| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 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. |
| 7/10 |
|
| 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... |
| 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. |