While I apologize for the length of this post, I find the content fascinating and believe that it is worth a careful read and a subsequent discussion.

What length? Nothing's there!

Ok, so its not just me.

"What length? Nothings there!" ROFLMAO!!!

California isn't dead so I'm not sure what there is to discuss.

Video killed the radio star.

Very good read. Obviously, we need to learn from other States' mistakes, but don't stop at CA...also look at MI, NY, and MA. For example, MA enacted universal health care; their budget estimates were 200 million a year, and it ended up costing 700 million. People seem to completely disregard current statistics and history.

healthcare totally bankrupted all of those other countries too

"California may not be able to save itself from catastrophe"
If it still has the capacity to save itself, no one killed California.

While it seems to me that you are splitting hairs, given the magnitude of the problem, I suggest that it is the long term inability to grasp the basics of the problems which has led the state to flounder about while grasping at straws for solutions. Whether it is dead or not, it seems to be on life support...and this article is quite incisive at not only the core issues but possible solutions... and especially non-solutions.

California's struggling - has been for a while. Schwarzenegger knew exactly what he was getting into and hasn't done any better than Grey Davis.
The article suggests that California needs a Guiliani type revival - but New York City has 10% unemployment and faces major budget deficits, so I don't see that suggestion as terribly inspired.

"Two years after Prop. 98, voters compounded the problem by passing Proposition 111, effectively eviscerating a requirement known as the "Gann Limit," which had imposed a spending cap on state government subject to adjustments for inflation and population growth. The proposition was a bit of a bait-and-switch, focusing primarily on a gas-tax increase that was sold as a panacea for California's notorious traffic woes. But with the changes to the Gann Limit buried deep in Prop. 111's fine print, the measure passed — and meaningful fiscal restraints were removed. Spending subsequently exploded, and governors Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger each oversaw increases in the state's general fund of more than 30%."

I hold no allegiance to the current Gov. nor did I vote for him or belong to the same party but from the get go Gov. Schwarzenegger has said stop spending and start cutting. Since he is the political figure head he naturally gets the finger points for the States problems but as the article suggests the majority of the blame rests with it's out of control Legislature. The first time the Gov. tried to make serious cuts you might as well have painted him a murderer, lol, because people screamed bloody murder. Most of us became so accustomed to our welfare state that the benefit of so many subsidies became a right and not the privileges granted by the state that they are. Now with the national crisis we're feeling it even harder. As the aritcle suggests the Gov. did give up too soon but IMO he deserves a lot more credit for trying to move us in the right direction early on. The people and the Legislature were only going to give up their goody bags over their dead bodies. LOL, that reminds me of the I Love Lucy/Mink Coat episode. "Give me that coat or I'll shoot" (Lucy rolls up the coat) "Okay go ahead and shoot". Well we wanted the bullet now we have to bite it.

"The last several decades have seen the emergence of no-growth ­environmentalism in California — advanced by activists intent on restraining economic development, and championed by politicians eager to appear enlightened. Admittedly, this impulse has legitimate origins in the state's unique character: After all, millions have chosen to make California their home precisely because of its abundant natural beauty, and it is easy to see why they would want to preserve it. But today's environmentalism is a long way from old-fashioned conservation. The mindset that began with John Muir's efforts to turn Yosemite into a national park has devolved into a reflexive urge to impede the gears of commerce at every turn."

Well if you stop to consider that Los Angeles has no business existing where it does and an agriculture system that consumes 80% of the states fresh water because it insists on converting desert into farmland by drinking far off lush valleys dry until they're nothing but salt flats you can not blame citizens for observing the abuse and destruction of their state and saying hey hold on a minute let's take a breath here. Now I don't believe in no-growth but what we need is smart growth after so many decades of ignorant growth. I think what most no-growthers want is a moment of pause to figure out more intelligent ways to grow the State at this point. Yes the reality of that is it does hurt developers right now but developers come and go the State is here to stay.

As for issues relating to the California coast yes I agree the CCC has overstepped legally from time to time. The greater issue IMO however is the War between elite developments and the people. With small exception the beaches are for the people and has happened all to often is people who live in these large coastal developments have tried to keep the people from enjoying the beach saying it's private property when in fact they can't do that. Many court cases have been decided in favor of the people and in some cases developments have been made to provide walk ways/paths through their developments so the people can get to the beach.

California is certainly ill but dead is a stretch IMO. She'll reform her ways hopefully sooner than later but that all depends on the people making smart decisions and just like the individual who has to get rid of cable, expensive daily morning lattes and down grade their car to make ends meet so does the State.

If California was an independent nation it would be the 8th largest economy in the world, yet it is very well heading in the direction of being the first state in our union to fail as a state. It is the same old story of good intensions trumping fiscal realities. A state has to determine how much revenue it can reasonably generate without hurting the economy, and put their spending within that spectrum. In addition like any responsible family, a reserve has to exist to cover nor only unforeseen expenses, but also the possibility that a downturn in the economy will mean les revenue. California with its high business taxes, excessive regulation has managed to not only stifle economic growth, but is succeeding in driving existing companies out of the state to friendlier jurisdictions. It should be a “poster child” to not only other state officials, but our federal elected and appointed representatives. Yes the federal government can print money, but they are not printing wealth. If I have a pound of gold, and give 100 people 10 shares each, then each share = 1/1000 of a pound of gold. If I decide to double the amount of shares well, I have not created 2 pounds of gold. All I have done is reduce the value of each share from 1/1000 of a share to 1/2000 of a share. A nation's money supply represents a nations GDP, if the amount of new money put into circulation exceeds the amount of increase of the GDP, that excess is called “inflation”. It reduces the value of our currency compared to other nation’s currency. If you put money into our national market 30 days ago you would have seen an increase in value of about 5%. That same money put into an international equity fund would have seen an increase of 80%. Most of that difference is caused by the devaluation of the dollar to against the currencies of the G-8. That dichotomy will only get worse, as we go deeper into debt, and continue to print money as we need it.

The greater point, sadly, as Grandpa points out, is the direct relationship of the situation in California to the rest of the country.
There is little in President Obama's legislative agenda that hasn't already been tried in California. Need a model of runaway spending with no regard for growing debt? Look to California, whose bonds currently hover just above junk status. Want to insist on restrictive carbon-emission controls? Note the example of California's 2006 greenhouse-gas law, which is expected to reduce the state's economic output by 10% and destroy 1.1 million jobs. Want to put the government in charge of health care? Look at California's repeated legislative pushes for a single-payer system of health-insurance coverage, each of which ended in failure.
While this is not a simple condemnation of any administration or governmental point of view, this article is incisive in suggesting the changes which MUST be made in order to survive. It also suggests something which we cannot probably comprehend: there is no likelihood of them being made.
Without making these hard choices, things will become much worse, although that is hard to believe. In any case, I think that it is justifiable to suggest that waiting and doing nothing will not result in a return to the good old days of spending and excess. If you want to see a model of what not to do in education and government, one has to look no further than California for very bad examples.

"Look at California's repeated legislative pushes for a single-payer system of health-insurance coverage, each of which ended in failure."

I don't see how California's inability to get a single payer system is a condemnation of anything the Obama administration is doing (Obama doesn't want single payer, and how can a non-existent policy prove that such a program wouldn't work?)

The thing that the article DOES get right, is they way the way the budget gets passed. It takes a 2/3 majority to pass a budget, something which is incredibly difficult. That is a HUGE problem! Plus, it takes a 2/3 majority to adjust taxes. Again, this cripples the legislature.

That coupled with the ability of citizens to vote for Props that they have no idea where the funding is coming from is a terrible idea. It is just a bad system for planning a budget.

I think people like to condemn California because they think it is liberal mecca, but they forget that Orange County is a HUGE conservative haven. We have had many powerful Republicans come from CA, like Reagan, etc. Much of the state is rural, and leans conservative.

I think it is completely misrepresentative to act like this is an example of a liberal run state when our Republican California organization is soooo powerful and strong.

Jill makes an excellent point: "That coupled with the ability of citizens to vote for Props that they have no idea where the funding is coming from is a terrible idea. It is just a bad system for planning a budget."

Kinda like voting for a stimulus bill you haven't read, or a health care bill. isn't it?

I agree on the issue of propositions. I wish that there was some way to force proposition sponsors to represent their prop more genuinely sort of like recent regulation on food packaging that makes manufacturers basically tell the truth or close to it.

I recall that one proposition on insurance (in Cal) in the 90's which was purposefully confused by several alternative propositions placed by those who didn't want the good issue to pass. The added propositions sounded good until you read the whole thing.
Sadly, many people didn't read the whole thing, but simply went to the polls. Legislators are aware that most people just read the description and they take advantage.
Therefore making it complicated works to their advantage every time...without public outcry.

You are right, there are a lot of conservative ares in california, but isnt it crazy that they have little representation. districting in california is a huge joke.
Governors have a line item veto on the budget, why are they too afraid to use it. if they really wanted to slash the budget, they could no so easily. Problem is that most politicians in california are dirty and care only about their pet projects and how to get them passed. votes are traded all the time. No one wants their programs to be cut, so I say takes 10% off the top of EVERY program. I mean EVERY. No exceptions, take 5% of that to do heavy audits to eliminate HUGE excess overhead within each department. I don't know why we cannot just have medi-cal in california instead we have to have at least 4 different insurance plans. The biggest problem is CCS... These types of programs require their own overhead and administrative costs which could be eliminated completely if they just lumped them together. California is a big fat joke...
And I am still totally laughing at someone trying to act like conservatives have any say in california.

I don't know if I would say the problems are dirty California politicians vs. overly compassionate. Ca.'s fiscal problems are deep rooted in endless subsidies and good to society programs which are nice and well intended but we simply can not afford to sustain them all. Then we compounded the problems by trying to find clever ways to fund them only to dig ourselves into a deeper hole.

Schwarzenegger surely hasn't helped it out since he's been there. Now he wants to try harder...TO LATE!

Well Pink, considering that he is a lame duck and most people would just roll over and take it, I actually am impressed right now by him which is a first. And it is never too late. Maybe that is the problem with california politics, people cannot look past the label. fort helove of god, partisanship is bad enough in national politics. I think it is so funny that on our local ballots, no one gives a crap if you are republican or democrat, but suddenly when it comes to the state, it matters.

"And I am still totally laughing at someone trying to act like conservatives have any say in california"

Uh, yeah, that was rude.

Obama won only 61% of the vote in 2008, and that was the highest for a democrat in any election since 1936.

Since 1903, we have elected 15 Republican Governors, and only 5 Democrats.

Are you sure you still want to be laughing?

ummm yeah.....

15 Republican Governors in the past 100 years yet Conservatives have no say?

50 dems in the CA assembly vs 28 repubs....
25 dems in the state senate vs 15 repubs...
the Orange county stronghold of republicans has to share their district with the democrat strongholds in the LA Basin and hollywood, thats not fishy.
District 18 for example encompasses another republican stronghold that they gave 1 rep for "is geographically the largest in California. It includes California's agricultural homeland, Kern and Tulare Counties, the desert communities of Inyo County and the mountains of San Bernardino County. " 45% of californians are registered democrats versus 34% republican So based on those numbers do you think it is fair to see twice as many dems in the assembly? and nearly twice as many in the state senate??

How about nearly twice the amount of dems representing our state in the house of representatives.

And, I don't know how to make you understand that there is more to a state than governnors.
I live in California, and so unless you are residing in California, you don't really understand how California politics work. The fact that we have had so many republican governors means NOTHING. First off, I am not talking historically republicans have had no say, I just mean now, in my lifetime. Honestly, casting my vote for president is pointless.... And this little map here will show that a good part of California is red... but yet we have a clear minority in EVERYTHING in California. And aside from actors, if you are a republican trying to run for office, I wish you luck because the way that California districting works, the odds are definitely not in yourfavor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CA2008House.svg

I agree Hainan57 the district lines do favor democrats that's just a fact that we really can't do much about until demographics change in your favor. In Presidential elections a clear majority of Ca. counties reporting electoral votes are (red) counties however they are trumped by the higher number of (blue) population in the Bay Area, Los Angeles Co. and San Diego Co.

And the worse thing is that since the political control lies in those areas hypno, the others counties get screwed. Any of our issues are swept under the rug. Thank you very much Hypno for an unbiased view of things.