by Missy Bain
Our budget situation in California is incredibly ridiculous, and the main problem with it is that there are so many problems no one really knows where to start. From the ballot initiatives dictating how much money goes where and providing a cap on taxation, to extreme party polarization of the people writing it up, it seems our budget troubles will never end. It seems to me that the allocation of our state funds is one of the most trying tasks a CA legislator will ever have. After all, the people already tend to allocate all of the available funds to poorly thought out services that pull on heart-strings, leaving nothing left for our most important, most taken for granted services like, policing, infrastructure, education, health-care, etc. Instead of logically thinking through our irrational spending, we keep on irrationally spending and blaming our government for the huge deficit. In response our government tries to make up for the deficit by proposing new taxes, but wait! We have put a cap on taxes, thrusting ourselves into the black hole that is our budget problem.
As I have said many times before, everyone wants everything, but no one wants to pay for it. I am a firm believer in services and that our government should be responsible for making sure that its citizens are able to survive. We desperately need funding for schools, health-care, and infrastructure among many other things. But we have to be able to decide which services we see as most crucial to the survival and success of the most people and do a better job of making sure the funding actually goes to the appropriate things. For example, school funding goes towards much needed books, supplies or desks not an extra candy vending machine for the teachers lounge.
I believe that if we reform our initiative process and work towards electing more moderate, rational representatives, we will be able to start fixing our current budget issues and make sure the headache isn't so big the next time around.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Missy Bain's Questions
Question #1:
What do you think the biggest problems with our budget process are? How would you propose to fix them?
Question #2:
Do you think that reforming the initiative process in CA would fix the budget problem altogether? Why or why not?
What do you think the biggest problems with our budget process are? How would you propose to fix them?
Question #2:
Do you think that reforming the initiative process in CA would fix the budget problem altogether? Why or why not?
Response to California Budget
by Devan Conroy
According to article that we read in Governing California, many important issues quickly caught my attention. California spent ninety billion dollars in 2005-2006, according to the Legislative Analysts Office. Money was spread all around the state, but the five largest categories receiving money were the K-12 education, higher education, health, social services and criminal justice. Everyone in the class is aware that I am fairly conservative and I am an avid supporter of police officers. Although I like the police officers, I would have to say that K-12 education ranks among the most important in the budgeting process. I would love to choose police officers as the most important and deserving group to receive funds from the government, unfortunately without K-12 education, police officers would have too high of a crime rate to control. K-12 education promotes lower crime rates, better informed students and might even motivate the troubled children to succeed in life. I believe that health and education are hard to cut funding for, but criminal justice and higher education would be the areas that I would attempt to reform. I feel that the criminal justice system could afford to get rid of the three strikes system, as well as legalize marijuana. I feel that with the three strikes rule no longer in effect, and measly arrests for being in possession of marijuana could relieve crowding in the jails and prisons. With the prison system being less crowded, the government could potentially save money for not having to care for the petty criminals. Also, if the state rose citation amounts on possession of marijuana, and drunk driving, the state could collect money from the lawbreaker and not have to pay for his incarceration. As far as higher education goes, people should have to pay more for tuition and more in taxes if they wished to be well educated. I understand that many people cannot afford college as expensive as it is today, but the budget could save billions of dollars if the school taxed their students or if the school began charging more for tuition. These changes would not have to be permanent; they would just have to exist until the state is no longer in debt.
California, has a partisan government, which is extremely unproductive to the budget and initiative processes. The people who are elected to office are often pushed into voting strictly to their parties beliefs. Elected officials often refuse to relinquish the party beliefs and ideologies. If the elected officials were elected to office based on their own personal ideologies and beliefs, then perhaps more movement would occur in the government and budget process. The people in office that have “No Strings Attached”, would have the freedom to vote the way they wish to, without having to face the consequences from their party for voting the wrong way. The article talked about the time it took for a budget to be passed in California, including the eight to nine stages of checks between the assembly/senate and the governor and his analytical assistant.
I found the readings to be very insightful, but I also read about many flaws in the budget process. It feels like the government needs to abolish partisan officials and stick to people who do not vote based on the party affiliations. We as people should vote for and be represented by a real person with political beliefs, not a droid that always votes for the party it belongs to. When I vote people in office I do not vote them in office based on their party, I vote them in because of their ideologies and ideas to fix the state in for the greater good. California should set the example on the national scale, showing that politicians have their own specific thoughts and ideas. We the people, elect these officials based on their own ideas and how they plan to use their ideas to better our province, city, county or state.
According to article that we read in Governing California, many important issues quickly caught my attention. California spent ninety billion dollars in 2005-2006, according to the Legislative Analysts Office. Money was spread all around the state, but the five largest categories receiving money were the K-12 education, higher education, health, social services and criminal justice. Everyone in the class is aware that I am fairly conservative and I am an avid supporter of police officers. Although I like the police officers, I would have to say that K-12 education ranks among the most important in the budgeting process. I would love to choose police officers as the most important and deserving group to receive funds from the government, unfortunately without K-12 education, police officers would have too high of a crime rate to control. K-12 education promotes lower crime rates, better informed students and might even motivate the troubled children to succeed in life. I believe that health and education are hard to cut funding for, but criminal justice and higher education would be the areas that I would attempt to reform. I feel that the criminal justice system could afford to get rid of the three strikes system, as well as legalize marijuana. I feel that with the three strikes rule no longer in effect, and measly arrests for being in possession of marijuana could relieve crowding in the jails and prisons. With the prison system being less crowded, the government could potentially save money for not having to care for the petty criminals. Also, if the state rose citation amounts on possession of marijuana, and drunk driving, the state could collect money from the lawbreaker and not have to pay for his incarceration. As far as higher education goes, people should have to pay more for tuition and more in taxes if they wished to be well educated. I understand that many people cannot afford college as expensive as it is today, but the budget could save billions of dollars if the school taxed their students or if the school began charging more for tuition. These changes would not have to be permanent; they would just have to exist until the state is no longer in debt.
California, has a partisan government, which is extremely unproductive to the budget and initiative processes. The people who are elected to office are often pushed into voting strictly to their parties beliefs. Elected officials often refuse to relinquish the party beliefs and ideologies. If the elected officials were elected to office based on their own personal ideologies and beliefs, then perhaps more movement would occur in the government and budget process. The people in office that have “No Strings Attached”, would have the freedom to vote the way they wish to, without having to face the consequences from their party for voting the wrong way. The article talked about the time it took for a budget to be passed in California, including the eight to nine stages of checks between the assembly/senate and the governor and his analytical assistant.
I found the readings to be very insightful, but I also read about many flaws in the budget process. It feels like the government needs to abolish partisan officials and stick to people who do not vote based on the party affiliations. We as people should vote for and be represented by a real person with political beliefs, not a droid that always votes for the party it belongs to. When I vote people in office I do not vote them in office based on their party, I vote them in because of their ideologies and ideas to fix the state in for the greater good. California should set the example on the national scale, showing that politicians have their own specific thoughts and ideas. We the people, elect these officials based on their own ideas and how they plan to use their ideas to better our province, city, county or state.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Devan Conroy's Questions
Question #1:
K-12 Education was worth $35 Billion of the total Budget in California in 2005-2006. Higher education was worth $10 billion and Health was worth $18 billion. Social Services and Criminal Justice were just under $10 billion each. Do you think that K-12 education really needed $35 billion dollars or that Criminal Justice needed $9.7 billion? Express some changes you would make in the budget concerning cuts, revisions or possible ideas you would recommend to the state budget committee. What area is the least important out of these five listed above and Why?
Question #2:
Do you think that California should elect people by their Party Affiliations or by their specific individual ideologies? Would this type of election better the Budget process or weaken it? When the Senate and Assembly vote to pass the Budget, why does the process take so long?
K-12 Education was worth $35 Billion of the total Budget in California in 2005-2006. Higher education was worth $10 billion and Health was worth $18 billion. Social Services and Criminal Justice were just under $10 billion each. Do you think that K-12 education really needed $35 billion dollars or that Criminal Justice needed $9.7 billion? Express some changes you would make in the budget concerning cuts, revisions or possible ideas you would recommend to the state budget committee. What area is the least important out of these five listed above and Why?
Question #2:
Do you think that California should elect people by their Party Affiliations or by their specific individual ideologies? Would this type of election better the Budget process or weaken it? When the Senate and Assembly vote to pass the Budget, why does the process take so long?
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Framers and Direct Democracy
I think that there is to much direct democracy that went far beyond what the framers intended. There are 24 U.S. states with constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance components and for the most part simple majority is needed only. The framers did not want the people to enforce their will on the minorities. Some say that is occurring and some not. That’s why prop eight is in court right now to decide if it is going against the will of a minority. I think the people have too much power and direct democracy is TOO direct. The citizens have a lot of power they have the statute law initiative which is a citizen-initiated, petition process of "proposed statute law," which, if successful, results in law being written directly into the state. Statute law referendum is a citizen-initiated, petition process of the "proposed veto of all or part of a legislature-made law," which, if successful, repeals the standing law. Basically with these two powers the people can make laws and break laws at their own will. The people can vote someone into office and when they don’t like what that person they can recall him out. Some proposals need a super-majority and others need a simple-majority. I think everything should either be simple-majority or super-majority. The framers did not intend for the people to rule or as they called it a “mob” rule. All throughout civilization the leaders did not want “mob” rule. In Classical Rome they believed the people were emotional and uneducated waverd on feelings day by day. The people do not know what they truly want which is why the framers made the constitution how they did. There needs to be a middle ground between the people and how they want to vote. It can not be just a straight shoot towards it.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Corey P's Questions
Did the framers intend for Americans to have this much power in
government? Should citizens have a direct democracy towards government?
The framers saw the dangers about the majority forcing their will on
minorities. Is that occurring today, are we going against the framers
wishes?
Some say that recall is one of the most powerful tools that the people
have. Should the American people have that power? Should we decide to
recall someone we voted for just because we don't like his ideas. Is it
hypocritical of California's to recall a governor for his car sales tax
then implement later on?
government? Should citizens have a direct democracy towards government?
The framers saw the dangers about the majority forcing their will on
minorities. Is that occurring today, are we going against the framers
wishes?
Some say that recall is one of the most powerful tools that the people
have. Should the American people have that power? Should we decide to
recall someone we voted for just because we don't like his ideas. Is it
hypocritical of California's to recall a governor for his car sales tax
then implement later on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
