Wow. Just wow. If this New York Times headline isn't an act of advocacy for higher taxes in California, what is? With its May 20 coverage of the vote for California's tax hiking ballot measures, the Times plainly scolds fed-up voters for rejecting them with a headline that pointedly says: "Calif. Voters Reject Measures to Keep State Solvent."
Really? The Times thinks California's voters want a state headed into bankruptcy, that they voted for insolvency? The paper is strangely furious that voters rejected tax hikes, but I hate to break this to the New York rag: voters did not "reject measures" to keep the state "solvent." What voters did was reject wild tax hikes that would only lead to more corruption and profligate spending. The voters weren't fooled and knew that these measures would not lead to any long-term solution to the state's budget woes. If the state house in Sacramento had done its job properly and proposed a sensible budget in the first place, Californians would be happy to vote for it I am sure.
The Times' first sentence also scolds California's voters for the poor turnout.
A smattering of California voters on Tuesday soundly rejected five ballot measures designed to keep the state solvent through the rest of the year.
True enough. But isn't this more proof of the state government's failure here? Isn't this more proof that California voters have given up on the system? Isn't this more proof that the state government has been so corrupt, so drunk with unnecessary spending, so unconcerned with the people that folks have just about given up?
The Times' next sentence is amusing for its construction.
The results dealt a severe setback to the state’s fragile fiscal structure and to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state legislators who cobbled together the measures as part of a last-minute budget deal passed in February.
Notice how that is written as if this was a mere accident that somehow tragically befell the "fragile fiscal structure" of the state instead of a result of the corruption of the very government that is now expecting the citizens to pay through the nose to satisfy its wild spending sprees?
Interestingly, no where in this NYTimes article is there any real discussion of why the state got into this mess in the first place.
To my mind there are a few solutions to every state's budget problems that not one of them seem to be considering. Start with a five percent across the board cut in every single state employee's salary. This happens all the time in the real world of business and the private sector. Why should government workers be the only ones to expect an ever upward trajectory in their salaries when no one else in the part of society that is actually productive can expect that? Next a freeze in salaries at that reduced level. Then a reduction of the unearned, overly indulgent pensions should be put into place. Finally, there should be carried out a campaign of eliminating the many useless positions in the layers upon layers of "administrative" jobs filled by political hacks, politician's relatives, and foot soldiers whose only real job is to get politicians elected.
Unfortunately, it is all too common in our state government budget debates to see services being the first to be threatened for cuts. The scare tactics that criminals will be released from jails, and cops and teachers will be fired is always the first resort of these self-serving politicians that have sold out to unions, while pandering to the "poor," all the while increasing the burden on the middle and upper classes who are required to foot the bill for the comfortable lifestyles so lovingly bestowed on politicians by politicians.
But, not to worry. The New York Times knows better. The Times is sure that you Californians are so stupid as to want an insolvent state. Shame on you. Oh, and it isn't the spendthrift politicians in Sacramento that the Times has pegged as the problem. It's the voters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NYT forgets?
May 20, 2009 - 04:34 ET by DustBunny01The confirmation process of the Obama Administration revealed one significant fact, liberals feel no obligation to pay taxes that they would impose on others.
So, why can't the people who actually pay the taxes reject an additional burden being placed on their collective back? At least those of us who voted did so publically and didn't "pretend" to be compliant with the tax codes while ignoring them.
Unfortunately though,
May 20, 2009 - 05:28 ET by Massage_Master07the rejection of tax increases by CA. voters is a two edged sword. NOW, prez. teleprompter's administration has the opportunity and excuse to spend even MORE of U.S. taxpayers money to "bailout" CA. And as we all know, the Fed's will do this out of "concern" for the people of CA. with "NO STRINGS ATTACHED". Yeah, we've heard THIS before. I give you all as Exhibit A- AIG, GM, Chrysler, and to a lesser extent as to the CAFE Standards announced yesterday, most of the world's leading car manufacturers, etc...
Talk about power run amok. Sorry about getting off topic. Just venting at the STUPIDITY of the people that voted this communist into office.
Back to the NYT... This "NEWSpaper" had the audacity to kill a story about some VERY SHADY connections and dealings between ACORN and Barack Hussein Obama, and then they have the cojones to CRITICIZE private citizens for voting about how THEIR money is being spent....?!?!? Is it any wonder that this rag is going out of business?? LOL
Of course, then it'll CRAWL to "uncle Barak" and grovel to be "bailed out". I'm predicting that the NYT will become the FIRST official "NEWSpaper" of the USA. So much for a "free" press then. Verily, the FIRST, and arguably the strongest, NON violent, Constitutional bastion AGAINST big and corrupt government and it's power, goes out not with a scream, but with a whimper.
A crying shame, really. :o(
I guess
May 20, 2009 - 05:12 ET by motherbeltI guess "cost-effectiveness," which will be imposed on us in the nationalized health care that ABC and the rest of the media champion, doesn't matter when it comes to paying taxes.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Federal Takeover?
May 20, 2009 - 05:15 ET by Red JeepIn this era of big time bankruptcies will we see states like California declare bankruptcy now and become a ward of the Federal Government like Washington, D.C.? Will we see states declare bankruptcy now, and be taken over by other financially sound states?
One of the marks of the
May 20, 2009 - 06:11 ET by dscottOne of the marks of the Reagan Revolution was the ending of the Dem spend, GOP finance cycle where the GOP in the name of fiscal responsibility raised taxes to pay for Dem spending programs. This is when Dems created the budget problems, were then thrown out and then the GOP "fixed" the problem but believed it could not politically repeal the give away program. Reagan tried to end that by refusing to raise taxes, but instead cut taxes to reve the economy in order to pay for the programs.
Now the second revolution is about to start with a new paradigm, THE REPEAL MOVEMENT. Not only will they not raise taxes, but now we will install politicians to repeal all these spendthrift programs and liberal employment make works programs. Government spending should not expand greater than the cost of living or inflation regardless of how much a property's value increases or incomes rise. In fact, the more income rises, the less excuse there is for give away programs.
Remember what starts in California sweeps the nation! It works both ways liberals...
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Everything will be just fine
May 20, 2009 - 06:20 ET by nadadhimmiEverything will be just fine as soon as the people give ALL their money to the wise and educated, most benevolent politicians. Really though, in California, the vote doesn't mean a thing. Liberal judges there will dictate the outcome of any question without that old fashioned, racist, sexist, non-progressive, hate filled vote of the people.
Nothing new here, move along
May 20, 2009 - 06:25 ET by richb313Nothing new here. The New York Times siding with increased taxes and scolding those who oppose it is nothing new. The real news ignored by the MSM is the final nails in the coffin of States Rights. When, not if, the Federal Govt.bails out California with Govt. Dollars then the final nails in the coffin of States rights will have been hammered home. Prior to this administration all States were allowed to run thier own affairs to a certain point. The disolution of States rights began with Lincoln and it seems will end with Obama. So in a sense Obama was right to compare himself with Lincoln, just not in the way that the American people were led to believe. Like I said before, Nothing new here...Move along.
In the same breath NYT is
May 20, 2009 - 07:05 ET by kgIn the same breath NYT is looking for a tax cut.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
The Times missed the point...
May 20, 2009 - 07:01 ET by BKeysercompletely. This is about hating an Austrian man in office. It's racism straight up!
Stupid redneck teabaggers.
I wonder how JG voted... she lives out there doesn't she?
Somehow
May 20, 2009 - 08:30 ET by 10ksnookerThose dang TEA PARTIES keep coming up ... HeHeHe ...
California just had a revolution yesterday.
It's so hilarious that
May 20, 2009 - 08:34 ET by SRPwrdIt's so hilarious that everything was about 35% yes 65% no... except for the pay capping in bad years, which was 75% yes 25% no. Who said California wasn't united?
"I believe in American Exceptionalism, just like Brits believe in British Exceptionalism and Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism." - PreBO, 4/4/09
If govts in general adjusted
May 20, 2009 - 08:50 ET by robert108If govts in general adjusted their spending to the funds available, there would be no deficits. Therefore, raising tax rates is never the solution to budget problems, just as in real life. The dirty little secret of govt spending is that they want to spend whatever they want to ensure their re-election, and so never live within their means. They always angrily demand that citizens give them whatever money their selfish needs require.
Californian lock-in
May 20, 2009 - 08:52 ET by KC MulvilleThe California problem is based on mandatory spending. Quite simply, in negotiation after negotiation over the years, the state wound up locking itself in. More than any other state, the political management betrayed their constituents. The public plainly told the politicians that they couldn't and wouldn't afford higher taxes, yet the politicians increased spending anyway.
→ Rescue Calif.
May 20, 2009 - 09:05 ET by Cool ArrowSmart voters.
California, too big to fail, only has to keep their progressive ideology moving along, and the Federal Government will come rushing to save their darling.
California's got nothing to lose.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
California
May 20, 2009 - 10:38 ET by jessieHjessieH Looks like Pelosi may be looking for a "real job" soon. Get rid of the inept & put in someone with a brain. Problem solved........
Warner - LA Times points fingers everywhere - but..
May 20, 2009 - 10:43 ET by Gary HallWarner - Well, the LA Times points fingers everywhere - everywhere but where they should be pointed.
The LA Times, today, points fingers everywhere - but... where they should be pointed - at the press, itself.
In the headlined lead story on A-1 it's explained right away that the big one Prop 1A would "trim spending" but "irked fiscal conservatives." A few sentences later we learn that voters in all 58 counties voted down Prop 1A.
Sounds like it irked more than fiscal conservatives.. how about it irked the voters of CA - "we the people."
In the front page analysis, Process is part of the problem, it's the voters who get the paper's (the journalist's) blame for how we got into this mess.
What's missing is the story explaining to the voters, that it's the news media, papers like the LA Times, that share in the blame as much as anything else. To this date, to the best of my observation, there has not been one single focused news story, nor analysis, nor editorial on the cost of services, etc., of illegal immigrants to the State of CA's budget. I note, that for 2007, Los Angeles County (one county - OK, it's a biggie) announced that they spent for the first time over $1 billion in services for illegal immigrants. Note: that does not include education costs (not funded from the counties).
The LA Times, and the rest of the MSM here in CA, refused to run even a mention of the story - and naturally, in the hundred's of thousands of words printed in this budget crisis - it has not been mentioned. -- Censoring it from the voters --
The voters passed Prop. 187 (ended social services for illegal's) a number of years back (1994), but the silly liberal CA Supreme's, overturned the voters decision.
The voters tried to address the problem - the media and the state legislators did not listen.
During the state legislator's battle to get a compromise (came down to one Republican caving) on the measures, in order to get it on the ballot, I noticed that the LA Times did not run - did not address the - anything on how raising taxes on the poor and lower income and middle income and the recently unemployed out looking for a job, would be impacted if hit with all of these tax increases. Only the day following the legislative vote, did the LA Times finally print a piece suggesting how the wallet would actually be hit -- something like, ' who bears the brunt of this pain.' Then - that was the end of that discussion. The focus was back to the bad conservatives and how they were fighting the tax increases.
Well, either the bad conservatives did darn good in all 58 counties, or the media simply has no clue as to where the people of the state actually stand.
A $billion here, and a $billion there, cut out some of the wasted $billions on fighting supposed global warming/climate change (OK, throw in a little bit of fraud and waste cutting (like overly fat public 'lazy-boy' retirement benefits) -- and wa la. Guess what? CA could almost have it's balanced budget.
(;~/ gary
According to the LA Times
May 20, 2009 - 11:11 ET by nolotrippenAccording to the LA Times (aka, the Pink Lady), "California voters exercise their power -- and that's the problem"
(link: http://www.latimes.c...)
Yes, those pesky citizens of California, they have the temerity to "exercise their power." Denise Spooner, a lecturer on California history at Cal State Fullerton on the cumulative problems created by decades of ballot-measures said, "I certainly don't think this is what the Progressives had in mind."
Nope. And ain't it cool?
On a VERY positive note, I've been voting since I was 18 (now 53). This is the first time every initiative I voted on was defeated or won just the way I voted. Even Democratic Underground pretty much sided with the conservative side on most issues.
So there is hope. Just not with the MSM. They are the walking, talking, reporting dead. Sam Raimi, are you seeing a movie in this?
voters not negotiating with terrorists.
May 20, 2009 - 11:21 ET by katainkentdespite that their own State Gov't tried to hold their school system, emergency system and penal system hostage - Voters decided they would not negotiate with terrorists.
good for them :)
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
Insanity in River City----
May 20, 2009 - 12:54 ET by Roscoe MendagoI guess there's no limit to government. If one questions the thinking of the Legislators it's shameful. Those who are long term citizens of CA know the truth, even the ones who feed off the tit. When CA went to a full time legislature is when the stupidity began, along with allowing state employees to establish unions. Oh, but when the citizens say there are limits to the out-of-control spending and to put a stop to it, they're the problem, really!!! How much more will the people who are still working in the private sector and are paying the taxes be expected to contribute before they say enough? Government produces NOTHING and it's employees are a drain on the productive private sector and when they are pared down is maybe when things will begin to reverse. Why is it that state government is doing nothing that's productive and encouraging to promote growth, why not lower taxes, freeze spending, do the things that will help it's citizens???