With about one in seven California state workers earning more than $100,000 last year in base pay, overtime and bonuses, lawmakers still reject state worker pay cuts.

papertiger on June 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM

My wife works for the State of California and like all the other state workers had a ten percent pay reduction (2 unpaid furlough days per month) which looks like it’s going to continue indefinitely. I know that’s not exactly the same as a pay cut, but in reality it’s the same because your work still has to be done and you have to do it in two less days per month. Viewed from state management it’s pretty close to being a pay cut.

Coming from the “outside”, one of the large problems here seems obvious to me. There is too much legal and illegal immigration into this state from Mexico. It has managed to overload all social and emergency services as well as the California schooling system.

It’s not that these people are all bad people (though many are, maybe through necessity. I don’t know). The problem is that most of them come here in abject poverty and immediatly start taking advantage of a system that was originally designed to help just a small percent of the population who were in need. So California has always been faced with a choice. Either cut off the sevices across the board which would include those American citizens for whom the services were originally designed, or cut off the services for illegal aliens and face the onslaught of political heat and righteous squabbling that would ensue.

The California government has always chosen to ignore the problem and hold firm to deficit spending. Now, with the down turn in the economy, all the chickens have come home to roost and the taxpayers are saying “Don’t come to us…been there, done that”.

It’s going to be fun to see what moves, the rock or the hard spot because obviously somethin’s gotta give.

tommylotto

Neither deserves a bailout. They deserve hard-nosed leadership that could stand up to the demands of special interests (unions) without the interference of a federal government making such leadership impossible. GM may be a lost cause, but California isn’t going anywhere for the next few million years, so it is still salvageable. The citizens of the state own this responsibility. Will they rise to the challenge?

California gets no bailout love from White House

BAAHAHAHAHA…KEEP VOTING DEMOCRAT YOU CALI FOOLS!

What were we talking about again? I hope it wasn’t something about how stupid Californians are for voting down all those “emergency” tax hikes the Governor proposed on the last ballot.

Frankly, I don’t know how Pete Wilson managed to be elected two terms but I guess there’s always hope for another take-charge Republican who can turn this mess around.

Also, just for the record, I live in Los Angeles.

My guess is that all of them are sprinting to low- or no-income-tax states: Nevada, Texas, Florida and the like.

BuckeyeSam on June 16, 2009 at 1:49 PM

The problem with that is that they are all the retarded liberals who screwed the place up to begin with. NOW that California is a joke they are going to come here to Texas or other places and SCREW IT UP just as badly as the place they’re running from.

It’s what liberals ALWAYS do! Once they have ruined a states economy with their dumb ideas they leave and spread the disease to other states.

babydoll4you on June 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM

I disagree with that somewhat. Most of the liberals are staying here. The people who own businesses and create jobs are sick of the liberal cesspool that has become California and are leaving in droves.

California is becoming more business-unfriendly by the day.

Most reports I’ve read indicate that CA officials aren’t exactly chomping at the bit to turn illegals back at the border, or to defund care for noncitizens.

cs89 on June 16, 2009 at 6:32 PM

That’s true. It’s a strange set-up with farmers “needing” the help because citizens would rather watch tv and collect welfare, and politicians (Democrats) wanting everyone on welfare and hoping they can co-opt the illegals into voters after “comprehensive” reform.

That’s why it’s great to hear the Governator float the possibility of cutting all welfare- farmers would have legal workers, illegals would go home and stop collecting food stamps, Medicare, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.

I understand. Just responding to tommylotto, who keeps bringing up reasons about how “unfair” the system is to CA. On the immigration issue and costs, it is a federal responsibility but there are things state and local govt. can do to minimize the problems. Most reports I’ve read indicate that CA officials aren’t exactly chomping at the bit to turn illegals back at the border, or to defund care for noncitizens.

My guess is that all of them are sprinting to low- or no-income-tax states: Nevada, Texas, Florida and the like.

BuckeyeSam on June 16, 2009 at 1:49 PM

The problem with that is that they are all the retarded liberals who screwed the place up to begin with. NOW that California is a joke they are going to come here to Texas or other places and SCREW IT UP just as badly as the place they’re running from.

It’s what liberals ALWAYS do! Once they have ruined a states economy with their dumb ideas they leave and spread the disease to other states.

Is there anything preventing CA from discouraging rather than encouraging illegal immigration on its own (other than its liberal voters, politicians)?

cs89 on June 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM

We passed Prop 187, which would have done that, but one of the judges decided our vote wasn’t politically correct and tossed it. That’s why we had to actually change the CA constitution to stop gay marriage- it’s likely that’s what we’d have to do to change our immigration policy.

The question is why they’re content to keep sending the tax farmers back to where they can continue to reap.

Regards,
Ric

Just because its in the Constitution does not mean its fair. I doubt the founding fathers envisioned any of the colonies developing into a single state with a population of 36,000,000, nor would they have envisioned a 72:1 population differential between a small state and a big state. Not to mention as was pointed out by another commenter that the Constitution was amended to elect Senators by popular vote, not state legislatures. The ultimate result is that residence of states with small populations get greater representation in Congress — and that’s not fair. The numbers do not lie. CA has only 2 Senators for 36,000,000 people. Consequently, CA pays $8,028 per capital to the US government and only gets $6,709 in return (that .78 of every dollar taken). Alaska with 2 Senators for only 686,000 residents pays $5,434 per capita to the US government and gets $13,950 back (thats $1.84 of every dollar taken). Montana with 2 Senators for 900,000 pays $5,605 and gets back $8,378 ($1.47). Delaware has been an exception, being a small state with lots of representation in the Senate but still being a donor state, but I guess that is because until recently, they had a retard as a Senator.

tommylotto on June 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Actually, if you read a little history, the Founding Fathers DID anticipate this fight. It was called the “Great Compromise”. It allowed 2 U.S. Senators to each state regardless of state size or population, but it assigned the number of representatives in the House of Representatives, based on a states population. (Actually districts within a state) So you see you have no less representation than you’re supposed to have. As far as the ratio of money back to your state, that’s more a problem of YOUR representation.

Now ‘splain to me why it is you guys keep returning people like Pelosi to Congress — people who will actively support, e.g., John Murtha in his search for pork, and never saw a Federal outlay they didn’t like?

Yeah, California is a tax farm, no doubt about it. Your Representatives apparently consider that a wonderful thing, because it gives them plenty of cash to throw around and buy votes for the rest of their club.

You might consider sending a few of the free-spending Progressives home before committing to an all-out assault on the Constitutional method of allocating Senators.

Regards,
Ric