----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:43
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] The poverty of
nation-states
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
********************************************
Tor,
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
