Author Topic: Awesome - leftist cry babies scrambling over collapsing budgets in NYS & CA  (Read 2567 times)

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Who's to Blame For California?
Townhall.com ^ | March 15, 2012 | Victor Davis Hanson




In so-called "March in March" protests, thousands of students in California universities recently demonstrated in outrage over spiraling tuition costs.

At both the California State University and University of California multi-campus systems, tuition hikes in recent years have far exceeded the national average. Meanwhile, universities slash classes, cut key research, and rely even more on exploited and poorly paid part-time lecturers and graduate-student teaching assistants.

Yet against whom, exactly, are these cash-strapped students demonstrating? After all, their college faculties are unionized, largely liberal and sympathetic to their plight.

Campus administrators likewise want more state money for universities. But, unlike the beleaguered faculty, their numbers by some calculations have increased 221 percent between 1975 and 2008. At CSU, there may be one administrator for every full-time faculty member. Why, then, were not the students calling for their administrators to return to the classroom, and thereby provide additional classes at reduced cost?

Do the students fault the governor and the legislature for unwise spending priorities that have led to funding cuts and tuition hikes? Not really. Gov. Jerry Brown is a liberal Democrat. Both the state senate and assembly are also overwhelmingly Democratic -- and have been for years. In fact, state officials largely spoke in favor of the student protests.

Are the students instead angry at the state's public employees, who on average make more and are better pensioned than their counterparts in other states? Or do protestors connect the state's escalating costs that divert money from universities with California's massive number of illegal aliens -- whether in terms of the soaring costs of social services, billions of dollars sent as remittances to Mexico, or the incarceration costs of 30,000 Mexican nationals in the state prison system?

Does state money allotted to other discretionary areas, from things like preliminary funding for envisioned high-speed rail to restoring salmon in the state rivers, come at the expense of students?

The cash-strapped protestors would probably not think so. Instead, they seem to believe that the causes of all their troubles are the proverbial "rich" who are not "paying their fair share."

True, in California any new taxes must be approved by a supermajority of two-thirds of the representatives in the legislature. But that impediment to hiking taxes was passed years ago, and through a popular ballot proposition as a grassroots reaction to perceived out-of-control taxes. In fact, while the governor is currently seeking ways to raise sales taxes and to hike taxes on the higher incomes, California's gas, sales and income taxes are already among the highest in the nation.

Just 1 percent of California taxpayers are already providing 45 percent of the state's income tax revenue. And such income taxes now fund half the budget.

But unfortunately, in recent years the number of upper-income earners in California has radically shrunk -- by a third between 2007 and 2009 alone. Apparently, wealthy Californians are either fleeing to nearby no-income-tax states or have become less well-off after years of economic downturn, higher taxes, and overregulation of business. Meanwhile, the number of California's Medicaid recipients grew at 70 percent of the general population increase over the last two decades.

In short, there are no longer enough rich Californians to tax further to make up the state shortfalls. Nor can Californians explain why nearby states, with far less natural riches and without state income taxes, seem to be no worse off than California.

Where, then, lies the solution to the students' protests? Without a rainy-day reserve fund or a growing economy, there are only a limited number of ways to solve California's chronic budget problems.

The state can keep cutting its once-generous entitlements and liberal social services, as well public employees' salaries, to divert money to its colleges. Or it can keep raising fees for state services. Or it can start creating new material wealth by encouraging development of the state's vast resources in gas, oil, timber, minerals and agriculture, whose production has been curtailed in recent years. Or it can lobby the federal government to enforce immigration laws.

Or California can raise taxes across the income spectrum to make up for the diminishing revenue from a vanishing 1 percent.

Yet protesting students would probably believe all those solutions were either unfair or unnecessary. The result is that we are left with mostly liberal students angry at mostly liberal policies of a mostly liberally governed state.

The once-utopian visions of 1970s California -- unionized public employees, more state lands off limits, more regulations, higher taxes on the wealthy, vastly expanded social services, de facto open borders -- have at last mostly come true, but apparently not in the fashion anticipated by most Californians of those long-ago times.

In cash-strapped Greece, when similar things happened, protestors blamed the Germans. But without Germans, whom can Californians blame but themselves?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
California, a bad bet for business: Why would new enterprises come to a state like this?
Los Angeles Times ^ | 03/13/2012 | By Bradley R. Schiller

Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:18:06 AM by SeekAndFind

In its most recent annual ranking of "business friendly" states, Forbes magazine had some blunt advice for investors: "Utah and Colorado have maintained strong business climates. Forget about California."

Californians like to dismiss such assessments of the Golden State and instead point to its natural beauty and quality of life. They tend not to worry what people in other states think. But they should. California is no longer the economic miracle it once was. Silicon Valley no longer has a monopoly on high-tech talent and innovation. Hollywood has to compete for movie locations with Utah and Morocco. Real estate investors see better development prospects in states with fewer foreclosed and abandoned homes. And SoCal porn producers know they don't need huge wardrobe containers to move to Nevada.

Californians tend to be complacent about these competitive risks. On the surface, things don't look too bad. Sure, the state's finances are in shambles and the Legislature in disarray. But median personal income ($42,578) is well above the national average ($39,945).

These things can't compensate for some disturbing recent trends. The growth of the state's $2-trillion economy has slowed dramatically. Since 2000, the state's economy has grown significantly more slowly than the rest of the nation. Last year, California ranked 34th in real GDP growth. That sluggish growth has burdened it with among the highest unemployment rates (10.9%) in the nation. If businesses heed Forbes' advice to avoid the state, the situation will only worsen.

So what is it that makes California unfriendly to business? For starters, it's very expensive to do business in the state. Corporate taxes are high, as are energy and labor costs, according toMoody'sAnalytics and the Tax Foundation. In the Forbes rankings, the state also comes in at No. 40 in the category of regulatory environment.


(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Without a doubt.


How can you say that?

What are your sources to say it's a lie?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
How can you say that?

What are your sources to say it's a lie?

We have added 5 trillion in new debt in years alone. 

We are running and deficits at levels never bvefore seen other than WW2, THREE YEARS after the credit meltdown.   

What we have going on is beyond atrocious. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
We have added 5 trillion in new debt in years alone. 

We are running and deficits at levels never bvefore seen other than WW2, THREE YEARS after the credit meltdown.   

What we have going on is beyond atrocious. 

The chart is percentages of debt... I believe the chart as using "percentages" is correct.

It is not about dollars, but percentage of debt.

So refute it... Do the math.

As of 2000, our debt was 5 trillion, by 2004 it was 7 trillion.

That's a jump of 71%

As of this day in 2008, the debt was 9.5 trillion and today it's 15.5

A jump of 61%

Those are FACTS, you can check the numbers out at the US debt clock.

So... the percentage of jump is lower in the first term and as such, one can only reason that the spending isn't as much (percentage wise, not money wise) from 2008-12 as it was from 2000-2004.

Now...

Keep in mind that I think we spend to much period... EVERYWHERE.

I would cut all spending by 20-25% from ALL departments (Yes, including Military) and get rid of Homeland security (I've got defense and that IS homeland security).

No reason for us to have to spend that much money for anything.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The chart is percentages of debt... I believe the chart as using "percentages" is correct.

It is not about dollars, but percentage of debt.

So refute it... Do the math.

As of 2000, our debt was 5 trillion, by 2004 it was 7 trillion.

That's a jump of 71%

As of this day in 2008, the debt was 9.5 trillion and today it's 15.5

A jump of 61%

Those are FACTS, you can check the numbers out at the US debt clock.

So... the percentage of jump is lower in the first term and as such, one can only reason that the spending isn't as much (percentage wise, not money wise) from 2008-12 as it was from 2000-2004.

Now...

Keep in mind that I think we spend to much period... EVERYWHERE.

I would cut all spending by 20-25% from ALL departments (Yes, including Military) and get rid of Homeland security (I've got defense and that IS homeland security).

No reason for us to have to spend that much money for anything.



?????     Huh????   Percentage of debt?   WTF!   Bush came in w 4.4 trillion in debt and left with 9 trillion or so, maybe ten.  THAT WAS OVER 8 YEARS

Obama had added 5 trillion over 3 years alone -

are you having trouble w math?   

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!


?????     Huh????   Percentage of debt?   WTF!   Bush came in w 4.4 trillion in debt and left with 9 trillion or so, maybe ten.  THAT WAS OVER 8 YEARS

Obama had added 5 trillion over 3 years alone -

are you having trouble w math?   
He's using percentage of total debt I believe, which paints a different picture than looking at it like you are.

This is exactly how I felt, bush spent around 6 trill, Obama has spent 5 in only 3 years, no way his spending is down.

Fuzzy math can make anything look good Tu.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
He's using percentage of total debt I believe, which paints a different picture than looking at it like you are.

This is exactly how I felt, bush spent around 6 trill, Obama has spent 5 in only 3 years, no way his spending is down.

Fuzzy math can make anything look good Tu.

Again,

I'm not saying Obama has spent less... I'm in agreement with you which I totally have a problem with.


I'm just talking about the percentage difference of relative debt.



?????     Huh????   Percentage of debt?   WTF!   Bush came in w 4.4 trillion in debt and left with 9 trillion or so, maybe ten.  THAT WAS OVER 8 YEARS

Obama had added 5 trillion over 3 years alone -

are you having trouble w math?   

Do you need me to go over percentages with you?

My math is accurate... You run the percentages and tell me what you get.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Again,

I'm not saying Obama has spent less... I'm in agreement with you which I totally have a problem with.


I'm just talking about the percentage difference of relative debt.

Do you need me to go over percentages with you?

My math is accurate... You run the percentages and tell me what you get.

Percentage related to what?    Our debt to GDP ration is drastically higher, we were downgraded due to our massive spending and debt, and there is no end in sight. 


If those other presidents were so much worse, regardless of formula, why were we not downgraded back then?   

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Look at it this way, 6% of 6 trillion is a lot less than 6% of 10 trillion.
Thats why I try to look at it in absolute numbers.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Percentage related to what?    Our debt to GDP ration is drastically higher, we were downgraded due to our massive spending and debt, and there is no end in sight. 


If those other presidents were so much worse, regardless of formula, why were we not downgraded back then?   

Because from 2000-2008 we almost increased the debt 100%

Is Obama spending too much? Damn right.

It's not like Obama started anyone down the road to fucked-uped-ness.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
The fact is looking at percentages in this case is way off.

Look at it this way, like 333 said, Bush had what, 5-6 trillion in 8 years in office, and Obama has already spent that 5 trill in 3 years.

Obama has spent almost the same as bush in half the time. Thats almost double the spending Tu.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Because from 2000-2008 we almost increased the debt 100%

Is Obama spending too much? Damn right.

It's not like Obama started anyone down the road to fucked-uped-ness.

No, but he is on course to do the exact same thing as Bush and when he had a chance to do something about it, HIS OWN DEBT/DEFICIT PANEL, he simply balked and tossed them aside. 

So obama is just as responsible as anyone at this point. 

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Because from 2000-2008 we almost increased the debt 100%


Obama has only been in office 3 years. With 5 more years he will increase the debt by 1000%.

He has already made Bush look like a miser in ONLY 3 YEARS.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Bottom line on spending -
Bush 5-6 Tril in 8 years
Obama 5 Tril in 3 years

Those numbers dont lie. Obama has outspent Bush almost 2-1

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
The fact is looking at percentages in this case is way off.

Look at it this way, like 333 said, Bush had what, 5-6 trillion in 8 years in office, and Obama has already spent that 5 trill in 3 years.

Obama has spent almost the same as bush in half the time. Thats almost double the spending Tu.

I didn't say it wasn't... but again, the chart is accurate.

I am certainly not advocating what Obama is doing... I am simply making a rational statement based on the facts at hand.

Yes... Obama is spending more than Bush. I never said otherwise... I'm also not an Obama drone... I don't think that ANY of the Republicans are better though.

Not a god damn one.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
BTW - this thread is about STATE budgets, not Obama.   

Cali and NY are near collapse. 

At least Cuomo in my state, much to my delight, is really trying to reign in the public sector maddoffs. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
BTW - this thread is about STATE budgets, not Obama.   

Cali and NY are near collapse. 

At least Cuomo in my state, much to my delight, is really trying to reign in the public sector maddoffs. 

And I'm all for that as well... California and NY are retarded... They need to fix this shit.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
And I'm all for that as well... California and NY are retarded... They need to fix this shit.



You can't believe the radio ads they are running against Cuomo now.   I'll try to get clips.  The public sector goons are going crazy over here. 

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact


Is this a lie?

I wouldn't doubt it if it were true. Republicans have proven themselves to be inept at controlling spending. Republican or Democrat, doesn't make much difference when it comes to limiting the size and scope of government. That is why we need a third party like the Libertarian Party to take out the Republican Party.

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
BTW, here is a stat that I know is true: Government spending as a percent of GDP shrunk under Clinton, while it grew under Bush. Perhaps another explanation for the economic success of the 90's followed by the relative malaise of the 2000s?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Businesses Exit Taxifornia in Droves
Townhall.com ^ | March 16, 2012 | Mike Shedlock





California Tax Revenue Plunges

Inquiring minds have noticed a huge plunge in California Tax Revenue for the month of February compared to February 2011.

The numbers below represent a 22.55% plunge in spite of the fact that this February was a leap year adding a day to the calendar.

Madeline Schnapp, at TrimTabs Investment Research sent me a quick note regarding that plunge a few days ago.




 

Madeline writes...


Hello Mish

I came across this little tidbit from the February report from the Comptroller's office of the State of CA.

In Feb 2012 income tax receipts are down $328 million y-o-y, or 16.5%. Ouch!

What about retail sales taxes? CA had a "temporary" sales tax hike of one cent that expired last July. Adjust the data to reflect that change, it looks like sales taxes in February are $400 million y-o-y +/-, a decline of about 12.4%. Double ouch!

That doesn't sound like robust growth to me.

Something About the Economy Doesn't Add Up

In Piecing Together the Jobs-Picture Puzzle, Jon Hilsenrath at The Wall Street Journal wonders "How can an economy that is growing so slowly produce such big declines in unemployment?"


Something about the U.S. economy isn't adding up.

At 8.3%, the unemployment rate has fallen 0.7 percentage point from a year earlier and is down 1.7 percentage points from a peak of 10% in October 2009. Many other measures of the job market are improving. Companies have expanded payrolls by more than 200,000 a month for the past three months, according to Labor Department data. And the number of people filing claims for government unemployment benefits has fallen.

Yet the economy is barely growing. Many economists in the past few weeks have again reduced their estimates of growth. The economy by many estimates is on track to grow at an annual rate of less than 2% in the first three months of 2012. The economy expanded just 1.7% last year. And since the final months of 2009, when unemployment peaked, the economy has expanded at a pretty paltry 2.5% annual rate.

How can an economy that is growing so slowly produce such big declines in unemployment?

Trimtabs thinks the problem lies in the heavily massaged BLS employment data and the highly suspect BEA personal income data.

That said, withholding tax data is also messy and not a perfect measure either, but no matter what I do with the data, I can't get to 200,000+ jobs unless a huge percentage of the workforce is suddenly working for McDonalds

Best,

Madeline Schnapp
Director, Macroeconomic Research
TrimTabs Investment ResearchMany Explanations for the Unemployment Puzzle

There are many explanations for the "miracle drop" in unemployment.



1.Disability Fraud: Disability Fraud Holds Down Unemployment Rate; Jobless Disability Claims Hit Record $200B in January
2.Exploding growth in student loans and middle-aged job hopefuls returning to school: Consumer Credit "Demolishes Expectations" Really? No Not Really! The "Non-Bounce" in Non-Revolving Credit

3.Involuntary Retirement: Boomers of retirement age that still want and need a job have involuntarily retired to collect social security because unemployment benefts rans out and they have no other source of income.

Divergence with Gallup

Those there things piece together the "unemployment puzzle" nicely except for one thing. Gallup polls do not agree as noted in Gallup Reports Large Jump in Unemployment to 9.1%, Underemployment to 19.1%.

U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 9.1% in February from 8.6% in January and 8.5% in December.



The 0.5-percentage-point increase in February compared with January is the largest such month-to-month change Gallup has recorded in its not-seasonally adjusted measure since December 2010, when the rate rose 0.8 points to 9.6% from 8.8% in November. So, is the BLS carefully massaging the data, or are their seasonal adjustments simply that far out of line with reality, tax collections, and common sense?

Businesses Exit California in Droves

Madeline and I are not the only ones who noticed the plunge in California. Chriss W. Street on Beitbart discusses the California Exodus behind the drop. Street has the reason: Businesses fed up with high taxes have fled the state.



California politicians seem delusional in their continued delusion that high taxes have not savaged the State’s economy. Each month’s disappointment is written off as due to some one-time event.

The more likely reason tax collections continue falling is that businesses and successful people are leaving California for the better tax rates available in more pro-business states.

Derisively referred to as “Taxifornia” by the independent Pacific Research Institute, California wins the booby prize for the highest personal income taxes in the nation and higher sales tax rates than all but four other states. Though Californians benefit from Proposition 13 restrictions on how much their property tax can increase in one year, the state still has the worst state tax burden in the U.S.

Spectrum Locations Consultants recorded 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state in 2011, 26% more than in 2010 and five times as many as in 2009. According SLC President, Joe Vranich: the “top ten reasons companies are leaving California: 1) Poor rankings in surveys 2) More adversarial toward business 3) Uncontrollable public spending 4) Unfriendly business climate 5) Provable savings elsewhere 6) Most expensive business locations 7) Unfriendly legal environment for business 8) Worst regulatory burden 9) Severe tax treatment 10) Unprecedented energy costs.

Vranich considers California the worst state in the nation to locate a business and Los Angeles is considered the worst city to start a business. Leaving Los Angeles for another surrounding county can save businesses 20% of costs. Leaving the state for Texas can save up to 40% of costs. This probably explains why California lost 120,000 jobs last year and Texas gained 130,000 jobs.

California Governor Jerry Brown’s answer to the State’s failing economy and crumbling tax revenue is to place a $6 billion tax increase initiative on the ballot to support K-12 public schools. He promises to only “temporarily” raise personal income rates by 25% on any of the rich folk who haven’t already left.Taxed to Death

If Brown continues to suck up to the public unions responsible for the mess California is in, expect still more businesses to leave, expect the unemployment rate to rise, and expect a continued plunge in revenue.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

More than 20,000 California teachers pink-slipped
SF Chronicle ^ | Friday, March 16, 2012 | Jill Tucker
Posted on March 16, 2012 9:09:21 PM EDT by DeaconBenjamin

More than 20,000 public school teachers in California opened their mailboxes over the last few days to find a pink slip inside as districts dispensed the dreaded news to the educators that they may not have a job in the fall.

The layoff notices are preliminary, the districts' best guess at their funding after the Legislature concludes its annual budget fight this summer. But a proposed tax measure on the November ballot offers more uncertainty.

Voters could approve a tax increase that would prevent a $4.8 billion trigger cut to education funding, as proposed in the governor's budget.

That cut would be about $807 per student, the equivalent of 55,000 teacher layoffs or 17 days of school, according to The Education Coalitions.

The layoff notices were sent to teachers, librarians and others in schools all over California. Not many districts found a way to skirt the deadline.

San Francisco sent out 500 layoff notices.

In Los Angeles, 11,000 were sent.

About 700 were mailed in Sacramento.

Every school librarian in Union City got one, along with 100 teachers, administrators and other school staff.

Oakland Unified administrators found a way to balance its budget through attrition, elimination of adult education, across-the-board cuts at school sites, school mergers and closures, as well as other program cuts.

Disgruntled public

As the pink slip deadline approached, the mood in dozens of districts across the state reflected a growing public impatience with budget cuts to education. Parents protested, teachers rallied, and three students in San Leandro held a weeklong hunger strike to draw attention to the cost to classrooms.

In years past, many of the layoff notices issued by the March 15 deadline have been rescinded because of concessions from labor unions, changes to the state's revenue outlook or successful parcel tax measures.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; US: California; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: dreamact; paid4dreamact; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]