Fans Flock to Mourn California, 1849-2009

Good point!

New York Times. Good laugh.

Yeah, it's only considered one of the greatest newspapers in the world. I bet you get your news from the National Inquirer and Fox right, those paragons of journalistic excellence. I agree with Krugman. The Republicans have ruined California and they will ruin the rest of the country if they had their way. Thankfully the Democrats control the White House and the Congress.

Krugman?

LOL LOL

You acutally believe the Republicans have been running California?

I have a bridge for sale....

You acutally believe the Republicans have been running California?

Yup. With the 2/3 vote required to raise taxes, they sure have. They won't budge from their obstinate no tax mantra.

They don't care if the state falls to pieces. They won't budge. The Dems have proposed many budget cuts that would go a long way to solving the problem, but if the plan includes ANY tax incease tehy just stamp a big NOPE on it and let the state crumble.

That's not governing. Compromise is necessary. We cannot only budget-cut our way out of this mess.

But make no mistake, we WILL get out of this mess. Maybe slowly,but we'll make it.

As a third generation Californian, I tell you this- Obstructionists always lose.

Let's see, Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist or some guy on teh internets?

It's a tough call whom I should listen to, really....

Didn't Gore win a noble prize also, I don't get my news form him either.

Air tight logic ya got there

SG the Dems more often than not in the last 6 years have lowered 'spending'...this is what I mean about people not knowing what they are really talking about...the Dems have cut most programs over and over and over and over to 'placate' GAS...(for those who don't know its short for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger)

Once Again: California's Budget Crisis Isn't a Spending Crisis

"...In other words, Weintraub makes it sound like the state is in a budget crisis because it is overspending, instead of because it is undertaxing. This is especially important when we consider what the state has been spending on - education, health care, and transportation - the very things California needs to remain competitive in a globalized 21st century economy."... The fact is that if we are to finally end 30 years of budget crisis, we have to find new revenues. The notion that any new taxes cripple economic growth is absurd - both California and the federal government hiked taxes between 1990 and 1993 and it didn't prevent the 1990s economic boom. The investment in education and mass transit helps create more investment while saving commuters, students, and workers money; and universal health care (or even a modest expansion of government-provided care) creates significant savings for businesses and employees.

A focus on spending, however, blinds us to the structural revenue shortfall and leads Californians and their politicians to assume the only way out is to slash spending - which would make the cost of doing business in California, and the cost of living here, significantly higher.

Without solving the revenue problem, we will never cure this chronic budget crisis.

Ah, the New York Times, that bastion of unbiased political reporting. Their articles always treat the democrats and those who are wrong equally. That paper and rush limbaugh are opposite sides of the same coin.

Let's see, Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist or some guy on teh internets?

Let's take just one of Krugmans Paragraphs -

Victory in Iraq won't end the world's distrust of the United States because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn't play by the rules. Remember: this administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court all in just two years. Paul Krugman March 18, 2003

U.S. repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming? That happened on Bill Clinton's watch, not Bush's, in 1997 when the Senate voted it down 95-zero (and the Republicans did not have a 95-0 majority in the Senate then).

Missile defense? The Russians considered it no big deal unlike certain American politicians and pundits.

Lifesaving pharmaceuticals? The Bush administration is spending $15 billion on AIDS in Africa.

Mexico and immigration? Maybe 9/11 has something to do with that.

Mortally insulted the Turks? They're still alive, and gave U.S. permission to use Turkish airspace for attacks on Iraq.

The International Criminal Court? Clinton signed the treaty, and he admitted that it needed major changes. He not Bush never even submitted it to the Senate.

Krugman is a person operating in the same domain as, say, Oprah Winfrey.

In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its "advisory board," and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine.

By his own admission

"my economic theories have no doubt been influenced by my relationship with my cats."

Krugman - LOL LOL

LOL the New York Times are So full of @!$%# they will wright just about anything someone tells them without even checking the facts those guys can weave bull@!$%# from Air,.

LOL the New York Times are So full of @!$%# they will wright just about anything someone tells them without even checking the facts those guys can weave bull@!$%# from Air,.

It's a bit amusing that you are criticizing the NY Times in such a grammatically incorrect, punctuation-challenged, spelling-optional diatribe.

Thats all you can come up with hmm your just so special 8) NY times sucks ill say it again..

Independent Voter - You obviously get your "news" and misinformation from Fox Noise and Limbaugh.

Anyone can contradict and spout propaganda. If everyone on Newsvine was held accountable for anything purporting to be a "fact" we could move on to discussions about the real world. We seriously need a Three Strikes and You're Out rule around here.

You wouldn't last long.

DCStone, perhaps the politicians should have thought about that years ago whether Democrats or Republicans. It seems the real problem is politicians do not know how to do budgets. The logical answer to a budget is first you figure out what you have for income and then you know what you have to spend.

That also is taken into consideration...but realize (again for those who don't know CA finances) the budget year is July 1 through June 30 and the first part of that time is 'money going out' and the second half of the fiscal year is when 'money comes in'...so numbers are not always available until after the budget is passed for the year and only reallly known once the money IS coming in...

Therefore states would be wise to be a year behind and spend the money this year that they recieved last year which could be done by borrowing enough for the year and then figuring that in the budget to pay it back.

"could be done by borrowing enough for the year"

ha ha ha, that just goes to show how much you don't know about 'governmental financing' and California's in particular...it was 'borrowing' that got us where we are...geesh.

The point being you are borrowing on a pay back term to be put into the next budget just as a loan and not borrowing, borrowing, and borrowing. Perhaps the problem with you in CA is how much people like you know about govt. and that is why they are where they are now. So ha ha to you also. Some states, such as mine, require a balanced budget by law. Tough decisions have to be made but at least we are not running up a debt for our children to pay off.

We do have a 'balanced budget law'...again most expenses are up front in the year with revenue on the back side. And if you knew anything about governmental budgets you would also know we don't have a 'two year cycle' which is the form that this version of what you say needs to take if it ever is to occur.

Also, Short term loans like you are suggesting (borrowing one year, paying back in the next) cannot take place per accounting principles and CA law. They have to be paid back in the same calendar/fiscal year...again, you don't know much about 'governmental accounting'...

There usually is borrowing done on the front end of the year and it gets repaid on the back end...these are the 'temporary' borrowings that occur yearly...

There are also long term borrowing (these are in the form of a 'bond' a different fiscal vehicle entirely)these are for longer periods of time, that has been done by GAS that still need repaying...the interest on them alone hurts the state too.

http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-06-29/news/state-budget-law-looms-over-schwarzenegger

Political consultant Chris Crotty said when Schwarzenegger proposed the Act, the intent was to force legislators and the governor to have a balanced budget in place. So in reality, would it be against the law if a balanced budget isn't in place by Wednesday?

"In layman's terms, yes. This would be against the law," Crotty said. "But legislators have figured out ways around it."

The bottom line is this DC, your government in CA is not working, that is why we are having this discussion. I was not talking about a short term loan, with all of your intelligence you seem to have a hard time understanding simple english. The point being is you determine what you want to spend one year and borrow that money through a loan or through bonds, however you wish. Then you collect revenue for the year and the revenue you collect for one year is used for next years expense's expenses and then the bond's/loan or whatever is figured in on how it is to be paid off. If that can not occur because of California law then guess where the problem really lies. As far as governmental accounting if the government would run their budgets as family's have to run theirs then once again the point being would be we would not be having this discussion. It is not just the state of CA. It is many states and many local governments and the Federal government as well.

The governments are not working well with their current method of financial planning. Therefore if a system does not work do you keep using the same system or do you find a way to fix the faults?

http://cafr1.com/SolvingShortfalls.html

California State Government Inc. has the same if not substantially larger fund balances than TX.

I strongly suggest that you share the same with your people and let them know to look for the same types of funds and listing in CA as shown in Texas to see "the reality" of standing fund balances in CA.

And one very IMPORTANT note; The CA article copied below mentions paying "Proposition 108 bonds", a debt investment instrument. It is VERY important to see who the investors are in that, and all other bond debt standing for all local governments. For decades local governments have been promoting debt at the front door and funding the same debt using their own investment funds through the back door. With them doing so it served a two fold purpose. It locked in an investment for the same local governments to stash their cash, and it allowed for promotion of the debt whereby they could justify by false promotions tax increases to pay the debt, a debt that was in reality a tool used by them to create investment vehicles to funnel their ever growing massive take of revenue (productivity value) from the people.

So the bottom line per debt as disclosed here is: What percentage of any local government's debt is actually funded in a round about way with the same local government's investment funds? Is it 50%, 70%, 80%, or maybe even 100%???? Every taxpayer BETTER and should know the answer to that question.... The Foxes are not going to tell you or make it easy for you to find out.

TWO EXAMPLES OF ROUND ABOUT SELF DEBT FUNDING: 1.] City X has $100,000,000 in bond debt that was funded by (Bank, Insurance, Investment Company) X. The same City X has $100,000,000 invested with Company X. 2.] State X has $10,000,000,000 invested with the local government investment pool and the local government investment pool is funding $10,000,000,000 of State X's bond debt. The mix and cross play here is mind boggling but in end result, the largest proportion of local government debt is funded with their own investment funds....

Lol, I can see you are trying, but you still aren't getting it...Good attempt though. None of what you linked are things I haven't seen or read about already...

The first article is old news in the sense that we already had a 'balanced budget' pass in Feb. but the revenues have fallen short...that is the current problem.

Yes, the people of the State in our trying to assist GAS we gave him what he wanted and passed prop 58. The balanced Budget requirement......now he is the one trying to skirt his own law.

And the courts are correct in not getting involved in that particular issue. They have had to deal with other numerous law suits on behalf of various departments, including some that GAS has made. The 'furlough' flap is just one of them...GAS has won some, and has lost some...of course each suit costs the state money...

As for the second article or actually it was a BLOG...that is precisely what the props in May that were voted down stopped...The 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' of raiding funds from other accounts that GAS tried to do...

As it is he is still taking a percentage of funds from the counties. GAS is trying to do away with the props WE the PEOPLE put in place (some he even wanted in the first place) that said the state had to PAY BACK any funds they take and with interest within three years...

See the majority of the people even if socially liberal do believe in 'some conservative principles' and did not like that the very programs (that had their own revenue stream so were revenue neutral for the state) we put in place, were the very programs GAS was asking our permission to steal the funding from...We the people said NO.

Perhaps you need the English lesson on 'accounting principles'....? You didn't seem to understand that is what I was speaking about...

About referring to Texas? and its 'budget process and financial laws', I am not going to discuss any other state, since I do not know them. It would be 'presumptuous' of me to even try to do so...:)

If only others would learn about their own states instead- we would all be better off.

But, as I said before, people seem to have no problem discussing California's issues even when they only 'slightly' know one side of it...

Just for an update.

I work in the CA public school system. We've had two loooong days of meetings with the Board of Directors last week, because it is the end of our fiscal year and time for the annual budget crunch.

Long story short, we've been asked to take a 10% pay cut, as of today. This is not a state thing, but something our particular organization decided was neccessary to stay afloat until the State yoohoos get it together.

Good luck believer...

So, is this 10% cut on top of/in addition to what GAS wants taken from each state worker already?...(that cut alone is approaching 20% of salaries for 'required' workers)

Dang, dc, it didn't occur to me to ask that question at this morning's meeting. I guess I could go to my CFO and get clarification, or I could just wait for payday and be surprised.

We went through this once before a few years back, and we rode it out. I tend to think a pay cut is easier to deal with than unemployment. Especially since I'm very good at my job and I like it a lot.

By this time tommorrow, I will have found the humorous side to this....

Good for you believer...

"By this time tomorrow, I will have found the humorous side to this...."

See, that is the ever optimistic Californian view of things...

not to change the subject, but I heard this morning that a CA Senator stated that CA will be picking up the tab for Michael Jacksons shin dig, so no need for donations.....where the hell are the going to get the money? CA is paying bills with IOU's and alot of banks have stopped accepting them...The Senator must crap $$$ when you swipe a card in his crack.

Dropping into the Pacific is probably the most likely option.

WEEELLL as of the other day...

State will accept IOUs for payment of taxes

Nicely said 8)

Well get ready for another 1350 refugees from Iraq that supported Saddam. I read another seed that they were being brought over and placed in CA and some other states.

Great...(sarcasm)

Well, as with other 'federal programs', and unlike most of them, I hope at least the Feds provide the 'funding' for them this time...

You do realize that along with those illegal aliens, you'd also lose about 13 percent of the country's GDP, a third of the nation's produce, and just about all of the decent wine.

Just sayin'.

From the U.S. Dept. of Commerce:

2008 total U.S. GDP: approximately $14 trillion.

(source: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls)

2008 California GDP: approximately $1.8 trillion.

(source: http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/)

The math is pretty straightforward.

yeah but I wanted the new one comming monday.

Not it matters your numbers are correct, for june 2nd and would be unfair of me, to use diff numbers, than last released count's, that you stated correctly to be 13.2 %

I was using wall street figures and can see some counts have changed, but is inside/trade info and I can't state, a thing towards them before monday, after 9 am eastern standard.

Demoness.