This columnist has long complained that we have much more government than we need and far more than we can afford. In New York, we are penalized by paying more in taxes than any other state, and have few positive results to show for it.

We spend an enormous amount on education and have an uncommonly high drop out rate. We have absolutely no documentation to affirm the teacher’s unions’ alligations that paying higher salaries to teachers and administrators results in higher learning rates.

The politicians who always promise great achievements when campaigning have a great deal of difficulty making good on those promises. While there are several excellent people in districts throughout the state who would really like to make productive changes, they are beaten into submission by the corrupt and ineffective system.

For all practical purposes, New York is run by a handful of people, the vast majority of them from the New York City area. They get the gold mine and the upstaters get the shaft. The major decisions are made by the Governor, Majority Leader in the Senate, and the Speaker in the Assembly. Nothing goes on the floor without their permission.

The rank and file legislators must curry favor with those powerhouses to get their bills even considered to get out of the numerous committees. Committees serve a very useful political purpose. They provide generous stipends for chairmen, coincidently appointed by the leadership. In giving plums, seniority is given preference over ability and talent.

One must be careful with wishes. The old saying warns, “You might get what you asked for.” A Constitutional Convention can be a two edged sword. You could get some disastrous provisions that would replace just bad ones. On the other hand, you could make some positive sweeping reforms that would change the system to make it more efficient and affordable.

One positive change would be to reduce the number of legislators by half. We have been losing population in droves as people vote with their feet, or go out of state to get a decent job. The high taxes have been driving out businesses and productive people like a bulldozer moving earth.

On the other side of the equation, the overly generous social services attract people who are very comfortable being on the dole. Consumers enter while producers leave. This in itself is a prime recipe for disaster.

With fewer politicians, we reduce the number of people who can foul things up. It is hard to argue against the concept that the major objective of bureaucracies is to expand power and the power base. The Authorities created by Nelson Rockefeller have become dreadnaughts when it comes to raising the cost of doing business in New York. We find it difficult to pinpoint to whom they answer when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars. They have to be better controlled or eliminated.

The standing bureaucracies should be halved. The lack of decent results in education would indicate that department should be cut at least in half. Others obviously have many more people than is necessary.

We need a law that mandates a budget that cannot exceed actual revenue. As the bumper sticker said: “If you send it, they will spend it.” This law was recently passed in Colorado and looks like it is working well.

New York is going down the drain like the vortex in a whirlpool due to incompetence and mismanagement by state and local politicians. Many individuals are not at fault. That is why the system must be changed. We get the government we deserve. It is now the proper time for citizens to fight back.

The best way to learn about how government works is to watch the budget process. In a state that distributes over $200 billion ($101 billion in general fund, $32 billion in special funds, and another $60 to $100 billion in a variety of other government programs), the stakes for those who can get a piece of that pie become very high. Most of what occurs in that process occurs behind the scenes in very high stakes negotiations, with very few participants. Most members of the Legislature are not always certain about what occurs, and are often left with just hours to consider how to spend this enormous amount of money.

I spent 10 years of my time in the Legislature on the budget committee, and I can tell you, even I am unsure about everything the state spends its money on. I can say that when I first joined the Legislature, our total general fund spending was $42 billion. If all of the programs the state spends money on were added together then, the total spending was about $110 billion. Today, that number is $101 billion general fund, and over $230 billion total, a huge increase in just 14 short years.

Which is why I have voted against just about every budget. The one budget I voted for was the smallest increase in the history of the state, a proposed $100 million increase, in the 2004-05 budget. That projection turned out to be wrong. The state ended spending about $2 billion more than the projection, but, all in all, it was a relatively restrained budget. Not so, today.

This week, the Legislature will vote on the 2006-07 budget. It will be the last budget on which I have the opportunity to vote, and, if I have any regrets about my time here in Sacramento, it has been my relative inability to restrain the expansion of government that has occurred while I was here.

In fact, all of the incentives in government weigh in favor of centralizing government power, and making that central government bigger. In most budget discussions at the state level, Democrats advocate for more spending on education and welfare, and most Republicans advocate for more spending on law enforcement and road construction. The compromise is usually to spend more money on both. The two-thirds vote requirement to pass a budget usually requires the Democrats to pay at least lip service to Republican priorities in the budget, but it has never worked to restrain the growth of government.

That is because all politicians benefit from the centralization and growth of government. By the granting and withholding of the benefits of government, or using the power of government to intrude on a person’s life or business, politicians make themselves more important to people. Most people avoid contact with the government, just ask anyone how happy there are to see a tax collector or a traffic cop. If government officials didn’t stick their nose into everyone else’s business, people would avoid them like the plague. Politicians and bureaucrats maintain their power by intruding on people’s lives and taking their money. That is true no matter who is in charge.

This year’s budget epitomizes the problem. The state is spending every dime it takes in, and then some. To the Governor’s credit, he is trying to pay down some of the debt he inherited from Gray Davis, but the Democrats in the Legislature don’t want to do that. In fact, they want to spend more money on more government programs. That is exactly how we got into trouble under Gray Davis, ending up with horrific deficits. It is only a matter of time before it happens again.

Practically all events can be considered either a problem or an opportunity. In either case, most people have to deal with them. Reaction to the event depends mostly on the attitude of the person facing it.

Americans are very fortunate to be able to make choices, but government has taken many from them. Government has simply become too powerful and intrusive in our lives. The politicians seem to have the answer to everything, but we see few actual solutions.

In the politician’s quest for more power and control, the American citizen keeps getting shortchanged on the ability to make choices. The tragedy is the fact that the voters (those who bother to go to the polls) seem to approve of the loss of freedom, and keep re-electing those who promise much, and deliver little.

The biggest beneficiaries of the “incumbent protection plans” are the tax eaters. Those who work for government and those on the dole are the ones who vote. They are the ones who keep the gravy train on the track while the producers are so busy working to pay the taxes, they don’t seem to notice that they are being robbed of much of what they earn.

The ignorant believe they are getting something for nothing. Actually, some do. If ever there was a time for taxpayers to revolt, this is it. This column hopes to give some suggestions for voters in order for them to consider issues that just might give them a different perspective when in the voting booth.

In New York, the legislature passed a bill to give property owners a few dollars rebate, coincidently to come just before Election Day. The politicians claim their fiscal acumen caused a surplus and “should be returned to the taxpayers to give them a well-deserved break.” The question is: “If there is this surplus, why did the legislature borrow $11.7 billion this year?

We have a problem with illegal immigration and a lot of words and rhetoric are being created in speeches and posturing. One of the big problems is people with counterfeit documents that allow them to get driver’s licenses and access to other benefits.

We have yet to hear of anyone proposing a law that would make possessing counterfeit documents a D felony and the counterfeiting and sales of such documents at least a B felony. You can’t forge documents by accident. It must be premeditated and deserves the high felony designation. Some problems need serious solutions. This could be a start in the right direction.

The drug problem is another one that has not been met with the seriousness that it deserves. Many years ago Congress passed a law that allowed the death penalty for major drug dealers. We read of drug busts that involve millions of dollars worth if illegal contraband, but never do we hear of the ring leader sentenced to a lethal injection of drugs.

Granted, there are some legislators and executives who deserve to stay in office. We have to be careful to keep the good ones, but should be equally mindful of those problem causers and eject them in the next election. The best way to do this is to make them defend their record.

The major problem is that those in the election district believe “our guy (or girl) is OK, but it is those in the other districts that should be thrown out.” Tough call in some cases, but people have to learn to vote on issues instead of pulling a voting lever like some trained monkey to get a banana, just because it is on a party line. Bad habits are difficult to break.

As we like to remind our readers: we get the government we deserve.

If you ever want to understand government, take a look at the budget process.

This week was the budget deadline. It is a soft deadline. The state Constitution requires that the Legislature pass a budget by June 15, and that the Governor sign it by June 30 of each year. There are no penalties if the Legislature doesn’t act by June 15, so that deadline is rarely met. In fact, the only time it has been met since I have been in the Legislature was the 2000-01 budget, which increased state spending from $66 billion to $79 billion in one year. The very next year, the state found out it had a $28 billion deficit. The moral of this story? On-time budgets are not all they are cracked up to be.

This year, the Democrats in the Legislature really wanted to have an on-time budget. They talked about it in the press. They gave great speeches on the floor about the “unique” opportunity that the Legislature had this year to pass an on-time budget. They tried to push Republicans into believing that passing a budget on-time was critically important so that the Legislature could “preserve” its reputation. (What reputation an institution with a 21% approval rating has is beyond me, but they wanted to preserve that).

In my experience, every time my Legislative colleagues start going through this drill, they are getting ready to drop a budget bomb on the people of the state of California. As the 2000-01 budget proved, that bomb can go nuclear in a very short time. As the events of this week showed, it did.

This week the Speaker announced that they wanted to spend $30 million this year, up to a total of $300 million in the next 3 years, for an expansion of the “Healthy Families” program, to cover low cost health care for people who are not eligible for the federal S-CHIP (state child health insurance program). There are only two groups of people not eligible for that program—people earning $51,000 a year or more who do not have health insurance, and illegal aliens. Since most people earning over $51,000 have health care, 90% of this money (paid for entirely by the California taxpayer) would go to illegal aliens.

Republicans said NO.

A howl went up from the Capitol. Republicans hate children. Republicans are holding up the budget process. How could these “Wascally Wepublicans” be so hard hearted?

First of all, the “Healthy Families” program was intended to help only those who found it hard to pay for their own health insurance. Second, it was intended to be paid for by the Federal government, which promised to pay for two-thirds of the cost of the program. Finally, it was only supposed to help US citizens. This new program violated all three of those rules.

In 1998, when the state passed “Healthy Families,” I predicted it would blow up the state budget. I was actually wrong. In 1999, California government spent about $10-$20 million advertising the program. Not enough people were signing up for the program, so now we spend $120 million—all to expand the program, that is, to make it cost more to the taxpayer and encourage more people to mooch off the government. Evidently, this increased spending on advertising was unsuccessful. People are still not signing up enough, so the Legislative Democrats want to include illegals as eligible.

In the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 budgets, the state created its budget crisis by greatly expanding the health and welfare programs, increasing expenditures in that area by 41%. A lot of those new expenditures went to cover services for illegals. Unless Californians quit voting for them, Democrats will continue to push dumb ideas that lead to budget crises.

The two quickest ways to make social and political changes are war and depression. We are already in a war, and with the monies being spent, can a depression be far off? War is very expensive, but being conquered is a total loss of our country.

Nobody disputes that we face a real threat of terrorism, and many agree that it is better to fight it in the Middle East than in Manhattan or anywhere in the United States. A major problem is that we have to send soldiers to do the fighting and the recruitment of new personnel is not going at a satisfactory rate.

In order to win a war, we have to have a strong and competent army with an adequate supply of young men and women. We also have a domestic problem at home with far too many young people dropping out of schools, getting into trouble involving criminal activity and ending up in prison.

There could be a common solution to both problems. Sounds drastic and would certainly be unpopular, but perhaps strong consideration should be given to reinstituting the draft, where everyone over the age of eighteen could be conscripted into military service. Perhaps “unpopular” is an understatement, but some people look at the concept as a way of encouraging young people to learn respect, discipline and a sense of responsibility.

When a very expensive educational system produces a drop out rate of up to fifty percent in school districts, we have to admit that correcting that problem should be a high priority. When a large number of young people are going to prison rather than college, that should be an indicator that they have not learned about respect, or responsibility.

Let’s consider what the proper use of the draft could do beyond keeping the military strong and well staffed. When the draft was active, we had rebels burning draft cards and protesting a war in Viet Nam. That was a different time and war. The Viet Cong did not fly airplanes into the Twin Towers and murder thousands of people.

We have been attacked on our home soil. Of course, those who don’t wish to be responsible for anything will protest and expect the government to take care and protect them without any sacrifices of their own. For those who would go to Canada or any foreign country to escape the draft, good riddance.

By giving student exemptions from the draft, it could be a strong motivator for young people to stay in high school and graduate. Those who are eighteen and not enrolled in any institution of higher learning would be the first to be drafted. College or trade school students could also be given deferments.

As part of the program, after basic training, the recruits would be offered the opportunity to get a GED which would be part of their advanced training. As long as they performed satisfactorily, they could learn other skills that would help them after discharge. A big portion of military training is respect for authority and a sense of individual responsibility. Great lessons for all young people.

A second aspect worth considering is the illegal alien problem. When caught, if they passed the qualifications, they could be offered a chance to volunteer for the military. If they serve and are honorably discharged, they could be offered their citizenship. While in the military, they would have to learn to speak English and this could be a part of GED training. Being in the military, they would be provided with medical care, dependent allowance and the other benefits that many receive through social services.

The costs would not increase, but be re-allocated. Those who serve would not be eating up educational dollars, creating prison expenses and other taxpayer funded programs. The big difference is that the taxpayers would be getting value for the taxes they pay.

Perhaps a military post could be built on the southern border. Just the presence of thousands of soldiers in that area could very possibly slow down illegal immigration. Who would want to try to sneak their way through a line of military men and women out on maneuvers?

Thousands of veterans went through the draft process. The vast majority came out better for the experience. Our young people deserve the same opportunity.