How will the state deal with budget deficits that seem here to stay?

Less than two weeks remain before the June 15 constitutional deadline for enacting a 2023-24 state budget.

It’s as certain as anything in politics can be that the Legislature will pass something it calls a budget. If lawmakers missed the deadline, they could lose their paychecks.

Letters to the Editor

Constitutional obligation

EDITOR:

“We the people” — Thus begins the preamble to the United States Constitution, which ascribes to us both rights and responsibilities, freedoms and obligations. One particularly nettlesome duty on our “To Do” list is to “insure domestic tranquility.” quality of our submissions, inspire thoughtful and meaningful discussions and demonstrate an e ort to promote domestic tranquility. Or, we could not adhere to any guidelines and continue down the path to civil war.

DONNA SKELTON Cameron Park

Climate religion

EDITOR:

It’s equally certain that whatever they enact will not be the final plan for the 202324 fiscal year that begins July 1. Due to declines in revenue, the state faces not only a multi-billiondollar deficit in the forthcoming year but the likelihood of continuing gaps for several years thereafter.

There is, moreover, neither consensus on the scope of the deficit nor agreement on how the governor and legislators respond. Meanwhile, those in the Capitol are besieged by pleas by those with stakes in the budget to protect their projects and programs and demands for even greater allocations.

SUMMARY

California faces a large budget deficit for the forthcoming fiscal year and chronic shortfalls for years thereafter. How to deal with them is going to be a major problem for the state’s politicians.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced his first version of the budget in January, he said the state had a $22.5 billion deficit and then increased the shortfall by another $9 billion in the revised budget proposal last month.

Immediately, however, the Legislature’s budget analyst, Gabe Petek, told his bosses it’s really $34.5 billion and, more ominously, declared the state faces continuing deficits averaging $18 billion for several more years.

It is, in the parlance of fiscal mavens, a

■ See WALTERS page A5

Guest Column

Let’s face it: We are failing at that! Our politicians are often deadlocked in one power struggle after another. Popular media exacerbate the political divide by o ering jaded opinions or misinformation instead of actual facts. The common parlance among our citizens reveals sour suspicions of one another and vulgar stereotypes of this or that group. Violence is getting worse.

Perhaps each of us should ask, “What can I do to help heal this troubled nation?” I suggest that we begin here in these letters to the editor and the comments they evoke. I see ways to continue a lively exchange of ideas without being hateful and divisive.

First: Stick to specific positions on specific issues instead of launching global attacks on the “other” party.

Second: Support our positions with facts that are documented.

Third: Cite our sources so the readers know where our information originates.

Fourth: Avoid name-calling — “redneck,” “Bible thumper,” “libtard” and “fascist.” Even labels such as “left” or “right,” “liberal” or “conservative,” “red” or “blue” are too vague to convey precise meanings, but they have connotations that push hot buttons and sometimes provoke hostile reactions.

Hurling insults is like a food fight in a cafeteria. Such behavior is juvenile. It’s also demoralizing, destructive and counterproductive. Demonizing people locks them into defensive positions and hardens the opposition. We can disagree intelligently by presenting well-reasoned arguments without attacking each other.

Fifth: Let’s not hide behind pseudonyms. A pseudonym provides cover for someone in attack mode — like a sniper behind a bush shooting at his target from a safe distance. Let’s show the courage of our convictions, own our words and sign our real names. That enhances our credibility. Adhering to these guidelines will elevate the

Darwin Throne wrote a good, detailed letter opposing the media’s position on climate where he gave the scientific rationale for his position. Scott Taylor then gave us the usual o cial response from the pulpit. Why do I say pulpit? Because climate has left the realm of science and has become what amounts to a religion.

Any scientist putting out a di erent view from the o cial line is excommunicated like Galileo was by the Pope for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the universe. If a scientist disagrees with the o cial line on climate he or she is cancelled, excluded from all conferences and finds their careers at an end. So much for scientific debate.

Gore said the ice caps would be gone by 2014. Prof. Peter Waldhams said arctic ice caps would be gone by 2015. The U.S. Navy said it would happen by 2016.

Scott Taylor wanted the Mountain Democrat to not print Throne’s column, which blasphemed the Church of Climate. The Church of Climate will not tolerate dissent and those who blaspheme it must be consigned to the infernal regions.

By the way, several decades ago the Church of Climate predicted we were entering an ice age. And even if you believe the climate priests, even the left wing Sacramento paper printed an editorial by the left wing New York Times that pointed out that with China, Vietnam and India pumping out what they do we are past the tipping point anyway — making our economy damaging e orts pointless even if the Taylors of the world were to be right. But we will continue to dig ourselves into an economic hole because blasphemy against the Church of Climate brings professional death.

GEORGE ALGER Placerville

■ See LETTERS page A5