California contingent -- Will California become America's first failed state? -- Accurate?

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

M

mattl

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
6,336
Location
Flushing, MI
Hey, came across this and wondered how much of it rings true. If the bulk of it is true then things are not that much different elsewhere in the country. At least here in Michigan no one has gotten vouchers instead of a check, but the state budget is a mess.

Sounds pretty bad.

www.guardian.co.uk

Will California become America's first failed state?

California may be the eighth largest economy in the world, but its state government is issuing IOUs, unemployment is at its highest in 70 years, and teachers are on hunger strike. So what has gone so catastrophically wrong?
www.guardian.co.uk www.guardian.co.uk
 
Consider the source. Here's a sampling of Paul Harris articles just in the last few months:

Obama cannot escape the sound and fury over the colour of his skin

Fears for Barack Obama's safety as healthcare debate fuels extremism

President's approval ratings plummet as Republican campaign threatens to inflict devastating political defeat

New York City funds relocation for homeless people

War breaks out on cable as America's left savages Fox

And now he's claiming that California has "collapsed". Yawn.

We're the eighth largest economy on planet Earth. We're always the last to feel the full brunt of recessions, and always the last to recover.

Give us another year. Maybe two, but probably just one. Economic numbers have already been looking better the last two or three months.

One problem that is unique to our state is our screwed up budget system: it takes a 2/3 vote of our legislature to pass budgets, and this is what has prevented nearly all of the real fixes to our deficit from being passed.
 
I'll take a 'failed' California Governator

over a secessionist Texas Governor any day. It's all just hysteria and posing by the whack-job Republicans in the legislature who don't care how much harm they do, they want their way and they want it now.
 
California passed the budget a month or two ago, and the vouchers ended then.

One root cause of the problem is the fact that it only takes a simple majority to pass constitutional amendments by initiative. One such measure requires a 2/3 majority in the legislature to pass any budget. The result is the partisan gridlock we've been seeing for the past decade. There is a proposal to alter this amendment by requiring a 2/3 majority only for new taxes, but allowing a simple majority (or a 3/5 majority) in the legislature for the overall budget.

Another root cause is the loophole in property tax caps for commercial properties. The assessments are limited during uninterrupted ownership, but commercial property owners get around that by creating dummy holding companies, which allows them effectively to buy and sell commercial properties without triggering the re-assessment.

As a result the state budget is heavily dependent upon income and sales taxes, and with the recession that source of income has been dramatically reduced. We also have a huge prison population (can you say, decriminalize light drug use/possession?) which is quite costly to maintain. The prison guard union has become quite powerful and blocks most attempts to cut costs. Then there are the entitlements, required by law and not something that can simply be sliced out of the budget. Public employees are often overpaid in relation to their counterparts in the private sector, and the fat pensions awarded to police/firefighters etc. only consume more and more as these folks retire at a relatively early age (50's) and get at least 90% of their salaries plus extra medical coverage for the rest of their lives.

Our local school superintendent gets over $350,000 a year in salary - in a town of only about 70,000. What's up with that?
 
Walk Away...

Well, I worked for the State Government here in Georgia for the past 11 years and was let go back in May and many more have lost positions due to budget cuts.

I went back to my roots as a Southerner and started farming again. I lost 43 pounds working in the fields and have the best food on my table than I have had in years. I enjoy the Saturday farmers markets and being back in touch with the land and nature. Yea, lots of hard, hot, sweaty work at times but then again I will never have to answer to any damn politician or angry citizen caller again.

I'm happy to say I got out of the rat race and went back to farming -and I'm operating a completely organic vegetable farm.

If the State fails (and it has some serious problems) I will simply tend my farm and enjoy real living.
 
I love gardening and probably would enjoy farming (I'd like to raise chickens etc) but on only 1/3 acre near the center of town the options are somewhat limited. Back in the 30's this land was mostly orchards, and there are a few old time garden implements that came with the house (an old iron hand guided plow, and a big wood handled scythe, straw stuffed leather horse collar, etc...).

I think California will pull through this difficult time... but there must be some changes to the budget process as well as a change to the property tax rules for commercial properties. Legalizing soft drugs like marijuana could go far towards not only allowing its sale to be taxed but also eventually reduce the prison population (a huge public expense). Already we have one of the highest personal income tax rates, as well as one of the highest sales tax rates (currently 9.75% in my area!). And maybe the Federal government needs to start sending back as much funds to California as the state sends to DC. We're tired of subsidizing the "fly-over" states ;-).
 
how much actually does CA send to the feds?

I thought CA was a net recipient.

Interestingly, too, because the flyover states are pretty tired of subsidizing the coasts :D
 
> I thought CA was a net recipient.

No. For the last 30+ years, California has received $.75 for every dollar we've paid to the feds. The same is true for New York. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for nearly all "red" states.

The situation got much worse during the Reagan and Bush II administrations, with their concerted efforts to starve all states of federal money.
 
Hunter,

I grew up in Colorado and split my time between Germany and the Front Range.

Do not make the mistake of assuming the nonsense we get to hear in Colorado has any relationship to reality.

True, many coast liberals do want to take our guns away because their own reality is based on the hell they have let their inner cities become. But that is pretty much the only disagreement we need have with them - on the rest, if we really want to just be left alone, we need to stop stereotyping the 'blue' states. They are much closer to us on preserving our rights than the red states and Republicans are.

Truth is, California, not Texas gives more than they take. For that matter, Colorado and Wyoming would do well, indeed to look at just what exactly comes in from the Feds on money...we aren't nearly the rugged, independent he-men we like to think we are. If we lost our federal monies, we'd be up something other than Cripple Creek without a paddle.
 
It wouldn't be so bad if the feds paid for what they're supposed to pay for, e.g. border protection and immigration control is a federal responsibility, but the lack of proper (and in some cases any) funding from the feds have all but bankrupted our state's health care and social services.
 
Actually...

...I find that both 'red' and 'blue' mean one and only one thing: antifreedom, viscious intervention of government in most aspects of life.

The areas change SLIGHTLY but only slightly between them.

I think that we're reached the point where the nation is doomed, mostly because people seem to want a dictatorship.

Folks, don't start flaming me on this one - discussion is fine, but no flames. But I look at so much of what I see here and say 'you folks who lean left are as nuts as the right wingers just in another fashion.'

<Shrug>
 
> I think that we're reached the point where the nation is doomed, mostly because people seem to want a dictatorship. <

Results of the last two elections have disproven that theory. Bush and Cheney ran their administration as no other in U.S. history: by executive orders, signing statements, relentless claims of executive privilege and assorted other legal sidestepping. It's the clearest example of a dictatorial "government within a government" we've ever witnessed, and even though it took eight years, the American people finally woke up and realized the dangers of unaccountable Executive Branch power.
 
Uh, we've had unaccountable executive power since Wilson

We've had unaccountable executive power since Wilson. Clinton abused it pretty bad too, about as bad as Bush did.
 
JeffG, where did you find the data?

I want to look up other states.

I guess I can understand this; the middle of the country has been concentrated in agriculture and heavy manufacturing, all of which have been sacrificed by Clinton/Bush from NAFTA forward. So the wealth production there has significantly slowed down.

Nobody seems to realize until recently...you can't survive on 'financial services.'
 
IMO that's an outrageous claim. Clinton's only problem was keeping his sex drive in check. But never once did he issue signing statements or executive orders specifically to ignore our nation's laws, or sidestep congressional overrides of presidential vetoes. This is outright abuse, and the only presidents to ever engage in this behavior have been Reagan and Bushes I and II.

13 Presidential Signing Statements (Hoover 1929 - present) | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu www.presidency.ucsb.edu
 
I don't think this is outrageous.

As a quick example which I found through just about 10 seconds of google search I cite EO13083, which is unconstitutional, and EO13132. The claim is not outrageous, it is quite backupable (is that a word?)

However, I'm not going to debate this. I will certainly agree that the Bushes made bad use of Executive Orders.

But my point is that EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE EXTRA LEGISLATIVE AND WRONG.

Laws are supposed to be the legislative branch. An executive order, while not being called a law has the force of law. 'If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...'
 
This topic goes much deeper than executive orders and signing statements. It's about balance of power, and while Bush II can be written off as the pathetic last remnant of Ronald Reagan's coattails, no one but our Congress is to blame for handing Bush, in the hysteria of 9/11, every power the Executive Branch has ever wanted.
 
I absolutely agree.

I agree with your point about Congress giving the executive branch everything -- which is kind of insane to me because if 'your guy' (whoever that is) is in power, he wont' be forever. I have seen so much commentary as "Bush will be the last Republican President" and I saw a lot of stuff in the early 2000s saying "Clinton is the last Democrat president." Change of administrating party is perennial as the tides. So why would you want to give the executive branch more power?

Executive orders are not new either -- this trend has been going on for a LONG time.

"Anthem" keeps coming to mind, actually.

I don't care if it is a right boot on my neck or a left boot on my neck - I still have a boot on my neck. Lots of folks on this forum use 'Republican' as a curse. Lots of folks on other forums use 'Democrat' as a curse. Really, there's more than enough blame to spread round BOTH the parties.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top