Dem 2/3 Dominance in 2012?

John Seiler:

Imagine Democrats totally dominate the budget, even on taxes. It’s not happening today. But in two years?

Fourteen months ago here on CalWatchDog.com I was the first to predict that, after the 2010 U.S. Census and 2011 redistricting, Democrats could obtain two-thirds dominance in both houses of the California Legislature. I wrote:

With Latinos generally voting 70 percent Democratic, and their numbers growing … the 2010 U.S. Census might increase their numbers enough in crucial districts to put the Democrats over the two-thirds threshold before the 2012 elections.

Today’s Sacramento Bee finally caught up with me:

State Democrats tired of dickering with Republicans for tax votes are increasingly hopeful that next year they will elect a majority large enough to make negotiating unnecessary.

Redrawn legislative districts, high voter turnout for the presidential election and continuing demographic shifts are likely to benefit Democrats, political observers of both parties say.

Of course, as the old saying has it, Be careful what you wish for — you might get it.

Total Democratic dominance of the Legislature starting in December 2012 would mean there would be no one else to blame for the state’s problems. If Democrats go tax wild and start raising taxes to Soviet levels, businesses would flee at a faster pace than they already are, unemployment would rise to stratospheric levels and the state budget deficit, instead of shrinking because of higher tax rates, would get worse because the tax base shrunk. You can’t tax what’s not here.

With a Republican possibly being elected president in 2012, little respite would come from the federal government. Already, Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives and feel little compulsion to help bail out the Golden state profligates.

Across America, even Democrats in other states see Californians as perpetual whiners, spendthrifts, and welfare cheats frolicking in the sun on the beach at the expense of the rest of the country.

One thing that fer shur (to use Valley Speak) would happen is the New York bond houses would raise interest rates to impossible levels. So the state no longer could issue bonds. No more borrowing.

And Republicans, although a small minority, still would be able to put up ballot initiatives to cut taxes after the Legislature raised them.

Pretty fast, Democratic dominance would lead to a left/right split in the party itself. This happened in the “Solid South” of the Southern states of America back in pre-civil rights days (before about 1970). Democrats dominated everything, but there were major fissures in the party.

Eventually, the California Democratic Party would develop a responsible, tax-cutting wing opposed to an irresponsible, tax-increasing wing.

In the meantime, the state would be put through the wringer politically and economically.

Welcome to the desert of political sense in the Pyrite State.

May 16, 2011

 

 

 

5 comments

Write a comment
  1. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 16 May, 2011, 09:32

    I agree that we are headed for two-thirds Democratic dominance. And we are already getting a taste of what happens with Dem dominance – really bad bills are making it through committees, the Senate and Assembly, and getting signed into law by Gov. Brown. The destruction will not be felt immediately, but will have lasting damage.

    As for a Dem party split, it may take a while. I predict that in California the split will be among the Latino Democrats and the rest of the party.

    – Katy

    Reply this comment
  2. Sol
    Sol 16 May, 2011, 12:44

    Maybe this is what is needed to finally get people serious about splitting up the state.

    When I bring this up, even with Republicans, people look at me like I am a space alien with 2 heads.

    Cawleefornia (as Ahnode calls it) is already too big and is ungovernable.

    Split Cawleefornia into 3 states: SF Bay Area, LA and the rest of California would each be a state.

    Then the socialist can raise taxes as high as they want. If SF wants a 20% sales tax and 30% income tax, great! If LA wants higher gass taxes, go for it!

    But no one seems interested in the idea of splitting up an ungovernable state.

    Now I know how the only sane person in an asylum feels.

    Reply this comment
  3. David in Irvine
    David in Irvine 16 May, 2011, 12:46

    I’m not sure that the split would be strictly along ethnic lines. At some point the Hispanic population will splinter between gov’t clients and gov’t. employees on one side and working and middle class Reagan Democrats on the other. If more cities like Costa Mesa succeed in outsourcing things like park and landscape maintenance, is the ethnic affinity of those workers so strong that employees of contractors will have the same interests as public employees doing the same thing? The Dems. will also start losing support among professionals and private sector Reagan Democrats who finally see through the fog of social issues to their own economic interests. A lot of them seem to be getting the point that supporting public schools is not the same thing as backing teachers’ union demands.

    Reply this comment
  4. Tylerle13
    Tylerle13 16 May, 2011, 15:45

    I don’t think splitting the state in half would accomplish much since there are 2 socialist hot spots in the state. The new Northern CA would still be stuck listening to the never-ending whining for more nanny laws coming from SF, and the new Southern CA would still be stuck with the pretentious a-holes that run the freak show known as LA. Having to deal with 1 California is bad enough, I don’t think the world could handle it if our state started to reproduce.

    A better option may be to declare SF & LA Principalities or Territories. That way they can do whatever crazy crap they dream up in their own little area without screwing up an entire state.

    Reply this comment
  5. Cicero
    Cicero 16 May, 2011, 16:54

    Our problem comes from an insane view of elections – – – the silly single member districts that can be easily gerrymandered.

    Many nations around the world use simple proportional representation. The German state of Bavaria is a good example. If your party gets 35% of the vote you get about 35% of the seats. Even graduates of L.A. Unified can do the math.

    2010 ASSEMBLY RESULTS: In statewide votes the split was Democrats 54% and Republican nearly 44%. The rest going to small parties.

    Using proportional representation the GOP would have 44% of the seats in the Assembly. A fair result that mirrors the votes cast.

    Election reform now.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Tags assigned to this article:
DemocratselectionsJohn SeilerLatinosRepublicans

Related Articles

Prop 13 survives another neutering

Sept. 5, 2012 Katy Grimes: Without fanfare, or headlines, the latest attempt to neuter Proposition 13 failed to pass the Assembly.

D.C. protest against IRS planned for Wed.

June 18, 2013 By John Seiler For once, I wish I was in Washington, D.C., a dreadful place I haven’t

CA oil industry celebrates defeat of fracking moratorium

  California’s oil industry is celebrating the defeat of a bill that would have placed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing