Occam's Butterknife Slices California

"Tuesday's defeat of deficit-reducing ballot initiatives portends the difficulties awaiting countries whose finances have been ravaged by the recession. ... Deficit spending is sensible in a recession, but [California's] enormous fiscal troubles force it to tighten the purse strings, lest markets no longer buy its bonds. Its debt is rated the least creditworthy among all US states. How did it come to this? ... But the root cause is political. Gerrymandered legislative districts strengthen claims by vested interests for public money; supermajority rules for tax rises makes it difficult to fund them. ... Their defeat [the five propositions], in a state that desperately needs a path back to fiscal balance, shows how difficult it is to convince voters that they have been living beyond their means. ... But ultimately it is the Californian voters who have fallen short", my emphasis, Editorial at the FT, 21 May 2009.

This editorial amazed me. Who are these FT PC clowns? Nowhere does the FT mention the "I" word and its effect on California. Perhaps, the anti-Israel, Keynesian, pro-third world FT needs it spelled out clearly: California's taxpaying class is tired of paying illegal aliens and their offspring "jiyza". This is class warfare. California is the US first "minority-majority" state. It has 5 million illegal aliens its 38 million population and 9-10 million spouses and children of same. The US imported millions of people from southern Mexico with little skill and an average 82 IQ, with the results visible in California. If the FT's pecksniffians brand me with the "Scarlet R", so be it. 45 years ago, in the age of Dodge 426 Hemis and the Daytonas' "Little GTO", with a 389, Hollywood High, "Holly High", regularly cranked out 15 National Merit Scholars a year. Now, Holly High's average graduate reads at a ninth-grade level. Why? What "deficit-reducing" measure will the FT support? They were tax increases. Got it? What does "fiscal balance" mean? How many more impoverished Mexicans need emigrate to California before even the FT admits the obvious? Or does the FT think Californians should be enslaved by illegal immigrants and their progeny? Which "voters have been living beyond their means"? Missing the illegal alien issue, reminded me of Steve Sailer's 15 February 2004 piece, link: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/butterknife.htm.