unmutualgrizzly.com

Archive for the ‘Red Seat Ideas’ Category

Many people have heard the saying “War is the mother of all invention”, but I tend to think desperation works just as well. Only when you are backed into a corner and disaster looms inevitably ahead are you willing to consider the most creative solutions to the situation you’re in. As is the case in California, where possibly the worst state budget crisis in the country exists, and drastic cutbacks will be necessary to avoid bankruptcy. It looks like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has got his thinking cap on, and is listening to any money-saving proposal that comes across his desk. We’ve been critical of Gov. Schwarzenegger in the past (in the article Don’t Lay a Finger on my 40″ Plasma), but this time I think he deserves acknowledgement for promoting (or maybe even coming up with) a true Red Seat Idea.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has put forward a plan to send 20,000 illegal immigrant prisoners that are currently housed in California state prisons back to Mexico, and although he has the right to seek deportation for any person that is here illegally, that’s not what’s happening here (read the full story from the AFP here). There isn’t going to be a caravan of buses filled with Mexican criminals showing up at the border, but instead Gov. Schwarzenegger would like to give Mexico the money to build and operate a new prison for it’s citizens that have committed crimes on our soil. Is this genius? You decide. The first benefit of such a proposal is the cost savings. The Governor’s office put out a statement saying that this plan would save close to 1 Billion, because it would half the costs of building and running a prison in the U.S., and when you’ve got a budget deficit of 19.9 billion, every billion helps. The second benefit is that it eases the already overcrowded prison system in California which currently houses 70,000 prisoners over it’s intended capacity. The third foreseeable benefit is that when the prisoners sentences are complete, they are already in Mexico, and can be released into Mexico without any deportation costs or the risk of having them back on the streets of California right away, which can’t hurt the crime rate, and might save them from having to pay to house these prisoners all over again when they become repeat offenders (that would be Mexico’s problem). On a side note, I’m not naive enough to think that some of these inmates won’t make their way back into the U.S. after their release, but it’s still a much more equitable situation, for surely not all of them will, and the alternative is trusting the INS to do their job and send them back to Mexico after they’re released from a prison here. I like the idea of having all of them all start off back in Mexico, and we take our chances.

What’s in it for Mexico? Money and jobs. California gives them the money to build a prison that they get to keep, and that prison is staffed with Mexican citizens, which creates hundreds or maybe even a thousand jobs for a country that could sure use it. I doubt the Mexican government would pass up the opportunity for economic gain, and this could lead to more states trying this option in the future, which brings me to the most important point. This story has great national relevance, because although most states aren’t in as bad a shape as California, they’re on their way, and many more creative ideas will be needed to stem the tide. Maybe your state could implement a similar idea, or maybe something like this will inspire your state’s leaders to not be afraid of trying something unconventional. Either way, coming up with aggressive cost-cutting measures would be prudent in any state right now, before they end up in same hole that California currently resides in. It’s also the right thing for the people. If any level of government is spending tax dollars that it doesn’t need to, it’s stealing from it’s citizens, and in the end, hurting it’s own economy. Sound Familiar?

Most political junkies were focusing heavily on the election results from Tuesday night, talking about the GOP regaining some momentum in the Governors races, or the quirky New York 23rd Congressional District Race, in which the GOP seemed to be doing a bit of in-fighting (which we wrote about here). Still others wanted to see how the Gay marriage ballot question would fare in Maine, or how the casino question would fare in Ohio. I was personally interested in all of these results, but at the end of the day i thought we should revisit a ballot initiative that had snuck under my radar back in May (and probably everyone else’s), but is certainly worthy of discussion now, and worthy of being called a “Red Seat Idea”. That is California Proposition 1F (read the details).

Proposition 1F, simply stated, says that the salaries of elected officials (including the Governor) cannot be raised during years where California has a budget deficit. I have to admit that when I read this for the first time a wave of mischievous glee washed over me, and I’m glad no one else was in the room at the time, for the laughter that slipped out would have been quite embarrassing. How utterly satisfying is this ballot question? I know it’s for all the wrong reasons that I loved the sentiment of this proposition, but so what? We voters deserve our pound of flesh every once and a while, don’t we? I had to temper my enthusiasm for the moment, and see if this ballot item had any more substantive reason for being there, besides the obvious petty satisfactions.

As most of you know California currently has the worst economic situation of any state, with a current 50 Billion (yes that’s Billion with a “B”) dollar “budget gap” as they call it, and propositions 1A-1F on the May 19, 2009 ballot were designed to allow the citizens to vote on different ways to close that budget gap. So far everything seems on the up-and-up. Obviously Proposition 1F wouldn’t save much money just by not giving raises to elected officials, but it couldn’t hurt right? Encouraging them to balance the budget would certainly help the state’s financial situation. I also enjoy the “employee” aspect of this proposal, after all our elected officials work for us and are paid with our money, so in a sense they are our employees, and we shouldn’t forget that. In these hard economic times many companies have instituted “pay freezes” until profitability improves, so why not the same for our elected officials? Any time something can be based on merit, society is better for it, because it gives people incentive to do better. Accountability for politicians (other than being able to eventually vote them out) is sorely missing in the system, but it doesn’t have to be that way, and California has taken the first step toward opening that door. But what did the voters have to say about it?

Back in May when these six propositions were voted on, all but one were voted down. The one that prevailed was Prop. 1F, and it didn’t just prevail, it was met with remarkable approval! A whopping 74.3% of the voters said “Yes” to Proposition 1F, and it didn’t lose in one single county in the entire state (see exact results here). Detractors of the measure will say that not giving out raises won’t change the way a politician votes, he’ll still vote along party lines or by his guiding beliefs. That may be true in a simplistic sense, but what about the bigger picture. Not getting a raise may not change his vote, but the overwhelming message that 74.3% of the voters sent out about the importance of balancing the budget might change a few votes, because if nothing else, most politicians do care about re-election and some even care about their constituency. In the end, wasn’t this just a way for the voters of California to say “enough is enough”? That’s a message most politicians need to hear, and in this case maybe the message got through.