Richard Bennett is on the attack again. I'm so far left I can't see reality. Below is the whole posting followed by a more general response, but do go follow the comments on his site.
Emergent MythologyEmergent Democracy advocate Mitch Ratcliffe explains his objection to the Davis recall in an effort to deal with my claim that the recall was in fact a model of democratic action:
There's nothing wrong with recalls or the initiative process in a widely informed society. When there are very few sources of news and they militate with political groups to elect someone who reads scripts but doesn't speak extemporaneously, they leave something to be desired.
So Arnie is another moron, like that Bush fellow who stole the 2000 election from that smart Gore fellow, and the voters are uninformed owing to our paucity of news sources, which today include just about every news outlet on the planet, and the blogs, etc. Fine. Now what would we ignorant citizens know if we were as well-informed as the Emergent Davis boosters? This:
...the budget crisis is the result of Pete Wilson's misguided energy deregulation policies and collusion by the Bush Administration with the energy industy, not to mention the Bush Administration's general failure in domestic policy leading to the bankrupting of the states
Now to Ratcliffe's credit, he didn't make this up; rather, he's citing a well-traveled meme that you can find on any number of far-left blogs, news organs, and talk radio shows. The only trouble with it is that it's complete crap. The State of California did sign $8B in long-term electricity contracts after Davis finally stepped in and tried to deal with the rolling blackouts of 2001. But these contracts were financed by bonds to be paid off my utility rate-payers. So when the legislature dealt with a $38B budget deficit, these bonds weren't part of it - they're off the books.
So yeah, if Ratcliffe were "informed" he probably wouldn't have voted for Davis as he did, and if everyone were informed, it would have passed by acclamation.
On his other point, I haven't noticed any states going bankrupt. California's budget deficit exceeded the total deficits of all other states, and you clearly can't blame that on Bush. Unless you're "uninformed", of course.
Richard -- Forget it, I'm not even going to try to deal with the irreality field you live in. I'm not on the far left; I am a centrist and only look like I am at the far left because you live in a far-right hallucinatory state.
According to the National Association of Nonprofit Associations, the "states are suffering their worst fiscal crisis since World War II. Contrary to popular belief, the state fiscal crisis is not caused by state overspending. Rather, it is caused by structural problems in the states’ tax systems, and those problems are exacerbated by the slowing economy. Unfortunately, the crisis is not expected to diminish for another few years." Here's the link to the complete report, so you can read it for yourself. And, remember, Republicans hold the majority of gubernatorial offices in the country, so is this a "far-left" perspective? I don't think so.
In my state, Washington, we're looking at a record $2.65 billion deficit that, in terms of a proportiion of the state budget outstrips that of California. No less a figure that Bill Gates Sr. is calling for massive reform of the tax system to make it less regressive.
Here's the governor of Arizona on the situation there:
"I see both sides of Arizona, and my goal is simple: We must ensure that prosperity wins over desperation and becomes the norm for all Arizonans. And to do this, we must come back together as one, united in the knowledge that we need each other, and bound by our commitment to each other."My friends, we are all in this together.
"We must lift this state out of its budget crisis without sacrificing education and the long-term future of Arizona."
If you search the National Governors Association site, you will find that 17 governors mentioned their state's "budget crisis" in their 2003 state of the state speeches. Or read the NGA's Fiscal Survey of the States from Spring 2003, which describes "dreary" economic conditions that are impacting tax revenues and resulting in massive spending cuts. The NGA also says that the nationwide state budget crisis is impacting everything from prisons to education and health care.
Richard, are you blind, deaf and stupid? A little less attack mentality would do you a world of good, but as long as you're dishing it out, take what you serve up. Back to reality, where we have some real problems to deal with that the election of an actor or the mangled logic of the Bush Administration are never going to solve...
First, the question of whose culpable for the electricity crisis. Power & Gas Marketing magazine says:
At the core, however, the same issue that plagued the governor, legislators and regulators in mid-2000 -- the ultimate burden of paying for the vagaries of a dysfunctional wholesale power market falls squarely on the shoulders of retail utility customers.
Would Power & Gas Marketing be one of those far-left organs of disinformation you're talking about Richard?
As for the bonds you say are off the books, it appears you need to do your homework. The governor of California, in order to ensure continued service to the state from companies that were actively manipulated the market, signed long-term deals at highly inflated prices which those same companies refused to modify when their market manipulation was exposed. The bonds you refer to were floated by the state on behalf of those companies so they could stay in business, and the fiscal impact of those bonds does have a significant effect on overall state tax revenues. Why? Because the cost of borrowing by the state increased across the board.
Here's what the Sacramento Bee had to say about the bonds:
The bond sales are needed to repay the state general fund for the billions spent to buy wholesale power for customers of Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.But utilities have bristled at terms of the package the Legislature, DWR [Department of Water Resources] and [State Treasurer} Angelides have urged the PUC to approve.
They have attacked a state law that says the PUC has no ability to review state spending to ensure it is reasonable. They are pushing DWR to explain its spending in much more detail. And they are battling about how the state's bill for wholesale power will be divided.
Notice who was against this plan: The very companies that were the cause of the whole mess to begin with. And what did they do? They backed the recall effort and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Now, finally, back to the emergent democracy idea Richard Bennett vomits all over. What he keeps assuring us is that the system works fine, even though we know the political world is heavily influenced by money and the media is easily manipulated, especially when a celebrity runs for governor (or, for that matter, when a former president's son runs). Bennett says I am attacking "The Politicians" as though I am raising a bogey that doesn't exist.
Here is what I believe: We've handed over governor to professionals. Active citizenship is essential to a successful democracy and it is a mistake to count on others, our elected officials, to be citizens for us. We need to be more involved, fact-checking the ass of ideologues like Richard Bennett among other things, if we're going to reclaim what this country can be -- not what it was, but the future we have been building together for more than 200 years.
Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe at October 14, 2003 11:08 AM | TrackBackMultiple errors and inconsistencies in this post. Here'a few that really stand out:
Contrary to popular belief, the state fiscal crisis is not caused by state overspending. Rather, it is caused by structural problems in the states’ tax systems...
Structural problems=taxing the rich and middle class at excessive rates. When the business cycle swings, higher incomes swing more severely than moderate incomes, both upward and downward. Note that this has nothing to do with electricity contracts.
Richard, are you blind, deaf and stupid? A little less attack mentality would do you a world of good...
Hmmmm.
Notice who was against this plan: The very companies that were the cause of the whole mess to begin with.
The retailers were behind the power crisis? A moment ago it was the wholesalers and President Bush. Please get your story straight, then tell me how much of the $38B deficit was there on account of electricity prices in 2001. While the interest rates on the bonds may affect the interest rate on carrying the state deficit over to next year, they don't really have much to do with the deficit itself.
Math can be hard, but in the end, numbers are your friend, Mitch.
Richard,
First, I didn't say that the other states' problems were caused by electricity contracts. I said other states were in trouble, which you said wasn't true. Faced with the facts are you prepared to acknowledge your error?
As for the structural issues, the long-term attack on taxation that started with Prop 13 in California has resulted in these problems. So, while we may disagree with the optimal structure of a tax system -- which we haven't even touched on, so it isn't relevant to the conversation at hand -- the issue is that in California the cumulative impact of the electricity crisis and following debacle and the mismanagement of domestic and foreign policy by the Bush Administration is the source of immediate problem, a deep decline in state tax revenues.
As for attack mentality, if you can't take it, don't dish it. I'm convinced you're mean-spirited, I was only asking about your vision, hearing and intelligence.
As for the wholesaler vs. retailers, let me clarify, the companies that received the bonds and that participated with the wholesalers in the market manipulations are, indeed, behind the electricity crisis. President Bush aggravated the California fiscal crisis by abbetting the market manipulations and creating a global climate of anti-Americanism that has severely impacted sales by California companies, along with the rest of the companies in the United States.
I can't believe you don't understand the impact of increased borrowing costs on the current budget deficity, since you claim to understand math. You're asking a purposefully misleading question, since the costs of the electricity crisis brought on by Wilson-era policies and Bush incompetence cannot be completely accounted for, as many of the costs are indirect, such as the lowered tax revenues received by the state because of the increased cost of goods produced during the blackout era (when energy costs soared, increasing the cost of finished goods) and the longer term costs of a world that mistrusts the U.S. administration -- especially in light of the global outpouring of support after 9./11; Bush squandered an extraordinary opportunity.
The cost of financing the deficit will account for approximately eight (8) percent of the deficit for the coming year and many years after. In addition to that, part of the deficit itself is due to direct costs of the sale of those bonds, which the state appears to have eaten to bail out the energy retailers -- that's why the state had to do the offering, so that it could absorb the cost, which appears to have been deferred into the current budget.
Likewise, the increased cost of doing business in California due to the state's overall economic condition raised the risk associated with investment in the state, reducing business expansion and limiting startup capital.
The list goes on and on, Richard, but you refuse to see the numbers. I'd suggest an accounting course, maybe you could take the time to study the offering of municipal bonds. It's a complex situation that you are over-simplifying for purely ideological reasons.
Posted by: Mitch Ratcliffe at October 14, 2003 02:29 PM