem in this area with their aging, shrinking populations.
Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), 1982. Congress/Reagan instituted tax hikes in 1983, 1984, and 1986 as well, in order to undo the damage done by the original 1981 tax cut (the biggest in history).
But what Bush II is doing is not Keynesianism. Keynes suggested that the way out of a recession or depression was for the government to put jobs and money into the hands of consumers by instituting massive public works programs. That was FDR’s strategy during the Depression, but what really pulled the U.S. out was the massive industrialization for defense projects during WWII. Increasing funding for social programs, keeping people busy by government spending on infrastructure projects such as Eisenhower’s Interstate program - that’s Keynesianism. Putting extra money in the hands of the wealthiest 1%, which is what Bush II’s tax cuts are doing, is not going to reverse the economic downturn. Economies do not recover from the top up, but from putting consumer spending money in the hands of those near the bottom and middle of the pyramid. Putting more money in the hands of rich businessmen hasn’t worked in all the third-world countries in Latin America where these kind of Bush-ian supply-side economics have been practiced for centuries. Putting more money into the hands of the middle and working classes is the true engine of any economy - Henry Ford, the arch-capitalist, understood this principle well: workers have to have the money to buy his cars if his business is going to succeed at all. Bush II’s policies are putting money into the wrong hands of the wrong people. Of course many businesspeople are going to disagree because it’s in their own class interest to get more money thrown their way, but they’re just being greedily shortsighted - in the long run, they’re going to be hurt as well due to a declining consumer base.
According to the Economist,
[quote]Mr Bush is undoubtedly a polarising figure: almost a third of voters say they won’t vote for him under any circumstances, whereas about the same proportion say they will vote for him come what may. Yet his partisan effect is more a symptom than a cause of deeper problems with American democracy.
The growing nastiness of American politics is also undermining popular faith in government. How can intelligent people watch the
Link no work 'cuz I haven’t shelled out $69 for a year’s subscription.
Sorry, I’ll post it here, but I think we have been asked not to post full articles. 
[quote]Not the way to do it
Aug 14th 2003
From The Economist print edition
America’s politics looks more and more like a Punch and Judy show
OF ALL George Bush’s promises in the 2000 election, his pledge to change the tone of politics has proved to be the emptiest. Today politics is as acrimonious as it has ever been. Rank-and-file Democrats regard Mr Bush as the spawn of Satan. Many congressmen will barely speak to each other. The Senate Judiciary Committee is paralysed by Democratic filibusters.
Partisan battles are raging across the country. California’s Republicans are bent on recalling a governor just nine months after his election. Texas’s Republicans are trying to redraw the boundaries of congressional districts a mere two years after the last redistricting. The Democrats have responded by heading over the state line to deny the Republicans the quorum they need to pass laws, and are now in their third week of exile in New Mexico.
Everywhere, politicians have taken to using weapons of last resort at the first opportunity. Once upon a time, politicians talked of impeaching a president only in the direst circumstances: but Bob Graham, a Florida senator and Democratic presidential candidate, has mentioned Mr Bush’s name in this regard at the merest whiff of a problem. Once upon a time, redistricting happened only once a decade: but ever since the Colorado Republicans engaged in re-redistricting to boost the party’s congressional representation, other legislatures have started to follow suit. As Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times has lamented,
2 words: Logan’s Run
Or: Eskimo Sea Cruise
[quote=“Flicka”][quote=“Cold Front”]
Yes, I’m a tax-paying citizen of California.
[/quote]
So if you are a tax-paying citizen of California, it automatically means you’ve voted?[/quote]
It certainly does in my case.
[quote=“jeff”]CF, what I was trying to say is that voters have a definite role in the economic situation of the state.
I’m against tax increases but for improvements in the education system and deficit reduction (mutually exclusive?), but not all economic and education reform referendums are created equal. I think that voting on the basis of a general attitude is dangerous and usually refrain from voting if I don’t have a good idea of the issues. Not everyone shares this approach.[/quote]
Yes, but it’s up to each voter to decide for his or herself whether to vote on the issue. There’s no literacy or knowledge test to vote. Even if someone has what you think is a very stupid reason for their vote, it’s still their vote, and they may believe they have the best of reasons for why they cast it the way they do.
Why would you be silly enough to believe that the average American has strong views on foreign policy? Beyond some feverish feelings about a couple of topics that are more regional than national (trade, immigration), most Americans give their elites a wide leeway for running foreign policy the way they want. The exceptions are the small ethnic interest groups (Irish, Jews, Cubans) who push the government on particular issues.
If that’s his belief then he can vote for higher tariffs or more gun control legislation.
First, I was talking about federal government revenue (taxes), not outlays (spending).
Second, Social Security is an off-budget item so it has no bearing on the official budget numbers (even though the government unofficially uses SS funds to cover up financial holes in the budget). Please provide some data or documentation to support your claim that SS had something to do with a 3% rise in revenue during Clinton’s term.
Third, the Clinton era of the 1990s saw a steep decrease in health spending growth.
Again, I understand all this, but what does this have to do with the budget numbers we were discussing?
Here’s what you said: “Anyone who’s ever had to handle a budget can tell you it’s just a matter of simple physics: spend more and take in less, whoah where did I get this massive credit card bill?! You can’t cut taxes and increase spending at the same time and expect the books to stay balanced. You either have to cut spending or increase taxes or a combination of both. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, except to supply-side dogmatics and communists, people who let ideology blind them to common sense reality.”
This hawkish tone on budget deficits, followed by your final coda which suggested we could blame them on the conceptual deficiences of supply-siders and Communists, masks the fact that deficit spending has been a conceptual framework of most economists for much of the post-war period. Also, habitual deficit spending when the U.S. is not at war did not start with Ronald Reagan. Although Reagan took it to another level, it was already well-established by the time he took office.
As for your explanation of Keynesian, Keynes himself focused on public works spending (and he was against habitual deficit spending), but the important point about post-war Keynesian is that the government – not the private sector – takes it upon itself to spend money it doesn’t have in order to stimulate an economic recovery. To most economists, WW2 was a perfect example of Keynesian at work. FDR’s spending on public works had not been enough to stimulate a recovery, but the vast expenditure for war had.
Similarly, some commentators have claimed that the U.S.'s economic success during Reagan’s term had been, at least in part, a Keynesian success based on the government’s deficit spending on defense. In other words, Reagan had been blessed with a Keynesian economic boost. Michael Kinsley of the The New Republic has made this point as did Lloyd Bentson during the 1988 Vice Presidential debates. The irony is, of course, that conservatives hate Keynes.