CA is ungovernable. Its proposition system, while useful during the Progressive Era, has redefined what it means to be a State Assemblyman (I use Assemblyman to include both the Assembly and the Senate). Duties that a State Assemblyman must do are hazy, at best.
Do they govern? Maybe.
Do they pass laws? Not sure.
Is their rhetoric worth the 100,000+ salary/yr? Definitely not.
They represent the people. That is why we elect them. A healthy dose of direct democracy is good, but not when it acts as an excuse for Assemblymen to not do their jobs.
With that said, this post is a note to the Republicans in the Senate/Assembly. I do not want people to assume that Democrats are not culpable. They are. They have been. They own some of the problems associated with outrageous spending and waste. But, in this new budget session, it seems as if Republicans are the ONLY obstacle to common sense, live-within-our-means solutions offered up by Gov. Jerry Brown.
Gov Brown's mix of massive program cuts and extension (not raising) of current tax rates is the only way to push CA towards fiscal responsibility. We have a $25 billion budget hole and that is the best, and most balanced way to start shutting it. But, CA has been here before. In 1967, Gov. Ronald Regan used forceful rhetoric to compel Republicans to vote for a tax increase to cover the deficit. As did Pete Wilson, in 1991.
CA has been purported to have created a hostile tax policy for the growth of business. That's why so many businesses have left CA. Well, maybe not. According to the Public Policy Institute of CA, between 1992 and 2006, business relocation only accounted for 1.7% of job losses. In fact, job loss due to relocation is one of the smallest amongst the 50 states.
And, the rhetoric has been especially caustic. At an anti-tax rally, a Republican state Assemblywoman said that Brown's plan would "rape the taxpayers." Where was that kind of language when Schwarzenegger passed these temporary tax hikes two years ago? And, her solution? Create private sector jobs for the unemployed because businesses are leaving the state. For her second statement, see the explanation above. As for her first statement, that's boilerplate language without any substance.
But, the egregious part of the CA state Republican strategy is, just like their counterparts in the 110th Congress, to do nothing. Not only will they not negotiate on any tax extension (Again, EXTENSION, not INCREASE), they are unwilling to let a ballot measure go to the public for a vote. They have managed to both impede progress in the Capitol (not like that's news) and block an essential element of CA democracy - vote by the people. Their justification is that the Democrats "tax-and-spended" us into oblivion, so it is their budget to deal with, not ours. They OWN it. Yup, they do. But, last I heard, the entire state of CA, including Republicans in the state houses own it too. It is as if Republicans believe they live in some sort of Mt Olympus, city in sky above CA, and therefore do not have to deal with its problems. To change a Led Zeppelin song: Republicans are singing "everybody's fault but mine." And now, 30 out of 42 Republicans joined a Tax Caucus to oppose Brown. Oy...
Here is my note:
Dear Republicans in the Senate/Assembly -
I understand you are used to not having to deal with the budget. When the Governator roamed the hall of the Capitol, the budget wasn't dealt with until it was at least 3-5 months too late. I know its a shock that we actually have a common-sense budget plan. God forbid you would have to actually work across the aisle to get us out of this budget deficit.
But, please allow for these tax extensions to go to a vote. If they pass, you know CA democracy works. If they don't, you also get the vindication that CA voters would rather see education suffer than having to pay more to register their car. I get it. You don't like taxes. Neither do your constituents. But, last I heard, we all live in CA, not the 120 states of the CA Legislature. Everyone will pay them, and we might end up in a situation where we can lower them, once the deficit is dealt with. And, you even get a bunch of program cuts.
I'm really not asking a lot. Once the taxes go to the voters, we can all revel in the great democratic process. Then, you can come down from your citadel in the sky and actually start doing your job. Wouldn't that be swell!
Thanks!
Monday, February 28, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Teddy Roosevelt, The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine & South America
Teddy Roosevelt became president at the end of 1901 after William McKinley was assassinated. Roosevelt could not be pigeonholed to a single party ideology. He supported American Entrepreneurship, but sought to strengthen consumer protection and destroy monopolies. He was a fan of American ingenuity and self-reliance. He was often considered one of the more macho presidents, leading a charge of men up San Juan Hill during the Spanish American War and hunting elephants in Africa in his spare time. He was an outdoorsman, going on safaris in Africa and hikes in Yosemite with John Muir (Roosevelt was one of the first champions of land conservation and passed the National Parks Act).
One thing Roosevelt hated was instability. He was a avid reader of Alfred T Mahan's "Importance of Seapower Upon History." In the book, Mahan stressed that all super-powers (my characterization) needed a strong Navy in order to protect its overseas capital interests. McKinley set the expansion of American power (some might call American Imperialism) with the acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba after the Spanish-American war, and Roosevelt wanted to keep that influence stable.
In order to understand Roosevelt's hatred of instability, you would have to understand the domestic and international Progressive movement that grew out of the ideas of the Populist movement of the late 19th century. Domestic Progressivism was lead by white, middle class Catholics who wanted to create stability in social, physical and political arenas. The movement was fueled by the idea that if one beautifies and creates order in a chaotic space, like the five-points in NY city or the Bowery in San Francisco, then the people would naturally be reformed. Programs like the Settlement movement led by Jane Addams and the City Beautiful design used by Fredrick Law Olmstead all embodied the idea that stability breeds self reliance and instability creates dangerous dependence.
International Progressivism worked on the same premise, but with a more substantial foundation. During his first elected term, Roosevelt released his Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine was an edict by President James Monroe, released in 1823, which declared that the landmass that is currently the United States is a sovereign nation and no meddling by European power is allowed. When it was released, the doctrine was mostly symbolic, with no method of enforcement. It was a product of the Era of Good Feeling that followed the perception that the U.S. had defeated the British Empire a second time after the war of 1812.
The Roosevelt Corollary took advantage of the United States' presence on the world stage to declare that the entire Western Hemisphere was a U.S. "Sphere of Influence." He believed that instability and dependence worked hand-in-hand to create a prime environment for European interventionism. Once either force occurred in a region of the hemisphere (north or south), Europeans could establish a foothold and violate American sovereignty. He used this as a way to showcase the influence that America had during the new century (some would later dub the American Century) and justify interventionism in South America.
Roosevelt, like later president Woodrow Wilson, saw European colonialism and imperialism as a movement of the past and a driver of instability. While Wilson could point to the anachronistic and entangling alliances as the cause of the bloodbath of World War I, Roosevelt looked at German and British actions in Venezuela in 1902. After a bloody civil war in Venezuela, German and British nationals sustained heavy property losses and their respective governments sent a joint force to South America. Once Venezuela reneged on their debt obligations, Germany and Britain sent warships to shell the coast. Roosevelt forced the warships to withdraw and moderated a debt repayment between Venezuela and the two European nations.
Roosevelt also saw European and colonial interventionism as stymieing American commercial growth overseas. There were key goals that had to be fulfilled in order to expand American goods to overseas markets (especially with the opening up of Japan). These were: Trading bases overseas, a strong navy and a canal that would allow ships access to markets without having go around the cape of South America. The acquisition of the land to build the Panama Canal showed that expanding US commercial interests often trumped Roosevelt's hatred of preventing instability. When the Senate of Colombia refused to ratify a treaty giving the US rights to land to build the canal through Panama, Roosevelt chose to support an independence revolution of Panamanians. He ordered US ships to blockade Panama and send envoys to Colombia to tell the president to surrender the territory. America soon recognized the sovereign nation of Panama, offered $40 million for the land and started construction of the canal. Whether Roosevelt let his commercial endeavors trump his ideologies on global security or if he justified the support of a very unstable revolution over the backing of a colonial power, the fact remains that the creation of the Panama Canal helped facilitate the growth of American goods and influence in the world market.
One thing Roosevelt hated was instability. He was a avid reader of Alfred T Mahan's "Importance of Seapower Upon History." In the book, Mahan stressed that all super-powers (my characterization) needed a strong Navy in order to protect its overseas capital interests. McKinley set the expansion of American power (some might call American Imperialism) with the acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba after the Spanish-American war, and Roosevelt wanted to keep that influence stable.
In order to understand Roosevelt's hatred of instability, you would have to understand the domestic and international Progressive movement that grew out of the ideas of the Populist movement of the late 19th century. Domestic Progressivism was lead by white, middle class Catholics who wanted to create stability in social, physical and political arenas. The movement was fueled by the idea that if one beautifies and creates order in a chaotic space, like the five-points in NY city or the Bowery in San Francisco, then the people would naturally be reformed. Programs like the Settlement movement led by Jane Addams and the City Beautiful design used by Fredrick Law Olmstead all embodied the idea that stability breeds self reliance and instability creates dangerous dependence.
International Progressivism worked on the same premise, but with a more substantial foundation. During his first elected term, Roosevelt released his Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine was an edict by President James Monroe, released in 1823, which declared that the landmass that is currently the United States is a sovereign nation and no meddling by European power is allowed. When it was released, the doctrine was mostly symbolic, with no method of enforcement. It was a product of the Era of Good Feeling that followed the perception that the U.S. had defeated the British Empire a second time after the war of 1812.
The Roosevelt Corollary took advantage of the United States' presence on the world stage to declare that the entire Western Hemisphere was a U.S. "Sphere of Influence." He believed that instability and dependence worked hand-in-hand to create a prime environment for European interventionism. Once either force occurred in a region of the hemisphere (north or south), Europeans could establish a foothold and violate American sovereignty. He used this as a way to showcase the influence that America had during the new century (some would later dub the American Century) and justify interventionism in South America.
Roosevelt, like later president Woodrow Wilson, saw European colonialism and imperialism as a movement of the past and a driver of instability. While Wilson could point to the anachronistic and entangling alliances as the cause of the bloodbath of World War I, Roosevelt looked at German and British actions in Venezuela in 1902. After a bloody civil war in Venezuela, German and British nationals sustained heavy property losses and their respective governments sent a joint force to South America. Once Venezuela reneged on their debt obligations, Germany and Britain sent warships to shell the coast. Roosevelt forced the warships to withdraw and moderated a debt repayment between Venezuela and the two European nations.
Roosevelt also saw European and colonial interventionism as stymieing American commercial growth overseas. There were key goals that had to be fulfilled in order to expand American goods to overseas markets (especially with the opening up of Japan). These were: Trading bases overseas, a strong navy and a canal that would allow ships access to markets without having go around the cape of South America. The acquisition of the land to build the Panama Canal showed that expanding US commercial interests often trumped Roosevelt's hatred of preventing instability. When the Senate of Colombia refused to ratify a treaty giving the US rights to land to build the canal through Panama, Roosevelt chose to support an independence revolution of Panamanians. He ordered US ships to blockade Panama and send envoys to Colombia to tell the president to surrender the territory. America soon recognized the sovereign nation of Panama, offered $40 million for the land and started construction of the canal. Whether Roosevelt let his commercial endeavors trump his ideologies on global security or if he justified the support of a very unstable revolution over the backing of a colonial power, the fact remains that the creation of the Panama Canal helped facilitate the growth of American goods and influence in the world market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)