Asymmetrical Information

You can only recall those politicians in states where recalls are allowed under their constitutions. How many are those? California has had this amendment in its constitution for, what, a hundred years? And how many times has a succesful recall ocurred in that time? Once? Twice? Zero?

Unless, you find me better evidence, I see no slippery slope here. And if Californians don't like it, they can take it off the constitution.

Bah. Low bond ratings? We Californians laugh at your wussy New York bond traders thinking they can scare us into solvency.

Next step: California will start issuing its own currency. And remember, all national trends start first in California!

Jane;
The crisis may not have been entirely of his making but, in each case he has made the situation worse by refusing to show any leadership. The electricty crisis started the summer before the blackouts started. He ignored the writing on the wall and refused to do anything. When the blackouts started he sat on his hands and said the legislature needed to come up with a plan. When he ran for reelection he lied about the extent of the budget problems. After the election he refused to force the legislature to act on it. This is not the type of leadership that we need in this crisis.

I suspect that if you looked at those petitions and checked the voting registration of the signers, a lot of them would turn out to be Democrats--that's why this recall effort has had legs. If the California Democratic leadership admits this to themselves and comes up with a credible alternative to Davis for the recall election to run against Issa, Ah-nuld, or whoever else the Republicans run, they'll win going away, and the only cost will be destroying and humiliating Davis. From what I've seen, that's not really going to be a dealbreaker for a lot of California Democrats.

What could Davis have done about the electricity crisis? I can't really think of anything.

According to news reports, California has never had a recall election, but there have been 30-odd attempts in the past (that didn't get enough signatures, I guess).

The new governor (assuming the recall wins) will probably propose raising the number of signatures required for future recalls. Currently, the California constitution says you need 12% of the number of votes cast for candidates for that position. Maybe they'll raise it to 25% or so, which would mean another recall like this would require close to 2 million signatures.

I agree that California ends up suffering more than Davis will, but right now California is suffering and Davis is not. Spread the pain! More seriously, getting a new governor is probably the fastest way to fixing things, given how much trouble Davis seems to be having. Of course, whoever wins shouldn't count on a second term...

What could Davis have done about the electricity crisis? I can't really think of anything.

Jason, how about doing what he did do, after far too long: allowing retail rates to rise?

“We Californians laugh at your wussy New York bond traders thinking they can scare us into solvency.”

Sadly, you are only half joking. California is a very arrogant state that feels it has a right to steal energy from its surrounding neighbors. Many of California’s current troubles are due to a mindset that its citizens can live in the land of make-believe and ignore reality. This almost certainly explains why there was a failure to build new energy plants.

A state that elects a Democrat majority is a loser. The Party of the Donkey embraces economic reactionarism which results in a smaller pie for everyone. Nobody told the Californian majority to vote Democrat. They now have only themselves to blame for their foolishness.

How screwed up is California? Victor Davis Hanson has just released his excellent “Mexifornia---A State of Becoming.” The radical California Left has encouraged racial and ethnic divisiveness. These people hate America. This crisis is only getting worse. Oh well, that’s what happens when you vote for Democrat candidates.

"Jason, how about doing what he did do, after far too long: allowing retail rates to rise?"

Uh, and how would that help anything? The prices went haywire because the power providers were gaming the system.

Jason, while there certainly was system-gaming going on, if retail prices had floated, prices could not have risen as high as they did. Rising prices would have curtailed demand, and shifted some usage into non-peak times. Since the system was set up to price all bids for a given period to the highest marginal rate, even small shifts in demand could have had big effects on price. At the very, very least, it would have curtailed the amount of power that was consumed at such high prices, lowering the overall debt. But I think any energy economist you talk to will agree that, regardless of how much you think the power suppliers gamed the system (and the excess profits they've been charged with are, as far as I know, only a fraction of what was spent on electricity during the crisis), the controlled retail price was what allowed the system-gaming to occur.

In every situation where thought was needed Davis has consistently chosen the worst possible solution. The default choice for him and his ilk has always been to throw taxpayer funds at the problem, even when that would only have the effect of buying off some legislative votes rather than plugging the hole. The hole remains but the newly enriched complainers are silenced.

Most of us here in California know this recall isn't going to change much but it will have one very desirable effect: Davis' career will be at an end. The DNC will not give him the time of day in his pursuit of higher offices. This is a worthy goal in of itself.

The LLL hold on this state will continue though. One of the things they're plotting is reversing the portion of Prop. 13 that requires a 75% majority to enat new taxes. They want to get it down to 55%. Since our districts are arranged in such a way as to guarantee a Democrat majority this pretty gives the state government the ability to seize it citizen's every asset at will. Apparently the pattern of businesses fleeing the state is seen as desirable by those in office. At the current rate within twenty years there will be no businesses left in California other than agriculture and its support structure. In other words, those that cannot relocate to more economically hospitable climes.

Another very interesting aspect of this recall is the pattern of where the signatures emanate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-recall23jul23001428,1,3892002.story

Click on the graphic for the chart.

The overwhelming majority of the signatures came from Southern California. In many ways this is shaping up into a showdown between the South and the socialist enclaves of the North. Maybe the idea of splitting the state in two will be revived. I used to find the idea repugnant but if the North is determined to maintain an economic death spiral we rational folks in the South want to get off this ride.

Actually, David, I was completely joking. But where do you get this:

"A state that elects a Democrat majority is a loser. The Party of the Donkey embraces economic reactionarism which results in a smaller pie for everyone. Nobody told the Californian majority to vote Democrat. They now have only themselves to blame for their foolishness."

I hate to break it to you, but regardless of our current crisis, California is the economic engine of the country and has been for quite a while. In fact, high-tax blue states outperform all those conservative red states by a pretty fair margin.

You may not like all our Democratic foolishness, but the evidence on the ground indicates that it actually works pretty well....

"In fact, high-tax blue states outperform all those conservative red states by a pretty fair margin."

Of course, those states were prosperous long before the nanny state came along--a more likely explanation is that a rich state economy is a ripe target for the taxers, who can argue "Why complain? You've got plenty." Of course, when things get rough, the soothing reassurances become harsh screeches: "You successful people aren't paying enough--greedy bastards!" The end result--a lot of businesses are moving to Arizona and Nevada, and California is looking at one heck of a lot of red ink.

“You may not like all our Democratic foolishness, but the evidence on the ground indicates that it actually works pretty well....”

Aren’t you talking about the past? Didn’t you really mean to write “it actually once upon a time did work pretty well?” California has gone downhill since electing Democrats to govern the state. It needs to vote in a Republican administration badly.

Indeed. The predators cast their eyes first of the fat prey that isn't paying attention to anything but its appetite. The skinny ones with the constant wary glances are too much work.

California is highly influential on the rest of thecounry's finances, which is why more people should be concerned at the increasingly socialist government that is doing everything possible to pour sand in that economic engine.

Kevin, the current evidence is that the Democratic foolishness DOESN'T work very well, unless our goal is to place the stat in receivership. That might actually be a good idea since it would take much of the financial control away the the idiots in Sacramento. That's one little detail the spendthrifts haven't figured on. At the state level debts can be enforced and the federal government can give the reins to a financial institution if the idiots drive us into a default. It may be the first time in US history a state is found to be too stupid to be entrusted with the results of its own elections.

You may not like all our Democratic foolishness, but the evidence on the ground indicates that it actually works pretty well.

The northeastern states have been the economic powerhouse of the nation for about a century and a half, Kevin, during which time it has been variously Republican and Democratic. Certainly its relative importance to the nation's economy has declined dramatically in the post-WW2 years of solidly Democratic control, though.

California is an economic powerhouse because of its weather -- the growing seasons on the one hand, and the willingness of people to put up with all manner of governmental bullshit for the right to live here. The Democratic Party's failure to completely strangle the state's economy is a testimony to the power of warm weather and clear skies, not to the power of the Party's platform. :)

I don't know, ask Michigan how they feel about Engler. When a county as rich and republican as Oakland goes Gore in the 2k election you have to believe there is some profound dissatisfaction with the way the man ran the state.

Those who wish to get the lowdown on the players in this drama should spend some time reading the articles at Jill Stewart's site. She is easily in the top 5 of journalists covering California politics and more readable than most.

http://www.jillstewart.net/index.html

From a purely libertarian perspective, it seems to me the best government that California can get is one that is so deadlocked that it is immobilized, thereby leaving the citizens alone. I will be voting to recall Davis and for the most intransigent Republican on the ticket. The, just maybe, with a huge Democratic majority in the legislature, no further damage can be done for awhile. If we get really lucky, there will be no funds available to keep the government schools open and they can be privatized.

"Nobody told the Californian majority to vote Democrat. They now have only themselves to blame for their foolishness."

Blame the Republicans. Every time we have an election they run the most right-wing nutjob they can find. The kind that wants to ban abortion, outlaw homosexuals, and teach creationism in schools. It's no wonder Republicans get trounced year after year in California.

The next time you hear about some whacked out piece of legislation coming out of Sacramento you can blame the Republicans. If they would reach around and pull their heads out of their collective asses then we Californians wouldn't have to vote Democratic so often and those idiot liberals up north wouldn't have so much power.

It sounds like you've been paying more attention to the Democratic smear campaigns more than the actual GOP candidates. What you've described doesn't fit any Republican candidate for a major office I've noticed in the last decade.

It does demonstrate how completely nuts the standards in this state have become. A politician who doesn't support granting gays special priviliges above and beyond the rest of the populace is portrayed as a crematorium-stoking Nazi.

I'm not influenced by Democratic smear campaigns any more than Republican smear campaigns. Unfortunately they have not made me Emperor of California yet so I cannot speak for rest of the voters.

You may not feel that the recent Republican candidates have been too conservative, but for whatever reason the rest of the California voters have. It's probably the same reason why you think anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, adoption, etc., etc., are "special rights" and anything less than killing gays by "crematorium-stoking Nazis" is copacetic with you.

Since both Republicans and Democrats are socialists at heart, so I'm not sure it makes much difference what happens in the recall.

I said nothing of the kind but you've made it apparent where your own inclination to grant rights that stomp upon those of others exist.

Jane, I hope you don't take offense to this, but you regularly point to pay-to-subscribe sites like the WSJ and the Economist; can you please make it clear when you do so that it's a "pay-to-play" site? It's a little annoying to waste time on a link to a story I'll never be able to read.

A relevant quote or two from the story wouldn't be out of line, either.

I've posted an extended response here.

A prime example here. Segregation brought back by liberal special interests:
http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=62&t=11179

"Of course, those states were prosperous long before the nanny state came along--a more likely explanation is that a rich state economy is a ripe target for the taxers, who can argue "Why complain?"

Uh, the "nanny state" came along in the 1930s. It's been a while now.

Comments are Closed.