What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Californian's Rejoice! Your taxes are going UP UP UP! (3 Viewers)

We already have the highest sales tax rate in the country! :wub:
Highest sales taxHighest income tax - BTW, the highest bracket in CA kicks in at like 42k salary. Do you consider 42k wealthy?

Highest business taxes in the Western US, which is why businesses are bailing for more business friendly states like Nevada.

Etc....

Yup, the problem is not revenue but spending. they refuse to reign in spending so they just keep raising taxes.
For once, Strike, we see eye to eye. They are terrified to stand up to the unions, especially the prison wardens. All they will accomplish is to drive more businesses out of the state, and their revenue will be less than ever.
:lol: I know my company is getting up and out.
 
It probably won't amount to much but a few cities are looking into repealing the $9.95 billion high-speed rail proposition.
I'm a big supporter of high speed rail, so it makes me sad to say I don't think we can afford it right now. Hopefully we can figure out some way of stopping or seriously curtailing putting more spending initiatives on the ballot for a while - people here just can't say no to anything that sounds remotely good. If not that we need to get better at clearly identifying the total cost estimates and featuring that prominently in any new spending propositions. Californians are like kids in the candy store voting themselves all kinds of wonderful programs that we can't pay for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It probably won't amount to much but a few cities are looking into repealing the $9.95 billion high-speed rail proposition.
I'm a big supporter of high speed rail, so it makes me sad to say I don't think we can afford it right now. Hopefully we can figure out some way of stopping or seriously curtailing putting more spending initiatives on the ballot for a while - people here just can't say no to anything that sounds remotely good. If not that we need to get better at clearly identifying the total cost estimates and featuring that prominently in any new spending propositions. Californians are like kids in the candy store voting themselves all kinds of wonderful programs that we can't pay for.
One of Tom Campbell's proposals was each ballot initiative had to include either 1) specific tax increases or 2) specific program cuts to offset the expense. Sadly, that probably won't happen.

There was a thread here in '08 when we tried to go through all the propositions... it's pretty nasty. We voted something like half-a-billion dollars for children's hospitals (who dares vote against that), even though 1) there was an identical prop already passed in '04 that still had money left over, and 2) the money goes to land-developer friends of state legislators and not the cause at hand. In '00 or '04, IIRC, we passed some multi-million dollar initiative for battered women's shelters, the money went to landscaping Figueroa St. by Staples Center.

No oversight. Voters don't know budget details well enough to make informed decisions. And deceptive propositions. We really need a state constitutional convention to change the proposition and initiative process to fix the problem or we'll never get in the black.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone have $535 Billion dollars we can borrow? Or just $360 billion right now, so we could have an 80% chance of meeting 80% of our obligations in just 16 years?

State pension shortfall totals $535 billion

By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer

Updated: 04/05/2010 07:36:50 PM PDT

California's public retirement plans are underfunded by more than a half trillion dollars, equal to about $36,000 per household and far exceeding previous estimates, according to a report released today by Stanford University.

In the policy brief, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research warns $360 billion would have to be injected into pension and health care benefit systems immediately just to have an 80 percent chance of meeting 80 percent of the obligations in 16 years.

The report also predicts there is a 44 percent chance the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) alone will have a shortfall of more than $250 billion over the next 16 years.

Joe Nation, co-author of the report and director of the graduate student practicum in public policy at Stanford, said the magnitude of the shortfall is much greater than what many economists had expected.

"It is such a gargantuan number," Nation said. "If you have a state budget general fund of $85 billion, and you are short a half a trillion dollars, it's going to be very tough to make up that shortfall."

In recent years, California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, which has spearheaded several pension reform measures, has estimated the shortfall for government pensions and health care benefits is about $300 billion. But foundation President Marcia Fritz said Stanford's estimate is probably more accurate because elected officials have boosted benefits while underfunding the systems for decades.

Fritz said the $535 billion shortfall estimated by the Stanford report means every household in the state is on the hook for about $36,000.

"That's how much they owe to government workers for their retirement benefits," Fritz said.

"It's not like they will have to send a check to pay for it. But they will see it in higher classroom sizes, roads that aren't repaired, parks that are closed, fewer policemen, far fewer firefighters and government offices that are probably going to be closed even more than we are seeing today."

Representatives from CalPERS and the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) did not return calls for comment.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said he isn't surprised by Stanford's estimate.

"This is the ticking time bomb that fiscal conservatives have been identifying for a decade now," Coupal said. "As soon as (former Gov.) Gray Davis granted those enhanced pension benefits, we've been like the Cassandra who warns everybody, but whose words are not heeded.

"And still, even right now, the Legislature is returning from its Easter break and they should change the rules by statute today. But they won't because there are too many powerful special interests invested in the status quo."

In the brief, Nation and five of his graduate students wrote that the CalPERS, CalSTRS and the University of California Retirement System had an adjusted funding shortfall of $425 billion in July 1, 2008. Since then, the funds have lost an additional $110 billion in value.

"The study found that previously published figures about California's pensions really don't tell the truth of the story of how underfunded the pension systems are now," said Cameron Percy, a Stanford graduate student and co-author of the report.

As a way to begin addressing the shortfall, the authors recommend elected officials take several steps, including steady contributions, rather than the erratic ones some funds have chosen; managing assets in a way that limits volatility; and setting sustainable benefit levels through a hybrid 401k/defined benefit plan.

"As pensions take up a larger and larger share of the general fund, that means there will be less money for everything else," Nation said. "Everything else will be squeezed out. If you care about higher education, the outlook is grim. If you want more money for environmental protection, it will be tougher because of these pension pressures.

"These pension obligations will squeeze out all these other things that people care about."
:yawn:
It will never get paid. The people and the companies footing the bill are already putting on the walking shoes. The more services they cut and the higher the taxes go the more taxpayers and business walk out. They are simply going to have to default at some point.
 
Anyone have $535 Billion dollars we can borrow? Or just $360 billion right now, so we could have an 80% chance of meeting 80% of our obligations in just 16 years?

State pension shortfall totals $535 billion

By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer

Updated: 04/05/2010 07:36:50 PM PDT

California's public retirement plans are underfunded by more than a half trillion dollars, equal to about $36,000 per household and far exceeding previous estimates, according to a report released today by Stanford University.

In the policy brief, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research warns $360 billion would have to be injected into pension and health care benefit systems immediately just to have an 80 percent chance of meeting 80 percent of the obligations in 16 years.

The report also predicts there is a 44 percent chance the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) alone will have a shortfall of more than $250 billion over the next 16 years.

Joe Nation, co-author of the report and director of the graduate student practicum in public policy at Stanford, said the magnitude of the shortfall is much greater than what many economists had expected.

"It is such a gargantuan number," Nation said. "If you have a state budget general fund of $85 billion, and you are short a half a trillion dollars, it's going to be very tough to make up that shortfall."

In recent years, California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, which has spearheaded several pension reform measures, has estimated the shortfall for government pensions and health care benefits is about $300 billion. But foundation President Marcia Fritz said Stanford's estimate is probably more accurate because elected officials have boosted benefits while underfunding the systems for decades.

Fritz said the $535 billion shortfall estimated by the Stanford report means every household in the state is on the hook for about $36,000.

"That's how much they owe to government workers for their retirement benefits," Fritz said.

"It's not like they will have to send a check to pay for it. But they will see it in higher classroom sizes, roads that aren't repaired, parks that are closed, fewer policemen, far fewer firefighters and government offices that are probably going to be closed even more than we are seeing today."

Representatives from CalPERS and the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) did not return calls for comment.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said he isn't surprised by Stanford's estimate.

"This is the ticking time bomb that fiscal conservatives have been identifying for a decade now," Coupal said. "As soon as (former Gov.) Gray Davis granted those enhanced pension benefits, we've been like the Cassandra who warns everybody, but whose words are not heeded.

"And still, even right now, the Legislature is returning from its Easter break and they should change the rules by statute today. But they won't because there are too many powerful special interests invested in the status quo."

In the brief, Nation and five of his graduate students wrote that the CalPERS, CalSTRS and the University of California Retirement System had an adjusted funding shortfall of $425 billion in July 1, 2008. Since then, the funds have lost an additional $110 billion in value.

"The study found that previously published figures about California's pensions really don't tell the truth of the story of how underfunded the pension systems are now," said Cameron Percy, a Stanford graduate student and co-author of the report.

As a way to begin addressing the shortfall, the authors recommend elected officials take several steps, including steady contributions, rather than the erratic ones some funds have chosen; managing assets in a way that limits volatility; and setting sustainable benefit levels through a hybrid 401k/defined benefit plan.

"As pensions take up a larger and larger share of the general fund, that means there will be less money for everything else," Nation said. "Everything else will be squeezed out. If you care about higher education, the outlook is grim. If you want more money for environmental protection, it will be tougher because of these pension pressures.

"These pension obligations will squeeze out all these other things that people care about."
:towelwave:
That really is an astounding number. I'm honestly at a loss. It seems to me that the most likely scenario will simply be a default on a large amount of those payments. There are going to be a LOT of people who suddenly won't be able to retire. I could see the poverty rate spiking to unbelievable levels in CA as well. What a mess.Thank goodness we have a governor in NJ finally who has the guts to make hard decisions and hopefully head off something atrocious like that.

 
videoguy505 said:
Gr00vus said:
videoguy505 said:
It probably won't amount to much but a few cities are looking into repealing the $9.95 billion high-speed rail proposition.
I'm a big supporter of high speed rail, so it makes me sad to say I don't think we can afford it right now. Hopefully we can figure out some way of stopping or seriously curtailing putting more spending initiatives on the ballot for a while - people here just can't say no to anything that sounds remotely good. If not that we need to get better at clearly identifying the total cost estimates and featuring that prominently in any new spending propositions. Californians are like kids in the candy store voting themselves all kinds of wonderful programs that we can't pay for.
One of Tom Campbell's proposals was each ballot initiative had to include either 1) specific tax increases or 2) specific program cuts to offset the expense. Sadly, that probably won't happen.

There was a thread here in '08 when we tried to go through all the propositions... it's pretty nasty. We voted something like half-a-billion dollars for children's hospitals (who dares vote against that), even though 1) there was an identical prop already passed in '04 that still had money left over, and 2) the money goes to land-developer friends of state legislators and not the cause at hand. In '00 or '04, IIRC, we passed some multi-million dollar initiative for battered women's shelters, the money went to landscaping Figueroa St. by Staples Center.

No oversight. Voters don't know budget details well enough to make informed decisions. And deceptive propositions. We really need a state constitutional convention to change the proposition and initiative process to fix the problem or we'll never get in the black.
:rolleyes:
 
Can't wait for the "up to 28%" rate increase in utilities to kick in, to pay for "green jobs" for gov't employee unions!

:bag:
Ironically, CA is a good example of how to regulate and tax yourself out of revenue. Unfortunately for those who stay and can't afford a private education for their kids the educational system is the one that is really taking the big hits. Any state that has a poor K-12 public system and high unemployment is doomed. It's what happens when public unions take full control of the government. It's the same problem the Federal government has with corporations. The pay to play system is so entrenched that there will never be enough resources to keep up with the payouts. With CA though it's not even an indirect funding in most cases. Unions donate directly to the people that negotiate their contracts and load up their pensions. More and more companies are opting not to play the game anymore and are simply moving out of state. There is really no reason that a diverse economy like CA should hae unemployment and budget problems like Michigan.
Hasn't the educational system in California seen a massive increase in funding over the last number of years? I saw a graph of this at one point and the funding increases were huge, if memory serves. Given that I'd say a moderate cutback in education funding leaves them still looking pretty good. If the unions haven't sucked all that largess dry already, that is.
 
videoguy505 said:
We really need a state constitutional convention to change the proposition and initiative process to fix the problem or we'll never get in the black.
This really is what is killing Cali. So much of the spending is constitutionally mandated and can't be touched.
 
videoguy505 said:
In '00 or '04, IIRC, we passed some multi-million dollar initiative for battered women's shelters, the money went to landscaping Figueroa St. by Staples Center.
But it looks soooooo much nicer now.
 
Can't wait for the "up to 28%" rate increase in utilities to kick in, to pay for "green jobs" for gov't employee unions!

:goodposting:
Ironically, CA is a good example of how to regulate and tax yourself out of revenue. Unfortunately for those who stay and can't afford a private education for their kids the educational system is the one that is really taking the big hits. Any state that has a poor K-12 public system and high unemployment is doomed. It's what happens when public unions take full control of the government. It's the same problem the Federal government has with corporations. The pay to play system is so entrenched that there will never be enough resources to keep up with the payouts. With CA though it's not even an indirect funding in most cases. Unions donate directly to the people that negotiate their contracts and load up their pensions. More and more companies are opting not to play the game anymore and are simply moving out of state. There is really no reason that a diverse economy like CA should hae unemployment and budget problems like Michigan.
Hasn't the educational system in California seen a massive increase in funding over the last number of years? I saw a graph of this at one point and the funding increases were huge, if memory serves. Given that I'd say a moderate cutback in education funding leaves them still looking pretty good. If the unions haven't sucked all that largess dry already, that is.
It's all wrapped up in salaries and you can't reduce salaries. We are seeing a lot of layoffs and furloughs, but noone is going to take a pay cut to save their co-wrokers.They are pretty much at bare bones for facilities, classroom materials, etc.

 
Can't wait for the "up to 28%" rate increase in utilities to kick in, to pay for "green jobs" for gov't employee unions!

:goodposting:
Ironically, CA is a good example of how to regulate and tax yourself out of revenue. Unfortunately for those who stay and can't afford a private education for their kids the educational system is the one that is really taking the big hits. Any state that has a poor K-12 public system and high unemployment is doomed. It's what happens when public unions take full control of the government. It's the same problem the Federal government has with corporations. The pay to play system is so entrenched that there will never be enough resources to keep up with the payouts. With CA though it's not even an indirect funding in most cases. Unions donate directly to the people that negotiate their contracts and load up their pensions. More and more companies are opting not to play the game anymore and are simply moving out of state. There is really no reason that a diverse economy like CA should hae unemployment and budget problems like Michigan.
Hasn't the educational system in California seen a massive increase in funding over the last number of years? I saw a graph of this at one point and the funding increases were huge, if memory serves. Given that I'd say a moderate cutback in education funding leaves them still looking pretty good. If the unions haven't sucked all that largess dry already, that is.
It's all wrapped up in salaries and you can't reduce salaries. We are seeing a lot of layoffs and furloughs, but noone is going to take a pay cut to save their co-wrokers.They are pretty much at bare bones for facilities, classroom materials, etc.
:bag: Does management ever get cut either?

 
Hasn't the educational system in California seen a massive increase in funding over the last number of years? I saw a graph of this at one point and the funding increases were huge, if memory serves. Given that I'd say a moderate cutback in education funding leaves them still looking pretty good. If the unions haven't sucked all that largess dry already, that is.
they passed a law such that education is guaranteed a certain percentage of state revenue. It's not as easy as just cutting back. It's legally mandated.
 
Can't wait for the "up to 28%" rate increase in utilities to kick in, to pay for "green jobs" for gov't employee unions!

:towelwave:
Ironically, CA is a good example of how to regulate and tax yourself out of revenue. Unfortunately for those who stay and can't afford a private education for their kids the educational system is the one that is really taking the big hits. Any state that has a poor K-12 public system and high unemployment is doomed. It's what happens when public unions take full control of the government. It's the same problem the Federal government has with corporations. The pay to play system is so entrenched that there will never be enough resources to keep up with the payouts. With CA though it's not even an indirect funding in most cases. Unions donate directly to the people that negotiate their contracts and load up their pensions. More and more companies are opting not to play the game anymore and are simply moving out of state. There is really no reason that a diverse economy like CA should hae unemployment and budget problems like Michigan.
Hasn't the educational system in California seen a massive increase in funding over the last number of years? I saw a graph of this at one point and the funding increases were huge, if memory serves. Given that I'd say a moderate cutback in education funding leaves them still looking pretty good. If the unions haven't sucked all that largess dry already, that is.
It's all wrapped up in salaries and you can't reduce salaries. We are seeing a lot of layoffs and furloughs, but noone is going to take a pay cut to save their co-wrokers.They are pretty much at bare bones for facilities, classroom materials, etc.
The rest of the country is right behind CA. The city of Phoenix just put a 2% sales tax on grocery items on April 1, 2010. Today it was reported that $30 million in raises will be given to city employees. The city stated they were bound by Union Contract to pay these wages.

 
:porked:Does management ever get cut either?
Not that I have seen. There is way too much bureaucracy, but that's wrapped up in the salary problem as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
12.6% unemployment. $20 billion budget deficit. $535 billion retirement plan shortfall. And we're handing out $10,000 homebuyer tax credits like candy.

:thumbup:

 
:thumbup:Does management ever get cut either?
Not that I have seen. There is way too much bureaucracy, but that's wrapped up in the salary problem as well.
That's my feeling as well. Seems like there's plenty of resources but it's being sucked up by a ton of dead wood.
The bureaucracy supports the unions, the unions support the politiicans, the politicians fund the bureaucracy. It's a giant special interest circle jerk designed to protect the status quo with complete disregard for actual education.
 
Why California Will Get Even Sicker

Referenced links available through the website.

Is there any hope for the Golden State? Like many U.S. states, California is bankrupt in fact but unable to do anything about it in law. The state's vast number of taxes and fees are driving away both people (as seen in this Pew study on interstate migration) and businesses (as seen in this list of departing companies from Joseph Vranich). And the state's massive commitments to public sector pensions and contracts make it impossible to work out the problem.

At City Journal, Steven Malanga details how the triumph of private and public sector unions created an unsustainable budget situation:

The unions’ political triumphs have molded a California in which government workers thrive at the expense of a struggling private sector. The state’s public school teachers are the highest-paid in the nation. Its prison guards can easily earn six-figure salaries. State workers routinely retire at 55 with pensions higher than their base pay for most of their working life. Meanwhile, what was once the most prosperous state now suffers from an unemployment rate far steeper than the nation’s and a flood of firms and jobs escaping high taxes and stifling regulations. This toxic combination—high public-sector employee costs and sagging economic fortunes—has produced recurring budget crises in Sacramento and in virtually every municipality in the state...

The SEIU’s rise in California illustrates again how modern labor’s biggest victories take place in back rooms, not on picket lines. In the late 1980s, the SEIU began eyeing a big jackpot: tens of thousands of home health-care workers being paid by California’s county-run Medicaid programs. The SEIU initiated a long legal effort to have those workers, who were independent contractors, declared government employees. ...

Municipalities around the state are also buckling under massive labor costs. One city, Vallejo, has already filed for bankruptcy to get out from under onerous employee salaries and pension obligations. (To stop other cities from going this route, unions are promoting a new law to make it harder for municipalities to declare bankruptcy.) Other local California governments, big and small, are nearing disaster. The city of Orange, with a budget of just $88 million in 2009, spent $13 million of it on pensions and expects that figure to rise to $23 million in just three years. Contra Costa’s pension costs rose from $70 million in 2000 to $200 million by the end of the decade, producing a budget crisis. Los Angeles, where payroll constitutes nearly half the city’s $7 billion budget, faces budget shortfalls of hundreds of millions of dollars next year, projected to grow to $1 billion annually in several years. In October 2007, even as it was clear that the area’s housing economy was crashing, city officials had handed out 23 percent raises over a five-year period to workers. ...

It will take an enormous effort to roll back decades of political and economic gains by government unions. But the status quo is unsustainable. And at long last, Californians are beginning to understand the connection between that status quo and the corruption at the heart of their politics.
Courtesy of Mish Shedlock. If you have not read Steven Greenhut's analysis of the dominance of public sector employees in California from the February issue of Reason, you should forthwith repair thitherward posthaste.I am on record as believing that bankruptcy is the only way the Golden State can escape its obligations, but this can not happen. Slate's Christopher Beam explains why states are not allowed to declare bankruptcy, and his explanation suggests that the remaining option -- federal receivership -- would be even worse, as it would not allow Washington, DC to make the budget cuts necessary to eliminate a large chunk of the state government. Even if bankruptcy were an option, as it has been for the City of Vallejo, the political will is not there to make pension costs disappear.

In fact, based on the one modern example of a state defaulting on its debts -- Arkansas in 1933 -- a California default would probably worsen all the problems described above. When the Razorback state got into hopeless debt through a road-building project, the solution included a new statewide tax and a decades-long moratorium on road-building. Higher taxes and worse roads would be a combination guaranteed to accelerate the state's decline.

Worse still, there is a large political force in favor of a "constitutional convention" that would eliminate California's few remaining brakes on increased spending and taxation. Here, my erstwhile colleagues at the L.A. Times editorial board enthusiastically stand up for a rewrite of the constitution to meet with the state's new "needs" and "aspirations." California's problem is both structural and willful: The state has lung cancer and the doctors can only recommend a switch to filterless cigarettes.

Are there any other options? California does sit on a major earthquake faultline, so there's always the possibility that the state might just fall into the ocean. But as the late Warren Zevon knew, even this option wouldn't allow Californians to get out from under their crushing debt burden.
:rolleyes:

 
Why California Will Get Even Sicker

Referenced links available through the website.

Is there any hope for the Golden State? Like many U.S. states, California is bankrupt in fact but unable to do anything about it in law. The state's vast number of taxes and fees are driving away both people (as seen in this Pew study on interstate migration) and businesses (as seen in this list of departing companies from Joseph Vranich). And the state's massive commitments to public sector pensions and contracts make it impossible to work out the problem.

At City Journal, Steven Malanga details how the triumph of private and public sector unions created an unsustainable budget situation:

The unions’ political triumphs have molded a California in which government workers thrive at the expense of a struggling private sector. The state’s public school teachers are the highest-paid in the nation. Its prison guards can easily earn six-figure salaries. State workers routinely retire at 55 with pensions higher than their base pay for most of their working life. Meanwhile, what was once the most prosperous state now suffers from an unemployment rate far steeper than the nation’s and a flood of firms and jobs escaping high taxes and stifling regulations. This toxic combination—high public-sector employee costs and sagging economic fortunes—has produced recurring budget crises in Sacramento and in virtually every municipality in the state...

The SEIU’s rise in California illustrates again how modern labor’s biggest victories take place in back rooms, not on picket lines. In the late 1980s, the SEIU began eyeing a big jackpot: tens of thousands of home health-care workers being paid by California’s county-run Medicaid programs. The SEIU initiated a long legal effort to have those workers, who were independent contractors, declared government employees. ...

Municipalities around the state are also buckling under massive labor costs. One city, Vallejo, has already filed for bankruptcy to get out from under onerous employee salaries and pension obligations. (To stop other cities from going this route, unions are promoting a new law to make it harder for municipalities to declare bankruptcy.) Other local California governments, big and small, are nearing disaster. The city of Orange, with a budget of just $88 million in 2009, spent $13 million of it on pensions and expects that figure to rise to $23 million in just three years. Contra Costa’s pension costs rose from $70 million in 2000 to $200 million by the end of the decade, producing a budget crisis. Los Angeles, where payroll constitutes nearly half the city’s $7 billion budget, faces budget shortfalls of hundreds of millions of dollars next year, projected to grow to $1 billion annually in several years. In October 2007, even as it was clear that the area’s housing economy was crashing, city officials had handed out 23 percent raises over a five-year period to workers. ...

It will take an enormous effort to roll back decades of political and economic gains by government unions. But the status quo is unsustainable. And at long last, Californians are beginning to understand the connection between that status quo and the corruption at the heart of their politics.
Courtesy of Mish Shedlock. If you have not read Steven Greenhut's analysis of the dominance of public sector employees in California from the February issue of Reason, you should forthwith repair thitherward posthaste.I am on record as believing that bankruptcy is the only way the Golden State can escape its obligations, but this can not happen. Slate's Christopher Beam explains why states are not allowed to declare bankruptcy, and his explanation suggests that the remaining option -- federal receivership -- would be even worse, as it would not allow Washington, DC to make the budget cuts necessary to eliminate a large chunk of the state government. Even if bankruptcy were an option, as it has been for the City of Vallejo, the political will is not there to make pension costs disappear.

In fact, based on the one modern example of a state defaulting on its debts -- Arkansas in 1933 -- a California default would probably worsen all the problems described above. When the Razorback state got into hopeless debt through a road-building project, the solution included a new statewide tax and a decades-long moratorium on road-building. Higher taxes and worse roads would be a combination guaranteed to accelerate the state's decline.

Worse still, there is a large political force in favor of a "constitutional convention" that would eliminate California's few remaining brakes on increased spending and taxation. Here, my erstwhile colleagues at the L.A. Times editorial board enthusiastically stand up for a rewrite of the constitution to meet with the state's new "needs" and "aspirations." California's problem is both structural and willful: The state has lung cancer and the doctors can only recommend a switch to filterless cigarettes.

Are there any other options? California does sit on a major earthquake faultline, so there's always the possibility that the state might just fall into the ocean. But as the late Warren Zevon knew, even this option wouldn't allow Californians to get out from under their crushing debt burden.
:D
weren't you advocating a constitutional re-write earlier in this thread? This guys poo-poos the idea.
 
weren't you advocating a constitutional re-write earlier in this thread? This guys poo-poos the idea.
The Bay Area Council wants to scrap the current state constitution and write a new one, that the author says will "eliminate California's few remaining brakes on increased spending and taxation". Not just a re-write. I don't know what their specific proposals are, all they seem to mention on the various websites and editorials is that a convention is needed, without much detail on what they want to change.I've agreed with a small re-write to add additional brakes to spending by forcing the proposition process to mandate the associated cuts and/or tax increases required. A specific (IMHO much-needed) change to the current system, not a dismissal of the current government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they put in a Kobe manlove tax, you'd probably generate enough revenue in the FFA alone to cover that. Hope is not lost.

 
If they put in a Kobe manlove tax, you'd probably generate enough revenue in the FFA alone to cover that. Hope is not lost.
:goodposting: If you live in SoCal and you're a lifelong Laker fan, you're probably a big fan of the greatest Laker to ever put on the uni.
 
We really need a state constitutional convention to change the proposition and initiative process to fix the problem or we'll never get in the black.
Sounds like you were advocating more than a "small re-write" vg.
From earlier in the post, I specified:
One of Tom Campbell's proposals was each ballot initiative had to include either 1) specific tax increases or 2) specific program cuts to offset the expense.
 
Mickey Kaus: Why Texas is doing better than California

What's Texas's Secret? (April 21, 2010 2:30 PM)

CA vs. TX: Why is the state of Texas doing relatively well in this recession--losing jobs later, and recovering jobs earlier--than California is? Dan Gross outlines some reasons: the energy industry is relatively recession proof, plus Texas is so big it can create its own "green" wind power jobs to power its cities without having to cooperate with neighboring states. ... Gross leaves off another potential factor, though: Texas has a relatively low rate of unionization--about a third of California's. That means a) fewer rigidities in the labor market, allowing it to adjust to the market more quickly--tiny quick wage cuts for a lot of people, for eample, mean employers don't have to lay people off as quickly b) fewer rigidities in organization structure--they don't have UAW-style work rules at Dell; and c) the absence of the public sector union "death-grip on state and local government" and politics and finances, which has helped produce near-bankruptcy at the state level (and actual bankruptcy in Vallejo). ... When Texas creates green jobs, maybe it's not just a power play by the union representing DWP workers to grab another stream of taxpayer funding, or by the Teamsters to monopolize employment at the port of LA. Maybe they are actual green jobs! ...

**-- It's not just that Texas is pumping crude. As Gross notes Texas' role in energy is less as an oil supplier and more as a supplier of technology and services to energy producers around the globe--a classic "globalized" industry. Could they do that as effectively if they were unionized? ... [Thanks to NewsAlert] 2:46 P.M.

___________________________

Outgoing SEIU union President Andy Stern tells WaPo's Ezra Klein that unions are

the greatest middle-class, job-creating mechanism that we have ever had in America that doesn't cost tax payers a dime.

Needless to say, under Klein's probing questioning Stern had to admit the idiocy of his remark. ... Oh wait. This is Ezra Klein we are talking about. There was no probing questioning. It was left to Klein's colleague Charles Lane to show the idiocy of Stern's remark:

Really? Aren’t unions the main defenders of the Davis-Bacon Act, a certifiable waster of tax dollars and destroyer of jobs? Unions share the blame for the downfall of General Motors and Chrysler, too, don’t they? Last I checked, their bailouts had cost taxpayers more than a dime.

I have also heard that the untouchable pensions and other benefits of public sector unions, including Stern’s SEIU, are pushing California into fiscal and economic disaster. I’m just back from Los Angeles, where the mayor, trying to close a $400 million-plus budget gap, has announced layoffs and service cuts, which can only be avoided if city employee unions accept wage cuts and contribute more to their own pensions. So far, the unions say no. Their counterproposal calls on the city to raise dog license fees and pass out more parking tickets, among other gimmicks and stopgaps.

Not to mention the more basic point that when GM's unions won wage increases, back in the 1960s and 1970s when the industry had the closed, oligopoly structure unions prefer, it was GM's customers who paid the resulting increased prices. And GM's customers were by and large poorer than GM's workers. The fact that they suffered the loss as consumers and not "tax payers" may not have been much consolation.

Stern's soundbite is the sort of BS a leader can only get away with when he is surrounded by yes-men (and yes-journalists). Otherwise somebody would have called him on it long before his "exit interview." ... This insularity helps explain why Stern was such a stunningly ineffective spokesman for his pet let-unions-avoid-the-secret-ballot ("card check") plan, which even Klein admits is now dead --though, of course, Barbara Boxer is still a "strong supporter." ... 3:16 P.M.
(reference links available at the original page)Mickey Kaus is a noted political blogger, and is running for Senate in the Democratic primary against Barbara Boxer. The primary is June 8th. I'd encourage all FBG'ers to consider voting for him in the primary and sending a message to the Democratic party.

 
Amazing! LA mayor realizes the city can't print its own money.

:confused:

George F. Will

Trickle-Down Misery in L.A.

Mayor Villaraigosa's nightmare numbers.

From the magazine issue dated May 17, 2010

Los Angeles—to get from downtown to the residence of the man who, in 2005, became the first Hispanic elected mayor since 1870, you drive through a sliver of Korea. With 125,000 people packed into 2.7 of the city's 469 square miles, Koreatown is typical of this polyglot city where more than 100 languages are spoken and nothing is typical except recentness: 46 percent of the residents are foreign-born.

So when His Honor Antonio Villaraigosa was invited to appear at a recent rally protesting Arizona's law concerning illegal immigrants, he went. But he stipulated: "I want American flags." He knows that protesting immigrants should not carry the flags of Mexico and other nations where they have chosen not to live.

The city is chin-deep in California's trickle-down misery, and last week Richard Riordan, who was L.A. mayor from 1993 to 2001, coauthored with Alexander Rubalcava—an investment adviser—a Wall Street Journal column declaring the city's fiscal crisis "terminal." They say Villaraigosa should "face the fact" that "between now and 2014 the city will likely declare bankruptcy." Villaraigosa says that will not happen. But look what has happened.

For 15 years Villaraigosa was an organizer for the Service Employees International Union and the city's teachers' union. Now he is trying to cope with, and partially undo, largesse for unionized public employees: "I have to sign the checks on the front, not just the back."

Riordan and Rubalcava say two numbers—8 percent and 5,000—define the city's crisis. L.A. has conveniently but unrealistically assumed 8 percent annual growth of the assets of the city's pension funds. The two main funds' actual growth over the last decade have been 3.5 percent and 2.8 percent. And Villaraigosa added 5,000 people to the city's payroll in his first term.

Nationwide, government employees are most of what remains of "defined benefit" America. More than 80 percent of government workers have defined benefits—as opposed to defined-contribution—pension plans. Only about 20 percent of private-sector workers have defined-benefit plans. California's parlous condition owes much to burdensome health-care and pension promises negotiated with public employees' unions, promises that are suffocating the state's economic growth.

Riordan and Rubalcava suggest replacing defined-benefit pensions with 401(k) accounts for new public employees. But when another product of America's immigrant culture, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, tried to do that, public employees' unions squashed the idea. Riordan and Rubalcava say the retirement age for public employees should be raised from 55 to 65, employees should pay more than the maximum of 9 percent of their salaries for pensions, and the city should end subsidies of up to $1,200 a month for health insurance for those who retire before becoming eligible for Medicare. But even his ideas for nibbling at the edges of the fiscal problem by privatizing the zoo, the convention center, and city parking lots are opposed by the unions.

They are government organized as an interest group to lobby itself for ever-larger portions of wealth extracted by the taxing power from the private sector. Increasingly, government workers are the electoral base of the party of government. So Villaraigosa must live with the arithmetic of interest-group liberalism. The federal government, he says, can run deficits and print money; the state government (supposedly) must balance the budget but can push burdens down onto cities. There, he says, "you have 10 cookies in the cookie jar and every interest wants all 10."

The nightmare numbers include the state's unemployment rate (12.6 percent)—it is higher than the nation's (9.9)—and the city's rate (13.5), which is higher than the state's. The city's long-term success depends on its schools, in many of which most of the children come from homes without fathers, and in some of which, Villaraigosa says, 40 percent of the children are in foster homes. He has little control over the school system and, anyway, unions oppose radical reforms. He would like to emulate the education reforms of former Florida governor Jeb Bush, a recent visitor to the mayor's residence, but, holding his fingers three inches apart to suggest the thickness of the standard contract with the teachers' union, Villaraigosa calls the union "the most powerful defender of the status quo."

The mayor's residence is near Wilshire Boulevard, which is named for a socialist who made and lost several fortunes before dying destitute. The life of Henry Wilshire is a cautionary tale for this city where the climate is usually Mediterranean and the fiscal climate is now Greek.
 
LA layoffs would trigger raises for other workers

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/11/2742310/l...r#ixzz0nea9Ksrv

LOS ANGELES -- A plan to eliminate 761 Los Angeles city jobs may carry a heft price tag even though it's aimed at saving money.

Under contracts negotiated last year, layoffs would trigger a 3-percent raise to more than 15,000 union staffers for the fiscal year that starts July 1. Another raise of 2.75 percent would follow six months later. The total cost would run more than $32 million.

Labor leaders who oppose Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's job-cut plan say that in addition, laid off workers would get $10,700 in unemployment benefits.

However, budget analysts say the city still would save nearly $16 million this fiscal year and the figure would grow to nearly $63 million by 2013.

Death by public union.

 
Spending cuts coming?

Schwarzenegger Preps ‘Terrible Cuts’ to Close Deficit (Update1)

May 11 (Bloomberg) -- California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will seek “terrible cuts” to eliminate an $18.6 billion budget deficit facing the most-populous U.S. state through June 2011, his spokesman said.

Schwarzenegger, 62, who will introduce his revised budget plans on May 14, has said he won’t seek tax increases to bolster California’s finances. The Republican’s forecast for the budget gap may rise after revenue fell short of his targets last month.

“We can’t get through this deficit without very terrible cuts,” Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear told reporters in Sacramento. “We don’t believe that raising taxes right now is the right thing to do.”

California’s revenue in April, when income-tax payments are due, trailed the governor’s estimates by $3.6 billion, or 26 percent. The gap wiped out gains from the previous four months, leaving collections $1.3 billion behind projections for the budget year that ends in June.

Schwarzenegger’s newest plan will revise the proposals introduced in January to account for the tax-collection shortages. In January, the governor said California may have to eliminate entire welfare programs, including the main one that provides cash and job assistance to families below the poverty line, without an influx of cash from the federal government.

Since then, the Democrat-controlled Legislature has made few strides toward closing the budget hole. Legislation adopted during the emergency session ordered by Schwarzenegger knocked about $1.4 billion from the deficit.

Tax Measures

Democrats this week introduced a package of bills that would raise as much as $2.9 billion annually by imposing a 10 percent severance tax on oil production in the state, repealing corporate-tax breaks approved last year to spur job growth and assessing commercial property taxes differently.

Schwarzenegger is girding for his final fight over California’s budget before leaving office in January. Over the last two years, he and lawmakers have had difficulty redrawing the budget fast enough to make up for revenue lost amid rising unemployment.

By the beginning of 2010, Schwarzenegger and the lawmakers had closed a $60 billion deficit partly by slashing spending on schools, temporarily raising taxes and borrowing from local governments.

The fiscal strains have left California with the lowest credit rating among U.S. states. A taxable California bond maturing in 2039 traded for a yield of 7.08 percent today, up from an average of 6.87 percent on May 6, according to Municipal Security Rulemaking Board data.
 
Our Taxes Are Their Pensions

The State Worker: CalPERS may present higher bill to state

By Jon Ortiz

jortiz@sacbee.com The Sacramento Bee

Published: Thursday, May. 13, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 3A

Last Modified: Thursday, May. 13, 2010 - 10:03 am

CalPERS, the huge public employee pension fund, is set to consider a $600 million hike in what California pays next year to cover state worker pensions.

The fund's actuaries are recommending that its board tell the state to kick in $3.9 billion for the fiscal year that starts July 1. That would be a $600 million increase over this year and $400 million more than Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger planned in the first draft of his 2010-11 budget proposal.

CalPERS staff figures the fund needs the increase to compensate for investment losses, longer member life expectancies and an edict by the board to narrow the gap between the value of its assets and the cost of its long-term obligations.

Last June, the fund estimated that its assets equaled about 60 percent of the pension promises made to state workers. That has improved somewhat with the stock market's uptick over the last year, but it's still far short of the fund's June 2007 funding peak of 97 percent.

The so-called "unfunded liability" ratio is a matter of debate that hinges on how much CalPERS investments will return over many years. Schwarzenegger and taxpayer groups who think retiree benefits need to be rolled back say that CalPERS estimates downplay the real spread between its assets and obligations.

(It's an argument that you didn't hear when CalPERS was rolling in so much dough during the dot-com boom that the state contributed little to nothing to pensions.)

The fund's board will take up the employer contribution issue next week. It has the authority to demand that the state pay more.

No doubt this will add plenty of rhetorical fodder for rival GOP gubernatorial candidates Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman. Both the former Silicon Valley business executives use public pensions to burnish their cheaper-government cred.

Poizner told about 400 tea partiers at a rally in Shingle Springs on Tuesday that he'd put pension deals to a public vote.

"(A)ny liability greater than … $300,000 has to be approved by taxpayers. That's in our constitution. It says that," Poizner said. "As governor, I'm going to put all these pension deals on the table. Voters are going to have to approve them before any of these pension deals get passed. That kind of transparency will go a long way to solving the problem."

Cue the raucous applause.

Article 16 generally prohibits lawmakers from obligating the state to a liability, such as a bond, that exceeds $300,000 unless the public votes for it.

Poizner doesn't believe the law applies to yearly pension payments to CalPERS, but new promises made to state workers in the future would be fair game.

Of course, it's not a slam dunk. If he tried it, the unions would sue. Immediately. "These are questions of constitutional interpretation," said Poizner political director Lanhee Chin.

But the idea, minus the caveats, still makes for a great applause line.
:blackdot:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Our Taxes Are Their Pensions

Poizner told about 400 tea partiers at a rally in Shingle Springs on Tuesday that he'd put pension deals to a public vote.

"(A)ny liability greater than … $300,000 has to be approved by taxpayers. That's in our constitution. It says that," Poizner said. "As governor, I'm going to put all these pension deals on the table. Voters are going to have to approve them before any of these pension deals get passed. That kind of transparency will go a long way to solving the problem."

Cue the raucous applause.
This is a horrible idea. The day this state votes to spend less is the day jonessed starts campaigning for tax increases.
 
Please join me in congratulating several prominent California state legislators for being awarded the "Profile in Courage" award from the JFK Library Foundation for their role in passing the largest state tax increase in U.S. History:

Karen Bass, California State Assembly Member, and former Democratic Speaker of the Assembly; David Cogdill, California State Senator and former Senate Republican Leader; Darrell Steinberg, California State Senator and Democratic Senate President pro Tem; and Michael Villines, California State Assembly Member and former Assembly Republican Leader, will be presented with the 2010 Profile in Courage Award in recognition of the political courage each demonstrated in standing up to the extraordinary constituent and party pressure they faced while working with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to address California’s severe financial crisis.

In February 2009, amid one of the worst budget crises in California’s history, an imploding economy, and potentially catastrophic partisan deadlock, the state’s Republican and Democratic party leaders came together to address the financial emergency. After weeks of grueling negotiation, the legislative leaders and Gov. Schwarzenegger reached an agreement on a comprehensive deal to close most of a $42 billion shortfall, putting an end to years of government inaction and sidestepping of the difficult decisions necessary to address California’s increasingly dire fiscal crisis. The deal was objectionable to almost everyone; it contained tax increases, which the Republicans had long pledged to oppose, and draconian spending cuts, which brought intense criticism to the Democrats. The two Republicans were ousted from their party leadership positions over the agreement. Voters defeated the budget referendum in May 2009. In June and July of that year, the state began issuing high-interest IOUs to vendors in lieu of payment. In 2010, California continues to struggle with budget deficits that threaten to prolong the state’s fiscal crisis.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Pu...chael+Villines/ :popcorn:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's here!

:homer:

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USN2427330520100524

California Democrats unveil tax-increase package

Mon, May 24 2010

SAN FRANCISCO, May 24 (Reuters) - Democratic lawmakers in California unveiled a plan on Monday for nearly $5 billion of tax and fee increases to help fill the state government's $19.1 billion budget gap.

The plan by state Senate Democrats would raise $4.9 billion by raising California's vehicle registration fee, suspending corporate tax breaks scheduled to begin next year and boosting the state's tax on alcoholic beverages.

Democrats control both chambers of the state's legislature and have said they would seek new revenue to help plug the shortfall.

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, by contrast, has ruled out tax increases and is relying largely on deep spending cuts in his plan for balancing the state's books. He has called for $12.4 billion of cuts and would scrap the state's welfare system, a plan Democrats have rejected.

Republicans in the legislature's minority immediately criticized the proposed tax increases, signaling they will use their votes to block them. Democrats lack the votes to pass tax measures on their own.

Analysts expect budget negotiations between Schwarzenegger and lawmakers will drag on and press into the state's next fiscal year, which begins in July.

California's leaders are facing another year of weak revenue as a result of the recession and the downturns in financial and real estate markets. (Reporting by Jim Christie; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)
 
videoguy505 said:
Ray Stevens said:
Owning a business in this state scares the hell out of me.
:thumbup: I don't even want to own property until I see what happens in the election. Much easier to avoid the coming increase in property taxes as a renter.
Meh. The one thing I've learned since moving here in 2004 is that Californians will approve any kind of crazy### tax EXCEPT for tinkering with Prop 13.Have some patience, renters will definitely continue to get screwed through the duration of this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L.A. pensions may consume a third of city's general fund by 2015

City administrative officer reports that benefits for retired police, firefighters, DWP workers and other city employees could grow by $800 million in the next five years.

August 03, 2010|By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times

The cost of retirement benefits for Los Angeles city employees will grow by $800 million over the next five years, dramatically eroding the amount of money available for public services to taxpayers, according to a report issued Tuesday.

In a bleak assessment delivered to members of the City Council, City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana said pensions and health benefits for current and future retirees would jump from $1.4 billion next year to at least $2.2 billion in 2015.

Those costs remain a fraction of the city's overall annual budget, which is currently $18.8 billion. But more troubling is the fact that retirement costs are consuming an increasingly large portion of the general fund, which pays for basic services such as parks and public safety.

By 2015, nearly 20% of the city's general fund budget is expected to go toward the retirement costs of police officers and firefighters, who now have an average retirement age of 51. The figure was 8% last year.

Once civilian employees are factored in, nearly a third of the city's general fund could be consumed by retirement costs by 2015, Santana said.

"For every dollar you're paying into your pension systems, you're not paying into libraries, parks and various other city services," Santana told the council.

Shortly after Santana's presentation, the council voted to study the possibility of using employee-managed 401(k) investment plans — long favored by private industry — to provide a portion of the city's retirement benefits.

Representatives of the city's public safety unions warned officials not to rush to judgment on fixes to the pension problem.

"I highly recommend that we go very slow on this issue," said Peter Repovich, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file officers. "It seems there's a lot of group-think going on across the state and the nation" on the issue.

Repovich warned council members that veteran police officers don't want their pensions "tinkered with." But Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who pushed for the 401(k) study, said his constituents are demanding comprehensive changes to a system that threatens to eat away at core services.

"We can no longer sustain the pension and healthcare plan that presently exists," he said.

Los Angeles operates three pension systems — one for police officers and firefighters, a second for Department of Water and Power employees and a third for all remaining civilian workers. All three systems have seen the cost of benefits increase between 2001 and 2009.

City officials attribute those increases to various factors: the collapsing economy, which caused investment losses in the three city pension funds; growth of the city workforce; longer life spans of retired city workers; and a 2001 ballot measure that gave police officers and firefighters more generous retirement benefits.

The DWP's contribution to its pension system increased eightfold between 2001 and 2009, according to Santana's figures. The Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System, which covers civilian workers not employed by the DWP, saw a fivefold increase during the same period, he said.

So far, a committee made up of Villaraigosa and four council members has made little progress with civilian labor unions on renegotiating their contracts to make changes to the pension system. But it has opened talks with the Police Protective League about a ballot measure that would — either partly or entirely — roll back retirement benefits put in place by voters in 2001 for newly hired police and firefighters.

The 2001 ballot measure, backed by then-Mayor Richard Riordan, allowed sworn personnel to retire after 33 years of service with a yearly pension equal to 90% of their annual pay. Since then, Riordan has warned that pension woes will force the city to close its parks and libraries by 2012 and enter bankruptcy by 2014.

Fixing the problem will not be easy. Under state law, city negotiators cannot roll back a retirement benefit for an existing worker without providing another benefit equal in value. Although they could seek to negotiate contracts that decrease benefits for newly hired workers, such a move would make a relatively small dent in the pension problem at a time when the city is mostly subtracting, not adding, employees.

Santana tried in January to persuade Villaraigosa and council members to begin negotiations with labor leaders on the need to scale back the cost of benefits. That effort was postponed while city leaders grappled with a $485-million budget shortfall.

Councilman Paul Koretz suggested that the city could save money by merging its three pension systems — a move that has been opposed by various employee groups. Koretz said some city workers might view a merger as a more favorable alternative to having their benefits cut.

david.zahniser@latimes.com
Not surprisingly, the unions are opposed to changes to their gold mine.......
 
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001712...%99s-war-itself

Long read, here's the start:

The Golden State’s War on Itself

by Joel Kotkin 08/08/2010

California has long been a destination for those seeking a better place to live. For most of its history, the state enacted sensible policies that created one of the wealthiest and most innovative economies in human history. California realized the American dream but better, fostering a huge middle class that, for the most part, owned their homes, sent their kids to public schools, and found meaningful work connected to the state’s amazingly diverse, innovative economy.

Recently, though, the dream has been evaporating. Between 2003 and 2007, California state and local government spending grew 31 percent, even as the state’s population grew just 5 percent. The overall tax burden as a percentage of state income, once middling among the states, has risen to the sixth-highest in the nation, says the Tax Foundation. Since 1990, according to an analysis by California Lutheran University, the state’s share of overall U.S. employment has dropped a remarkable 10 percent. When the state economy has done well, it has usually been the result of asset inflation—first during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, and then during the housing boom, which was responsible for nearly half of all jobs created earlier in this decade.

Since the financial crisis began in 2008, the state has fared even worse. Last year, California personal income fell 2.5 percent, the first such fall since the Great Depression and well below the 1.7 percent drop for the rest of the country. Unemployment may be starting to ebb nationwide, but not in California, where it approaches 13 percent, among the highest rates in the nation. Between 2008 and 2009, not one of California’s biggest cities outperformed such traditional laggards as New York, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia in employment growth, and four cities—Los Angeles, Oakland, Santa Ana, and San Bernardino–Riverside—sit very close to the bottom among the nation’s largest metro areas, just slightly ahead of basket cases like Detroit. Long a global exemplar, California is in danger of becoming, as historian Kevin Starr has warned, a “failed state.”

What went so wrong? The answer lies in a change in the nature of progressive politics in California. During the second half of the twentieth century, the state shifted from an older progressivism, which emphasized infrastructure investment and business growth, to a newer version, which views the private sector much the way the Huns viewed a city—as something to be sacked and plundered. The result is two separate California realities: a lucrative one for the wealthy and for government workers, who are largely insulated from economic decline; and a grim one for the private-sector middle and working classes, who are fleeing the state.
 
:thumbup: I remember driving visiting family past that ramp thing by the side of the freeway. Everyone always wonders what that weird looking thing is. "Oh, it's nothing. Some sort of sculpture/design thing. Doesn't do anything. Whole school cost half a billion dollars. Oh well, it's only money."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top