That is so very true. In fact, they used the threat of violence all the time when trying to reign in the welfare state, specifically during 1996 welfare reform act.
You're right, in this example I'd rather work the first hour of each day there, make 100K a year (and get taxed proportionally less by the office manager), then I'd go to the trading floor next door, make another 100K (same deal), head home where I have a nice setup and make the rest of my money. Then again, if in this example world I was eventually deprived of roads, national defense, social security, affordable health care, and Amtrak (well, maybe we could all live without Amtrak) by using this strategy, I might change my mind. I'm just glad I live in Florida where we don't have a state tax (now if it would just stop flooding). Taxes suck, but I feel like it's perfectly justified as long as the pork is sliced thin and there is an equitable distribution of wealth. For example, is national defense really 15 times more important than education? Our government thinks so, and has for a long time. Our national priorities are out of whack.
There is a severe misconception apparent in this thread. Several of you accurately observe that continuing the failed liberal policies that are ruining California will result in an exodus of intelligent achievers and businesses. You see this as a bad result that any rational politician of whatever stripe would try to avoid. That is where I think you are wrong. There is a coalition of Democrat activist groups that see business as inherently evil. Business pollutes the environment, both natural and political. Business is not progressive. Business exploits workers and the environment. Business makes a small group of white males way too rich and screws everyone else. Most Dem activists have never held a private sector job. There are the trust fund radicals, like Rep. Patrick Kennedy(Teddy's son) who drunkenly boasted he had never worked a day in his life. There are the government workers, the teachers, the university elites, there are the race hustlers, the illegal immigrant lobby, the various activists for every possible cause except taxpayers and , of course, there is the growing welfare lobby. Even the most intelligent members of these groups have a very fuzzy understanding of basic economics. They instinctively assume that prosperity is created by government, and that there is a fixed pie of benefits that they must fight for. They believe merit is a codeword for discrimination, that group rights should trump individual liberties and that property rights rank way down the scale of social justice. You are wasting your time trying to convince these people that the current trajectory is unsustainable. They like the idea of things really falling apart because it will create a void for government to fill. Getting rid of rich white people will make it easier to implement the "mexifornia" agenda that Bustamante supports. I am pessimistic. I think demographics could well be destiny for California. Within 20 years it will be a typical banana republic type state, with unbelievably corrupt politics, a few extremely rich insiders who live like kings and hordes of desperately poor who expect the government to provide their needs. It will still have nice scenery and beautiful beaches. Just like Mexico.
Where do you get the idea that we spend 15 times more on defense than education? You must be ignoring state and local expenditures. Are you counting the cost of federal scholarships and loan guarantees? The federal government shouldn't spend ANYTHING on education, as it is a local expense. I also think you are making the typical liberal error of confusing spending with obtaining results. All the billions that have been wasted over 30 years by the federal governemnt on education have produced little in the way of progress. The main result has been to strengthen the hand of teachers unions and the educational establishment and weaken the influence of parents.
I would REALLY hate to see the CALIFORNIA specific versions of these charts Agree with you AAA. peace axeman
That's what makes support for any Democrat, anywhere, impossible. Grey Davis ran as a moderate Democrat, but when he ran into troubles he went running into the arms of his Marxist base. Who, like triple A says, aren't interested in a healthy business climate or whether you stay in state. The party is churning out laws from the likes of Burton and Jackie Goldberg because they have the power in the state house. These types of people decide what bills come up for a vote. One of the funny things I've noted is that free-market liberalism is called rational economics in Australia. They are often attacked by lefties in that country which seems totally appropriate as those nitwits advocate irrational economics. What is Bustamante thinking when he says he wants to regulate the price of gasoline? The answer isn't that he's not, but rather advocating the only thing he knows, socialism.