A little blunder:

[[QUOTE]Unaware that a live microphone was broadcasting their words around the Capitol, Assembly Democrats meeting behind closed doors debated prolonging California's budget crisis for political gain.

Members of the coalition of liberal Democrats talked about slowing progress on the budget as a means of increasing pressure on Republicans.

A microphone had been left on during the closed meeting Monday, and the conversation was transmitted to about 500 "squawk boxes" that enable staff members, lobbyists and reporters to listen in on legislative meetings.

Some members of the group, including Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, said if the budget crisis were extended, it could improve chances for a ballot initiative that would make it easier for the Democrats to raise taxes by lowering the threshold for passage from two-thirds to 55 percent.[QUOTE]

Complete article can be found here

The question, Is it legitimate to prolong a crises to accomplish a political objective?

Yes it is. That does not mean that I agree with the tactic though. But not acting on a budget crisis seems to be a pretty common way to ratchet up the pressure. We did on both sides of the aisle for two straight years here in Tennessee.

My counter question would be: is this conduct by elected politicians surprising to anyone in AD-land?

In this case I see the California Democrats as wanting to extend the crisis as a means of acquiring an objective; making it easier to raise taxes. I don't really care much for this tactic, but do not find it as obnoxious as extending the crisis in order to win more seats in the state legislature. I am sure this is common practice, by both parties in all states, they just don't get caught too often.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Politicians are out to help one group : themselves.

Whatever they think will keep them in power, they will do it. Making the other side "look bad" is an acceptable practice, regardless of how many citizens get hurt.

I guess it never occured to these wonks that cutting spending might alleviate some of those budget shortfalls?

Actually it does surprise me. Not in the sense Amlord was talking about(but I do agree with your point about always wanting to help themselves.)

You DO NOT try and keep your state in a budget crisis(thus hurting funding for social programs and schools) just to garner an advantage to raise taxes.

Personally I think microphones should be placed in all closed door meetings, for both democrats and republicans.

And why pose that counter question Eeyore? Is it just to take away some emphasis on how dastardly this actually was by the democrats in CA?

I do not think it is legitimate to prolong a crisis to achieve a political objective. It is dishonest. Further, I worry much of the "budget crisis" across the country is due to political objectives as opposed to real lack of revenue. Here is Illinois, all the news stories were talking about the huge State of Illinois budget deficit. I did find some facts on State of Illinois Revenue but was unable to do so via State of Illinois websites nor traditional media. A group in Chicago reported that revenue was actually up 4 billion dollars. Also, the State of Illinois revenue was up over 40% over the course of four years. Clearly the crisis was being caused by flamboyant spending. The media did little to inform the people of this.

Local school boards jumped on the bandwagon and proclaimed school budgets in a crisis. Most of this crisis was caused by poor fiscal planning and a decrease in student population as birth rate decline hits the school districts.

The California story is a concrete example of deceit by our representatives. I expect there would be a good story about the mass deceit happening across the country if anyone would research some. But then again, even if the public was told it, would they care?

I agree with you on the microphones. I said I don't agree with their tactics but my counter question was to highlight the fact that this problem crosses political boundaries. As to the point of it being dastardly . . . I don't know that I think it is surprising or dramatic. In fact I am sure some of those dems believe they are acting in the public interests.

I personally think the ends, means, and real results should all be considered when evaluating someone's actions.
As for the string of angry faces, what gives? It seems to me you are mad because my post dilutes your ability to blame this on democrats and don't want to acknowledge that this is a systemic problem.

The string of angry faces was directed at the entire story in general as it disgusts me.

But by your question you are trying to redirect some of this 'tarnish' over across the aisle.

I would be just as upset if this were republicans caught trying to do the same thing in CA. I would be admonishing them in the same manner.

Reminds me of the spending spree Dems went on in the 80s, when they controlled congress. Reagan brought in record high revenue increases for the country, just as he did in California, but they sabotaged the whole thing by jacking up new taxes at about $1.47 more for every $1 Reagan generated. Yes, its extremely sleazy. Speaking of the sleazy self-serving ploys of the Dems, I especially liked how Clinton gave us the highest tax hikes in history, remained gridlocked with congress, yet got simplistically associated with the prosperity of the 90s that actually came from the emergence of cell phones, 401ks and the internet.

In all fairness though, with gerrymandering, pollution credits, green mail, and so many other equally sleazy, but somehow legal tactics out there, its not the end of the world.

That's funny. What it reminds me of is the 1996 situation, when Clinton and Gingrich got into a *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** contest. Or perhaps what's playing out right now at the federal level. Some people are pretty open about the idea of forcing another budget crisis, though they're usually quick to add the (bogus)rationalization that reducing revenue first is the only way to reduce spending. It's a common tactic, and by no means a democratic one...or even one restricted to government. Just this past weekend a fellow at work tried to sabotage an idea he didn't like, by deliberately making such a mess of the implementation that (he thought) people would be forced to abandon that approach in favor of one he preferred. The urge to get one's way by deliberately screwing up any other way is as old as the fable about the bad servant.

Since you derailed the topic for another piece of Reagan revisionist history,

How is it that the democratic congress is to blame for raising takes and not cutting taxes in the 1980s but the Republican Congress of the 1990s is not to blame for raising the taxes in the 1990s?

On this thread topic, This is dirty politics but it is legitimate. I do not approve but am not at all shocked.

Eeyore, its not that complicated. Reagan fought like hell to cut taxes and increase revenues. What little Dems let him have also had massive spending hikes attached to it.

And granted, the record high tax hikes we got under Clinton, were with very resistant Republican consent, but nonetheless, it is ridiculous to associate Clinton with the economy he actually undermined.

And platypus, I am all for reduced government, and don't consider it sleazy to cut the hell out of taxes to force it. There's no underhanded, shifty ploy to it; no big secret to what Bush is up to, and I support it fully.

I'd be all for reduced government by reducing taxes, too, except that's not what's happening. Taxes are being cut, yes, but spending is not. In fact spending continues at record levels. How does this shrink government?

Back on topic, it is not unusual for either side to create or extend a crisis if it helps "their side", and hurts the other. The sad fact is, we have no real "statesmen" anymore, just two sets of reactionaries who want to "win" their point ant any and all cost, and the the people they are supposed to be serving be damned.