There was some exciting news in the various states other than the presidential election, especially for the other 40+ states that were already in the bank for either Romney or Obama. The top 5 results from this past November 6, 2012, election that I think are significant for the political direction of each of the states. Continue reading
The California budget sucks, like a lot alot. The budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year was accidentally or “accidentally” leaked out online before its scheduled time, which of course, disproportionately affected the old, the sick, and the aspiring young (with the political components being health insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, and public education. I would just like to point out the one problem in this most populous state of the union: Proposition 13. Simply, a limit on taxes led to increased budget shortfalls and cuts to government-funded programs. This limit, though, is so egregious because of the highly partisan nature of the legislature of the state I live in. You’d think that California would have the most liberal legislature, much like a lot of the legislatures in the South are basically conservative; but because of rampant gerrymandering, term-limits, and the 2/3 threshold to raise taxes (one of 3 in the nation), that just makes it a pie-in-the-sky proposition. The blog post “Scott Brown is a more liberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava” shows a great graph about the partisanship among state legislatures between the two major parties (Differences in State Legislature Partisanship). The Politico article “California Budget: Jerry Brown Plan for Future Amid Cuts” details the harsh cuts being made to the Golden State and that is just really quite unfortunate.
Do we really need to pick presidents because one state says so? I realize that in our federalist system, states want to pick their presidents their own way, and that state parties in those states want to pick the nominees of their parties their own way, but why is it that Iowa has such an out-sized importance? Yes, I also know that they have burdened themselves with doing the vetting process, but this person from California would like to vet them myself. Why do Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina have to be the first nominating caucus, first primary, first-in-the-west, and first-in-the-south, respectively? I know this post just has questions, but I really wonder why. California, Texas, and New York should through their weight/population around to become more important just like Florida has. Or there should be a lot more bonus delegates awarded to those later states, not just the offending states to
lose half its convention delegates and be subject to other penalties.
This might be a biased opinion, but I am just trying to show my concern for a process which would seem undemocratic to any other country.
Additionally, I think that it is hilarious that Nevada has been getting so much bad publicity lately. Romney wanted to tether Nevada’s contest to New Hampshire so that they would presumably win two in a row after a perceived loss in Iowa. There wasn’t this much trouble with two parties last year, and the fact that it’s really just one party fighting it out makes the Republicans look inept, or look like they’re playing politics dirty as suggested by the Politico article “Nevada’s 2012 Primary Calendar Chaos: A Guide”. I really have to laugh because this is so ridiculous. There has been so much airtime on the positioning of the nominating contests that it has detracted from asking the candidates about the issues. And if Nevada just bowed down to mighty Florida, then everything might have been avoided (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66621.html). Well, I’m sure something else would have come up in place.