Keith,
The "rainy day" doesn't always
work.
Our unlamented recalled governor came to power with a
$12 billion surplus. During the re-election - barely won by Davis against a
weak under-funded Republican candidate with little part support - this had
apparently changed to a deficit in the order of $20 billion
.
After election, it was "found" that the deficit had
been recalculated to $38 billion, with a further $8 billion deficit this
year. In the four Gray years the idiot had gone through $50 billion.
California likes to be first and our deficit was greater than the other 49
states put together (let them try to catch us).
Well, the economy is bad isn't it?
Yet, our tax revenues had increased by 25% during the
recession. Unfortunately, California government spending went up by
40%.
After getting a huge chunk of money from the prison
guards union, Davis gave them a substantial raise (while we were in the deficit
hole). The idiot declared a hiring freeze - then hired 40,000 new
government workers..
Yet, he was a career politician and he looked the
part - a la Hollywood - white hair and a ready smile. Yet, there wasn't a
chance in hell of throwing him out - except for Arnold.
So, the snobbery reached unprecedented heights -
including the English papers snickering at every opportunity about this "actor"
trying to be a politician.
Worse, he had an accent and appeared as a
robot in three movies (snicker, snicker).
The professional politicians (what else) over
here were horrified at the recall. One woman whined that they would have to
look over their shoulders all the time.
Good!
I've suggested before that politicians are inclined to
feel they are 'born to the purple' a cut above the common herd. This came out in
Arnold's campaign. I think Karen was warm towards Cruz Bustamente, the intended
heir to Davis.
"Cruz" was actually "Mike" before he became a
politician. He was brought up in a middle-class American home. So, we had
a native American being "one of us" to the immigrant population of
California - even as his target was a genuine immigrant (with an
accent).
Fortunately, it didn't work. Arnold was elected and the
snobbery died (a little). Late night comic Letterman shows practically every
night films of Arnold in his twenties dancing with semi-nude ladies and
such-like. That he was a penniless immigrant with little English trying to make
his way in the New World is never mentioned. Nor, that he built himself up to a
multi-millionaire, married perhaps the most talented Kennedy and has
a pleasant family.
Heck, he's a body-builder trying to be one of
us!
Seems to me that the idea of democracy was citizens
governing themselves. Now, when a citizen aspires to political office - the job
requires a professional.
Can Arnold get the impossible job done? It seems
doubtful. The California legislature is about as crass as it can get. They have
gerrymandered themselves into invulnerability - or they did until the people
forced term limits on them - now it is the parties who are
invulnerable.
The legislature will not renege on the privileges
they have sold to the FatCats - even though the state may go bankrupt. Arnold
will have to go directly to the people, which will work - but it takes time
(as that $8 billion deficit a year is mounting).
So, Arnold will have to go back on his election promise
not to cut education. This takes about half the budget and is a giant cash cow
for bureaucrats. Teachers are not badly paid - no matter what you hear. However,
their classroom conditions in many areas are deplorable, which makes
any pay scale inadequate.
I have no idea what is like now - I haven't been
following it. But, several years ago, the cream of the high school crop
went to the various universities of California (after the premium universities
had taken their cut).
Some 48% of the "cream"
required remedial reading. The clowns made a mistake. They hid the
"remedials" in a course called "Subject A" (yes, there is a conspiracy Virginia
- or at least a community of interest).
Subject A had statistics
fixed to it and this became public. (The worst university taught
remedial reading to 62% of its freshmen.)
Obviously, something had
to be done - and it was. Subject A was abandoned, remedial reading became part
of the English course, and the kids could now get university credit for learning
to read. But, the statistics seem to
have disappeared.
Can the Terminator do anything to stop this relentless
progress toward a third world banana republic? Perhaps, with his
physique, he's well suited to a Herculean task.
We'll see.
Harry
********************************************
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga
CA 91042
Tel: 818
352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:16 PM
To: Tor Førde
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] The poverty of nation-states
At 00:59 05/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:
The essay says: "Similarly, Norway's supposedly separate rainy-day fund, financed from oil and gas revenues, was raided in 2001 to meet immediate budgetary pressures"
It is wrong. It si decided that not more money shall be taken from the fund than goes into it. But since a large part of the money is in shares and stocks, and their value fluctates quite a lot there have been years where the oilfund hardly has grown. The reason that the fund fluctates is changing values of stocks and shares, but every year more money is put into the fund than being taken from it.
Well perhaps Heller got it slightly wrong. But Norway is to be praised for being the first country to start a "rainy-day" fund. Perhaps Norway will also start to add to that fund from normal taxation as well. Because this is what will be needed in the longer term future in order to pay for welfare. If Norway were to do this then it would be showing the way to all the developed countries in the world. But would the Norwegian taxpayer accpet this policy? I don't know because I'm not Norwegian. It certainly couldn't be done in England unless there was the most vigorous campaign by all the political parties cting in unison. But even then the electorate might vote an entirely new political party into power that would despise such a policy. This is the basic faultline of democracy as it has developed so far in the western world.
Keith
