Will the US Bail Out California?

[alfred russel]

BTW, how is it that some of the richest states in the country are also the most fucked up?  New Jersey, New York, and California all rank pretty high, and yet they're all ungovernable and one recession away from financial abyss.

Powerful public employee unions?

But how did the states get so rich while saddled with such graft?

In California's case it is easy to answer--the state is absolutely beautiful. If the pilgrims landed on the west coast, New England would still be wilderness.

[garbon]

But how did the states get so rich while saddled with such graft?

Well one part is that California had a great boom with all the .com stuff which increased the amount we were willing to spend. Unfortunately, we lost that money and then didn't want to make cuts in expenditure.

I think really we just always operate so close to the edge that in downturns it is easy for us to spiral into the abyss.

[garbon]

In California's case it is easy to answer--the state is absolutely beautiful. If the pilgrims landed on the west coast, New England would still be wilderness.

[MadImmortalMan]

BTW, how is it that some of the richest states in the country are also the most fucked up?  New Jersey, New York, and California all rank pretty high, and yet they're all ungovernable and one recession away from financial abyss.

They're the richest because they've driven all the poor people off to other places where they can afford to live.

[garbon]

Btw, only an utterly ridiculous person would think that New Jersey should be mentioned in the same breath as New York and California.  The same kind of person who might view Massachusetts and California as rivals.

[Admiral Yi]

Btw, only an utterly ridiculous person would think that New Jersey should be mentioned in the same breath as New York and California.  The same kind of person who might view Massachusetts and California as rivals.

Your California schtick makes Neil seem fresh and new.

[Sheilbh]

So is the feeling that Californians should have agreed to the propositions offered to us?

The feeling is that Californians should pass a proposition giving up their power to vote on propositions.

I'm curious though.  Switzerland has direct democracy, from that they get generally sensible polices (such as support for nuclear power for environmental reasons), the protection of gnomes and a generally benign budgetary system.  California has direct democracy and, well, California happens.  What makes the results so different?

[Admiral Yi]

I'm curious though.  Switzerland has direct democracy, from that they get generally sensible polices (such as support for nuclear power for environmental reasons), the protection of gnomes and a generally benign budgetary system.  California has direct democracy and, well, California happens.  What makes the results so different?

What's the Swiss procedure to get a proposal on the ballot?

[Sheilbh]

I'm curious though.  Switzerland has direct democracy, from that they get generally sensible polices (such as support for nuclear power for environmental reasons), the protection of gnomes and a generally benign budgetary system.  California has direct democracy and, well, California happens.  What makes the results so different?

What's the Swiss procedure to get a proposal on the ballot?

That explains it:

*  The Swiss constitution defines in some detail all areas subject to federal legislation. Anything not explicitly mentioned is left to the legislation of the cantons (federal states).
      Therefore it is necessary to update the constitution from time to time to take account of changes in society and technology that demand for standardised solutions throughout the country.
      The Swiss constitution may be changed only if an overall majority of the electorate agrees in a referendum and if the electorate of a majority of the cantons agrees, too. The latter is sometimes just a little more difficult because it means that the rather conservative electorate of smaller rural cantons must be convinced as well.
      Nevertheless, minor changes to the Swiss constitution are quite frequent without affecting the basic ideas nor the stability of Switzerland's Political System. To the contrary: Direct Democracy is the key to Switzerland's famous political stability.

    * All federal laws are subject to a three to four step process:
      1) A first draft is prepared by experts in the federal administration.
      2) This draft is presented to a large number of people in a formalized kind of opinion poll: Cantonal governments, political parties as well as many non-governmental organisations and associations of the civil society may comment on the draft and propose changes.
      3) The result is presented to dedicated parliamentary commissions of both chambers of the federal parliament, discussed in detail behind closed doors and finally debated in public sessions of both chambers of parliament. Members of parliament do take into account the results of step 2, because if the fail to do so, step 4 will be inevitable.
      4) The electorate has a veto-right on laws: If anybody is able to find 50,000 citizens signing a form demanding for a referendum within 3 months, a referendum must be held. Laws do only need to find a majority of the national electorate to pass a referendum, not a majority of cantons. Referendums on more than a dozen laws per year are not unusual in Switzerland.

    * Frequent referendums on minor changes to the federal or cantonal constitutions, new or changed laws, budgets etc,
      - referendums on constitutional changes are mandatory
      - referendums on laws are "facultative" (only if 50,000 citizens, i.e. roughly 1.2% of the electorate, demand for it)
      Learn more about Referendums in Switzerland

    * Corresponding rules apply for referendums on cantonal and communal level. While referendums concerning budgets are not possible on federal level they are common on communal level. It depends on the 26 cantonal constitutions whether they are mandatory, facultative or possible at all.
      The number of citizens that may demand for a cantonal or communal referendum depends on the size of the corresponding electorate, as a rule of thumb, about 1% are usual.

    * Popular Initiative: 100,000 citizens (roughly 2.5% of the electorate) may demand for a change of the constitution by signing a form. The federal parliament is obliged to discuss the initiative, it may decide to recommend or to reject the initiative or it may propose an alternative. Whatever they choose to do, all citizens will finally decide in a referendum whether to accept the initiative, the alternate proposal or stay without change.

So, national laws have a consultation referendum and you then need 50 000 signatures to have a full referendum (except for constitutional change which always requires a referendum) and the rest is done by Canton.

[Berkut]

But how did the states get so rich while saddled with such graft?

Well one part is that California had a great boom with all the .com stuff which increased the amount we were willing to spend. Unfortunately, we lost that money and then didn't want to make cuts in expenditure.

I think really we just always operate so close to the edge that in downturns it is easy for us to spiral into the abyss.

And New York is going through the same thing with Wall Street.

Of course, the fundamental problem is the fundamental problem of all welfare state politics - you can increase spending during the good times, but nobody has the political power to survive cutting spending FOR THE CHILDREN during the down times.

It is like a ratchet - the spending only ever goes in one direction when you subscribe to that political philosophy.

[saskganesh]

the safe political way to cut social spending is not to keep up with inflation. over time, the budget for that item is reduced. see Chretien, Jean.

dramatic, over night cuts are politically risky. Mike Harris (ON) got relected on it once but eventually people realised there were real world consequences.

[garbon]

Your California schtick makes Neil seem fresh and new.

It isn't a schtick. Hating New Jersey comes naturally.

[Caliga]

It isn't a schtick. Hating New Jersey comes naturally.

There ARE nice parts of New Jersey.  Don't listen to this mook, people.

[garbon]

Kentucky. 'nuff said.

[saskganesh]

the safe political way to cut social spending is not to keep up with inflation. over time, the budget for that item is reduced. see Chretien, Jean.

dramatic, over night cuts are politically risky. Mike Harris (ON) got relected on it once but eventually people realised there were real world consequences.

gotta add to this. if you successfully articulate a political crisis over debt through the media and social medias, and line up your attack dogs in the right order, it's a lot easier to make cuts. in other words, design a good PR campaign.

Thatcher pulled it off. there was a political cost, but she was relected. however, Thatcher could not pull off everything she wanted.