Greetings wayward NetLifeMag readers and first-timers! Yes, Netscape Life Magazine is back…more free garbage for you to read on the bus. The writer's block is gone. (Please submit your articles though). To you, the most dedicated of the Netscape Life Magazine readers, I dedicate this issue, not because you will like it, but because you demanded it. Yes, I see that hit counter still tallying people looking for it every week a full year and a half since it went offline. You people are sick, twisted. I like it.

This particular issue is not a full issue, and does not reflect the new format. I am in the process of reworking the archives, and there are several new articles in progress. These include a very long, researched treatise on global warming, and a short piece I call "Sporks….the Sequel…Why Weren't They the Feature the First Time?" There is also an almost finished Atkins diet article, another long treatise on Enron (very different from the media version…good thing Netlife has no advertising revenues..although, as of recently, the Netlife founder and senior editor did purchase some quality Enron stock…the annual reports are a good subscription value), a very insulting piece called "Bad Philosophy I came Up with While Waiting at Department of Motor vehicles", and an overview of the Porta Potties I have used (no details, only commentary). But I really wanted to put out an article on The Recall. When I get asked about what I think of The Recall, I know that a few witty (aka "drunken") retorts does not fully capture the spirit of my thoughts. Plus, it seems somehow appropriate that, with the last issue being the post World Trade Center psycho-Arab demolition party one, that it somehow resume with an issue solely devoted to the ultimate expression of California politics. Poetry is inevitable, no matter how much bitching and whining tries to deface it. This, my friends, is poetry, and I love it. By itself, this alone was worth moving to California for…warts and all. Political controversy has been following me around from state to state lately, so I was thinking of shaking it loose by moving to North Dakota.

The last NetLifeMag issue's lead article began with a woman wading in Mono Lake. Those with a soft-spot for symmetry will enjoy the fact that some of this was written while I had time to kill waiting around in the middle of nowhere, by the shore of the same Mono Lake.

For new people, be advised that this is not supposed to be like a newspaper article. It is supposed to be the opposite. Please don't read this at work…read it when you're drunk! Or at least after breakfast. The article is a little lame and bland at first so that it can clear some technicalities later, so please bear with it. This is a long article. It begins with the usual dry legal disclaimers and statements of bias. It then tears into the media and popular political thought in general. Next comes a section that discusses the California government sector. The Recall is then discussed, and the author will explain why he will vote Yes. The author discusses the replacement candidates, and since he remains totally undecided, then solicits opinions in these last days before The Recall.

Send in the Clowns

Originally, I opposed The Recall. Readers of the March, 2001 issue might be surprised to hear me say that. Some of my co-workers might be even more surprised than those readers. It's no secret that I absolutely despise Gray Davis. I developed this sentiment almost immediately. Although I knew precisely nothing about him when I arrived in California, it took me less than 2 months to quickly develop an above-average dislike of the "man"/weasel. I attribute this slowness not to any great handicap on my part, but rather the distractions caused to the cross-country move and the new job and the lack of sex and whatnot. And obviously, I believe that spineless, insecure and unimaginative "man"/weasels should not knowingly occupy positions of considerable power, particularly when they are given over gently to Socialist forces.

But yes, it's all true…I originally opposed The Recall. I have to admit that I only changed my mind in favor of The Recall the week before Arnold announced. For about two weeks before that, I was truly undecided. I am now, and almost certainly will remain, Total (ly in favor of the) Recall. OK, last lame TR joke, I promise. I don't even think I need to explain why I am in favor. There will be a section below for the skeptics and new people, but many of you already understand exactly why. I'm really not sure why it took me so long. Perhaps I am slowly being brainwashed by the California media. If so, any NetLifeMag reader has full legal powers to terminate my life if they seriously suspect I have become one of or corrupted over by the California media.

Statement of Bias

I am a state worker. I am surrounded by bureaucracy. Although the particular group I am in is somewhat unusual, I cannot escape the fact that I am lost somewhere in the middle of a vast paperwork empire. Attention to process has so taken over my mind that I am quite sure I am incapable of seeing the forest for the trees any longer.

I am also a political libertarian. I believe should be free to exist, in peace, that you not force others to support your existence. Mostly, because you can move between states, this plays out in my political thinking at the federal government level. But much of it's residue survives into my state-level thinking. So I am generally biased against taxation, particularly for taxation types which focus upon what people produce.

I believe in the value of shared resources. My break with libertarianism primarily occurs because libertarians generally are poor at discerning private property from shared resources. So just as I would like to abolish income taxes, I would love to see resources taxed. I generally support a sales tax. I generally believe the private sector is, on balance, a better place for services to be provided, and therefore think that governments are generally too large.

I hate Hollywood, 2003. I have seen precisely 2 movies since 9/11, 4 since I moved to California, and 1 on video. I do love The Sopranos, though. While I appreciate your suggestions about which movie to watch, I am sure that I won't watch it. I am a Cubs fan. The outcome of The Recall is far less important to me than the outcome of the Cubs-Braves series. Fewer words, but more love.

I am an Enron shareholder. I bought it after The Fall, and only a few shares, so we aren't talking big money here. I always lose more at a casino than I would lose if Enron finally dissolves. In addition to subscribing to their annual report publication, free with share purchase, I bought it specifically so that I could get attacked for saying impolite things…for the comedy return, it is better than going to the movies, by far. The very word "Enron" now is a political factor. It's hilarious, as people who don't understand the situation at Enron at all are using it constantly. Of course, whoever invokes the word "Enron" in a sentence grants themselves a moral superiority that lasts for the duration of the point they are about to make, which usually takes them about 9 seconds. Soon, California public school history books may even read: "The titanic hit an iceberg, since the Enron corporation had been manipulating sea currents to extract profits from the deregulated ocean". Don't laugh too hard at this idea. Cruz Bustamante wrote a schoolbook that is now read in California public schools. He even bragged about it during the debate.

I don't like lawyers. I've had enough of lawyers. I think that the legalese-ization of society is even worse than what The Media are doing to it. Some of them are good at what they do, but you know….I just don't like lawyers. I believe that there are three classes of worthless citizens: the single-issue voter, mob voters, and those who suffer from The Blindness (more on what this is later).

I am an engineer. I'm OK at analysis, and believe that solutions exist, but the best solutions are always creative ones. I don't believe that throwing our hands up in the air and being cynical for the sake of cynicism is useful. I'm a cynic. But I try to be a practical cynic, so that the cynicism is used for something productive. That's about the only damn good thing a cynic can do.

I don't trust The Media. I know The Media to be liars. They are not the only liars, but they are the most despicable ones. I make no money at this. My motives in writing this are three: I am somewhat utilitarian (people's arguments against these contents are easily used for my personal growth), I want to effect change (influence votes), and I have some passion for ensuring that truth, according to me, survives.

I drink beer, and sometimes whiskey too. My thoughts are, therefore, basically correct.

Legal Disclaimer

Readers who decide to ingest the following article must read, understand, and accept this legal disclaimer prior to reading the article. On occasion, the author has been known to be an opinionated asshole when voicing his opinions. Furthermore, most of the author's opinions diverge significantly from popular discourse, and the chances that there will be facts and views here which seriously contradict not only your opinions, but also the perceptions you have of reality itself, are very high. This risk is significant regardless of major political party orientation. Furthermore, the author's writing and conversational style is sufficiently argumentative and condescending, that the reader will likely experience the sensation of a personal attack on their intelligence, values, and beliefs. Again, it is 100% certain that 100% of the readers will, at some point, recognize condescension toward their political intelligence.

The author notes, in the strongest possible language, that he does not wish to extend the manner of the writing you intake here to his own personal opinion of the readers, in spite of the significant differences. The author has, in fact, a great respect, and even love, for the people with whom he sometimes most demonstrably disagrees. He does not believe they are idiots, even if some of their political leanings and beliefs are, in his opinion, those of a moron. The author is well aware that some of his beliefs and political leanings are, in fact, those of a moron, and does not presume to establish a double standard.

By reading this disclaimer, you are agreeing to not feel personally offended by the contents of this article, regardless of how vicious they are to your personal moral fabric. You will also recognize that my condescension toward some of your political views in no way means I feel superior, or even equal, to you either as thinkers or, more importantly, as people.

The reader also agrees to understand that while I do not think horribly of most people in society, and certainly not my friends, that when I say the word "stupidity", I do mean "stupidity."

Reason for the Legal Disclaimer

Now, why would I write something like a legal disclaimer, particularly that one? Why initiate an article with something so bombastic? First of all, the disclaimer wording itself suggests that, hey, watch out, here comes something totally out of the ordinary. So it builds up this expectation that you are about to read something monumental. In fact, I believe that what you are about to read is as boring and obvious as anything. The monumental expectations are completely unwarranted. But, many times, because of my delivery style, I have severely antagonized friends, because I tend to disregard certain entire core beliefs in the presentation of my own boring ones.

There is, however, a more insidious reason, and one of grave and growing magnitude, for why I give this legal disclaimer. It is the fact that a new disease is becoming very common across the land, and treating it is the Number 1 reason I wrote this entire article. Since I'm definitely not an expert in curing intellectual sickness, the disclaimer intends to differentiate this article as suggested but not prescribed. This disease recognizes no age group, no political belief system, no religion, no sex, no lack of sex, no income level, no musical taste, no classification whatsoever. It is an old disease, but, in America, it is becoming a pandemic. By no coincidence, I came to recognize it in myself much more clearly about 2 years ago. Given that mine has gone down, but society's has gone up, I do not believe it is simply my own case of it affecting my ability to see the disease itself. I fear that many of my friends suffer it. For lack of a more clever name, for the rest of the article, I will refer to it simply as The Blindness.

The Blindness

The Blindness is defined most simply as a complete inability to perceive the good or bad of a current event in a somewhat authentic objective manner. It is not a partial inability to see because of a bias. Even a blind man will come across the right answer occasionally. But their eyes are covered with a slime of socially-acceptable political rage, and so people who have The Blindness cannot see anything at all.

Just as smoking pot does not automatically lead to becoming a coke fiend, having political anger does not automatically lead to getting The Blindness. But it is an ingredient. The Blindness has many symptoms. For all it's inherent internal anger, one of the most common signs is that a person calmly issues forth a stream of intellectual diarrhea. Another is to yell and scream. A very common sign is when people begin parroting certain words or ideas recently used in a newspaper or on television. In more severe cases, the patient will start up a radio show, or, more angrily, an entire radio station. Politeness and/or trendy jazz does not mean the person(s) do not have The Blindness. In fact, those are some of the most common signs.

Since I am human, it is something I certainly am susceptible to, but I believe that while I still have a ton of political anger, I have sent my case of The Blindness into remission. When I had it, in my case, sometimes I would go too far on people, sometimes I would go too soft…I rarely go "just right". Goldilocks would definitely not approve of my political methods.

The key distinction between ordinary political anger and The Blindness can be discerned using the Mexican Restaurant test. Consider that you want to go try a new Mexican restaurant. The first person you ask hates all Mexican food, the second likes some but dislikes other Mexican foods, and the third person likes all Mexican food. The first person and the third person are totally incapable of judging Mexican food. So of course I would never ask them. They suffer what I would call The Mexican Restaurant Blindness. If a person is so consumed with hate or love for a political person or phenomenon, they suffer from The Blindness. Most people in society fit this description.

For me, I had, as you all know, a blinded view of Clinton and Gore. Don't get me wrong…I still hate them. The main reason I don't want Hillary or Al to run is because I know it will bring my Blindness out of remission, so I pray they do not even run. None of the other Democrats triggers that remission, because now I know about my disease. Bush I have never either hated or loved, so I see him as a mixed bag. He does not cause a remission of the disease. I think I am capable of discerning which of his actions are good, and which are bad…or at least, and this is the critical part of The Blindness, I have the freedom to do so, whether I am right in my judgements or wrong.

Davis does not cause it either, for reasons which will be explained later. I fear many voters who will vote either Yes or No in The Recall will do so with their disease in raging fevers. But don't worry, because everyone who has The Blindness will act politely most of the time, so it won't upset you. Jonah Goldberg recently put quite simply something into words which I have been feeling and been unable to clearly articulate:

"In response, a few lefty types have offered the following points. First, conservatives said outrageous things about Bill Clinton -- comparing him to Hitler, Hussein or Stalin -- and so we/I have no right to complain when liberals do the same to Bush now. "Payback is a bitch" quoth several. This is asinine on every level. First, if you are willing to concede that it was absurd to call Bill Clinton Hitler, you must concede that it's wrong to call Bush Hitler too. And if you concede that, but still insist on making the Nazi comparison, you are in effect knowingly lying simply out of spite, not conviction. Moreover, this is not about defending Bush, it is about defending the integrity of fundamental historical truths and moral categories. To willingly compare Bush to Hitler even though you know it is absurd, does very little damage to Bush but a great deal of damage to the truth."

It is the last component that concerns me. It is the part that maintains my political anger. The greatest threat caused by The Blindness is the damage it's stumbling patients do to the truth. When having a discussion or an argument, it is rarely the substance of a position which bothers me so much as the increasingly common practice of complete disregard of the truth. A normal conversation about a topic cannot be had if participants cannot even agree on core facts or core vocabulary. I cannot count the number of times where a parade of lies or improperly used concepts or words is strung together as an "argument". It then requires a systematic, item by item rebuttal, which is much more tedious and harder to give than a short, idiocy-laced diatribe, and is rarely something for which the arguer or arguee will have any patience for.

In addition to the complete shredding of truths, The Blindness is fundamentally ripping our society in half. Before my remission, at first, I thought that one of the best things about the Bush administration being emplaced is that it "got back" at the very assholes who supported Fuckhead Clinton. That is a very typical Blindness response to something, but as you can see it is not a good thing to feel. But I was not unique in this sentiment…most Republicans felt it, and still do. Furthermore, most Democrats are trying very desperately to hammer Bush with anything they can. In addition to continued American brotherhoood corrosion, it causes more political hatred-induced blindness. This is an autocatalytic process. It will feed itself, and get worse. It must be stopped, and now.

The difficulty lies in whether moderates or extremists control politics and media. This is a normal human thing. As people get more politically evolved, they often go through processes of both distillation and perspective gains. The one leads to extremism, and the other to moderation. As many of you know, I have tended to like the extremist model, because it is always purer and more authentic, even if it is sometimes wrong. This is true whether dealing with Socialism or Anarcho-Capitalism, or any other prong of the political-economic diamond. However, I think that purity right now is not the number one goal. Stopping the growing division, the growing spread of The Blindness, the inevitable destruction of truth this will cause, should be the goal.

The "CIA scandal" against Bush shows how desperate the Dems are to get rid of Bush. There's plenty of fodder the Left can hold on to, the WMD argument being the most obvious tactic which will get deployed during next year's election season, but why this CIA thing is being tried would escape me, except for the fact that The Blindness is raging. The level of desperation in American politics has now gone too far.

Here, and I have to swallow really hard before I say this, is why John McCain, Wesley Clark, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are good forces in the US. In that one sentence, I have probably managed to infuriate and dismay most readers. But let me finish. I don't really like any of them, particularly pros like Clark and McCain. I consider both to be hyper-gasbags. Arnold doesn't qualify as a "hyper-gasbag" because he doesn't say much. But my opinion of them is secondary to my concern about the disease. We need someone both sides like more than perhaps anything. The Blindness has gotten so bad, we need an actual Healer. Don't gag too hard on that use of the word "Healer"…I nearly vomited after typing it. I know they all say that during the campaigns ("I'm a uniter, not a divider"), but we need one, a real one, and soon. It doesn't even matter if they are ignorant, or puppets, or hypocrites, or weak. We need a majority, not for the sake of ourselves, not for the sake of Democracy, but for the sake of our country's perceptive abilities.

Democracy can be the greatest or the worst form of government. That is why we should, in reality, be returning to a democratic Republic. But pragmatically, we won't ever do so, at least not in this century. So we are stuck with the prospect of an increasingly pure Democracy. In a Democracy, and on this, the Left and Right should agree, the greatest danger to peace, freedom, prosperity, truth, etc. (the good things America has in abundance, and few others offer anything close to in such abundance) is The Blindness. So it goes to the core of national security, to national values, to basic decency, to good, to truth.

As an aside, Bush, "the great uniter", has strategically blown it. There is a perception amongst Democrats, mostly flawed in nature, which has the Republicans out to "steal every office". Bush could have simultaneously struck a blow to this perception, and preserved the executive office of California in clearly Democrat hands by coming out against The Recall, on "principle-based" grounds. Naturally, Team Bush, displaying their typical PR incompetence, blew the chance. The ongoing Bush PR incompetence is a very significant cause of intensifying Blindness in this country, so it is not an irrelevant matter.

So what changes ordinary political anger into The Blindness? There are different case histories, but the overwhelming number of cases are caused by mixing political anger with The Media. The synergistic effects can be quite devastating. Since The Blindness renders one unable to see, The Media's takeover of those who suffer this disease renders them into dependent children waiting for their political beliefs to be fed to them. In return, patients become hooked, and will do anything to keep it going. Synergy, indeed. It is also slavery.

The Media

Before I begin, I have to make an exemption for one person in the media whom I had previously blackballed. It is for Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub. Previously I had slammed into Weintraub, purely because he is a slight Leftist. But once The Blindness in me went into remission, I was able to see that he, like George Will, commands a mind which demands respect regardless of whether you agree with him or not.

When I told people I had read the entire candidate statement pamphlet, the usual response was laughter. I suppose it is, in a way, kind of funny. Many people discuss The Recall as a "joke". Again, no denying it…it has some joke qualities to it. What is the most amusing, or scary, is that most of these people who can laugh so easily at an attempt to independently exercise one's mind, on a daily basis are reading California newspapers without blinking. They auto-vote and parrot around in lockstep like 20 million Siamese twins in unison. But remember: they think reading the candidate pamphlet is funny. Well, it may be funny. But they, and like mindless, media-brainwashed drones everywhere, are scary. They are zoo animals. Given the choice, would you prefer to be? Unfortunately, many people do not have the choice anymore. They are, basically, enslaved. They are only let out of the cage in order to go to the nearest (very, very close!) voting booth, and then immediately return. The people of California are the biggest collection of single-issue voters, mass voters, anti-authoritarians, and politically enslaved people anywhere in the United States. They are very easily manipulated by The Media, since the vast majority have The Blindness. The reason the rest of the country views Californians as flakes is not because Californians are inherently stupid, it is because that is what happens when you create an entire body politic which actually believes what they are fed cheaply is the best possible political food. Oddly, this is the same state with many people who grow organic food purely out of distrust of agri-business, but then they throw their brains away. But the culture here is one of trust in The Media's offerings, which therefore degrade into some of the lowest caliber media works in the country, probably because they have hooked junkies who will pay no matter what. And, because The Blindness is a contagious disease (the slime of The Blindness can be wiped off on another's eyeballs), and because California is the most populous state, it is spreading the most rapidly in California.

Oftentimes, The Media repeats exhortations that no one will respect California because of this political circus. No one should respect California because The Media turned the state's citizens into political infants. The Media control the political discourse more than any other organ. It is colossal irony that an institution such as The Media, which has had so pivotal a role as an institution not deserving of respect, to turn around and say this brings dis-respect upon the state. When I see a person complaining about the lack of respect they have for political leaders, whether Republican or Democrat, I'm going to point at the paper they are holding and see what their reply is. Some will have an acceptable answer, but most will either look back confused or defensively. There are, of course, some non-joke, good things about the Recall. For one, the recall circumvents the political parties. But The Recall did not circumvent The Media. The Media have heavily dictated it's outcome.

The Media dictate what the common political "conventional wisdom" is. OK, they are free to do so, since it's their money, and they can do what they want with it, but I really I wish they'd stop calling it "conventional wisdom". Personally, I think the expression should be called "conventional stupidity".

The point is: political California itself is a joke. The Recall is not the cause of the joke, it is the proof, or, maybe better, the punchline. It's political discourse, which is controlled by The Media, is beyond stupidity. Californians make fun of Floridian stupidity. Having lived in both, I'd say that while Floridians may or may not be more sophisticated, their instincts are way better, and, very oddly, their tastes are better too. This even includes their Leftists, who, while not as glorified as the California Leftists, are far more intelligent. If Californians are going to begin making fun of states, they shouldn't start with Florida. It actually has nothing to do with either The Recall or the Recount. In other words, the writer is biased toward Florida.

There is an interesting California trend: many opinions are with the "No on Recall, Yes on Bustamante" bloc. How about revising the Sacramento Bee-fed mantra/bumper sticker a little more honestly: "No on Recall, Yes on Bustamante, No on Thinking for Yourself". I do have a great deal of respect for one bloc of voters: No on Recall…and …..Yes on Nobody (those who remain silent on the second question). I suspect that some of them will cave in the ballot booth. But to those who hold to their principle, I raise my glass. At least you are acting on your principles, at least you think for yourself. While I don't agree with you, I will probably respect you more than many of the people who may wind up voting my way, whatever that turns out to be. I would also respect the No Recall/Yes on McClintock bloc, but that bloc doesn't even exist.

The No on Recall/Yes on Bustamante people are like the people who get so angry about the new FCC media ownership rules, and then go home to watch it on ABC, CBS, NBC…oh, right…if it weren't for the old rules, we might have a limited offering in broadcast news.

Not wanting to give up wonderful and smart people to a machine of institutional government, institutional media, collective groupthink, or corporations (tht list is in no order of priority…they are all, Communistickly, equal in gravity), sometimes I fight for minds harder than I should. It is somewhat frustrating when people whose minds I damn well know are vastly superior to my stupid ass piece of shit fall victim to groupthink. Turn off both NPR & FOX. They are not as insightful as they seem, and in fact their parasitic relationship to you will poison your organs, particularly your brain. It is pseudo-intellectualism. If you can think up retorts to arguments at the same pace that they are presented, it is dumb programming. At least, that's my standard. I had a paranoia attack awhile back that all 3-letter titled media outlets were poisonous. That fear hasn't really gone away yet, fortunately.

I am not just speaking of major commercial media though. Reactionism against anything produced by institutions or large masses of people is no better than acquiescence to it. It is equally mindless. Readers of "alternative media" are particularly susceptible to this sort of tool. As a result, the people protesting to the world that "We're Radicals" wind up supporting forces whose answer is much more Establishment. Sure, a big proportion of young college-age kids think the same way we do, but remember…"We're Radicals".

It is good that all these things exists, in the same sense that it is good that zoos exist. I like to look at poisonous snakes too. But if you want to understand the natural world, do not go to a zoo. If you want to understand the world, do not go to NPR. Animals get psychotic in small cages, and if you watch zoo animals for too long, you yourself will get psychotic. You start seeing what they are seeing. That is precisely what is happening to me. Precisely because many people, who I know, love, and trust, are actually fascinated by NPR-like portrayals of the world. I don't care about myself: please, for your own sakes, LEAVE THE ZOO YOU ARE IN (join mine…it's much better! [although far more expensive])!

The California Government Economy

Many people have many misconceptions about the financial situation of California. Until I actually researched it for myself, I did too. I'm sure I still have some misconceptions, and there are definitely some things I am even more bewildered by than before. Before I begin with The Recall discussion, it will be helpful to you to have the more important facts in your possession, and to dispel certain myths/lies about the California budget.

This section will give you those facts. You will receive the general overview, revenues, spending, the deficit, the major historical trends, and a couple of comparisons to other states for some perspective. Relevant errors made by most Californians, such as the power purchase issue, will be brought up as appropriate, but hopefully will not intrude too much into this next section, which should come across to you as dry and boring. But you must read it, all of it. I'm sorry, but you must. Especially if you think you already know it.

If the prospect of financial details bores you to tears, skip ahead, but it will help you understand a great deal better if you are aware of the raw facts.

For reference, I am using the California Department of Finance figures, the California legislative analyst numbers. You may find the numbers and double-check all of what you are about to read here (http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/BUD_DOCS/backinfo.htm), here (www.lao.ca.gov), and at the US Dept of Commerce website (I can't recall it off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can search for it).

Before getting into the detailed overview, some of the most notable myths include:

-The California energy crisis caused, or has partly caused, the California state government budget crisis. In fact, it has nothing to do with it…the energy bills were covered by a bond which is being repaid from a surcharge placed on energy bills, and not a penny comes from the general fund…not a penny.

-California state government revenues declined because of a precipitous drop in capital gains revenues caused by the dot-com crash. In fact, while the CG windfall did have a significant impact, state general fund revenues did not actually decline, and have actually increased significantly since the dot com bust. Interestingly, this is the first year where they are forecast to decline, and this is long after the dot-com crash. The only other times this happened in recent California history were between 1957 and 1958, and between 1991 and 1993.

-Cutting taxes is a prudent option. Don't get me wrong, I hate taxes probably more than anyone reading this. But there is just simply no fucking way. After you see how big the actual structural deficit is, you will probably agree.

-California's economy will suffer serious impacts because of the state government budget crisis (this is a gross overstatement). $20 billion, plus or minus $10 billion, per year, is not a sizable portion of an over $1.3 trillion economy.

-Across-the-board cuts to all significant programs have been made. A few, in fact, some have even seen increases.

-The current budget for the current budget year results in a balanced budget. Quite the contrary...mid-year cuts are going to be inevitable and substantial, regardless of who is governor. What is worse, the structural deficit is worse than generally stated, primarily because of accounting deferrals and, to a lesser extent, repayment of bonds. When you see the figures, if you are a California resident, you will get frightened.

-The business climate is hostile. In some respects, this is completely true, but if so many businesses are failing, why is GSP growing, and why do so many new businesses keep opening? The reality, as usual, is in the middle.

First, you need to have an overview of the most significant parts of the California budget crisis. A timeline will help. All of these figures include total California government spending, not just the general fund portion.

1998: Gray Davis is elected into office, taking over from 2-term Republican Pete Wilson, and defeating Dan Lundgren, the Republican candidate. Revenues rise 6.9%, to $74.2 billion. Spending rises 9.8%, to $75.3 billion.

1999: Gray Davis assumes the California governorship. Revenues rise 17.9%, to $87.5 billion. Spending rises 12.7%, to $84.9 billion. The windfall exists in reality. Now, decisions actually matter.

2000: Gray Davis declares that the one-time windfall (he actually described it that way, which was correct), should not be assumed as permanent, and that he will "resist any pressure, regardless of whether from Right or Left, to create permanent social programs" which would endanger the long-term solvency of the state. In the first of his many screw-ups, Davis capitulates, and agrees to continue the huge spending increases, even though the stock market has begun to undergo a nosedive. In December, the first power stage 3 warnings are issued. The dot com crash suffers most of it's collapse. The national economy slows down from the 1999 lethargy to a near-recession. In November, Bush is elected president. Revenues rise 1.0%, to $88.4 billion. Spending rises 13.4%, to $96.3 billion.

2001: Clinton leaves office. Enron is subsequently almost immediately deeply investigated by the Justice Department, although most Californians are too stupid to notice the coincidence. "Energy crisis" reaches peak media exposure in first half of year. NetLifeMag calls for no government action in February. Last rotating blackout occurs in June, primarily because Davis will pay for the power at any cost. Davis avoids many significant power outages by ordering state Department of Water Resources to purchase power at peak prices (~300% of average market price) for long periods, after he had forbade private utilities from making such long-term agreements when prices were much lower. National economy suffers two quarters of a very slight recession, then begins to recover, even after 9/11 terrorist attack. Stock market bottoms, and does not immediately recover. California government institutes a conditional hiring freeze, whereby promotions may only be given to more senior management positions. Revenues rise 5.9%, to $93.6 billion. Spending rises 8.9%, to $102.9 billion. NetLifeMag goes offline.

2002: California state government budget begins to appear shakier in The Media. Discussion in the newspapers centers around the possibility of a several billion dollar shortfall. Gubernatorial election occurs. Two weeks after election, estimated size of the budget deficit soars first to $24 billion, then $34 billion a week later, then $38.5 billion two weeks after that. Actual revenues rise 1.2%, to $94.8 billion. Spending actually declines 2.1%, to $100.0 billion.

2003: War in Iraq. National economy picks up steam, and stock market gains 34.5% over 10/2002 low in September. Recall to remove Gray Davis gathers political strength. Recall movement gathers sufficient signatures for recall vote. Here we are today. Revenues are predicated to decline, even with spending growth expectations and vehicle license tax increases, by 4.1%, to $90.9 billion. Spending is predicted to decline again, this time 1.1%, assumptions included, to $98.9 billion.

Before we begin, the most obvious question that comes up after seeing these stats is: How, since California has run deficits for years, can Californians suddenly believe their government is not balancing budgets, according to the California Constitution? The answer is two words long: revenue bonds.

The California economy produced approximately $1.3 trillion dollars in Gross State Product (GSP) in 2001. That is approximately 12% of the US economic output. It is roughly the size of the economy of France. Although California's economic growth slowed in recent years, it has not actually experienced an annual decline since a one-year decline in the early 90's. California's population is estimated at 35.4 legal residents, giving a GSP per capita of about $36,750 (I believe, but did not find this statistic, that GDP per capita for the US as a whole is somewhere around $34,500). The 2003-04 state government budget, as passed, calls for $98.9 billion. So roughly 7.6% of the California economy is diverted into state government functions, and some of that money and product then contributes towards the state GSP. Of the $98.9 total, $70.8 goes into the general fund, $20.5 goes into special funds, and $7.5 goes into bond funds. The largest component is obviously the general fund. The general fund is the money used for most state operations, and is mostly raised by tax revenues. Special funds are mostly paid by various user fees, and bond funds are paid by dedicated bond revenues. Of the three, the general fund is under the most direct and immediate control of the California legislature and the governor. The bond funds tend to be controlled by voters through California referendums, and special funds are usually dedicated towards a particular purpose, so they see much less influence from the state government.

Revenues

The state raised about $94.8 in revenues during 2001-02. Of this total, $73.9 billion came from taxes to support the general fund, and the rest came from bonds, vehicle fees and other user fees. Currently, this additional revenue stream gets about $2 billion a year to repay the power revenue bond from the energy crisis. Those revenues are not taxed, and are not a part of the state general fund, either. California taxes come in many shapes and sizes, but the three overwhelming largest are income, sales, and the bank and business taxes. Income taxes are the largest, raising $41.3 billion per year. California's income tax system is considerably progressive in structure. Persons making under $39,000 a year pay no income taxes at all. The marginal (nominal) top tax rate of 9.3% is supposed to be paid by those making more than $71,584 per year. The effective (actual) tax rates seen are just over 7%, and these rates are seen once making around $200,000 a year. Those making more than $200,000 (the cost to fill up your gas tank in California every year) pay 50% of all income tax revenues. Nearly 75% of Californians pay anywhere from $0 to $8,000 in income taxes per year. Sales taxes generates approximately $21.3 billion per year, and are quite obviously paid in proportion to personal spending. The corporate tax flow is $6.8 billion per year, and is obviously paid for by the patrons of the businesses, although many idiots in California and elsewhere are under the wild fantasy that it is the company that "pays for it", as though corporations just sit around counterfeiting money.

Peter Camejo claims that the rich pay less than the "average Californian". I am not making any pros or cons here about whether that is a good or a bad thing. But it is a patently ridiculous assertion. Camejo says to cut taxes on 60% of the people who are overpaying…well, if you want to cut the unrich's taxes from $0 to $0, I guess good goin' Big Boy Pete! And if you take his statement literally and apply it to the tax code, that would mean that Peter Camejo is actually advocating a giant tax cut for the rich, much more than Bush's. How smart is that guy?

The state also relies quite a bit on revenue bonds. The state has $30 billion in revenue bond debt outstanding. Importantly, bonds pay into the general fund, the special funds, and bond funds, as needed.

Federal funds are another source of money. In recent years, it has surged, from $41 billion in 2000 to over $55 billion in 2003. This past year, a one-time boost in federal funds was granted to states, this time even including California, as part of the Bush tax package, which accounts for about $2.2 billion.

Some will look at this revenue summary and wonder where property taxes are. In California, property taxes are local taxes. But the annual levy on a property is capped by Proposition 13. The net effect of this Proposition is that it basically subsidizes long-term property owners at the expense of new property owners.

The vehicle license tax, notorious entity that it is, is mildly complex. Basically, the state mandates the tax and the tax rate, but those revenues go to local governments through a state "backfill". As the tax is increased, the amount of the "backfill" paid by the state to the locals comes down. It is a relatively minor tax stream, but it is the poster child tax. If tripled, it would raise an extra $4 billion or so, assuming of course that people keep buying new cars and of equal value (and that they comply with the payment of the tax) as they do before the tax is tripled. The reason Davis tripled it is because he thought he had the political cover to do so. In fact, history has shown that the cover did not cover his whole political skin.

Before finishing off with the section on revenues, a sad/amusing insight into the stupidity of elected Californian officials, and their voters, must be given. In the budget, there are 3 "spending reductions" which are really revenues. They include the vehicle license monies, which enjoy their colorful accounting scheme (part of this mechanism involves something called the "triple flip"…it's a trip!…between sales, property, and certain education funds), new borrowing ($8 billion in revenues, and the new federal funds (just discussed). But why would they list these revenues as "spending reductions"…go figure…oh, wait, they aren't trying to make things like the federal subsidy look like a "spending reduction" because it then lets them look like they have mighty spending discipline for political reasons, are they? No, of course not.

Spending

The growth in state revenues over the years has been quite extraordinary, qualifying as hyper-growth, even by Argentinian standards. It has rapidly outpaced even California's mighty population growth. In only eight years, it has grown by 73%. In the last 5 years, since Davis assumed office, it has grown by 28%. This includes the falloff in capital gains revenues. Clearly, one can safely conclude that there has been an explosion in revenue growth. How then, can there be such deficits, particularly deficits which are still growing out of control? Obviously, it is because of spending. As can be seen from the summary above, spending has generally managed to grow even faster than revenue. Special funds, which now are running at about $20.5 billion a year, are generally more "untouchable" because they are more self-supporting. So let us focus on the general fund, which this year totals $70.8 billion. The basic breakdown is:

K-12 Education $45.7 billion
Health $14.0 billion
Higher ("yeah, dude) Education $10.7 billion
Social Services $9.3 billion
Judiciary & Criminal Justice $8.9 billion
Transportation $6.5 billion
Resources $4.2 billion
General Government $1.1 billion

Clearly, the major expense is on education. California of course has a very colorful mix of very strange sounding programs, and, not to give Arnold too much credence here, a wealth of duplicity in it's Programs. Among the stranger-sounding funds for these Acupuncture Fund, the Barbering & Cosmetology Fund, the Boxer's Neurological Examination Account ($121,000..good for about 2 CAT scans a year), the Earthquake Risk Reduction Fund ($0…not gonna help too much), the Elevator Safety Account, the Fair & Exposition Fund, the Film California First Fund, the Loss Control Certification Fund, the Mass Media Communications Account for Child and Family Trusts Fund (what the hell is that???), the Mobilehome Park Revolving Fund (of course it's revolving), the Rigid Container Account, the Travel Seller Fund, the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, and my two favorites, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Fund, and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Fund. I don't really know a damn thing about them…but presumably, they do good works. But what's interesting is that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of these. Nothing is left out. California, of course, must have everything.

Expenditures have grown even faster than revenues during recent years. They have also recent markedly as a share of personal income. Between 1994 and 2001 expenditures rose 88%. 88%. Let that number sink in. It can be granted that 1994 was at the tail end of the California recession, and that 2001 was the peak of the boom perception. But 88%? Somehow, I find it hard to believe that somehow, California is not spending enough money. As a share of income per capita, the state government now spends a record $9.27 per each $100 if you make (provided, of course, you pay any taxes, so those making less than $40,000 need not concern themselves…all they need concern themselves with is that all the free shit they get does not stop coming to them).

So what has changed? To what end has all this money gone? To answer this question, refer to your Chart C in the budget act documents. Two aspects of the way I will report this are: 1) the trends listed only are published back to 1976, and 2) I will only report those trends which are consistent over the time period for which they published. Furthermore, bear in mind that a decrease in percentage does not mean a drop in funding, since the proportional size of the budget itself has grown significantly during the time period. Rather, it suggests that not only have certainly items grown, but they have grown more rapidly than these percentages.

As a share of the budget, the changes which have occurred in major spending areas since 1976 are:
K-12: 14% more of the state budget
Criminal & Judiciary 6% more of the state budget
Health & Human Services 3% more ""
Cal EPA .14% more ""
Resources 2% less of the state budget
Other 3% less of the state budget
Higher Education 5% less ""
Tax Relief 12% less ""

Again, as before, I quarrel with calling "tax relief" as an expenditure…it should be accounted as a drop in revenue. Such is the nature of the California financial intellectual mind. But in any event, clearly, the state's spending priorities have mainly gone more towards two places: criminal prosecution and punishment, and, most notably, K-12 education.

There are some big issues in California government finance, but one of the more notorious is Proposition 98 (which should be repealed). In language, Proposition 98 (which should be repealed) locks in K-14 education spending beneath which no floor can drop, raises the funding floor each year based on state economic growth, and locks in a 60% share of all new state revenues. In all honesty, the formulas used to determine the Proposition 98 (which should be repealed) funding floors (and the floors in the new buildings the Department of Education is constantly building for it's grotesque administrative hulk) are pretty malleable, which makes them somewhat subject to the whims of whoever is in charge of the accountants. One of the many Achilles' Heels (some things have more than one) of this Proposition is that it locks the spending, legally, on the largest component of spending the state does, thereby rendering the most major chunk of the budget as an inflexible mass. Hey, I just thought of something: perhaps Proposition 98 (which should be repealed) might be something to consider repealing.

People from outside of California (and from inside) need to understand something which might just seem ignorable. When voters pass referendums through Propositions (and California has many of these), they are legally-binding. This is a legal bind which, so far at least, has not been relaxed, ever, in the history of the state. So it is not a simple case of just ignoring the requirements of the various Propositions. The Propositions are always complied with. In the last two years, extraordinary budgetary gymnastics, along with significant borrowing, have been conducted in order to remain in compliance. The one major spending reduction that did occur was in the Medi-Cal program. But there, the way they achieved this was to implement an accounting change, to defuse some of the political heat of this cut.

The Budget

Why should anyone be concerned? Everything mostly seems, uncomfortable, but not too horrible. Remember what The Media keeps saying, that it is The Recall which is the joke, not the competence of the budget handlers. I mean, sure, there was some delay in the budget, and there has been some minor league cutting and skimping. But nothing overly serious, right? Rest assured, folks. That is about to change, regardless of who is the next governor, and it is going to change in a major league way.

The budget is in a lot more trouble than we think. The current one relies on borrowing, a great accounting festival, and deferrals, and even then it still produces an $8 billion dollar deficit. One reason more people aren't really alarmed is because most people don't understand the budget, which isn't their fault…it's pretty damn complicated.

As passed, and given various critical assumptions, the 2003-04 budget, as passed, is forecast to result in an $8 billion deficit by June 30, 2004. Aside from expected amounts of economic growth, two of the key assumptions include about a billion in savings from state worker payrolls (through salary concessions and/or layoffs), and that workers' compensation legislation will be passed and implemented in such a way that saves the state government a couple of billion. Neither assumption is valid or realistic. However, that is not the fundamental reason why the budget is in trouble. Even still, putting on rose colored glasses, the official pronouncement for the end-of-year deficit will be $8 billion, this after the $10.7 billion dollar deficit bond already purchased for this year, which we will start to repay immediately. Anyone detecting a pattern here? Could it be, just maybe, that there is an identifiable structural deficit here? Good. Now you can see why you keep hearing everyone talking about "the structural deficit". Trouble is, the problem is much deeper than that. If there were so many "spending reductions", why is the structural deficit still around $8 billion? Obviously, it's because, as explained before, they weren't any actual meaningful spending reductions. The deficit was papered over with the two deficit bonds (the overt $10.7 billion deficit bond, and the supplementary $2 billion pension payment bond). And yet, the bonds are not the biggest problem the future budgets face, either.

The $2 billion savings from a fully reformed worker's comp law seems at first a bizarre assumption. The budget assumes that much of those savings occurs not as a result of lower government spending, but because the improved business climate will result in higher business taxes. Scrounging through the document, the best number I could find for what the state actually directly spends on worker's comp is $500 million. It strikes me that it would be higher than this, but not much higher, based on the size of the Human Services budget itself. As far as increased revenues, since corporate taxes themselves only netted $6.7 billion, that extra $2 billion then seems to suggest one hell of a sudden surge in business activity. Obviously, the more logical conclusion is that it is the assumption itself which is grossly overestimated. The budget document itself actually admits this. Fortunately, that $2 billion, like the vehicle license revenues, isn't really that major, although both issues certainly draw much press space.

Before getting on to the economic Trojan horse in the budget, there is one more matter to discuss. It concerns the state employee payroll. While it is well known that the state employee salary "concessions" which are so far being wrung out will actually cost the state more money in the long run, the reason for that goes beyond raw positions and salaries.

State layoffs

I am a state of California employee. If "the 12 steps" of leaving California employment has to begin somewhere, I'd rather it begin with my admission. Better that than a "surplus notice". I am not the first in line, but I'm definitely far up in the front of people who will get tossed. They layoffs, regardless of who will be governor, will be significant, and will occur roughly around 3 dates: late October (minor), sometime after the New Year (probably early February, bigger cuts), and then the whopper layoff, which will come after the next budget gets passed (sometime next August, probably, depending on the amount of gridlock). Again, this pattern will occur regardless of who is our next governor.

California definitely needs state worker layoffs. It could sure use them even if it was the Roaring 20's instead of the Loaning 00's. Be we aren't, so we need them even more. But, be warned, there is a very ugly side to the layoffs. The layoffs will inevitably be driven by two major criteria: 1) seniority, and 2) across-the-board, rather than by Program. California state government management is generally shielded as much as is possible from making hard decisions, and so the system is set up so that it instead indiscriminately sheds the positions according to the pre-ordained process. This not only prevents the management from having to think about what actual staff layoffs would be preferable, but it insulates them from the responsibility for significant decisions. In this manner, managers can't be blamed. This also ensures that the career bureaucrats, who also have higher salaries and greater pension drags, will be protected, and that the younger, more energetic, and cheaper staff will be tossed.

The cuts will probably be mostly across-the-board. Sure, some pieces will be protected better than others, and certainly notable exceptions will occur, but in general, the cuts will be across-the-board. Aside from the fact that this approach ignores the relative value or efficiency of certain programs over others, thereby starving a "good program" at the expense of a "bad program", this will ensure that people will be shuffled into roles which they are either unqualified for, or which they don't really want. Of course, many of these persons will be the lifelong career bureaucrats, who are not exactly known to enjoy a reputation of quickly and eagerly taking on new challenges. Moreover, many of them, having survived the layoff round, will have had their incompetence and or laziness fortified even further.

Currently, about 325,000 people are employed by state government, a little less than 1 in every 100 residents of California. That cost is about $16 billion per year, or roughly 17% of the total state spending. While state employees generally make less than other public sector employees for the same work (and much less than comparable private sector ones), they do enjoy 2 significant advantages. The state pension system is extremely generous, they are paid for overtime, and employees enjoy relatively good job security. As far as the last benefit goes: not anymore.

People who think they are going to wake up on October 8, find Gray Davis remains in office, and think to themselves "my job, my job, it's saved, it's saved", are just as deluded as those who wake up 10/8, and upon finding Arnold, Tom, Cruz, et. al in there and think "the budget, the budget, it's saved, it's saved". Circumstances have become much larger than any candidate. The only reason layoffs have not been enacted wholesale is because the first round (which will be the smallest) is being postponed until after the election, just as the budget deficit figures were postponed until after the election last year. The second round will come in response to the new mid-year cuts. The third round will occur in response to the more inevitable and deep cuts in next year's budget. This will occur regardless of whether it is Arnold or it is Gray.

The result of all this will be a fairly gradual erosion of the size of the state's workforce, caused by various mechanisms, but also an immediate and sudden slide in services will occur. Because the initial savings will be comparatively small, and do nothing about the pension costs, the net result will be dysfunctional. Which, by now, should come as no surprise to anyone. You can guarantee that this will have unanticipated and significant costs. You can also rest assured that enough state employees will file enough wrongful termination lawsuits that most salary savings will be lost, regardless of the eventual outcome of those lawsuits. Such is the mentality of many state workers, and of just as many lawyers.

Borrowing

As mentioned before, the state has about $30 billion in outstanding revenue bond debt. Staggeringly, the voters in the last couple of years have approved several new bonds which require more than $20 billion in more debt to be taken on (which will have to be repaid out of the state general fund in the next few years), in spite of the obvious and growing magnitude of the budget crises. Naturally, the largest such bond was an education bond, which of course overwhelming passed because voting against it would not be Thinking of The Children. I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn that I voted against these bonds, which included a bond that funds the Program I work in. After seeing the voters eagerly approve tens of billions of new mandatory spending, is it any wonder that the legislature and the governor then proceeded to tally another $12.7 billion in the two deficit bonds into the budget deal?

The fact that the voters, in the midst of a growing government financial crisis, locked the state into much more spending (and, relatedly, re-elected Gray Davis) occurred largely because most voters didn't understand how bad the situation actually was getting. It isn't entirely their fault. After all, The Media didn't tell them. What The Media did say, over and over, was that the energy crisis caused the budget crisis. This is nothing short of a patent lie.

Yes, the energy crisis will wind up costing California utility payers for years. Readers of previous issues of NetLifeMag already are aware of my opinion of the energy crisis, who and what is to blame, etc. Let us pretend, simply for sake of argument, that the energy crisis was nothing short of a 100% predatory action by companies lusting after every innocent Californians' energy addictions, and that Gray Davis rescued us from the teeth of these evil companies and having to do without for even a few hours by committing the state's monies to paying them off to not stop feeding us, and that the way he went about it, while economically stupid, was worth it. Anyone who knows me knows how fundamentally stupid I think this argument is, and yet it is probably the viewpoint of the majority of Californians. To those who would take umbrage with my statement that the economic stupidity of it is easy to say in hindsight but impossible to see before it occurred, I'll just point out that I printed in a previous issue of NetLifeMag that very observation and anticipated that very outcome well before it happened. So if a dumb-ass like me could foresee it, it was not impossible to anticipate.

But let's assume that otherwise, the victim-California model is what occurred, so that we can continue the discussion. How much is that actually costing the general fund? $0. Davis did order the state DWR to arrange the contracts and move the short-term funds around, but the actual proceeds were covered by a power bond which is being paid for by a surcharge on user energy bills, and not by the state. In effect, Davis only committed the users, via state contracts, to be forced to pay for the contracts which were negotiated by the state over the long-term, rather than up-front. He did not commit any state funds towards this (aside from a few hundred grand in state operations overhead and a couple tens of millions to pay for lawyers and consultants to try to go back and correct his various mistakes).

In any event, bond repayment, and all that bond interest payoff which is wasted on literally nothing, is a growing fact of California financial life. Unfortunately, this is affecting the state bond ratings, which affect how much the bonds upon which California will become increasingly reliant upon in the years to come costs. Ooops, California's bond rating dropped again. Not good, when you are paying a lot of interest debt, and in the years to come, will be taking on more debt, not less, from future debt bonds. Get yer' Californy debt bonds here! There's gold in these here hills.

Don't get me wrong. Properly structured, non-deficit, bonds can be a useful financial tool. But having to issue new deficit bonds each and every year, whose terms keep getting worse every time, to repay the old deficit bonds sounds a lot like a debt spiral. Maybe someone should take the general fund money to Las Vegas and either solve the problem, or just get it overwith sooner.

Deferrals

While the two deficit bonds will aggravate the ability for the California government economy to right itself, they are not the number one problem the budget faces. Nor is, and read this carefully, the known structural deficit, which is tagged optimistically at $8 billion. The real problem in the current situation is the problem which has been barely reported on, but which is the most fundamentally poisoning aspect of the whole situation: the use of accounting deferrals from legally-mandated spending, and how they legally went about it, and what exactly that locks the next few budgets into. This, my friends and enemies, is the biggest skeleton in the budget closet of all.

Most of the enacted "spending cuts" are deferrals on spending, both discretionary and legally-mandated. Of course, of the two, discretionary spending deferrals are less of a problem, because to eliminate that spending, one needs only to break some promises. In any event, the budget makes programs whole by promising those funds in the budgets for the next three years. In real words, the books we would've bought this year, we won't buy until next year. That's a big loss for the education industry, when your hungriest and most addicted customer stops buying. They need to hire some more lobbyists.

About $10 billion in legally-mandated spending occurred this year. But what compounds the problem is that it increases the illusion of the structural deficit, and that is the real devil in the details. Let me try to illustrate this:

There are numerous examples of the more dangerous deferrals, but a relatively simple and good example is transportation funding. Proposition 42 mandates certain spending on transportation. For the budget to pass, the money was "delayed", the funds taken for current year outlays, and to comply legally with Prop 42, a promise to "backfill" (take money from the general fund and make the obligated payments) will occur in future years. This year, it meant that about a billion dollars was not spent, according to Prop 42 requirements. So within the next three years, not only must funding be "restored" to ~$1 billion to comply with Prop 42, but the $1 billion not spent this year must be spent then too (say, broken into 3 years, to $1.3 billion each year).

Break up that $10 billion in deferrals, and you get ~$3.3 billion more a year. So not only do you have to add $10 billion to the budget to get the fundamental structural gap, but for the near term you have to pay those backfills back as well. If the legally-mandated spending had a poor history in the California courts, this wouldn't be such a problem. Unfortunately, the Propositions never lose in court.

So What is the Actual Deficit?

There is some confusion about the size of the deficit.

Furthermore, the government keeps flashing different numbers. The media doesn't clarify any of this, indeed, the media mixes and matches the figures to suit whatever political purpose it sees fit even more than the politicians do. Among the purposes is to confuse. It's easier to sell papers to people too confused to see clearly just how low-grade your products actually are. Which are lower quality mass consumer products? Quarter pounders with cheese or the New York Times newspapers? Philosophers beware. Make no mistake. California government experienced hypergrowth for several years, just like it's federal cousin, and the budget, just like it's federal cousin, is now showing it.

The "budget deficit" is often characterized as a $38 billion deficit. In reality, that figure included the pre 03-04 budget act forecast debt, plus the running deficit from the previous year. Some of this has been papered over. So what is the chronic deficit, and what is the structural deficit?

To start with, you have the well-acknowledged $8 billion hole. Next, you have to add in the annual costs of repaying the deficit bonds and the restored deferrals. Let us assume that those repayments occur over 5 years (which is a generous assumption for the deferrals, but accurate for the deficit bonds). This means you probably have about another $7 billion of annual commitments. People could argue with this figure, and please do, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that the actual, existing structural gap, using mostly generous assumptions, is about $15, out of the current general fund total of $70 billion. That is roughly 21% of the budget.

Legally, the propositions, and the deferred spending, and the debt bonds, assure one thing: the state of California will be legally required to borrow increasing amounts of money every year. That formula is for a debt spiral. Since the Propositions constrain the spending decisions, and the courts have never allowed the state to get out of it's legal requirements the voters impose on it through such referendums, that leaves only four options for the state to avoid eventual bankruptcy:
1) Higher taxes
2) Good luck, in that a period like the late 90's returns again for a prolonged period
3) A federal bailout
4) The voters will have to repeal various initiatives

So now, if you read and followed all of this, you have enough knowledge of the actual state of California government finance to know what has happened, and where things stand. So, knowing this, should Davis be recalled?

Oh Yeah, Baby, Yeah

Why Do Anything?

In a practical sense, The Recall may wind up having no real short-term effect. I believe very strongly that circumstances have gotten so constrained, partly by bureaucracy, partly by inertia, partly by gridlock, partly by economic reality, that the next budgets will be more affected by past circumstances than current intentions. In a sense, Gray Davis has gotten his 8 years. The budgets of the next 3 years will certainly reflect his touch, Yes Recall, or No Recall.

Most people expect a lot out of government (read: other people), and don't want to give any more than they are forced to. That's pretty normal. It's just self-interest, and there's nothing wrong with that. But, for it's various faults and perils, what we have in America is still far and away the best thing going, and it will not survive unless it's citizens do a few things. In America, there aren't many, but you must do them.

Number one is to pay taxes. The Libertarian argument that taking money from people by force is indistinguishable from theft is correct, but it does not justify evasion. We are all using the services, so like it or not, even if it amounts to extortion, you must pay them until the system goes otherwise. If you are to have any credence, you must pay them.

And certainly there are rich people who avoid taxes through the system as subsidy or preferential tax breaks, but there are poor people who do not feel they should pay taxes (almost all feel that way). And so they vote to create a tax code to eliminate or reduce their role as taxpayers. What would be best for the moral health of the country would be to eliminate all preferential taxation. But there is too much self-interest for this to be a realistic expectation. It would simply be nice if people curbed their self-interest every once in a while. Say, one day every four years.

Many people vote for their own self-interest. In many ways, people who openly acknowledge this are refreshing for their honesty. I would say that some unions, but certainly not all, fall into this category. Self-interest, however, while honest and understandable, is also despicable. In return for all she has given you, for you to turn around and use your one obligation back to the country as an opportunity for crass self-enrichment is nothing short of purely dishonorable. Personally, I don't look at elections as a chance to vote myself the most shit of other people's that I want for myself. I don't even think that voting itself is the civic responsibility. There is no more dangerous voter than the voter who is ignorant, excessively cynical, overly motivated by self-interest, a single-issuer voter, a voter with The Blindness. If you are genuinely disaffected and despise the government, you should not be badgered into, and falsely validating, one of the voting options.

But you should make every effort to try to come up with a choice, and to make that choice out of genuine civic interest, not your own. To do otherwise demeans yourself, and makes you into a beholden political slave. If it happens that you believe your self-interest and the larger interest coincide, great, but otherwise, I think to knowingly do so is a pretty dishonorable thing to do. It is the political equivalent of being a spoiled brat.

So to the people who say to me, "Vote such and such, because here's how it will affect you. Don't you want x, y, or z for yourself,", my reply would be, "I'm just trying to not be such a self-centered asshole all the time. Give me 5 minutes, please."

The situation in California is not a disaster, but it is being botched. Furthermore, to date the "corrective" measures are, in my estimation, making it worse, not better. At such times, it is even more compelling to put the good of the many ahead of the good of oneself.

For or Against Recall

Initially, I was against The Recall. Ultimately, there's one very good reason to oppose The Recall. It's such a strong reason, I'm not sure if I'm committing a crime or not by going against it. The Recall, in it's purest form, is not a case of undermining Democracy. If we have term limits, in order for the system to even be described as a Democracy, there needs to be a mechanism by which removal can be accomplished during the final term. Otherwise, the will of the people can easily be circumvented, with no powerholding consequences. So, in principle, recalls are a fundamental necessity in order to have a Democracy. Moreover, the idiotic assertion that "last year we voted, so why are we voting this year" argument is equally foolish. Where is it inherent in defining Democracy that the voting occur every 4 years? Should it be greater, or longer? Why the same timeframe for states, locals, feds? Which should be longest? Should the duration be longer, or shorter, because of importance, or feedback time, or what? If having an election in 2003 "undermines" Democracy because of an election held in 2002, does it do so for 2001? How about June of 2000? 1492? What is the basis for the fundamental timeframe? The answer, of course, is that there isn't one. It's an abstract argument, which many people make, but it's unresolvable. The actual system we use is a practical one.

So in reality, The Recall is not undemocratic. Quite the opposite. It is an example of Democracy out of control. Democracy, for all the plaudits it receives, still only amounts to a tyranny of the majority. Theoretically, the majority is better than most types of specialized minorities and most of the singularities, geniuses or no, we have ever seen. However, and I'm sure our mainstream mob in the Democratic & Republican camps can rhetorically agree on this at least (although, in practice, they are pathetic in action about it), the majority is not always right, and in fact is often wrong, for various reasons. If leaders are unable to make unpopular decisions, we have rule by a majority of the plebiscite. The common public are very bad at making comprehensive decisions, primarily because their thoughts are mostly controlled by their own self-interest and by The Media. The budget crisis is serious, and absolutely requires decisions that be made which the majority will not be pleased with. The Recall undermines the underpinnings of this decision-making environment.

So there needs to be very good reason for supporting The Recall. Unfortunately, there is.

Recall Gray Davis

There are a couple of sundry reasons to vote Yes on Recall, but they are not really substantive ones. Numero uno is that Bill Clinton is advising and campaigning for Davis. Once upon a time. that's really all the reason I would have personally needed. In what we all now refer to as "the Excuse", we blew the chance to have a legal method for tossing that hardcore criminal out of the White House. What Clinton repeatedly taught us was that you cannot simply throw someone out of office because people have finally recognized that he's an asshole. No, it's not Democracy, but now a legal process must be followed. Because, remember, Democracy definitely has to include lawyers as well. One enough people are convinced of the good of such an action, then they must get a legal mechanism to achieve it. But, because I no longer have The Blindness, I see why this is a pretty bad reason for throwing out Davis. So beware your own motives, pro-recall folks.

Of course, Davis is no Clinton. Whereas Clinton came up poor and desperate, Davis merely came up as a picked-on high schooler. Clinton became a vicious, career criminal, but Davis became a weasal. Davis is a pipsqueak compared to Clinton, and in reality, it is an insult to Clinton to insinuate as much. I'm very sorry to have done so, Bill.

"I intend to resist the siren song of permanent spending, whether it comes from the Left or the Right," he said in May 2000. "And I will stand up to anyone who tries to convince the Legislature that they should spend most or all of this money in ongoing expenses." Gray Davis had the right idea. Unfortunately, he has never been able to act correctly. With one exception, every single (and yes, I do mean all of them) decision I have ever been aware of him to make has been one I disagreed with. I don't mean to say that I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. I mean all of them. Literally. There may be decisions he has made that I would have agreed with. But I don't know about them. Except one. And oddly, it is his one decision that I did agree with him on which finally changed my mind from No on Recall to Yes.

There is no question about the state's need to make difficult decisions, and now. During times of leanness, it becomes particularly important to not waste money on worthless and/or fruitless pursuits. Now, not all state activities are equal in this respect. Some truly are valuable. Some are truly more efficient. The activities are not equal. Without getting into the business about which ones are or are not, suffice to say that they are different in this respect, and some should be pared more than others, and some should be eliminated. Should taxes be raised? And so on and so forth. To decide amongst which, one must be able to decide.

This is where Gray Davis's one good decision comes in. In January of this year, Davis proposed an unpopular budget. At first, I didn't like it either. One of the worst things about this recall is that the momentum to toss him really got going after his budget was proposed, and Davis, as usual, weakened as a result. Unfortunately, while that budget certainly had some big-time faults, it was vastly superior to what got passed later by he and the legislature. In retrospect, it was actually about as good a budget as could be expected. If there is a major cost caused by The Recall movement, it was the denouncement of that budget. And Davis didn't fight for it at all. If he cannot stand up to pressure when it is most needed, he is worthless.

When Davis publicly said he would sign anything the legislature (of all the organizations to say this to, they are not it) sends to him, the office of Governor essentially became vacant anyway. So, therefore, the only trust I have in him is the trust that he is completely worthless as a governor. This trumps the "Democracy out of control argument", since the only point of that argument is to support a decision-making environment in which the right decisions can be made. That environment never, ever will apply to Davis. He is too beholden to make bold decisions. He cannot stand up to, and doesn't have enough money to throw around at, his many conflicting obligations. He has spent so much time micro-managing he doesn't see the big picture. He should just resign, but he cannot even bring himself to do the right thing (as usual), and do even that one good act. The "man"/weasal is worthless. No matter who could replace him, it simply cannot get worse.

No, the budget is not all Gray Davis's fault. It partly is. And he did nothing to stop it. There is no reason to believe that he will suddenly become competent. Moreover, he is currently on a binge of bad decision-making that makes me shudder at it's pace and scope. Bills ranging far and wide are being signed by the governor that he himself even used to stall on or object to. The granting of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, a colossal stupidity if ever there was one, is a classic example. But it is the continuing deterioration of the budget which is the most important matter. I don't believe in single-issue voting, but if ever there was a single issue facing an electorate, this is it, baby.

A common thought-process in California is to compare Davis & Bush, and then say, well if George doing it, why vote for the Recall? This sort of logic has several obvious inconsistencies, but the biggest one being that Bush didn't (at least not yet) obfuscate the deficit numbers until *just* after his re-election campaign. Election Day came and went, and three weeks later, Davis's estimate of the deficit soared from $8 billion to almost $40 billion. Obviously, all candidates lie in all elections bout most things. But at a certain point, you cross a line that delineates gross fraud. Unless you believe that Davis was just going along, getting re-elected, and then "poof", a few days after the election he only then learned of the additional $30 billion hole. Was he ignorant, incompetent, or was this a deliberate act? I'll let you decide. As an analog, were Bush to try the same thing next year, the federal deficit can be expected to soar from $400 billion to $1.6 trillion in 2005. I can only hope that this does not occur, but if it does, I promise you that I will support the impeachment of Bush.

The "look at Bush, why get mad at Gray if you aren't going to be mad at Bush" tactic fails for a more elementary reason. Presume for a second that Bush was Hitler and Davis was Stalin. Obviously, I do not either characterization to be even remotely accurate, but for illustrative purposes it will do. If you had a chance to remove Stalin, would you? I would. It wouldn't matter to me, for one second, whether Hitler was there or not. I wouldn't pause. I suppose if geopolitics would be considered, it might be substance for a lively debate. But I know, with every fiber of my being, that I wouldn't even pause if I had a chance. It is, in effect, a no-brainer. It doesn't merit discussion, much less 30 pages.

Worst of all, all that money California blows gave us nothing. For all that spending, Davis can't point to anything. There are no new major roads, no new bridges, no new major water projects, better academic results, nothing. Only piles and piles and piles of government paperwork. Quite the contrary…we have a dumbed-down electorate, spoon-fed Davisisms until they believe him. There are tons of examples of stupid Davisisms, but one really good one, ironically, is "the Costly Recall".

The Costly Recall

One of the most banal, yet entertaining, of the criticisms of the recall effort yet proferred is: "this recall is going to cost a lot". It was first offered by Davis, in ads paid for partly by state employee union contributions given to the Davis campaign war chest, so that, in effect, it became a taxpayer-paid-for propaganda tool. Shortly thereafter, it then was parroted with frequency in the California media, and is now being uttered in the streets across the nation. This stupidity is so easy to tear into pieces, I don't even know where to begin eating. But number one is that the cost of the Recall itself will be totally unaffected by how you vote. The election costs what it costs. "No on Recall" won't save the state a penny, unless you believe that leaving the reins of power in the hands of the most liberal spenders in society (88%…did it have to be 88%?) sounds like a cost-cutting move. Of course, if you want to set the standard that having the Recall and voting for it then justifies the expenditure of such monies to administer the election itself, then why even have elections at all, since they all cost money?n costs money? And how does one take seriously an argument when the fact is that the $40 million (itself almost certainly an over-inflated figure) is an absolute drop in the bucket against the other costs incurred by this Administration onto the state…it amounts to, what, a dollar per resident of California, a paltry .45% of the California state budget, .30% of the combined State/county budgets (both will pay for election costs), and less than .008% of total California government expenditures combined.

Let's put this in perspective…the California economy is 1.6 trillion dollars. Let's, for the sake of argument, pretend that this election saves the state economy. (I don't really even believe that, but as a comeback to the "election cost" argument, it's, well….appropriate.) That would suggest that this is equivalent to saying "would you spend a penny to protect your $420.00?" What is also appropriate is to say to these people's faces: "did you think up that anti-recall argument up all by yourself?" If they say "no", they should be commended for the honesty. If they say "yes", the proper reply is: "Very good, junior…you're ready for 6th grade now."

But the real crowner on this whole take was actually when The Recall was in jeopardy of being held on October 7th. If the Recall had been postponed, the postponement itself would have cost tens of millions of dollars above what it otherwise would have cost, because of all the money already spent to administer this election in October. What was Gray Davis, a man so angry about the "costly recall", to say about this? He was publicly delighted.

The 9th Circuit:

A moment about the 9th Circuit. Bush v Gore, the bad 5-4 decision that it was, ironically almost cropped up here again in California. Thank God it didn't, because it would have severely exacerbated The Blindness, aand God knows what idiocy would be coming out of people's mouths for months.

5-4 versus 7-2. Ask most people which ruling was the one that did in Gore, and most people answer it was the "biased partisan 5-4 ruling". These people are partly right. The 5-4 ruling was partisan. But it had nothing to do with dropping Gore's 3rd (of 5) Recount. The 7-2 decision did. For those of you who cannot "properly remember" what happened, there were 2 rulings in Bush v. Gore. Ruling 1 (7 to 2) said that the third Florida recount process had been done too inconsistently, with too little standardization, for it to be valid on a state level, and that there was insufficient time to do so. Basically, Ruling 1 was obviously correct to anyone with even a thimblefull of objectivity. However, Ruling 2 (5-4) ruled that no state could develop such an objective standards-based process. It was a purely philosophical ruling, as opposed to Ruling 1, but it's effects to wreckage of truth are, as everyone knows, lasting and devastating. Among the tawdry effects of this stupid, albeit misinterpreted by 95% of the US public, ruling, are that eventually and obviously, it will get challenged in court again some day. The Ruling 2's 5 justices tended, interestingly, to be states' rights advocates, while the 4 vote minority tend to be such that they have even issued international law in their opinions on various cases. Both sides, obviously, ruled partisanly on the philosophical question. The day for the inevitable Bush v Gore challenge almost came this time, but not quite. When it does, you can bet The Blindness will be seen.

Naturally, as proof of a double standard, Democrats hailed the initial 9th Circuit decision just as they hailed the Florida Supreme Court decision, while deriding Bush v Gore. Republicans demeaned it, and then hailed the eventual ruling even though, obviously, Bush v Gore's Ruling 2 precedent says the state can't devise it's own objective standards. The basis of this case was said to be voter disenfranchisement. Somehow the ACLU was arguing that using the punch card, the same punch card which elected Davis in the first place, prevents the election from being valid. Did having this election with some ballots as electronic mean that this a "more democratic" process than the previous election? Should the previous election then be nullified? Of course, looking at this through one tiny microscope, you can see that the issue is not, "are there errors?" the issue is, "do the errors favor one side versus the other?"

Remember this, because you asshole ACLU people will be the ones standing there shocked when they come to ask us for brain scanners on account of voting accuracy. Thanks a lot for opening up that door, you asshole. So much for freedom being obvious. Thanks a lot, Al. Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of the ACLU a lot. But the ACLU is really fucking up a lot more lately, and in increasingly bizarre ways. Watch for it in theatres near you!

But stand back for a second. Which has a greater effect? Punch card errors or wholesale media bias? Which has a greater effect? Polling place geography or mass stupidity? The Answer: tonight @ 10. Or, try this quiz.

Which will have a greater effect on the election results?

a) the punch-card system
b) the date of the election
c) the media

Fortunately, since for some of you the obvious answer is not self-evident, this is not a matter for speculation. We can actually approach the answer quantitatively, and it therefore becomes a useful exercise in the refutation of a stupid liberal argument with facts. The mathematical disproof of dumb arguments is not always so readily available, so we should be grateful for them when they appear.

Mathematical formulas to be used when calculating effect of factor on elections

Punch card system:
Total voters x error rate x bias of error rate towards one candidate (yes, this is proven to exist (UC Berkeley study), race & education actually correlates with it)

Date of election:
Undecided voters, swayable decided voters x percent whose minds will change x bias one way or the other

The media:
Total citizens - number annoyed because the media are jerkoffs * voting fraction * observed percentage of people who recite what the op-ed page says to them with enough frequency to safely conclude that they are brainwashed + people who recite what the op-ed page says to them with enough frequency who react negatively toward anything the media seems to tout

Go ahead and do the math, and send in your answers. The winner gets a free punch card.

So I guess I am for the Recall. I must admit, being on the popular side for once makes me really uncomfortable. On almost a daily basis, I keep asking myself "what am I missing?", purely because I so distrust popular opinion. So I will grant the anti-recall forces that, in the long run, I must be missing something obvious.

Having not yet discovered it, I m going to presume, for the rest of the article, that my agreement with the popular viewpoint is a freak event, but not grounds for refutation. How popular is this view? The polls have run as low for the pro-Recall forces as 53%, at writing they are 60%…I think the ultimate total will actully be higher. I predict the final tally will be 64-36 for the Recall. I think this is going to be a huge landslide. But I think the candidate election will be closer.

The Perfectly Appropriate Governor

I'll be honest. I'm starting to get really tired of writing this article. And by now I'm sure you're still asleep. But for those of you who have not yet nodded off, here comes the biggest question of them all. It is determine who, exactly, is the perfectly appropriate governor for the state of California.

Cruz Bustamante

Bustamante has some pretty stupid ideas. His desire to further "soak the rich", seems to me a colossally stupid idea. Right now, California needs to attract the rich faster than it is planning on attracting immigrants, legal and otherwise, to pay for them. Increasing taxes on the rich will do the opposite. I know it sounds cruel, but if a tax increase, and maybe it should, it should be a broad-based one, such as a sales tax hike. The California economy is not as delicate as they say it is right now, so as much as I dislike the ide, a very small hike might not be a bad idea. But this is precisely the kind of tax Bustamante will never enact, mainly because he's a spineless Marxist. In many ways, I actually think we'd be better off with no Governor (read: Gray Davis) than with Bustamante.

But there is one very good reason which may compel me to vote for Bustamante. I believe that both major political parties are sick. I happen to believe that the Democratic party is the sicker of the two. The infectious poison injected to society on a daily basis by Democrats is becoming a major problem. This should not be construed, in any way, to be a defense of Republican ideological/applied health. But the Democrats in the US are very sick puppies, and are in stark denial of their own virulent form of cancer. They are starting to turn into a real danger to the country.

California, interestingly, offers a possibly hopeful chance for some therapy for many Democrats. Most of the state's citizens are Democrats. All of the executive branch positions are held by Democrats. (Although most people couldn't name one single reason, aside from the "-D" or the "-R" after their name, why they voted "-D" or "-R" for the Controller and the other miscellaneous executive positions…such a flock of sheep Californians are). Both houses of the legislature are controlled by Democrats, by significant (but not overwhelming) margins, and have been for some time. While it is true that the Republican minority did have some significant influence on the 03-04 budget which was passed, even that budget was still acquiesced to by almost every Democrat, and still had just as many Democrat fingerprints. Democrats either wholly or almost wholly shaped state budgets for the last few years. Make no mistake: the California budget has largely been made by Democratic hands for years.

Now along comes a major deficit. Two things are now occurring:

1) Voters, primarily Democrats, are finally seeing the consequences of such policies, and so they are learning something,
and
2) The Democrats, although the Democrat media is trying really, really hard to prove otherwise, cannot pin the tail anywhere other than right on the donkey's ass.

So many otherwise loyal Democrat slaves are reconsidering how to achieve their sacred priorities. Some are realizing that excessive spending growth (yes, it qualifies as excessive if it grows by *% over * years) eventually comes back to bite. Democrats gauge political progress (and city-state-nation health) in terms of the amount of money various governments throw at various programs. In effect, government size is their most sacred standard. Now, in addition to learning that one gets to the end of the hypergrowth road faster, they are seeing, in pretty stark terms, that the Democrats are ***. They can't simultaneously stimulate the sluggish state economy and increase the state budget any further. That's why the party folded, and that's why the Recall has such traction in a largely Democratic state. Basically, the Democrats are failing according to their own primary standard. Theoretically, this display will break some of the spell, causing them to crack, defect, or free themselves from their political slavery.

But has the current lesson been strong enough? If Cruz gets in, and the California state government budget goes through more, intense stress, perhaps the lesson would be much more powerful. Thanks to the accounting gimmicks, gross borrowing, inability to implement actual spending cuts. This is not just everyday cynical grousing. This is really going to happen. After the Recall, do not turn off the California story. It is about to get worse. Just watch. Unless the California economy experiences a surprise period of hypergrowth, the budget stressors are only going to get a lot worse. The odds for such growth are low. Then again, California has surprised the world before. But you certainly don't organize a government around a bet like that. Oh, wait…they already did.

The budget lesson for Democrats would become altogether more powerful (and the treatment even more painful) particularly as it is realized just how the chronic the situation becomes. (At last! I found yet another irony in the name "San Francisco Chronicle"!) It could become even more chronic if Cruz continues injecting the poison which has sickened millions of Californians. For the near-term (say, until 2007), the initial problems won't really have been his doing. But the voters will slowly realize, particularly since many of them have such a short-term thinking capacity. Many people can only blame whatever they see presented right in front of them. So the lesson, while impure, will be effective. Whatever the mechanism, the potential freeing of Democrat minds can occur, which is a good and necessary thing. Voting for Cruz could be a part of the cure for America. It certainly wouldn't even come close to doing it by itself, but definitely would help.

Cruz won't be "to blame" for awhile, partly because there isn't time for the cumbersome government-sector economy to adjust, he certainly won't solve it, and might exacerbate it slightly. It's speculative how much effect he would eventually have. But I am pretty much sure about the short- and medium-term fate of the California state government budget.

People only change fundamentally when, from within, they are shocked into it or they get terribly sick and feverish about the situation. The failure for Democrats to achieve what thei own standard demands could disrupt their politicl equillibrium sufficiently to get them to change.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to conduct an open-heart bypass on the Republican wing too. But this situation does not offer the opportunity to do that. It does for the Democrats, voting in Cruz would be a helpful step in that direction, and while it wouldn't treat the entire national Democrat disease, even if it only gets the kidneystone out, it would be a big step toward letting the waste products out of the body.

Tom McClintock

Tom McClintock is clearly the popular conservative in this election. Of course, he enjoys the usual inherent hypocrisy enjoyed by many of the Republican expression of conservatism, namely, his support for leaner government, but greater law enforcement powers, and for conditionalized breaks from the system for key constituents. But of the major candidates, he is the one who, even Democrats seem to agree, has the most consistent belief system, and he doesn't obfuscate it. Many people will be upset to hear that I believe if this guy had been elected governor in 1998, California's problems would have been much smaller.

However, I am not sure that 2003 is the right time to put this guy in there. There are several main reasons why. Firstly, he's from Los Angeles. Of course, so are the others. Of the candidates, he is the one who spends the most of his time there. That immediately sets off alert sirens in my head.

But, more officially, there are other reasons, and they basically involve McClintock's fiscal strategy, along with how he would satisfy the role of Governor itself, in juxtaposition to the Legislature. The legislature is like a bunch a alcoholics clamoring over how the divvy up all the whiskey which has been stolen. That's not a derogatory comment….it's actually their job. Theoretically, the citizenry should be morally horrified by this, but it isn't…in fact, it is usually celebrated. Nevertheless, the governor's principal function is to act as a….get ready….GOVERNOR on the rate and form of the whiskey theft/redistribution. The governor is supposed to be the check, the regulator, the controller.

It is not even an opinion, but rather a fact, that had Tom McClintock occupied the governor's office since 1998, the level of spending in California would have been less than it has been under Gray Davis. I don't think that even the most devoted Gray Davis fan would argue this point. Consequently, the budget deficit would have been smaller. Other effects would have been caused, but it is indisputable that less government spending would have made the current problem much easier to rectify, and that this is what would have happened if McClintock were in that office. (McClintock did not seek it, but I include this merely to point out to people "horrified by the prospect of an "ultra-right extremist conservative agenda" ushered in by McClintock, that such an extremist agend would have left us in a far better position today, in what in 1998 would have been called "the long run". This is a very, very typical tradeoff.)

But McClintock was a part of the legislature, and he knows the budget process and it's loopholes. He brags about his knowledge of "every corner of the budget". Wait a minute! That is exactly, 100%, the wrong way to look at this situation. The desire to use budget tricks is exactly wht caused the problem in the first place. He says that he knows, today, where $17 billion is. Really? Where? Why is it not out there? Is it in more budget gimmicks? That is precisely, for the reasons I went into exhaustive detail about before, what has caused and exacerbated this whole problem.

McClintock's presumed spending disclipline, which I actually do believe he would have, is basically unnecessary now. It is already too late. Governance on the whiskey robbery/handout is now going to be governed more by circumstances than by whoever takes over the job. It is too late for governance…economics will now dictate events. Human being(s) had the chance to use intelligence to influence the fate of events, but having failed to act to do so, natural law will force the situation. McClintock's spending discipline is unnecessary, because now it is an inevitability, between now and certainly at least 2007. Spending in the California budget is now basically pre-ordained for the next three years. It can't drop significantly, because of the Propositions, and it can't go up too much, because the money simply doesn't exist. We are talking a few percentage points between whoever the Governor winds up being, maybe.

At some point, the revenues will be rolling again and then discipline will matter. However, this election will not include a tenure which will include such times. So, in the meanwhile, if the government is to continue dysfunctioning, there must be enough political consensus. If McClintock is in there, believe me, there will absolutely not, in any way, be anything close to political consensus. There will be one of the most tight political gridlocks you have ever seen. It will be amusing to watch, but probably not what we need, considering the minor actual variances we are actually going to be talking about here. Californians are used to gridlock, but gridlock, while appealing in it's tempting allure toward ensuring that government can't do too many stupid things too rapidly, will not help the current situation any. McClintock will probably prolong the budget crisis, because whatever compromise which eventually ensues from the inevitable stalemate negotiations, will actually include THAT MUCH MORE compromise. Compromise got us in the mess in the first place. Including even more watered down decisions will not make matters any better. It will aggravate them.

Earlier I mentioned that one problem with McClintock is his formula for structural tax reform. Coming to this discussion, and considering the previous point about compromise, we can now turn to one of his primary campaign platforms: "end the car tax". Some of you might be surprised to learn that I have come to support the car tax. AT first, you may scratch your heads, but soon you will understand why I actually LIKE the car tax.

Don't get me wrong. The tax is fundamentally poorly structured, and it represents a duplicitous form of revenue raising which inherently builds in inefficiencies, redundancies, and unfairness by it's very existence. We have gas taxes, and toll booths, and smog fees (which, while the direct version was eliminated a few years back, still has huge indirect cost via air quality regulations/enforcements/cost feedbacks), and so theoretically adding another automobile-oriented taxation scheme is fraught with basic question as to why invent an entire new bureaucracy. The car tax revenues, I safely assume, are being wasted in inefficient ways on services of questionable and even detrimental value. And yet, I like this tax.

To understand why, one must remember the California tax base. The highly progressive tax structure of the state causes several fundamental problems. Most notably, this state is more sensitive to how well the rich are doing. So we have to consider the fact that we want the rich in this state to do very, very well, if we are to have a healthy California economy. For sake of argument, let us pretend that there is nothing immoral about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Most leftists assume this is the case, and while they are wrong, their hearts and greed are in the right place, so I'm not going to bark that tree down too far. So let us presume that the use of coercive force to take from the smart, the scheming, the intelligent, the lucky, the criminal, and the productive in order to make beholden slaves out of the unfortunate, the incompetent, the stygmatized, the lazy, the hungry, or the insane receivers is a wonderful, moral virtue. So for the argument for why hyper-taxation of the rich is a very bad fucking idea, we shall assume, for sake of argument, is a purely pragmatic one, and not a moral issue.

One, we are next to Nevada and Arizona, and so an exodus of the successful has occurred. This is the first year, ever, when US citizens have left California in greater numbers than they came in. This year's current population growth is because of foreign immigration. Their coming in is fine by me, as long as it's legal, but they cost the state, as opposed to existing residents, which tend to support it. When you drive away the hand that feeds you, you will have nothing to give to these support costs. That's what's happening, somewhat.

Two, because when you kill or drive away success, the dependent slaves who await the services paid by the rich and free for them will become very vulnerable to any economic hiccup, for the simple reason that nobody, whether rich or poor, likes a pay cut. It may be hard to imagine, or, if you consider yourself, it may be easy to imagine, but nobody, nowhere, ever in history on Earth, likes getting less than they used to get. Anywhere. Ever. Even poor Americans complaining about getting less should, according to hyperLeftist "moralist intellectuals" that complain about how rich the rich are getting, should consider that the poor in this country are not to be pitied. Any other human throughout history would die for the chance to play video games and eat McDonald's, possibly enjoy a 10 year drug addiction, have a run in jail, and then still complain about the "high cost" of $90 energy bills in subsidized housing as being a great evil in American society which needs be fought. Personally, listening to the liberal whine about how bad the poor have it cranks out very, very few tears from my eyes.

So the argument for why hyper-taxation of the rich is a very bad fucking idea, pragmatically, is the cornerstone, ironically, of why I don't like Tom McClintock. The car tax is one of the few means by which the non-rich in California are taxed. The car tax fundamentally is a sales, and not an income tax, and therefore does not tax for what you produce, but rather for what you consume. The car tax discourages cars on Californian roads, which would save California money and traffic, which, last I checked, are two chronic, growing problems of concern to most Californians. The car tax should stay. I actually think it should be increased.

Every politician has since embraced the idea of wiping out the car tax, but McClintock is the catalyst for that very movement. He is the architect of the whole effort. He is wrong. It is actually counterproductive. And I know for a fact that the legislature will compromise with him on this respect. There is way, way too much political cover for them to. And providing political cover should not really be the job of the governor. It should, actually, be the opposite.

When you have no business, you have no tax base, and you have no employment. Furthermore, businesses which do succeed enough to get taxed merely pay the taxes from sales, in other words, the money you give them (I should add "voluntarily" give them, because no matter how much you think you need Walmart, nobody is forcing you). You are taxing yourselves when you tax businesses. It is a shell game, and people who think "the business got taxed, we the workers didn't", are nothing other than ignorant fools. In a way, business taxes actually help existing businesses, because these taxes are easier for established companies to pay than for most new ones. Business taxation reduces diversity, it reduces competition, it reduces choice, and it increases prices. There is really no such thing as a tax on a business, because all a business does is roll the cost of the tax into the cost of the product. Eliminate the business taxes, and California's business climate would certainly improve remarkably. Instead, we consider eliminating the car tax.

I'm actually not sure eliminating any taxes right now is a good plan. The state is bound into too much legally-mandated spending, and does not have the political will for that either. But if I were going to start anywhere, the car tax is not where I'd start looking.

Arnold

When I was younger, my brother and I used to mimic Arnold. If he wins, I'm sure we still will. He is the very embodiment of the campaigner. He also reminds me an awful lot of somebody. That somebody is Gray Davis.

I realize that a lot of Democrats begin to hyper-ventilate at the sight of the "-R" after Arnold's name in the paper. I would suggest that you calm down. The fear that Arnold is an extremist conservative is pretty much groundless. That's the whole reason McClintock has any traction. Republicans, who are people very desperate for someone other than Davis, are so unimpressed by him that fully half are not going to support him. Arnold is basically ideologically ungrounded. He will be a "populist". Can anyone who has watched him seriously expect him to make tough decisions?

Central to Arnold's plan is "The Audit". He won't do anything until after "the Audit". Tell us what the Audit will allow you to do? Audits cost a lot of time, and money, so "the Audit" (something to which California public agencies are constantly subjected) better be very well visualized in terms of what specific questions it intends to address. Has Arnold addressed that? Yeah, sure. I didn't need an Audit to tell you where California spends it's money in this article, and Arnold doesn't need an Audit to tell him what to do if he's Governor. It's not like this is a matter of picking off a few stupid programs. This is a wholesale matter.

Of course, I'm sure Arnold does know that, just as he knows that picking off the big fish will mean pissing off lots of people prior to Election Day. And hell, the people are dying to be lied to, so go ahead Arnold, just lie to them. Bill Clinton was a chronic liar and a career criminal, but most Americans don't care, because of either party loyalty or an unwillingness to offer a viewpoint that makes them unpopular. As you all know very well by now, this is not a worry for me. The fact that Arnold doesn't even appreciate the utility of the campaign trail lie makes me suspicious about his ability to govern a state like California. I mean, hell, this is California, where you can pretty much say anything, and oftentimes more than half the state will wind up believing ya'. There's still gold in them ther hills.

Maybe, for sake of discussion, this makes him more morally appealing. But it makes him worthless, pragmatically. If you think that purist, ideologically ironclad action/rhetoric is the way to go, then you have not lived in California. The people in this state wouldn't recognize a moral good if it punched them in the face. Of course, in this instance, I think describing Arnold's platform s "morally good", is…welll…hang on, I have to stop laughing. Well, it's something, that's for sure. I'm not holding it against him. I'm just saying that he is quite probably very skin deep. Some (not all) of his supporters are people who have pretty spectacular moral goals. It is these people at whom I laugh. Give me a fucking break. Unlike Davis, he's not a weasel, he probably wasn't picked on when he was little, and I don't actually think he's beholden. But he's Gray Davis, make no mistake.

Now, don't mistake some of the criticism. Everyone makes fun of him because he is an actor, not a lawyer. I don't know why people consider it so important that EVERY one of our elected officials be yet another lawyer. Why? Have you ever spent any time with lawyers? Have you EVER known them to be very good at standing back and sizing up a situation for what it really is? They aren't paid to do that. They are paid to try to identify what's going on by close scrutiny of micro-issues. That's why, sometimes, they completely screw up something obvious. In politics, this is known as "blowing the state's cash." No, lawyers are not necessarily an asset, so stop treating celebrity status as political liability.

But what can be a liability is, again, The Blindness. In Republican party circles, this often expresses itself as The Republican Lockstep. Loyalty tends to be a bigger deal to Republicans than to Democrats for very inherent reasons. Just as I wouldn't call Davis a true Democrat, the notion that Arnold is a Republican I find laughable. But there are Republicans who, seeing that little "-R" after his name, get sexually aroused. Whatever.

Politicians and governors are important, but not as important as it may seem. The beauty of the US is that we are not totalitarian, so there is only so much even they can screw it up. Consider how many assholes have been in such power, and yet, here we are. It's great to be in America.

So, good or bad, just as Arnold can't save us, he Arnold can't fuck it up too much either. I have to admit that the most compelling reason to vote for Arnold is that he would be somewhat entertaining. I enjoyed the debate. I have spent a lot of time hating a lot of politicians and political events. So maybe I'm just hungry for an Arnold, a Ross Perot, a Jesse Ventura, someone who will at least amuse me while they are acting like idiots. It sure beats getting fucked over by a half-robot, half-weasal like Davis. Vote for Arnold? I don't know…there certainly are worse votes in this Recall.

I don't know. I may wind up voting for Arnold. I haven't ruled him out yet. Then again, I haven't ruled out voting for Cruz either, so I'm really, in fact, saying nothing at all in these 30 pages. And yet, you still keep reading…..

Idealist Vote

You know, for me, this answer should be easy. I mean, I never vote for a major candidate, so why should I do so now? I can just pick one of them, and then sit back and fire arrows for the next three years at whoever votes for the winner. And here we have an election loaded with unconventional candidates.

Actually, one of my favorite candidates from the pamphlet is an engineer, and it turns out she worked for DWR in her past. I found that out after I had decided I liked her. Some of the other minor candidates in there really exciting me too. I actually kind of liked the bounty hunter's platform. I mean, some of these folks sounded really agreeable to me. Obviously some are nutjobs, but then, so what? Like I said, the circumstances are larger than the position can do so much about any more. And it truly can't get worse than Davis. And, obviously, they aren't going to win anyway.

If you review this article, you will find a lot of idealistesque reasons for voting. The system is beyond repair, it's philosophically sick to the core, it needs a fundamental shakedown, the budget needs to be fixed, the budget can't be fixed, the pragmatic side, the system needs to struggle for it's own good, shock treatment, give California what it deserves, cause gridlock, entertain me, get it over with already.

I suppose idealism takes many forms. It's much harder to be idealistic than it is to vote in one's self-interest. On second thought, now I remember the appeal for voting in one's own best interest again. It takes a lot less time to explain.

Get Ready!

Whoever is our next governor, he or she is going to be pretty fairly straight-jacketed. There's other stuff on the ballot, but unfortunately a proposition to repeal Proposition 98 (which should be repealed) is not included. So the next governor is going to be really screwed.

I don't know what I'm going to do. Even though I hate Democrats, I don't vote Republican. If I vote for a Republican in this election, it would be interesting to see if I feel guilty doing so afterwards. I used to vote Democratic, and that guilt took about 5 years to fade away. I'm not sure personal experiments are in my briefcase anymore anyway. I'm getting tired of that. I'm plainly open to suggestions. Just don't come to me with some butt-ass stupid piece of advice you lifted from the op-ed page of the LA Times.

One final note. George Will wrote an article awhile back basically rooting for disaster to strike California for it's own good. But I know that No on cynicism is something I can make 5 minutes for. George Will is wrong on this take. I personally don't think I will vote for Cruz with the thought that knowingly speeding financial ruin will be good for the state in the long run. The more I think about that, and the more I think about what I just wrote above, makes me think my decision is a little closer.

Being from Chicago, this can only end well.