[roughly]

This is because one of our two political parties doesn’t believe that government spending should exist, and is iffy about the concept of government overall. Because of that, the only body able to respond to crises is the Federal Reserve, and the only lever they have is the money supply.

We’ve had multiple trillion dollars worth of infrastructure repairs we need to do and nearly sub-zero borrowing rates for the last decade, but the GOP has effectively blocked any efforts to enact any kind of actual fiscal policy. If any business out there’s leadership refused to take sub-zero rate loans to perform critical maintenance on their capital stock, they’d rightly be fired and probably sued.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Spending on infrastructure is Keynesian - genuinely Keynesian, not the faux-Keynesian of bailouts, which are often labelled Keynesian with various degrees of good/bad faith.

Keynesianism is absolutely taboo in a plutocratic neoliberal economy - possibly because it's a credible reason for increasing taxation. And there's nothing a plutocracy hates more than having to pay more tax.

As you point out, in rational terms this is self-harming nonsense. Countries need repairs and they also need physical infrastructure investment. The 50s saw the Interstate system, the 60s saw generous funding for computer and IT R&D as well as other basic science, but since Reagan public spending for the public good has become unacceptable - largely because it "costs money."

As if creating jobs and valuable physical infrastructure is somehow an unreasonable expense and not basic common sense.

[donw]

The GOP has no power in California, though, and that’s been true for over a decade.

[dragonwriter]

> The GOP has no power in California, though, and that’s been true for over a decade.

The GOP could still block tax increases (including any tax rearrangement that included an increase in some aspect), because of the supermajority requirement, until the Senate class elected in 2018, which was significantly less than a decade ago.

[donw]

Unless I'm reading this[1] wrong, the California State Assembly has been a Democrat supermajority since 2011, and the Senate has been since 2013.

Moreover, Democrats have only been one or two votes short of a supermajority in both houses since 1999.

So, I still think my statement is fair, that the GOP has no effective power in California, and that has been the case for two decades.

Where do I have it wrong?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Ca...

[dragonwriter]

> Unless I'm reading this[1] wrong, the California State Assembly has been a Democrat supermajority since 2011, and the Senate has been since 2013.

The relevant threshold is 27 (2/3 of 40 is 26.6...) seats in the Senate, 54 (2/3 of 80 is 53.3...) in the Assembly.

So in 2011 neither house has a supermajority (and, prior to a State Constitutional Amendment in 2010, a supermajority was required to pass a budget with or without tax changes), in 2013 Dems had supermajorities in both Houses which they lost for the 2015 session in both Houses, regained in 2017 by the 2016 election in both Houses, lost in the Senate by a recall in mid 2018, and regained by the 2018 elections for the 2019 session.

> Moreover, Democrats have only been one or two votes short of a supermajority in both houses since 1999.

No, up to 2 in the Senate and 6 on the Assembly short; and up until 2010 that meant Republicans, while, they couldn't pass anything on their own obviously, had a veto on the annual budget which thhey regularly held hostage to extract other concessions.

> So, I still think my statement is fair, that the GOP has no effective power in California, and that has been the case for two decades.

It's not; they've had a veto on tax policy changes that aren't pure cuts intermittently, on at least one house (which is all it takes) over the last decade, and a veto over the budget consistently for the prior decade.

Oh, and as well as a legislative veto on the budget they also held the Governor's office for much of that prior decade (the full years of 2004-2010), which gave them more power (especially because, unlike the President in the federal system, the Governor has a line item veto on the California budget.)

So, no, they haven't been without power in California for two decades (or even the original claim of one, but its much more ridiculous to now claim two.)

[donw]

That’s fair. Thanks!

[mperham]

California can't print more money, the Fed can.

[dragonwriter]

More to the point, California (both Constitutionally, and practically because of the market effect of being the issuer of the debt-denominating currency) borrow as freely and cheaply as the federal government.

[CWuestefeld]

The GOP has no power over the Fed, either.

[dragonwriter]

> The GOP has no power over the Fed, either.

The Fed Board are Presidential appointees and currently the board has four GOP members and one Democrat. The GOP controls the Fed.

[electriclove]

Even when money is spent on infrastructure projects, it amazes me how long it takes to do the work as compared to some other countries.