Alas, he’s really bolstering Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown’s chances of being elected as Governor.

Damnit. California is so humongously screwed and I have to stay for a minimum of another 10 years. Maybe 7 if I can swing it with some good fortune :/

Most counties use property tax as their source of revenue. In California it is a little less direct. Proposition 13 limited counties to a 2% increase per year in property tax assessments. This was designed to prevent taxing fixed and modest income people out of their homes when housing prices skyrocketed. That part is fine. The problem came in with how Prop 13 changed the distribution of the tax.

Under Prop 13 the counties turn all the property tax to the state. The state then divides it up, takes a cut for itself, and divides the rest up among the counties. This was popular initially because it allowed poor rural counties to reap part of the benefit of the rapid housing value increases in the cities.

BUT, and this is the fly in the ointment, while the counties were limited to 2% per year increases, there was NO limit on how much the state could increase their take before distributing it out to the counties. The amount the state takes for the general fund has been increasing at more than 2% per year. Now we are faced with a major crash in housing values and declining assessments which translate to declining revenue while the state is taking more and more for the general fund. The result is that the county revenue streams are declining at an even faster rate than the decline in property values due to irresponsible spending practices in Sacramento.

Many counties now do not have enough revenue to operate even though they take enough in through property taxes if they were allowed to keep the amount they collect.

Proposition 13 is probably going to be a casualty of this economic downturn because of the state’s inability to control its take of the money.

California’s state government is simply going to have to shrink. There is no other alternative. We are going to have to stop this notion that our communities are required to provide health insurance to the children of illegal immigrants who are in our schools, for example.

And why can’t care of elderly and disabled be performed with volunteers from civic organizations and funded through donations rather than funded by government to provide jobs to union employees?

Government destroys community. It wrecks the notion that we take care of each other all the while pretending to be the opposite. Money corrupts.

Do I expect them to give it up swiftly and with great finality should they try to suspend or otherwise monkeywrench the election process? What do you think?

Our state already ignores the election process. We’ve passed propositions barring illegal immigrants from accessing government benefits. Struck down by the courts. We’ve passed propositions outlawing gay marriage. Struck down by the courts.

When the tax hike propositions fail next week, the state legislature will simply go back to work trying to sneak them in by stealth. Fees will go up and people will start wondering why their company relocated out of state or laid them off, but the state withholding on the average resident will appear to go up by a pittance.

As goes California, so goes the country. While Sacramento sees the election process as an obstacle to feed their union masters, Washington sees the Constitution as an obstacle to impose their soft tyranny on the country.

Time can (and has, and will) be wasted in fixing blame but the fact remains that CA is the most important state in the Union and cannot go bankrupt.

It can and it will go bankrupt. There is only one way to ensure fiscal responsibility, and it’s by force. The state government is overrun with tenured, protected, overpaid union workers who receive pay and benefits that a free-market society could never sustain.

State employees receive above-market wages, top-of-the-line benefits, guaranteed pension starting at below-retirement ages that pay near 100% of working wages, and are also allowed to suckle from the government teat of Medicare and Social Security. They are protected by unions that will fight tooth and nail to get more people in their ranks, so that the union dues keep flowing.

The unions are paid up with the right people and are well-motivated to kill, maim, and steal to retain their status as protected public “servants”. The only way to break the unions is through a total inability of the state to foot the bill. That means state bankruptcy. And the more they raise taxes on a shrinking, increasingly unemployed tax base the sooner that moment will come.

The state couldn’t come to terms with this on their own, so their next step is to force a bogus special election in an attempt to get the voters to approve massive tax increases on themselves. When that goes down in flames, they’ll try to sneak through the tax increases through fee hikes and even more burdens on the business sector. Of course this will serve to drive revenues down even further as businesses flee the state, pass along costs to the consumers or just start cutting jobs, putting even more pressure on the entitlement programs. This is all going to come to a head very soon.

Liberals think taxing companies is the way to go. They are correct: the companies go away from here. I know. Mine is going to relocate to Michigan.

BoSox_or_Bust on May 14, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Straight from the frying pan to the fire, huh? Good luck, BoSox – you’re going to need it. I fled MI about two and a half years ago now, and haven’t regretted it – I get my Wings on the satellite either way.

The simplistic rhetoric that says “Cut spending!” is missing the obvious- that most spending is uncontrollable both at the Federal and the State level.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on May 14, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Governments are not a force of nature. Governments are instruments of mankind, and their nature is explained quite clearly in the Declaration of Independence. If we cut the scope of their powers back to an appropriate level – by witholding our consent that they have a right to that level of power, separate from and above the citizens they claim to represent – then cuts in spending naturally follow. Do I expect them to give that up easily? Hardly. Do I expect them to give it up if they’re voted out? Definitely. Do I expect them to give it up swiftly and with great finality should they try to suspend or otherwise monkeywrench the election process? What do you think?

One major source of the shortfall is unfunded mandates coming down from Washington like Medicaire and roads. Police cost a lot, too. With more than 15% of Californians out of work the payroll taxes have dried up. Where exactly is the money going to come from to pay for the essential services which must be funded at all times?

The simplistic rhetoric that says “Cut spending!” is missing the obvious- that most spending is uncontrollable both at the Federal and the State level.

More representatives, a minimum of 10 times as many, and make them live and work in their districts. (House and Senate salaries would be a bare minimum to cover additional expenses).

I would also increase the age of elegibility. It’s a crime that someone can go from grad school straight to the House.

45years for the house.
55 for the senate.
65 for President.

Then throw in strict term limits.

Interesting, but the age limits would require a constitutional amendment because they are already spelled out in the said document. There is a strong argument for increasing the number of representatives, especially considering that the average congress critter is carrying water for almost 500,000 citizens. When this nation was formed it was more like 5,000. And I like the telemeeting idea, but I also stand on the tradition of them all coming together for a face to face in DC. Ever tried doing real business through a crappy webcam?
As for the senators, not only would I not increase their number, but if you’re going to an amendment to change the ages, also repeal the 17th amendment. The constitution as it stands worked quite well;

Article I, section 3, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

It was that way for a damn good reason, and was the beginning of the end of the ’several states’ when it fell as a direct result of the war or northern agression (thanks again Lincoln). Now states are immasculated, helpless, serfs to the federal government. We’re seeing signs of life from Montana, finally fighting the Interstate Commerce clause BS for gun rights. Repeal the 17th amendment, and get some real work done.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Isn’t USC a state government run school like most of CA schools?

USC is a “private” school, although they pretty much all take government money anyway.

Leave it to the Democrats to wait until there’s a crash in the real estate market before selling off property.

In California, we could raise about $15 billion just buy submitting an invoice to the Feds for remittance.

juanito on May 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Juanito, the Feds are certainly complicit, but California opened their arms to illegals to mow yards, pick fruit and make beds. You made your bed, you sleep in it.

We in Florida are equally responsible. Strange that I don’t hear any blowhards in either state talking about comprehensive immigration reform anymore. It must be because it’s not an election year.

Now the esteemed Repub leadership is championing Crist in Florida–Arnie without the muscles.

Prediction. Obama will bail out California and nothing will change. Also as someone who has lived here 30 years and easily predicted this sad state of affairs I can tell you the polling numbers about California residents are bogus. Once Obama bails out the state they will happily go back to wanting everything for free.

Most people think there is a North/South divide in the state. There is not. The true divide is coastal vs mountain. The fiscally responsible folks live in the foothills and mountains. The problem–there are not enough people there to have an impact.

You can’t skip education because the states are under federal orders to offer it. However, is we attracted less illegal immigrants, the cost of educating them would go down — same with health and housing. We may have to pay for most of health care, but there is no way we should fund subsidized housing for illegal immigrants. Incarceration we should definitely fund.

The key take-home point from the video is that unionization of government employees should be outright banned. Soldiers have no unions, and they put their very lives on the line for the country (which is a large part of why they are so highly respected, and it is well deserved). There are no worse work-rules than the obligation to obey any reasonable order given, regardless of risk to life or limb. So the only thing that a union does for gov’t workers, is to demand more money for less work. I say, ENOUGH! – you are NOT entitled to a “middle-class lifestyle” if you’re sucking off the public teat. You are a public servant. YOU work for US – and you’ve clearly forgotten that! If you want the wealth and comfort of a true “middle-class lifestyle,” go out and make your fortune in the private sector. Work for a living like the rest of us (who pay your salaries) do. It’s not that hard when gov’t is restricted to its proper, limited role. In the private sector, you can even (properly) unionize, if you so desire.

I look forward to an officeholder, Governor or POTUS, who comes right out and tells the unions off, who closes whole Departments, fires everyone from Cabinet appointee to the janitors, puts the office equipment up for auction, and dares the union to do something about it – what’ll they do, go on strike? Hah! A government worker on strike gets a pink-slip immediately, because their job is clearly expendable.