Lies in California: politics as usual
In probably my last post about California's asinine special election, in which we decide if we wish to assist the California legislature in pissing away what's left of our prosperity, I'd like to focus on one particular appalling lie which is undoubtedly causing some people, as I write this, to unknowingly contribute to California's woes. The focus of the campaign to promote the headline spending propositions seems to be that they will help educate the children, and indeed according to exit interviews, some brain-dead voters have already voted in favor of them on the basis of supporting the education of their children. In reality, that's probably the largest lie spread about these propositions.
To see why, you have to understand how California's budget process works. Without getting into specifics, the more money the government takes, the more it spends, in roughly direct proportion with a multiple. That is, the government always spends more than it steals, regardless of how high the tax rates are. So the higher the taxes are, the more waste there is, and the more waste there will continue to be in the future. Raising taxes doesn't reduce deficits, at least in California, ever; if anyone claims differently, they are lying (and likely knowingly).
Next, the claim that allocating more money to the education bureaucracy helps children get a better education is blatantly false. California already has one of the largest education budgets and near the worst education system in the country. Giving the managers and the unions more money won't help students get supplies, or reduce class sizes, or affect any meaningful changes as the system desperately needs, it'll just enrich and reward the participants for the job they have done so far. The reality is that the public education system in California is horrible, and we really need to start over, not funnel even more money to the failed pile of crap we have.
I would go as far as to say that in an ideal world, we would be able to use this election as a litmus test for minimum voter competence. That is, if you voted for the propositions because you thought you were helping the children, you should not be allowed to vote ever again, because you're too stupid to figure out the implications of the things you're voting on. It's not that we think you're a bad person, or don't want to interact with you, or think you should be ostracized; but you're a danger to yourself and society if you can be deluded into voting for something which will have the exact opposite effect from how you justified supporting it, and for the good of everyone (including you), you should no longer be allowed to vote. A few elections with that criteria, and maybe we could get real productive change, instead of just more asinine tax hikes and out-of-control spending.
That's my opinion.
To see why, you have to understand how California's budget process works. Without getting into specifics, the more money the government takes, the more it spends, in roughly direct proportion with a multiple. That is, the government always spends more than it steals, regardless of how high the tax rates are. So the higher the taxes are, the more waste there is, and the more waste there will continue to be in the future. Raising taxes doesn't reduce deficits, at least in California, ever; if anyone claims differently, they are lying (and likely knowingly).
Next, the claim that allocating more money to the education bureaucracy helps children get a better education is blatantly false. California already has one of the largest education budgets and near the worst education system in the country. Giving the managers and the unions more money won't help students get supplies, or reduce class sizes, or affect any meaningful changes as the system desperately needs, it'll just enrich and reward the participants for the job they have done so far. The reality is that the public education system in California is horrible, and we really need to start over, not funnel even more money to the failed pile of crap we have.
I would go as far as to say that in an ideal world, we would be able to use this election as a litmus test for minimum voter competence. That is, if you voted for the propositions because you thought you were helping the children, you should not be allowed to vote ever again, because you're too stupid to figure out the implications of the things you're voting on. It's not that we think you're a bad person, or don't want to interact with you, or think you should be ostracized; but you're a danger to yourself and society if you can be deluded into voting for something which will have the exact opposite effect from how you justified supporting it, and for the good of everyone (including you), you should no longer be allowed to vote. A few elections with that criteria, and maybe we could get real productive change, instead of just more asinine tax hikes and out-of-control spending.
That's my opinion.
Nick - I was just sharpening my pen to write on the same topic - great points on the 'litmus test', I support the concept!
ReplyDeleteDon't let the fact that I blogged about it discourage you: by all accounts you have a larger audience, and the more people who get to read factual expository opinion pieces, the better. And if you do, feel free to link to this in the same spirit. :)
ReplyDeleteNick, thank you, I am writing this up and copied part of your article. I must say that I do love your writing style and intellect, if I had to guess I would say we are nearly the same age and have developed practically identical philosophical leanings. Identical at least in respect to those things that are the most important.
ReplyDeleteBTW I am pluggin you as well, I forgot to mention....
ReplyDeleteYeah; I've found that most educated, intelligent, and working people tend to have roughly the same opinions I do, at least about important issues. The statistics would also bear that out: if you look at voting trends by demographics, the more intelligent, educated, and/or hard working you are, the more you tend to vote fiscally "conservative", at least. It stands to reason, though... rational people should be able to reach similar conclusions given similar information, so the more educated people get, the more the intelligent people gravitate toward the same philosophical leanings.
ReplyDeleteKeep educating. :)
"I would go as far as to say that in an ideal world, we would be able to use this election as a litmus test for minimum voter competence. That is, if you voted for the propositions because you thought you were helping the children, you should not be allowed to vote ever again, because you're too stupid to figure out the implications of the things you're voting on..."
ReplyDeleteAmen, Amen, Amen! Everytime I hear people say we need more voter participation, I say to myself we need more quality voters not more quantity of voters.