# "California's day of reckoning is here." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2009, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785 "2009-06-05T05:37:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/41 "2009-06-05T19:27:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If stem cell companies take off, venture capitalists will be putting in a lot more than the state did, and the investment will be paid off in no time - just in increased taxes. A car dealer thread covered the impact to the community of a big car dealer shutting down. A big biotech company opening has the opposite (positive) impact in more business for local merchants and more tax revenue. Despite this, companies are moving out and new ones are not moving in. Silicon Valley is great - but its dominance is already passing, as it must, because the centrality of know-how is already being distributed by its own products. The great technological development no longer need happen, and often is not happening, in Silicon Valley, though of course it will continue to be important. What I object to is the idea of spending vast sums of public money thinking you can just produce another one. It’s a _grossly_ risky bet, which can’t\* have the anticipated effect, have the same kind of payoff. Moreover, in incurring the debts, you also have to consider what else could have been done with the money, as well as the probabilities of success. A previous poster mentioned an argument which can be summarized as “We will spend billions in a gamble with unknown odds and payout in the hope that after an unknown period of time, it will pay itself off and more.” Mate, it ain’t _legal_ for a private organization to offer that. You’d go to jail. That’s like taking your money to Vegas, and then throwing it out on the street in the hopes that karma will take a shining to you and you get twice as much playing craps. Plus, to be honest, I’m not even certain stem-cell research can profitably use that much money in such a short span of time. \*This is a product of the basic science. Stem cell research, by nature, must be distributed to be useful. People want medical services close to them unless they are very rich, and stem cell treatments have always been distributed like other medical services. That’s how medical services work, period. Plus, stem-cell options are vasly more limited in long-term benefitsthan, say, genetics. Frankly, while the possibilities are great, the reason why financial support for new cell lines was banned federally was not only its link to abortion, but also that the use of new cell lines was of little value in stem-cell research. It was always neccessary to develop them out of adult cells, because that’s the only way to make it useful to anybody over age 1. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/42 "2009-06-05T19:29:01Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > We’re still going through it. When we figure something out we’ll let you know.😛 Yeah, I know. But at least we’re grizzled old vets when it comes to a spartan existence. You know, if what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger, I don’t know if I want to be this strong. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/43 "2009-06-05T19:45:08Z")
> [@furt](#): > > If you’re going to say that every penny – or even the majority – of the $90 billion more they’re spending is proposition-driven, I’m gonna have to ask for a cite. The study was in the Mercury News - I’ll check to see if it is still on-line. It was from before the most recent plummet in revenue. The immediate problem today, as I said, is that our revenue system is far more sensitive to economic downturns than one based more in property taxes, while spending is not. As I also said, this encourages the legislature to spend more in good times. Prop 1A would have forced some of a surplus to be set aside, I voted for this. [quote] Why is this a stupid requirement? I think it’s a great thing. Yes, it handcuffs the legislature somewhat … that’s the _point_. Yeah, the legislature was handcuffed while the building was burning down around them. If the Dems were looking for tax increases without spending, they’d be in the wrong also, but they were looking for a compromise, and the Republicans with more than a vote each in this case, didn’t want to compromise at all (or even give a counter-proposal.) The few who were willing to vote for a budget to keep the state out of default are not being called traitors. > [@](#): > > If the propositions force you to cut spending on other stuff … then cut the fucking spending on other fucking stuff! Close down parks, cut trash collection to once a week, make the lines at the DMV longer, and above all stop giving state employees sweetheart pension deals. If the voters don’t like it, they can change it back. But don’t spend yourself into oblivion and then expect the responsible states to save your ass. That’s why the propositions suck. If there is a spending bill, they have to figure out how to pay for it, either through more taxes or cuts. The voter for a proposition thinks it is free, and other people have to worry about the impact - and don’t cut school funding, prisons, healthcare, and don’t raise taxes. (All of which get majority support.) If the propositions came with specific cuts in other areas, or specific tax increases, I suspect that fewer would get passed - or even be on the ballot. > [@](#): > > Wishing ill on one’s politcal adversaries. Lovely. I was being nice. I wasn’t proposing releasing the criminals into the back yards of these people. They don’t want to pay for the prisons, let them take the consequences. > [@](#): > > You are aware that there are waay more Dems than Pubs in Cali? And that those propositions and amendments were approved by the majority of ALL Californians? The Democrats are far from blameless. Proposition mania is pretty universal. However, the Dems are more willing to pay for this stuff through higher taxes, so they get a bit of a pass. Not all the propositions are bad. My objection is that the system lets people vote for them without considering the consequences, and that will always get you into trouble. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/44 "2009-06-05T19:46:24Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > No, the 4.38% is the **product** of population growth and CPI growth. In comparing per capita spending, population growth is already backed out. Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/45 "2009-06-05T19:47:16Z")
For some data: > [@](#): > > California’s State/Local Tax Burden Above National Average > Estimated at 10.5% of income, California’s state/local tax burden percentage stands at 6th highest nationally, above the national average of 9.7%. Californians pay $5,028 per capita in state and local taxes. [http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html](http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/46 "2009-06-05T19:55:12Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Given how poorly the tax money is being spent, and how few services actualy get delivered to citizens, I am not at all sure you are correct. I am inclined to agree, about poorly used tax money, and crap services. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/47 "2009-06-05T20:04:58Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Despite this, companies are moving out and new ones are not moving in. Silicon Valley is great - but its dominance is already passing, as it must, because the centrality of know-how is already being distributed by its own products. The great technological development no longer need happen, and often is not happening, in Silicon Valley, though of course it will continue to be important. I’ve been in this business a long time, and I don’t see it. India and China are important in manufacturing (hardware and software) and Taiwan is now dominating the non-Intel fab market. But the innovation hasn’t move. Japan seems less influential today than it was 20 years ago. There aren’t a bunch of new companies now, thanks to the recession, but when vc comes back they’ll be here. > [@](#): > > What I object to is the idea of spending vast sums of public money thinking you can just produce another one. It’s a _grossly_ risky bet, which can’t\* have the anticipated effect, have the same kind of payoff. Moreover, in incurring the debts, you also have to consider what else could have been done with the money, as well as the probabilities of success. > > A previous poster mentioned an argument which can be summarized as “We will spend billions in a gamble with unknown odds and payout in the hope that after an unknown period of time, it will pay itself off and more.” Mate, it ain’t _legal_ for a private organization to offer that. You’d go to jail. That’s like taking your money to Vegas, and then throwing it out on the street in the hopes that karma will take a shining to you and you get twice as much playing craps. Plus, to be honest, I’m not even certain stem-cell research can profitably use that much money in such a short span of time. Hmm, the thing you said was illegal was exactly what Bell Labs Area 11 did, and what I bet Microsoft Research does now. This kind of thing is exactly what government should be funding - stuff too risky and out there for short term private investment, now that most of the forward looking private research labs have closed. Actually, a big reason this was popular because people wanted there to be work on it, and were frustrated that Bush basically killed it at the federal level. I bet it wouldn’t pass today - there is no need if it is being NIH funded the way it should be. > [@](#): > > \*This is a product of the basic science. Stem cell research, by nature, must be distributed to be useful. People want medical services close to them unless they are very rich, and stem cell treatments have always been distributed like other medical services. That’s how medical services work, period. Plus, stem-cell options are vasly more limited in long-term benefitsthan, say, genetics. So? The patent holders won’t make money? The people who manufacture the therapies won’t make money? Of course genetics deserves (and gets) more money, since it is a much broader field. But genetics research wasn’t being stifled, so there was no reason to do it with state funding. When I was in college the nuts in Cambridge were going crazy about the dangers of recombinant DNA research - mutant genes were going to kill us all. If they had won at the federal level, don’t you think a state funded research effort would have been successful? > [@](#): > > Frankly, while the possibilities are great, the reason why financial support for new cell lines was banned federally was not only its link to abortion, but also that the use of new cell lines was of little value in stem-cell research. It was always neccessary to develop them out of adult cells, because that’s the only way to make it useful to anybody over age 1. Do you have a cite that embryonic stem cells can only be applied to children? I’ve always heard that the benefit of adult stem cells is that they don’t need to come from an embryo, and are easier to get - but they don’t have inherently greater therapeutic value for adults. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/48 "2009-06-05T20:25:15Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Huh? Just what I said. According to **furt** ’s article, > [@](#): > > In FY 1990-91 the state spent $1,350 per capita. Today, the government spends $2,644 per person. . . . If California had simply limited its spending increases to the 4.38 percent average increase in the state’s consumer price index and population growth each year since FY 1990-91, the state would be sitting on a $15 billion surplus right now. You concluded from this: > [@treis](#): > > Using his CPI increase average of 4.38 over 18 years that is a net inflation of 233%. If that is correct, the state actually spends less in terms of real money per person by a significant amount now as compared to 18 years ago. That is **not** correct. The 4.38% isn’t “average CPI increase”, it’s "average increase in the state’s CPI **and population growth**. In fact roughly 3% of that is inflation and 1.4% is population growth. If we use the correct inflation index of (1.03^18), we find that **real per capita spending** has increased from $2,298 in 1991 to $2,644 in 2009. This is an increase of 15% or 0.8% per year for 18 consecutive years. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/49 "2009-06-05T21:05:34Z")
> [@Iamametalrobot](#): > > So what you are saying is that putting more criminals away for longer (what the 3 strikes prop did) is a bad thing since it was expensive, AND that letting prisoners go do to budget cuts is also a bad thing? (Unless they get released into the districts where there are people you don’t like.) 😕 Well, because of three strikes, someone who gets busted with 10oz of mj for the third time would have a longer sentence than someone who “only” raped one woman. That would mean the rapist would get released before the dope head. That is real problem with three strikes laws, the flood the system with nonviolent criminals, and when the prisons are over crowded, the violent ones may need to be let go early. > [@](#): > > Anyways, I do agree that California’s propositions do end up with insane results. Like that $10 billion dollar train line that was voted in last year, which California can’t really afford right now. And that is just to start, the total cost is estimated to be $40 billion. I have been anti initiative for a while. No matter how good the cause, I vote no on any initiative that does not have a real funding method. Right now, initiatives go up with all funding coming from a bond that is paid out from the general fund. That is the state level equivalent of putting it on the credit card. If it is paid for by new taxes, fees, or some other reasonable method, I will consider it on its merits, but I will not vote for a pure bond funded measure. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/50 "2009-06-05T21:29:01Z")
Anybody who thinks this can be done without some tax hikes is fooling themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/51 "2009-06-05T22:03:46Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Anybody who thinks this can be done without some tax hikes is fooling themselves. They _have_ implemented some new tax hikes earlier this year. Tax increases can only do so much when you’re so far in debt - and raising taxes does absolutely nothing to encourage fiscal responsibility, they just seem to encourage the same old spending behavior. California needs to cut spending, and drastically. That’s the only way to get out of their mess. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/52 "2009-06-05T22:23:11Z")
Now, more than ever, it is time to legalize marijuana. While the added tax revenue won’t be enough to bail CA out of its mess, it will certainly help. Besides, more people getting high will make them forget their economic woes, so the timing’s perfect. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/53 "2009-06-05T22:26:35Z")
> [@Monster104](#): > > They _have_ implemented some new tax hikes earlier this year. Tax increases can only do so much when you’re so far in debt - and raising taxes does absolutely nothing to encourage fiscal responsibility, they just seem to encourage the same old spending behavior. California needs to cut spending, and drastically. That’s the only way to get out of their mess. Do you think the cuts already made during the compromise weren’t drastic? The problem is, with revenues falling as much as they have, the old “cut waste and spending” mantra isn’t enough. I seem to recall revenues are down by 47%. Want to close prisons, schools, or both? People who lose half their income can stop going to the mall, but that isn’t going to fix the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/54 "2009-06-05T23:39:04Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Really? > > Public school: provided education and the intellectual tools to further my education, check > Fire Department: put the fire out when my mom’s apartment caught on fire, check > Police: When I was a kid a cop saved my life, they always come when called, and are pretty helpful, check > Library, endless source of books to further learn, and enjoy, check > Roads, I can travel anywhere I want thanks to roads, check > Conservation, natural parks are set aside to enjoy and be preserved, species prevented from hunted to oblivion, check > Retirement/disability, old folks and the disabled aren’t reduced to beggars and get healthcare, check > Poverty, the poor have access to food and help with higher education to stop being poor, check > Unemployment, workers are given a time to get back on their feet thanks to unemployment benefits > City parks, kids and people are given places to enjoy, check > Do I need to keep going on? When you are in a dire situation, a bit of triage is necessary. In decreasing order of urgency, the items that should be taken care of are [ol] [li]Police[/li][li]Prisons[/li][li]Fire Department[/li][li]Roads[/li][li]Public schools[/li][li]Retirement/disability[/li][li]Poverty[/li][li]Unemployment[/li][li]City parks[/li][li]Library[/li][li]Conservation[/li][/ol] Just start from the top of the list and keep going down until you run out of money from the budget. If that means that, for example, everything below “City parks” isn’t funded, too bad. Society will go to hell in a hurry with no police or functioning roads Not having the latest books at the local library: not so much We should wait for better times to fund libraries and the non-essential stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/55 "2009-06-05T23:45:29Z")
Going back to the OP, > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > “Our wallet is empty. Our bank is closed. Our credit is dried up. California’s day of reckoning is here.” > > That’s how Governor Schwarzenegger [describes the current financial situation in California](http://cbs13.com/local/schwarzenegger.budget.plea.2.1027846.html). It’s a rare instance of a politician telling the truth. California is facing a problem that is essence is pretty easy to understand. The amount of money that’s flowing into the state government is much smaller than the amount that’s flowing out. Income has declined because of the lousy economy and falling housing prices. Outflow is high because of unfunded pension programs for government employees and because the voters have supported so many huge bond issues, which now must be paid back. The three possible options are: raise taxes, cut spending, get a loan. **Voters recently rejected tax hikes, so that’s out.** In the current environment credit just won’t happen, so that’s out. The only remaining possibility is spending cuts. I can’t speak for other California voters, but I sure as hell didn’t reject tax increases. I voted against the monstrous power-grabbing POS that was Props 1A-1F, becuse it was (1) dishonest, (2) ill-timed, (3) mostly unnecessary, and (4) didn’t raise taxes enough. If they had put a SIMPLE tax increase on the ballot, I’d have voted for that, especially if it had rolled back Prop 13 at all. But no, Arnold and the fucking CA Republicans couldn’t have THAT. Who knows what the voters might have done if presented with such a proposition, with an honest statement of goals and needs in these times? That said, I have no problem with taking on a bit more debt right now, as long as taxes go up in thre next couple of years. ---
**Author:** ![Airblairxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Airblairxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airblairxxx)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/56 "2009-06-06T00:09:40Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > For some data: > > California’s State/Local Tax Burden Above National Average > Estimated at 10.5% of income, California’s state/local tax burden percentage stands at 6th highest nationally, above the national average of 9.7%. Californians pay $5,028 per capita in state and local taxes. > [http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html](http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html) California’s tax system is more reliant on income tax because of the property tax limits implemented by Prop 13, and there is a higher concentration of high-income workers here than in the U. S. ---
**Author:** ![Airblairxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Airblairxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airblairxxx)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/57 "2009-06-06T00:13:18Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I am inclined to agree, about poorly used tax money, and crap services. Do you have a cite, or an anecdote, or . . . well, anything, beyond the worn-out conservative mantra that government spending BAD, BAD!! Actually, you don’t have to answer that for my benefit; I won’t be back online again until Monday. Just realized it’s 5pm and I can go home. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/58 "2009-06-06T00:43:27Z")
[nickpick]Please don’t call it “Cali.” We hate that. It’s like calling San Francisco “Frisco.”[/nickpick] Education benefits everyone, but the people who largely supported prop 13 were middle-aged people without children in public schools. They believed they had no reason to support public education. Governor Pat Brown worked hard to build one of the best–if not the best–public educational systems in the country from elementary to UC. The investment in UC attracted some of the best academics in the country (well, the weather did too). UC San Diego has more Nobel Laureates than any other school in the country. Some of the most important work in nuclear physics happened at UC Berkeley (and its associated Lawrence Livermore Lab). I think Berkeley is the only state that has an element named after it. K-12 was a good as it good get considering the circumstances. The Cal State and Community College systems were improved greatly. Then prop 13 gutted a lot of that. But the real problem are all the stupid commissions. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/59 "2009-06-06T00:53:43Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Frankly, while the possibilities are great, the reason why financial support for new cell lines was banned federally was not only its link to abortion, but also that the use of new cell lines was of little value in stem-cell research. It was always neccessary to develop them out of adult cells, because that’s the only way to make it useful to anybody over age 1. Nonsense, there’s no particular limit on age, much less no one “over age 1”. The reason why research on new cell lines was banned, is because the approved lines were useless. It was an attempt to shut down research without admitting it. > [@Sinaijon](#): > > None of that even addresses remotely what I said. I said the people that use the **most** government services don’t pay for them. That’s not limited to the poor, but pretty much everybody that doesn’t earn generational wealth in a year. > > It’s pretty easy to see, really. Look at the state’s budget. Do you think rich fat cats and corporations are making much use of welfare, healthcare, and schooling. Those make up the vast majority of spending. The “rich fat cats” also don’t pay nearly their fair share. Raise taxes on them. > [@Sinaijon](#): > > As long as there is this disconnect, you’ll never get meaningful spending cuts because the people on the dole will always outnumber those paying for it. So someone who needs medical care is “on the dole” Or children in school ? Interesting how certain people’s solution to economic problems is always “stomp on the weak”. > [@Polerius](#): > > When you are in a dire situation, a bit of triage is necessary. > > In decreasing order of urgency, the items that should be taken care of are > > [ol] > [li]Police[/li][li]Prisons[/li][li]Fire Department[/li][li]Roads[/li][li]Public schools[/li][li]Retirement/disability[/li][li]Poverty[/li][li]Unemployment[/li][li]City parks[/li][li]Library[/li][li]Conservation[/li][/ol] > > Just start from the top of the list and keep going down until you run out of money from the budget. If that means that, for example, everything below “City parks” isn’t funded, too bad. > > Society will go to hell in a hurry with no police or functioning roads > Not having the latest books at the local library: not so much > > We should wait for better times to fund libraries and the non-essential stuff. That assumes that there will BE better times if we do that. Once they get things like public libraries closed down, I can’t see the Republicans becoming anything but even more intransigent on taxes, in order to “starve the beast” further. After all, that would in their eyes be a huge victory against the the Ultimate Evil of “socialism”, and economically destroying California or the country would be a small price to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785/60 "2009-06-06T01:16:45Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > Some of the most important work in nuclear physics happened at UC Berkeley (and its associated Lawrence Livermore Lab). I think Berkeley is the only state that has an element named after it. Not unless they recently made it a state. 🙂 However, California is the only state with an element named after it, Berkeley does have its own element, and Lawrencium is named after the same person Lawrence Livermore Lab is named after. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-day-of-reckoning-is-here/498785.md?page=4)