Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

You can blame many factors for California’s fall from grace: too much immigration from poor countries, the impact of global competition on technology and aerospace industries, the end of the Cold War, failing schools, and the 12 years of political control by the Texas-centric Bushes. Yet other states have weathered similar storms and still gained ground on the Golden State.

The real problem lies in the decline of the state’s political culture. “Our society may be evolving spectacularly but our politics are devolving,” suggests [Kevin] Starr, the state’s most eminent historian. “California is in no way a role model for anyone from outside the state.”...

California’s shift to the Democrats had become inexorable and, with the fading of a GOP counterweight, influence within the party flowed to its more radical factions further to the political left. As a result, the state moved decisively away from the economic growth focus of Pat Brown. It seemed determined to wage war against its own economy. As pet social programs, entitlements, and state employee pensions soared, infrastructure spending—the hallmark of the Pat Brown regime and once 20 percent of the state budget—shrank to less than 3 percent.

The educational system, closely aligned with the Democrats in the legislature, accelerated its secular decline. Once full of highly skilled workers, California has become increasingly less so. For example, California ranks second in the percentage of its 65-year-olds holding an associate degree or higher and fifth in those with a bachelor’s degree. But when you look at the 25-to-34 age group, those rankings fade to 30th and 24th.

Instead of reversing these trends, the state legislature decided to spend its money on public employees and impose ever more regulatory burdens on business.

The elections of 2010 will see very little in the way of change within the state legislature because of gerrymandered districts, but if either Meg Whitman or Steve Poizner take over from Arnold in two years, a smart and successful new governor with deep experience in business growth and technological innovation will be in place when the class of 2012 arrives from legislative districts drawn without regard to incumbency, and perhaps the state's political class will begin the hard work necessary to restoring California's economic growth, without which nothing else can be renovated or renewed.

Obama's top advisers said yesterday he's "likely" to back off from his vow to speed up the elimination of a tax break for the wealthy.

The about-face on the issue comes as the US careens toward recession, and as Obama says he wants Congress to approve huge new spending and new tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

Holding off on a pledge to "soak the rich" makes good sense.  What's most noteworthy (aside from the breaking of another left-pleasing campaign promise) is the implicit concession that underlies it: That tax increases (yes, even those on "the rich") only stifle economic growth -- thereby reducing the number of jobs that can be created and the amount of money circulating in private enterprise (thereby helping more people earn better livings).  And that hurts everyone, "rich" and poor alike.

By making the right decision -- delaying the implementation of his tax increases -- President-elect Obama has essentially admitted that tax increases are bad for the economy.  So why would you ever raise them?

"If Tim Geithner, the New York Fed chairman, gets a top spot in the Barack Obama's cabinet, we are done, finished, kaput. It is that simple."