XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.hollywood
XPost: alt.society.liberalism
From: fredp151@gmail.com
On 2017-02-14 11:12:29 -0500, BTR1701 said:
> In article <072f0881f3b65f07fd129ad4f952d2be@dizum.com>,
> "But But Sanctuary Cities! Disaster Declaration! Federal Funds! FEMA!
> Trump!" wrote:
>
>> Brown and the greens were correct that dams don't stop droughts
>> or make it rain, but they can help make conditions less severe
>> and avoid some economic and environmental disasters. Now the
>> problem is the massive rain coming all at once. But the lack of
>> enough dams is again making the problem worse. The Oroville Dam
>> has simply been doing too much of the work for too long. More
>> dams and reservoirs as well as systems to recharge depleted
>> underground aquifers "might have retained some of those heavy
>> flows on the Sacramento and other rivers this month. Even a tiny
>> percentage would make a huge difference when drought once again
>> hits," said opinion writer Dan Walters in an article for the
>> Sacramento Bee.
>
>> Overzealous environmentalists and Democrats are mostly to blame
>> for inaction, but not completely. Capitalizing on Republican
>> President Richard Nixon's signing of the 1973 Endangered Species
>> Act, animal rights groups used that new weapon to block several
>> key California projects like building the once-planned Dos Rios
>> and Ah Pah reservoirs, raising the Shasta Dam, and building the
>> so-called Peripheral Canal. Ecologists and economic
>> expansionists can debate the merits of sacrificing human water
>> needs for protecting salmon all day. But perhaps they can all
>> agree that the state of California should have done something to
>> cater to a population that's almost doubled in less than half a
>> lifetime. Either the state should have enacted much more
>> stringent usage rules long ago or done something to stem the
>> inflow of new residents.
>
> Let me guess: Any talk of stemming the inflow of new CA residents will
> only apply to U.S. citizens. No talk will be tolerated of doing anything
> to stem the inflow of illegals into California.
>
> The dirty little secret that the government and media doesn't want to
> talk about is the effect millions of illegals have on water consumption
> in CA. Every time Jerry Brown goes on TV and whines that we're still
> using too much water and maybe we should just shower less or not have
> water to drink in restaurants, he studiously ignores the fact that
> illegal immigration enforcement would do a helluva lot more to alleviate
> individual water consumption in the state than scolding people for
> washing their clothes.
>
>> Another problem with plenty of bipartisan blame to go around is
>> California's budget woes. All the above-mentioned projects are
>> cheaper than most other infrastructure projects like building
>> massive new roads or high speed railways, but they still aren't
>> free. And neither Democratic or Republican governors of the
>> Golden State have been able to keep its budgets very golden over
>> the years.
>
> No kidding. Instead of doing the things government is *supposed* to do,
> like maintaining roads, highways, and dams, we continually spend 65% to
> 75% of the state's revenues on union pensions and benefits for state
> workers.
Because states aren't supposed to look out for their people... like the
workers.
And states shouldn't honor legal contracts they enter into... right?
What you're describing isn't a "state", it's a criminal racket.
--
Number of Days without a White House Lie: 0
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
