The Only Democrat in CA Who Won't Blow the Budget

This year, amidst a tax increase and an economic recovery, after years of budget cuts and massive deficits, the state of California is turning a nice surplus. Most Democrats in Sacramento want to immediately establish new permanent programs.

 Perhaps in some cases, they argue for reinstating some of the social welfare programs that were cut during the Great Recession. In other cases, they'd like to establish brand new programs, because if there's some extra money this year, why no establish new spending obligations with no guarantee of budget surpluses next year?

Need we remind them that the voter-approved tax increase was temporary, and that economic booms [Silicon Valley, Wall Street] are also temporary?

 Jerry Brown is proposing an initiative that would set aside a rainy day fund, if the fiscal year's capital gains tax comprises beyond a certain percentage of overall tax revenue. He's the most responsible politician in Sacramento. 

Money and free speech

Corporations became people, and money became free speech. So progressed the Second Gilded Age.

While the Supreme Court has deliberated on the limits that the government can set on free speech, with respect to election financing, they have missed a major point: Corporations are not people, and spending money is not the same as speaking freely.

If I support a candidate, I can tell all my friends about him. I can write about him on my website, social media, or newspaper editorial, in unlimited quantities. None of these actions cost a penny. Campaign finance laws were not designed to stifle free speech. In fact, they enhance it, by rendering money alone slightly less potent. Giving somebody money is not free speech.

Corporations are not people. Corporations are legal entities, set up to limit the liability of individuals who directly participate in the market system. If you own stocks in a company that tanks, you do not lose your home, just the value of your stocks. This is the intended purpose of corporations: limited liability.

It's clear that Justice John Roberts considers any limits on free speech abhorrent, which is commendable. However, in recent years he has conflated "people" with "limited liability organizations designed to protect the personal assets of people." He has confused "speech" with "money that can be spent on, among other things, disseminating opinions."