A California Republican

Stop saying the 2/3 vote requirement to pass the budget and raise taxes is the problem. It is not.

The problem is that we, in California, have such an ideologically separate Legislature that the members of the Legislature cannot agree on anything.

The Democrats are so far left that they don’t understand anything the Republicans are saying. The Republicans are so far right that they don’t want to raise taxes, and that they do not want to consider anything the Democrats are saying. This is an ideological divide.

The solution is not to make the requirement a majority vote, a 55% vote or something else that would make the Democrats have enough votes to pass a budget on their own.  The solution is to have a Legislature that is not so ideologically divided.

There are several solutions on how to do this.

Incumbents, in California elections, win 96% of the time. Maybe getting rid of term limits would allow legislators to vote, and vote freely, for the budget with the guarantee that their party won’t oust them simply for voting on the budget. If we have incumbents, who have an unlimited amount of time they can spend in the Legislature without having to worry about running for higher office in 6-8 years, it is more likely that we would get negotiations in the Legislature rather than the farce we have now. It would allow for bridging the ideological divide.

Additionally, we need districts that are not so divided. If the districts were less divided among Republicans and Democrats, with a more equal distribution of each, then the legislators would be more equal as well.

Any of these solutions would work. So let’s stop blaming the 2/3 requirement. It is not at fault.

Besides, the Governor always has line-item veto and could use it to bring the budget into balance, but he never wants to do that.

Presdient Obama had his first news conference yesterday. The economy was definitely a hot topic during the conference.

I will say that the press has been relatively easy on President Obama. They tend to be in love with him. There is not a lot of coverage about his nominees for various positions have tax problems, or any of the other sticky situations he has found himself in. And they are certainly not being hard on him about his stimulus package.

In case you haven’t heard, the federal governmet is about to spend over $800 billion of your children’s money. It isn’t your money they are spending. Instead of spending effectively and within its limits, the federal government is banking on selling credit and raising the debt limit in order to spend this $800 billion in stimulus money…and there is no guarantee that it is going to work. This is your children’s money, and future, that we are mortgaging to pull the economy out of a recession. Are you comfortable with that?

If the idea seems uncomfortable, then you are not alone. You are not in the majority, but you are not alone.

President Obama took a serious tone on the economy saying that we need to pass the stimulus bill now in order to prevent people from being harder hit. That the stimulus bill will save the economy. I don’t mind him thinking that the federal government needs to have a role in the economy, but the notion that the stimulus bill will be effective to save the economy is ridiculous. It won’t save the economy, it might help, but even economists disagree on how much it will help.

President Obama insisted that change is needed among those people on Capitol Hill who are so “ideologically entrenched” that they are not helping his bill along. First of all, he means Republicans, so he needs to come out and say it. President Obama does not mean that Democrats who are ideologically entrenched need to change, only Republicans. Secondly, he is off the campaign trail now. He needs tostep up and lead. Part of that is communicating a clear and decisive message. If you want your bill passed, say so. Do not cloud your desire for the passage of the stimulus bill in rhetoric. Simply make the statement.

The new Senate stimulus bill has less spending than the House version. It cuts money from the state fund that would give money to help states who are in poor fiscal positions. The bill also does not have money for school construction and modernization. School construction and modernization are two projects that could start immediately and have immediate impacts. Most school districts keep plans ready for thing like this, and would only have to hire people. Why cut out a provision that would have an immediate impact in this year? So it can be replaced with other things like internet connectivity for communities and people who cannot afford a computer or the monthly fee for internet charges. Or research on STDs.

For the full text of President Obama’s press conference click here.