Californian's Rejoice! Your taxes are going UP UP UP! (1 Viewer)

California rejects even modest pension reform

By: Barbara Hollingsworth

Local Opinion Editor

08/25/10 4:00 PM EDT

Unfunded public pension liabilities, which a Pew Center on the States report calculates is now as high as $1 trillion nationwide, threaten to bankrupt states that fail to address this ticking fiscal time bomb. But in California, which has an unimaginable $500 billion public pension problem and became the object of national ridicule for outrageous pension abuses in Bell, state lawmakers still couldn’t bring themselves to pass legislation preventing highly paid government employees from using unused vacation and sick days accumulated during their last year on the job to pad their life-long pensions.

Click to expand...

California’s Gift of Shame

How IOUs, layoffs, late payments, and other bad news may still save the Golden State

Tim Cavanaugh | August 27, 2010

How would you like to be running the California Travel and Tourism Commission right now?

The state is generating an almost constant stream of alarming news. “Essential” services from libraries to police hours to public school teaching staffs are being drastically cut. Cities are going bankrupt. This year’s state budget—which currently boasts a $19 billion shortfall—has been delayed for nearly two months, with no agreement in sight between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic lawmakers. Employees are being furloughed. The state will soon have to start issuing IOUs to cover its obligations. Sacramento announced Monday it would be unable to pay nearly $3 billion in school and county subsidies. Books with titles like Plunder and California Crackup detail how massive financial obligations have rendered the state essentially ungovernable.

In short, California can’t buy decent press these days. (And even if it could it wouldn’t have any money to do so.)

So why is this good news?

Because in a state that has seen three years of nearly solid financial pain, what is going on right now is pain with a purpose. Outgoing Gov. Schwarzenegger is using fiscal emergency as leverage toward a permanent solution to the public employee pension crisis that has gutted California’s budget and hamstrung other states. If he succeeds, the example could point to a solution for the many states that need to get a handle on their public employee commitments.

First, about those IOUs. During a lengthy budget standoff in 2009, the state issued $2.6 billion in IOUs to cover payments to contractors, local governments, and residents in line for tax refunds and college scholarships. This year the budget (which is supposed to have been completed in June) is overdue again, and the differences between Schwarzenegger and the Democrats are even sharper. Last week, Controller John Chiang announced that IOUs would begin coming in late August or early September.

On its face, Chiang’s announcement is an attempt to put pressure on the governor. The two are locked in a long-running legal dispute over another budget-standoff tactic: the governor’s annual attempts to reduce state workers’ pay to Federal minimum wage until the budget is approved—which the union-friendly Chiang claims is impossible due to the state’s antiquated COBOL-based payroll system.

But on the IOU issue, Chiang has been fairly consistent in his comments, and the state will in fact need to put off payments (as it did Monday by deferring subsidies to counties and schools) very soon. In any event, the controller’s comments probably ended up strengthening the governor’s position, which has been refreshingly clear: Schwarzenegger is willing to risk any number of fiscal “black eyes,” to court credit downgrades and bad public relations, even to leave office without a budget passed, in order to get concessions from Democrats and their union supporters.

Among these concessions: a 5 percent increase in employee pre-tax contributions toward retirement funds; changes in pension calculations to prevent pension “spiking”; and more honest disclosure of how pensions are funded. Another item that has long been on the governor’s wish list is a state “rainy day fund” of $20 billion—close to what Schwarzenegger believes the state would have saved in the absence of runaway public-sector pension payouts during the last decade.

Which brings us to the most important concession of all. Schwarzenegger is seeking to undo Senate Bill 400, a 1999 law that vastly expanded pension payouts to government workers. Passed after a mere five minutes of debate, based on some highly misleading documentation and unrealistic expectations from the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), SB 400 paved the way for a nearly 3,000 percent increase in pension liabilities for the state.

That debt is eating into other state funding. Since SB 400’s passage, expenditures on environmental protection and parks have actually decreased relative to inflation. It’s important to remember that Schwarzenegger’s struggle is not motivated by small government principle. His problem is that commitments to government workers are preventing the state from spending on other stuff.

But he has been remarkably consistent on this, and may deserve more credit than he has received for raising the national alarm about public sector union power and the crushing burden of paying for government workers’ plush retirements.

Viewed through this lens, Schwarzenegger’s gambits in the budget battle—alternately described as nonsensical, petulant, and a “gubernatorial ransom note”—begin to make sense.

As of now, state employees are due for furloughs three days a month, which will amount to an average 14 percent pay cut. Critics and the media have questioned whether furloughs save the state’s budget as much as advertised, but the savings are a side benefit. The real aim is to put pressure on the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and its clients in the state legislature. Union members see actual pay reductions, and eventually, so the thinking goes, they will demand their leaders work with the governor to do something about it. (That Schwarzenegger has negotiated new contracts—which roll back most of SB400—with six unions suggests the tactic works, though the largest union contract negotiations, including SEIU's, are still unfinished.)

An even clearer use of pressure on government workers has been in the governor’s (so far unsuccessful) attempts to reduce state employee pay to minimum wage for the duration of the budget delay. While Chiang and previous controllers have used the old-software excuse to avoid implementing this plan, the message still comes through: State workers are not innocent bystanders in the budget impasse. Their excessive compensation is the reason California can no longer manage its budgets.

Schwarzenegger has proven to be a master at stratagems like these, declaring states of fiscal emergency, using apocalyptic rhetoric in places, and courting the credit downgrades that would accompany another IOU experience. (Standard & Poor’s already gives the state its fourth-lowest investment-grade rating of A-, and has said it may lower the score if a budget isn’t signed by autumn.) Schwarzenegger’s genius has been to realize that what looks like catastrophe from the outside can be pretty useful in negotiation.

Whether it helps the state’s never small self-image is another matter. But Kathryn Burnside, spokeswoman for the industry-funded California Travel and Tourism Commission, says the trade group has not seen bad news keeping people away from California (though the global recession has cut into tourism). “Certainly, there has been coverage of the state’s financial state, and we’ve seen it in international headlines as well,” Burnside says. “But when people come to California, they’re coming for the beaches, they’re coming for the mountains, for the attractions and the resorts and the sunshine. We’re not worried that political news is deterring people from coming to enjoy all the things California has to offer.”

Click to expand...

Ban the Bag or Bag the Ban?

Paper or plastic? California legislators are poised to make that question as relevant as the "regular or unleaded" query. The Assembly has already blessed a bill that would make California the first state in the nation to ban the use of plastic bags, and the Senate could vote on it any minute now. As far as the Governor is concerned, his signature on the bill is considered, well, in the bag.

California leads the nation in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the environment cleaner. Just take a look at the controversial Assembly Bill 32. It's California's definitive charge on protecting the environment. Three years ago San Francisco passed a law aimed at reducing plastic bag consumption. Palo Alto and Santa Clara county have since followed suit and it looks like San Jose may be next. Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) authored the bill which would make California the first state to ban plastic bags at grocery, drug, and some other stores.

According to California officials, people in the state use 19 billion plastic bags each year. Ironically that breaks down to 1 bag for every dollar the state is in debt. That's a lot of bags. They also claim it costs the state $25 million to get all those bags to the landfill.

Despite a nearly complete lack of Republican support, Schwarzenegger seems likely to sign the bill into law if it gets as far as his desk. He's big on the environment with his support of AB32 and this is likely to appeal to him.

Opponents of the bill include the American Chemistry Council. It includes plastic manufacturers like Exxon Mobile, Dow and Chevron. Tim Shestek is a member of the council which has also retained four powerful lobbying firms who will fight hard against AB 1998.

Peter M. Grande is another dissenting voice. He's the president of a plastic bag manufacturing plant in L.A. County. He cites that at his factory alone, 200 people would lose good paying jobs immediately. So is he pro business and anti-environment?

Los Angeles County estimates that 85 percent of consumers would switch to paper bags instead of those re-usable "green" bags. Grande points out that the reason stores and consumers switched to plastic bags in the first place was to reduce the use of paper bags. The paper ones leave a heavier footprint, cause the destruction of trees and result in three times the greenhouse emissions of plastic bags.

Environmental issues always seem to raise controversy in AB 1998 is no exception. I'm all for helping the environment and I'm fine taking reusable bags to the grocery store. But what am I going to use to pick up after my dog?

Source: Ban the Bag or Bag the Ban? | NBC San Diego

Click to expand...

videoguy505 said:

Employees are being furloughed.

Click to expand...

LOS ANGELES TIMES/USC POLLCalifornia voters likely to keep global warming law, toss two-thirds budget passageProp. 23, which would suspend new emissions standards until unemployment drops, trails 48% to 32% among likely voters. Prop. 25, allowing a legislative majority to pass a budget, has 58% support.By Evan Halper, Los Angeles TimesOctober 25, 2010Reporting from SacramentoDespite the struggling economy, most California voters oppose suspending the state's landmark global warming law, which would place strict new environmental regulations on business, a new Los Angeles Times/ USC poll shows.Proposition 23, which would put the new emissions standards on hold, is trailing 48% to 32% among likely voters, according to the survey.But as voters look inclined to stay the course with the state's global warming policies, they appear ready to radically change state budget policy. The poll found that 58% of likely voters support Proposition 25, which would replace the constitutional requirement that the state budget be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature with a simple majority vote requirement. Such a change would allow Democrats to pass a budget without any GOP votes under the current makeup of the Legislature.The push to suspend the global warming law has been bankrolled in large part by out-of-state oil refining companies that stand to see profits decline as a result of the state's new regulations. The ballot measure would suspend implementation of the new air pollution rules until unemployment drops to 5.5% or less for a full year. State analysts say that could take many years, as the unemployment rate has stayed that low for a sustained period only three times since 1970.Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been campaigning aggressively against the ballot measure. The global warming law, passed in 2006, is the governor's signature legacy-burnishing achievement. Analysts say he and other opponents have effectively tapped into voter attitudes toward big oil.Lack of enthusiasm for the measure is "not so much about how voters feel about the merits of the global warming law itself, but rather the efforts of outside oil companies to pull a fast one," said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College. "The opponents have run a very smart campaign with lots of advertising."Tobias Martinez of Riverside, a 45-year-old truck driver, is among the voters troubled by oil company involvement in the measure. "When you see that they are funding it, it begins to look like this is something just to benefit them," said Martinez, who is registered "decline to state." "They want to be able to produce more pollutants.... It doesn't make sense that stopping the improvement of air quality would create jobs."The poll was conducted for The Times and the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican firm American Viewpoint. Results are based on 922 likely voters. Results for the full sample of 1,501 registered voters, reached by landline or cellphone Oct. 13-20, have a 2.5-percentage-point margin of sampling error. There is a 3.2-point margin of sampling error for likely voters. Only half the sample was surveyed about Proposition 25. That question has a 4.6-point margin of sampling error.Democrats and independents oppose Proposition 23 in large numbers, the poll shows, while it is leading narrowly among Republicans, with 41% supporting and 36% opposed.Among those Republicans is Anthony Morales, 47, a restaurant owner in the Chico area, north of Sacramento. "Right now is not the time" to impose the new emissions rules, he said. "I believe there is global warming, but I don't believe it is happening as rapidly as the government says."The proposal to change the legislative vote threshold needed to pass a budget, meanwhile, would dramatically alter the political dynamic in Sacramento. Proposition 25 is pitched by supporters as a means to end Sacramento's notorious budget gridlock. In their advertisements, supporters also have stressed that the measure would dock lawmakers' pay if a budget was not passed on time. The measure would leave in place a two-thirds vote requirement for broad tax hikes.The change would give Democrats, who are expected to command solid majorities in the Assembly and Senate after this election, full control of the budget process in the Legislature. But the poll shows Proposition 25 with strong support across party lines. Among registered Republicans, 47% support it and 38% are opposed. Registered Democrats favor the measure 62% to 20%."We've gone through serial extended budget crises, and it is clear voter anger over it has built up," said Darry Sragow, who teaches political science at USC and helped oversee the poll.This year, the budget was a record 100 days late.Edgar Duran of Fontana is tired of the status quo. "Those guys can never agree on anything in Sacramento," said the 49-year-old, who is unemployed and registered "decline to state." "I am tired of watching them play games and waiting to see who makes the first move. Getting to two-thirds never happens."Analysts say voters are particularly attracted to the punitive nature of the measure. They want lawmakers to lose their pay for not getting the job done.But Pitney questions if voters are missing the fine print. Democrats could avoid the pay sanctions in Proposition 25 by simply moving a sham plan to the governor's desk destined for a veto, he said. While the two-thirds vote requirement would remain in place for broad-based tax hikes, the measure would still make it easier for Democrats to pass a budget loaded with billions of dollars in "fees" that can be approved by a simple majority."There may be less to these provisions than meets the eye," Pitney said.

Click to expand...

bg0546 said:

LOS ANGELES TIMES/USC POLLCalifornia voters likely to keep global warming law, toss two-thirds budget passageProp. 23, which would suspend new emissions standards until unemployment drops, trails 48% to 32% among likely voters. Prop. 25, allowing a legislative majority to pass a budget, has 58% support.By Evan Halper, Los Angeles TimesOctober 25, 2010Reporting from SacramentoDespite the struggling economy, most California voters oppose suspending the state's landmark global warming law, which would place strict new environmental regulations on business, a new Los Angeles Times/ USC poll shows.Proposition 23, which would put the new emissions standards on hold, is trailing 48% to 32% among likely voters, according to the survey.But as voters look inclined to stay the course with the state's global warming policies, they appear ready to radically change state budget policy. The poll found that 58% of likely voters support Proposition 25, which would replace the constitutional requirement that the state budget be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature with a simple majority vote requirement. Such a change would allow Democrats to pass a budget without any GOP votes under the current makeup of the Legislature.The push to suspend the global warming law has been bankrolled in large part by out-of-state oil refining companies that stand to see profits decline as a result of the state's new regulations. The ballot measure would suspend implementation of the new air pollution rules until unemployment drops to 5.5% or less for a full year. State analysts say that could take many years, as the unemployment rate has stayed that low for a sustained period only three times since 1970.Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been campaigning aggressively against the ballot measure. The global warming law, passed in 2006, is the governor's signature legacy-burnishing achievement. Analysts say he and other opponents have effectively tapped into voter attitudes toward big oil.Lack of enthusiasm for the measure is "not so much about how voters feel about the merits of the global warming law itself, but rather the efforts of outside oil companies to pull a fast one," said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College. "The opponents have run a very smart campaign with lots of advertising."Tobias Martinez of Riverside, a 45-year-old truck driver, is among the voters troubled by oil company involvement in the measure. "When you see that they are funding it, it begins to look like this is something just to benefit them," said Martinez, who is registered "decline to state." "They want to be able to produce more pollutants.... It doesn't make sense that stopping the improvement of air quality would create jobs."The poll was conducted for The Times and the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican firm American Viewpoint. Results are based on 922 likely voters. Results for the full sample of 1,501 registered voters, reached by landline or cellphone Oct. 13-20, have a 2.5-percentage-point margin of sampling error. There is a 3.2-point margin of sampling error for likely voters. Only half the sample was surveyed about Proposition 25. That question has a 4.6-point margin of sampling error.Democrats and independents oppose Proposition 23 in large numbers, the poll shows, while it is leading narrowly among Republicans, with 41% supporting and 36% opposed.Among those Republicans is Anthony Morales, 47, a restaurant owner in the Chico area, north of Sacramento. "Right now is not the time" to impose the new emissions rules, he said. "I believe there is global warming, but I don't believe it is happening as rapidly as the government says."The proposal to change the legislative vote threshold needed to pass a budget, meanwhile, would dramatically alter the political dynamic in Sacramento. Proposition 25 is pitched by supporters as a means to end Sacramento's notorious budget gridlock. In their advertisements, supporters also have stressed that the measure would dock lawmakers' pay if a budget was not passed on time. The measure would leave in place a two-thirds vote requirement for broad tax hikes.The change would give Democrats, who are expected to command solid majorities in the Assembly and Senate after this election, full control of the budget process in the Legislature. But the poll shows Proposition 25 with strong support across party lines. Among registered Republicans, 47% support it and 38% are opposed. Registered Democrats favor the measure 62% to 20%."We've gone through serial extended budget crises, and it is clear voter anger over it has built up," said Darry Sragow, who teaches political science at USC and helped oversee the poll.This year, the budget was a record 100 days late.Edgar Duran of Fontana is tired of the status quo. "Those guys can never agree on anything in Sacramento," said the 49-year-old, who is unemployed and registered "decline to state." "I am tired of watching them play games and waiting to see who makes the first move. Getting to two-thirds never happens."Analysts say voters are particularly attracted to the punitive nature of the measure. They want lawmakers to lose their pay for not getting the job done.But Pitney questions if voters are missing the fine print. Democrats could avoid the pay sanctions in Proposition 25 by simply moving a sham plan to the governor's desk destined for a veto, he said. While the two-thirds vote requirement would remain in place for broad-based tax hikes, the measure would still make it easier for Democrats to pass a budget loaded with billions of dollars in "fees" that can be approved by a simple majority."There may be less to these provisions than meets the eye," Pitney said.

Click to expand...

California is so screwed if these two measures go the way the article above indicates.

Click to expand...

OC Zed said:

Proposition 25 is a good thing. By requiring a simple majority for budget passage, it lessens the pressure fiscal conservatives will feel in capitulating and comprimising in budget talks. Those voting in favor of bloated, deficit-spending budgets in the future will truly be forced to own their vote and not hide behind the supermajority that were compelled into voting for the budget just to keep basic services running.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

StrikeS2k said:

Spanky267 said:

videoguy505 said:

Can we start deporting people yet?

Click to expand...

With those tax rates there will be alot of voluntary deportation. Unfortunately it will be people you'd like to stick around.

Click to expand...

4 years running more American Citizens have left California than moved there. The only reason the population continues to increase is illegal immigration and anchor babies of illegals. Considering those people take from the system far more then they put in the smaller and smaller base of Citizens living there are paying more and more to keep the state running. And, of course, we all know how that's working out.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of disagreement over this and I can't let you just run with it as an assumed fact. Illegals cost an awful lot to our education, hospitals, and criminal justice, and in all those areas, we have great trouble affording them. On the other hand, their willingness to work for low wages keeps our agriculture and other essential industries price competitive. Plus every illegal that comes spends most of their money here on food and shelter, and their spending has become an integral part of our economy. I have read different economists call this a wash, while others (notably from the Cato Institute) actually see the illegals effect on the economy as a net gain.

Click to expand...

OC Zed said:

Proposition 25 is a good thing. By requiring a simple majority for budget passage, it lessens the pressure fiscal conservatives will feel in capitulating and comprimising in budget talks. Those voting in favor of bloated, deficit-spending budgets in the future will truly be forced to own their vote and not hide behind the supermajority that were compelled into voting for the budget just to keep basic services running.

Click to expand...

quickhands said:

Well with Governor Moonbeam back running the state it will actually interesting to watch a political class rob a state blind. I live in Metro Detroit so I've seen it on a City Level, but this should be fascinating. And with all the net gain that you get from illegals it should be interesting over the next 4 years.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

videoguy505 said:

Can we start deporting people yet?

Click to expand...

That will cost more money than it will save.

Click to expand...

quickhands said:

Well with Governor Moonbeam back running the state it will actually interesting to watch a political class rob a state blind. I live in Metro Detroit so I've seen it on a City Level, but this should be fascinating. And with all the net gain that you get from illegals it should be interesting over the next 4 years.

Click to expand...

Yankee23Fan said:

How does any person in that state vote for Jerry Brown? I saw the poll numbers last night for the first time and it blew my mind. Jerry Brown? Really? And tim's complaining about Delaware....

Click to expand...

Yankee23Fan said:

How does any person in that state vote for Jerry Brown? I saw the poll numbers last night for the first time and it blew my mind. Jerry Brown? Really? And tim's complaining about Delaware....

Click to expand...

bg0546 said:

OC Zed said:

Proposition 25 is a good thing. By requiring a simple majority for budget passage, it lessens the pressure fiscal conservatives will feel in capitulating and comprimising in budget talks. Those voting in favor of bloated, deficit-spending budgets in the future will truly be forced to own their vote and not hide behind the supermajority that were compelled into voting for the budget just to keep basic services running.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised to see this stance from you. The socialists in Sacramento would have already implemented massive tax increases had it not been for the 2/3 requirement. The only purpose the GOP had up there was to keep spending in check. Now, they won't even have the power to do that. As the thread title states, your taxes are going to go up, up, up.

Click to expand...

bg0546 said:

Yankee23Fan said:

How does any person in that state vote for Jerry Brown? I saw the poll numbers last night for the first time and it blew my mind. Jerry Brown? Really? And tim's complaining about Delaware....

Click to expand...

Believe it or not Meg Whitman is WORSE than Jerry Brown. Heck, you don't even know where she stands on anything. She's flip flopped her stances on more issues than any politician I've ever seen. At least with Jerry you know where he stands. You may not agree with him but you know where he stands. If I still lived in CA I would choose not to vote for Governor. They are both horrible choices.

Click to expand...

OC Zed said:

bg0546 said:

OC Zed said:

Proposition 25 is a good thing. By requiring a simple majority for budget passage, it lessens the pressure fiscal conservatives will feel in capitulating and comprimising in budget talks. Those voting in favor of bloated, deficit-spending budgets in the future will truly be forced to own their vote and not hide behind the supermajority that were compelled into voting for the budget just to keep basic services running.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised to see this stance from you. The socialists in Sacramento would have already implemented massive tax increases had it not been for the 2/3 requirement. The only purpose the GOP had up there was to keep spending in check. Now, they won't even have the power to do that. As the thread title states, your taxes are going to go up, up, up.

Click to expand...

History has clearly shown that the supermajority requirement for the budget has NOT kept spending in check. Rather, the supermajority requirement creates enough political pressure for fiscal conservaties to cave on the bloated budgets (in fear of the "shutting down the government" tag). A simple majority will allow Democrats to pass whatever budget they want on their own and they, in turn, will be forced to take ownership for the state's fiscal disaster.

Click to expand...

MasterofOrion said:

bg0546 said:

Yankee23Fan said:

How does any person in that state vote for Jerry Brown? I saw the poll numbers last night for the first time and it blew my mind. Jerry Brown? Really? And tim's complaining about Delaware....

Click to expand...

Believe it or not Meg Whitman is WORSE than Jerry Brown. Heck, you don't even know where she stands on anything. She's flip flopped her stances on more issues than any politician I've ever seen. At least with Jerry you know where he stands. You may not agree with him but you know where he stands. If I still lived in CA I would choose not to vote for Governor. They are both horrible choices.

Click to expand...

Her economic plan, as spelled out on her web page, is very good. Her problem IMHO is that she relies on negative advertising and not on her thought out solutions. This is playing right into Jerry Browns playbook. Nobody knows demomization game better than does the Unions and Jerry Brown. (Barbra Boxer is damn good at it as well) In other words she is playing on their turf and getting skunked by the pros.The other problem is Schwarzenegger and his Republican label. I missed this earlier because I felt he left the reservation a long time ago and was Republican in name only. But he represents failed policies and more importantly failed Republican policies. He has been an unmitigated disaster for the Republican brand. There is a very effective ad that shows Meg and Arnold saying almost exactly the same words. It may be one of the most effective ads ever.

Click to expand...

bg0546 said:

MasterofOrion said:

bg0546 said:

Yankee23Fan said:

How does any person in that state vote for Jerry Brown? I saw the poll numbers last night for the first time and it blew my mind. Jerry Brown? Really? And tim's complaining about Delaware....

Click to expand...

Believe it or not Meg Whitman is WORSE than Jerry Brown. Heck, you don't even know where she stands on anything. She's flip flopped her stances on more issues than any politician I've ever seen. At least with Jerry you know where he stands. You may not agree with him but you know where he stands. If I still lived in CA I would choose not to vote for Governor. They are both horrible choices.

Click to expand...

Her economic plan, as spelled out on her web page, is very good. Her problem IMHO is that she relies on negative advertising and not on her thought out solutions. This is playing right into Jerry Browns playbook. Nobody knows demomization game better than does the Unions and Jerry Brown. (Barbra Boxer is damn good at it as well) In other words she is playing on their turf and getting skunked by the pros.The other problem is Schwarzenegger and his Republican label. I missed this earlier because I felt he left the reservation a long time ago and was Republican in name only. But he represents failed policies and more importantly failed Republican policies. He has been an unmitigated disaster for the Republican brand. There is a very effective ad that shows Meg and Arnold saying almost exactly the same words. It may be one of the most effective ads ever.

Click to expand...

I haven't read her page, and I won't. She has flip flopped on everything since the primaries. Are you suggesting I should take her at face value?

Click to expand...

MasterofOrion said:

quickhands said:

Well with Governor Moonbeam back running the state it will actually interesting to watch a political class rob a state blind. I live in Metro Detroit so I've seen it on a City Level, but this should be fascinating.

And with all the net gain that you get from illegals it should be interesting over the next 4 years.

Click to expand...

They have already robbed this state blind. It is on the verge of economic collapse and voters will be voting in Jerry Brown. It would be interesting or funny if the consequences were not so significant. California will have an economic melt down. The state is so big that its collapse have an impact on rest of the nation.

Click to expand...

OC Zed said:

bg0546 said:

OC Zed said:

Proposition 25 is a good thing. By requiring a simple majority for budget passage, it lessens the pressure fiscal conservatives will feel in capitulating and comprimising in budget talks. Those voting in favor of bloated, deficit-spending budgets in the future will truly be forced to own their vote and not hide behind the supermajority that were compelled into voting for the budget just to keep basic services running.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised to see this stance from you. The socialists in Sacramento would have already implemented massive tax increases had it not been for the 2/3 requirement. The only purpose the GOP had up there was to keep spending in check. Now, they won't even have the power to do that. As the thread title states, your taxes are going to go up, up, up.

Click to expand...

History has clearly shown that the supermajority requirement for the budget has NOT kept spending in check. Rather, the supermajority requirement creates enough political pressure for fiscal conservaties to cave on the bloated budgets (in fear of the "shutting down the government" tag). A simple majority will allow Democrats to pass whatever budget they want on their own and they, in turn, will be forced to take ownership for the state's fiscal disaster.

Click to expand...

Yankee23Fan said:

How does any person in that state vote for Jerry Brown? I saw the poll numbers last night for the first time and it blew my mind. Jerry Brown? Really? And tim's complaining about Delaware....

Click to expand...

MasterofOrion said:

The other problem is Schwarzenegger and his Republican label. I missed this earlier because I felt he left the reservation a long time ago and was Republican in name only. But he represents failed policies and more importantly failed Republican policies. He has been an unmitigated disaster for the Republican brand. There is a very effective ad that shows Meg and Arnold saying almost exactly the same words. It may be one of the most effective ads ever.

Click to expand...

MasterofOrion said:

Great point. The Democrats and the Unions will own the budget. The state is going in the tank and Meg or any other Republican could fix the budget at this point in time. In order to fix this problem you would have to destroy the public unions and their pensions. It ain't gonna happen. Nobody is that powerful.You can't really raise taxes to fix the budget because businesses are already fleeing California. In order to attract businesses we have to create an attractive business climate for businesses. Ohio knows this and it is advertising and attracting California Businesses in droves. Democrats don't understand the problem and will try and fix the problem by making it harder to business here: Higher taxes and more government regulations. This will be like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

MasterofOrion said:

Great point. The Democrats and the Unions will own the budget. The state is going in the tank and Meg or any other Republican could fix the budget at this point in time. In order to fix this problem you would have to destroy the public unions and their pensions. It ain't gonna happen. Nobody is that powerful.You can't really raise taxes to fix the budget because businesses are already fleeing California. In order to attract businesses we have to create an attractive business climate for businesses. Ohio knows this and it is advertising and attracting California Businesses in droves. Democrats don't understand the problem and will try and fix the problem by making it harder to business here: Higher taxes and more government regulations. This will be like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Click to expand...

Great post. I'm sure Google, Apple, eBay, Chevron, Cisco, WellsFargo, Disney, Intel, HP, etc. are all on the horn to UHaul making plans to move to Akron.

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

MasterofOrion said:

Great point. The Democrats and the Unions will own the budget. The state is going in the tank and Meg or any other Republican could fix the budget at this point in time. In order to fix this problem you would have to destroy the public unions and their pensions. It ain't gonna happen. Nobody is that powerful.You can't really raise taxes to fix the budget because businesses are already fleeing California. In order to attract businesses we have to create an attractive business climate for businesses. Ohio knows this and it is advertising and attracting California Businesses in droves. Democrats don't understand the problem and will try and fix the problem by making it harder to business here: Higher taxes and more government regulations. This will be like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Click to expand...

Great post. I'm sure Google, Apple, eBay, Chevron, Cisco, WellsFargo, Disney, Intel, HP, etc. are all on the horn to UHaul making plans to move to Akron.

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

MasterofOrion said:

Great point. The Democrats and the Unions will own the budget.

The state is going in the tank and Meg or any other Republican could fix the budget at this point in time. In order to fix this problem you would have to destroy the public unions and their pensions. It ain't gonna happen. Nobody is that powerful.

You can't really raise taxes to fix the budget because businesses are already fleeing California. In order to attract businesses we have to create an attractive business climate for businesses. Ohio knows this and it is advertising and attracting California Businesses in droves. Democrats don't understand the problem and will try and fix the problem by making it harder to business here: Higher taxes and more government regulations. This will be like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Click to expand...

Great post. I'm sure Google, Apple, eBay, Chevron, Cisco, WellsFargo, Disney, Intel, HP, etc. are all on the horn to UHaul making plans to move to Akron.

Click to expand...

Companies of all types are reducing their California footprint. The list includes well-known California-based firms like Google, Hilton, Thomas Brothers Maps, Genentech, Yelp, Apple, Facebook, and DIRECTV. Meanwhile, lesser-known family-owned companies are leaving the state completely, but they prefer to stay out of the limelight and their moves are difficult to track.

Click to expand...

quickhands said:

MasterofOrion said:

quickhands said:

Well with Governor Moonbeam back running the state it will actually interesting to watch a political class rob a state blind. I live in Metro Detroit so I've seen it on a City Level, but this should be fascinating.

And with all the net gain that you get from illegals it should be interesting over the next 4 years.

Click to expand...

They have already robbed this state blind. It is on the verge of economic collapse and voters will be voting in Jerry Brown. It would be interesting or funny if the consequences were not so significant. California will have an economic melt down. The state is so big that its collapse have an impact on rest of the nation.

Click to expand...

I think they have only moderately robbed the state blind. The really unbelievable stuff starts when connected insiders start inventing ways to rip the state off and invite their friends to be part of the scheme.

California will need to be put in receivership, though i don't think its possible. Obama will try to bail them out but he won't be able to get it through Congress. So expect a ton of executive orders.

It is horrible for the rest of the country.

Click to expand...

Yankee23Fan said:

tommyGunZ said:

MasterofOrion said:

Great point. The Democrats and the Unions will own the budget.

The state is going in the tank and Meg or any other Republican could fix the budget at this point in time. In order to fix this problem you would have to destroy the public unions and their pensions. It ain't gonna happen. Nobody is that powerful.

You can't really raise taxes to fix the budget because businesses are already fleeing California. In order to attract businesses we have to create an attractive business climate for businesses. Ohio knows this and it is advertising and attracting California Businesses in droves. Democrats don't understand the problem and will try and fix the problem by making it harder to business here: Higher taxes and more government regulations. This will be like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Click to expand...

Great post. I'm sure Google, Apple, eBay, Chevron, Cisco, WellsFargo, Disney, Intel, HP, etc. are all on the horn to UHaul making plans to move to Akron.

Click to expand...

For someone who started and nurtured a 50 page thread about the housing market in California and how you were going to take advantage of it because it was so bad, you really seem to be massively out of touch with your own state.

Click to expand...

Question - are you going to vote for Jerry Brown?

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

Question - are you going to vote for Jerry Brown?

Click to expand...

Over Meg Whitman? ABSOLUTELY.

Click to expand...

bg0546 said:

Many companies are moving out of CA. And yes, some of the big ones, including some that you mentioned, are expanding or moving operations to other places instead of CA. Try educating yourself.

http://jan.ocregister.com/2010/02/24/list-...lifornia/31805/

From a link you can follow from that article:

Companies of all types are reducing their California footprint. The list includes well-known California-based firms like Google, Hilton, Thomas Brothers Maps, Genentech, Yelp, Apple, Facebook, and DIRECTV. Meanwhile, lesser-known family-owned companies are leaving the state completely, but they prefer to stay out of the limelight and their moves are difficult to track.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bg0546 said:

tommyGunZ said:

Question - are you going to vote for Jerry Brown?

Click to expand...

Over Meg Whitman? ABSOLUTELY.

Click to expand...

THIS is the guy you're going to vote for???http://www.breitbart.tv/jerry-brown-on-his...for-california/

Click to expand...

Yankee23Fan said:

tommyGunZ said:

MasterofOrion said:

Great point. The Democrats and the Unions will own the budget. The state is going in the tank and Meg or any other Republican could fix the budget at this point in time. In order to fix this problem you would have to destroy the public unions and their pensions. It ain't gonna happen. Nobody is that powerful.You can't really raise taxes to fix the budget because businesses are already fleeing California. In order to attract businesses we have to create an attractive business climate for businesses. Ohio knows this and it is advertising and attracting California Businesses in droves. Democrats don't understand the problem and will try and fix the problem by making it harder to business here: Higher taxes and more government regulations. This will be like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Click to expand...

Great post. I'm sure Google, Apple, eBay, Chevron, Cisco, WellsFargo, Disney, Intel, HP, etc. are all on the horn to UHaul making plans to move to Akron.

Click to expand...

For someone who started and nurtured a 50 page thread about the housing market in California and how you were going to take advantage of it because it was so bad, you really seem to be massively out of touch with your own state.Question - are you going to vote for Jerry Brown?

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

bg0546 said:

tommyGunZ said:

Question - are you going to vote for Jerry Brown?

Click to expand...

Over Meg Whitman? ABSOLUTELY.

Click to expand...

THIS is the guy you're going to vote for???http://www.breitbart.tv/jerry-brown-on-his...for-california/

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything Brown said in that clip.

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

Over Meg Whitman? ABSOLUTELY.

Click to expand...

Rich Conway said:

That depends on how the ballot reads. Does it say "Jerry Brown - D" or "Jerry Brown - R"?

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

Rich Conway said:

That depends on how the ballot reads. Does it say "Jerry Brown - D" or "Jerry Brown - R"?

Click to expand...

Yeah, because I don't actually care about positions on issues, just the letter behind someone's name.

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

Can't wait to watch California destroy itself.

Click to expand...

Bid to remake California state government finds major benefactorBillionaire Nicolas Berggruen has assembled a politically diverse group and pledged at least $20 million to press its proposals for transforming how Sacramento operates.By Evan Halper, Los Angeles TimesOctober 27, 2010Reporting from SacramentoAn eccentric, globetrotting multibillionaire who doesn't own a home in California — or anywhere, for that matter; he says he has little use for owning things — is about to breathe life into efforts to shake up Sacramento.Nicolas Berggruen will give at least $20 million to a group of Californians who long to restructure state government so it is more responsive to voters, more responsible with public funds and ready to reposition the state to meet the challenges of today's economy.On Wednesday, he will bring together a who's who of California public policy on the campus of Google — a symbol of California innovation — to announce that he is putting up his millions to help push forward whatever the group agrees upon in the next six months as changes needed to make state government work again.Berggruen, 49, says he envisions a California government that is competent, flexible and efficient — able to close the innovation and entrepreneurship gap that is emerging between California and places such as Singapore and China.The members he has chosen for the Think Long Committee for California run the ideological gamut. Reaganite George Schultz and Bush administration veteran Condoleezza Rice will weigh in, as will Democrats Willie Brown and Gray Davis. Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad will also serve on the committee. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will be a guest at the first meeting."We need to be able to think much more long term," Berggruen said in an interview. "We need to be able to prioritize things that may not be popular in the short term but are really helpful in the long term and have an administrative branch that is competitive and meritocratic."Despite all the talk by elder statesmen and analysts in recent years of fixing California's broken system of government — in spite of the commissions, the reports, the scathing public approval ratings of the status quo — not much has changed. There is general agreement in Sacramento that too many well-funded interests have effectively blocked such efforts.Berggruen was a virtual unknown in California politics until recently. Then he contributed $250,000 to oppose the measure on next week's statewide ballot that would suspend California's landmark global warming law, Proposition 23. He travels the world acquiring controlling stakes in companies including Spain's largest newspaper publishing firm, a major German retail chain and a renewable-energy interest in Turkey."I haven't been involved in politics here and, frankly, don't want to be," he said. "I'm interested in positive reform. If this works in California, we can … do this in other places. I'm not interested in a political career.... I'm not trying to promote a narrow political view."Berggruen, whose reading matter tends toward Sartre and Confucius, says in California he will be promoting common sense. For him, that means more constitutional controls on state spending, a halt to runaway pension costs, more authority for local government and new accountability measures for government programs. He also favors the creation of an endowment of sorts for the state university system that would help limit tuition and provide funds to attract and retain top teaching and research talent.Davis, who has been pushing for budget reforms since being recalled from office in 2003, calls Berggruen's arrival in the movement "a potential game changer.""If we really want to make California a more attractive place to operate in, live in, do business in, there are a lot of things that need to be done," he said. "This group is saying, 'We are not going to sit on the sidelines.' "Berggruen's cash is key. A shortage of funds forced the organizers of a state constitutional convention to abandon their plan, which had drawn a lot of attention and enthusiasm. The think tank California Forward lost momentum when lawmakers balked at its plans and nobody stepped forward with funds to put the group's proposals before voters."This gives life to the reform movement," said former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, a Democrat who co-chairs the nonpartisan California Forward and will sit on Berggruen's advisory committee. "The left has been spending money to protect its interests, and so has the right."Now, Hertzberg said, the policy wonks and political old hands who see a path forward have a legitimate seat at the table.Berggruen was unknown to Hertzberg until the two talked by phone earlier this year. Hertzberg wanted an immediate face-to-face meeting, so he flew to Panama for a six-hour confab aboard Berggruen's private jet."He evidenced a deep understanding of what was going on in California," Hertzberg said. "I lit up. He saw the world the same way I do. He sees California as a bellwether state, that this is a challenge to democracy, that we have to remain economically viable."The Wall Street Journal dubbed Berggruen the "homeless billionaire," because he has no residence or car. "I am at home wherever I am," he told The Times. "I am at home as a human being on this Earth. That is home. I don't have a house."Flying in his private jet, staying at luxury hotels and hosting parties at the Chateau Marmont with guests such as Paris Hilton and Leonardo DiCaprio are part of his lifestyle. Forbes magazine pegs Berggruen as America's 164th-richest person, worth $2.2 billion.The Berggruen Institute, his think tank, is in New York City. It has a Beverly Hills office, where operations of the Think Long Committee for California will be based. The institute's focus on improving government stems from Berggruen's belief that the cause is among the highest and best uses of charitable giving because the benefits filter down to all of society.California, he says, presents an ideal test case for reform: There is demand for change and an apparatus — the initiative process — for implementing it."Are we coming up with wild ideas? No," said Berggruen. "It is very common-sense…. It is a question of being able to implement it."

Click to expand...

bg0546 said:

Interesting, but will it work?

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

I'll be voting against 23, in favor of 25, and in favor of 19.

Click to expand...

Gr00vus said:

Statorama said:

Can't wait to watch California destroy itself.

Click to expand...

This doesn't seem like a very excellent sentiment.

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

MasterofOrion said:

Great point. The Democrats and the Unions will own the budget. The state is going in the tank and Meg or any other Republican could fix the budget at this point in time. In order to fix this problem you would have to destroy the public unions and their pensions. It ain't gonna happen. Nobody is that powerful.You can't really raise taxes to fix the budget because businesses are already fleeing California. In order to attract businesses we have to create an attractive business climate for businesses. Ohio knows this and it is advertising and attracting California Businesses in droves. Democrats don't understand the problem and will try and fix the problem by making it harder to business here: Higher taxes and more government regulations. This will be like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Click to expand...

Great post. I'm sure Google, Apple, eBay, Chevron, Cisco, WellsFargo, Disney, Intel, HP, etc. are all on the horn to UHaul making plans to move to Akron.

Click to expand...

California recently got its budget situation under control, but everyone figures the state is still in serious financial trouble.

And this news won't help, though it was probably inevitable.

According to the Sacramento Bee, CalSTRS (the big teachers retirement fund) is set to vote on Friday whether or not it should reduce its annual investment returns estimate from 8% to 7.5%, a move that will add hundreds of million to state debts (since the pension is guaranteed, and public taxpayers are on the hook).

That would be a huge decision, if they do it. 8% has been the level set since 1995 (talk about a whole nother era), and artificially high return estimates are how the pension systems aren't (on paper) even more insolvent than they already seem.

Click to expand...