Skip to main content

View Diary: California initiatives thread (292 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  please, kos, vote yes on 92 (63+ / 0-)

    the community college initiative.  I personally know several people who have had to scale back on trying to get their education and technical skills through our community college system because the per unit rate has skyrocketed in recent years.  prop 92 will make it affordable again.

    oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

    The Nexus has you.

    by Dante Atkins on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:32:12 PM PST

    •  That's a worthy one (18+ / 0-)

      California's community college system is superb.  It helps so many students who otherwise couldn't afford college, and for the hard-working students it can be a springboard to transfering into one of the UCs.

      •  That's the path I took (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Builderman, Boalt, Bodean, Montague, lineatus

        It's a really big deal for some people.

        A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

        by Webster on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:59:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That is a worthy one (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Montague

        Thanks for mentioning this one.  I haven't waded through them yet.  Community college help yes, at Saddleback in Santa Ana I took my computer language classes (certifications) that my work required for me to get a raise and promotion back in the late 80's. I was a single mom, no support. Those few classes lifted my salary from 32K in the OC in 1994 to 140K (Bay Area) today.  Back in 70' as a 17 year old orphan floating my own boat even I could afford to take classes at Golden West while waitressing to pay the bills.  Today my son can barely afford to pay for his classes, he didn't use his GI bill fast enough from Gulf I, poof all gone.  

        Think about all the folks who have to retool, learn a new trade, learn a second or third language so they can compete for jobs.  All those over 50 folks who can't retire and are pounding the streets, unemployment gone, 401K emptied, house foreclosed on.  Education is the key to getting out of a bad place.  

        So thanks it has my vote.

        We have returned from the ashes.

        by Morgana on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:04:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry....92 is not a good idea (6+ / 0-)

          Yes it is a worthy cause as education is in general, but as a good many editorals across the state, on both sides of the political slate are noting, 92 is not the answer.

          92 tries to lock in funding for one part of education, but in doing so, adds to problems for other segments and for government budgeting in general.

          Right above 92 is 91...another initiative with the same concept, but this time for transportation funds...proposes a constitutional amendment to bar use of fuel tax funds for other purposes.  Sounds noble if you want another highway built, but it is yet another way in which we hogtie the hands of the Legislature in terms of any kind of ability to react to changes in priorities.

          Every major constituency can try to get itself a provision requiring that x percent of the budget be spent on their cause and the more it happens, the less room the Legislature has to maneuver.

          Then we get all pissed off at legislators when we have some priority not on the list that needs immediate action and are told that in fact out of all the funds in the budget all but about 15% or less is locked down by restrictions like these.

          And when we can't get the Legislature to act, we get frustrated and we set out to win passage of Proposition 91 and 92 and 1004 and 2009, etc. etc.  It is a hell of a way to run a government.  Worse yet, because it takes hundreds of thousands of signatures to get an issue on the ballot, it gives more power to the big monied interests who can pay for signature gatherers, some of which have less than stellar reputations for how they do their work as in recent efforts to sneak through an initiative which would have awarded California electoral votes in a way which would have favored Republican presidenial chances nationally.

          In some years, we California voters, if we are conscientious, can spend literally hours or even days trying to figure out how to vote on these things.  Sometimes there are a dozen or more state, regional and local issues on the ballot at the same time, and the average Mary and Joe has to try and decipher what is the right choice, often armed with little more than brief page-or-less outlines of "facts" written by proponents and opponents.  (Right now I haven't a clue what is behind propositions 94-97 which purport to ratify amendments to gaming compacts with obscure Indian tribes - supposedly means more money for the state, but nobody is showing me the fine print, and there is ALWAYS fine print involved with these things.)

          And worst of all, if a proposition manages to pass, in many cases, after all the dust has settled, it is mired in a lawsuit and all of the money and TV commercials and hype is wasted and the lawyers make another bundle.

          Hiram Johnson would be apalled at what he created.

          Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

          by dweb8231 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:53:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You bring up an important point (0+ / 0-)

            I don't have the gut feeling that having voters decide to lock in spending amounts to various needs is not a good idea.

            Bottom line, California needs more services than the people, especially the rich, want to pay for.

            01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR

            by kimoconnor on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:21:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for the information (0+ / 0-)

            I no longer live in California (sniffle) so I'm not familiar with the details of Prop. 92.  You area absolutely correct that one must look very carefully at the propositions because they won't always have the effect you would think just from the title, or they have the potential to cause trouble in an area where you might not have guessed.

            Your detailed post should help Californians here at DKos to decide.

            My main thought was simply to praise the community college system in California.  I think California has wonderful educational opportunities up and down the state.

            •  CA Does have an Excellent system (0+ / 0-)

              Its tuition rates, compared to other parts of the country are low.  The big problem however, is the associated costs of dorms, books, etc. and living costs in CA are high.  CA does not pay for dormitories or dining halls.  It will float bonds for them, but only if student fees cover the costs and construction costs are high.  

              I work for a state university and it took months of detailed work to develop a design for a new residence hall which could be built at a rate which didn't drive student fees through the roof.  As it was, students had to be asked and did agree to accept a substantial raise in their fees in order to allow construction.

              A first pass at this effort generated bids that were outside the estimates so we had to go back to the drawing boards and try again.  Finally a way was found to make it work.  Just  few years ago, we were spending under $50,000 a bed for new dorm construction.  Today it is well over $120,000.

              Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

              by dweb8231 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:27:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

                And sheesh yeah, California is expensive.  It is one of the reasons I left.  Only a small reason, but still... now I own a great house in a great neighborhood in Iowa.  Couldn't have managed that in San Diego.

                $120,000/bed?  Wow.  I recall that UCSD paid $5000 to pave ONE parking spot 20 years ago.  They did it because people parked on the grass where the lot ended (in an out-of-the-way apartment complex it owned).  The residents didn't care about the cars that would park on the grass, but apparently it was a big no-no, so there went 5K down the drain.

              •  I teach at a CSU (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mauricehall, LillithMc

                And would love something like 92 for it.  We're paid less in most cases than the CC profs are and we train a very large percentage of the teachers in the state (which explains some of the problems in K-12 education).  All this while our former presidents get platinum parachute deals.  It's really obscene.  Arnold just vetoed a bill that would provide some CSU oversight.

    •  I dropped down already (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hekebolos, DMiller, denise b, DBunn

      I don't have the facts in front of me, but I know they already dropped back down substantially.  

      I go into the process voting "No" on everything.  For me to change to "Yes" there must be a clear reason.  After watching so many bond measures and education bills over the years, all after the lottery was supposed to end this crap, has left me a little weary.

      But it is nice voting in the sanctity of your home, just you and the internet, 1 month prior to election day.  And then when those ads start appearing, simply ignore.  

      By the way, Arnold sure is a shitty actor in his Proposition spots.  

      "Constitutional Crisis Forthcoming"

      by egarratt on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:37:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  prop 92 (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        norm, Ray Radlein, eugene, SecondComing, Boalt

        sets the per-unit rate at $15.

        oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

        The Nexus has you.

        by Dante Atkins on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:39:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Isn't it $20 now (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Radlein

          "Constitutional Crisis Forthcoming"

          by egarratt on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is $20 now... (6+ / 0-)

            I have children who go to the community colleges.  We are sufficiently low income that they always get a fee waiver.  

            But I remember in the old days when community college was free (that was pre-Prop 13).  That is government supporting people attempting to better themselves that we should be supporting.  And since community college is overwhelming those who come from lower income backgrounds, free is the way it ought to be.

            I know that free is not in the cards now, but anything that moves the cost in that direction is going to help a lot of people who would not go otherwise.

            •  Try $100 a credit? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dianem, Valtin

              I live in Idaho, in the largest metro area in the nation (Boise) that has NO community college. The closest one is over the Oregon border 50 miles away.

              Last year, after the uberGOP legislature again failed to help Boise get a CC, a special election was held to start a CC district here. It needed two-thirds approval and got it. The bare-bones version should open this fall.

              $20 a credit? $15? At the handful of other community colleges in Idaho, it's $100+ per credit - still a bargain compared to four-year schools.

              California, you have no idea how lucky you are to have your superb CC system.

            •  So how is it I'm paying $13... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dianem, Mber

              ...per credit at DeAnza this quarter? Plus fees of course but if I was taking a full load (which I'm not - this is just a part-time 3-5 units per quarter certificate program while I work full-time) it would still come out WELL below $20/unit.

              conscietious objector in the battle of the sexes

              by plymouth on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:41:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I went to De Anza! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mber

                (and Foothill) back in the 70s - a lifetime ago. I can't remember what it cost, but I know it was really cheap and affordable to go to a California community college back then - which was why I went there for the first 2 years. No more, I guess...

                With Wes Clark out I guess it's time for me to pay attention to the '08 democratic field

                by everhopeful on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:26:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Quarter system vs semester system is the answer (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dsb, Mber, kimoconnor, lineatus

                I was a teacher at Foothill College for 18 years, so know a little about DeAnza and Foothill--they're in the same district.  Along with the CC in Truckee, they are the only colleges on the quarter system.  It's $20 per semester unit, but $13 per quarter unit.  It works out to roughly the same amount in the end.  

            •  People take it more seriously now (0+ / 0-)

              I'm working on a 2nd bachelor's at a State college, but I wanted to save some money by taking a couple of lower division classes at a local JC. I was impressed by the quality of students and the relatively low dropout rate. Back when it was free people didn't take it that seriously. They would drop out late in the semester, assuming they could just re-enroll again next semester. When you have a few dollars on the line, you're more likely to decide to make that extra effort to finish the class instead of dropping out.

              You vote independent... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

              by dianem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:11:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  And in the early '70s the CSU system (0+ / 0-)

              was 89 dollars per semester for a full load.

              http://blogolodeon2.wordpress.com/

              by LindaR on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  it's bizarre (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shayera

        they start on the closeup so you don't know where the hell he's looking, only then to pull out and show that he's talking to a crowd.  Looks terrible.

        D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

        by dday on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:44:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Default No vote (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ferg, Bensdad

        That is the conclusion I have come to also. And my standard for a "clear Yes" has gotten a lot tougher.

        IMHO, most propositions are too complex to ask citizens to evaluate. Even experienced legislators need professional staffs to inform and advise them. And of course, many propositions are Trojan horses, pretending to do one thing while actually doing another.

        •  Aren't we, collectively, better than professional (0+ / 0-)

          staff?

          Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
          Court certified Marijuana Expert

          by ben masel on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:22:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Default no is not enough work on the voter's part (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kimoconnor

          The initiative system is royally f*&$ed up, as I think most will agree.  However, there are certainly some propositions each cycle that do deserve a yes vote, and more importantly, they can sneak through initiatives where voting no might have the unintended consequence of being exactly what you don't want.

          IMHO, one should abstain rather than simply voting a reflex no unless you have studied the issue.  Also, if nothing else, check the endorsements of a progressive-leaning paper like LA Weekly (I don't think they've published them quite yet) to get an idea of any initiatives that might be worth a yes vote or ones that demand a no vote from progressives because they are sponsored by Greater Wingnutia.  

          [Native Californian -- no longer voting there.]

          •  Great advice (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geotpf, Island Expat, MD

            Also, if nothing else, check the endorsements of a progressive-leaning paper like LA Weekly

            If we work at it, we might get a few people to do what you say. But how are the others deciding how to vote?

            I believe in representative democracy at the scale of a state or the entire nation.

            I also support the right of direct initiative. there have been initiatives that deserved a Yes vote. It's just that it's been way overdone in CA in my adult lifetime, including many initiatives that were highly technical in thier design, deliberately deceptive in their drafting and titling, and ultimately decided on the basis of who could buy the most misleading TV ads, rather than merit or lack thereof. In my opinion, it is unreasonable to ask ordinary citizens to be able to fight through the legal argle-bargle of initiative language to figure out what would really happen if a given initiative were passed or not.

            If you are reading this, you are probably in the top 1% of citizens in terms of political awareness. I am sure that your vote is as well informed as that of most elected legislators. But the other 99% of voters, not so much.

            Maybe I'm an "elitist" for thinking this way. Maybe the drafters of our Consititution were elitists too (they were). But maybe they had a pretty good plan-- personally, I think so.

            •  I like direct representation too, but... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DBunn

              I have found it to go a little off the rails in the California experience.  My favorite situation is when two initiatives on the ballot at the same time cancel each other out, and they both pass!  I don't have a solution (and in fact, I don't live in Cali any more), but I care about the politics having graduated from a UC and my family still largely lives there, but I hope people try to reform the way these initiatives are run.

      •  Be careful... some groups use that in their favor (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Island Expat, kimoconnor

        They set up the bill so that "No" actually accomplishes some nefarious goal, then make it very complicated, knowing that people tend to vote "No" on complicated bills.

        You vote independent... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

        by dianem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:09:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  also (12+ / 0-)

      this ballot measure was put together entirely by students, and it's a manifestation of the people-powered movement you talk about.  It's extremely worthy of a vote.

      None of the others are IMO.

      D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

      by dday on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:43:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A hearty yes! (7+ / 0-)

      As a product of Cali's community college system and as someone who still (wistfully) watches CA's politics, I can't help but endorse the heck out of this measure.  Yes, CCs there are still cheaper there than just about anywhere else in the nation, but that's part of the point.  California's higher education system is one of the best in the world AND they have pretty admirable ways for historically disadvantaged people to actually have a good shot.  I also believe affordable CCs make good business sense in that a higher educated individual most often brings in a higher income, has more disposable income, becomes part of a higher tax base, etc.  No, we shouldn't couch everything in financial terms...but if something will likely work as an investment, that surely should be noted.

      /wishing he was back in California

    •  it's not just about the fees (9+ / 0-)

      Prop 92 sets up separate funding for the community college system. Right now their funding is bundled in with the K-12 school system, and whenever the budget is tight (which would be every year), the community colleges get the short end of the budget stick.

      This means that the colleges now can't hire as many permanent faculty and staff as are needed (and as I believe are required by statute), and so there is a huge number of part-time temporary (adjunct) faculty with no job security, predictable schedule, or benefits.

      Unfortunately, some in the K-12 and CSU system see this proposition as an indirect threat to their funding, and are opposed.

      •  It is Certainly A Lot More than Fees (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Love and Death, highacidity, Mber, Penman

        and what happened in 2003 demonstrates the reason why there needs to be limitations on raising student fees in community colleges by the State and why the community college system should be categorized separately from K-12 (as currently done by Prop. 98).

        In prop. 98, there currently is a "loophole" if you will, where the state gives a two year I.O.U. when it can't pay up to amount of funds required by Prop. 98--guess which got the brunt of the most of the I.O.U.?  And two years later, the amount is significantly less due to inflation--while there's yet another two year I.O.U.

        Then in 2003, when California had its budget crisis, Davis proposed raising the student fees while at the same time, in effect making significant cuts to community colleges.  There also was a penalty provision where any high school student that attends a community college class could not be counted twice, and that a decision was made to retroactively penalize community colleges that counted high school students as their full FTE--the end result?  Not only within a year later, student fees were raised from $11 to $24 (more than twice the rate) but what students got was significantly late.  Also unlike the CSU's and UC's, community college fees (all of them) go directly to the state--the state then funds community colleges based on number of students.  

        What ended up happening is whether or not a student qualified for financial aid, or the student that's just above but barely scrapping by in a recession got less for their buck for education--less student services, less instructors, less hours computer labs and libraries were open, less resources in labs, counseling, libraries, etc.  While CSU's and UC's raised student fees to continue to maintain their quality of education, community colleges had no choice but to cut via the state funding while the state required students to pay twice as much!

        That's where Prop. 92 began to be proposed by the community college system.  Most community colleges in California are suffering--outside of state funding there's district funding, but some districts have a better tax base than others (and Prop. 13 from years ago undermined the quality of all levels of education)--most however in the poorer areas have had to face such harsh cuts that there may be no real career center, libraries with only one full time librarian with a FTE of over 5,000 students, computers that have not been updated in years, and computer support IT that is WAY understaffed.

        Prop. 92 will at least better guarantee that community colleges will at least have a more stable funding base, provide necessary autonomy where the state does not play favorites between the community colleges and K-12, and also has provisions that take into account the state of the economy--as community colleges is where people go for certification and retraining--community colleges is also the higher ed. availability for students who need second and third chances in their "at risk" status, provide counseling and direction to many, and provide necessary certification for needed professions such as the nursing and health professions.

        I'm well versed in all this as I'm a librarian at a community college and observe all this--

        given all this I understand the California Teachers' Association skepticism (if comm. colleges are in a separate category then K-12 would solely on its own take any two year I.O.U. hit) and higher ed. institutions are worried because the separate category also requires a certain degree of funding that there'd be a higher required percentage for K-14 combined.

        But if it's status quo, community colleges will take yet another hit again and the state will raise student fees because unlike a traditional tax, it only takes a 50% plus one vote . . .

        believe me, I'd rather the California initiative process be radically revised, but as it stands, and as long as Prop. 13 is on the books, community colleges are asking for at least adequate, and STABLE funding--right now, it's not--and lots of basic services get funded annually with one time funds--when those one time funds go away, important functions go away.

    •  Please vote NO (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geotpf, dianem, mauricehall, dpryan

      This is just another initiative that further ties the hands of the legislature.  The legislature should have the latitude to assign funds as they see fit.  There are all kinds of ideas that seem worthy of money, and people vote for them, only to end up tying up all the state's money.  

      Something like 40% of the state budget is already allocated before the legislature even gets to look at it.  Life is about having to make sacrifices sometimes, and these BS ballot initiatives limit the ability to do that when it's necessary.  

      Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

      by Asak on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:58:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is a GOOD thing (6+ / 0-)

        See a comment below about why the state budget needs to be allocated this way, and why the legislature should NOT have the ability to make unilateral cuts. Until the legislature is willing to finally do something about Prop 13 those limits must stay.

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:03:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's bad as a matter of principle (0+ / 0-)

          We don't know what is going to happen in the future.  Tying up a bunch of money that is mandated for stuff like education could be a disaster.  It will mean that cuts will come from other services, that depending on the situation may not be a wise move.

          Also, community colleges have their own ability to get stuff placed on the ballot.  Our local community college got a bond placed on our property tax and fixed themselves up.  They are hardly helpless to help themselves through other means.  

          Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

          by Asak on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:13:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That is their job! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MahFellaMerkins

          I mean, isn't that what legislators are supposed to do? Make law and budgets?

          01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR

          by kimoconnor on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:29:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The comment I refer to (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:04:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  then you need to repeal prop 98 for K-12 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tmo

        When Old Prop 98 passed some years ago, minimum funding was guaranteed for K-12. Since the state govt can't go after K-12, they instead have increased fees and cut funding at community colleges during budget crunches.

        Prop 92 only gives community colleges the same treatment as K-12 currently enjoy.

    •  No on 92!!! (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmo, cos, dsb, Geotpf, dianem, SyntaxFeline

      Despite the good intentions behind this initiative, it will only create another funding mess down the road.  The losers will be the University of California and, especially, the California State University system.  

      What this initiative will do is lock in funding for the CC system.  We're entering an uncertain future in California right now vis-a-vis funding (think of the shrinking tax base created by a downturn in the mortgage market, for starters).  The state's revenues are going to shrink.  If you sign into law a requirement that the community colleges get a guaranteed portion of the state funds, that money will come from somewhere else, and I don't mean prisons.  Once again, social services, libraries, and community mental health will take it on the chin.  But the easiest budgets to cut will be for the big UC system (which includes Berkeley and UCLA) and the more than two dozen campuses of the California State University system.  

      OK, full disclosure:  I'm a CSU professor and member of the union (California Faculty Association).  Obviously, I'm pro-education at all levels, and California's system used to be the pride of the country.  In tough times, however, you need to share the pain, not start squeezing one end to guarantee a mandated fiscal requirement at another.  Yes, you may lock down the Community College system's affordability, but hold your hat when you see what the inevitable fee increases will be in the other two systems.  

      •  It may not be just fees (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mauricehall

        As you know, it will be revenues to campuses, and all non-administrative staff will be hit.  I'm in my 6th year at a CSU, and I have a PhD.  Had I a MA at a CC in my 6th year, I'd be making more than I am now.  CCs are not doing well.  But the CSU is in huge trouble, too.

        What a mess we're in vis a' vis education.    

        •  Yup (0+ / 0-)

          You said it. And we've got a real doozy for a Chancellor -- a man whose contempt for university professors is thinly veiled, at best.  I'm not looking forward to a possible return of the belt-tightening days of the early 90s, when whole programs were discontinued or put into the administrative deep freeze until later in the decade.  

    •  Skyrocketed? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geotpf

      At our local community college the cost is $20/unit, and they have fee waivers if you can't afford to pay.  Even if you took 15 units, that would add up to $300. Anybody who isn't willing to pay that much is not really committed to getting an education. Community college is not unaffordable. It's the best bargain in town.

      You vote independent... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

      by dianem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:07:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      All 92 does is say "You can't cut funds there, so you'll have to cut them somewhere else".  Problem is, they are running out of "somewhere else"s to cut because of all the similar propositions over the years, and they can't raise taxes since it takes a two thirds vote to pass a budget and the Republicans (who always have more than a third) won't let them.

      Plus, it caps fees at a low $15 a unit, not indexed for inflation, making the budget even worse-permanently.

      So, even more shit goes on the credit card, which merely passes on the problem to our children, with the added bonus of all that interest.

      The solution is to eliminate the two thirds requirement for passing a budget, although that will never happen either.  But 92 just makes it worse.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site