Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 50508
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/10 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/10    

2008/7/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50508 Activity:high
7/9     Check out the graph of CA revenue vs spending
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ttws3
        \_ CLEARLY, we need to cut pork, like education (for illegal
           immigrants), lunch food (for illegal immigrants),
           healthcare (for illegal immigrants), transportation (amigos
           driving on my I-210). You see it's all about illegal amigos.
           Say no to illegals, say yes to tax cuts!             !dim
        \_ it's hard to tell whether this guy is a nutjob, or is satirizing
           nutjobs.
        \_ Is this guy one of those "compassionate" conservatives I keep
           hearing about? I just *love* his idea of scrapping public
           health. Can you say epidemic?
        \_ Look at the chart.  Notice how spending increases outpace revenue
           increases? -op
           \_ what a surprise, given relentless tax cuts amidst growing
              demand for services.  -tom
              \_ Next time I spend more more money than I make, instead of
                 cutting back on my expenses, I will just order my boss to
                 give me a raise so that I can keep on binge spending. That
                 is such a great plan, I can't believe I never thought of
                 it before.
                 \_ Noone is saying cuts shouldn't be made, but the cuts
                    this person came up with are beyond dumb.  You can
                    cut services that may very well pay for themselves and
                    have serious quality of life concerns when they are gone
                    (even for people who don't directly benfit from them) or
                    you could go after the real pork like prison overspending.
                    \_ I agree. I don't agree with the cuts the guy in the url
                       wants to make. I think some of them are totally nuts. My
                       point was only that some cuts should be made and that
                       it is unrealistic for the government to keep demanding
                       ever increasing taxes to fund pork projects.
                 \_ How about, next time your are spending about as much
                    money as you make, you order your boss to give you a
                    pay cut, since the extra profit the company makes from
                    paying you less salary will trickle down to you.  -tom
                    \_ This is just bizarre.  Revenue was increasing.  Spending
                       increased as well, just faster.  I can't see any
                       evidence of "tax cuts" in the revenue curve.
                       \_ Well tom's idea is that spending has a natural
                          positive growth and income should have a similar
                          growth (by maintaining or increasing taxes). I
                          don't think he accepts the premise that perhaps
                          government spending and income shouldn't grow.
                          Re tom's hypo - perhaps the government should
                          try spending LESS than it makes and re-thinking
                          what services are absolutely necessary.
                          \_ I think my brain just popped.  Does tom think that
                             we should decided spending first and then set
                             taxes to raise that money?
                       \_ You can find evidence of tax cuts in the legislative
                          record.  Revenue continued to rise because *more
                          people came to California*.  In 1980 there were
                          23.7 million people in California; now there are
                          36.5 million.  -tom
                       \_ Overall state government spending as a percentage
                          of GDP has been within 1% of 9% since the mid 90s.
                          It has not gone appreciably up or down.
                          \_ Inflation-adjusted per-capita spending has
                             increased over 40% in the last decade.
                             \_ Please provide evidence for this "fact".
                                \_ Math is hard.
                                \_ http://www.caforward.org/dynamic/pages/link_10_135.pdf
                                \_ link:preview.tinyurl.com/65rpor
                                   [caforward.org]
                                   \_ Personal income has risen much faster
                                      than state spending; obviously the
                                      state's increase in spending is trickling
                                      down to the people of the state.
                                      (NB: a likely flaw in these numbers
                                      is use of incomplete or fudged figures
                                      for inflation.)  -tom
                                   \_ So, as a percentage of personal income,
                                      state spending has actually gone down.
                                      As I have asked before, why do you think
                                      that state spending should track
                                      inflation? Most of what the State spends
                                      on is salaries. Shouldn't state spending
                                      track GDP or personal income instead? Why
                                      do you think that State employees should
                                      expect their salaries to constantly lag
                                      behind the private sector?
                                      \_ Government employees in general
                                         are compensated extremely well.
                                         Have their numbers increased or
                                         decreased over time? (Honest Q)
                                         \_ Government employees are not
                                            compensated well compared to
                                            corporate employees; at low levels,
                                            if you include benefits (which
                                            are better for government
                                            employees) people are still
                                            paid a little better in the
                                            industry, and at the high end,
                                            there's nothing in the public
                                            sector anywhere close
                                            to the compenstation given to
                                            industry executives.  Their
                                            numbers have increased, as
                                            the population and thus the need
                                            for government services has
                                            increased.  -tom
                                            \_ Actually, government employees
                                               are compensated very well.
                                               We're not talking CEOs
                                               here. We're talking rank
                                               and file government employees.
                                               Government jobs are some of
                                               the highest-paying jobs around
                                               *NOT ACCOUNTING FOR* the
                                               ridiculous benefits. You
                                               don't realize it, because
                                               you work in one of the few
                                               fields where the government
                                               underpays. Two of my sisters
                                               work for the gov't (county and
                                               city) and for example the county
                                               just hired a new 24 y.o. civil
                                               engineer with an MS at $120K
                                               per year. The evidence is
                                               not just anecdotal, either.
                                               For example, 2/3 of OC
                                               sheriff's deputies make
                                               $100K+ with the top sheriff
                                               making $221K. Note that this is
                                               not The Sheriff, but a detective.
                                               not The Sheriff, but a
                                               detective.
                                               The average DWP employee makes
                                               $77K. Locksmiths and painters
                                               for DWP make $80K. I read
                                               a gardener for the City made
                                               $100K including overtime
                                               and a transportation coordinator
                                               (coordinates events like LA
                                               Marathon) made $120K base + $60K
                                               overtime. No, the government
                                               pays quite well, the benefits
                                               are good, expectations are low,
                                               and it's hard to be fired.
                                               \_ gee, then why aren't you
                                                  working for the government?
                                                  How much do you think a
                                                  sheriff's deputy should
                                                  make?  -tom
                                                  \_ My industry is one in
                                                     which the gov't underpays
                                                     unless I move to DC which
                                                     I don't want to do. But,
                                                     actually, I do work for
                                                     the government indirectly.
                                                     Not sure what your point
                                                     is with that ridiculous
                                                     comment anyway. As
                                                     for deputies and prison
                                                     guards, compare their
                                                     salaries with those of
                                                     free market security
                                                     guards. I think a deputy
                                                     should be paid more, but
                                                     not *that much* more
                                                     to work the mean
                                                     streets of Irvine.
                                                     BTW, if gov't pay is so
                                                     low then why have you been
                                                     working for the gov't for
                                                     20 years - all through the
                                                     <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> era of easy wealth?
                                                     <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> era of easy
                                                     wealth?
                                                     \_ Because I am not
                                                        motivated by pursuit
                                                        of wealth. -tom
                                                        of wealth. (Although
                                                        I will note, you have
                                                        no clue about my
                                                        career.)  -tom
                                                        \_ I was exaggerating,
                                                           but it's been 13
                                                           years according to
                                                           your own resume.
                                        \_ Your anecdotal evidence is BS, as
                                           I am sure you well know. I have
                                           three family members who work for
                                           State of California and they are
                                           all paid poorly for their level of
                                           experience. One is a DBA, with 20+
                                           years of experience, who makes $80k
                                           one is a programmer, with about 10,
                                           who makes $60k and the last is
                                           a secretary, who makes about $30k.
                                           \_ IT is one of the few areas where
                                              the gov't underpays. I won't
                                              dispute that. However, a
                                              secretary at $30K is about
                                              market value. The average
                                              pay at the DWP is $77K. That
                                              is not anecdotal, and the
                                              average is not brought up by
                                              lots of $800K managers. In
                                              fact, only about 10% of the
                                              workforce makes more than $100K.
                                              If you work for DWP you can
                                              make $70-80K for just about any
                                              job and it's easy money, too.
                                              It's not just the DWP either.
                                           Pay in the public sector is, in
                                           general, below the private sector.
                                           And even if it wasn't, why should
                                           people who work in the public sector
                                           expect their pay to lag and fall
                                           further and further behind? You
                                           cannot even answer this question,
                                           which is why you are trying to change
                                           which is why you are trying to
                                           change
                                           the topic.
                                           \_ I have no interest in answering
                                              that question. I am not the
                                              person to whom it was asked.
                                              I just want to point out that
                                              the government wastes a lot
                                              of money, which should come
                                              as a surprise to no one
                                              other than tom.
                                              \_ Corporations waste a lot of
                                                 money, too.  -tom
                                                 \_ Maybe, but here's the
                                                    point you miss:
                                                    It's *THEIR* money!
                                                    The government's money
                                                    is *MY* money.
                                                    \_ So?  It's not possible
                                                       to run a large
                                                       organization 100%
                                                       efficiently; that
                                                       standard is simply
                                                       not realistic.  -tom
                                                       \_ So? SO? You like
                                                          handing over your
                                                          $$$ to be wasted?!?!
                                                          Maybe the gov't
                                                          shouldn't be so large
                                                          then.
                                                          shouldn't be so
                                                          large then.
                                                          \_ It doesn't bother
                                                             me any more to
                                                             hand over money
                                                             to the government
                                                             than to United
                                                             Airlines or any
                                                             other faceless
                                                             corporation.
                                                             I think most
                                                             governmental
                                                             programs have
                                                             decent return on
                                                             investment.  -tom
                                                             \_ I can't say I
                                                                agree that that
                                                                has been true
                                                                for many years
                                                                now. It was
                                                                true once upon
                                                                a time.  What's
                                                                the ROI for
                                                                attacking Iraq?
                                                                D'oh!
                       \_ State spending as a percentage of GDP has remained
                          essentially unchanged since the late 80's:
                          http://www.cbpp.org/7-31-07sfp-f2.jpg
        \_ http://www.urban.org/publications/1001173.html
           "State and local revenues have been relatively stable over the
           last 30 years..."
           Sorry to bust your bubble, buddy.
2025/07/10 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/10    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil
11/2    California Uber Alles is such a great song
        \_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this
           as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I
           typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I
           can't believe we elected this retread.
           \_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground
	...
2010/8/29-9/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:53942 Activity:kinda low
8/29    OC turning liberal, maybe there is hope for CA afterall:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/us/politics/30orange.html
        \_ and the state is slowly turning conservative. Meg 2010!
           \_ We will see. Seems unlikely.
        \_ Yeah, because CA sure has a problem with not enough dems in power!
           If only dems had been running the state for the last 40 years!
	...
2010/7/15-8/11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:53885 Activity:nil
7/15    "Mom jailed over sex with 14-year-old son"
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38217476/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts
        \_ I just bought a hot homeless teen runaway lunch.
           Am i going to jail?
           \_ Was she 18?
        \_ FYI people "MILF" doesn't always mean what you think it means.
	...
2010/4/15-5/10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:53786 Activity:nil
4/15    Guess who is not on this list (States with worst projected deficits):
        http://www.cnbc.com/id/36510805?slide=1
        \_ Don't know how CA missed that list; we're looking at a $20B deficit
           on $82.9B spending (24.1%)  -tom
           \_ Even if that number is accurate, it makes California #7. That's
              enlightening given the attenion California has received.
	...
2009/9/2-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:53319 Activity:low
9/2     California will survive its crackup:
        http://tinyurl.com/qfzdpn
        \_ not if we can help it.
        \_ I like the comparison with Italy.  Maybe someday we can have
          dozens of political parties fighting!  yay chaos!!
          \_ Do you think Italian people have a lower quality of life than
	...
2009/8/12-9/1 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53268 Activity:moderate
8/12    Thanks for destroying the world's finest public University!
        http://tinyurl.com/kr92ob (The Economist)
        \_ Why not raise tuition? At private universities, students generate
           revenue. Students should not be seen as an expense. UC has
           been a tremendous bargain for most of its existence. It's time
           to raise tuition to match the perceived quality of the
	...
2009/8/14-9/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:53270 Activity:low
8/14    How California's Lock-Em-Up Mentality actually makes crime worse:
        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426
        \_ Sounds nice, but the stats say the crime rate is better since
           we started locking them up.
           \_ You should look up "correlation and causation."
              \_ Just because they are not necessarily correlated doesn't
	...
2009/4/21-28 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:52885 Activity:kinda low
4/21    Real Per Capita spending in CA budget:
        http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/spend_plan/fig_6.jpg
        Note that is is flat, which is the opposite of what we have
        been repeatedly told on the motd.
        \_ Does capita take in account for unaccounted illegal immigrants?
                                                                -Dr. jblack
	...
2009/2/27-3/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:52655 Activity:low
2/27    CA unemployment increases from 9.3% to 10.1% for Jan
        \_ Good thing the legislature passed the biggest tax increase in
           history!  That should solve it.
           \_ because cutting taxes has done such a great job so far!
                \_ it has.. giving mortgages to poor folks did us in
                   \_ 100% horseshit.
	...
2009/2/27-3/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health/Women] UID:52654 Activity:moderate
2/27    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7914357.stm
        *shocking* allegations.
        China denounces US 'rights abuse':
                China has responded in detail to a US report published this
                week criticising China for alleged rights abuses. Beijing
                released its own report on the US, saying crime is a threat to
	...
Cache (8192 bytes)
preview.tinyurl.com/2ttws3 -> globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/01/mishs-california-budget-proposal.html
Mish's California Budget Proposal California has a huge budget problem. Schwarzenegger's one size fits all solution of reducing everything 10% to meet the budget crisis is a copout. Worse yet it was entirely an image file so I could not snip text and comment on it easily. What stood out was a large number of totally useless departments that instead of being reduced, should be eliminated. The state has no business mapping mineral resources Scrap and save $5,117 Housing and Community Development Block Grants An easy no brainer Scrap the whole thing and save $4,276 Housing and Community Development Enterprise Zones A no brainer Scrap this program and save $602 Housing and Community Development Housing elements This is a local thing and should be funded at local levels if needed. Scrap this program and save $1,633 Housing and Community Development Administration Scrap this and save $848 California Science Center This educational program should be paid for by those who use it. Scrap the program (or the funding of it) and make the users pay for it Save $17,934 California African American Museum Same as above Eliminate the funding and save $2,490 State Personnel Board Bilingual Service Program Another no brainer Scrap the program and save $5,522 Migrant Services A no brainer Scrap this program and save $6,866 Wildlife Conservation Board This is easy. Perhaps the ones selected should be closed, but that is not the right approach. Here is mine: Department of Recreation State Parks I propose cutting the budget in half. To fund the parks, the people that use the parks should pay for the parks. I propose raising entry fees, camping fees, fishing fees, hunting fees etc. so users of the facilities pay a bigger share for services. I would also eliminate all interpretive programs that require paid staff. Let "friend of the parks" volunteers provide intrepretive functions, perhaps for a small fee. Proposed savings $204,736 Fire Protection Proposal California Department of Forestry Fire Protection Resource Management Demonstration forests and the like can easily go. I would cut this budget by 50% only keeping those parts directly related to fire control and safety. Savings $14,763 California Department of Forestry Fire Protection Administration Executive leadership and policy direction. At a minimum, hate violence should be a responsibility of the police, not some separate investigatory agency. Savings $9344 Fair Employment and Housing (yet again) This is case Adjudication Scrap it and combine with the above. Savings $1,170 Housing and Community Development Housing Law & Building codes I will accept the reduction of $64 Housing and Community Development Employee Housing I will accept the reduction of $85 Housing and Community Development Emergency Housing assistance This Program should be scrapped but I will be generous and keep it for safety reasons, for now. I would scrap it and save $2,000 Water Resources Watermaster Program I accept the proposed reduction of $136 Air Resources Board I accept the proposed budget reduction of $2,432 Salt Water Resources I will accept the proposed reduction of $3,659 Salt Water Resources Water Rights I will accept the proposed reduction of $390 Salt Water Resources Administration This is more policy direction nonsense, public information nonsense and other bureaucratic nonsense There is lots of overlap on these programs I will reduce this by 50% but we could probably get rid of the whole thing Savings $10,570 Total Savings $46,214 Toxic Substances Department of Toxic Substances This department supports illegal drug cleanup, emergency removal of spills, etc. When it comes to removal of spill, those doing the spilling should be fined for 120% of the cleanup costs if an accident, 200% if neglect, 500% for a willful violation of a law. Unless there is an immediate public health hazard, drug cleanup is not likely to be an emergency. The owners of the property should be responsible for cleanup. Proposed savings at 75% reduction is $20,200 Department of Toxic Substances Pollution I accept the proposed cut of $34 Department of Toxic Substances Pollution I accept the proposed cut of $96 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment I accept the proposed reduction of $956 Total $21,286 Dept of alcohol and Drugs Dept of alcohol and Drugs (ADP) This is an easy 50% target if not more. Savings at 50% $272,332 Department of Aging California Department of Aging I would scrap the program in entirety and save $216,442 However, this might have to be phased in over time The goal would be an immediate reduction of 1/3 or $72,147 Immediate Savings $72,147 Emergency Health Care Emergency Medical Services I accept the reduction of $1,003 Poison Control. I accept the reduction of $690 Emergency Medical Services Multi-county I accept the reduction of $242 Emergency Medical Services Multi-county I accept the reduction of $36 Emergency Medical Services Mobile Medical I accept the reduction of $35 Total Savings $2006 AIDS Department of Health care services AIDS/HIV programs This is another program to kill entirely. There does not need to be a special budget just for AIDS. Whatever services are needed (if any) should be combined with other medical services. Savings $415,829 Medi-Cal State Operations Department of Health care services Medi-Cal State Operations directing the delivery of health care services to low income Californians through 12 divisions and two program offices. Free programs contribute to an influx of illegal aliens and a myriad of other problems down the line including a secondary effect of school funding. Total Savings $397,999 I would phase this out over time with 50% right up front Immediate Savings $198,999 Public Health Care Department of Health care services MediCal Program Public health care program for low income individuals supposedly in a fiscally prudent manner. The budget for this is a staggering $36,076,971 Chop this thing in half and save a whopping $18,038,485 The only way to do that is reduce service. Too much money is wasted giving things away care for "free". So called "free" services drive up the cost for everyone else. Liver and heart transplants for patients with no insurance are another. Excessive procedures for terminally ill should be eliminated. Without insurance, not much above pain killers should be provided. The choices sound harsh, but we we should not bankrupt the country with giveaway program that cannot be afforded. Oddly enough, if people are turned away responsibly, cost of insurance will drop. I did not go through every program but I did get through well over 600 of the 937 pages. The length and nature of the PDF made it easy to make errors. I am sure I made some, perhaps many errors because I could not cut and paste text. What I wanted to do was provide a rational starting point for discussion about approaches and about choices. Whether or not you agree with my choices does not matter that much as long as it is understood there will be some very harsh choices somewhere. Furthermore, there are alternatives to just cutting services. Harsh Choices Have To Be Made On an Austrian economics basis, even bigger cuts would be made. I went after the easiest targets to provide a framework for discussion. California has entire programs that can be and should be totally eliminated. This 10% wimp-out all but assures another 10% wimp-out is coming again next year as the recession takes its toll on both housing and jobs. Buy Gold and Silver Online at GoldMoney The Best Way to Buy Gold and Silver Disclaimer:The content on this site is provided as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. All site content, including advertisements, shall not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any security or financial instrument, or to participate in any particular trading or investment strategy. The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of sponsors or firms affiliated with the author. The author may or may not have a position in any company or advertiser referenced above. Any action that you take as a result of informat...
Cache (2776 bytes)
www.urban.org/publications/1001173.html
ID=1001173 The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. publication is also available with figures in PDF format. The decline was largely offset by state and local governments' heavier reliance on charges and miscellaneous revenue, which together increased from 16 percent to 24 percent of revenues over this period. The growth in miscellaneous revenue is largely due to growth in interest earnings from accounts and lottery revenues, while charges for higher education, hospitals, and sewage and waste disposal also increased. Personal income taxes increased as a share of all revenues from 9 percent to 12 percent, after peaking at 14 percent in 2001 at the end of the 1990s boom. General and select sales taxes declined slightly from 22 percent to 19 percent of revenues. These relatively stable patterns mask significant differences in revenue across states. The decline in property tax revenues during the late 1970s followed passage of Proposition 13 in California and similar limitations in other states. California property tax revenues fell from 32 percent of general revenues in 1972 to 13 percent in 2005. In 2005 property taxes made up more than one-third of general revenues in New Hampshire and less than 7 percent of revenues in Alabama and New Mexico. Seven states had no personal income tax, while Maryland and Oregon raised more than one-fifth of their revenues from personal income taxes. Similarly, four states did not levy general sales taxes in 2005, while five states received more than 20 percent of revenues from this source. Alabama, Iowa, South Carolina, and Utah raised more than 20 percent of revenues from charges, while Alaska raised more than one-third of its revenues from miscellaneous revenue sources. Mississippi, Washington, DC, and Wyoming received more than one-third of their revenues from the federal government. Carol Rosenberg >> Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687. Disclaimer: The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.