Killiana1a said:
Kasz216 said:
Killiana1a said:
Kasz216 said:
Killiana1a said:
I am a resident of California, the world's 8th largest economy.Formerly a resident of Oregon and their fine higher education system, but California born and raised.
Source: http://econpost.com/californiaeconomy/california-economy-ranking-among-world-economies
I am not going to address this nonsense of California going the way of Greece. We have enough right leaning California haters writing for the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and the Weekly Standard. They gladly prop up welfare states like Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi because they are solid Republican states, but forget that Democratic states such as California and New York are subsidizing those God fearing, welfare Republican states via Federal tax dollars.
Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
Source: http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/red-state-blue-state-welfare-state-subsidizing-state/
Regarding state bankruptcy, it is a political canard aimed to defund and disempower the 1st Amendment rights of citizens in each state to "peaceably assemble" in unions. Republicans and tea baggers want this state bankruptcy legislation to pass so that states would have to dissolve public employee unions in order to cut budgets, cut consitutionally (state) protected public employee pensions, and allow Republican interest groups to fill the power vacuum leftover from the dissolved. overwhelmingly Democratic public employee unions.
The problem is, Obama has the "shut the eff up" card AKA the presidential veto. In order to override a presidential veto, there needs to be a two-thirds vote of both chambers of the US Congress meaning Republicans need 292 House members (They currently have 242 vs. 193 Dem) and 67 of the 100 US Senators to vote yes in overturning a presidential veto.
In the end, this is shameless political theatre just like the repeal of Obama's healthcare bill. They know Obama has the "shut the eff up" card, they don't have any meaningful influence with enough Democrats to overturn a veto, and they hope they can drag it out on Fox News well until the 2012 election. Well baby, it ain't going to happen, plenty of news between now and then.
Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con001.pdf
|
None of what you've said actually in anwyay defended your thesis that California won't go bankrupt.... and your "Bankruptcy is to stop the first ammendment" arguement just sounds insanely paranoid.
If you'll notice, your state is inacting very large deficit reducing factors... that don't even scrape the surface...
and it's being done by Democrats.
Democrats are stopping all funding to the public libraries and your really blind enough to say your state doesn't have a problem?
|
I am fine with California declaring state bankruptcy so long as in doing so it does not violate 1st Amendment rights to "peaceably assemble" in unions and it does not violate California State Consitution protections for public employee pensions.
You might be thinking, does this guy who works in mental health work in public mental health? No, the organization for which I work for is a 1000 employee private sector, for profit mental health company.
As for Democrats cutting funding, it is regrettable but understandable. Governor Brown's budget called for across the board budget cuts and the elimination of state redevelopment agencies.
Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/09/3310523/anatomy-of-browns-budget-plan.html
I am more in favor of cutting the budgets of California Highway Patrol and state prisons.
California state prison guards have an average salary of $57,000 (not to mention the cadillac benefits).
Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060228/news_1n28guards.html
California Highway Patrol starting salary is $51,288/year (not including cadillac benefits).
http://www.chp.ca.gov/recruiting/osalary.html
I could understand these starting salaries if state prison guards and CHP required a 4 year degree, but they don't. Hell, if you are a friend or a friend of a friend, you don't even need an Associate's to get a job as a state prison guard or with CHP.
If we are talking about cutting state government spending, then everything needs to be on the table. Including "public safety" whom Republicans and conservatives hail as essential and should never be cut. Last time I checked, state prison guards, police, and sheriff were not private sector, for-profit organizations bringing in their own revenue via the sale of goods and/or services.
If the majority of your salary is paid for by tax dollars and/or government grants, then you are just as much a bureaucrat as the pencil pushers in the state capital regardless whether your bureaucratic duties require a gun and a badge.
|
I don't get where you think bankruptcy would violate freedom to assemble... that's just goofy.
As for the State Pensions... they likely WILL end up having to or be cut. They're such a huge liability that you'll either have to get rid of them or morgage your future to pay for everyones retirement. Which is basically already what's happening. Getting rid of Library funding is just a travesty. It's where people can learn for free and also where the poor go to get computer access for employment. Relying on just private donations is a very risky gamble.
My point is though, even Democrats are inacting plans that force big cuts into historically democratic big government social welfare plans. It'd be like if you saw a Republican raise taxes. You'd know shit was really serious with the debt.
As for Prisons. You could always privatise them. Of course then you could end up with some pretty messed up situations since the state will only care about the lowest bid.
As for 60K being high for prison guards though... have you ever seen what prison guards do/go through? It's pretty brutal. I can scarecely think of 10 jobs i'd less like to do.
If anything you'd be better off passing a legalization of Marijuana and then just laying off guards.
The problem with guards getting overtime is the alternative is to hire more workers, who you have to pay pensions to.
|
I don't like public employee pensions anymore than you do. As different as we are politically, both of us know public employee pensions and entitlements (Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid) will be the most vociferous and divisive public policy battle of the next couple decades.
Those who are retired or near retirement are convenient socialists regardless of their political ideology. Most individuals live retired longer than they worked and put into Social Security, Medicare and Social Security benefits paid out now are paid by those of us working, and Medicaid has always been the red-headed stepchild of the three. I tend to go easier on Medicaid as I have more sympathy for the indigent and disabled than I do a bunch of entitled seniors.
If any is going to go the way of the dodo, I would comfortably place my bet on Medicare going belly up first. Social Security is an easy fix. The highest rate one puts in is set at a salary of $106,000 meaning those earning $107,000/year, $200,000/year on up to multi billion dollar status are paying the same rate into Social Security as someone pulling down $106,000/year. They need to up this to include progressive tax rates on up past $100 million for your Will Smiths and Bill Gates of the world. Add in a noblesse oblige tax for the billionaires and it is solvent for hundreds of years to come.
Medicaid since it's conception has always had to make do with little. In most states, the State pays 50% and the Feds match the other 50%. Medicaid because of the intent behind it, is the noblest of laws providing basic healthcare to our society's most vulnerable citizens. Any politician who advocates axing Medicaid better be from Texas or some other heartless state with a whiff of Social Darwinism in the state culture.
However, I do know that public employee pensions are protected by the California State Constitution and any move to try and divert funds from them to fill budget holes will result in a series of court cases ultimately in the lap of the US Supreme Court. California ain't unique in this case.
Under the California Constitution, to raise taxes, 2/3s of the California Assembly and Senate need to vote in favor. From what I have been reading out of Sacramento, Republicans are deadset against this. If Brown's tax raising proposals don't make it to the ballot, then K-12 and Higher Education funding will get cut drastically.
Politics as usual.
|
