Watching the events of the California senate unfold the last few days is a bit like what just happened with the U.S. Senate, except we see what is going on, people have the information before them as they are making decisions, and the senators are communicating with the outside world via social media, such as Twitter and Facebook -- particularly Chuck Devore. So, in those cases it is far different than what happened with the U.S. Senate as the stimulus/porkulus bill was passed last week. What is the same, though, is this idea that by throwing more money at a problem, that this will fix the problem. This works in situations like home repair. You have a leaky roof, invest some money and fix the roof. This doesn't work for problems with the economy. Reducing your debt means you spend less than what you bring in. A viable solution for this would be to cut your spending --- not increase the tax on your constituents. Why not? Because you still haven't fixed the problem, which is that the government is spending more than they need to. Eventually, you will have taxed the people more than they can afford to pay (some people would argue that we are there now), and you still have uncontrolled and illogical spending. Example, from the U.S. stimulus bill, do we need $200,000 for a new bus washing station in a town of 75,000 people? Probably not. We could, logically, make repairs to the station we have now, or produce a much cheaper, albeit plainer, bus washing station for a lot less money. So, are there places in the CA economy where the government could make cuts in their spending? I would imagine so. For those who are taking a realistic, sensible approach to the problem of overspending and standing in the way of increased taxation, such as Chuck DeVore -- good for you! If only all of our elected officials took their duties to represent their constituents as seriously.