The Heavy Cost of One-Party Rule for California–Rich Establishment Rule–NOT GOP or Democrats

California has the highest taxes in the nation, the most costly homes and regulations guaranteed to kill off jobs and families. Plus you have a governor, so confused he wants to spend $200 billion on a choo choo train that is worthless and $68 billion on a water tunnel that does not create new sources of water. This is a governor that thinks fish are more important than people—and that prisoners need pampering and comfortable jails—while potential victims have their Second Amendment rights marginalized.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Since 2006 the Republican Party in California has been marginalized. That is when very rich people decided that the GOP should look more the Democrat Party—since then we have lost, consistently, Assembly, State Senate and Congressional seats. The Establishment has run candidates without serious ideology—except the desire to win election. A couple of years ago, the Democrats needed GOP votes in the Assembly and Senate to extend $3.2 billion a year in vehicle taxes—and they got it. Then you have Prop. 14 which OUTLAWS the Republican and Democrat Parties from nominating candidates for Constitutional or Legislative office—no need for a political party—which was the goal the very wealthy Charles Munger who created and financed the end of Republicans running for office. (thanks to Munger and Prop. 14—a candidate may state a “preference” for a political party—So a Democrat can claim technically to prefer being a Republican)

While we do have a one-party State it is NOT the Democrat Party. The controlling Party is the Establishment/Special Interests/Unions—who do not care about Democrats or Republicans—just power—and they now own California.

The Heavy Cost of One-Party Rule for California

by Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart CA,   1/3/15

Los Angeles Times business reporter Joe Puzzanghera has floated the theory that Republican control of Congress portends slow growth for the U.S. economy because of the threat of budget fights and gridlock. “The economy boomed through most of last year, a time when the nation’s capital was devoid of major budget fights and threats of government shutdown,” he wrote on Dec. 31. The implication is that our economy works best when government faces less opposition. But history shows the opposite.

In fact, gridlock in Washington has been associated with fast economic growth. That was the case in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan faced off against a Democratic-controlled Congress. It happened again in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton not only fought bitterly with Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress, but was even impeached. And it was the case in the period 2011-2014, despite a dysfunctional Senate, an internally divided House, and an administration whose policies failed one after the other.

There are counter-examples, when fast growth and one-party rule coincided. The point is not that gridlock works better. Rather, the point is that opposition can play a profoundly positive role when one part of government wishes to do something dangerous. David Harsanyi, writing recently at the Federalist, makes that point by quoting Pietro Nivola of the liberal Brookings Institution: “People often don’t realize that a political system is sometimes effective when it does not do certain things,” Nivola explained.

In the ongoing recovery, the thing that government had to be prevented from doing was spending the economy into a spiral of deficit and debt. The Tea Party victory of 2010 may not have achieved much of what conservatives had hoped, but it did put the brakes on spending, and ended President Barack Obama’s most ambitious plans for “fundamental transformation” of the U.S. That added a measure of much-needed stability against an administration determined to foment, and exploit, political crisis.

California, a virtual one-party state, may have too much stability. Gov. Jerry Brown deserves credit for bringing some stability to the state’s finances–though the Wall Street boom, the startup explosion, and creative accounting  may have had more to do with that than Proposition 30’s tax hikes. The question is whether California can tackle the most difficult challenges–long-term debt, pension shortfalls, water shortages, high poverty, cultural upheaval–when entrenched Democratic Party leaders refuse to do so.

Just look at the corruption crisis that gripped the State Senate last year.The Senate’s Democratic leadership refused to demand resignations or significant changes, sending Senators for ethics training instead. The absence of opposition means a lackluster political debate–one that may overlook hidden problems and fail to foresee future challenges. When the next crisis hits–some financial shock, say, or another drought–we may well wish California had suffered more gridlock and enjoyed less consensus.