From: davepat@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Dave Patterson)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:19:14 GMT
Distribution: ca

Subject: Re: Recall Gov. Pete Wilson
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Distribution: ca

In article <athos-180892231500@kip2-7.apple.com>, athos@apple.com 
(Rick Eames) wrote:
> In article <55767@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>, davepat@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com
> (Dave Patterson) wrote:
 
>>>What I would really like to know is why on earth are you just going after
>>>the Governor?  This is part of the "Blame the Executive Branch" mode of
>>>thinking that seems to hold our country in this death grip.  
 
>> As I've stated before, this "blame the Executive Branch-mode of thinking"
>> is NOT what has our country in a death grip, it's the old whining started
>> by Ronald Reagan:
>> 
>> "It's the Democrat's fault!"
>> 
>> Reagan started it, Bush made it fashionable, and now Wilson is trying
>> to emulate Bush.  

> 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.

>> It is a LACK of LEADERSHIP at these top posts which is currently driving
>> our state, (not to mention, the country), down.  Everyone wishes to
>> "pass the buck" when it comes to fault.  No one is willing to, at least,
>> try to fix it.  Wilson has consistently failed to come to a compromise
>> when it comes to education, health issues, and welfare issues.  To 
>> senselessly cut programs which are desperately needed in a state which
>> is in a depression, (yes, I said depression: current figures are *very*
>> similar to those experienced in the '30s), is wrong, unethical, and
>> immoral.  The longer Wilson waits on the budget gives him more time to 
>> blame the Democrats, which creates anger in the electorates.  He does 
>> not have to worry about November, (as the members of the Legislature
>> are up for re-election in the fall), because his term is up in 1994.

> 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".

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...

The budget is also dependent on how much money they think they'll 
raise by how many people they think are in the state, (or will be
in the state), in the coming year.  Maybe they shouldn't shoot at 
such a high target, maybe lowering it a bit might help, too. 

> 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?

> 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.

It can't be solved with one budget.

>> And, another tidbit:  Prop 165, (coming in Nov, authored by Wilson), 
>> is a proposition which gives the Governor "greater fiscal responsibility" 
>> in creating the state's budget.  We feel that this would give the 
>> Governor way too much power when it comes to creating a budget.  If you 
>> wish to have stupid kids, poor health care, and many more homeless people
>> than there exists now, vote yes on it.  If you want responsible 
>> government, fiscal responsibility shared by all of YOUR representatives,
>> (ie. YOU have more of a say in where the tax dollars go), then you had 
>> better vote this one down, because this is Wilson's reaction to the
>> Legislature, and you.
 
> 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.

-Dave Patterson

= #include <disclaimer.h> ===============================================
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||    |      "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy!     |
| |||                        |||    |       Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy!     |
|     o l i v e t t i  a t c        |       Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy!     |
|                                   |          - Ren & Stimpy           |
================ {ucbvax, etc.}!hplabs!flash!davepat ====================