Count Your Blessings

Missouri's provision that any move by the state to increase revenues must be approved for a direct popular vote definitely has its advantages. For non-Missourians note that it doesn't mean that the state is unable to increase revenues. It means that people must be convinced that raising revenues is a good idea. That places elected officials in the position of selling their plans to the electorate. I think it's a good thing.

All I did was a quick Google search, but I can't find anything on Missouri's provision for direct a popular vote to increase revenues (taxes?).

Aren't problems raising taxes a large part of what California to where it is today?

Again, I'm just asking.

Exactly right, GS. California is suffering from the very "taxes bad" propaganda that the GOP has promoted. Here in Colorado, we have much the same problem, though not as serious, with our TABOR amendment "taxpayers bill of rights". But since it's a citizen led constitutional amendment, like California's, our only sad hope is that services needed by citizens decline so badly that they begin to suffer, their schools crumble, their roads are not fixed and their universities lose their rank as some of the best, and begin losing out of state students and their higher tuitions, beginning a tailspin that will take them down until citizens reverse course and admit that some of the things taxes pay for are actually in citizens' self interest.

In the last ten years, state spending has almost doubled. The population didn't even come close to doubling. Inflation didn't make the dollar worth only half as much. When there are boom times, the state government irresponsibly spends every cent, borrows more, and commits itself to inflated levels of future spending, without any thought of what will happen when lean times come. Then, instead of cutting back to previous spending levels, it wants even more money from voters.

And since spending has nearly doubled in the last 10 years, what great improvements have we seen because of this "wise spending" of the much greater number of taxpayer dollars? Did our K-12 schools become nearly twice as good? Are our colleges far better than a decade ago? Has gang-related crime been cut nearly in half? Did our roads become twice as good over the last 10 years? How has this almost doubled spending greatly improved life in California? If it hasn't done this, them maybe the money was used badly, and Californians would prefer to not to fund still more wasteful spending.

Granted, it isn't only the politicians' fault. Voters have often passes propositions that have committed the state to more spending. 5 billion in bonds for stem cell research, 10 billion for high-speed rail, and more, have helped drive the state even further into debt than "wise spending" by our politicians.

As a California native, I have no sympathy for the consequences of California's continued "Massachusetts Lite" politics in Sacramento and its ages-long track record of fiscal misconduct.

New York City bankrupted itself by the mid-1970s through liberal politics and policies, and it's no surprise to see California become "too big [government] to succeed."

Scaramouche: Food for thought --

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597150183556...