California: Harbinger of Fiscal Doom

What the Golden State's bleak future means for America

Brian Doherty | June 3, 2009

California is famously considered a bellwether state for social and political trends, from the positive (hot rod and surf culture, the human potential movement, tax revolts, digital culture) to the regrettable (murderous cults, carbon reduction mandates). With that in mind, a simple—yet terribly difficult for our political class—contemplation of the state's current cash crisis is both instructive and scary for the future of our nation as a whole.

California now confronts a roughly $24 billion deficit. Recent attempts to get voters to approve various fiscal shenanigans and cost-shifts got smacked down at the polls. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is now making a big show of proposing heavy spending cuts that will, we are told by the state’s journalistic and political mavens, destroy the state, beggar its sick and young, and leave just enough cash to forcibly keep people out of various state parks, though not to “operate” them.

Of course, nowhere among the “serious options” under consideration is legalizing pot and other controlled substances, which would likely give the state an extra billion dollars a year in tax revenue. That simple act of political sanity would also save the state the $43,000 a year per inmate now spent incarcerating drug criminals, of whom a fresh nearly 19,000 were added in 2008 alone.

Finding places to cut costs without reducing the state to post-apocalyptic squalor shouldn’t be such a big deal, of course. As explained in California’s political newspaper Capital Weekly last week:

[N]ew revenue estimates released by the Department of Finance this week place the state’s general fund revenues at $85.9 billion—nearly $4 billion higher than they were just five years ago.

Even with the depleted funds caused by plunging home prices and a global economic slowdown, Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget is still larger than his first budget in the 2004-05 budget year.

But in that first budget year, state spending was at $79.8 billion. Over the next two years, state spending jumped by more than 21 percent, to more than $101.4 billion in the 2006-07 budget year.

Current revenues, then, would allow for more spending than five years ago, a time in which state parks were open, schools functioned (though, as always, not very well), and the streets were not knee-deep with the neglected sick and poor.

As budget analyst Fred Silva told Capitol Weekly, solving California’s budget woes is not as simple as turning back the budget clock to 2004, largely because of locked-in—and crippling—pension and health care spending obligations. Certain cuts in health care, for example, would lead to the loss of federal revenue. And unions and state employees have no intention of making the state's solvency any easier.

Still, education spending has, according to state Sen. George Runner (R-Antelope Valley), writing at the California Policy Report news web site, “increased by $15 billion over the last decade even though there were 74,000 fewer students over that same period." State contributions to the government pension fund have, as Reason Foundation Policy Analyst Adam Summers notes, “jumped from $321 million in 2000-01 to $7.3 billion last year." It costs California nearly twice as much to house a prisoner per year as it costs Florida. Contemplating those facts, it’s obvious that the basic survival of the accoutrements of civilized living are not at stake in California’s fiscal crisis.

Indeed, living within the current income of the state should not be impossible, nor should it mark the end of civilization. Adjusted for inflation, California’s fiscal year 1991 revenue of $38 billion is still $25 billion less than their current revenue. As Summers explains, “If California had simply limited its spending increases to the 4.38 percent average increase in the state's consumer price index and population growth each year since FY 1990-91, the state would be sitting on a $15 billion surplus right now.”

The same holds for the United States as a whole: Federal revenues for 2007 ($2.6 trillion) are sufficient to have spent twice as much as federal outlays in 1975, adjusted for inflation, with no deficit at all. While life in these here United States was hellish on many levels in 1975, not least the fashions and food, even those with a much bigger appetite for government than I might agree that a government twice as big as what we enjoyed/suffered that year should be able to manage its necessary functions. (And no, there is no convincing reason that in a growing economy the government’s cash grab as a percentage of GDP should remain stable.)

When contemplating California’s fiscal present and the U.S.’s fiscal future, it’s not quite right to say that where California is now, the U.S. as a whole will follow. The U.S. is already in a deep hole, much deeper than California's, and has been for some time. Even President Barack Obama knows it. He told C-SPAN recently, with wonderfully disarming frankness, “we are out of money now.”

The U.S., unlike the state of California, when faced with a dearth of cash, can just make more, which is in essence Obama’s plan—for a while, at least. As in his most famous movie role as the Terminator, Schwarzenegger is metaphorically a visitor from a dangerous and unpleasant future that awaits the rest of the United States. The Golden State is absolutely a political bellwether now in the sense that the crisis-induced fiscal seriousness Schwarzenegger is at least pretending to attempt will be essential to the U.S. in the near future—and should be seen as essential this very second.

But while California can hold out hope that the federal government might bail it out of its troubles, the U.S. government, alas, has no higher power to which it can direct its own appeals. The buck stops there. The only problem, as Obama himself claims to understand, is they are all out of bucks.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of This is Burning Man (BenBella), Radicals for Capitalism (PublicAffairs) and Gun Control on Trial (Cato Institute).

Comments

|6.3.09 @ 3:10PM|#

bellWETHER!!! wether = "a male sheep castrated before sexual maturity"

After that, wouldn't you want to wear a bell?

|6.3.09 @ 3:15PM|#

After that, wouldn't you want to wear a bell?

No way. All the other sheep could hear you coming and have time to formulate various cutting remarks.


P.S. Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad homs, as libertarians concede my points and show their childish, anti-intellectual nature.

Inviaible Finger|6.3.09 @ 3:18PM|#

In order to pay my increased taxes, I'll have to forego a few luxuries that I've enjoyed for several years. Like buying a daily newspaper, for example.

Mike M.|6.3.09 @ 3:22PM|#

"The bank is closed, the credit is dried up, and our day of reckoning is here."
-Arnold Schwarzenegger - June 2, 2009

History will not look at all kindly on the people who did this to us.

|6.3.09 @ 3:24PM|#

Kudos to Brian Doherty for pointing out something that I've noticed for years: that most governments could have balanced budgets by simply by spending what they spent a few years ago.

In fact, give some Reason intern this task: a chart of California (and federal) revenues and spending over the last however many decades. The last time I saw such a chart for the feds, simply freezing spending for about five years would balance the budget.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.3.09 @ 3:34PM|#

After that, wouldn't you want to wear a bell?

About five years ago I was walking somewhere in the middle of nowhere in rural England and it started storming hard so I took shelter in the shed on a nearby farm. On the other side of the shed's partitioning wall I could hear weak, belabored baa-ing. From the single light bulb hanging from the ceiling. I could see that all the walls were lined with small boxes, stacked floor to ceiling, labeled CASTRATOR BOLTS. I was never even sure how bolts would get involved.

Xeones|6.3.09 @ 3:34PM|#

most governments could have balanced budgets by simply by spending what they spent a few years ago.

Get real, Papaya. How are Sens and Cons and Prezzes supposed to look like they're doing stuff if they can't do stuff? How are they supposed to get reelected then, huh? Won't someone think of the politicians?

P.S. Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad homs, as libertarians concede my points and show their childish, anti-intellectual nature.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.3.09 @ 3:35PM|#

...and I went back out into the storm.

Spoonman|6.3.09 @ 3:37PM|#

Wessex Sackbolt Massacre?

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.3.09 @ 3:43PM|#

A solid band name.

|6.3.09 @ 3:43PM|#

...and I went back out into the storm.

Fascitis stumbled, dazed, under the lighting-torn sky. Why had he gone in that shed? The horror. THE HORROR. He couldn't find his bearings, but he had to get out of the rain-lashed open.

Suddenly he heard the sound of smashing wood behind him. He spun around, heart pumping with fear and a sudden dread.

Out from the smashed side of the shed shambled a figure. At first Fascitis thought it was a sheep, as it seemed to be covered in wool, but then, to his horror, Fascitis recognized what it was.

LoneWacko straightened up under the nightmare sky, his bloody sheepskin and sheep's head flexing over his emaciated body. in his hand he held a castration machine, with fresh bolts.

"Come here, my friend," he moaned through his blood-caked, slit-like mouth. "It's your turn, and I'm still hungry."

Fascitis turned and ran, with the shambling, gurgling sounds of LoneWacko's pursuit growing louder behind him.

Chad|6.3.09 @ 3:45PM|#

In the end, it is the pension plans that are killing state budgets, just like they killed GM. I think some of the statistics cited in the article concerning spending growth are somewhat distorted in that past spending was artificially low due to under-funding pension plans, which are now coming home to roost. If pensions had been funded properly, past spending would have been higher and current spending could be eased, making growth appear smaller.

Does anyone out there really think that there are more cops, better roads, or more park rangers than 20 years ago? Neither do I. Almost all the growth has been in prisons, pensions, and health care.

Naga Sadow|6.3.09 @ 3:48PM|#

*reads Epi's post and shivers*

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.3.09 @ 3:50PM|#

*twitches*

You had to bring it all back, damn you Epi.

I guess know you all know why I wear this bell...

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.3.09 @ 3:52PM|#

History will not look at all kindly on the people who did this to us.

Which won't save us from doom. Because a dim view from future history books is about the only price politicians ever pay.

Our politicians are only doing what representative democracies give them every incentive to do.

Of course, the future history books will be far more interesting with that sheep story running through them. A thousand years from now they'll still be wondering what those bolts were for.

24AheadDotCom|6.3.09 @ 3:53PM|#

Reason - this time through Brian Doherty - continue to be incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Here's a comment I left on an earlier entry here:

Reason's complaints about subsidies and the problems CA is having might mean something if they didn't support massive subsidies and if their ideology hadn't played a role in helping CA get into the shape it is.

Reason has consistently supported MassiveImmigration without making eliminating the WelfareState a precondition. That MassiveImmigration has not only greatly increased spending by CA, it's given a massive subsidy to crooked businesses. And, it's given a great deal of PoliticalPower to the far-left; the far-left has responded by using their additional power to push for more spending.

I frankly don't know whether Reason is corrupt or stupid, but it doesn't really matter. Their ideas have been shown to be faulty and no one should take their advice on getting out of the problems their ideology helped create.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

T|6.3.09 @ 3:56PM|#

a scary and instructive look at America's future

Also known as: how many column inches Brian can fill up saying "we are all so fucked".

|6.3.09 @ 3:59PM|#

Close the state parks? Hell, why not sell the state parks? When families and companies run into difficult financial straits, the cut spending and sell some of their less important assets e.g. the 2nd BMW, that logging firm we acquired.

P.S. Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad homs, as libertarians concede my points and show their childish, anti-intellectual nature.

Reason Staff|6.3.09 @ 3:59PM|#

CALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIACALIFORNIA

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.3.09 @ 4:05PM|#

When in Rome, do as the Romans.

The end of the Republic is near. The rise of the Empire is also near.

Let's hope it doesn't literally begin with Obama.

|6.3.09 @ 4:14PM|#

It fails on a small scale, why shouldn't succeed on a large scale? Right?

Citizen Nothing|6.3.09 @ 4:16PM|#

I, for one, welcome our new Corvair-making overlords.

Xeones|6.3.09 @ 4:18PM|#

Also known as: how many column inches Brian can fill up saying "we are all so fucked".

If only he was wrong.

P.S. Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad homs, as libertarians concede my points and show their childish, anti-intellectual nature.

Spoonman|6.3.09 @ 4:19PM|#

The focus on California is sensible, as it's big and has constant demonstrations of the pitfalls of statism. I'm very happy for Texas to remain ignored by Reason, as that means it isn't being too nuts.

Warty|6.3.09 @ 4:22PM|#

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

Warty|6.3.09 @ 4:26PM|#

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

Urkobold™|6.3.09 @ 4:26PM|#

WOULDN'T IT BE FUNNY IF LONEWACKO TURNED OUT TO BE LONEJACKO, I.E., MICHAEL JACKSON? IT WOULD EXPLAIN A GREAT MANY THINGS.

T|6.3.09 @ 4:28PM|#

I'm very happy for Texas to remain ignored by Reason, as that means it isn't being too nuts.

From a practical perspective, what saves Texas is the extremely limited time we allow the Lege to meet. I have no doubt if the Lege were in session all year, every year like Congress and most states, we'd be equally as hosed.

P.S. Any replies to this ad hom will most likely consist of comments, as libertarians concede my childish, anti-intellectual nature and show their points.

Xeones|6.3.09 @ 4:29PM|#

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

I think my favorite part of that disclaimer is that LoneWacko believes he really is an intellectual, and not just an unlovable racist nutjob.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

The Magic Latina|6.3.09 @ 4:30PM|#

"Of course, the future history books will be far more interesting with that sheep story running through them. A thousand years from now they'll still be wondering what those bolts were for."

Which reminds me -- what would historians 150,000 years from now conclude about 20th century Earth if the only thing they had to go on was a boxed set of "Mr. Ed: DVD's?

|6.3.09 @ 4:30PM|#

Warty, you fool, you are going to put us into a LoneWacko MetaDeathSpiral!

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

Warty|6.3.09 @ 4:41PM|#

LONEWACKO RESONANCE CASCADE NOOOOOOOO RUN FOR IT

24AheadDotCom|6.3.09 @ 4:44PM|#

For every illegal immigrant that Reason helps me get kicked out of the country I, as a reward, will post one picture of me performing auto fellatio. To me this sounds like a win-win for everyone.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

The Magic Latina|6.3.09 @ 4:50PM|#

"as a reward, will post one picture of me performing auto fellatio"

He blows cars?

The Angry Optimist|6.3.09 @ 4:52PM|#

uh oh, somebody's cruising for a ban. The reason editors, for some bizarre reason, don't take Lonewacko spoofs lightly. Just ask me.

Ken Silber|6.3.09 @ 4:58PM|#

Federal revenues for 2007 ($2.6 trillion) are sufficient to have spent twice as much as federal outlays in 1975, adjusted for inflation, with no deficit at all.

I don't like this trend either but a more meaningful figure would be federal outlays, adjusted for inflation and population growth. The U.S. population in 1975 was almost a third lower.

Craig|6.3.09 @ 4:58PM|#

Current revenues, then, would allow for more spending than five years ago, a time in which state parks were open, schools functioned... and the streets were not knee-deep with the neglected sick and poor.

It was noted during the Ron Paul campaign that his proposal for abolishing the federal income tax, if matched dollar for dollar with spending cuts, would still leave the federal budget at its level of just ten years prior.

Now with Obama in charge, eliminating the income tax (and cutting spending to match) would leave spending at levels from just ONE year ago (admittedly with very large deficits, but we have those anyway.)

Craig|6.3.09 @ 5:04PM|#

The end of the Republic is near. The rise of the Empire is also near.

No, the Republic died in either 1865 or 1913, depending on whether "consent of the governed" or "limited government" is your yardstick.

The Empire started in 1898, and will most likely fizzle out due to lack of funding and collapse of the Imperial currency any day now....

jpocali|6.3.09 @ 5:07PM|#

Bud-ump-bump crash.

Spoonman|6.3.09 @ 5:07PM|#

T, you'd like my letter in the Chronicle today:

Regarding "Legislature adjourns with work unfinished" (Page A1, Tuesday), despite all the whining and finger-pointing, it's probably a good thing that the Legislature failed to accomplish much of anything this session. Given the lack of intelligence demonstrated by its members, Texans should feel relieved that they were unable to affect their lives in any significant way.

- Nigel Watt, Houston

phalkor|6.3.09 @ 5:08PM|#

The Empire started in 1898, and will most likely fizzle out due to lack of funding and collapse of the Imperial currency any day now....

and then?

please say zombie plague because I IS READY!

The Magic Latina|6.3.09 @ 5:17PM|#

Today, Arnold is pushing the idea of free digital books for all the publick schools:

The state currently spends about $330 million on instructional materials each year. Reaching the governor's cost-saving estimate related to digital textbooks - hundreds of millions of dollars - would require eliminating nearly all state funding for regular textbooks or other materials.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/06/03/MNPP17VN0R.DTL

The Magic Latina|6.3.09 @ 5:20PM|#

"please say zombie plague because I IS READY!"

Don't zombies suck out human brains?

Isn't that also what Tiller did?

|6.3.09 @ 5:25PM|#

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

I think my favorite part of that disclaimer is that LoneWacko believes he really is an intellectual, and not just an unlovable racist nutjob.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

Wheeeeee! Death spiral! It's not just for world-leading economies any longer!

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

T|6.3.09 @ 5:56PM|#

it's probably a good thing that the Legislature failed to accomplish much of anything this session.

Always a feature, never a bug. Why people can't draw the connection between always on legislatures and runaway government is beyond me. I guess it's because they have so few examples of the opposite.

Chad|6.3.09 @ 6:21PM|#

I don't like this trend either but a more meaningful figure would be federal outlays, adjusted for inflation and population growth. The U.S. population in 1975 was almost a third lower.

I think government spending as a fraction of GDP is most relevant. It has been more or less constant for decades, with spending just over 20% at the federal level, and tax revenues just a bit under 20%. That ~3% gap has been the source of our troubles.

And no, a 3% of GDP tax increase at the federal level (and about 1% more at the state level) will not collapse the economy, nor even have a measurable effect.

|6.3.09 @ 6:58PM|#

Just admit it! Wouldn't it be awesome if California went bankrupt? Another day in paradise!

|6.3.09 @ 8:09PM|#

I have never been as proud of the participants of this board as I am on this day.


P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

Paul|6.4.09 @ 1:04AM|#

California's public sector unions are now my problem. And I'm not happy about it.

|6.4.09 @ 10:12AM|#

From a practical perspective, what saves Texas is the extremely limited time we allow the Lege to meet.

It sure helps. They just went home, and I was reviewing the report on hospital legislation. Mountains of bad bills died in committee or on the floor for lack of a vote.

And no, a 3% of GDP tax increase spending cut at the federal level (and about 1% more at the state level) will not collapse the economy society, nor even have a measurable effect.

Why assume that a tax increase to close the gap is the only way to go, Chad? Why not a spending cut?

Mike M.|6.4.09 @ 11:35AM|#

I think government spending as a fraction of GDP is most relevant. It has been more or less constant for decades, with spending just over 20% at the federal level.

This is still true today only if you look at the on-budget items and ignore everything else. It's a bunch of B.S. once you include the bailouts, the stimulus packages, etcetera.

|6.4.09 @ 3:46PM|#

I just heard that we have spent more in 6 months than in the last 30 years. Is this true?

|6.4.09 @ 5:06PM|#

Here's a few ways to start cutting CA state spending;
1-all state worker salary's over $100,000 will be cut to $99,999, no 6 digit salary's.
2-cut legislature per diem expenses to cover only 2 months in capital, not the current 12 months.
3-cancel all taxpayer contributions to state worker pensions indefinitely, at least for 5 years.
4-all state worker salary's under $100,000, should be cut 15%, and frozen indefinitely.
5-cut cost/prisoner to national average, half of current levels.
6-issue layoffs to 10% of all state workers, starting with the most senior, issue another 10% until budget begins to generate surplus and we begin paying down past debts.
Please add your ideas, I am sure that there are more constructive ideas about how to cut state spending in CA.
thanks!!

Chaz|6.4.09 @ 7:27PM|#

I am a right-wing marijuana smoker. (One of three nationally, I believe) The problem I have with this story and other Libertarian musings on prohibition is the stance that pot-heads get locked up. I've been smoking pot for 13 years and have understandably made a lot of pot-head friends. I have never, ever heard of any of them getting locked up for smoking weed. Has anyone ever read about a guy who did jail time for simple posession? It doesn't happen. Even in the deep south, people don't go to jail for blazing it up. I'm sure that many Reason readers have been pulled over with a roach in their ashtray. And I'm sure that their experiences with with law enforcement have been the same as mine, mainly getting sent on your way with no charge. Even if you get arrested for having a bag of weed in your pocket, what judge in America would throw you in jail? People get locked up for selling cocaine and heroin. One must make that distinction.

|6.4.09 @ 7:48PM|#

I live in California, and it is a total disaster. Despite wasted spending on the teachers union to raise pay for incompetent teachers, are schools are in the bottom 10 nationally. Because of environmental issues, we are not allowed to produce any energy (no plants built in the last 50 years), so energy costs skyrocket. Because of environmental issues (some small species of fish), we cannot get water from our main sources, so we are forced to pay higher taxes. They keep raising our taxes and lowering the benefits. Our small business is planning to leave the state (along with most rational people). The state is in horrible financial trouble and they think that they can just raise taxes and cut services to get out of the problem. Liberal fools have been running this state into the ground. If you want to know where our country is headed, look at what is happening in California.

|6.4.09 @ 8:16PM|#

All California and the rest of the states have to do is tell all the government employees they can have their pensions but they must wait until they're 62 or 66 to collect them just like the rest of the population has to wait and there will be no double dipping. Crisis over

|6.4.09 @ 8:43PM|#

My barber just got the contract to cut the hair for poor children. How many other programs like this are there?

Abner MacGillicuddy|6.4.09 @ 9:41PM|#

OK, the closing the State Parks deal has my bullshit alarm blaring.

I mean this sounds to me like another political scare tactic.

So, I know that SP entry fees don't cover all costs, but seriously, shutting down something that actually gets revenue sounds pretty stupid. And, of course it never occurred to anyone to make State parks self-supporting, did it?

Or don't CA SPs have entry fees?

|6.5.09 @ 12:52AM|#

Well said Brian. Best article I have read in a long time.

|6.5.09 @ 1:55AM|#

Politicians are like drunks - you can't leave them alone with themselves.

Two Constitutional amendments need to be enacted 1) limits the amount of money the state can collect in taxes and debt 2) Flat percentage sales tax that is tacked on to the final sale to the consumer.

Until this happens this is just a circus and we are all clowns.

|6.5.09 @ 8:59AM|#

The lies about the pay and pensions of Cal. State Workers continues.

Fact: My last pay raise was in July 2006.

Fact: My pay has been cut 10% in response to the fiscal crisis. I'm now earning waht I did in July 2006, MINUS 10%.

Fact: My pension is paid by deducting 6% from my salary. The State pays NOTHING!

Fact: The State has made no contributions to any pension fund in years. NOTHING!

Stop the lies!

|6.5.09 @ 9:31PM|#

Although I absolutely agree government spending needs to decrease, I feel the need to point out a couple things, one, a common mistake and two, a very obvious omission by the Author to make Government looking even more bloated than it is..

Your inflation adjusted comparisons are quite eye opening, but only if you believe the PHONY CPI.

Everyone knows prices go up more than the CPI reflects and the fact that governments can't get things done unless they spend far far more than the "inflation adjusted" amount.

Now, if you use the inflation rate, the very one the U.S. government used until 1991, you will find prices actually increased nearly double the "official" amount. shadowgovernment.com

In addition, not only would you need to adjust for inflation but also in population growth. For example, if inflation is ZERO from 1999 to 2009, does that mean the California budget should increase by Zero? The answer to that is if the economy grows along with population, the budget must increase.

Why did the Author leave out the above little fact?

That said, sorry public employees, it is time to do with less. Sorry Health Care Providers, it is time to give up profits and stop preventing the huge tax savings a One Payer System would bring.

|6.7.09 @ 4:33PM|#

Over 55,000 people die on our highways each year; let's legalize pot so that we can boost this number... Why not legalize prostitution in California? Oh, I forgot, they already did that. They're called the Democratic Legislature...