AS,
You claimed that hospitals and prisons would close if employment by the State of California were cut back. I responded by pointing out to you that under Gray Davis California state employment went from 271,254.1 in 1997-98 to 323,602.8 in 2001-02. I would guess that California has very few brand new hospitals and prisons, so it's mostly a matter of staffing the ones that already existed in 1998. Since those hospitals were open in 1998 and staffed, why would they suddenly close if staffing were cut back to the levels that existed then?
Your response was:
Davis had record revenues his first few years.
Huh? Besides having nothing to do with the point I had responded to, it makes absolutely no sense. Because more money came in, it was Davis' duty to spend it? Most rational people will tell you that when their income goes up, their vital needs don't go up. They usually spend a bit more, but they don't need to. Gray Davis will tell you that if more money comes in, even a lot more, you should spend it, then whine like crazy if it stops coming in. That is irresponsible. When it involves confiscating huge sums of money from people who work and businesses who hire and provide things people want and need, it harms everyone.
That, and not a lack of charisma, is why Gray Davis was thrown out of office. I have been noticing the way the media has seen fit to throw into the discussion over and over again the fact that Davis is dull. He doesn't "connect" with voters; he is "charisma-challenged" (that one was my favorite).
I never saw the media report the actual numbers (I am talking about the national and international media, not California, since I haven't been in California for the past 6 months). I never saw them say, this guy led a government that just went nuts on spending and hiring. But looking at it strictly by the numbers, it sure looks like that is exactly what happened. |
