Starve GOP Districts Of State Funds

Katy Grimes: In a room full of Capitol journalists at the Sacramento Press Club lunch meeting Wednesday, Democratic Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg began down a road that should have frozen the insides of everyone in attendance.

But even journalists get desensitized to political rhetoric.

Answering questions about the budget, Steinberg said that if Republicans lawmakers will not vote for a budget that includes tax increases, he supports making targeted cuts in GOP districts. Steinberg said his plan is similar to the plan laid out by Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who has also suggested that an all-cuts state budget is an option as long as it only targets the districts of the lawmakers who oppose voting to put the $11 billion in tax extensions on the ballot.

“You don’t want to pay for government, well then, you get less of it,” said Steinberg.

Instead of the time-honored despotic tactic of starving your enemy, it seems that Steinberg and Lockyer want to starve some Californians of state funds.

The tactic has been used throughout history by ruthless rulers who target enemies into submission, with some horrific results.

So much for across-the-board sharing of pain. How can targeting only Republican districts be considered good government? This is California, not Idi Amin’s Uganda or Josef Stalin’s Ukraine.

While there does not appear to be an agreement in sight on how legislators plan to close the state’s remaining $15.4 billion deficit, discussions about taking the pain to the constituents of Republican legislators is probably the most heinous, anti-American, unconstitutional talk — and it isn’t funny.

“When it comes to kids or the vulnerable, I wouldn’t want to make distinctions between who lives in a Democratic district and who lives in a Republican district, but when it comes to sort of basic services, convenience services that affect adults … I have an open mind,” Steinberg said.

Steinberg has introduced legislation which will make it much easier for local governments to raise taxes using a majority vote, and said he hopes to see budget talks intensify.

Talk of inflicting pain only on GOP districts ought to intensify the budget talks plenty. This dangerous rhetoric is irresponsible and does not belong in ether house of California’s Legislature.

APRIL 28, 2011

 

11 comments

Write a comment
  1. John Seiler
    John Seiler 28 April, 2011, 07:30

    If that’s how Steinberg and Lockyer want it, then we should split up the state. There’s famous document that begins:

    “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    Reply this comment
  2. Rogue Elephant
    Rogue Elephant 28 April, 2011, 07:50

    As Charlie Sheen says, “Bring it!” After lavishing the guards union with big bucks and protecting public sector union pensions, Brown and Steinberg propose cutting services to GOP districts because the GOP refuses to cave on the Jerry Brown tax hikes. Martyrdom, here we come!

    Reply this comment
  3. larry 62
    larry 62 28 April, 2011, 09:41

    All I can say is that Steinberg is brain dead, if that is his mindset.

    Reply this comment
  4. Jeannie
    Jeannie 28 April, 2011, 10:40

    I like what John S. says and GOP targeted areas should withold paying taxes to the state. It works both ways Steinberg!

    Reply this comment
  5. David in Irvine
    David in Irvine 28 April, 2011, 12:25

    Dear Darrell,
    You’ve got it wrong- we don’t want to pay YOU for government. If you want to advocate for say, local control and local funding of public schools, then I for one would be more supportive of government spending. In the meantime, I propose that income and sales taxes and vehicle registration fees go up only in the districts whose legislators support raising those taxes. While we’re at it, next time someone wants to put bonds for vanity projects like stem cell research and high speed rail on the ballot, you ought to include a little line under the “YES” box where a voter could include his credit card number, and only pay the bonds’ creditors from those who voted in favor.
    Sincerely,
    An independent voter in a GOP district

    Reply this comment
  6. GarlicDude
    GarlicDude 28 April, 2011, 13:08

    What about equal protection under the law? I guess we’re becoming a nation that isn’t ruled by laws any longer.

    Reply this comment
  7. Tylerle13
    Tylerle13 28 April, 2011, 13:24

    To be honest, that may be a great plan. The only change I noticed when they started the furlougs was that the traffic wasnt as bad. I cannot think of anything the state govt currently does that people would notice a 50% reduction in. Caltrans is a pathetic joke, DMV has been a running joke for decades, CHP has been reduced to Joe Simidian’s personal “Hands Free” enforcers, our prisions spend 2.5x more than is neccessary, and there are more wasteful government “agencies”, “boards”, & “commissions” than anyone can count. Only in government can failure be so prevelant without the guilty party being held accountable & punished.

    I would be willing to bet that those “Targeted” districts will see a rapid drop in their unemployment rate just as soon as all of the state waste & redundancy is removed, while the “Lucky” districts that keep all of the welfare & red tape will continue to lose businesses, jobs, & hope.

    Reply this comment
  8. Don
    Don 28 April, 2011, 14:31

    The state will have to fall off the cliff and bankrupt before Republicans would ever have a shot at taking control. Nothing we can do until the worst happens, the dems are hell bent on riding the state into oblivion.

    Reply this comment
  9. OneCitizenSpeaking
    OneCitizenSpeaking 28 April, 2011, 16:38

    More political extortion and threats from the progressive democrats. Steinberg should be sanctioned for “hate” speech against a minority.

    http://www.onecitizenspeaking.com/2011/04/is-progressive-democrat-darrell-steinberg-considering-violating-the-constitution-denying-equal-treatment-under-the-law.html

    Reply this comment
  10. Californium
    Californium 28 April, 2011, 18:34

    I’d say bring it on, if he gave us a commensurate cut in the tax rate, by cutting services while making pay the same tax rate, that is an illegal tax increase per capita.

    Reply this comment
  11. meme
    meme 29 April, 2011, 02:26

    S’okay with me. The ppl who want everyone to starve or they will stomp their feet unless they get their way, starve more than others. Perfectly equitable.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Will young CA justices use Vergara case to audition for SCOTUS?

The Volokh Conspiracy, the wonderful legal blog founded by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, had a provocative post about what

TX vs. CA

Feb. 12, 2013 By John Seiler I’ve been to Texas two times. In the summer of 1969 I was 14

New laws target old CA problem: Workers’ comp fraud

Critics of a California workers’ compensation system that is both among the nation’s costliest and not particularly good at providing