Shame, Shame, Shame!

The New York Times has excoreated Californians for voting against more tax-and-spend (and tax some more) policies. Ah, yes. Shame on those of us who work for a living, for wanting to keep more of our hard-earned money so we can continue living in the most expensive state in the Union without being on the government dole. We should all hang our heads because we are so very selfish for not wanting to continue to send our money to Sacramento. What a bunch of ingrates we are! How dare we prevent more funding for the n'er-do-wells in government who are already too busy spending our tax money to actually get a real job? What an outrage that we may actually have to trim the fat off the budgets of the state's various bureaucracies, not the least of which are education system, environmental regulating agencies, and *gasp* welfare benefits! Mea culpa.

Of special note, all of the emphasis is being placed on cuts in the state's education system. First off, look at how liberals love to use children as a human shield for their policies. Strictly looking at the amount of money spent per child in California and then looking at the results, I'd say that California's education system has been a poor investment. Students graduating from high school should have enough education to either go to college or get an entry-level job. I hate to break it to you, but there are teenagers graduating who can barely read and write at the sixth grade level. Don't even get me started on the lack of work ethic or professionalism of these alleged young adults. And why should they have to work for achievement in academics? After all, in the state of California teachers seem to have made it a regular practice to pass the failing students (we don't want to damage their budding self-esteem). When they graduate with their Cracker Jack diploma, they can continue to live off their parents or apply for welfare benefits. Meanwhile, the California Teacher's Assocation is allowed to engage in the type of behavior that helped the United Auto Workers bring down the auto industry in this country. Think fat pensions, tenure based on seniority (not performance), and a political action committee that might as well be a branch office for the DNC.

The governor, in an effort to scaremonger us into voting for higher taxes and more borrowing, threatened to cut funding for law enforcement and firefighters...during a wildfire that destroyed 80 homes and almost 8000 acres in the Santa Barbara area. That's low (even for a politician). Why not reduce welfare benefits and use that money to maintain the funding for law enforcement and emergency services? Reducing welfare would serve multiple purposes. It would take away the incentive for laziness, incentivize hard work, and possibly discourage some would-be illegal aliens from coming here. I also bet you would see a precipitous drop in the number of pregnant, unwed mothers in California.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. Not for the outcome of yesterday's vote, but for the fact that it even had to take place. The last time the people of California were this focused on the state's budget issues was back when we recalled Gray Davis and elected "Ah-nuld". California's budget mess should have been straightened out then, rather than enacting some feel-good brand of bipartisanship that only kicked the can down the road. Only now that individuals and businesses are relocating to less hostile environments (and taking their tax dollars with them) are the politicians being faced with having to enact real budget reform. Let's hope that Californians have finally learned a lesson that they won't soon forget.