Daz
Tweeting about some totally unimportant event
Login to Send PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl%2C0%2C95571.htmlstory
Ok. If you cut EVERYTHING, and increase no taxes to start off with, and you don't apply the "one time fixes." You only have ~2.8 billion to work with.
Then if you add back in the things that "might be illegal and will definitely be challenged in court," you are into a 216 million dollar deficit.
They are so screwed.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
There is probably a drug decriminalization and taxation solution, but I'm far too lazy to figure it out.
Daz
Tweeting about some totally unimportant event
Login to Send PM
StowCbusCleveland
Jackson Township, Canton, OH
Login to Send PM
This reminds me of the "Budget Hero" game that you can play for the federal budget. It came out around election time, but I think they've updated it some to reflect the stimulus bill and other recent changes. It's a fun diversion.
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
You can cut a lot less and still not increase taxes if you win those court cases, though. Those are big chunks of change. The real lesson that interactive tool teaches is just how useless cuts of <$100m are. You have to focus on the things with the big price tags.
Daz
Tweeting about some totally unimportant event
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
You can cut a lot less and still not increase taxes if you win those court cases, though. Those are big chunks of change. The real lesson that interactive tool teaches is just how useless cuts of <$100m are. You have to focus on the things with the big price tags.
What kills me is how big of a cut their educational system has to take.
That's just plain brutal. Cal has been famous in the past for being one of the best school systems in the nation.
turnedNOTburned
Grandview/Columbus, Ohio
Login to Send PM
One would think that will all of the emerging technology and bio-parma out there that there'd be more than enough "innovation capital" to not only get the job done, but, get it done "iPhone-cool".
Like all the recent attempts of state governments to resist -REAL- change, I'm all for cutting until it "hurts". We're driving efficiencies back into the system, measuring true value vs benefit vs performance - this is awesome stuff. I can only hope that the pressure will sustain long enough to make some meaningful and lasting change.
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM
turnedNOTburned wrote >>
Like all the recent attempts of state governments to resist -REAL- change, I'm all for cutting until it "hurts". We're driving efficiencies back into the system, measuring true value vs benefit vs performance - this is awesome stuff. I can only hope that the pressure will sustain long enough to make some meaningful and lasting change.
I think it hurts. Talking about laying off police and firefighters, early release of non-violent inmates, closing schools early....
Budget shortfalls during recessions aren't solely the result of states being inefficient. When people are out of work, income tax revenues go way down, and when people are buying less, sales tax revenues go down. But those people who aren't contributing income taxes and aren't buying stuff still need fire and police services and the like. That's one of the reasons that these balanced-budget requirements are really biting cities and states in the ass.
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
They are, but I think the larger lesson from that should be the need to spend less and save more in flush times. State and local governments that treated the real-estate and MBS booms as permanent in some ways need to learn the lessons that only get taught in a lasting fashion by getting burned.
StowCbusCleveland
Jackson Township, Canton, OH
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
They are, but I think the larger lesson from that should be the need to spend less and save more in flush times. State and local governments that treated the real-estate and MBS booms as permanent in some ways need to learn the lessons that only get taught in a lasting fashion by getting burned.
Yup.
sjf
Canal Winchester
Login to Send PM
@Gram--you're awfully optimistic. I hear the talking-heads project how this period will result in a permanent shift in the consumer's attitude toward savings. Sure, maybe for a year or two. Whenever this recession ends and things return to "normal", the national savings rate will drop, too. I would be all for a statue requiring state and local governments to save a minimum percentage of any tax receipts or funds that exceed budget needs.
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
They are, but I think the larger lesson from that should be the need to spend less and save more in flush times. State and local governments that treated the real-estate and MBS booms as permanent in some ways need to learn the lessons that only get taught in a lasting fashion by getting burned.
In principle, I see that point. But in practice, we're staring at a boatload of damage to do to a lot of real people just for the sake of standing on principle.
It may not, in the end, be a bad thing that what's happening in California is happening, because before long the people who voted against all the different versions of the most recent Proposition 1 are going to find sex offenders released early into their neighborhoods, school performances dramatically declining, police and fire services not up to the task, state university ratings plummeting... in short, all of the things that people who complain about high taxation and fat state budgets take for granted in good times may actually start to fail in a dramatic fashion. Those are the lessons, it seems to me, that people may only learn when they get burned (perhaps literally, in the case of the fire dept.)
pez
Login to Send PM
Californians have really screwed themselves through a constitution that allows such wide use of propositions. Although it has helped in a few things (Proposition 103 on car insurance changed the way insurance worked across the country), other propositions strictly limit taxes and mandate spending. These rules run complete outside of any legislative process and bleed the state dry.
Unless they can break the mandates of these, they are headed down a path of potential fiscal ruin, even after the economy rebounds.
I doubt decriminalization of drugs will have any effect, recognizing that the only one that would clear the hurdle is marijuana. But since it grows so easily and wildly, there really is no way for the state or any other entity to capture the market on it. It's one of the few products that, if legal, would drop to near zero street value. with no commercial value, there is no taxable exchange. Heck, I probably wouldn't smoke it if it were legal, but I'd sure have some in my garden for guests (kind of like my Yuengling stash).
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Bear wrote >>
gramarye wrote >>
They are, but I think the larger lesson from that should be the need to spend less and save more in flush times. State and local governments that treated the real-estate and MBS booms as permanent in some ways need to learn the lessons that only get taught in a lasting fashion by getting burned.In principle, I see that point. But in practice, we're staring at a boatload of damage to do to a lot of real people just for the sake of standing on principle.
It may not, in the end, be a bad thing that what's happening in California is happening, because before long the people who voted against all the different versions of the most recent Proposition 1 are going to find sex offenders released early into their neighborhoods, school performances dramatically declining, police and fire services not up to the task, state university ratings plummeting... in short, all of the things that people who complain about high taxation and fat state budgets take for granted in good times may actually start to fail in a dramatic fashion. Those are the lessons, it seems to me, that people may only learn when they get burned (perhaps literally, in the case of the fire dept.)
That may be the case! After all, at least in theory, that's supposed to be one of the self-correcting mechanisms of democracy. However, it remains the case that California does have a fairly high tax burden, and other states are able to get by on substantially less per capita in total tax burden. California may need to pay government workers slightly more because of the higher costs of living in much of the state (at least, "much of the state" in terms of population distribution, not geography), but other than that, it doesn't appear to have a great many unique needs that would necessitate a higher per capita taxation rate than Texas or Florida (i.e., similar big states with multiple major metro areas).
Given that, even in what appears to be booming years for Democratic political fortunes, the proposal to raise taxes in California was recently defeated at the ballot by a substantial margin, I don't think that all that many people are likely to learn the lessons you're thinking they will. If they do, though, I'll not begrudge them their choice. One of the benefits of federalism is that states can go their own way on many policy decisions where there isn't need for national uniformity.
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
However, it remains the case that California does have a fairly high tax burden, and other states are able to get by on substantially less per capita in total tax burden. California may need to pay government workers slightly more because of the higher costs of living in much of the state (at least, "much of the state" in terms of population distribution, not geography), but other than that, it doesn't appear to have a great many unique needs that would necessitate a higher per capita taxation rate than Texas or Florida (i.e., similar big states with multiple major metro areas).
New York is conspicuously absent from that list, I notice. But in terms of overall tax burden, at least as of 2005, California was pretty much in the middle of the pack, and actually just a hair above the U.S. average. Now, admittedly, you might still view that as a high tax burden, and argue that other states get by on less, but it's hardly the case that California stands out as much as those statements would imply.
ETA: Larger point, though -- wouldn't it be nice if these painful lessons, whether in the end they're that we spend too much or that we cut back too severely (or, as I fear, we do each in its turn), could be anticipated rather than learned the hard way?
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Bear wrote >>
gramarye wrote >>
However, it remains the case that California does have a fairly high tax burden, and other states are able to get by on substantially less per capita in total tax burden. California may need to pay government workers slightly more because of the higher costs of living in much of the state (at least, "much of the state" in terms of population distribution, not geography), but other than that, it doesn't appear to have a great many unique needs that would necessitate a higher per capita taxation rate than Texas or Florida (i.e., similar big states with multiple major metro areas).ETA: Larger point, though -- wouldn't it be nice if these painful lessons, whether in the end they're that we spend too much or that we cut back too severely (or, as I fear, we do each in its turn), could be anticipated rather than learned the hard way?
Heh. Earlier in the thread, sjf noted that I might suffer from overoptimism. I might pass that along to you here (though I do note that you're only saying that it would be nice if this could be the case, not that you harbor much optimism that it actually could be).
At the very least, getting burned once might make future lessons of a similar kind easier to learn. Perhaps future warnings about markets overheating, or being built on smoke and mirrors, will be heeded. Then again, perhaps that's just me being overoptimistic again.
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
Heh. Earlier in the thread, sjf noted that I might suffer from overoptimism. I might pass that along to you here (though I do note that you're only saying that it would be nice if this could be the case, not that you harbor much optimism that it actually could be).
At the very least, getting burned once might make future lessons of a similar kind easier to learn. Perhaps future warnings about markets overheating, or being built on smoke and mirrors, will be heeded. Then again, perhaps that's just me being overoptimistic again.
You're actually more optimistic than I am, it seems. I didn't mean to imply that I thought that there was any hope in hell that that would actually happen! Lessons that run on cycles that are longer than generations seem to be hard for people to learn.
But that's actually why I'm more inclined to permit deficit spending during recessions, etc. etc. Because if finding the right balance of fiscal rectitude and government services across business cycles has to rely on all the voters not waiting to get burned again and again but actually anticipating the lessons that they should learn before they get burned, we're so hosed it boggles the mind.
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
