My peeps are all in CA. So Moon Beam is going to hit them up for 500 bucks per head.
Keeping it all in perspective, NYC was going broke in 1975.

Tim, that's _Governor_ Moon Beam.

--B.G.--

How long will it take for all the legislators to show up to do their jobs? Days, weeks, months, longer?

This article hits the nail on the head and although it was written in 2009, it may as well have been today.

California
The ungovernable state

I'll gladly throw in $500 for a new state constitution and districts that are not gerrymandered. If the great recession doesn't result in structural changes, I scared to think of what it will actually take.

Current FY 2011-12 budget information is here (but please note: "summary" is 788 pages).

http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/#SummarySchedules

Feel free to review and suggest fixes, as req. Be sure to show your work.

And thanks.

Cheers,

Rick

It would still be the good life here if better managed. How much money is wasted every day?

Why is California (and other localities) so far in the hole?

Is it wasteful, expensive, liberal programs that have been implemented in recent years?

Taxes have been cut for some people, for example proposition 13 that reduces property taxes especially on corporations?

Public employees have for years been paid a little less but their pensions have been a little more, and now we're having to come up with this extra expense?

The cost of medical care keeps costing a bigger share of the budget and it's now beginning to drag down everything? It's worse for public employees because they pay a smaller share?

Is it just the recession has reduced tax receipts?

Or is it a combination of all of these? (except I think the pendulum has been to the right the last thirty years so the first is probably the least true)

Interesting Op-ed in the WSJ comparing California to Greece. And they never touched spending on non-taxpaying illegals. Since I don't live there, I'm not going to make any snarky comments about the legislators on both sides of the aisle.

But the Wall Street Editorial section has always been very partisan - no reason to even look at it

I subscribed to the WSJ for years but stopped after Murdock bought it. Except for the editorial section, it used to be fairly balanced.

California cannot function because of proposition 13, a key part of which requires a 67% majority to pass any tax increases etc. The republican party consistently blocks any effort to actually fix the situation, something Jerry Brown discovered fairly early in his term this time around. The old republican party, that was actually reasonable, and able to engage in dialogue, and compromise, is now not present, and what we have left is an extremist party that refuses to engage in any meaningful compromise whatsoever, with the democrats occupying some weird sort of center right netherworld, which is a bizarre twist is called 'liberal' or 'radical' or whatever by the right, to whom now anything left of pure unregulated corporatism is considered communism. And we've seen where that takes you enough times over the last century...

Obviously with this type of political scenario, only gridlock can occur, since for some perverse reason california continues to elect both parties at roughly the same levels, which gives the republicans veto power over any and all legistlation that could actually fix the problem. Then they step back and blame the democrats, a nice, radically irresponsible way to proceed, one that is absolutely guaranteed to bring the state, and the US, down to the second world status that seems to be the goal of the current system to achieve. And you know how it goes, set the bar low enough, and you'll reach your goals.

Despite cute names like 'moonbeam', Brown is actually a pretty sharp character, and if this situation can be fixed, he might be the one to do it, hard to say, depends on California starting to vote their interests not what some barrage of tv commercials tells them to think. Not a good situation, very sad to watch. What's particularly concerning is that the economic situation is not going to return to 'growth' due to external factors, so really an adjustment that is somewhat rational needs to occur, but it is not occurring, same problem as with the feds, europe, greece, borrowing to pay for the present, with the assumption that growth will resume. Both parties are equally guilty on this stage of denial, but one is extreme and unwilling to dialogue or compromise, and that can and does lead to gridlock.

We need to get rid of the 67% thing in California, as soon as possible, and the other tools being used to bring the US down, like filibustering, then maybe some true campaign finance reform, but the situation looks very bad, to put it mildly. Sadly as things cycle downwards, the typical reaction is reaction, ie, reactionary thinking, and the worse it gets the more extreme the reactions get. The right is already so far right of where it was in the 60s and 70s now that major figures from that era, even Reagan people, Nixon people, Goldwater people, have been writing books warning about the extremism of the new right. As well they should.

Well said Harald

I heard "Governor Moonbeam" on the TV. Very reasonable message. It's up to the voters to choose - either modest tax increase and smaller cuts in spending or bigger cuts - he's willing to do either.

I heard somewhere that a big problem for California is that a lot of manufacturing was exported to Asia

Ah yes. I'm sure it is all the rights fault that Cali is bankrupt.

Yes raise taxes even more in what is already one of the highest taxed states. Might you guys cut spending instead?

You notice industry had been fleeing the state for years due to your policies already.

Keep it up. The rest of us benefit.

I'm fine cutting spending as long as the cuts are coming from the right's massively bloated pet projects, like our prison system. Let's not pretend it's a bunch of hippy liberals driving California over the edge with boondoggle spending.

Again, so despite the fact that the left has controlled the legislature in CA for 40 years with a couple of exceptions, has drawn the redristicting maps until the democratic influenced "public committees" took over just recently, and had half of the recent governors, it is the rigt that is ruining the state?

It's not a matter of left or right. California spends more on education than anything else. What politician will suggest cutting education?

Also, while taxes is are high, California is something like the 8th largest economy in the world, so there still plenty of money to be had here.

Kinda like the new McDonald's value meal. The Obama meal. Order anything you want because the guy behind you is paying.


Just saying

Brad

I don't understand about the Obama meal being ordering anything you want because the guy behind you is paying.

You must be talking about Obama-care

Yeah, seems kind of counterintuitive to me. The democrats have had functional control of the state legislature for decades, yet everything would be in good shape if they just had complete control.

I don't buy that for a second.

What would be higher if that was the case? Taxes, spending and borrowing. That's not a guess or an opinion, that's their platform.

They did it again. Instead of looking for cuts, they found another little way to give themselves another little pay bump.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/24/state/n160354D16.DTL

blame the liberals as always. Keep in mind that we usually have a Repulican Gov. with veto power.

You think we spend a lot on education? Then why does my family have to pay for items for kids to use in my wifes classroom? My wife has not had a cost of living raise in 5 years.....Would you be mad????? Why are teachers getting pink slipped yearly?

Both parties have a lot to answer for. Brown (Moonbeam) has done a pretty fair job and he is trying to right the ship...kinda like Obama.

Keep in mind, when the S**t hit the fan, it was the Republicans and their policies that brought us into The Great Recession. But yes, it is Browns fault and it is Obama's fault.

Our state is not bringing in the money that it did during the boon years. Programs have been cut so much that their really is not a whole lot left to be cut. Raising taxes a little bit will get us out of this mess. The only way Brown could get his plan to work was to bring it to the voters. The Republicans have stood in the way of raising taxes.


THEY DON'T LISTEN TO NO ONE

Edited by kennyhel77 on 05/27/2012 09:45:18 MDT.

I think I see the problem.
Two huge problems hit the legislature:
1. Budget deficit and
2. Force feeding geese.

Obviously they chose to protect geese. And who wouldn't.
No more fois gras in CA starting July 1 2012.
With that issue off their plate, your elected officials can probably get on to issue number 1.

(I would start worrying about a goose down ban.)

"fois gras"

They've already made it too difficult to find freeze-dried fois gras.

--B.G.--

I love it when people from Tennessee and Texas and West Kentucky opine about what's happening in California.

post-script: Not referrring to any MI-based ex-Californians.

Edited by DaveT on 05/29/2012 15:19:31 MDT.

I am ex CA. I can poke fun at my old home state anytime.

Dave T you are soooo right

Tim, sorry, you don't live here and do not understand our situation thank you

Edited by kennyhel77 on 05/29/2012 16:58:46 MDT.

Ken -- sorry to tease you folks (the fois gras put me over the edge)

I thought it was kinda funny actually

Tim: I'm ex-CA as well - a 4th Gen SFer.

One of their more minor problem is that on balance, high population states pay the feds more than they get while my current state, Alaska, for example, get 4 to 5 times the federal dollars they pay. I have 3 times the congressional representation I did in CA. Not fair, and the small states leverage that into lots of federal spending.

But having been there for Prop 13 and its aftermath - I'd cite that as the biggest hurdle to a viable state economy. They have the weather, the cropland, the professionals, the skilled labor and the unskilled labor, plus the high-tech and emerging industries - they ought to be doing just fine. But it is so easy to get elected promising no new taxes and so hard to be re-elected if you've voted for a tax increase, I don't know if they will ever fix Prop 13. Increasing property assessments since 1978 would have been a steadily increasing income to the state and would have been borne by people according to their property values. Instead, my father pays diddly on the house he's been in since 1965 while someone next door would be paying literally 10 times more taxes on an identical house.

Actually, California might be headed in the right direction now. We exiled all of our troublemakers off to Alaska.

--B.G.--

Ken -- if I can synch my yearly sibling/nephew visit with a BPL GGG (Gather of fois Gras gourmands) I will see if I can sneak some in to the state.

Nice!

I recently returned to the plumbing trade after a three year hiking sabatical.
It is interesting how the exodus of undocumented workers has been replaced by workers from states like Idaho and New Mexico and countries like Ireland, England, and Australia as the construction sector is growing again here in the peoples republic of Ca.
Everytime I convince myself to leave this state of my birth and home for the past 43 years, I am suddenly inundated with more work than i can do.
Such is the case today.
We ain't sunk yet.
All the signs i see in the trades lead me to believe residential and commercial (i do both types) construction is increasing again.
As for the politicians; if they would follow my simple rule we would not be in debt.
That is: If you ain't got the money, you don't buy it.
People think I am crazy for not using credit...
Well I think it's crazy to spend money you have not earned.
As for the future value of property in this state remember this: They are making more people but they ain't making more land.
California is roaring back.

Dave T. understand your feelings. I have the same about other states staying out of our business in North Carolina.

Brad

Who says you have to live in a state to know what is really going on? I did not know that all those that live in California understand it all....
Who says that one cannot have an opinion about another state? The same people that advocate for less and less rights for individual states? That just does not add up.

" Increasing property assessments since 1978 would have been a steadily increasing income to the state and would have been borne by people according to their property values. Instead, my father pays diddly on the house he's been in since 1965 while someone next door would be paying literally 10 times more taxes on an identical house."

That's fine for the 1 percenters, but the wages of many people who bought years ago when property was much cheaper have not kept up with the increase in property values. A lot of them would end up out on the street if property taxes increased in sync with the market value of property. This is particularly true of many elderly folks, who have been in their homes since, say, 1965, and are scraping by on a modest fixed income. Perhaps not your Dad, but many, many others. There has to be another way to get the required revenue to support government, IMO. Part, but not all, of the answer lies in increasing the tax burden of the 1 percenters and eliminating loopholes that allow corporations to escape paying much of their tax obligations.

David Lutz, I respectfully disagree with your post.

Yes the Dems have had control of the state legislative, but we have had Rep. Governors for sometime..(except the two years Gray Davis was in office and kindly shown the door).

The Gov. has full veto power and has had the ability to block whatever they chose. Our state has been in a legislative standstill for many years.
Now that The Republicans have better control of the legislative branch they have decided to block any agenda Brown has put forth. Basically they have not listened to the voters of this state and have their own agenda. Brown CANNOT pass his tax increase because The Republicans have blocked this. The only way to pass this is to bring it to the voters. My hunch, this will pass easily.

On another note:

Our state has a lot of problems and some of it has been spending too much when times were good, and spending too much when times were not good ie over spending. When the Great Recession hit us, we have not had the tax money available to keep our state functioning. This is not a Dem. problem. This was created by the Republican Party and their vision for CA. How did we get into this mess in the first place folks. It sure was not Jerry Brown nor Obama. Think about it.

"The California Public Employees' Retirement System said Bruce Malkenhorst Sr, would now receive $9,654 a month, after the pension fund preliminarily concluded that his $45,073 [per month] pension was "illegally based on unpublished pay rates, overtime and an inflated longevity allowance.." .... Calpers said it would also deny six other Vernon officials all or part of their pensions on similar grounds.

Vernon is a tiny industrial city near Los Angeles with a population of just over 100..."




I'm sure his constituency appreciated his efforts.

Edited by greg23 on 06/01/2012 16:08:57 MDT.

Dems have had full control. Reps have occasionally had veto power. Hmmmm...

Maybe your Cali blinders are ruining your objectivity?

Michael,

Please read the thread before commenting.

Thanks,

Roy

For your pleasure.

The State budget summary:

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf

Link.

Roy

Please ignore my response to kens ludicrous posts if you just want to give me pointless advice.


Thanks

I looked at the state budge summary a little

One thing they said is "California remains burdened by $35 billion in debt from a decade of unprecedented budgetary deferrals and borrowing"

So maybe the last decade, California spent too much but partially got away with it because the economy was good?

They're sure making large cuts now, like 22% cut in spending for state universities

Michael how is my post ludicrous?

Our state has been held hostage by the Republicans for sometime. Arnold our late great Gov. was a Rep. too. Blinders ruining my objectivity? Really and please point out where. Man us darn Liberals sure are misquided huh.

Jerry, you are correct. We spent and borrowed during good times and we have not adjusted.

Michael that was one of my points. Jerry was kind enough to put some data to show a point.

A point that I too presented.

Edited by kennyhel77 on 06/02/2012 13:23:25 MDT.

Ken, if Michael doesn't call you ludicrous you're not saying anything : )

Doesn't it require 2/3 majority to increase taxes? Then the Republicans have always had fillibuster power in California?

I think public pensions, in California and elsewhere, are the bigger problem. Public employees have taken smaller pay and bigger pensions, there was never enough saved, now we have to pay for it.

Unfortunately, even though it was a contract, we are maybe going to have to go back and reduce benefits.

Maybe the same thing with social security and medicare, but what bugs me is that the Republicans with Democrat support voted for Medicare part D for prescriptions but never paid for it. It's a "poison pill" that will eventually bankrupt Medicare. That's what Republicans want. They will fillibuster any solution other than eliminating it. Obama care fixed this a little but more needs to be done.

Jerry the thing with pensions does make sense. However, as an example, my wife is a HS teacher. She gets NO social security benefits because of her pension. Same goes for firefighters, police etc. This is all they have (well investments etc) to retire on. You can understand the passion others have over this whole debate.

Good points BTW

The ridiculous claim that people can't comment on CA if they don't live there. And that it's all on the right

Democrats have had the control. I showed that already. If republicans can filibuster then maybe democrats still need to compromise? If you read and believe some of the articles posted in this thread then the left and right are very polarized in large part due to gerrymandered districts. Well for the most part I believe the left has been drawing them for the past 20 years. So then who gets the blame?

The US problems are on both parties. If you have a complaint in Texas it is probly about the right. But Cali falls squarely on the left. No ifs ands or but about it.

Edited by mpl_35 on 06/02/2012 14:44:21 MDT.

Ken,
Just curious here...
"She gets NO social security benefits because of her pension."

Doesn't the district pay into the pension fund? Do you know the rate?
Also, can you wife contribute via payroll deduction?

With SS, the employee and employer both pay 6.2% for "retirement benefits" and 1.45 for "medical".

Thanks.

"Jerry the thing with pensions does make sense. However, as an example, my wife is a HS teacher. She gets NO social security benefits because of her pension. Same goes for firefighters, police etc. This is all they have (WELL INVESTMENTS ETC) to retire on. You can understand the passion others have over this whole debate. "

The investments are what you should be planning on retiring on. Social Security is an insurance for the worst case scenario. Too many people these days are relying on it for retirement. That isn't how it was designed.

I have always been leery of pension plans. If you don't have the cash in the bank in your name how can you count on it? It is only prudent to save your own money.

"The US problems are on both parties. If you have a complaint in Texas it is probly about the right. But Cali falls squarely on the left. No ifs ands or but about it."

No - in California it takes a 2/3 (?) majority to raise taxes so the Republicans fillibuster. Maybe they sometimes need a few democrats, but they're bought out too.

"If republicans can filibuster then maybe democrats still need to compromise?"

Nationally, if a Republican votes for any tax increase including eliminating a loophole, then Grover Norquist will bombard that person's district with money in the next primary and they will be replaced.

The Republican's accept no compromise, except for going along with everything they want

"then the left and right are very polarized in large part due to gerrymandered districts."

Disagree - it's that the government is totally bought. Until we eliminate unlimited political contributions (bribes) we'll have a mess

And the unlimited funds create an Orwell/Huxley world of expertly designed propoganda so you will vote against your own best interest

The Democrats aren't angels. Anyone willing to spend months shaking peoples hands and kissing babies and kissing up to political contributers to get elected will be a flawed person.

It's not Democrats vs Republicans, or religious vs unreligious, or racists vs peaceful people, it's the people vs a very few people that have bought our government

" have always been leery of pension plans. If you don't have the cash in the bank in your name how can you count on it? It is only prudent to save your own money"

well said Michael - that's one liberal idea I don't like - the company or business can renege on their comittment - they can under contribute over time

I thought social security was a safety net or floor - enough to survive at a poverty like level.

They should change SS to be a fixed amount, say $10K per year regardless of how much you earned previously. That would save some money and still provide security.

I don't like "means testing" where you get no SS if your income is greater than a threshold, because the threshold won't keep up with inflation and at some point most people won't get anything so it will become "welfare" and then the amount will go down over time, like Medicaid, until it's not enough. This is just a "poison pill" pushed by right wingers that have always tried to get rid of SS

Ah. Jerry. Staying true to form

The democrats have 62.5% control. They only have to get 2 others to vote with them. One of the bluest states you have in the US and you guys are still trying to blame the other party. I can't believe you guys are serious.

Rarely do Republicans EVER vote against the party line. Retribution in the form of not supporting the perp with taking away funding usually does the trick.
Look it up Michael it's true.
As for our state being blue...... Yes it is, however venture away from the coastal population centers and the politics that one choses changes the farther east you go. Glad I live near San Francisco!

Greg, I will ask my wife, I'm kinda curious about what you asked. She is the financial boss here, so I rarely ask questions

Even if they won't vote against the party. Who is responsible for the districts that lead to such polarized elected officials?

I don't see how somebody can put the blame on the party with 37.5%. You have a tax rate near the top. Maybe that isn't the issue?

I'd think you could buy the two votes you needed if it came to it. So maybe it is time to look in the mirror for somebody to blame?

Michael,

"...if you just want to give me pointless advice."

So your saying you did read the thread? Then I guess it's just a comprehension issue.


"Please ignore my response to kens ludicrous posts..."

Actually, I'll just ignore them all since you don't have anything of value to add to the topic. Ken's post was quite good ... if you understood it.

Best,

Roy

Roy

xxxxxxxxxx

Good to know.
---------
Let's keep it polite guys.

Me, I'm fascinated by the unreality of the whole scene, but thankfully from a long, long way away.
Cheers
Roger Caffin

Edited by rcaffin on 06/02/2012 18:34:42 MDT.

What the hell caffin?

This is chaff. Go delete some more threads asking RJ to live up to his promises.

It is ok for somebody to question my reading comprehension and thereby my intelligence, yet you won't let me call him on it?

I guess it is ok to pss off mlife members since you have our money already.

regardless of what's going on, let's find solace in the fact that we get to live in California.

Edited by DaveT on 06/02/2012 23:36:58 MDT.

Hi Michael

> It is ok for somebody to question my reading comprehension and thereby my
> intelligence, yet you won't let me call him on it?
Yes, it's Chaff, and yes, its perfectly OK for you to call him on it - politely.

Your posting was not all that bad, but I feared that the path you were going down could spiral out of control rather quickly. Your posting had already been reported as being rude. So, in the interests of polite discourse, I made a clumsy attempt to prevent that.

I look forward to further displays of keen wit and searing replies couched in the utmost good taste :-)

Cheers

+1 with Dave T.

I've lived in the northeast, the southeast, Colorado, Washington. Cali does it for me. If I'm going to be poor, it might as well be somewhere that has decent weather.

And censorship in chaff is an outrage. As long as no profanity is being used go for the jugular.

Edited by kthompson on 06/03/2012 07:37:31 MDT.

Heaven forbid I be rude in chaff.

And no my post had zero profanity.

But I do love visiting CA. Particularly the parts further east away from the coast. ;)

"I look forward to further displays of keen wit and searing replies couched in the utmost good taste."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/rulesofdueling.html

If all else fails we have the 26 rules contained in the Code Duello [Irish] or the 25 in John Wilson's Americanized version.

The rules contain very strict guidlines on whom must apologize to whom after an explicit number of shots have been fired or in the case of swords, the breaking of the opponents sword, tent pegs, and/or freeze dried spaghetti inclusive.

This information should be available readily to all posters on Chaff irregardless of politico, religous, or economic persuasions, even, gasp, Californians.

So tell me Harold Hope, since you seem to be in favor of democrates raising taxes without limits, how much more of your money do you want the government to take away from you. Reply with a dollar amount then write out a check and send it to Governor Moonbeam. California is in the hole 1/2 trillion dollars for unfunded liabilty for the public sector pension fund fiasco that Mr. Moonbeam created from his first failed term as governor. That averages about $12,000 for each resident in the state, so maybe you can start with a check in that amount for each member of your household. After doing that then I want to see you complain about taxes not being high enough.

I am reminded of an incident in the UK, probably in their Parliament:

Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."
Winston Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.”

Which goes to show that you do not need any rudeness, profanities or even uncouthness to get your meaning across. :-)

Cheers

Wow folks. I was just joking around here. A gentle jab from one fiscally challenged state to another.
Sorry it turned into a blood sport. I will stick to myo food and gear posts from now on.

"Sorry it turned into a blood sport. I will stick to myo food and gear posts from now on."

If you say something in chaff, you have to be prepared for "rude" responses.

I think you're entitled to an opinion even if you're from Minnesota.

If California goes down, it will impact everyone else.

Yeah Rich, blame the Dems...

The amount Brown wants to raise taxes has neen published as well as for how long.

Some on this thread have some pretty strong opinions about which Party is to blame for California's fiscal woe's. Id like to add some perspective to the right v. left mentality that has become so pervasive in political discourse.

Ive lived most of my life in the Northeast and can say with certainty that designations such as right wing extremist, hippie, progressive, tea partier, liberal or whatever title one may assign to another are more a product of where you are from than loyalty to any political Party. Ideas and titles are interchangeable.

Some in the Northeast especially people from New Hampshire think of Massachusetts as a Liberal stronghold for the typical reasons of high public sector wages, generous benefits, and the high taxes needed to support such things. Whether this is accurate or not is irrelevant, that is the perception. The typical Bostonian thinks of New Hampshire as dangerously Libertarian, views Vermonter's as Hippie's, doesnt realize any humans even live north of Bangor and affords all of these groups only enough respect to keep winter skiing trips free from incident. Most "real" Mainers would be more than happy to turn everything south of Bangor over to the flat landers so long as they could build a fence to stop any further migration from "the south." Now, on any given day just about anywhere in NE one could use any of these places and statements interchangeably and elicit cheers and nods of agreement.

The interesting bit is that all these opinions exist in what have become reliably Blue States where there is a great deal of agreement on the proper Role of Gov't. Each State is limited in its goals to one degree or another by their respective economies, populations, tax structures etc. but those goals are roughly the same. Eastern States are also much smaller geographically than Western States making it much easier for people to reconcile their principles with the Gov't bodies they participate in by simply moving to another State.

More importantly though, and this is where I think a State like New Hampshire differs from a State like California, Easterners don't make a strong distinction between Gov't action and Gov't intrusion. Certainly in Vermont and New Hampshire this is true, though for different reasons, but even in a more Left leaning State like Massachusetts it is believed by many that Gov't by its nature is intrusive and should be limited to the extent that is practical.

I read the article at this link http://www.economist.com/node/13649050 and found it amusing that the author referred to Berkeley as home of the looney left and Orange County as home of the rabid right. To many people outside California any of your Reps that get any TV time seem completely disconnected from reality, regardless of Party affiliation. Given their fondness for ballot initiatives the people of the State share in the blame for its condition. If California, with all of its advantages cant get its act together maybe it deserves to fail.

Bruce wrote:" If California, with all of its advantages cant get its act together maybe it deserves to fail."

If California Fails the United States Fails. California was or still is in the top 10 economic power house in the world beating out most countries.
Back about a decade ago Orange County almost went bankrupt. The problem with California especially souther California is our economy is tied to the cyclical rise and fall of the housing and commercial real estate market. This happens every decade like clockwork but this time real estate took a nose dive in to the ocean and it may never recover. Just like it has in other states. The problem with California starts at county and city, town governments who allow hyper extreme growth instead slow or controlled growth.

Terry