Cleaning Up California
I made a comment on Digg today about the state California is in. Someone posted that analysts think that it will take California until 2014 to recover, and I replied that if we recovered that soon, I was going to be -really- surprised.
That got me to thinking -- what would be a way that California -could- recover itself? My thoughts are below:
The thing that has messed us up so badly is the initiative system. The problem with this kind of direct democracy is that way more than 50% of people are short sighted idiots. Do you know that in the voter booklets you get (if you live in California), the arguments for and against an initiative don't have to be true? If they propose an initiative to kill kittens, they can say that the initiative will save kittens. It's totally legal for them to lie, and most people don't do the research. Hell, most people don't bother to read the information booklets, and rely on commercials and people talking on the news, and god knows -they- don't tell the truth. All they need is 50% + 1.
We may not trust politicians, but the fact is that they are where they are because they know what they're doing. Sometimes their goals don't align with the goals of the people they're supposed to be serving, but it's not that they're totally incompetent. (Well, most of them, anyway.) I have met a lot of politicians, so I know whatof I speak, and if they don't do something that the people think they want, there is a reason for it. Often, that reason is because it's a fucking boneheaded thing to do.
So thing #1: Get rid of ALL the initiatives that have been passed in this state. This would require a constitutional convention, because many of them have been inserted into the constitution. No other changes to the constitution should be made.
Is the initiative system wholely a bad idea? No. Sometimes politicians do things that are contrary to the public interest, and direct checks on their power aren't a bad thing. But at the same time, the power has to be balanced -- right now, the people have too much. So the initiative system would remain, but would need a two thirds majority to pass something. In addition, it wouldn't be allowed to do anything to the constitution (which allows really bad ideas to be more easily corrected). I'd also suggest that since the population of the state has so dramatically increased, more signatures should be required to get an initiative on the ballot.
Thing #2: Revamp the initiative system so that it's harder to pass things, and what can be passed is limited.
Now, killing all of the initiatives does subvert the will of the people, and that's not what a democracy is about. So the next thing that would be necessary is an election or a series of elections where every initiative passed into law would be voted on again, but with the new rules. As per the new rules, initiatives that previously amended the constitution would be passed (if they passed) into regular laws, unless they were prohibited by the constitution. Those initiatives wouldn't be voted on.
Thing #3: Re-vote on all inititives, using the new initiative rules.
The final thing that this state must do to recover is the one that's unrelated to initiatives. We have got to stop funneling our money to the rich at the expense of the poor.
This would mean putting tolls on roads and investing the money, not in building new roads and new lanes in existing roads, into inexpensive and comprehensive public transportation.
It would mean re-instating property taxes and use the money to transform our schools into centers of the community, which is an -entirely- new post, perhaps for later today. Struggling schools would be assigned more councillors to deal with problem students, and more teachers to reduce class sizes.
It would mean not allowing sprawling housing complexes without requiring that a certain percentage, mixed in with all the other houses, be low income. It's been shown that mixing struggling families in with more stable neighborhoods helps them to live more stable lives. Also, developers would be required to devote a percentage of space to parks, and the non-low income housing people in the housing associations would be required to pay a tax that would go towards park maintainance.
It would mean charging an extra tax to people who own houses in fire or flood prone areas, to pay for the firefighters that have to go out each year, at a cost of millions of dollars and sometimes human lives, and the flood and mudslide rescue teams and scientists. The money the state saves would be devoted to hiring more maintainance workers to clean up urban blight.
By closing the gap between rich and poor, the state would help its cash flow, as people would have money to spend, and would spend it, with all the sales taxes that entails, and they would be able to get off welfare, saving the state money, and so on.
So there you have it. That's how you save California. Arnold, call me, day or night, and I'll be right there to advise you. :P
ETA: Also, prisons. Non-violent offenders should be released from prisons, and the money saved should go to support programs, job training, drug treatment, councilling, social workers. Non-violent offenders would get social workers to keep them in their treatment programs instead of being sent to prison. People who are mentally ill should get whatever treatment/support they need, instead of being thrown to the wolves in a prison or tossed out on the street to fend for themselves. In stubborn cases, they might even be relocated to take them away from negative influences in their lives, or have other intervention measures imposed on them. More money could be saved in this regard by doing away with the death penalty, which is -way- more expensive than just giving someone life in prison. Our justice system should be about making society safer, not getting revenge or imposing some kind of draconian punishment for punishment's sake.
That got me to thinking -- what would be a way that California -could- recover itself? My thoughts are below:
The thing that has messed us up so badly is the initiative system. The problem with this kind of direct democracy is that way more than 50% of people are short sighted idiots. Do you know that in the voter booklets you get (if you live in California), the arguments for and against an initiative don't have to be true? If they propose an initiative to kill kittens, they can say that the initiative will save kittens. It's totally legal for them to lie, and most people don't do the research. Hell, most people don't bother to read the information booklets, and rely on commercials and people talking on the news, and god knows -they- don't tell the truth. All they need is 50% + 1.
We may not trust politicians, but the fact is that they are where they are because they know what they're doing. Sometimes their goals don't align with the goals of the people they're supposed to be serving, but it's not that they're totally incompetent. (Well, most of them, anyway.) I have met a lot of politicians, so I know whatof I speak, and if they don't do something that the people think they want, there is a reason for it. Often, that reason is because it's a fucking boneheaded thing to do.
So thing #1: Get rid of ALL the initiatives that have been passed in this state. This would require a constitutional convention, because many of them have been inserted into the constitution. No other changes to the constitution should be made.
Is the initiative system wholely a bad idea? No. Sometimes politicians do things that are contrary to the public interest, and direct checks on their power aren't a bad thing. But at the same time, the power has to be balanced -- right now, the people have too much. So the initiative system would remain, but would need a two thirds majority to pass something. In addition, it wouldn't be allowed to do anything to the constitution (which allows really bad ideas to be more easily corrected). I'd also suggest that since the population of the state has so dramatically increased, more signatures should be required to get an initiative on the ballot.
Thing #2: Revamp the initiative system so that it's harder to pass things, and what can be passed is limited.
Now, killing all of the initiatives does subvert the will of the people, and that's not what a democracy is about. So the next thing that would be necessary is an election or a series of elections where every initiative passed into law would be voted on again, but with the new rules. As per the new rules, initiatives that previously amended the constitution would be passed (if they passed) into regular laws, unless they were prohibited by the constitution. Those initiatives wouldn't be voted on.
Thing #3: Re-vote on all inititives, using the new initiative rules.
The final thing that this state must do to recover is the one that's unrelated to initiatives. We have got to stop funneling our money to the rich at the expense of the poor.
This would mean putting tolls on roads and investing the money, not in building new roads and new lanes in existing roads, into inexpensive and comprehensive public transportation.
It would mean re-instating property taxes and use the money to transform our schools into centers of the community, which is an -entirely- new post, perhaps for later today. Struggling schools would be assigned more councillors to deal with problem students, and more teachers to reduce class sizes.
It would mean not allowing sprawling housing complexes without requiring that a certain percentage, mixed in with all the other houses, be low income. It's been shown that mixing struggling families in with more stable neighborhoods helps them to live more stable lives. Also, developers would be required to devote a percentage of space to parks, and the non-low income housing people in the housing associations would be required to pay a tax that would go towards park maintainance.
It would mean charging an extra tax to people who own houses in fire or flood prone areas, to pay for the firefighters that have to go out each year, at a cost of millions of dollars and sometimes human lives, and the flood and mudslide rescue teams and scientists. The money the state saves would be devoted to hiring more maintainance workers to clean up urban blight.
By closing the gap between rich and poor, the state would help its cash flow, as people would have money to spend, and would spend it, with all the sales taxes that entails, and they would be able to get off welfare, saving the state money, and so on.
So there you have it. That's how you save California. Arnold, call me, day or night, and I'll be right there to advise you. :P
ETA: Also, prisons. Non-violent offenders should be released from prisons, and the money saved should go to support programs, job training, drug treatment, councilling, social workers. Non-violent offenders would get social workers to keep them in their treatment programs instead of being sent to prison. People who are mentally ill should get whatever treatment/support they need, instead of being thrown to the wolves in a prison or tossed out on the street to fend for themselves. In stubborn cases, they might even be relocated to take them away from negative influences in their lives, or have other intervention measures imposed on them. More money could be saved in this regard by doing away with the death penalty, which is -way- more expensive than just giving someone life in prison. Our justice system should be about making society safer, not getting revenge or imposing some kind of draconian punishment for punishment's sake.