Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

California Budget Crisis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • California Budget Crisis

    Here's my take on why we are unable to get out of the current pickle. Feel free to comment.

    1. The voter proposition system is madness. We vote in new spending without accounting for new revenue. Some propositions say "no new taxes will be needed." But those new measures still compete with existing programs for funding. If I am correct, voter propositions are also responsible for California needing a 2/3 majority to pass a budget (insanity), and for it being virtually impossible to raise taxes when needed. (IMO taxes should be raised during a boom and cut during a bust, but in California it's almost impossible to raise them).

    2. California politics is presently dominated by unions who do not have the overall health of the California economy at heart. Every time Arnold tries to cut spending, some liberal special interest group comes out of the woodwork and throws a hissy fit (and I'm a liberal, but I'm also pro-reality). The teachers union, the state employees union, the prison guard union, etc. OK, I get that nobody wants their pay cut, but Arnold seems to be the only guy in Sacramento who accepts a reality here - the money isn't there, something has to be cut.
    Last edited by travelmonkeys; 20 Jul 09,, 02:29.

  • #2
    This is, without any possibility of being debateable, the worst administered state in the country. And this is so precisely because of one-party rule by the party that has proven itself ideologically incapable of ruling anything more complicated than a garage sale. Ditto, New York, just about to enter the same shoal water as California's Ship-of-State; ditto New Jersey; double dam' ditto Michigan, may Gawd help their foolish lock-step hive-mind group-think state.

    Oh, and don't think you're going to make any points by pointing out the nominally-Republican governors since Reagan, because they simply don't count. Wilson? Schwarzenegger? PLEASE. California simply cannot elect a conservative, and this is at the root of its problems, not the party designation that the governor claims.

    If you want to see FAILURE at the state and national level, it has an uncanny relationship to states being bluish in political color. Katrina screwed Mississippi just as hard as Louisiana, but a Republican governor in the former covered himself in glory, just as the Democrat in the later disgraced herself and cost the lives of not a few of her constituents. Likewise New Orleans' completely deficient mayor. And when you see Detroit's mayor, you don't even have to ask what party he belongs to, nor any of the worst of the blighted urban centers throughout the entire dam' country. Baltimore may be the second-bluest city, behind Boston, and BOTH have sections that are referred to as 'the Combat Zone'. Easiest place on the planet to get shot that doesn't end in '-stan', and yet gun control should've made it as peaceful as Switzerland (where dam' near every household has an automatic weapon - imagine that...huh)., according to the libs. But they were wrong. AGAIN.

    Because this is an eternal Truth: liberal 'principles', such as they are, and as they are practiced by the Democratic Party, simply do not work, and eventually eat the heart out of everything they touch. It may take fifty years, as it has in California, once known as the Shangri-La of the Lower 48, but inevitably the collapse comes, because the way those idiots BELIEVE life works and the way reality ACTUALLY functions is incompatible with decent governance.

    California had it all: resources, industry, an educated and upscale population, tourism, and every wonderful advantage, and it's becoming a sewer: next-to-last education performance, highest percentage of the population under state control, failing infrastructure, and more social pathology than Moscow. Ask yourself how that all could've happened

    Vote Republican, and save your state, and your country.

    Comment


    • #3
      Liberalism is not the root of all problems. Your post proved very well that you hate liberalism (which of course we knew already). As for explaining California's problems, it is simplistic and absurd. Anyone who values balance and common sense over dogmatism and ideology knows California's mess is both parties' faults - the liberals who won't reduce spending in tough economic times, and the conservatives who created a system that can't raise a rainy day fund during boom times. This latter factor is thanks to the Republican-backed two thirds rule and the state Republicans' categorical refusal to ever consider any tax hikes of any kind under any circumstances, ever.

      Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
      This is, without any possibility of being debateable, the worst administered state in the country. And this is so precisely because of one-party rule by the party that has proven itself ideologically incapable of ruling anything more complicated than a garage sale. Ditto, New York, just about to enter the same shoal water as California's Ship-of-State; ditto New Jersey; double dam' ditto Michigan, may Gawd help their foolish lock-step hive-mind group-think state.

      Oh, and don't think you're going to make any points by pointing out the nominally-Republican governors since Reagan, because they simply don't count. Wilson? Schwarzenegger? PLEASE. California simply cannot elect a conservative, and this is at the root of its problems, not the party designation that the governor claims.

      If you want to see FAILURE at the state and national level, it has an uncanny relationship to states being bluish in political color. Katrina screwed Mississippi just as hard as Louisiana, but a Republican governor in the former covered himself in glory, just as the Democrat in the later disgraced herself and cost the lives of not a few of her constituents. Likewise New Orleans' completely deficient mayor. And when you see Detroit's mayor, you don't even have to ask what party he belongs to, nor any of the worst of the blighted urban centers throughout the entire dam' country. Baltimore may be the second-bluest city, behind Boston, and BOTH have sections that are referred to as 'the Combat Zone'. Easiest place on the planet to get shot that doesn't end in '-stan', and yet gun control should've made it as peaceful as Switzerland (where dam' near every household has an automatic weapon - imagine that...huh)., according to the libs. But they were wrong. AGAIN.

      Because this is an eternal Truth: liberal 'principles', such as they are, and as they are practiced by the Democratic Party, simply do not work, and eventually eat the heart out of everything they touch. It may take fifty years, as it has in California, once known as the Shangri-La of the Lower 48, but inevitably the collapse comes, because the way those idiots BELIEVE life works and the way reality ACTUALLY functions is incompatible with decent governance.

      California had it all: resources, industry, an educated and upscale population, tourism, and every wonderful advantage, and it's becoming a sewer: next-to-last education performance, highest percentage of the population under state control, failing infrastructure, and more social pathology than Moscow. Ask yourself how that all could've happened

      Vote Republican, and save your state, and your country.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by travelmonkeys View Post
        Liberalism is not the root of all problems.
        It most certainly is. Stop talking total rot.

        Your post proved very well that you hate liberalism (which of course we knew already).
        It also proved that liberalism is extremely hateable by those of us that think critically (which we ALSO knew already).

        As for explaining California's problems, it is simplistic and absurd.
        There you go AGAIN; now, stop making those ridiculous statements. Nobody here takes you seriously when you do that.

        Anyone who values balance and common sense over dogmatism and ideology knows California's mess is both parties' faults - the liberals who won't reduce spending in tough economic times, and the conservatives who created a system that can't raise a rainy day fund during boom times.
        There should NEVER be a 'rainy day fund'. Do you not get this, you dunce: the money should NOT be seen as belonging to the State? See, this is where libs always get it WRONG: that money will ALWAYS be used to pay for state spending that is not needed. It should ONLY be collected and spent for the legitimate duties of government, and having some sort of store of taxpayers' receipts is THEFT. NO government surplus should ever be contemplated, EVER, because anybody with a lick of sense knows what that leads to: all sorts of things become 'essential'. If receipts exceed outlays for legitimate government, well, Happy Day: return it in the form of a dividend to them what paid it.

        So, YOU value 'common sense' over 'dogmatism' and 'ideology', do you? You've not proven it, if you can put up a post like this, coming as you do from the most heavily-taxed state of all FIFTY. I'm going out on a limb, here, and guessing you're a student, or some other parasite that actually consumes from the public storehouse, but doesn't put anything in, right?

        This latter factor is thanks to the Republican-backed two thirds rule and the state Republicans' categorical refusal to ever consider any tax hikes of any kind under any circumstances, ever.
        And yet, taxes HAVE been raised, haven't they? To the tune of now being absolute tippy-top of all state rates among the fifty. And you know how that happened, sportsman? Why, because the Democrats run this state with the same iron fist and morals of a Moscow party boss, and they rolled/blackmailed/bribed enough unprincipled and brain-dead Republicans to go along with 'em.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
          It most certainly is. Stop talking total rot.


          It also proved that liberalism is extremely hateable by those of us that think critically (which we ALSO knew already).


          There you go AGAIN; now, stop making those ridiculous statements. Nobody here takes you seriously when you do that.


          There should NEVER be a 'rainy day fund'. Do you not get this, you dunce: the money should NOT be seen as belonging to the State? See, this is where libs always get it WRONG: that money will ALWAYS be used to pay for state spending that is not needed. It should ONLY be collected and spent for the legitimate duties of government, and having some sort of store of taxpayers' receipts is THEFT. NO government surplus should ever be contemplated, EVER, because anybody with a lick of sense knows what that leads to: all sorts of things become 'essential'. If receipts exceed outlays for legitimate government, well, Happy Day: return it in the form of a dividend to them what paid it.

          So, YOU value 'common sense' over 'dogmatism' and 'ideology', do you? You've not proven it, if you can put up a post like this, coming as you do from the most heavily-taxed state of all FIFTY. I'm going out on a limb, here, and guessing you're a student, or some other parasite that actually consumes from the public storehouse, but doesn't put anything in, right?



          And yet, taxes HAVE been raised, haven't they? To the tune of now being absolute tippy-top of all state rates among the fifty. And you know how that happened, sportsman? Why, because the Democrats run this state with the same iron fist and morals of a Moscow party boss, and they rolled/blackmailed/bribed enough unprincipled and brain-dead Republicans to go along with 'em.
          You guys should ask Arkansas what to do. its a recession, and we have a surplus and are cutting taxes! The state passed an amendment that requires the state to run a balanced budget. Then a very effective group of forecasters sides with conservative estimates instead of some pink cloud prediction. The result is a state that really is a model of fiscal responsability. When surplus come in, if they look long term- we get a tax cut like the grocery tax cut. if they do not look long term they get invested or doled out for short term items like repairs and technology upgrades not new programs that then require more funding in 2 years.

          This state votes democrat and was the home of the Clintons, but its a blue dog state in outlook. I don't always like that on social justice and civil rights issues, but I do enjoy it fiscally.

          Comment


          • #6
            Critical thinking and strict ideological confinement are incompatible. Also incompatible are dignified discussion and your ranting, personalized, insult-filled tirades.

            Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
            It also proved that liberalism is extremely hateable by those of us that think critically (which we ALSO knew already).

            Comment


            • #7
              Where California goes, the nation will follow.

              This is what happens when socialism runs wild.
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                Where California goes, the nation will follow.

                This is what happens when socialism runs wild.
                Not if we saw it off and make it an island, complete with their own distorted view of politics.:));) Hows about that budget? Costly politics
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  gunnut,

                  This is what happens when socialism runs wild.
                  a far more accurate statement is, this is what happens when a government depends on property taxes.

                  i think it's accurate to say that california is riven by the worst excesses of BOTH parties.

                  democrats couldn't control spending as long as property values were going through the roof, while republicans couldn't contenance any tax regime that either touched the limit on property taxes or a more sensible, stable tax structure not based on a bubble-prone commodity.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    gunnut,

                    a far more accurate statement is, this is what happens when a government depends on property taxes.

                    i think it's accurate to say that california is riven by the worst excesses of BOTH parties.

                    democrats couldn't control spending as long as property values were going through the roof, while republicans couldn't contenance any tax regime that either touched the limit on property taxes or a more sensible, stable tax structure not based on a bubble-prone commodity.
                    Let's not blame Prop 13. Even with property tax capped at 2%, California was getting a healthy tax revenue. Along with a top rate of 9.3% (applicable if you make more than $43000 a year taxable) and 10.3% for those who make more than $1 million a year, the state is getting a revenue of $110+ billion a year.

                    The problem is spending. To a lesser extent, like you said, a tax structure overly reliant on the rich. We need pension reform. We need to stop gouging the rich to pay for services. The rich can pick up and move much easier than the poor. The rich can also become not so rich overnight. We have the the highest or close to the highest tax burden in the union. We can't pay any more.

                    We need to either disband public employees unions or make it illegal for public employees and any organization that represent them to make political contribution. As of now, they own the politicians who set their salaries. I would love to own the board that sets my salaries. I would make sure I can retire at 50 and have a generous health care for life. Had this happened in the private sector, people would scream bloody murder!
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                      Let's not blame Prop 13. Even with property tax capped at 2%, California was getting a healthy tax revenue. Along with a top rate of 9.3% (applicable if you make more than $43000 a year taxable) and 10.3% for those who make more than $1 million a year, the state is getting a revenue of $110+ billion a year.

                      The problem is spending. To a lesser extent, like you said, a tax structure overly reliant on the rich. We need pension reform. We need to stop gouging the rich to pay for services. The rich can pick up and move much easier than the poor. The rich can also become not so rich overnight. We have the the highest or close to the highest tax burden in the union. We can't pay any more.

                      We need to either disband public employees unions or make it illegal for public employees and any organization that represent them to make political contribution. As of now, they own the politicians who set their salaries. I would love to own the board that sets my salaries. I would make sure I can retire at 50 and have a generous health care for life. Had this happened in the private sector, people would scream bloody murder!
                      *Enslave the hippies!:)):))
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                        *Enslave the hippies!:)):))
                        What's the point? They don't work.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          gunnut,

                          Let's not blame Prop 13. Even with property tax capped at 2%, California was getting a healthy tax revenue. Along with a top rate of 9.3% (applicable if you make more than $43000 a year taxable) and 10.3% for those who make more than $1 million a year, the state is getting a revenue of $110+ billion a year.
                          if you look at the state spending, it hasn't really gone up sharply as much as state receipts declined as a result of the recession. this argues that california needs a more stable tax structure. i'd actually favor a scheme in which property taxes are raised or lowered at a proportional level to property value, in return for an agreed upon freeze in social spending.

                          The problem is spending. To a lesser extent, like you said, a tax structure overly reliant on the rich. We need pension reform. We need to stop gouging the rich to pay for services. The rich can pick up and move much easier than the poor. The rich can also become not so rich overnight. We have the the highest or close to the highest tax burden in the union. We can't pay any more.
                          to be more specific- the TYPE of spending. californian social spending was a major drag on the economy, while california's educational spending (at least at the university level) was a major boost. go to la jolla and look at all the biotech startups over there centered around UCSD, and you'll see what i mean.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            gunnut,

                            if you look at the state spending, it hasn't really gone up sharply as much as state receipts declined as a result of the recession. this argues that california needs a more stable tax structure. i'd actually favor a scheme in which property taxes are raised or lowered at a proportional level to property value, in return for an agreed upon freeze in social spending.
                            Disagree. California's budget was near $100 billion in early 2000's. It is now $140 billion. Our deficit was no where near $26 billion back then. Just these numbers alone showed that tax receipts are almost the same at roughly $100 billion. Spending had gone up 40% in 5 years.

                            Pegging property taxes to current assessed housing value will kill retirees. My friend's parents bought a house near the coast for something like $40k in the late 1960s. That property is probably assessed at $800k today. They are retired. Do you really want them to pay $16000 instead of maybe $3000 a year in property taxes for living in the same house for 40 years? There are thousands of examples like that. Forcing retirees out of their houses will just increase the pressure on government supplied old-folks home. All the extra tax revenue will go to housing retirees kicked out of their own houses.

                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            to be more specific- the TYPE of spending. californian social spending was a major drag on the economy, while california's educational spending (at least at the university level) was a major boost. go to la jolla and look at all the biotech startups over there centered around UCSD, and you'll see what i mean.
                            To be precise, the LIABILITIES of public employees pension is what's dragging down the economy. I don't mind paying public employees decent wages. The problem is the pension that guarantees 80% or more, the final year's pay, after working for 30 years, for LIFE. Anything less than 30 years will be pro-rated.

                            As the ranks of government employees swell, the pension liability increases at an exponential rate. The pension is guaranteed with tax money. It has to be reformed to a 401k style retirement fund commonly commonly found in the private sectors.

                            The reason why we have these outrageous pension scheme is the politicians bought with public employees unions' money. They voted in lavish pension benefits, sometimes retroactively, when times were flush, to pay off their union masters. Once voted in, these pension laws don't go away.
                            Last edited by gunnut; 20 Jul 09,, 19:36.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If California got back in federal spending what it pays out in taxes it wouldnt have a problem at all which of course is why holding up Ms as a showcase of republican ideological superiority was pretty ironic.

                              How's the standard of living in California vs MS? How are the school scores? If every state were like MS we'd be a second rate power at best with a developing world gdp.

                              critical thinking requires something other than spewing hatred



                              tates Ranked by Total State Taxes and Per Capita Amount: 2005
                              (Amounts in thousands. Per capita amounts in dollars)
                              Total tax Total tax per capita
                              Rank State Amount Rank State Amount

                              United States….. 650,629,485 United States….. 2,199.11

                              1 California….. 98,434,685 1 Vermont….. 3,600.16
                              2 New York….. 51,326,444 2 Hawaii….. 3,477.93
                              3 Florida….. 33,894,971 3 Wyoming….. 3,417.77
                              4 Texas….. 32,784,942 4 Connecticut….. 3,300.49
                              5 Pennsylvania….. 27,262,969 5 Minnesota….. 3,093.93

                              6 Illinois….. 26,411,689 6 Delaware….. 3,068.98
                              7 New Jersey….. 24,247,648 7 Massachusetts….. 2,818.39
                              8 Ohio….. 24,011,238 8 Alaska….. 2,798.66
                              9 Michigan….. 23,525,187 9 New Jersey….. 2,781.33
                              10 North Carolina….. 18,639,618 10 California….. 2,724.31

                              11 Massachusetts….. 18,034,862 11 New York….. 2,665.62
                              12 Virginia….. 15,918,847 12 Rhode Island….. 2,443.07
                              13 Minnesota….. 15,881,131 13 Maine….. 2,432.35
                              14 Georgia….. 15,665,563 14 Maryland….. 2,386.95
                              15 Washington….. 14,839,634 15 Wisconsin….. 2,375.77

                              16 Maryland….. 13,366,914 16 West Virginia….. 2,367.17
                              17 Wisconsin….. 13,152,251 17 Washington….. 2,359.99
                              18 Indiana….. 12,853,976 18 Arkansas….. 2,352.90
                              19 Connecticut….. 11,584,728 19 Nevada….. 2,347.90
                              20 Arizona….. 11,008,428 20 Michigan….. 2,324.39

                              21 Tennessee….. 10,007,292 21 New Mexico….. 2,322.78
                              22 Missouri….. 9,543,814 22 North Dakota….. 2,202.97
                              23 Kentucky….. 9,090,882 23 Pennsylvania….. 2,193.32
                              24 Louisiana….. 8,638,674 24 Kentucky….. 2,178.50
                              25 Alabama….. 7,774,147 25 Nebraska….. 2,158.36

                              26 Colorado….. 7,648,456 26 North Carolina….. 2,146.68
                              27 South Carolina….. 7,318,388 27 Virginia….. 2,103.72
                              28 Oklahoma….. 6,859,030 28 Ohio….. 2,094.49
                              29 Arkansas….. 6,538,720 29 Illinois….. 2,069.40
                              30 Oregon….. 6,522,665 30 Kansas….. 2,053.85

                              31 Iowa….. 5,778,350 31 Idaho….. 2,053.51
                              32 Nevada….. 5,670,169 32 Indiana….. 2,049.42
                              33 Kansas….. 5,637,807 33 Montana….. 2,003.79
                              34 Mississippi….. 5,432,152 34 Iowa….. 1,948.20
                              35 Utah….. 4,703,330 35 Oklahoma….. 1,933.21

                              36 New Mexico….. 4,478,321 36 Louisiana….. 1,909.52
                              37 Hawaii….. 4,434,356 37 Florida….. 1,905.28
                              38 West Virginia….. 4,301,156 38 Utah….. 1,904.18
                              39 Nebraska….. 3,796,551 39 Mississippi….. 1,859.69
                              40 Maine….. 3,215,570 40 Arizona….. 1,853.58

                              41 Idaho….. 2,934,459 41 Oregon….. 1,791.45
                              42 Rhode Island….. 2,628,747 42 Georgia….. 1,726.61
                              43 Delaware….. 2,590,217 43 South Carolina….. 1,719.95
                              44 Vermont….. 2,242,902 44 Alabama….. 1,705.60
                              45 New Hampshire….. 2,010,775 45 Tennessee….. 1,678.23

                              46 Montana….. 1,875,545 46 Missouri….. 1,645.49
                              47 Alaska….. 1,858,311 47 Colorado….. 1,639.54
                              48 Wyoming….. 1,739,646 48 New Hampshire….. 1,534.94
                              49 North Dakota….. 1,403,293 49 Texas….. 1,434.16
                              50 South Dakota….. 1,110,035 50 South Dakota….. 1,430.46


                              Now, I won't bore you with the per capita income but....wow when you stare doing the income to state tax ratio it's off the rails. Those rich blue states have high burdens because they pay high federal taxes not state taxes on a per capita basis take MS for example 1859 looks good till you figure in the per capita income being 29000 vs 41000 so ca pays 6.5% of income in state taxes vs 6.4% roughly. Depending on the source you might be able to stretch that to a whole .3 percent difference I'd consider the difference in social services and state schools, state school funding is worth less than 1% of income. States are in trouble because receipts are plummeting not liberalism. CA may have too good of a pension but isnt it the Gov office that handles negotiations. Pandering for votes knows no party when it comes to state employees.
                              Last edited by Roosveltrepub; 20 Jul 09,, 22:40.
                              Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                              ~Ronald Reagan

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X