Are people warning about California’s pending financial collapse crying wolf? It seems California been on the brink for (seemingly) years now but nothing ever really gets done re the situation. How do they keep hanging on if a system collapse is really just around the corner?
They appear to keep pushing the (ever bigger) problem out until next year. It is going to get worse this year, since the courts have ruled a lot of the cuts illegal.
If they postpone it until the recovery kicks in, then tax revenues will go up, the deficit will go away, and everyone will go back to passing propositions that cost money while refusing to raise taxes to pay for them again. More than 50% of Californians are against changing the constitution to allow tax bills to pass with a majority instead of 2/3 vote, which shows the problem right there. If 55% lets you spend, but not pay for it, you are screwed.
I fear the only “solution” to California’s problem lies in massive depopulation, half of the people there have to leave, even if they don’t run out of money, they’re gonna run out of water. Spread them out over the rest of the states, everybody takes their share.
Except Minnesota. Too cold, they wouldn’t make it. Iowa. Iowa is nice…
California needs to scrap her constitution and start over from scratch. The state has degenerated into a state of glorified mob rule.
Sacramento needs to
unify its efforts to
create more employment opprtunities and invest in
knowledge and edudation. Surely some new
ideas can be floated that
take the long view which won’t
undermine
prosperity.
I have no idea if that was meant to be some form of exotic free verse, but if so, it was a lousy poem.
California’s budget has been growing much faster than its revenues for years, and the state as a practical matter can’t tax much more without risking severe and long-term economic decline, particularly as it would come in a down economy. It simply can’t keep growing the budget like that. But taxation is not a serious answer: it already has high taxes and sending them much higher would drive out the businesses it needs, particularly smal business. I’m not sure it practically can just wait out the recession.
It’s a reference to this thread.
Well,
Hilarious though it may be,
obviously it is meant to be viewed
only by those in the legislature.
Surely they could glean the meanings with a little
help from the Governator.
Just out of curiosity, if Maria Shriver ran for governor, could she win?
:smack:
Argh.
Infinite money
Are the sinews of the state
Much relies on them
But blind as we are
Look at the cost
In bad government
Ninety-nine times its revenues
Destroyed by foolishness
Remember NYC in the 70s, what a disaster that was. On “Barney Miller” every other joke was how broke NYC and how awful it was and how it’d never recover. Other NYC themed TV shows had similar jokes about what a mess NYC was.
But New York City recovered nicely and not only regained the population it lost but gained more than it ever had. Time will straighten it out one way or another.
Already immigration is slowing to California while Texas and Florida as well as New York City have been attracting more and more new immigrants (I’m talking legal).
Like GM, California is simply too big to be allowed to fail, so even in a very bad scenario it’d be bailed out, no politician is going to run the risk of having California go over to the “red” side again.
You’re kidding, right?
The fundamental problem with respect to California’s governance isn’t that of a majority forcing its will on a minority. It’s an amendment to their state Constitution from a few decades back that allows 1/3 of the legislature to block any new taxes.
Get rid of that, and California will be fine.
Yeah, allowing any special interest group with enough resources to put measures directly to the voters the require increase spending without providing a way to pay for it isn’t a problem at all. :rolleyes:
And at least 1/3 of the legislature will always block something. As The Economist points out California districts have been gerrymandered into blue or red areas. The winners will be decided in the primaries, not the general election. As a result you have people winning on deep ideology on both sides. And those ideologies go to Sacramento and block each other.
It will help, but it won’t make things fine. We’ve got somewhere over 500 amendments, many mutually contradictory, that mandates all kinds of spending and programs without mandating revenue increases to pay for them. Most legislators at least to try to figure out how to pay for the goodies. The average California voter, though, is like a chimp with a credit card. So, we need to reduce the initiative process by a lot.
The only thing I’m worried about is that until the people against taxes start feeling the pain from the consequences of cutting spending (and letting people out of jail might be a good start) a new Constitution would be just as bad.
The problem is, they are not blocking spending but blocking revenue generation, because there isn’t a 2/3 rule for spending. If there was, I think people would rise in revolt when schools and cops aren’t paid for.
It also took something like twenty years. And New York City had a much less ingrained structurally-bad situation than California. Yes, of course it can someday make a comback, but that’s like telling Jews in the 1930’s, “Not to worry. Those Nazis won’t last forever.”
(And IO bet you thought this post wouldn’t be Godwinized, eh? Eh?! 
)
Yeah, we need to distill the power to rule down to an elite few. Preferably me and my friends. We’d show that mob what for.
I think maybe three is too small a number for a power elite.
Fuck California.
They’re already fucked.
So why not?