California: The Haves and Have-Nots 53 comments
July 01, 2009
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
| People who get California IOUs | People California pays in cash |
| Grants to aged, blind or disabled persons | University of California |
| People needing temporary assistance for basic family needs | Public Employees’ Retirement System |
| People in drug prevention, treatment, and recovery services | Legislators, legislative employees, and appointees |
| Persons with developmental disablities | Judges |
| People in mental health treatment | Department of Corrections |
| Small Business Vendors | Health Care Services payments to Institutional Providers |
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 53 comments:
1) The pols want to be able to go to the voters who rejected tax increases and say "See, we told you that you were screwing the poor, the blind and the sick." The fact that it was the pols who decided who gets cash and who doesn't is an inconvenient truth that won't have a book written on it.
2) The folks on the right side of the list are important; the folks on the left.... ain't. That's not my perspective, that's what the list says to me. But I'm sure that it was really important that the legislature gets paid in real money. After all, if they didn't they might get mad and do a lousy job.... er, a lousier job than they've been doing. If that were possible.
Fueled-
this is an example of an "iron lung budget". Typically, Legislators warn / threaten / cajole that if they don't get their money, the first thing that will happen is the plugs get pulled on all the iron lungs. Next comes public safety, then K-12 education...
As you point out, the actual triage list looks a lot different, and of course there's no attempt at partial payments/IOUs.
Only difference is small business vendors who are used to waiting 90+ days for receivables anyway.
Bank of America said Wednesday that it will accept IOUs from the State of California from its existing customers through July 10.
www.bizjournals.com/sa...
Assuming 75% of these students were the offspring of illegal aliens or were illegal aliens themselves, the cost of educating them (using $8,000 per pupil per year) is $10.2 billion.
Therefore, the cost of educating illegal aliens' kids ALONE is about 1/2 the budget deficit -- or perhaps even over 1/2 if you presume that a greater percentage of kids that can't speak English are the offspring of illegal aliens.
True, the illegal aliens might pay something in state taxes, but I suspect it is negligible. Most extra income is repatriated to Mexico rather than spent on consumer goods where it can be subject to sales tax. And most illegal aliens do not earn enough to pay any significant taxes if any taxes at all.
www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/...
IMHO, the Fed not assisting to the California's cry for help is a crying shame.
The time has come for the state of California to take a deep look at the unsustainable promises it made itself and turn it off. I for one, hope my own state gets no assistance from the Feds becuase it merely defers necessary changes that need to be made. There is a difference between treating the symptoms of a disease and curing it.
You have two choices,
1) Make the sacrafices like any broken family unit or business living above it's means would.
2) Try and beg the tax paying citizens of the other 49 states to bail out your failed ways. In all reality, you won't have to beg a single one of those people, you could just lobby to the government to make it a faceless transaction.
You wanted big government, you got it. Most of the other 49 states didn't and we don't want to pay for your mess!
2. Enlarge the number of crimes that are eligible for the death penalty
3. Remove EVERY illiegal immigrant
4. Increase the estate tax to 100% of every dollar over 2 million with 75% going to Fed and 25% to State Gov
I remember attending a lecture in Geneva, following which some off-the-wall questions were asked by gentlemen from the university in that great city. Later that night I asked a friend if there wasn't something a little strange about his colleagues. There's nothing strange about them he said, "they're just criminals"'.
I don't accept a judgement of this nature any longer. Extending the table above, they were rapidly developing intellectual disabilities, like many academics in California.
This also illustrates how brutal government is toward the weak, the disadvantaged and how it coddles the haves.
So why did California deliberately import the disadvantaged racially discriminated against Indian blooded Mexicans if it was going to turn around and act like Mexico itself?
Do they really care about the poor, disadvantaged, needy or do they just want their votes to stay in power?
boombustblog.com/Reggi...
Failure to properly budget on California's part does not constitute an emergency on the part of the rest of the USA.
On Jul 02 08:46 AM $ John Galt wrote:
> The California system is broke.
>
> You have two choices,
> 1) Make the sacrafices like any broken family unit or business living
> above it's means would.
> 2) Try and beg the tax paying citizens of the other 49 states to
> bail out your failed ways. In all reality, you won't have to beg
> a single one of those people, you could just lobby to the government
> to make it a faceless transaction.
>
> You wanted big government, you got it. Most of the other 49 states
> didn't and we don't want to pay for your mess!
No, hear me out.
In a drunk's home, the opiate of choice always comes first.
Alcohol before medication, food for the kids, clothes for the kids, the cable or electricity.
No matter how "broke" the family is, the drunk always has the money for alcohol.
In government, the drug of choice is always the higher tier of the political. The most powerful unions workers, the legislature and academia which is complicit in creating a nation of sheep.
Just like the drunk, the government's priority is the status quo NOT fixing anything or feeding the family.
California is doomed and only the first of many states that will fall over the coming years.
As goes California, so goes our country, especially when led by a Californian (thanks Nancy for doing everything in your power to turn America into California!)
I refer you to the Bernake comment that the "crisis appears to be confined to subprime". Does anyone really believe that the sordid and shameful implosion in the most important state will somehow leave the rest of the country prosperous and proud, if only they keep their indignation high and their head in the sand? That requires a more vivid imagination than Walt Disney.
All governments should have been more responsible for finances than they were. It is disgusting. I am not saying the US should bail out CA, I personally don't agree with the whole bailout approach, but I am saying that there will be a nasty knock-on effect from this to other states. You are not immune. Most people in CA were not born there. Unemployed people will stream back to you all in a sort of reverse osmosis. It is already happening and it will get worse soon.
Enjoy!
On Jul 02 11:06 AM Missing_Link wrote:
> Well put!
>
> Failure to properly budget on California's part does not constitute
> an emergency on the part of the rest of the USA.
But you bring up a good point. If Pelosi and the looters give a handout to California, will NY, NJ and all the other states line up next? What kind of peverse incentives does this create?
The sad thing is California will come back and say... We need money... to bail out the poor and needy ( because they already gave their money to Gov. workers, teachers and unions). They will kick and scream that HAVE to be bailed out to save them... How could you turn your back on those less needy fortunate...
Your odds at this point are far more in favor of the Fed's backstopping every failed socialist state budget, just as they have backstopped ponzi scheme financials adn bankrupt auto companies. Three reasons to expect it.....
First, the Fed's are the only entity that can (and does) spend as much as its want. When they run out of money, they just print more. States can't do that.
Second, out of control spending is the problem in California and the primary advocates of the spending are public employee unions. The same situation is playing out right now in Oregon and other eastern states. These are the very same unions that virtually own the Democrat leadership in DC. The unions in California have clearly shown they won't accept significant cut backs so expect their paid representatives in Congress to help them out.
Finally, the Federal government in general, and Obama/Pelosi in specific, is currently engaged in a full court press to complete the nation's long transition to full blown socialism. From healthcare to energy to regressive taxes to corporatist policy, the push is on. Given that fact, the Fed's can not allow states like California to fail at this juncture. Simply put, the states in the biggest trouble (California, New York, New Jersey, etc.) are also the most progressive/socialist in terms of policy. Letting them fail would focus attention on the unavoidable failure of the very same policies Obama/Pelosi are trying to force on the rest of the nation. One big advertisement for the folly of socialism.
There is a excellent article on the top left portion of Friday's Wallstreet Journal (Op/Ed section) backing up your exact point with numerous statistics. It really is sad what California, New York and New Jersey did to themselves. Three of the highest income and highest tax and highest spending states are up to their eyeballs in debt... It isn't that they don't collect enough revenue ( They have the highest taxes), it's that they spend more money than anybody else and it needs to stop.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. All programs start by using a situation similar to yours, but before you know it we have 20% of the population collecting unemployment insurance.
All presently terrible programs were conceptualized in nobility.
If they came out and said "we are going to arbitrarily confiscate and redistribute money at our choosing" no one would sign up.
The saving grace is that the solution is quite simple. Like an alcoholic who hits bottom and realizes he needs to stop drinking, someday people will realize not even governments can spend money they don't have ad infinitum.
Or we'll just drink ourselves to death. Either/or...
On Jul 02 01:08 PM masf wrote:
> Why do we keep insisting on buying spilled milk instead of milk we
> can drink? Consider the costs of these "savings" in prisons, emergency
> rooms, and lost productivity. I'm a Californian who has benefited
> from some of these programs. I became disabled shortly after my
> baby was born 11 years ago. Despite outstanding education and pushing
> myself to the point where I was literally passing out, I could no
> longer hold a job. Guess what? If you work hard and are very, very
> determined... you can still be stopped. Thanks to my fellow tax
> payers, I have completed a vocational rehabilitation program, found
> a part-time job, and have good chances of working full-time soon.
> Compare this outcome with the alternative: the state bringing my
> child up for me. And I think we Californians are at least as worthy
> of bailout funds as AIG.
In Mass people brag about "the great joab I'aw got by bruaddah Jimmy from Southie workin at the Turnpike authority. Fuc--in' A"
(full disclosure: native californian here, but i moved to oregon in 2001)
and yet, it just approved 2.75 billion dollars for israel. there's something we can cut!
"Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."
If you equate issuing IOU's with printing money - ask yourself what a dollar bill really is - then the Constitution seems to be pretty clear on the topic.
These IOUs are more like customized bonds, from a somewhat shaky debtor.
So who's going to enforce the law? Those who are being paid in cash? Look at what happened to GM and Chrysler to see how important the law is!
On Jul 02 04:22 PM Carneades wrote:
For those of you speculating as to the constitutionality of California's
IOU issuing tactics, I have provided below a pertinent portion of
Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
"Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."
If you equate issuing IOU's with printing money - ask yourself what
a dollar bill really is - then the Constitution seems to be pretty
clear on the topic.
We don't want the Federal government to bail us out. we want our state government to spend a lot less, and to spend it on programs that make our state a better place for its CITIZENS to live.
As it stands right now, the balance of power is solidly in the hands of the progressive left. Their agenda is to take from those who earn a decent living and give it to those who don't.
We're tired of supporting illegals and their kids, drunks and dopers who've attached themselves to the public tit and can't be shaken loose.
We'd pay taxes to improve OUR children's chances to get a good education, but we aren't given that choice. Instead, we have to pay for children who don't belong in California, who hold back the providing of decent education to those who speak English and desire to learn and get ahead.
Without our Illegal Alien expenses, California would have a balanced state budget, a much higher public school rating, and infrastructure that hadn't gone from first to nearly last in the nation.
Get rid of our illegals and California would be a showplace that the rest of the country could only hope to emulate.
Or refrain from paying "Caltrans" workings bloated salaries and offering full pay retirement packages that would cause many D.C. bureaucrats to salivate.
I am no fan of government by any measure, but even a moderate should see the upside in streamlining the system. Heres a classic example of state governmental redundancy with some 6 agencies concerning themselves with alcohol alone. (www.ebudget.ca.gov/dep... )
I want to pay less taxes too, but you have to pay to get they roads and other great services!
Republicans, you can't have it both ways: with the world's most powerful military without paying for it.
Since the government of California has the mind-set "I'm GOP so I can't raise taxes even if we need to pay services", are state is fuckecd.
Why do GOP leaders not understand the concept that you need revenue to pay for services?
California relies on farming, and farmers would go broke if they didn't have the cheap labor provided by immigrants.
In other words, without those immigrants, California, and the rest of the nation, would experience extreme inflation (with food eating more of our wages) thanks to a higher cost of labor.
The money to educate this kids is a small fraction of the economic benefit of hard working people working at a low wage, which makes it easier for many other businesses to be profitable, and therefore pay more taxes.
On Jul 02 10:09 PM jhartz wrote:
> I'm a Californian............
>
> We don't want the Federal government to bail us out. we want our
> state government to spend a lot less, and to spend it on programs
> that make our state a better place for its CITIZENS to live.
>
> As it stands right now, the balance of power is solidly in the hands
> of the progressive left. Their agenda is to take from those who earn
> a decent living and give it to those who don't.
>
> We're tired of supporting illegals and their kids, drunks and dopers
> who've attached themselves to the public tit and can't be shaken
> loose.
>
> We'd pay taxes to improve OUR children's chances to get a good education,
> but we aren't given that choice. Instead, we have to pay for children
> who don't belong in California, who hold back the providing of decent
> education to those who speak English and desire to learn and get
> ahead.
>
> Without our Illegal Alien expenses, California would have a balanced
> state budget, a much higher public school rating, and infrastructure
> that hadn't gone from first to nearly last in the nation.
>
> Get rid of our illegals and California would be a showplace that
> the rest of the country could only hope to emulate.
You are correct -The US NEEDS to tell Israel " to go to HELL ". The US cannot stand this madness any longer !
Silly me, I forgot about the power they have in Congress; plus, Nancy has access to the government jets, so they can just fly the money directly to California!
I am guessing that is what Pelosi must have done with the Federal Stimulus bill money; apparently California will be receiving $85 Billion in total stimulus benefits!!!!! ( $50 Billion in direct spending, $35 billion in tax benefits. ) It is such a big deal there, California set up a stimulus agency and web site...which shows the money is mostly NOT GOING TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.
www.recovery.ca.gov/
It pays to have low friends in high places! I guess we are all Californians now...
On top of this is the cost of illegal aliens. While people say do not blame illegal aliens, I say finish the border fence, enforce E-Verify and move the 12 to 40 million illegals out of the Country and let's see what happens to the cost of entitlement programs.
Arnold is trying to take on the government unions this time. Government unions need to be banned as they are a problem at every level local, State and Federal. The City of Vallejo had to go to bankruptcy court to get shed of the unsustainable union costs. The response from the California Democrats was to try and enact a bill to prevent Cities from declaring bankruptcy.
We are now watching Obama use the same model on the Federal level as California. Build government unions, build entitlement programs without having any ability to pay for it. As goes California so goes the Nation.
insane high pay for ca state workers---
www.sacbee.com/1098/st...
California requires 2/3 of the legislature to do anything.
This sort of ridiculum in government has not been seen since the heyday of the Polish Parliament and the liberum veto.
I'm pretty sure this isn't a Democratic or Republican problem. Rather, it is a big government problem. This is true because both parties seem hell bent on making the "pie" they slice pieces from, ever larger.
I want less government, and that means that government has to restrict itself to programs that benefit all its citizens. Right now, we have too many programs that exist to benefit a specially targeted few.
People who lean towards the liberal spectrum when it comes to providing social services, should only enact private programs which are run, funded, and implemented by like minded fellow travelers.
The same is true of those who seek to give greater profits to special interest companies. Social welfare is bad, but corporate welfare is just as bad.
If the sick, helpless, and financially needy deserve to have a safety net, or some kind of protective umbrella placed over their heads, then let it be only those who favor that kind of benevolent intervention that pay for it. Let them do it with their own personal fortunes, rather than confiscating some portion of mine.
As for me, I have more than enough commitments trying to take care of needy members of my own family. I'm not asking for public funds to help me with that, so don't ask me to pay more in taxes to help you "do the right thing" for the people you happen to believe need our help.
I want to opt out of paying for any government social programs that
spend taxpayer money on providing these services.
On Jul 03 12:19 AM Paul H. M. wrote:
> Why do GOP leaders not understand the concept that you need revenue
> to pay for services?
What you claim about illegals contributing more than they take away is patently false.
You are measuring the benefit growers receive by having the taxpayers provide the services they get out of paying for. Close those loopholes and then we'll see how much these illegals actually contribute. This is another case of corporate welfare, where the big corporate growers are allowed to push normal business expenses off on the taxpayers. Agriculture needs to stand or fall on its own economic merits. Right now, with all these subsidies they're getting, no one really knows whether California growers are financially viable. If they aren't, then let them fail like any other business that cannot generate a true profit. Illegal alien workers are just a pawn being used to justify almost a century of corporate welfare for California's growers.
On Jul 03 12:23 AM Paul H. M. wrote:
> The illegals actually contribute more than they take away.
>
> California relies on farming, and farmers would go broke if they
> didn't have the cheap labor provided by immigrants.
>
> In other words, without those immigrants, California, and the rest
> of the nation, would experience extreme inflation (with food eating
> more of our wages) thanks to a higher cost of labor.
>
> The money to educate this kids is a small fraction of the economic
> benefit of hard working people working at a low wage, which makes
> it easier for many other businesses to be profitable, and therefore
> pay more taxes.