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

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

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.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
 
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.
 
Very interesting topic

Thanks for a most interesting topic guys, could I ask, as a person from another country who is not too sure how your system works intricately, I believe in the case of a President acting illegally for example he or she can be removed by the Congress by impeachment I think it is called, but if there were a protracted dispute between the President and Congress, does the President have the power to sack the congress and force it back to the polls?
I agree with the comments about the growing power of the executive, and the same thing is happening here in Australia as well, we have this iron clad party discipline which requires M.P.'S to always support their party on the floor of Parliament, and virtually every vote is won by the government of the day, wether Liberal/National or Labor as the government will always use it's numbers to win any vote or debate.
There is also 2 motions which need removing from the Parliament in my view and that is the gag and the guillotine, the gag is frequently used by governments when they want debate stopped,especially if the motion is embarrassing to the government, the guillotine is used when the government of the day rams it's agenda or legislation through under the weight of numbers.
The other problem is I believe that the Governor-General and State Governor in the case of a state parliament simply sign whatever is put in front of them, under the guise of "following the advice of ministers".
Where our system has fallen down I believe is that during a parliamentary term,there is virtually no way to get rid of a hopelessly perfoming government other than a vote of no-confidence passed by the lower house of the respective parliament, guaranteed to fail based on the above mentioned party discipline and use of numbers.
There are provisions for the Governor-General federally and the State Governors in a state sense to actually sack a government and force another election, but these situations are quite rare an d would likely be the result of blocked budget bills or in an extreme case, a government knowingly and continually acting illegally.
I dare say that democracy requires a diligent and aware public,which sadly in most cases is not the case.
 
The Executive Branch (our president) does not have constitutional authority to sack anyone in our other two (Legislative and Judicial) branches, or to force any elections. Short of a formal declaration of martial law, there is no provision for the president to bypass any constitutional power of Congress.

Also, impeachment by itself is not removal from office, it's just the first stage of the removal process. A charge or set of charges is made by the U.S. House of Representatives against a president, who is then tried in the U.S. Senate. The most recent example is Bill Clinton, who was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate, so he was allowed to complete his term in office. Prior to that, the House filed articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, but he resigned his office rather than face certain conviction in the Senate.
 
The main problem

The main problem here in California, and in the United States is that there are too few people actually paying in to the system and too many taking out. In California we have 10% of the US population but 25% of the welfare cases.

Nationwide we have a huge proportion of people getting Social Security, SSI, government penstions, and military pensions. We also have people on Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Hospital system. There are too few people paying in and fewer in the future. It was easy to set up all of these systems and promise certain benefits, few actually calculated what would happen in the future, and if they did it was ignored.

We really need to sit down as a nation and decide how much everyone will get, how much they will pay in. Many want to pay nothing in and that includes the rich and those on welfare. Many others want to take out, including those on Social Security and Medicare, without realizing that what they paid in went to someone else, it is gone. They are being supported by those still paying in, they should be nicer and more greatfull to the younger generations.

Probably we will need higher taxes and lower expectations, we will be working beyond 67 years old undoubtedly. We need to look at the rest of the developed world to see what works and what doesn't work. Very likely we will have a national value added tax for health care instead of the way we are paying for it (or not). I though perhaps a BTU tax would be one way to go. With the VAT tax the large consumers would pay more, but everyone would pay in some.

Like I said we need to decide what we expect, do we want libraries, parks, public schools, public transportation, higher education, health care? I would like to see a computer simulation of this, how each factor raises taxes. The LA Times had one for California to see if you could balance the budget. The only way you could do it is to eliminate every program that is possible to eliminate, or raise taxes.

We also need to talk about how many people we want to keep in prison. As long as drug users are kept in there is a cost associated with it.

Martin
 
Martin, if you're claiming Social Security is now running in the red, or has ever run in the red, that's entirely incorrect. Today and since its inception, far more people pay into the SS system than take out of it, and while we keep hearing dire predictions about 2017 or 2047 or whatever year in the future, the program is SOLVENT, and it always has been. To the point where billions of dollars of surplus in the SS Trust Fund is routinely raided.

It is true that SS will face a temporary shortfall at some point, where that point is depends on which numbers you choose to believe, but the bottom line is that just a 4.9% increase in SS taxes would guarantee the program's solvency basically forever, or at least until the current generation of baby boomers pass on.
 
Socail Security...

as of Sept 28th this year, officially pays out more than it takes in. It's claimed it may not be long term and will possibly be profitable again in 2012, but there are many baby boomers taking early retirement due to the severe cut backs in pay, specifically government/state/county employees. There's a whole lot of baby boomers out there to support in the very near future! Realistically, I don't see social security generating surplus anytime in the near future.......unless National Health Care passes and the government starts killing off grandma and grampa over minor health issues.

http://www.kansas.com/news/story/989321.html
 
> as of Sept 28th this year, officially pays out more than it takes in <

Where are you getting that claim?
 
Where are you getting that claim?

Yahoo's featured articles. I checked the archives and it only goes back to Oct 5th. Too old to extract.
 
Actually Social Security went into the red several times in the past 30 years. Each time a hike in the rates and cut-off limit restored it to health. Don't know what is next in that vein.

But as for National Health care sending the elderly to early graves - that's a bunch of BS based on right wing scare tactics. If anything they will live longer, because they'll be getting better health care when younger as well.

One need only look at the statistics: nations with so called "socialized medicine" generally have longer lifespans and healthier populations for 1/2 or less the cost of what we pay per capita. Our health care system is seriously messed up when it comes to keeping the entire population as healthy as possible. And Obama isn't even proposing socialized medicine - at most he's trying to make sure that every has adequate health insurance so that they can get preventative care, emergency care, acute care, and chronic care when they need it without having to go bankrupt.
 
Isn't 'health insurnace' the problem?

If our healthcare system is unsustainable, it's because costs are completely out of control.

Since throughout my life I have heard people say 'I don't care what it costs I have insurance.' Well certainly I don't care if I need something to save my life, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

But 'health insurance' without taking a look at how the health system is structured, that matters.

Wouldn't giving everyone 'health insurance' simply make the insurors rich and not provide better care? If not, why not?
 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top