SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Those Damned Democrat's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (1175)6/14/2003 2:32:41 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1604
 
JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY

Total Recall--II
Gray Davis's governorship may soon meet the Terminator.

Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

LOS ANGELES--A quarter century after Californians passed Proposition 13 and ignited a nationwide tax revolt, voters here may be getting ready to make history again. It looks as if an effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis will collect the 900,000 voter signatures to make the ballot . That would set up a political free-for-all at the same time the state is struggling with a $38 billion deficit. The mix of candidates to replace Mr. Davis may include both fellow Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Mr. Schwarzenegger was one of several speakers at a dinner here on Tuesday night marking the 25th anniversary of the passage of Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann's tax-cutting ballot initiative. The actor remarked on the similarities between the populist revolt against soaring property taxes in 1978 and today's distrust of Mr. Davis for his mishandling of the state's budget and energy problems.

Several dinner attendees recalled they had not seen such grass roots anger at the political establishment since the days of Proposition 13. "Back then a movie called 'Network' featured a character who said he was 'mad as hell and not going to take it anymore,' " says Joel Fox, author of a new book called "The Legend of Proposition 13." "That same anger is back now in spades."

Fueling that discontent is massive fiscal incompetence in Sacramento. Carl DeMaio of the San Diego-based Performance Institute notes that California's general budget grew by an average of 9.4% a year from fiscal 1997 through 2002. Revenues grew dramatically too--by 27% during Mr. Davis's first term. But spending went up 36% during the same period. If the state had only held spending growth to the increase in population and inflation, it would be enjoying a $5.5 billion surplus now.

A group of fiscal conservatives hope to avoid that kind of runaway spending in the future by making the recall effort a referendum not on Mr. Davis personally but on a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending. California had such a limit from 1979 until 1990, when a union-backed measure emasculating it narrowly passed. A new limit would be modeled after Colorado's 1994 Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which limits the growth of government to increases in population and inflation growth, rebates all extra revenue back to the taxpayers, and requires a referendum on all tax and fee hikes. As a result, Colorado is one of the few states without a severe budget crunch today.
Mr. Davis equivocates on the need for that kind of fiscal discipline, saying he prefers that the Legislature solve the problem through a mix of tax increases and borrowing. Critics say his plan only makes the problem worse in the long run.

Budget politics aside, Mr. Davis is determined to head off being the first governor to be unceremoniously booted from office in the middle of his term. He has collected $500,000 in union money and has set up a committee to fight the recall. That committee is now deploying a small army to collect signatures for counterpetitions. The fear among recall backers is that the governor is laying the ground work for a dirty trick. Once the governor's petitions have a sizable number of signatures, Mr. Davis could then get a judge to toss the recall off the ballot by claiming that many of pro-recall signatures actually came from people who'd meant to sign petitions backing the governor.

Other roadblocks could include Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, a Democrat, who might try to delay certification of the recall signatures long enough to push the election to next March, when the Democratic presidential primary would bring out the party faithful.

Rep. Darrell Issa, a San Diego congressman who has put up nearly $800,000 to jumpstart the recall, has already come under withering fire from the governor's operatives. They accuse Mr. Issa of wanting to be governor himself and trying to subvert the democratic process by removing a governor who was re-elected only seven months ago.

Mr. Issa admits he is a candidate for governor should the recall make the ballot, but notes that California has a long tradition of recalling elected officials for not performing their duties competently. "A recall isn't about whether someone is corrupt, it's about whether the voters have confidence in his ability to solve real problems," he told me.

Establishment Republicans are leery of the recall. They fear that in a chaotic election to replace Gov. Davis another Democrat could win. And unlike the term-limited Mr. Davis, the new governor would be able to seek re-election in 2006.
But the recall effort seems to be beyond partisan politics. Like Proposition 13, the push to remove Mr. Davis is an indictment of the way both parties have handled California's affairs. At Tuesday's dinner Los Angeles County Assessor Rick Auerbach, a Democrat who backed Proposition 13, recalled that only three of the state's 120 legislators backed the tax-cutting measure back in 1978. Today, only a few more are openly backing the Davis recall.

But rather than slowing the popularity of the recall, its lack of establishment support seems to be helping it. "People seem to think that if the guys who got us in this mess are against it, there might be something good in it," says Jonathan Coupal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association. "Elected officials would be wise to use the recall to drive a debate over better public policy rather than just be fearful of it."

A recall, however, wouldn't be like other elections. On the same ballot, voters would be asked whether they wish to recall Mr. Davis and also whom they want to replace him. If more than 50% of the votes favor recall, then the opposing candidate with the most votes becomes governor. That means that in a field of, say, a half a dozen candidates, the next governor of California could be elected with as little as 17% of the vote.
His political advisers have said Mr. Schwarzenegger will decide whether to run after the July 2 release of "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines," and only then if the recall effort qualifies for the ballot. "There comes a point when we the people must demand more out of our elected officials than for them just showing up," Mr. Schwarzenegger said. "Howard Jarvis used to say it is time to show the politicians who is the boss. We are at such a point right now, ladies and gentlemen. Our elected officials in Sacramento are facing a budget crisis unseen in this state since the Great Depression, and it was entirely avoidable. Entirely avoidable. Teachers are getting pink slips, cops are getting laid off and the taxpayers are facing an increase in taxes and California's future is in danger."

The Terminator mentioned the recall only indirectly, however. "This is really embarrassing. I just forgot our state governor's name, but I know that you will help me recall him."



To: calgal who wrote (1175)6/15/2003 12:43:07 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 1604
 
GLOBAL VIEW

A Nation of Liberators
No WMDs yet, and America shrugs. That's because we value human rights.

BY GEORGE MELLOAN
Sunday, June 15, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so far has been used against George W. Bush and Tony Blair by their political enemies in Europe. But very little has been made of it in the U.S., which bore the main cost of the war. Now, why would that be?

One explanation is that Americans were more focused than Europeans on what many regarded as the least important of the war's goals, the liberation of the Iraqi people. Weapons of mass destruction, though terrible in concept, were something the U.S. became inured to during the Cold War. The chance of becoming a victim of terrorism, given the extensive law enforcement apparatus, seems less than that of being struck by lightning.

But the thought of masses of innocent people having been murdered by their own government is a horror that resonates from sea to shining sea. It awakens the ethos that has been a part of the national psyche since Virginia's Patrick Henry in 1775 declaimed, in defiance of the British, "Give me liberty or give me death." Human liberty was invoked by Woodrow Wilson on April 2,1917, when he asked Congress to declare war on Germany "to make the world safe for democracy." Ronald Reagan demanded that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall, and there were emotional cheers from Americans when East Germans themselves dismantled that odious barrier to human freedom in 1989.

This current is so strong in America that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon brought a great burst of patriotism. From my office window, I can look down on the construction site where the twin towers once stood and see a giant stars and stripes painted on the top of one of the utility buildings. Flags still flutter atop cars or from the windows of homes all over America.
Freedom House, one of innumerable private U.S. organizations that promote democracy and liberty, annually publishes a map depicting advances of freedom around the world. The National Endowment for Democracy, its two branches backed by the two major U.S. political parties, assists peoples striving for democratic rule. The State Department compiles annually an exhaustive report on the state of human rights in countries of the world.

So it should not be surprising, except perhaps to a few political sophisticates in Europe, that Americans would regard a government's mistreatment of its own people along with its threats to other nations as a casus belli. The destruction of tyrannies gratifies the American sense of justice, one of the bulwarks of American democracy. It nurtures the concept of a "just war."

But despite this powerful legacy, foreign-policy specialists in the U.S. sometimes seem embarrassed by the idea of the U.S. as a fighter of wars of liberation. They often prefer the more hardheaded, and more European, view that countries fight to defend their interests, meaning the protection of trade routes, or sources of oil or spheres of influence that have commercial rewards. Many wars have been fought for exactly those reasons, but usually there is no matter of justice at stake--only contests for power.

Europe, much to its credit, has largely outgrown the territorial conflicts and colonial wars that kept its armies occupied for centuries. That's why with the end of the Cold War and the continued consolidation of states within the European Union, Europe's armies have been in decline. With borders coming down and trade flowing freely, there is little support for territorial aggression.

But it should not be forgotten that U.S. soldiers were the key to liberating Europe from Nazi rule and it was U.S. statesmen who promoted the main postwar institutions of European unity, NATO and the forerunners to the EU. Japan as well was fortunate enough to be defeated by a power that regarded freedom and democracy as the key to peaceful progress.

Critics of the war in Iraq are now taking delight in detailing the "chaos" in that liberated state. But short memories forget that France was rather chaotic as well after the Germans were driven out, as partisans went to work on the French men and women who collaborated with the Germans. Indeed, there is still a tendency in France toward settling issues in the streets.
What is so often seen as chaos in Iraq is merely the turmoil of people who are finally free to express themselves openly. The political factions contending for influence and power are not unlike the factions that so troubled George Washington. Indeed, U.S. factional fighting remains as vigorous and strident today as it was then, but more firmly bound by the broad acceptance of law and precedent and ultimately controlled by the jealous regard free people have for their rights to choose their own leaders.

What's happening in Iraq is called politics. Given the number of AK-47s scattered around the country and the deep animosities engendered during a savage dictatorship, it is at times a dangerous form of politics. L. Paul Bremer, the American administrator charged with pulling together a representative interim government that will arrange for free elections, has his hands full. Trying to build the institutions so necessary to democratic rule, most particularly a reliable and accessible system of justice, will proceed under severe handicaps, not least the difficulty of finding Iraqis who are respectful of individual rights and want to uphold them.

American efforts to promote liberty around the world have not always succeeded. The failure in Vietnam was traumatic, of course, and raised doubts in the minds of many Americans about the legitimacy of wars of liberation. Some State Department professionals came away from that experience with a sense that America had overreached in trying to impose its values on a distant nation. But that rather misses the point. Wars of liberation are meant to allow people the freedom to find and exercise their own values. Among Asians, the Japanese, South Koreans and Taiwanese have taken the road of democratic capitalism when it was opened to them.

Global politics are never simple. But all signs indicate that Americans have no regrets about Iraq, for reasons firmly imbedded in the nation's history.

Mr. Melloan is deputy editor, international of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.