California: The Failed State

[GodisanAtheist]

http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMoney/idUS271846202220090522

[Edit: Some more reading, if you wish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_California_budget_crisis]

The State of California is 1 month from bankrupcy. We are a massive 35 Billion dollars in the hole. The recent ballot measures to raise taxes (you see, here in California there must be a referendum to raise taxes) were almost totally shot down with the exception of salary caps for state officials. The government here has NEVER been able to balance its budget and had a pretty shoddy time paying back what it borrows (California has the worst credit rating of any state in the union).

Recently the State government has gone to Washington to ask for a bailout of its own. Its argument is that much like many banking institutions and the car companies California is too large to allow to fail, and therefore should be given bailout funds to cover its expenses until... *ahem* it gets its budget in order. There is certainly truth to this argument: California commands the 8th (used to be 5th) largest economy in the WORLD, and should it fail the economic effects would be a crippling blow to the US economy as a whole and as a result would be felt worldwide.

The problems with this hat-in-hand proposal are mostly self-evident. Other states would claim to have an extremely hard time stomaching the transfer of federal funds (which are collected from all 50 states) to a single failing state (despite the fact that California pays out more in federal taxes than it ever receives, effectively distributing its wealth to other states in the Union). Some claim that this manner of money transfer is flatly unconstitutional, or at the very least not provided for in the wording of the federal bailout legislation.

Long and short the discussion is as follows: Are you a Californian? What do you think of this entire situation? What is the best method by which to solve it? If you live in another state or country, what are your thoughts on a "bailout" of California? Is California within its rights to ask for the discrepancy between the money it pays to the government and the money it receives?

Personally - First and foremost I agree with the fundamental argument that California is far too large an entity to be permitted to go bankrupt. However, the idea that Californians would lose their sovereignty in terms of fiscal planning (which is probably a good thing actually) for a fed budget is somewhat disconcerting.

Our state leg. cannot pass a budget without 66% support, which might be the dumbest damn thing Californians have ever passed into law. This should (must) be reformed to a more reasonable 55% support (a little more stringent than simple majority rules, but its not asking the impossible either).

As for other states (mostly Mountain/Central/some Southern states States) which take in more federal money than they donate to the system should really shut-the-fuck-up with the whole "its socialism" horseshit, seeing how these states have been the largest benefactors of "wealth redistribution".

[Ash]

Why don't you guys just cut spending?

[GodisanAtheist]

Our state leg. cannot pass a budget without 66% support, which might be the dumbest damn thing Californians have ever passed into law. This should (must) be reformed to a more reasonable 55% support (a little more stringent than simple majority rules, but its not asking the impossible either).

-Welcome to California, the land of no simple answers.

[Noir]

2/3rds majority to pass budgets lol.

At least you guys going bankrupt will take some heat off our worst state government in the union.

[Wintermute]

Post #3 summaries the problem. Because we can't pass anything to reform the budget without 66% support in the legislature, its very hard to get anything worthwhile done.

Gov. Schwarzenegger (the "Governator") catches a lot of flak for California's budget issues when really its not his fault, at least in my opinion. He's doing his damnedest to solve California's Budget problems, but the power to solve the problems doesn't really lie in his hands, it lies with the legislature.

Any landmark legislation that could solve California's budget issues - proposed by either the Democrats or Republicans - has literally no chance of passing without making major concessions to whichever group is in the minority (because they know they can block it from passing). This usually winds up dumbing down the legislation to the point where it doesn't accomplish much. ... Then the legislators blame Schwarzenegger.

[Noir]

That's true, Arnold's done all he can to try to unfuck the state, but he's been unsuccessful and frankly it's not really something he can entirely be blamed for save for the fact that he kinda ran in the recall against Davis for the same reason he's brickwalling at right now. That's the general consensus I've gotten from people in the know about CA politics, and I don't disagree.

Certainly wouldn't mind Schwarzenegger over Paterson.

[Wintermute]

It's pretty ridiculous how close bills have come to passing (like 60% in favor to 40% against - a sweeping majority in today's world - like with the gasoline tax proposed a few years back) only to be shot down by the absurd 2/3rds majority requirement.

[El Russo]

Our state leg. cannot pass a budget without 66% support, which might be the dumbest damn thing Californians have ever passed into law. This should (must) be reformed to a more reasonable 55% support (a little more stringent than simple majority rules, but its not asking the impossible either).
Sounds like you wouldn't get the necessary support to bring it down to 55% if such a thing was ever proposed!

[Noir]

Obviously instead you should just remove the need for anyone to vote unless the majority leader brings it to the floor, like how we do in the State Senate. :p

(yes that was bad sarcasm. ;) )

[Kovac]

Excuse my ignorance, but what happens when a state goes bankrupt?
Do they shut the state and start a new one?

[Moe]

Hi.

Everyone take a deep breath, read the fucking thread before replying, and stop acting like asshats. That means no more snarky one-liners, no more simplistic one-liners, and everyone has to put some thought into their posts and flesh out their thoughts before hitting "submit".

I've removed a bunch of posts, let's try to keep it civil, eh?

[GodisanAtheist]

Excuse my ignorance, but what happens when a state goes bankrupt?
Do they shut the state and start a new one?

-Actually... you're half right. The State shuts down cause it can't pay any of its employees until it gets its finances in order. This means anything needing a state license to operate (as in applying for the license, not already in possession of one) would be flat out fucked. Additionally, entitlement programs such as state welfare and medicaid (and state grants/loans/othershit) go right out the fucking window.

Job creation dies a miserable death, alone and naked in a gutter somewhere while unemployment skyrockets, with no safety net to catch anyone.

It'd kinda be like Mad Max, but far less dramatic and way sadder.

[Saberdark]

I don't see many in congress approving of a bailout of California that has little-no benefit to themselves or their constituents. It would be difficult to get votes for the bill that would be required for it, seeing as no existing legislation covers the bailing out of a state government. I suspect that any solution to California's problems will have to come from within the state.

On a personal level, I feel states shouldn't be receiving bailouts because it would cause the state to no longer be self-governed. I think most Californians would agree that even if their state senate can't realistically lower the budget as it is now, the precedent of the federal government taking over would be disturbing to say the least. And I can't see any bailout not accompanied by federal oversight ever happening.

[DougyM]

Moe i see you deleted my post as part of the "snarky one liners", but i am actually honestly curious about peoples opinions on Arnold.

All ive seen of his time in office is the Come to California ads he and his "friends" appear in from time to time.

Was he a good choice? Is the current situation his fault or were the foundations laid long before he got into office?

Im not having a go at his politics.... im curious.

[Langy]

As far as I can tell, the problems have absolutely nothing to do with Arnold.

[Wintermute]

Personally, as a person living in California who did not vote for him (though I go to college in Oregon), I think Arnold has done a very good job considering the position he is in. He's not perfect, but then no one is. I think he has done a good job of reaching over to the democrats with the olive branch so-to-speak (he's a republican, for those who don't know), which is one of the things he campaigned on. I also think he has gone to great lengths to try and head this budget problem off at the pass - unfortunately without much success, for reasons discussed. From everything I have read, I cannot blame Arnold for even laying the foundations of California's current woes - but I might be overlooking something.

People try and rat on him for cutting funding to schools, but he never wanted to cut funding to anything. He didn't just cut funding to schools, but everything by an equal amount percentage-wise (last I checked, anyway) only because the Legislature couldn't raise the capital required to keep everything running at its current pace. It was a last ditch effort to not only try and stave off a budget crisis, but also try and send a message to legislature that they needed to get their act together.

Aside from that, he's also been a real supporter of genuine green-tech movements, and I definitely respect him for that.

[Moe]

Im not having a go at his politics.... im curious.
You're welcome to have a go at his politics, just as you're welcome to agree with his politics or find some kind of middle ground. Your post was removed because you essentially concluded that this whole mess was his fault, when several people right above your post claimed that this is not the case. In short, if you read the thread before posting, odds are your posts won't disappear.

[Rukoth]

What I find sad about the whole California deal is that it has what? Like the 8th largest economy in the world as a state on its own? And its bankrupt? Hopefully they can fix that, but they really need to lower their tax rates if they want to grow anything besides government there.

[Moe]

How is that not a complete contradiction? If the tax rates are indeed responsible for a lack of growth why is it that Cali is among the top ten largest economies in the world?

Furthermore, the majority of California's income comes from personal income taxes. Even if we accept the premise that lower taxes mean more revenue, in the short term it'll generate less money for the state, and that's a problem with a projected minimum deficit of over 21 billion dollars.

[Wafflegod]

Wait... A state can go bankrupt? Isn't the US Governement forced to help in this whole affair?

[Langy]

Not forced, no.

[Jake]

This is an argument I have with my more conservative friends quite often. Making society work costs money; if you want low taxes, don't come whining when essential services are either complete crap or have been sold off to the highest bidder.

[Starfisher]

California is an interesting test case for other states soon to be in its shoes (*cough new jersey cough*). It's actually an interesting test case for the entire US given the way things are going, but no one wants to think about that right now.

On the one hand, letting its state government collapse would create huge problems for the economy as well as carry the potential for social chaos. Bailing out California might be a national security imperative.

On the other, fuck you California. That sentiment will be very strong in the other 49 states that have yet to spend themselves into oblivion.

Probably the best outcome is California being "bailed out" in the sense that debts are covered, they are forced to vote on a new state constitution mandating balanced budgets requiring a simple majority, and essential services are continued on federal dollars until that occurs. Things stopping this from happening:

1) Whichever party imposes this solution on California might become very unpopular, thereby losing them California votes, thereby making them less willing to push hard.

2) California. They got themselves into this easily enough. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which they try to hold everyone else hostage until they get what they want.

The state has failed at this point. If it wants to come back as a viable anything, it needs to get rid of its debt and bring spending in line with revenues. California bonds were downgraded to junk bond status recently so they are literally out of options.

If you're in California, bring some canned food and water to Someguy's house just in case :P

[Paladin]

I have canned food and water and guns at my house.

[Starfisher]

The Relicnews safehouse network grows!

[Oh,John,no!]

I thought that was developed specifically to counter a Zombie Apocalypse.

[scoiatollo]

Shouldn't we rather think about a way of getting them out of there? I could take one refugee at my place in Vienna (good old europe), fresh food, water and a 16mbit line with no download restrictions.... ;)

Anyway I wonder what will happen to the software industry if california really goes bankrupt. Silicon Valley is still the place where most companies have their headquarters/research departments.

[Ash]

It will work just as well for the coming Hippie Apocalypse.

I still really don't understand how the CA legislature can't agree on how to cut spending enough to bring the budget back into the black. Are they really hoping for a federal bailout?

If that's the case, then...

fuck you California

It's not as if the state didn't bring this upon itself with massive spending increases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050102825.html) over the past decades.

[boolybooly]

California is one of if not the most progressive states in the USA, no offence to others but IMHO it is. Home of silicon valley and Hollywood and with the largest population of any US state, it has two thirds the population of the UK. It has a reputation for success, nice weather, happy living, free thinking and I like that about it. Its a concern that it is getting into fiscal trouble. First thing is that everyone is in financial trouble right now, production and tax revenues are down. So while it may be bad there is a question mark over whether it will always be this way. I think we have to learn a lot of lessons from this last crisis and if any state or nation is capable of drawing the right conclusions it is California. Subprimes were a mistake and that is another topic, but there are lessons regarding responsible supervision of market practices.

Second market cycles should not catch anyone by surprise now and we should be preparing ourselves in good times for lean times. That is the whole purpose of civilisation when you trace it back to the granary principle so nothing new there. The Keynsian insight is that the economy is like the granary, you have to plant seeds if you want a crop hence the logic of stimulus spending, but be careful where you plant those seeds. The problem is finding the right balance between security and enjoying wealth and also the issue of sharing, to make a better way of life. The political debate is obviously labile and tends to run in a cycle between polar opposites which is decades long and depends on the existing state of public perception to propel it into the next phase which leads to the next and the next. We dont yet have the collective insight to make this a steady state in a democracy. So here California seems to have a problem, but its not just California, it is a problem all nations have to face up to. I am not claiming California is a microcosm because that is an uninformative concept but they share many of the same problems we all do and the solutions they find may well set the trend for a lot of other states and nations if they work.

Third the people have to decide on the right balance between taxation and sharing of services. There is a point to sharing the costs of services which is that we live in the neighbourhood our society creates. If you live in a swell mansion and have private health care and your kids play with other kids who have no healthcare they still catch their diseases. We want to walk out in a secure environment we share protected not by body guards but by goodwill and a realistic police presence. With respect to funding education, when does exclusion become crime and crime become class war? The point is that people have to share to create a better environment for themselves and that is the principle of taxation, it is not a punishment for having a tyrannical government but some people dont see it that way. The debate is simply a matter of degree, do you just give enough for an army or do you share enough to create a place where anyone whatever their advantage or disadvantage will feel glad to be alive?

California have failed to agree on how to move forwards. All five measures voted down. The voters have spoken, they dont want to pay, so they will reap their reward in terms fo the future development of Californian society. Far be it from me to judge their choice, I simply think the important thing is that they have the debate in public and the voters take on their responsibility not shy away from it. Personally I dont blame Arnie, I think he has much less of an axe to grind than most politicians as he made it on his own terms before taking office. I admire him for trying to come at it from a fresh perspective while working with the people already in the business of government. But he is a republican and this party stands for the reduction in tax burdens so its not surprising that he got this result for those policies. Californians want to reduce spending, that is why they elected him and that is what he should deliver. Then let them see how they like the consequences. They can vote differently next time if they want to change direction.

[Langy]

Problem is, he can't reduce spending. The legislature won't let him.

If California is given a bailout, its terms should be similar to the ones given to banks - it needs to give up a portion of its sovereignty in return for money, because it's become obvious that California can't govern itself effectively.

[MardiGrasBandit]

The problem with jacking up taxes to cover giant state deficits goes beyond any Laffer curve or right to X argument. Businesses in the US operate in a environment which lets them choose from many locations competing for the jobs and revenue they bring. When one state raises the cost of business too high through regulation or taxation, it's relatively easy for firms to uproot themselves and go somewhere offering a better deal. Someone said "if you want low taxes, you have to accept bad services". That goes double for the opposite. If your state wants very high taxes and libraries worth of regulation, expect to scare away business.

Question for the Californians: your state seems pretty high on voter referendums, to the point that it's kind of a cliche in the rest of the nation that California voters decide on every little thing on election day (cruelty to chickens?...). How often are referendums actually used, and how much has direct democracy contributed to your problems?

[Energizer Bunny]

Can't Obama step in and force a change in the legislature? Needing voter approval for cutting spending or raising taxes seems an insane system.

[Ash]

Can't Obama step in and force a change in the legislature?

No. The Federal government has no direct control of state legislatures, it can only attempt to blackmail states into doing things via threatening to revoke highway money or other federal funds.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It's not Arnold's fault. But Gray Davis got recalled for a similar deficit. Sooo hrm.

The Californian legislature has almost no flexibility, even without considering the 2/3 rule - there are 155 pages to the Californian constitution, all of which overrides what the legislature can do.

To fix that California would basically need to go back to basics and conduct a constitutional convention. Sadly that ALSO needs a 2/3 majority in the legislature. Since one of the goals of the convention would basically eliminate the Republican veto, the Republicans would almost certainly refuse to vote for it.

The problem with jacking up taxes to cover giant state deficits goes beyond any Laffer curve or right to X argument. Businesses in the US operate in a environment which lets them choose from many locations competing for the jobs and revenue they bring. When one state raises the cost of business too high through regulation or taxation, it's relatively easy for firms to uproot themselves and go somewhere offering a better deal. Someone said "if you want low taxes, you have to accept bad services". That goes double for the opposite. If your state wants very high taxes and libraries worth of regulation, expect to scare away business.
this is true only to a certain extent. any service provided by the state (ie health care) is one that does not have to be provided via benefits.

there is also no link between high taxes and oppressive regulation.

[Weavern]

How exactly does anyone fix things in the legislature if you have two completely polar parties neither one wanting to do anything the other want? Thiks 66% majority thing seems laughable.

You would think that there's a few billion somewhere in the books given that banks want to pay back TARP. It would seem to be a relatively easy thing to impose sanctions on california from a federal level for equivalent secured loans for a complete 'do as we say' type action.

[Taveras]

I grew up in California and reside within Los Angeles (liberal) and Riverside (conservative) counties.

You'll note that the last referendum was a verdict to tell the state legislature to go F themselves because all of the ballot measures did not pass except the one to limit their pay.

California historically had 2 laws that kept government in check and made it a great place to live for retirees. These laws are:

1 Requirement of 2/3 majorities to pass budgetary issues.
2 Fixed (low) property taxes if the property has not been resold. (In other states, rising property values increase the tax rate regardless of original price.)

Today, the first law causes gridlock in state congress because every district is so well gerry-mandered to each democrat and republican base that the parties effectively never change representation even though there are term limits to the state legislature. Effectively, state congress can not reach a 2/3 majority which is why the people must resort to referendums to either grow government or raise taxes. The law puts a legislative limit to government growth and gives it to the people which is why we seem to pass everything with referendums. It's become quite silly because the state congress does nothing while the voting public has to approve new state projects or raise our taxes at the voting booth.

Now, Californians are predominantly progressive (liberal) thinkers so a majority often wants to approve government projects but the voting booth is a poor place to garner support for higher taxes. The idea that the general public could balance the budget is silly.

Thus, we have become a case study in run-away public spending of "other people's" money. We have a democratic majority and a republican minority in state congress that refuse to budge on their positions. Republicans argue that we spend too much already and want to cut our teachers unions, the SEIU, and prison system. Democrats say we need to raise taxes but come up with convoluted tax increases disguised to not look like tax increases in a recession. There are also proposals to repeal our low property taxes.

There will be partisan bickering over how we can become fiscally balanced. But you'll note that of the 5 measures proposed, the one that passed was the one where we told the legislature to dock their own pay. Fiscal conservatives are interpreting this as a sign to trim government spending. It can also be a sign that we are in a very bad recession and common sense would state that if the private sector must contract in these times, why not government?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

A pair of interesting blog posts. Fair warning: Liberal perspective, but very well informed.

http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/how-we-got-here-thoughts-on-the-state-of-california/

The proof is in the pudding. The state has had the same supermajority requirements for the last 47 years. But only for about the last two decades has the budget become a source of continual drama, with legislators deadlocking 18 years out of the last 22. There has been chronic division in the last ten. We are a long way from the consensus that built the Golden State.

http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/partisanship-and-budgest-crises/

The parties have moved farther apart, with the Republicans becoming more conservative and the Democrats steadily more liberal. Compromise, which is usually necessary when passing a budget by a two-thirds margin, becomes almost impossible in this environment.

Why are the parties moving apart? (Self-promotion coming.) This is something I explore in my new book. Part of it can be explained by national ideological trends. But part of it is a function of who is running the parties.

California’s political parties are run at the most local level by informal networks of activists, donors, and a few key officeholders. These people work together to pick candidates they like and provide those candidates with endorsements, money, and expertise that can put them over the top in the next primary election, and they deny other candidates these same resources. Because these actors are relatively ideologically extreme, so are the candidates they select. If a politician they put in office strays too far from the principles they hold dear, they can deprive that politician of her job by withholding funding, by running a more principled challenger in the next primary, or, in the most extreme cases, by organizing a recall.

This informal style of organizing parties is not unique to California but fits particularly well there because of state rules limiting the formal parties’ participation in politics. As the informal parties have grown more organized, largely since the 1960s, the legislative parties have moved further apart. While there are still plenty of moderate legislative districts in the state, there are almost no state legislators who could accurately be described as moderate; the penalty for moderation is too high.

TF, just to get back to your question about names, I could give you a few. When Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) was an assemblywoman in 2003, she had one of the most liberal voting records in the chamber, even though her district only voted for Gore in 2000 55-45. She had basically the same voting record as Mark Leno, whose San Francisco district voted for Gore 84-16. Patty Berg had a similar voting record up on the northern coast, even though her district only went 56-44 for Gore. There are others. Lots of pretty graphs in the book!

[Noir]

Wait... A state can go bankrupt? Isn't the US Governement forced to help in this whole affair?

Not quite the same, but not all that dissimilar either:

http://moneyandblogging.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/dropdead1.jpg

So the answer is no, though I should note that if I've got my 1970s NYC history correct there was some help from the feds later on, but relief came mostly from the state. Really, this is the closest thing to any proposed CA bailout that I can think of, and if we follow that route it won't be pretty, considering that the city essentially lost control of it's own government all the way into the 80s, and even after that so much home rule was lost that thirty-five years after the crisis, there are still things the city cannot do to itself, even while the situation looks reversed now from 70s.

Then again, you could say that New York City, like California, was so messed up that they needed something to strike the fear of God/Yahweh into them, and it was nasty and long but it worked considering the city is now in a far better shape than the state that bailed out it even consider the fact that it's at the epicenter of the financial crisis.

Also, while I'm at it,

Problem is, he can't reduce spending. The legislature won't let him.

It's not just that, there are state laws requiring that certain percentages of the budget be devoted towards certain areas, like I've heard 40% of the budget needing to go to education for example. Now, I do like education but laws like these do severely limit your options on what you can or cannot do, ditto things like pensions if CA's system is anything like ours.

[DougyM]

Your post was removed because you essentially concluded that this whole mess was his fault

I think you saw something in my post that was not intended, and i did read the thread before posting, 1 person mentioned his involvement and i was asking for more peoples opinions.

Ive got nothing against him.. so i wouldnt gain anything by trying to make him look bad.

My apologies for the misunderstanding Moe.

[Jake]

@MGB: Fair point, and you're right to point out that it's a delicate balancing act, but taxes aren't the only factor that affects a region's prosperity by a long shot; it's well worth a few extra pence on the pound in sales tax to have good utilities and transport links and a large pool of skilled, well-educated workers to recruit from, for example.
And my fundamental point stands; at some point, the government has to stand up and say, "We need X amount of money to educate the kids, fill in the potholes and respond to 911 calls. Pay up or GTFO."

[Moe]

It's not as if the state didn't bring this upon itself with massive spending increases over the past decades.

California actually had a surplus before the crash. There is a "rainy day fund", but voters just opposed a measure to increase that fund. It seems that a huge part of the problem isn't The State, it's The People.

[Gig]

There is no such thing as a "balancing act" when it comes to a budget. You either live within your means, or make fucking lies to ignorant people who think that the State can pay for all your needs. WHERE DO YOU THINK THE MONEY TO PAY FOR STATE HEALTH INSURANCE COMES FROM?!??!? TAXPAYERS!!!!

For nearly a decade spending has increased faster than tax income, and dumb ass Californians think that the state can magically pay for everything so every time there is an election someone puts a spending measure on the ballet,
example:

Most recently a proposition was passed to take out a $10 BILLION loan to begin PRINCIPLE (Meaning it's not even going to be the final cost of the railway)construction of a high speed rail system from LA to San Fransisco.

and if you put something on the ballet that costs 10 billion everytime and it passes...pretty soon you've already spent about 30 to 40 years of tax revenue.

on top of that there is WIDE SPREAD corruption of the educational system. Why the hell do we spend nearly the MOST amount of money on children with the LEAST return.

Arnold was a total traitor and manchurian canidate. He said he would cut spending, and all he did was increase it. There is a recall petition going out now, and I would urge all californians to get him out of office.

BTW california has the worst bond rating in the nation making borrowing pretty much useless.

[Infidelicious]

God forbid California get a return on it's massive contribution to federal taxes.

But yeah, shit needs to change. The 66% required is patently ridiculous, as is the ability for direct democracy to completely fuck the budget.

[GodisanAtheist]

Gig and Moe have a point. The referendum system shares a good part of the blame with the supermajority and partisanship for causing this current mess.

The typical California Proposition follows:
The State will release $X,xxx,xxx in bonds to fund the construction/prospectus of Y. Project will not result in the increase of taxes.

Your average voter sees this, has no concept of what a bond is, sees that it won't make taxes go up but it will provide a nifty service and votes for it. Spending goes through the roof, but revenue stays the same. People need to understand that TANSTAAFL.

Another issue with forming a proper budget is tax collection periods. The State only receives tax revenue two times a year (state taxes and federal return) but must form a budget on PROJECTED tax returns, not how much money they have in the coffer. The solutions to this should be obvious.

To be fair to Arnold, early in his political career he realized how screwed up the leg. was and brought all of his budgetary proposals to public vote... where they were all subsequently shot down because people wanted Arnold to play ball with their broken ass legislature instead of running to them everytime shit didn't get done on capitol hill.

Now we are where we are.

[Jake]

on top of that there is WIDE SPREAD corruption of the educational system. Why the hell do we spend nearly the MOST amount of money on children with the LEAST return. If I ask you to define 'least return', am I going to like the answer?

[Gig]

Least return meaning 50% drop out rates for high school...an incestuous employment process for educational administration and a system that rewards failed teachers for merely having tenure...

[Jake]

Oh, I'm with you. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say; it sounded like you were complaining about schools using most of their budget helping the SEN kids or the ones with English as a second language or something.

[Moe]

Arnold was a total traitor and manchurian canidate. He said he would cut spending, and all he did was increase it. There is a recall petition going out now, and I would urge all californians to get him out of office.
People on both sides of the aisle seem to agree that he's done a pretty decent job actually. As multiple people have already pointed out, his failure to untangle the clusterfuck that is the California legislative system is hardly a stroke against him. The fact that he's managed to work with both Democrats and Republicans is a testament to his leadership abilities, and calling him a traitor is nothing but sensationalistic fearmongering. If I could vote in California, he'd get my vote.

In the meantime, a high-speed rail system along the coast will do the following:
-create a lot of jobs
-improve the horrible public transit system
-offer a viable alternative to flying, which is a) expensive, b) environmentally unsound, and c) becoming a problem as the skies become more and more cluttered with planes, especially above major cities.

PS: See how I managed to make a point without ALL CAPS, bold ranting or excessive exclamation marks? You should try it sometime.

[MegaDok]

Failed social experiment entitlement system. Should be a very clear example of what not to do in the future except it's the special child of the retarded progressive movement and catching on in other states. A good example of the exact opposite of California's ridiculously stupid entitlements, social programs, and anti business policies would be Texas.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Arnold's record is actually pretty crappy, IMO. But he is a moderate, and like has been said the budget crisis is not his fault. Arguably it is his responsibility, but those are slightly different concepts.

[Gig]

Okay, we go our seperate ways on Arnold, fair enough, but I would still hold these things against him because if you elect someone on a platform, you expect him/her to do it. I just expect a lot more out of my politicians and I demand it.

but, about the railway...

Jobs, yes
improve traffic? NO, how many people do you know that commute 400 or more miles a day to go to work?!!?!
BTW if you look at the cost to ride a current train, its actually equal and in most cases cheaper to fly.

BTW if you lived in California you'd know that the actual bullet-part of the train is only about 100 miles long, because the areas that the proposed route goes by are filled with people and you cannot have a train going by a house at 200 miles an hour. So really at the end of the trip you have a very expensive railway with a very expensive railcar traveling maybe a 1/3 of the way at high speeds and the rest will have to stay under 60 mph

I would also argue with your claim to the "green" aspect of a bullet-train. How much of the enviroment is going to be ripped up just to put this train down?

If you also look at Japan, and Europe where there are high speed railways, the trains are a way of life for those people, this is America, we're not Euro-trash and we're not going to look cool because we have a "bullet-train". Its a luxury item that nobody will use...period.

And here is some data about travel now.



http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=LAX&citd1=SFO&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=06/06&date2=06/13&&rdct=1

by air LAX to SFO

Round trip about 120 bucks and maybe a 3 hour flight 1 way?

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak

by train Union Station (LA) to San Francisco

Round trip about 110 bucks and about a 10 hour trip 1 way

[Moe]

BTW if you lived in California you'd know that the actual bullet-part of the train is only about 100 miles long, because the areas that the proposed route goes by are filled with people and you cannot have a train going by a house at 200 miles an hour If you also look at Japan, and Europe where there are high speed railways, the trains are a way of life for those people, this is America, we're not Euro-trash and we're not going to look cool because we have a "bullet-train". Its a luxury item that nobody will use...period.
I do live in California. France, Germany and Japan all have higher population densities than California, and all three countries have an extensive network of high-speed bullet trains. Your Amtrak example fails to take into account (a) the fact that it's currently not a high-speed train and (b) that you waste an extra two hours at the airport at the very least due to TSA security measures, waiting for your luggage, etc.

As for the Euro-Trash comment, thank you for making my point. This is America, we're not into useless luxury items or looking cool? Yes, California is all about sensible, low-cost things. Orange County in particular comes to mind, those guys don't even know what luxury means. Billboards advertising breast implants certainly aren't about looks or luxury or anything.

Finally, I'd like to point out that Japan is not anywhere near Europe. I'm having a hard time taking you seriously when you're acting like the textbook definition of an ignorant hick, so kindly cut the insults and the pompous nonsense, would you?

[Noir]

You know, oil and gas prices are starting to go up again, and the airlines are being hit pretty bad as is, so the situation might change in the coming years and decades. Besides, it's good to have some provision to mitigate the fact that the long term trend for petroleum prices is likely to be an upward one, especially when the recession ends and the big developing countries really get back into their groove.

[Gig]

The cost of borrowing money on a high speed railway would increase the fare for a ride on the train to make up for the huge deficit of money put into it. At least in the begining it will be far more expensive. And later on I doubt it will change. The train system here is never at capacity, and I don't see why a train going from LA to San Francisco would ever be at capacity. It would be infantile to think such a large distance will ever create a profit by making a low cost ticket, there just isn't a demand for rail.

And since its going to be a State rail system, we the taxpayers make up the difference in addition to paying even more if we choose to ride it. Which will end up being a novelty item...that couples and socialities and college students will use to experience berkley and SF and wine country.

And MOE what insults? WHO have I insulted? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm insulting you.

If anything your the one who insulted me. Calling me an "ignorant hick".

As for the Euro-Trash comment, thank you for making my point. This is America, we're not into useless luxury items or looking cool? Yes, California is all about sensible, low-cost things. Orange County in particular comes to mind, those guys don't even know what luxury means. Billboards advertising breast implants certainly aren't about looks or luxury or anything.

That just reinforced my point earlier about how the State is going out of business because it doesn't live within its means. The system has to change.

Lastly, Post 48 If I could vote in California, he'd get my vote

Either you don't live in California or your not a citizen and either way you have no say in the matter anyway. At least be consistant or clearer.

[Moe]

I do live in California. The fact that I don't get to vote here is irrelevant; I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who posted on this thread aren't eligible to vote in California either. What's your point?

You said that a bullet train system that works in Europe or Japan won't work in the US because "this is America, we're not euro-trash who get bullet trains to look cool". My point is that this argument is invalid in oh so many ways, chiefly among them the fact that Californians love to waste money on useless shit and that looks are extremely important over here. Then there's the issue that neither Europe nor Japan builds bullet trains to look cool, they build them because they are an essential part of a well-developed public transportation infrastructure.

The current system doesn't get a lot of customers for two reasons:
(1) Gas is still relatively cheap
(2) the system sucks.

(1) won't remain true forever. (2) needs to change.

PS: http://www.arch21.org/CaHighSpeed.dir/Altamont_Tour.dir/ICE3portal1.jpg
They do look fucking cool.

[Jake]

WHO have I insulted? Europe? Japan? Countries that bother with a welfare state, at least by implication?

[Gig]

The only people I insulted by your reasoning Jake are the Europeans.

[Moe]

Like I said: stop insulting people.

[Heretic]

Gig, I think you're missing the fact that Jake is European.

Also; by putting funding into the public land transport system, has it occurred to you that demand will grow because of improved services?

[Starblade]

The only people I insulted by your reasoning Jake are the Europeans.

This is an international forum.

[Troubleshooter]

there is also no link between high taxes and oppressive regulation.Sure there is, they are called Democrats. ZING!

Actually, I had a long rather dry post for this topic but decided on this format instead.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.


"Voters themselves are partly to blame, approving initiatives in years past that have created or expanded programs without identifying how to pay for them.

"One thing we do know is the voters' wish list is a lot longer than the 'I'm willing to pay for it' list. People are going to have to rectify the two,"

QFT.

FWIW : Chart Porn (http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/Tax_Statistics/Reports/Personal_Income_Tax/AGIC_Tables/2006/PDF/2007_Adjusted_Gross_Income_With_Accumulated_Percentages.pdf)
84.1% of all income tax revenue is paid for by people earning over $100,000 per year. 37.4% comes from +$1 Million income earners alone, who constitute 0.4% of the population (roughly 60,000 people).

And also...
In “hundreds of races” over three election cycles only four seats have “changed hands between the parties”

[CommodoreKitty]

I am sure bullet trains could go over well well over here. My mother is moving and will be using the traditional trains to get to work, which is 1.5 hours away. Bullet trains that cut down on the commute time would, I am sure, be popular. Although, we really don't have the money to spend on a system like that right now, so the point seems kind of moot. The fiscal crisis here has been a long time int the making, but constantly spending money on new "neat" projects, regardless of their long term intents, has put more strain on the budget than probably should have.

With that in mind bullet trains are pretty pointless. The traditional rail systems serve just "fine" all things considered and, for the city of Orange at least, the existing public transportation system is enough to where you can get to where you need to be with what is available. It could certainly be better, but there is no reason to spend money on it as it stands now, not when money is tight, and has been tight for years before this. It just shouldn't be a priority imo.

I too have heard that California sends in more money to the feds than it gets back in taxes. I don't know how much truth there is to this but I am inclined to believe it. Making the assumption that there even should be a stimulus/bailout package by the government, then I see no reason why a state cannot get money from the government. I mean Christs sake individual banks have gotten more than the state is asking for, and other states even less so. If the intent of the bill is to keep the economy floating and ultimately revive it, then I see no reason why providing stimulus packages to states or local governments, including Cali, should be a problem. I do not, however, think that the federal government should be given power over state legislature as a concession for the money. The federal government is powerful enough as it is, and getting the ability to make state laws, even in only the ones that accept money, is a bad thing.



Also: lawl Europeans

[tyrion]

Gig; having no say (ie ability to vote on the matter) is not the same as having no opinion(ie a valid comment to make in a discussion forum), this is an international board and the OP did specifically ask for outside opinions. By the way, "only...the Europeans" represents rather a few of us.

[Moe]

The traditional rail systems serve just "fine" all things considered and, for the city of Orange at least, the existing public transportation system is enough to where you can get to where you need to be with what is available.
You'll get there, but you won't get there on time unless you plan on spending half the day in transit. Consider getting from UCI to the beach:
http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&f=d&dirflg=r&saddr=uci,+irvine,+ca&daddr=newport+beach&ttype=dep&date=&time=

It's barely 9 miles, and takes 90 minutes by bus. That's an average speed of 6mph, which is about how fast you go when you're walking at a brisk pace.

[Jake]

How much worse could they actually make things at this point? Certainly it's not unreasonable that federal bailout-money should include a degree of federal oversight on spending it. (And mildly off-topic, but seems to me that you worry too much about the whole Big Government thing; you get a vote in electing them too, remember?)

[CommodoreKitty]

Moe: Yeah its hardly an efficient form travel, my point with the "fine" was that, given the current fiscal situation in the state, and how it has been for a while, blowing several billion on an improved public transportation system probably isn't the best way to spend the money, given that you can still get where you need to go with the what we have now, even though it takes longer than it should. What is important is that people can places. When it comes to being on time to work, well, no real answer for that for the individual, but the state can really build a new train at this point. "Fine" meaning you can get it done, not necessarily get it done quickly.

[Moe]

No I agree that given the projected $21B - $40B deficit there's no way to realistically afford a new rail system. However, as I understand it there's a pool of federal money that is part of the stimulus package, and as far as I know California did apply for a certain amount to invest into improving the train infrastructure.

[Noir]

With further monies likely to be available if transportation becomes part of the national agenda, which is fluctuating between degrees of "likely" at the moment and is likely to stay that way.

Having said that, the state's dysfunctional condition might put a damper on some of that. Federal oversight isn't some magical panacea that makes things automatically run smoothly at the state level, and having that in is also going to add to the bureaucratic process.

[Gig]

That federal money is our neighbors tax dollars, I don't think that the rest of the country would look kindly to paying off our debt. Besides it sets a bad precedent. After all if California got one...why not New Jersey?

[Noir]

If it's anything like what happened in the 70s to our town, then it's not going to be pleasant, at all.

There were/are fairly strong disincentives to pursuing a higher level bailout in our case, like not being in control of municipal finances for years at a time to name one.

[CommodoreKitty]

Well the same problem still applies, or so I would think. If the federal government is only going to give the state a fixed amount of funds, say $30 billion, then that money still needs to be allocated to the various functions of the government, Now, I don't know how much money it costs the state per year to pay its mandatory funds, medicare police etc, but I can't help but think it would dig fairly deep into that money. I guess it would just come down to paying "the bills" or investing in infrastructure at that point, I am just assuming that paying off some of that borrowed money burning interest would be a more appropriate short term application of the funds than creating jobs and improving infrastructure, at least it will ease future budget strains during the recession. Improvement can come later, when money is hopefully a little more loose, I am just thinking that making sure the state gov has as much money to spend now and in the immediate future as possible is a better application of it, seeing as how there is no real precedent to upgrade the system as it stands now, even if it is inferior to others.


I don't think that the rest of the country would look kindly to paying off our debt.

Any more than paying off AIG's or GM's debt? Forgetting that Cali puts more into the feds coffers than it gets back, supposedly, I don't see the difference in given a company $50 billion or a state $50 billion when the intent is to protect the economy and get it rolling again.

[Oh,John,no!]

The only people I insulted by your reasoning Jake are the Europeans.
And me (English), and the Japanese, who ARE NOT EUROPEAN. :p

I don't quite see Bullet Trains in California. But it's irrelevant whether they would be a good idea, as they are currently unaffordable, as has been stated.

So far as I can see, the only easy way out of this would be to change California's currency, which probably won't happen.

[Moe]

Any more than paying off AIG's or GM's debt? Forgetting that Cali puts more into the feds coffers than it gets back, supposedly, I don't see the difference in given a company $50 billion or a state $50 billion when the intent is to protect the economy and get it rolling again.I agree, though I'm biased given that my salary comes from the state. Still, I'd argue that bailing out an entire state with a fairly robust economic foundation such as California is at least as worthwile as bailing out GM.

[Gig]

There is no difference in bailing out a company or a state. It's a dumb idea either way. Didn't GM just say they're going to need about 14 billion more or something like that?

Bailing out the state would only delay the end. Not stop it. The problem has to do with the State Gov't. and how they like to spend our money. I say let it go bankrupt. The rich are leaving the state anyway, and the ones that stay just hide their money better then most.

Hopefully CA will be an example of how not to run your state into the ground.

[Moe]

No, the problem has to do with the people of California and their willingness to blow the state's money on everything but who refuse to increase taxes.

[Troubleshooter]

No, the problem has to do with the people of California and their willingness to blow the state's money on everything but who refuse to increase taxes.Look at that chart I posted Moe, they are against raising taxes from effectively zero to something... that says a lot.

If it were not for sales taxes and stealth taxes on phone bills, 70% of CA voters would pay nothing to the state at all.

[Gig]

Oh yea, your right Moe letting California get all its bills payed by Uncle Sam will fix everything. Nevermind the fact that I could (with enough signatures) put a proposition on the next ballet to build an escalator to the moon and if it passed the State would pay for it.

Nevermind we pay un-godly large amounts of pension money to gov't. retiree's that are unheard of in the private sector

Nevermind Californians pay $40k per year for each inmate in prision when florida does it for half!

nevermind State Healthcare represents about a 1/5 of the budget

Nevermind education is about a 1/3 of the budget

I guess all those things are because of Californians? Right? Not labor unions giving the people the finger so they can have their wages inflated? Nevermind it's the gov't. job to stop things like that?

Okay...

[Langy]

Still, I'd argue that bailing out an entire state with a fairly robust economic foundation such as California is at least as worthwile as bailing out GM.

I agree - but just like bailing out GM or a bank, the federal government needs to gain some control over the Californian government. From what I've heard in this thread, I'd say it needs to completely throw out California's current constitution (140 pages? who the devil thought that up?) and force a constitutional convention.

[Troubleshooter]

I'd say it needs to completely throw out California's current constitution (140 pages? who the devil thought that up?) and force a constitutional convention.What on earth makes you think it would get better?

[Tails]

The high-speed train is a total waste of time. The real issue in California is commuter traffic on a local scale. Nobody is cursing out of their window while on the 5 Freeway on a road trip from Los Angeles to San Fransisco. But come 7 AM every weekday the crisscrossing freeways and inner roads of most cities of cities in Southern California become clogged with commuters in single-occupant cars, turning what should be 20-30 minute commutes into 70-90 minute commutes. I'm sure this traffic costs California billions of dollars in lost time.

For example, look at this stretch of freeway from Palmdale/Lancaster to Santa Monica/Los Angeles. It's about 50-60 miles. Tens of thousands of commuters take that route to work every day.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=34.248136,-118.254089&spn=1.282714,2.359314&z=9

On a good day with no traffic, that commute shouldn't take longer than 30, maybe 40 minutes. But it can take well over 2 1/2 hours in the mornings. This isn't a problem you can solve with giant bullet trains. It needs simpler solutions. There should be more buses, carpool incentives, shuttles, maybe local trains with parking spaces. Maaaybe more subway stations. But who's going to need a trans-Californian bullet train in a situation like this?

[Paladin]

Actually the commuter train will help significantly, because the socal to norcal traffic has to pass through those congested LA freeways to get to that open stretch in between.

So the train would relieve some of that.

Either way though, if I don't have to drive for 8 hours to go see my family in NorCal I'm all for it.

[Moe]

Look at that chart I posted Moe, they are against raising taxes from effectively zero to something... that says a lot.
I'm confused, are you agreeing with me? In that case more power to you. Otherwise, allow me to eloquently point out that you suck and are obviously completely wrong, or something. :p

Oh yea, your right Moe letting California get all its bills payed by Uncle Sam will fix everything. Nevermind the fact that I could (with enough signatures) put a proposition on the next ballet to build an escalator to the moon and if it passed the State would pay for it.
Are you capable of reading and comprehending what you read? If so, would you please engage your brain, read people's posts and respond to them rather than going off on what appear to be rather misguided rants?


Tails: Pala has it. Additionally, a high-speed train system up and down the coast would ideally include stops at those stations, thereby providing commuters with a viable alternative.

PS: If you drive 60 miles in 30 minutes you're going pretty fast. Now I know that nobody adheres to the 65 mph speed limit, but doing an average of 120mph might be pushing it a little.

[Tails]

I dunno, Paladin. First of all, the morning commute traffic is mostly north to south, and i doubt road trippers would be leaving SoCal around 4 pm i.e. evening commute time. Second, depending on where the train stations are, people would have to drive to said stations via freeways and major throughways to begin with.

I mean, yes, it WOULD relieve traffic to a slight extent but it doesn't nearly justify the cost. I always imagined that the majority of its users would be UC Berkeley students.

[Paladin]

Well even with a high speed train it's not like you can commute 500 miles. But it relieves a bit of the LA and San Diego to NorCal traffic in terms of once a week commuters (A lot of people, not just students, maintain a small flat near their job, and their real house far away. And commute on the weekends), family visits, business trips, etc. Also better for the environment if it means less SoCal to Norcal flights.

[Langy]

What on earth makes you think it would get better?

Without the federal government mediating and with veto power? No, it likely wouldn't get better. But if a third party can say 'no, that constitution is stupid and will just make things worse, do it again' then yeah, it's certainly possible that things will get better.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

RE:Trains. They are not just a substitute for planes. They are mass transit and all sorts of benefits accrue when you have dense mass transit. You don't need to rent a car in a city with a good bus/rail system, traffic is lighter when you do go on the roads (saving maintenance money), and all sorts of stuff. Plus you don't have to get to the airport 2 hours early *mutter*

***

A federal bailout makes a lot of sense actually, but it simply can't be on the table unless California is takes steps to fix the basic problem. Last year they had a $15 billion dollar deficit, and half of the way they fixed it was by kicking it down the road (and this you CAN blame Schwarzenegger for.)

I'd say it needs to completely throw out California's current constitution (140 pages? who the devil thought that up?) and force a constitutional convention.What on earth makes you think it would get better?
All 155(?) pages of the state constitution apply at a level higher than what the legislature can change. Thus the legislature is restricted in its ability to cut programs and raise taxes. Or to get anything done - the 2/3 for budget, 2/3 for taxes bit is in the constitution.

But again, the legislature needs a 2/3 majority to get the ball rolling on such a convention and since it would wreck the Republican's power they will never go for it.

You know, California would have a much smaller budget hole if they just reversed all the tax cuts that have been done in the past 20 years. That's without even counting that silly property tax proposition.

[MardiGrasBandit]

No, the problem has to do with the people of California and their willingness to blow the state's money on everything but who refuse to increase taxes.Actually, if California gets it's debt erased by the Federal government, this will have turned out to be a new model for sustainable growth... unless Obama mandates Fiat select the governor and gives UAW a majority of seats in the Legislature.

I'm not sure what the Federal government has done in recent years to make anyone think it a particularly competent authority to rewrite California's silly laws. That might be the only idea worse then blowing billions to give a second shot at a dead and unloved industry instead of just adding HOV lanes to the highways.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I poked around the website for the California rail project, and was reasonably impressed. They've been in the planning stage for 15 years and have gone so far as to hire consultants from the French, Japanese, and German national railways to peer-review their financial plan. That's above and beyond comment from federal/other state transit authorities.

Given that even the pessimistic models found that revenues would significantly exceed costs - even when gas was far cheaper (90s) - the project seems quite reasonable to me.

The corridors slated for use are San Francisco to San Jose (with several stops) and Sacramento to Anaheim, so while not the complete system its pretty extensive.

It's worth noting that a recent proposal to build a new airport for San Diego was estimated at $17 billion. So even $40 billion for a major rail line is not all that much.

[Caesar]

If you also look at Japan, and Europe where there are high speed railways, the trains are a way of life for those people, this is America, we're not Euro-trash and we're not going to look cool because we have a "bullet-train". Its a luxury item that nobody will use...period.


I just wanted to point out that I live in Connecticut. When I go to New York City (and it happens often enough for my weekend job), I take the Metro-North train to Grand Central Station every single time and then walk to where I need to go. I and many other commuters I know would pay to have a non-stop high speed bullet-train. It looks cool and it'd save us all some time.

[Paladin]

Myself and my family would use that anaheim-sacramento line a lot.

[[Vertigo]]

So the honor system and mob rule fail to run a government yet again?

[Lomax]

I also think that the usefulness of bullet trains is over rated. They are often half empty an they block rails for the regional transit. I will agree that they look cool.

[TheWickedGerman]

I also think that the usefulness of bullet trains is over rated. They are often half empty an they block rails for the regional transit. I will agree that they look cool.

Yeeah, I´m living between Cologne and Bonn. and standing still in a regional express train on the tracks for 10-15 minutes to let pass a coming ICE is SOOO cool.

Anyway, if they would bailout Cali, what Is a valid option in my view if the alternative would be that the whole place would go down the drain, they must ensure that Cali change their silly laws. 2/3 majority to pass a budget? How can you achieve something in a 2 party system, especially in the USA where the Dems and Reps are so hostile towards each others?

In a short time, the debt would be back again, If no wonders happen and economy would get a major boost.

[Paladin]

I also think that the usefulness of bullet trains is over rated. They are often half empty an they block rails for the regional transit. I will agree that they look cool.
Yeeah, I´m living between Cologne and Bonn. and standing still in a regional express train on the tracks for 10-15 minutes to let pass a coming ICE is SOOO cool.
Not really an issue down here... Regional transit is non-existent. Well, LA technically has a subway but it's kind of a joke.

[Oh,John,no!]

Well, LA technically has a subway but it's kind of a joke.
Don't many American cities have monorails? I'd have thought they constitute "Regional transit". :)

[ZellFish]

"Many" might be too broad of a term. A select few cities have subway and light-rail systems. Not many though.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Also I don't think a bullet train would slow down monorail service in any way.

[Norsehound]

Should something be said for BART? I live close to San Fran and find it highly useful... even if it doesn't go directly to my hometown (Livermore is one city over from the closest station).

Although I have to wonder why they're putting in that station for Stoneridge mall while there's an already existing one not more than a stone's throw away from it. Makes me wonder what other seemingly redundant projects are happening in BART and other public transit systems.

Then again, it's probably just one of many reasons why we're having a budget problem *shrug*.

[Moe]

BART is pretty nifty, unless you get shot in the face by a cop I suppose. It's limited to the SF bay area though as the name suggests. If similar systems were deployed elsewhere in SoCal it'd probably make commuting a lot easier.

[Paladin]

BART is awesome. But it's not in SoCal. NorCal public transit is ok in most places (And San Francisco's is quite good), but SoCal public transit is pathetic. In large part because there are significant political factions who oppose it.

As for the idea of cities in America having monorails... What the hell? The only city in California that has a monorail to my knowledge is Anaheim. And that's the Disneyland monorail.

Vegas has one, but that's not in California.

[Kirjava]

BART is pretty nifty, unless you get shot in the face by a cop I suppose.I imagine most things are a bit crap if you get shot in the face by a cop.

[MardiGrasBandit]

Given that even the pessimistic models found that revenues would significantly exceed costs - even when gas was far cheaper (90s) - the project seems quite reasonable to me.NY did one of these for Stewart Airport 40 years ago. It showed that the airport would be one of the North East busiest commercial hubs and would become a massive cash cow for the state. Four decades later I can't get a flight out of there, because very few airlines fly out of airports in the middle of nowhere located within 100 miles of some of the worlds largest airports and major cities. Still, at some point in time, a bunch of government reps and business lobbyists made it seem like the best idea ever, ever.

Same for all the Metro North love. Yeah, it's a convenient way to get into the city... if you need to. It's less convenient for all the other people in New York and Connecticut who pay higher taxes to subsidize the service.

Mass transit is useful. It's also a perpetual money hole in the US. Ours is a driving culture, and mass transit schemes are invariably inspired by dreams of "curing" that fact as much as they are about providing anything the public actually wants. A multi-billion dollar railway project in a state facing an even larger multi-billion dollar budget shortfall seems like the height of foolishness.

[Moe]

It's also a perpetual money hole in the US.
It's a perpetual "money hole" almost everywhere, if you go by the farebox recovery ratio. That doesn't mean that it's not working. BART for instance makes up for about two thirds of its operating costs through fares and advertising, with the remaining third being subsidies which are ultimately paid for by the taxpayer. This has nothing to do with being a driving culture - several major European urban centers require similar subsidies.

I'm having a hard time understanding your argument against taxpayer money being used for mass transit systems, given that taxpayer money is being used for roads, which in themselves constitute a mass transit system.

[MardiGrasBandit]

Roads see a direct return for absolutely everybody. Passenger trains do not. I used to ride Amtrak all over the place. I get peoples love of rail travel. I also get that those people are a very small percentage of the total population, which has to pick up the tab for the massive subsidies needed to sustain passenger travel.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. Mass transit has some very real benefits when the state can afford it. This isn't a thread about how great trains are, it's a thread about how California's dysfunctional government is broke. I'm just poking fun at all the people mourning California's budget crisis in one post and hoping it builds a bullet train in the next. Isn't that the kind of thinking that helped get the state into it's current crisis in the first place?

[Paladin]

I haven't posted mourning anything. We just need to raise taxes. The bullet train is still a good idea. As would be putting in some real goddamn public transit down here so that I don't HAVE to drive everywhere. But there are too many middle class snobs (Wanna be upper class bitches) who are violently opposed to the idea of functional mass transit, because it allows the "wrong people" to live in their neighborhoods.

[Rukoth]

But there are too many middle class snobs (Wanna be upper class bitches) who are violently opposed to the idea of functional mass transit, because it allows the "wrong people" to live in their neighborhoods.

Actually quite a few middle class snobs have already left cali and come to states like Arizona because of such high Tax Rates. And how about the super high class snobs living in Hollywood who don't pay anything by dodging the system?


And if you could show them HOW it would be functional maybe they would go for it instead of opposing it. And then you must ask yourself, if you built this train system who would you have to force out of their homes there in Cali?

[Paladin]

No, there are significant political factions here who actively oppose it, not because it wouldn't be effective, but because they don't want functional, effective public transit. They only want people to be able to live here if they can afford 2+ cars, basically.

Trust me, I live here, I know these assholes.

It essentially boils down to, "But... But... Then the mexicans could live here!"

[Rukoth]

They already do live in Cali. And they live here in Arizona too, and they take advantage of our wellfare system. Im all for citizenship but not people here that just have us pay for them.

Heck just recently a guy filmed video of some kids coming over the boarder, getting on a bus, and going to a charter school then going back to the boarder and driven to their homes in mexico. >_<

Thats off topic though. My family has 3+ cars paladin, but we actually need them, not for luxury reasons.

[Moe]

Given the amount of immigrants in California it's probably safe to say that a good sized chunk of the economy relies on their labor. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the budget problem though.

[Paladin]

I'm not saying there are no Mexicans living in California. I'm saying that they're looked upon with prejudice by just about everyone, and the rich suburbanites do their damnedest to make sure that the hispanics are quarantined in urban ghettos, and can't move into "their" neighborhoods.

Part of the way they do this is by ensuring there's no workable public transit, or bike lanes, anywhere. Since if people can't move freely between areas without a car, people without cars can't possibly live far from their workplaces.

[Rukoth]

I'm not saying there are no Mexicans living in California. I'm saying that they're looked upon with prejudice by just about everyone, and the rich suburbanites do their damnedest to make sure that the hispanics are quarantined in urban ghettos, and can't move into "their" neighborhoods.

While I live in Arizona, not Cali, I am one of those "rich suburbanites" and next door to us is a very Mexican family. And I am not prejudice against Mexicans as a people, im prejudice against illegals who come here and while work they they do they do not pay taxes but use up the tax money that my parents pay and other people who are citizens of this nation pay for welfare programs that THEY use. I can care less where the person comes from, if it was a bunch of people moving from britain for some reason illegally into the U.S. taking up the system and not paying taxes I would be cranky just as much.

Doesn't mean however that I won't be nice to them, or respect them as people, but I do not respect the fact that they come here and use our hospitals and other things and don't pay any taxes to run them.

And im not saying everyone from mexico is a illegal, but there are quite a few here in Arizona and im sure there is a bunch in california as well.

Given the amount of immigrants in California it's probably safe to say that a good sized chunk of the economy relies on their labor. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the budget problem though.

For some of the reasons I pointed out Moe, a chunk of the immigrants from Mexico come illegally and aren't citizens of the U.S. and so don't pay taxes yet use up state ran systems such as schools, welfare, and other such thngs. But yes they are very hard workers and I respect them for that but honestly there needs to be a reform of immigration so they contribute more for living here then just labor.


Whats most frustrating to me is there are movements now labeling people like me racist for my opinions I gave above. Even though I expressed otherwise.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

...

The only tax illegal immigrants do not pay is income tax - and generally speaking their incomes are so low they would not pay that anyway. Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and most other forms of taxes apply normally.

Domestic workers (IE nannies) generally do not pay payroll taxes, but this is because the job is typically black market; the workers are paid under the table irregardless of whether they are illegal or not.

***

I do agree that there is a class element to mass transit opposition. I don't think it has to do with fear of them peoples moving into the neighborhood, though - just that mass transit is for proles, and why would we want to improve mass transit? This attitude is widely prevalent in car-dependent areas with poor mass transit. In these areas only low-income workers take the bus; in say San Francisco even the mayor takes the bus.

[Rukoth]

Yeah but in Cities like San Francisco and New York that transit stuff has been there for years and years. They have started a light rail sytem here in Phoenix, AZ and it seems to be working fine.

So I don't see why theres such an opposition to it. But I don't mind driving myself places either.

[No Surrender]

The problem is not civic programmes or the fact that people don't like to pay taxes. The problem is when both of these factors exist at the same time in the same place. Elementary logic dictates that you can't fund programmes indefinitely without paying some form of taxes. This smacks of wanting one's cake and eating it too. Entitlement programmes work fine in places where people are willing to accept that they have to pay for them - quite a simple concept which it seems have eluded the people of California.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The majority of Californians are willing.... but not 66% of them. That's the problem. ;)

[Border Patrol]

the problem isn't that we aren't willing to pay increased taxes, we just had our taxes raised. the government saw a decrease in revenue and we also expected the state government to "try", just try to cut spending a teensy bit.

Compared to April 2008, General Fund revenue in April 2009 was down $6.3 billion (-39%). The total for the three largest taxes was below 2008 levels by $6.3 billion (-40.3%). Sales taxes were $452 million lower (-50.9%) than last April, and personal income taxes were down $5.7 billion (-43.6%). Corporate taxes were $142 million below (-8.6%) April of 2008

can we please try both suggested solutions? even at the same time if you feel so inclined. just try cutting spending like the rest of us when you lose spending power.

[TheWickedGerman]

If I understood the thread the problem correct, it´s not that easy to cut spending in California, because they need a 2/3 majority to pass a budget. If you cut spedning either 1 side will block itwhen they think that their "babies" don´t receive enough funds.

[[Vertigo]]

As for the idea of cities in America having monorails


Seattle has one. It goes about a good five miles, maybe, from the Pac Sci Center to the downtown shopping area. It was put in around the same time as the Space Needle. Currently we are putting in a light rail system. We also have a train the runs from Tacoma to Seattle, The Sounder, for commuting. When I was riding the bus it seemed rather packed during the commuting hours.

[Maximus Awesome]

For the monorail thing, Chicago is trying to get one, but they already have the El.

For the thread, California may be in deep shit, but Florida is too. We may not have uncontrolled spending, but Florida has a housing meltdown in effect. Many people stereotype Florida as being a vacation spot with amusement parks and beaches galor, but Florida is mostly rural. Lots of orange groves and farms are in Florida, only Orlando, Miami and Tampa are real tourist destinations. If California was to fall into bankrupcy, Florida might be the next. It would be a vicious cycle that would comsume the union and force all the big states to file for bankrupcy, including New York and Illinois. People would leave those states and America would feel the biggest blow to itself bar none. So don't think this is limited to California, other largely populated states like Florida are at risk too.

[Sethero]

California is going to be the sounding board for all the issues states will be facing over the next couple of years. The size of the state means every issue is sizeable, and it's pretty obvious there are no easy solutions.

The biggest issue is the sense of entitlement most californians have, which is perhaps indicative of what other states will see along the way as well. It's likely that every special interest group will fight tooth and nail to keep subsidies from the state, while there are those in positions of power that would rather see the state fail than allow taxes to be raised further. It's a matter of hubris.

In short, the state government is in dire need of an overhaul.

[Gig]

Where is the correlation between a rail system and racist white people trying to make sure Mexicans don't move into their neighborhoods? Get your head out of your ass before you make comments like that. Thats just ignorant and stupid.

God, do you believe everything your professors and TV tell you?

Mass transit fails because of a plethora of reasons. Most routes do not take you to the area you need to go, you end up having to usually walk many many blocks to get somewhere. And, if you were to go grocery shopping, do you really want to lug bag after bag onto a crowed bus/train with strangers, and then walk (because you do not have the luxury of a cart) while carrying 20 pds or more to your house?

And for those of you who have used the Bus or even the train do you remember how much time was wasted because the Bus or the Train was constantly late?

Mass transit is a joke for California. You need your own car to get places. The lay out of the newer cities are in a grid. Making distances vary large yet orderly, if you look at Europe, where the cities just "grew" its a circular pattern, Los Angeles used to be like that before Downtown LA grew, and movies started to catch on. But as it is now, to get from Hollywood to the LA Convention center would take you by car maybe 30 minutes, but subway, or bus (usually a combo of two) it can take you 3 hours. It's not useful for anyone.

[Starfisher]

Drop the personal attacks.

[Paladin]

Not just racist white people. Racist asians as well. Mexicans are basically the bottom of the racism totem pole around here.

And yes, racism and classism has everything to do with the problem here. No one wants to fund mass transit, and that's why it sucks, and doesn't go anywhere you want it to, and is always late.

[Gig]

Race has nothing to do with transit. I'm not more likely to ride a bus just because I'm black. You ride a bus because you don't have a car.

Actually it does get a sizable amount of money, so much that it operates at a loss. Because there is no demand, even in the areas where it makes sense. The inner city.

Nobody wants to ride it.

Why do you have this idea that Mexicans don't have cars? Isn't that sort of racist on your part? Making them out to be a super victim, and even a tool.

Your whole argument is implying that Mexicans are too stupid, too poor, too inferior, thats why they take the bus. Thats kinda like reverse racism. You must look down on Mexicans.

I'd argue that your train of thought is far more racist then actual facts. Which just say simply, if you have a car you'd take that instead of a Bus.

[Paladin]

LOL

You have to be kidding. You're implying race has nothing to do with wealth. Statistical analysis does not bear your implication out. The black population is significantly poorer than the rest of the ethnic groups in the US. The hispanics are significantly poorer than everyone except the blacks. Etc.

Race and class are quite clearly linked in the US.

[Gig]

Race has nothing to do with wealth. If you look at the wealth of nations, you see that things that influence their wealth, are Port cities, and developed infrastructure, among other things I can't think of off the top of my head.

But, really, are you saying that if I were Asian/black/white I wouldn't be able to go to school, get a degree, and then get a nice job? Are you saying those opportunities don't exist for everybody?

Because last I check in the USA you had the choice of doing what you want, believing what you want even if its that WASPs are secretly controlling everything and making sure that Black people stay down, and that Mexicans are slaves.

Even if there are statistics saying I'm white and I make a lot of money. There is no correlation between being white and having money

Why not say something like, rich people are educated people, there are more white people then any other race in the USA therefore more college grads, therefore more wealthy people? Why is race even involved in surveys like that? Seriously, it has no meaningful purpose.

What would that make Obama? I guess he's really white?

[Paladin]

Dude... If we can break down the statistics demographically, and see that the average white person is significantly more wealthy than the average black person, that's reality. It's not something you can just handwave by saying they have the same opportunities as everyone else.

[Gig]

And I'm saying there is no correlation between being white and being rich. All your saying is if you randomly grabbed a group of people the white people would be the richest. You also don't realize that it is an average. If you did that with global population and global wealth you'd find that the Chinese and the Indians are the poorest because they simply represent the largest groups of people.

Thats implying that your race is the DOMINANT factor of your wealth.

Thats just stupid to think that, and its racist.

[LoCo]

Saying there is a correlation is completely different to saying it is the dominant factor.

If the stats say that there are more wealthy white people, then it sort of means specifically that more white people are wealthy.

It isn't racist at all. People who claim that are simply, and they constantly do this, looking for something to whine about. It's about culture, not the colour of your skin. However, the colour of your skin plays a large part in which culture you identify with.

Is it racist to claim that one culture is more focused around obtaining wealth? Obviously not.

Now there are people who do not have pale skin who identify with the culture that focuses around obtaining wealth. There are more whites though. So a cultural group that happens to have more whites identifying with it than those of other colour, that focuses on obtaining wealth ... and you are trying to claim that is racist?

Whites identify more with that type of culture. Thus, there are more of them. Thus there are more rich whites. Thus, their race plays a part in their wealth.

But it is not a dominant factor by a long shot since non-whites who identify with said culture also get rich. The difference is that whites are introduced and identify with that culture a lot sooner. Not that they are "better" in some way.

So take your claims of racism far away. Because that's just stupid to think that, and that type of thinking promotes racism by constantly bringing it up.

PS: There is no such fucking thing as fucking "reverse racism". If it is racist, it is racist. Does not matter who is on the recieving end.

EDIT: As for the mass transit systems ... In South Africa, they were fail. It wasn't set up properly and very much like you described in your posts. However, since moving to New Zealand, I've seen how a well planned, well set up mass transit system basically has none of those issues.

It's all about how it is planned and implemented. And that is how people fuck it up. They don't want it, but they are forced to do it so they do a poor job of it. Yet if they tried, they would make a great system that even they would likely use.

[Moe]

And I'm saying there is no correlation between being white and being rich.
I hate to break this to you, but you're wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time_-_by_Race_.26_Sex). You might want to look up the term "correlation" as opposed to "causation" as you seem to be confusing the two. There is a correlation between race and average income, just as there's a correlation between sex and average income. Here, let me quote the relevant paragraph for you:
"The largest racial gap was between Whites and African Americans with the former earning roughly 22% more than the latter. Thus one can observe a significant discrepancy with the median income of Asians and Whites and that of African Americans and Hispanics."

Why not say something like, rich people are educated people, there are more white people then any other race in the USA therefore more college grads, therefore more wealthy people? Why is race even involved in surveys like that? Seriously, it has no meaningful purpose.
I don't think you understand how averages work. He's talking about average incomes and average wealth, not absolute numbers. If there are 20 white people, 6 of which went to college and 10 black people, 3 of which went to college, then assuming that all other factors are equal their average income would be similar. However, that's not the case:
"Among those with a Master's, Professional or Doctorate degree those who identified as White had the highest median individual income."

You also don't seem to understand what racism means. He's stating a fact, not discriminating against a people based on their race. He's not saying that all <insert race here> are lazy bums, he's saying that on average certain races make more money than others, which is an undeniable fact. The underlying reasons for this disparity may include racism, but that doesn't make the guy commenting on the stats a racist.

[No Surrender]

This thread is spiraling out of control. Racism, while always an interesting topic, is only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Let's get back on topic.

[Neckbreaker]

Just because it is a factual statistic doesn't mean it is relevant to the conversation. Furthermore Paladin played the race card first and made the absurd link that not supporting light rail, which is largely a failure in the United States, makes you a racist. Then of course he falls back to the old meme of "throw more money at it". I have yet to see any fact that was supportive of his argument be presented.

Also Moe, a statistic claiming "economic inequality" with such vague and over-generalized information is utterly worthless to the discussion on the wheres and whys of differences in wealth distribution. Quite frankly, considering that institutions of higher learning, government agencies, and many business select (and provide the monetary support) for minorities and the poor, it might be a better discussion as to why, with so many advatanges for education and employment, minorities are not performing on par or even better than the "white man" (excluding those pesky Asians of course).

The answer to California's problem is simple. Either you raise taxes, likely significantly harming long-term economic growth at the high rates (in a heavily taxed state already) that would be required, or cut services, or some combination of the two.

The budget must be balanced and that will only happen without the largess of the other 49 states. While I understand California's plight as a donor state, it is not a unique situation and is quite frankly something that needs to be revised at the federal level but it wont' happen. Despite the significant problem I have with such blatant "redistribution of wealth" to California , the main problem is that it would be a very short term, and unsustainable band-aid, to California's budget problem. Throw in the state's rights issues on top of it and you have a real mess in the making. We can all see how throwing money at Chrysler and GM at best just wasted billions of dollars and at worst has sacrificed the future prosperity of two very large parts of the US economy for the short term interests of special interests groups. Throwing money at California for political favor and greater federal government control is just as horrible (and scary) an idea. Californian's need to solve this problem on their own. If the voters have spoken, and no more taxes is what they said, then the legislature has a responsibility to unfund programs and thats it.

[No Surrender]

If the voters have spoken, and no more taxes is what they said, then the legislature has a responsibility to unfund programs and thats it.
Yes, but the voters have also spoken in wanting to retain the current level of spending on programmes. This is the very definition of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Moe]

Neckbreaker: I suggest you create a new thread. I disapprove of your spending half of your post to get in a final shot regarding racism after being told to get back on topic.

To get back on topic - the voters have spoken, and in doing so demonstrated that "the voters" are in fact a horribly fractured melting pot of philosophies and preferences. The voters want to have their cake and eat it too, in the sense that they want to both retain services and cut taxes. The problem is that realistically this isn't possible, so this raises an interesting question - what exactly should the legislature do if the voters demand two mutually exclusive actions?

[Paladin]

A big problem in my opinion, is that, since voters get to approve most things here, the authors of proposals have for quite some years now been trying to sweeten their propositions by claiming that they "create no new taxes".

Of course, what they're doing instead is issuing new bonds. Which are not properly long term revenue at all. Naturally however, this utterly fools most voters, who thinks bond issues are some kind of magic thing that brings in money without costing them anything. So tons of such things have been passed in the last decade (Probably further back than that even, but I've only been a voter for 14 years).

[[Vertigo]]

The government has to serve the COMMON good. Sometimes that means you have to make choices for people even if the masses want to lynch you for it afterward.

[Rusty Nail]

Quit

That or lower the quality of both the services and tax-breaks. Hitting everyone up for an extra $10 during next months rates, knocking off a few public servants, post-pone maintenance for public areas by a few days and you've officially started cutting corners to make ends meet.

[[Vertigo]]

Eventually, they will have to start to cut corners to make ends meet, Rusty. If left unchecked they won't be able to pay their employees which means no one is going to work for the state of Cali.

The problem I have with the quitter option is that someone needs to man up and make the hard choice(s). It may as well be the people that are in charge now that should be making these choices but we wouldn't be here discussing this problem if they could. Simply put "the people" suck as making decisions on how the government should conduct it's business of ruling the people. I blame Robin Hood for filling people with such ideas that everyone shouldn't be rich or poor only equal to each other. I blame Socialism and it's improper application with the Republic/Democratic ideology that everyone should have a say in where the money goes.

Of course everyone wants the free health care without the taxes, but my mom would spank me if I tried to steal the GI Joe I wanted from the toy store...

[Neckbreaker]

First off, I was writing my response to the "racism" debate before No Surrender posted. I put thought into what I am writing, including reading your Wiki reference and its cited source at the Census Bureau. That takes time and I don't feel my post was unjustified. That being said, its just a post on a message board and if you want me to edit it or if you want to remove the "offending" half then be my guest.

With the enormous deficit there is going to be de facto (which is what I was referring to previously) budget cuts. The legislature may not be able to pass a new "budget" but the state government still controls the funds they do have. There are many programs in state, local, and federal governments of the United States that have been voted into law but exist only on paper due to the fact they are unfunded. It should be no different in California.

Now I anticipate that when this happens it will be utter chaos at the treasury, but that is the state of things. Certain programs simply won't receive all or any of their alotted budget. State employess will be sent home. Contractors and creditors will be unpaid. Recipients of state aid will wonder why their mailbox is empty on the first and probably blame the Post Office. Of course the amount of impact on the everyday citizen will depend, at least in the short term, on what goes unfunded. I hope for the legislature's sake that light rail isn't being built while public services are suspended.

[No Surrender]

I'd just like to know, what exactly happens if a budget can't be passed? I know that in the Parliamentary system the party unable to pass a budget loses the confidence of the house and either the opposition is invited to form a new party or new elections are held. What happens in the Californian system?

[Paladin]

Nothing. Except that the state declares bankruptcy.

[whats_true]

Has this happened to a state before?

[SpitfireMK461]

If a budget can't be passed by a certain date, the government shuts down. Non-essential employees are told to stay home and non-essential services stop being provided, and the legislation hurries the hell up to get something passed. This has happened to the US Federal Government in 1995, 90, 84, and 81.

This has also happened to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota.

California's big problem isn't as much getting a budget passed as just not having money.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Technically states cannot go into bankruptcy. There is no provision for it, or so I am informed.

This is in contrast to local governments, which can.

[[Vertigo]]

Well, they won't be able to get any bonds that's for sure, TDS.

[The Collector]

California already has issues with bonds. Since the dot-com bust we have been pushing bonds pretty frequently to tide us over. And before that, bonds for various things, often related to education at the local level.

And now our bonds are poorly rated.

[Starfisher]

Very poorly rated, in fact. I think no one is buying them at all.

State's can't declare bankruptcy. Declaring bankruptcy is a legal proceeding that doesn't apply to states. A state can go bankrupt in the sense that it has no money and can't pay its debts, but since it will always have tax revenue, it will always be possible for the state to massively cut services in order to pay off that debt.

However, I don't think that has ever happened before, and if so certainly not at the magnitude that it is happening now. There might be some new law shenanigans to get California out of its mess - ie, allowing it to default on payments, get out of bond agreements, etc. This would deal a permanent and potentially fatal blow to the perceived security of state bonds, which would have huge ramifications across the country as other state governments tried to borrow money to make ends meet. So I don't really see that happening, simply because all other states would have to agree to it, and none of them want to see their ability to borrow get tanked due to California's wastefulness.

The end game here is California massively cutting spending, one way or another. As much as I've attacked Hauser's Law and that line of thought, there is obviously a ceiling somewhere on how much taxation people and businesses are willing to put up with before they relocate, especially when relocation just means moving a few hours east to get to tax friendlier areas.

[more_cowbell]

I agree that there is not a lot of room to increase taxes in our country. Our tax code is very progressive as posters above have indicated. I agree that a tax could SHOULD be progressive, as I would not want the govenment trying to extract increased revenue from people who have a higher proportion of their income slotted to just meet their basic needs. I agree that is unfair.

However, as someone that the government views as a cash cow (both the state and federal governments in my case) I can say with certainty that if the government ratchets up the tax rate for the higher brackets any further, I will simply find a job where I work less, as the stress of the job would no longer be compensated by the increasingly meager returns. This will result in decreased productivity and DECREASED revenue for the government.

I suppose thats a personal application of the Laffer curve.

I'm sure no one can say for sure if people would follow my lead and work less, but I would be very surprised if the majority of wage earners making > 100K per year would sit still for working harder for less money. As above posts indicate, we are the population that actually pays most of the taxes, so its our actions that would have to be taken into account.

I'm not trying to state that someone who makes 50-60K / year could not have a stressful, horrible job. But the reality is that if someone is paying you 100K or more per year they expect A LOT out of you. These jobs tend to be extreemly demanding of your mental energy and take a lot of time that you might otherwise be able to enjoy with your family and force you to devote it to the job. In other words, you are already sacrificing a lot just to be working the job in the first place. If you take away the incentive to keep such a difficult, demanding job, I think that you will see people either change their jobs or cut back and become less productive.

I think its a foregone conclusion that taxes are going to be raised, however, but I'm not sure that the raising of personal income taxes would have the desired effect of raising more revenue, and a non-progressive tax (increased sales tax) would punish people more who make less money. Neither, therefore, are very attractive solutions.

[Langy]

How much more would taxes need to be raised for you to trade your job in for one that pays less, though? One percent? Ten? Twenty? I'm curious - I certainly understand where you're coming from, but there has to be some general limit where you say 'enough is enough', and I doubt it's between one and five percent, otherwise you'd have to be near the breaking point for your job already.

[more_cowbell]

@Langy: The tax code is progressive across the income strata. In other words, from 0-x amount you pay a certain %, and then you pay a different % for x-y amount, and so on and so forth.

I'm sorry that I don't recall the exact amounts, but the rates really increase, once they start taxing your income that gets much above 200K. With deductions for mortgage, charity contributions and property tax payments, I usually don't have a large amount in that particular bracket to pay, but they really get a large chunk of it (probably 50% already from state and federal combined.)

With my job, you can work very hard and be very productive and make close to 300K, or you can work less hard and be much less productive and make 200K or less. I have to continue at this TYPE of job as its all I am trained to do and I have a family to support. My comment was not of quitting work altogether, just of finding a job where I am less productive and therefore also less stressed out at work.

Perhaps its not a bad thing to do, anyways? But thats a different topic altogether.

My point with my post was to say that there are probably lots of people in my shoes that are already very stressed out with their job and only work THIS hard at their job because they want to save better for their kids education or their retirement or maybe they just like to drive a nicer car (I drive a 2003 Toyota Minivan, so that does not apply to my case :))

It really doesn't matter WHY people try to maximize productivity at the expense of increased stress levels. By increasing taxes on the higher brackes (which IS coming, that is certain) the government penalizes increased productivity and rewards being less productive.

Once again, perhaps in the grand scheme of things, that will be good for me and my family that I spend more time with them and have a lower stress level. It will NOT, however, generate more money for the government, which is their intention.

Thats my personal take, as a cash cow. Other cash cows may see things differently, of course.

[Langy]

Yeah, I know how taxation income brackets work, and yes, decreasing marginal utility of income as income increases does encourage lower incomes. That's not going to change, and is going to be there in any progressive tax system.

My question was how much the taxation rates would need to change for you to decide to work less. If it almost doesn't matter how much they'd need to change, just that they go up, then you must already be pretty much at your equilibrium point - the point where you consider the amount of work going into your job is exactly worth what you are paid for it, or you're already past it and think you aren't paid enough for what you do, and so are even if no tax rates change you'd be thinking about going to a lower-paying, lower-stress job already.

I'm not disagreeing with you in any way, I'm just curious as to how big the problem is. Personally, I doubt that enough people will be willing to drop to lower-paying jobs that increasing taxes would cause the government to gain less money, but I don't dismiss the idea as impossible. It just seems that so many people are already living beyond their means that they won't, or can't afford to, drop into lower-paying jobs, especially if they want to keep the same lifestyle.

[more_cowbell]

@Langy: I'm sorry that I am not communicating my point well. What I mean to say is that for the government to raise a significant amount of money from income tax, they need to get it from us cash cows, and they need to raise the % a significant amount, because they don't dare increase the tax rate on lower income families.

I don't believe that if they raised the higher margin rates by 1 or 2 % that many people would quit their jobs. However, I also don't believe that amount would solve the national debt, if you catch my drift.

In order to increase revinue substantially, they are going to have to raise the higher margin rates (its their only option) by a generous amount (I'm guessing that when you combine state and federal tax rates it will drive the higher margins from 50% to 75% of what you make over 200K.) That would more then dis-incentivize me from wanting to work that hard.

Conversely, a 5% increase in the tax rate for the lower brackets would bring in much more money because threre are more people who exist in those brackets.

The government would NEVER increase the lower income tax rate first (that would be political suicide because there would be a much higher number of people in those brackets that the legislators don't want to alienate.) The solution will come first from the cash cows.

I hope that explains my point better.

[Langy]

I really doubt you'd see the higher margins approach 75%, though it's possible after factoring state income taxes in. Luckily, both states I've lived in had no income tax, so I haven't had to deal with that problem just yet. Then again, the highest tax brackets were over 70% for almost half of the last century, so it isn't impossible - I just think it would be a terrible idea.

Also, I'm pretty sure that just about nothing is going to solve the national debt. From where I'm standing, it's looking to be a pretty permanent fixture for the forseeable future - the only people trying to get any sort of handle on it are in the fringe of their parties or aren't in one of the major parties at all.

[CommodoreKitty]

With the federal tax at 40% and the California state tax at 10%, that is where the 50% income tax in California comes from. Like Langy said, it has be very high for most of the last century, so there really is nothing keeping them from raising both state and federal taxes on high income earners. Although, in the past, there were more options to get deductions on your taxes, so 70% really wasn't 70%; I would hazard a guess that in reality people have never payed 70% of their income in America before. Now, with all the legislation going through to stop that, the game is different than it has been in the past and these the high income earners will be taxed to the fullest extent the government can tax them. And I have no doubt they will; those people don't need that money, anyway.

[Gig]

Well the thing that is keeping them from doing that are the rich. What is to stop a wealthy individual who pays more tax then non-wealthy individuals from picking up shop and moving to a much lower tax state?

Every time taxes are raised revenue declines, and it is because of the rich leaving, not the poor supplementing their wealthy neighbors taxes.

[more_cowbell]

@ CommodoreKitty: Need is a relative term. If I make 180K per year, all of my needs are met, but I can't save as much for my kids education or my retirement as if I make 300K per year. I don't NEED any extra money, but as a slightly paranoid person, I would like to be able to have more money in the bank if at all possible for my kids and my future. That is what drives me to work harder and maximize my efficiency.

At 50 net cents on the dollar, its marginally worth working harder. At 25 net cents on the dollar, its not worth it for ME personally. For others, it might be. Time will tell, but I think we have reached a point of diminishing returns with our current income tax set up.

[CommodoreKitty]

I was being sarcastic, I am not a fan of taxes. I should have made that more clear.

[Taveras]

My wife is an optometrist in California. She has recently been getting a lot of customers expecting MediCAL to run out of money. As a result, many patients are trying to take advantage of the mediCAL sponsored programs for free eye exams and corrective glasses before the cash runs out. Under this program, the "poor" get help from state funds to pay for their eye care.

However, some of the "poor" that come into her shop are driving Jaguars, Mercedes and Lexus luxury sedans. Many are in no way "poor". But somehow, they have managed to fool and game the system for benefits at the tax-payer's expense. My wife suspects some kind of fraud is occurring but fears being incriminated as an accomplice for providing them goods and services in good faith. Although these cases only amount to a small part of her business, she also does not want to generate bad publicity for her shop.

Considering the failing state of California, defrauding the state government of healthcare dollars seems a bit too easy to me, having heard these stories from my wife.

[GeoffS]

Every time taxes are raised revenue declines, and it is because of the rich leaving, not the poor supplementing their wealthy neighbors taxes.I'd really like to see a reference to support this, because even fiscally conservative economists (http://logicizer.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx?mode=post&g=f48d2bf3-1c51-4592-aa46-191f089d752f) disagree with that generalisation, or only agree with it at tax rates on the extreme right end of the Laffer Curve, above about 65%. At real world tax rates, even people like Greg Mankiw (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/must-read.html), the former chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, and former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (http://www.house.gov/sherman/press_room_2006/pr_060419a.html) agree that the opposite is true.

[acos_N]

If it takes a bailout to hit the proverbial reset button on the California constitution so be it. Calfornia is probably directly responsible for more jobs, and potentially even yours, than you realize.

Anyways, the problems are rather unusual. Its not as easy as a convenient "yes or no" solution. There is no point to debating whether it makes you republican or democratic to take position X on issue Y.

The issues in California are not Arnold's fault. They were there before he came into office. Its a backwards system that demands a 65% majority in an age that is more polarized than any we've potentially ever seen in the US in decades that is to blame.

And I'm probably not going to be terribly popular for saying this, but the rich need to be reigned in on anyways.

[more_cowbell]

@GoffS: Most people will never experience a portion of their income being taxed at 65%, so it doesn't apply to most people. As my above post references, some of my income is taxed at 50% (including state and local taxes) already, so its not going to take much of a jump (in state and local taxes, both of which are likely to be raised) to get to 65%.

This is a number that will influence people to work LESS, so as not to make enough money to get into the higher bracket. I don't think that could even be argued. To what degree it influences people to work less, remains to be seen.

@CommodoreKitty: I'm sorry that I failed to pick up on the sarcasm. The internet should have the text turn a different color when people are being sarcastic, as that part of communication is vital and yet difficult to pick up on at times over the interweb :)

[GeoffS]

I'm not arguing in favour of tax increases, just pointing out that Gig's statement isn't supported by facts.

There is no doubt that increasing tax rates decreases incentive. My point is that it doesn't start to decrease revenue until tax rates reach extreme levels.

[Jonny]

The government would NEVER increase the lower income tax rate first (that would be political suicide because there would be a much higher number of people in those brackets that the legislators don't want to alienate.)

I wouldn't be too sure about that. The British government did exactly that, only they didn't officially "raise" the lowest tax band, they just abolished it altogether so everybody paying it was automatically bumped up to the next one.

[Kirjava]

And in doing so ensured that Labour will lose the next election. Everything else they've done since then is just icing on a disgusting cake.

[Sethero]

An interesting editorial article regarding the state of affairs in cali...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/29/EDRJ17SL82.DTL&feed=rss.opinion

To quote that article:
In fact, California ranks 18th among the states in percentage of personal income paid to state government, and its presumably beleaguered wealthiest 1 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, pays just 7.4 percent of their income to the state, while the poorest Californians pay 10.2 percent.

That's an interesting tidbit of information right there about state taxes.

By the way, I've got tax rate information right here. Federal income tax peaks at 35% (at $372,950 or above) but remember it's a progressive tax so income below that level is taxed at a lower rate; CA state income taxes peak at 10.3% (for incomes of $1,000,001 or above) but appears to be a flat tax rate. Currently the second bracket of the California tax code is 9.3% for incomes between 47,500 and $1,000,001. (info drawn from government websites)

So, let's take an ugly example here. Someone making $1,000,001 in California. They pay $103,000.11 (10.3%) to the state and $327,684 (32.77% averaged; progressive tax brackets) for a total of $430,684.11 in income taxes, an effective tax rate of 43.07%. That is, without any tax breaks, deductions, or any other methods of reducing tax liability.

Let's take another example; $300,000. Federal taxes (again without deductions) would be $84,143 (averaged tax rate 28.05%), California taxes would be $27,090 (9.3%) for a total effective tax rate of $111,233 or 37%. At $150,000, feds take $35,720, or 23.8%, while state takes $13950 (9.3%), for a total tax rate of 33.1%.

As a side note, assuming a 40 hr workweek, $300K is roughly $144/hr, $150K is about $72/hr. At 60 hrs/wk, those fall to $96/hr and $47/hr respectively. Numbers are gross income.

Now, these numbers are all simplified in that there are no deductions incorporated into any of them. These are also only figures on income taxes, not total tax liability. I feel that these could be handy in the continuing conversation regarding the effects of increasing the income tax within the state.

[Paladin]

I think I'd rather lose 43.07% of $1,000,001, than 33.1% of $300,000. By far.

If anything, your example would seem to indicate that California's state taxes are not progressive enough (Too few brackets, with too wide a range), and should be reformed into a more graceful income curve.

[Taveras]

The author of http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...eed=rss.opinion does not live in California but like a lot of "experts", blames our problems on proposition 13, a 1978 law.

Does he know about the special assessment taxes on property that exist despite proposition 13's cap on property tax? Is he aware of all the ways that local governments raise tax revenue despite Sacramento's gridlock? Could there be plenty of factors that caused this perfect storm of government failure instead of a 28 year old law that past legislatures have worked around?

I would not oppose raising state income taxes if 18th highest in the nation is just not good enough for some people. But the article takes a single-minded liberal view for California's problems when there is plenty of bipartisan blame to go around.

[Sethero]

Taveras, I think that article is more useful as a point of discussion more than hard evidence of what needs to be done. I know there are a thousand people talking about their 3,000 ideas on how to fix the situation and/or what has caused it... it's one perspective I hadn't read yet.

I'm not against paying somewhat higher taxes if it will resolve the problem. Certainly any increase in taxes would have to be combined with some sort of serious overhaul of the state's government to correct the issues that caused this, and I don't think it's the result of either party specifically, it's merely systemic.

[The Collector]

Well, between bond issues to pay for stuff and tax hikes, one of them doesn't involve interest paid to bankers.

[more_cowbell]

Those are interesting numbers. In Wisconsin, where I live, the state tax rate is 6.2% up to 193K and then 6.5% thereafter. So, based on your numbers, and what I found on the governments site, for taxable income in my state from 193K to 372K I am paying 33 (federal) + 6.5% (state) for a total of 39.5%.

In California, I would actually be paying MORE (42.3%.) This is interesting to me, as I always thought of Wisconsin as a high-tax state (I suppose everyone thinks that their state is high-tax, unless they don't pay any state taxes.)

This is interesting in light of the above discussion, as California SHOULD be gathering MORE money from its cash cows then Wisconsin, yet it appears to be in worse financial shape (I am aware that Wisconsin is in financial trouble, just not apparently as bad as California.)

Someone also mentioned that they would be happy to pay the higher marginal tax if they made 1,000,000 per year. You are talking an extreemly small amount of the population that makes that much scratch. From a wikipedia article, only 1.5% of people make >250K. It did not break down how many made >1000K, but it must be a vanishingly small%. Most cash cows likely fall in the range where most of their income is not in the highest bracket. Most of my income will fall in the 25% or 28% federal bracket.

What this means is that when the government jacks up the highest bracket, they will get some extra juice from the tippy top of wage earners, but most of the people who have some income in the upper brackets will likely look long and hard at all the extra stress involved to make that extra 50-70K per year (which will yeild an increasingly small amount of money with the increased tax burden) and likely take a pass on working harder and be happy with making <200K/ year.

For example, I normally work 5 days on and 2 days off. We are changing our schedule to 5 days on 5 days off, to be more in line with how people work my type of job around the country. I CAN, at my discretion, pick up extra shifts, to try to gain back some of the revinue that I will lose by the decreased number of shifts.

Based on the above numbers, I think I'll just pass on trying to stress myself out further to work extra shifts with the return not being worth the extra stress.

[Sethero]

It's always good to keep in mind that these are base tax rates before deductions. The basic tax deduction is tiny compared to these numbers obviously, but if you take into consideration the larger deductions that higher wage earners tend to have then you see some real balance in the actual tax paid. Indeed, that article I linked to cited information from a watchdog group showing that the top 1% households (according to the wiki article below is greater than $250,000) pay an average of 7.4% of income to state taxes, denoting about a 2% rate of deduction to their state taxes.

more_cowbell, I would be interested to know a little more about the number of hours incurred during those 5 days, as it seems like you'd more than likely lose only a percentage point or two on additional hours/shifts worked if you chose to do so, which would have a negligible effect on your total average earnings per hour worked. Not that I'm here to argue the relative merits or give financial advice... you have an interesting situation though and it's nice to see the apparent effect additional taxes may have.

[more_cowbell]

@Sethero: My job is as a hospitalist, which means that I see patients in a hospital setting exclusively (as an Internal Medicine specialist.) Hours are somewhat irrelevant to my case, as I am paid by production. If it takes me 10 hours to see all of the patients, then I work 10 hours. If it takes 12, I work 12. When I move to 7 shifts in a 14 day period instead of 10, it will mean that for those 3 days that I am not working, I am not generating any income (I get paid on an RVU basis, which assigns a monitary value based on the service I perform - piecework if you will.)

This, honestly, is actually something I am looking forward to. I have been pretty much redlining for the last 10 years, and I am ready to slow down. Most hosptialists work a 5 day on/5 day off or 7 day on/ 7 day off schedule, for that very reason (you need time to decompress b/c the job is quite toxic as you are working with unhappy people and unhappy families pretty much all the time.)

As far as the income tax deductions, with 401K plans, mortgage payments, and property tax deductions and charitable contirbutions, I usually knock my taxable income down to about 240K per year, give or take, which means that most of my income does fall in the <33% bracket. Please understand, I don't begrudge having to pay taxes. I'm OK with my role as a cash cow. Someone has to do it.

At this point in my life, though, I think I'm going to take a step back, take a breath, and run a little slower and be a less productive cow, so to speak (probably a bad choice of metaphors because it would not do to have your cows running around to increase their productivity...)

Perhaps my case, then is somewhat different then the norm for people in the cash cow range, but I suspect there are many others that get paid "piecework" as I do that can and will dial down the activity level if the stress/reward ratio gets too out of whack. Someone that owns their own business such as a plumber or general contractor of some sort, a salesperson, or consultant, an attourney, or accountant all come to mind as pieceworkers that could have quite a bit of control over how "fast they run," if you will.

[Paladin]

That depends on how attached they are to their current expense levels.

[man4857]

33 (federal) + 6.5% (state) for a total of 39.5%.

If you actually compute it mathematically, it isn't a total of 39.5%. The brackets don't work that way.

Also progressive taxation is GOOD in a sense that it acts as an automatic stabilizer for inflation.

You ask why?
As your income rises, your marginal propensity to consume drops therefore, your propensity to save increases thus, applying the theory of rational behavior, you would save at some sort of financial institution because of interest (and not stick it under the bed). By saving more and more at financial institutions, you are increasing the money supply in the banking system and when you increase the money supply, the demand for money increases because of lowered interests rates which encourages more borrowing and thus results in more spending. As more people spend, businesses hire more, and aggregate demand also increases, and thus results in an increase in the price index, aka. demand-pull inflation.

[more_cowbell]

I want to make sure I understand this.

Are you saying I have more motivation to save in a tax deferred account because of the otherwise onerous tax liability and that therefore, I will save more money?

That currently IS a big motivating factor in how much I save for retirement.

However, my kids college fund is post federal tax (but there is a deduction for state taxes.) I would argue that I would save even MORE money for my kids college fund if I wasn't taxed at such a high rate (ie, I would have more money out of each paycheck to put away for the kids that the govenment is not getting.)

I don't know if that would apply to saving for retirement or not (ie if I had more money from each paycheck would I spend it or put extra in a retirement account.) Thats kind of an interesting question.

Retirement is much further down the road, and I suppose I could very well die of some horrible illness before I even get to enjoy it, whereas I will be much more likely to be around to have to pay for my kids college education, one way or another.