California entitlements about to go bye bye.

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Not really surprised that it has came to this, one of the worst entitlement states in the country. I am sure a ton of their money is funneling out through paying for illegals education/health care/etc. As long as we don't bail them out I am a-okay with it though, I do find it a bit funny that they are facing record unemployment and also boycotting one of their close state partners at the same time. :)

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/14/2751461/schwarzenegger-budget-would-eliminate.html

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked lawmakers Friday to eliminate the state's welfare program starting in October and dramatically scale back in-home care for the elderly and disabled as part of his May budget revision to close a $19.1 billion deficit.

The Republican governor also proposed cuts to state worker compensation. Besides asking for a 5 percent pay cut, 5 percent payroll cap and 5 percent increased pension contribution, Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting one day per month of pay in exchange for leave credit.

The proposal would affect all state workers under the governor's authority, regardless of whether they are general fund or special fund employees. Employees would not be able to cash out any of this unused leave credit when they leave state service. The plan would replace the three-day-a-month furloughs, which are due to end June 30.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Old people are such a drain on society! They think they're entitled to their golden years! :rolleyes:
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Old people are such a drain on society! They think they're entitled to their golden years! :rolleyes:
If it bankrupts our entire system then the system probably doesn't work so hot. Of course someone has to be the heartless bastard to tell them the money has ran out. Reality is coming.
 

Macky-Mac

macrumors 68030
May 18, 2004
2,589
1,142
of course the other option would be to actually pay for these programs if we want them. That would mean paying more in taxes of course and there's the problem; people want their favored programs (including california's radical republicans) but they don't want to pay for them.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
of course the other option would be to actually pay for these programs if we want them.
Exactly! I want to pay for state parks. I want to pay for welfare. I want to pay for old folks home care.

TAX ME!

Since Proposition 13 the guiding political principal in California has been cut taxes and cut government. Thirty years later we have a government that doesn't work, services cut to the bone and bigger deficits than ever!

Anybody see a problem here?

TAX ME DAMMIT!
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Exactly! I want to pay for state parks. I want to pay for welfare. I want to pay for old folks home care.

TAX ME!

Since Proposition 13 the guiding political principal in California has been cut taxes and cut government. Thirty years later we have a government that doesn't work, services cut to the bone and bigger deficits than ever!

Anybody see a problem here?

TAX ME DAMMIT!
Send your money into the government.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,366
119
Los Angeles
Schwarzenegger also proposed eliminating state-subsidized child care for all but preschoolers as a way to reduce the state's education funding guarantee.
.
.
.
The elimination of CalWORKS would make California the only state in the nation without a welfare-to-work program, which is funded in large part by federal dollars, said Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors Association.
.
.
.
By giving up CalWORKS, California would forfeit $3.7 billion in federal block grant funds annually that help fund the program, the Children's Defense Fund said. More than two-thirds of the 1.4 million people enrolled in the CalWORKS program are children.
And this is what happens when you let the inmates run the asylum. As much as I like the idea behind CA's Prop system it ultimately comes up short, IMO, because people are stupid and easy to manipulate (generally speaking).


Lethal
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
As much as I like the idea behind CA's Prop system it ultimately comes up short, IMO, because people are stupid and easy to manipulate (generally speaking).
I don't think it's because people are stupid. They're being asked to make decisions that require more knowledge and foresight than is reasonable to expect.

For decades we've been voting for bond measures that cost millions or billions of dollars and the average joe is expected to know whether the state can afford them and the long term costs and benefits.

The best use of propositions is to address broad political decisions like gay marriage, off-shore drilling or legalizing marijuana. But when you start to mess with the states budget, that process can lead to a heap o'trouble.
 

pooky

macrumors 6502
Jun 2, 2003
356
1
of course the other option would be to actually pay for these programs if we want them. That would mean paying more in taxes of course and there's the problem; people want their favored programs (including california's radical republicans) but they don't want to pay for them.
Which would be great, except California already has the highest (I think) tax burden of any state. You pay a huge premium for living there. It would be worth it if the money were used efficiently, but instead the idiots in charge just piss it away.
 

CalBoy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2007
7,829
36
As long as we don't bail them out I am a-okay with it though,
Funny you should mention that, because in actuality, California is losing money by being a state. For the last 25 years or so, the state has consistently given more to the Federal government via taxes than it has received in Federal spending. Even for the few years in the 1980s when California wasn't losing money to Washington, the ratio was at most 1.10/1. In comparison, the state has been getting only 80 cents or less per dollar paid in Federal taxes for many years. By crunching some fairly conservative numbers, one can see that California pays over $24 billion to the Federal government that it will never get back. That amount alone can wipe out the entire deficit and leave us more than enough to establish a rainy day fund, refund education, and repair some long forsaken infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Kansas has been consistently getting at least 10% more from Washington than it pays in taxes for two decades.

It's just the irony that gets to me sometimes, that's all.

I do find it a bit funny that they are facing record unemployment and also boycotting one of their close state partners at the same time. :)
Well that law is absurd on its face. To think that a state has the power to suspend the 4th Amendment is incredulous. Arizona is probably far more likely to need California than vice versa.


In general, California's budget woes are a mixture of an absurd 2/3 majority requirement for budgets, a business loophole in Prop 13 that lets them get away with paying very little in property taxes, and a long series of constitutional amendments that have both barred the use of certain taxation methods (or capped them at unsustainable levels) and made spending commitments without a realistic idea of how to pay for them. So, if there is anything to blame here, it's direct democracy.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Funny you should mention that, because in actuality, California is losing money by being a state. For the last 25 years or so, the state has consistently given more to the Federal government via taxes than it has received in Federal spending. Even for the few years in the 1980s when California wasn't losing money to Washington, the ratio was at most 1.10/1. In comparison, the state has been getting only 80 cents or less per dollar paid in Federal taxes for many years. By crunching some fairly conservative numbers, one can see that California pays over $24 billion to the Federal government that it will never get back. That amount alone can wipe out the entire deficit and leave us more than enough to establish a rainy day fund, refund education, and repair some long forsaken infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Kansas has been consistently getting at least 10% more from Washington than it pays in taxes for two decades.

It's just the irony that gets to me sometimes, that's all.



Well that law is absurd on its face. To think that a state has the power to suspend the 4th Amendment is incredulous. Arizona is probably far more likely to need California than vice versa.
Next time you eat anything with wheat or corn in it let me know.
 

CalBoy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2007
7,829
36
so the rest of the country is subsidizing Kansas? :eek:
Kansas and many other states, including Alaska, Kentucky, and New Mexico to name a few. The top two states are typically Virginia and Maryland, but this has more to do with the location of Federal agencies and offices than it does uneven distributions.

Many other states though, have a very nice deal right now. California alone probably funds about 15-20% of the largess these states enjoy.
 

CalBoy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2007
7,829
36
Next time you eat anything with wheat or corn in it let me know.
California actually grows a respectable amount of its own wheat (enough for about 75-80% of our consumption), and we also grow a very healthy amount of corn.

California is also the largest source of agricultural products in the nation. We grow virtually everything here, and our exports stretch across the globe. If you can think of a fruit or vegetable, there is a very high chance that California exports it.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
California actually grows a respectable amount of its own wheat (enough for about 75-80% of our consumption), and we also grow a very healthy amount of corn.
And im sure its subsidized, we grow more than we use and the rest of the country is better off for it.

California is also the largest source of agricultural products in the nation. We grow virtually everything here, and our exports stretch across the globe. If you can think of a fruit or vegetable, there is a very high chance that California exports it.
Maybe you should sell some more of that to get out of debt.
 

CalBoy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2007
7,829
36
And im sure its subsidized, we grow more than we use and the rest of the country is better off for it.
You don't understand how subsidies work, do you?

Subsidies are paid out primarily to prevent farmers from growing excess crop. In essence, we're paying Kansas farmers to sit on their land and do nothing so that wheat and corn prices won't plummet. If we didn't pay Kansas farmers anything to sit on their land, they'd grow more wheat, prices would drop, and we'd all have more money in our pockets because we wouldn't be paying for the privilege of overpriced wheat.

Don't get me wrong-subsidies are still relevant because the threat of a collapsed agriculture market is very real, but arguing that the state is doing great work by taking these subsidies is absurd.

Maybe you should sell some more of that to get out of debt.
Because the state owns the crops...:confused::confused::confused:

I'd prefer it if we could stop paying a 20% premium for Federal services.