From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:55:08 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <55783@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>, davepat@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com
(Dave Patterson) wrote:

> > Ah, I see.  So you don't hold Democrats responsible AT ALL?  You would
> > rather blame the executive?  Okay...
> 
> I think you're making a Large Generalization here.  I didn't say anything
> like that.  Everyone is to blame, Democrats AND REPUBLICANS.  However,
> the LEADERSHIP is where I have a larger problem.  If the Captain of
> a ship wants to run into an iceberg because he thinks that his ship
> will withstand anything, and proceeds to do so, don'tcha think he's
> going a little bit too far?  The people on board don't have much of
> a choice; yes, they must make do with what they've got, but they should
> at least try to survive, rather than let it happen.  You know: Mutiny.

Sure, but to use your ship of state analogy: let's suppose you're the
captain.  In a perfect world, the captain calls the shots.  His word is the
final word.  He asks his officers for input and makes his decision based on
the information.  If it fails, he is at fault.  Okay, so let's say you add
a special "council" that the captain has to go to in order to make these
decisions.  Now a situation comes up, and the captain gets input from his
officers, but now he has to go to the council.  They say, "I don't think
so."  So now his authority is twarted, although he is the one everyone is
looking to to make the tough call.  So he modifies his plan a little bit
and they still reject it.  But, HE IS THE CAPTAIN.  It should be his call. 
They should adivse him, but not stand in his way.

You're right: leadership is needed.  You need to also demand it of people
like Foley and Mitchell and Willie Brown.  People expect the
President/Governor to be fully responsible for the ship of state, but they
don't want to give him control of that ship.  It's a bad situation to be
in.  Captain Kirk wouldn't have lived if he had to get everything approved
by a "council!"  ;-)
 
> > So, okay, you're the Gov'nr.  What would YOU do?  To pay for services, you
> > have to have money.  To get money, you have to raise taxes.  
> 
> Yes, and no.  Yes, you COULD raise taxes.  Where you raise taxes is an
> issue.  Most Republican types will assume that Democrats will raise
> taxes on the "little people", eg. you and me.  Most Democrat types
> will assume that raising taxes will mean the "big people", eg. big
> business and rich people.  I am for a little more of the latter, and 
> a bit of the former.  How?  If you've ever been to Seattle, WA, and
> stayed in a hotel there, you'd know, as a tourist, that the tax there
> was rather high.  How high?  There is a "tourist tax" at all hotels
> there.  The state sales tax rate is around 8.5%, (this was last year),
> and the "tourist tax" is another 3% on top of that.  How is that 
> implemented?  When you stay at a hotel, you are charged 11.5% tax.
> That's it.  Where does this money go?  From what I was told, this
> tax was used to improve Seattle's highways, a new floating bridge,
> improvements to the Science Center, (I think that's what it's called),
> where the Space Needle is, and "other improvements".

How has the tax affected hotel businesses and tourism in general?

> Now, from your .sig, I know you might be next door to me, (in Cupertino).
> You know there's a lot of tourists in the Bay Area, and lots of Business
> tours and functions in Silicon Valley.  This kind of a tax could raise
> LOTS of money without denting the people who live here, (unless you
> decide to stay in a hotel here, but that might be never for some people).
> Since all hotels in California would be affected, (and you could extend
> this to other areas, such as 
> 
> > When they raised taxes last time, people began to leave the state.  
> 
> It seems to me that there's a hell of a lot more people here now than
> ever before, (and I've lived here all of my life; third generation
> San Franciscan, how about you?).  Besides, I wouldn't mind if a few
> more people left anyway, there's too many nuts on the roads these 
> days...

Sure, but what TYPE of people are here?  Are they *employers* or
*employees*?  Are they *educated* or *uneducated*?  It seems to be that
more businesses are fleeing the state (and San Fran in particular).

Where am I from?  Born in San Mateo, left for Upstate New York at the
beginning of High School and moved back in 1985.  I am here only because
Apple is here.  New York is a fine example of a state and city run
completely by Democrats that has been FUBAR for quite some time now.  I
can't even believe that they want that man as President!  I've been there,
I have lived there and it ain't pretty.

> > More importantly, COMPANIES began to leave the state. When employers 
> > leave the state, you lose revenue.  When employees lose jobs, you lose 
> > more revenues.
> 
> No disagreement here.  But, with huge cuts to the Educational Budget,
> how do you expect to get Educated, (read here: *Qualified*), employees
> FROM CALIFORNIA, to get hired?

You'll note that they aren't *cutting* education, but rather cutting how
much of an INCREASE to give education.  And, we spend more money than most
states and still put out morons.  Thank God I was able to attend high
school in New York before Cuomo messed up the budget.  It's still a great
system, however.  This state's schools were terrible to me.  I went to JW
Fair in San Jose.  It was a prison.  Barbed wire, cops, drug dealers, gang
action.  If it were not for the fact that the African-American students and
the Latin-American students hated each other and ignored us Celtic-American
students, I'd have never made any sort of educational points.
 
> > So I ask you, what is Dave's magic formula for the government of
> > California?
> 
> There's no "magic formula".  That's *exactly* the problem with Gov. 
> Wilson.  He thinks he can make EVERYTHING better in one fell swoop.  
> It ain't gonna happen.  When you've had eight years of Deukmejian fucking 
> things up so badly, and two more of Wilson's incompetence, not to mention 
> the 12 years of the Federal Governments bungling, you've got BIG problems
> here.

I'll agree with you, but in a different way: the Governor screwed up last
time by making a deal with the Democrats and raising taxes.  This was
stupid and should NEVER have been done.  Now he's losing companies like
Apple who see greener pastures elsewhere.  Let me put it this way: I can
buy a house most anywhere but California.

> > Here you talk about not giving him more power, when it seems you're giving
> > him all the blame.  If you wish to put ALL of the blame on him, give him
> > the reins.
> 
> If this thing passes, you shouldn't complain when funding for X gets cut,
> and you're directly affected.  Don't you want a say in what gets funded?
> That's where your representatives come in.  They are supposed to represent
> you in government.  Call your representatives, and let them know how you
> feel, (about all of this).  Get as much information as you can, and when
> they don't do something, or if you feel you are not being represented
> accurately, use your vote in November.  After all THEY are working for YOU,
> not the other way 'round.

Sure, but I elect a LEADER to make the tough calls. And if I don't like
what he has done, I don't vote for him again.  That's why we have an
executive.  Sure, I might call up the governor and say "Hey, Pete, we need
that money."  But if he feels he's right and I'm wrong, he gets to make the
call: that's his job.  Then I can hold him directly responsible for what
happens.  No more finger pointing.  Why else have an executive?

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!