So, under Arnold, State revenues increased. I’ll take your word for it. And the debt tripled:
"As of July 1, 2003, California had a total of $27.6 billion in general obligation bonds and a total of $23.2 billion in authorized but unissued bonds, according to then-state Treasurer Phil Angelides’ 2003 “debt affordability” report [PDF].
But the latest report [PDF] from current state Treasurer Bill Lockyer says the state now has $77.8 billion in outstanding general obligation bonds - nearly triple the amount of seven years ago - and an additional $42.8 in authorized but unissued bonds." (the ‘latest report’ was 2010)
Let us do some math:
total debt when Arnold arrives: 27.6 + 23.2 = 50.8
total debt when Arnold leave: 77.8 +42.8 = 120.6
120.6 - 50.8 = 69.8 increase in overall debt in his 7 years.
7 years of 5.0 lost in car taxes = 35. 69.8 - 35 = 34.8
So, approximately half of the increased debt can reasonably be attributed to the car tax revenues lost (and I’m generously not including the extra cost of the debt incurred from the additional borrowing to cover the lost revenue).
And you were defending Arnold when you pointed out that during this debacle revenues to the State rose? Yeah, that’s some fine governoring, there…:rolleyes:
also, if you knew anything about Calif State politics, you would know that the relevant issue isn’t majorities in the legislature, it is supermajorities.
I have no intention of defending Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor. As the article I linked to shows, he presided over huge increases in spending. Cutting the car tax was a very minor thing. Throughout his term, California had one of the highest tax burdens in the country. People and businesses have been leaving California for years. Would a higher car tax, in addition to all the other high taxes in the state, have made it more attractive?
If people are leaving, they aren’t taking their cars with them, since more and more of them are on the road I take to work.
Not to mention the massive new condo complexes just finished or being built I go past. or the complaints about rising rents in San Francisco.
Population, 2013 estimate 38,332,521
Population, 2012 estimate 37,999,878
Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base 37,253,959
Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 2.9%
NOT because I think ITR will notice that he’s wrong again, but for anyone else following along at home. Took literally less than 1 minute.
Frankly, if about 20% of our population would disappear overnight (rapture, anyone?), that would work pretty well for the rest of us, IMHO. I shudder every time we have great weather during the Rose Parade and Bowl.
Demographics. It has a large hispanic population. If you look at socio-economic outcomes Demographics also explain a lot of the issues in the original post. You have some of the highest earners, with Hollywood & Silicon Valley, but also a large growing group who have lower levels of educational attainment and earnings prospects.
It will be interesting to see if the minimum wage law, ironically being put forward by mildly conservative Ron Unz, will go through. Could help with the inequality & poverty issues to some extent.
I found a long article in The Atlantic about Jerry Brown, looking to understand how he has managed to turn Schwarzenegger’s $27 billion deficit into a surplus. Certainly the improved economic climate has helped that, but the author, James Fallows, contends that it was also due to legislative policies initiated by Brown.
So. Progressive idea in California have produced better results. I’m curious what the counterargument to that will look like.