how come there isn't a thread abt this already.

From Golden State to 19th-century backwater

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...y?commentpage=1

Imagine a state that considers itself progressive, cutting edge, the envy of the world. Imagine a state with the globe's fifth largest economy. Imagine a state, population 37 million, with more wealthy people than practically any other spot on earth. Imagine a state that once had by far the best public infrastructure in America and a voting public that was deeply committed to its premier institutions.

Now imagine that state so cash-strapped, because of decades of anti-tax revolts and irresponsible, unfunded, spending mandates, that it can't pay even its basic bills and is hoping to sell off prized public lands and buildings to plug just a tiny fraction of its deficit.

Welcome to California. America's Golden State is so deeply in the hole that governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has just announced $5bn in emergency spending cuts, and plans a further $3bn in cuts a few days from now. This is on top of the tens of billions of dollars pared from the budget last year, cuts that already have removed vast sums of money from the state's schools, furloughed thousands of workers and shuttered numerous state agencies.

On the cutting block: the entire state welfare programme. That's $1.3bn. Plus, in ending all welfare in California, the state will lose another nearly $4bn in federal matching funds. California will be, according to Wednesday's papers, the only state in America – and quite possibly in the western world – that doesn't provide even subsistence benefits to impoverished children.

Let me reiterate that. If Schwarzenegger's cuts go through, California, which has long prided itself on being a place where nobody goes entirely without, where the safety net takes care of the most vulnerable, will soon make Mississippi and Louisiana – where thousands were left to drown after Hurricane Katrina – look generous and far-sighted when it comes to anti-poverty programmes.

What else will go? The entire state-funded healthcare programme that currently provides healthcare to nearly one million low-income children. All state money for the running of state parks. Nearly a billion dollars from higher education budgets. Not far shy of a billion dollars in money used for rehabilitation services (drug treatment, education, job training) for prisoners. Oh, and don't forget the $55m that will be saved from reducing the state's commitment to fund Aids tests.

To use words like "counter-productive", or "short-sighted" to describe these cuts doesn't begin to do justice to the scale of the disaster being mapped out in Sacramento. The state is essentially going to step back into the 19th century and watch while millions fall into destitution, while illnesses go untreated, while school services are decimated and while addicts who want help are turned away.

Can anyone think of a few likely consequences down the road? Well, how about rising crime, epidemics, increased illiteracy rates, the spreading presence of shanty towns, increased gang violence as the informal economy fills the vacuum left by these state rollbacks.

Of course, it's possible that Schwarzenegger is simply playing a brilliant game of political brinkmanship. Perhaps he's hoping the Feds will ultimately step in and bail California out, that the spectacle of Californian state government in its death throes will simply prove too unpleasant for Washington to stomach.

Or perhaps he's hoping legislators will show a glimmer of rationality and, biting the bullet, actually raise taxes enough, in tandem with some necessary spending cuts, for the state to continue providing vital social services at a time when 11% of its workforce is unemployed and millions more are in poverty. Or maybe he's hoping a consortium of billionaires – Hollywood moguls, Silicon Valley whiz kids, agricultural tycoons and the like – will ride to the rescue with huge donations or loans to the state.

If he is, he's likely pissing in the wind. California's in the hole it's in partly because of the national economic meltdown, but the scale of its troubles is homemade.

It's because the voting public is utterly schizophrenic: through the initiative process it has repeatedly voted to limit the state's ability to raise taxes. And, at the same time, it has voted again and again for expensive programmes for one needy group after another. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude this combination is inherently unsustainable. So why should the Feds or wealthy private donors pull California's chestnuts out of a fire largely of its own making?

And as for the hope that legislators in Sacramento will suddenly see the light and behave like grown-ups, well, there's scant evidence they're moving in that direction. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently wrote that California is becoming a banana republic. That's probably being charitable. The state's political system has been a scandal for years already.

California's political leadership has consistently shown a stunning absence of backbone, intelligence and foresight. It is chronically dysfunctional, hobbled by term limits that deprive Sacramento of experienced political figures who have spent the time learning how to wield power effectively, at the mercy of special interests pushing their pet policies via the initiative process.

Sacramento has a Republican minority as insanely ideological as the worst of the rump-GOP in Washington. And it has a Democratic majority unable to adequately protect social programmes during economic downturns and equally unable to articulate a coherent vision that explains to a cynical public just why those programmes are needed.

When hard decisions have to be made, they are routinely shunted off to be dealt with by popular initiative rather than by the elected officials themselves. And, as routinely, when crunch-times arrive, paralysis sets in along the corridors of power.

We're sliding down the rabbit hole now. Old certainties are gone. A new California is emerging. It's surreal. The sun is still shining. People still swim and jog. They look happy. The flora and fauna are still beautiful.

And yet, make no mistake, a societal upheaval is underway. The state is reinventing itself again. And this time, with the public largely unengaged and unaware, it is doing so in an ugly, stupid, immature way that should bring howls of "shame" from the rest of the nation.

quote:

Originally said by Bill Maher If you gave the average guy the chance, he'd vote for a fantasy world with no taxes, free beer and vagina trees.

In light of that wisdom, despite all the anti gov things we hear people actually do want to be provided with things from the government, but raising taxes so that those thing can actually be paid for is a apparently out of the question. Which just doesn't make sense to me (then again i come from a country with a high tax rate so im used to all of this), since it should be obvious to people that you cant get something for nothing...unless it comes from the government that is, in that case it apparently needs to be free.

___________________

I can't argue with that article. Having a tent city formed in the state's capitol for several months was a telltale sign of something horribly wrong with this state's leadership and economy. 6 years ago, we were happy to be rid of Grey Davis and his poor decision making. Now we're in even worse incapable hands. And yet still people are making more noise in overturning proposition 8 and arguing over the legality of same sex marriage instead of focusing on other ways to fix our budget deficit. It makes no sense to me. You'd think they'd give legalized marijuana a try and tax it, but no. Can't upset the religious right. Oh well, I'll continue to smoke and watch this once prosperous state collapse on itself.

California... New York... Michigan... states in the worst economic shape with the worst spending records, highest taxes, skyrocketing unemployment, etc. are all run by Democrats. The once conservative Arnold has been seduced by the spending habits, pandering, and identity politics that Democrats play. These states' impending failure is no surprise. The people who continue to vote the leaders into office must of course share some of the blame though. But what's frightening is that if you look at California, it is a perfect example of where the nation as a whole is headed with the addiction to power and spending the liberal politicians have today. Can't spell it out any better than this:

quote:

Under Arnold Schwarzenegger, the best governor the states contiguous to California have ever had, people and businesses have been relocating in those states. For four consecutive years, more Americans have moved out of California than have moved in. California's business costs are more than 20 percent higher than the average state's. In the last decade, net out-migration of Americans has been 1.4 million. California is exporting talent while importing Mexico's poverty. The latter is not California's fault; the former is. If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than the budgets of all but 10 states. Since 1990, the number of state employees has increased by more than a third. In Schwarzenegger's less than six years as governor, per capita government spending, adjusted for inflation, has increased nearly 20 percent. Liberal orthodoxy has made the state dependent on a volatile source of revenues -- high income tax rates on the wealthy. In 2006, the top 1 percent of earners paid 48 percent of the income taxes. California's income and sales taxes are among the nation's highest, its business conditions among the worst, as measured by 16 variables directly influenced by the Legislature. Unemployment, the nation's fourth highest, is 11.2 percent. Required by law to balance the budget, the Legislature has "solved" the problem by, among other things, increasing the income, sales, gas and vehicle taxes. This, although one rationale for the federal government's gargantuan "stimulus" was to spare states the need to raise taxes which, in California, will more than vitiate the stimulus. Proposition 1A would create a complicated -- hence probably porous -- spending cap, and a rainy day fund. Realists, however, do not trust the Legislature to obey the law, which may be why some public employees unions cynically support 1A. Another May 19 proposition, opaquely titled the "Lottery Modernization Act," would authorize borrowing $5 billion from future hypothetical lottery receipts. The title is a measure of the political class' meretriciousness. If voters pass 1A's hypothetical restraint on government spending, their reward will be two extra years (another $16 billion) of actual income, sales and vehicle tax increases. The increases were supposed to be for just two years. Voters are being warned that if they reject the propositions, there might have to be $14 billion in spending cuts. (Note the $15 billion number four paragraphs above.) Even teachers might be laid off. California teachers -- the nation's highest paid, with salaries about 25 percent above the national average -- are emblematic of the grip government employees unions have on the state, where 57 percent of government workers are unionized (the national average is 37 percent). Flinching from serious budget cutting, and from confronting public employees unions, some Californians focus on process questions. They devise candidate-selection rules designed to diminish the role of parties, thereby supposedly making more likely the election of "moderates" amenable to even more tax increases. But what actually ails California is centrist evasions. The state's crisis has been caused by "moderation," understood as splitting the difference between extreme liberalism and hyperliberalism, a "reasonableness" that merely moderates the speed at which the ever-expanding public sector suffocates the private sector. California has become liberalism's laboratory, in which the case for fiscal conservatism is being confirmed. The state is a slow learner and hence will remain a drag on the nation's economy. But it will be a net benefit to the nation if the federal government and other state governments profit from California's negative example, which Californians can make more vividly instructive by voting down the propositions on May 19. Remember the story of the mule that paid attention only after being walloped by a two-by-four? The Democratic-controlled state Legislature is like that. Fortunately, it has handed voters some two-by-fours -- the initiatives. Resounding rejections of them should get Sacramento's attention.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ging_96300.html

If Arnold had any balls, he would do what Pawlenty just did in Minnesota. With a $4.6 billion budget shortfall, the Democratically controlled legislature STILL wanted to increase spending, which included $1.2 million in grants for movie producers.

quote:

To fill in the hole they’d blown in the upcoming fiscal budget the DFL then proceeded to float every tax hike known to Garrison Keillor. A short list: A new top income tax rate of 9% (the fourth highest in the nation); across-the-board income tax increases; sales taxes on Internet downloads; the end of the local property tax cap (enacted only last year); alcohol taxes; cigarette taxes; eliminating the deduction for an organ donation (no joke); and killing the home mortgage interest deduction.

Typical... the Democrats didn't care. Then Pawlenty came out of nowhere with a little known law on the books form 1939 to stop it:

quote:

As the clock wound down (the session ended at midnight this past Monday), the legislature sent Mr. Pawlenty one large spending bill after another. The assumption was he’d veto them, be forced to call a special session, and then be negotiated into tax hikes. That’s when the governor got Minnesota nice. Upon receiving the last spending bill, he announced that he would exercise the power of “unallotment,” which has been on the books since 1939 and which has been used four times. Under it, the governor is allowed to “unallot” (take away) any state spending for which there is no money to pay. Panicked, the DFL passed tax legislation to cover its blowout spending bills, 10 minutes before the session’s end. Too late. The governor said he’d veto the bill and would not be calling back the legislature to do any more mischief.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124295250785545573.html

Compare this with how CA does business... they can't bear the idea of fiscal responsibility and paid the price for it at the ballot box last week. Peace out after the next election cycle.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss California... New York... Michigan... states in the worst economic shape with the worst spending records, highest taxes, skyrocketing unemployment, etc. are all run by Democrats. The once conservative Arnold has been seduced by the spending habits, pandering, and identity politics that Democrats play. These states' impending failure is no surprise. The people who continue to vote the leaders into office must of course share some of the blame though. But what's frightening is that if you look at California, it is a perfect example of where the nation as a whole is headed with the addiction to power and spending the liberal politicians have today. Can't spell it out any better than this:

the states that receive the least return on their federal tax liability tend to be the highly populated democratic states. In english, that means republican states generally contribute less and receive more. In even clearer terms, people from california, michigan, and new jersey tend to pay more for the roads being built in alabama with federally provided money than people in alabama. hmmmmm....could that be part of the problem?

In 2005, the population of california contributed 289,627,000,000 to the federal treasury, yet it only received about 231,000,000,000 in return from the federal government. That leaves a shortfall of about 58 billion dollars. If i remember correctly, california had a 48 billion dollar deficit. Hmmmm.....so, if the federal government stopped giving california money to kansas, it looks like that 48 billion dollar deficit would turn into a 10 billion dollar surplus.

http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm

i'm not saying california, NY, and NJ couldn't do a better job at managing their budgets, however, if people from these states weren't subsidizing the anti welfare population of the republican states then these budgetary issues would not be as significant.

bang up job again The17sss! Unsurprisingly missing a huge contributing factor that is unfavorable to your partisan point of view.

So what do you think about republican states receiving a greater return on their tax dollars? Should each state receive an equal return on their tax dollar? Is it fair that in return for each dollar of federal tax revenue collected from these states each state receives the following in return:

Connecticut - 73 cents
Mass - 85 cents
California - 80 cents
New Jersey - 65 cents
New York - 82 cents
Ill - 78 cents
Michigan - 94 cents
Minn - 73 cents
Nevada - 67 cents


and now the republican states:

Alabama - 163 cents
Arkansas - 140 cents
Kentucky - 151 cents
Louisiana - 185 cents
Mississippi - 202 cents
Oklahoma - 135 cents
South Carolina - 135 cents
Virginia - 151 cents
WV - 175 cents
Montana - 143 cents
North Dakota - 165 cents

In fact, Maryland and Hawaii are the only significant democratic strong-holds that receive more than 1 dollar return on its tax liabilty (pa also, if you consider it a democratic strong-hold).

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Jun-01-2009 at 04:27

I'm not familiar with The17sss but the fact that he blames the budget mess solely on Democrats when our Governor is a Republican baffles me. I will simply conclude he is an idiot and move on.

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen I'm not familiar with The17sss but the fact that he blames the budget mess solely on Democrats when our Governor is a Republican baffles me. I will simply conclude he is an idiot and move on.

As I said, Ahnold is a RINO... certainly not a conservative, which was the platform he ran on. He has broken his own promises and given in to massive spending. He is nothing but a power hungry fool. I watched a video of him from like 12 years ago extolling the brilliance of Milton Freidman. Well, ole Milt is probably rolling around in his grave right now listening to the governator.

Jerez- I gotta do some research, but I'll get back to you. p.s.- are you saying George Will's article was bullshit? lol

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Jerez- I gotta do some research, but I'll get back to you. p.s.- are you saying George Will's article was bullshit? lol

the are several claims in that article that I would call absolute bullshit. I don't deny cali needs to work better with its limited resources. However, when federal money is taken from cali and appropriated to the middle of the country, residents of california have to pick up the tab on projects that kansans and oklahomans don't have to pick up. That causes extra stress on the system. Forget all that other shit he said, the main reason middle america doesn't have budgetary crises like the coastal areas has nothing to do with anything liberal or conservative, it has to do with republican middle america getting welfare from the economic powerhouse sections of this country. Notwithstanding, that fact doesn't obviate the responsibility of cali, ny, nj, and other blue states to maintain a balanced budget.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Jun-02-2009 at 14:06