Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey

52 Percent of Californians Say a Decade of Gov't Spending Lowered the Quality of Life in the Golden State

|

According to the Tax Foundation, California state spending has increased 42 percent per capita adjusted for inflation since 2000. The October Reason-Rupe poll asked Californians if this increased spending improved their quality of life, decreased the quality of life in California or had no significant impact. In fact, we find a majority, 52 percent, says this increased state spending decreased their quality of life in the state. Fourteen percent say it has improved the quality of life in the Golden State, and 28 percent say it has had no significant impact.

In other words, 80 percent of Californians think this near 50 percent increase in state spending either made things worse or made no difference. This comports with the average Californian thinking the state wastes an average of 50 cents of every dollar it spends. Likewise, this may also explain why a majority (56 percent) favors rolling back California state spending per capita to 2000 levels, adjusted for inflation.

Despite the fierce opposition that tends to emerge whenever lawmakers attempt to cut government spending, majorities across nearly every demographic and political group favor rolling California state spending back to 2000 levels. Perhaps using 2000 as a baseline provides some grounding to the uncertainty that emerges whenever someone calls for cutting spending. Californians don't seem to recall government spending being too low in 2000 and thus are willing to consider rolling spending back to those levels.

California telephone poll conducted October 11th-15th on both landline and cell phones, 696 adults, margin of error +/- 3.8%. The sample also includes 508 likely voters, with a margin of error of +/- 5.1%. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here. Full poll results found here.

NEXT: Amarillo, Texas Sued by Family of Man Shot to Death by Police

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. California is in play

    1. Yuh, right! LOL

      Standard QA in the Golden State:
      “Do you believe that reduced government spending could help your quality of life?”
      “Yes.”
      “Do you believe that the presidency can alter your quality of life?”
      “Yes.”
      “Do you believe your quality of life has been diminished in the last four years?”
      “Yes.”
      “Who will you vote for on November 6?”
      “Obama.”

      1. Hey, where did you get that transcript of the polling calls?!

      2. California deserves its fucking good and hard.

        1. I’d say CA deserves an eternity of indifferent, perfunctory missionary sex.

          1. By barbed penis wielding hellhounds.

      3. Both California and the country in general have the same problem. The vast majority of people agree that the Government spends too much, but name a program to cut to any random person and that’s precisely the one that should not be cut.

  2. 80% of Californians believe all that spending has been neutral to bad for the state, yet a majority of Californians keep re-electing the bastards who spend like crazy.

    The overlap in those categories has to be, well, at least 30%, and probably higher than that.

    Democracy: the worst form of government, except for all the others.

    1. ^^^^this.

      It’s like every time Bloomberg comes out and does something stupid you hear people from New York complaining about how stupid it is. Well, I bet half the people bitching about his dumbass voted for him to begin with.

      Reminds me of this bit from Jim Gaffigan-“No one admits to going to McDonalds. They sell six billion hamburgers a day, there are 300 million people in this country, I think somebody is lying.”

      (here for the funny – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YDTfEhChgw )

      1. Not me!

        *burp*

        /hides Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese wrapper

      2. You can subtract me–I hardly ever eat hamburgers there. Though I do eat the occasional Egg McMuffin.

        1. You won’t catch me eating lunch food there, though I do eat the occasional breakfast sandwich.

          I worked there in high school and saw a disturbing change in quality over those couple of years.

          When I started the food was good. The buns came out of the toaster, were dressed, then the meat went from the grill to the dressed buns, the sandwiches were wrapped and then put in the bin. After fifteen minutes they were tossed.
          Yum!

          Then they decided to make things “better”.

          Now they toast the buns and put them in a holder for up to four hours*. They cook the meat and put it in a steamer for up to thirty minutes*. To order the sandwiches are dressed, wrapped, put into a Q-ing oven (as in Quality. call it a microwave and they’ll fire your ass) before being served.
          Gross!

          *assuming the rules are followed… haaahahahaha!

          1. I only go there for the Monopoly game. I find it strangely addicting, though it’s no different than the lottery (which I almost never play).

            1. I did the math and figured that there is no significant statistical difference between the odds of winning the lottery with a ticket and without a ticket. Statistically speaking it’s zero either way.

              So I don’t bother with the stupid ticket and hope I win!

              1. You never know. You might find a winning ticket on the ground.

              2. I have gotten my share of free McFlurries and medium fries from the McD’s Monopoly game. Can’t say the same of the lottery.

    2. These same people will vote FOR prop 30.

  3. I think bankruptcy would be the best option to meaningfully change the way the state spends money. I think one good thing about a Romney administration is that he might actually make Governor Dickhead jettison the union pensions and restructure them and state spending habits in general so they’re at a sustainable level before giving him a bailout.

    I mean this is a state that should completely discredit the Democratic philosophy and approach to governing and right now we’re about to pass a massive tax increase to pay for fucking schools, despite the fact that the Democrats are holding the funding hostage and at least half of the state’s general fund must, by law, go to education. Clearly the problem isn’t revenue but rather inefficiency.

    1. Clearly the problem isn’t revenue but rather inefficiency.

      How can that be? I was told that government does everything more efficiently because it doesn’t throw away money to rich people in the form of profits.

      1. I’ve been researching for a debate I’m particpating in about Prop 30, and according to the Reason Foundation’s handy guide to California’s ballot props, administrative positions in the form of senior managers for the UC system grew by 194% in recent years.

        And we’re supposed to believe that throwing more money at the system as it is will solve all our problems.

        1. A while back the President of UC Santa Cruz hired her girlfriend to a do nothing 250K a year job. That kind of stuff is rampant. The whole system is just a jobs program for the connected and the grievance industry. Seriously, how many Chicano studies programs and six figure salaried diversity consultants should the taxpayers and university students of California be on the hook for?

            1. Well yes. In a sane world California would think about why they have a university system and fun only programs that actually produced value to the state. Instead they throw away billions so the professional left can have big paying jobs.

        2. You’ve got two alternatives. You do things in the private sector, which means that people are going to get rich and then you have inequality (which is the most terrible thing in the world) or you throw money to well intentioned bureaucrats. These bureaucrats aren’t interested in profits. They’re not greedy. They exist to serve the public.

          So it’s really not a matter of efficiency, but a moral issue.

          Profits going to fat cat rich people is morally repugnant. Government is the answer.

          1. And never forget, getting paid a large six figure salary running a non profit is noble. Getting paid a five figure salary working for a profit making corporation makes you an exploiter and evil.

    2. The democrats have had a majority in the CA legislature for over 40 years, I think, and they still blame the Republicans for all their problems. Thanks to the idiot CA voters, the democrats don’t even need a 2/3 majority to raise taxes anymore, and it will still be the fault of the republicans. Amazing.

      1. The Democrats managed to turn themselves into a brand. It is fashion. You vote Democrat in a place like California to show how tolerant you are and how you are not one of the despised other. Once voting for a party because essential to your self image, you can no longer hold the party accountable for their actions. You can’t vote Republican or Libertarian because to do so is to give up your sense of self worth.

        The way Democrats have branded themselves is devilishly brilliant.

        1. “Good people don’t tolerate intolerance.
          If someone disagrees with good, tolerant people, then they must be intolerant. What other explanation is there?
          So when you come to the polls, show you are a good and tolerant person by voting for the candidate who is most hostile towards intolerance.”

    3. I think bankruptcy would be the best option to meaningfully change the way the state spends money.

      I believe that, right now, there is no way for a state to declare bankrtuptcy. The bankruptcy code has provisions for local governments, but not states.

      IANABankruptcyL, so I could be wrong. But before CA declares bankruptcy, there will have to be Congressional action to clear the way. That should be interesting, with one TEAM howling for a bailout, and the other pounding its shoe on the podium for bankruptcy.

      1. A state doesn’t need bankruptcy. It can just write down its debts and tell the bond holders to go fuck themselves. A state is a soveriegn, what are the bond holders going to do about it? Sue? Even if they could, how would they college a judgement?

        It will be a political issue in California. One day, they just won’t be able to borrow anymore and wil have to pay up or face not being able to issue bonds.

    4. I think bankruptcy would be the best option to meaningfully change the way the state spends money.

      The state has more money than ever. Revenues are near all time highs. They have PLENTY of fucking money.

      1. “I think bankruptcy would be the best option to meaningfully change the way the state spends money.”

        I think Lex Luthor had the best option…

        God Damn Superman!

  4. Define “waste 50c on every dollar”.

    It’s not waste if you’re the one getting paid six figures to sit in an office and shuffle papers all day– papers which detail various condemned properties which you’re in charge of ‘developing’ at some time in the next two or three decades. Because Public Purpose.

  5. Obviously they just didn’t spend enough money. A REAL Keynesian stimulus would have gotten the economy hitting on all cylinders.

    1. +$10,000,000,000,000

      1. I think you left off a zero there.

  6. Question; If Obama loses the election what happens to the interest rates on California bonds? What kind of a nut would buy a California bond right now if you didn’t think the feds were going to eventually bail them out?

    1. You think Romney would be less likely to bail out California than Obama?

      He’s just another politician. He’s going to do whatever he perceives is best politically. If that means bailing out California, then he’ll bail out California.

      1. I’m not fucking bailing out California. Join me in my cause.

        1. Tell me when you have a choice in the matter, because I’ll be all ears.

          1. Can you say, “tax rebellion?”

            1. I’m a business owner. I have little choice in the matter. A tax rebellion on my part would result in a fairly summary judgement and sentencing.

              1. Such rebellions only work when a lot of people join in. I’m thinking the rest of the country might just flip out if California was to be saved with our money. It’s not chump change, either.

                1. Get rid of withholding and you might have a chance

        2. I’m not fucking bailing out California.

          Are you Ben Bernanke?

          No, then your opinion doesn’t matter.

      2. You think Romney would be less likely to bail out California than Obama?

        Yes, this notion that Romney would not bail out CA baffles me. Romney is an ex-gov of MA; of course he will bail them out, just as he supported bailouts of Wall St and the auto industry!

        1. Sure. He loves doing it so much that he would tell all of his supporters and tax payers in every state who voted for him to go fuck themselves, he is taking their money and giving it to a state that would never in a million years vote for him.

          It is possible I guess. But if it is anything other than a fantasy, Romney is a hell of a lot more principled politician than he has ever shown.

          1. “He allowed California to go bankrupt. All of those loyal workers have lost their pensions and their livelihood. We warned you about his history with Bain Capital.

            Are you next?”

            1. Two words, Primary Challenge. And go talk to the Unions in Wisconsin and ask them how well that dog hunts. Everyone hates the public sector unions these days. They can’t win in Wisconsin for Chirst sake. You think they are going to win in Texas or Florida?

          2. Sure. He loves doing it so much that he would tell all of his supporters and tax payers in every state who voted for him to go fuck themselves

            Just like Bush and Obama did on autobailouts?

            No, John, even thought that’s what’s implied, it’s never sold as such. “So goes California, so goes the nation… it’s in your interest that we (the feds, never refer to it as taxpayer money) bail them out!”

            1. Exactly.

            2. No, John, even thought that’s what’s implied, it’s never sold as such. “So goes California, so goes the nation… it’s in your interest that we (the feds, never refer to it as taxpayer money) bail them out!”

              Not going to happen. It would never get out of the House much less on the President’s desk. And you can’t just bail out California. There is New York and Illinois and pretty much every other blue state and is going bankrupt.

              There is no way to sell that to the Republican base. Not after TARP. IF Romney did that, he would be primaried in 2016 and lose in a landslide if he even managed to get the nomination. Now maybe Romney is retarded and doesn’t realize this or maybe he cares so much about California is willing to take the consiquences. But both things are extremly unlikely.

              1. It would never get out of the House much less on the President’s desk.

                So you’re saying it’s a non-issue no matter who the president is?

                If so then why the fuck did you bring it up?

                1. It is a hell of a lot more likely to get out of the House with a President pushing it. And with the fed’s ability to print money, the President if he wants to could bipass Congress.

            3. And the auto bailout is small compared to bailing California out. I know you guys think Romney drinks the blood of children in his spare time. But you are out to lunch on this one. If Obama doesn’t win, California is fucked.

              1. I know you guys think Romney drinks the blood of children in his spare time.

                Sure, Red Tony. Whatever you say.

                1. Sarcasmic stop making stupid points about your fantasies of what Romney is or is not going to do. You believe he is going to commit political suicide to bailout California. What other stupid shit do you believe?

                  1. Sure, Red Tony. Whatever you say.

                    1. I’m not red at all* and I lean towards John’s take here.

                      *pro-gay marriage, open borders, legal drugs, prostitution, no drones please, etc.

              2. And the auto bailout is small compared to bailing California out. I know you guys think Romney drinks the blood of children in his spare time

                No, we don’t. That’s what the media thinks. What we think is that when it comes to bailing out the universe, Obama is “cautious” and Romney is “wary”. Start differences!

                1. Obama is “cautious” and Romney is “wary”
                  Exactly.

                  RE: John
                  In my original answer, Red Tony, I said that Romney would do it if it would benefit him politically.
                  I didn’t say he was chomping at the bit as you disingenuously imply, Red Tony.

                  1. I said that Romney would do it if it would benefit him politically.

                    I think you are right about that. I just don’t see how it could possibly do so.

        2. I don’t think Romney would bail out CA, and I sure don’t see a Republican House, or even a Republican filibustered Senate doing so.

          Romney would have to know that bailing out CA would guarantee him one (1) term and no more.

          Not to mention, its not like CA would ever vote for him no matter what he did, so the electoral math is easy.

          1. Setting the precedent of allowing states to go bankrupt?

            I don’t think so.

            1. Setting the precedent of the federal government bailing out insolvent states?

              I don’t think so.

              1. Too Big To Fail?

                1. Setting the precedent of the federal government bailing out insolvent states?

                  I don’t think so.

                  This is where I think RC Dean is thinking of something most others aren’t. Bailing out CA is like bailing out Spain – any bailout would come with so many conditions attached that CA wouldn’t want to meet the conditions. This is a lot closer to Europe than people want to believe.

                  All Romney would have to do is propose a bailout with conditions and let the Dems shoot it down. Then people may start switching their votes to the other party just to get ANY bailout. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that 20% would switch parties – just a large enough minority of Dems switching changes the balance of power. But whether a “real” bailout happens or not, the important part is dragging it out for a couple years so that the party switches become somewhat permanent.

            2. Setting the precedent of allowing states to go bankrupt?

              Why not? The only states that are in danger of going bankrupt are New York, and Illinois. And those states are just as blue as California. The Republican states are not going bankrupt.

              1. Again, what we’d want to happen, not what would happen. I’m with Sarcasmic on this one. It seems dicey in the world of Washington Politics that a sitting president would let California slide off the fiscal cliff. All the blue states who have their own budget problems would see this as a mean-spirited precedent. The demagoguery would be deafening. It would be roundly played in every media outlet as heartless and poor fiscal policy for the POTUS to “abandon” one of the 50 states.

                Hell, I want to see California slide off the fiscal cliff, and yet I feel like I could actually run the opposition campaign if Romney refused to bail them out. It provide a very target rich environment for liberals.

                1. It provide a very target rich environment for liberals.

                  “See these children? Mitt Romney closed their schools and put their teachers out of work.
                  See these crime victims? Mitt Romney closed the police department and let people commit crimes at will.
                  See these homeless people? Mitt Romney destroyed their pensions.
                  .
                  .”

                  1. Only Romney didn’t cause the schools to close, let people commit crimes at will or destroy pensions.

                    That was the handy-work of public unions.

                    1. Only Romney didn’t cause the schools to close, let people commit crimes at will or destroy pensions.

                      That was the handy-work of public unions.

                      Sell that and I’ll vote for you for president.

                  2. See that deficit? Romney ran it up to bail out California.

                    See those taxes? Romney is sending them to California.

                    Of course the libs are going to try to make hay. But Romney is trapped – he has to piss off his base and kiss his second term good-bye, or he tries to placate his bitter enemies.

                    I think I know which way he would go.

                    1. See that deficit? Romney ran it up to bail out California.

                      See those taxes? Romney is sending them to California.

                      *shot pans over thousands and thousand of people*

                      “Mitt Romney put all of these people out of work and destroyed their pensions. Are you next?”

                    2. Of course the libs are going to try to make hay. But Romney is trapped – he has to piss off his base and kiss his second term good-bye

                      You know who else is pissing off his base and kissing his second term good-bye?

                    3. See that deficit? Romney ran it up to bail out California.

                      No, it was Obama’s/ Bush’s/ Clinton’s/ Bush’s/ Reagan’s/ Carter’s/ Ford’s/ Nixon’s/ Johnson’s/ Kennedy’s/ Eisenhower’s fault.

                      I might have left out a few.

              2. IL really isn’t that blue. Most of the recent governors have been Repubs. I don’t see Quinn winning another term, it would only take a 10% voter swing, maybe not even that much, to flip it red.

          2. An Ex-POTUS gets the same pension whether he serves one term or two.

      3. But bailing out California would be a complete political disaster for him. California will never vote Republican. And his entire base would go insane. Even if he wanted to bail out California he couldn’t do it without destroying himself in the process.

        Maybe Romney believes so much in bailing out California that he is willing to sacrifice his Presidency for it. But I seriously doubt it. More likely, California’s 30 solid years of mindlessly voting Democrat would finally come back to haunt it.

        1. This. I just don’t see why the RomneyBot would blow its own motherboard out for Cali.

          1. Romney is another Ford. Did Ford bail out New York City?

            1. Isn’t NYC’s current mayor Republican?

              Never say never.

        2. Allowing California to go bankrupt would be a worse political disaster.

          Is he going to be the guy who allowed all those public sector workers to lose their jobs and their pensions (“See? We warned you that he’s a ruthless vulture capitalist!”), or the guy who saved their sorry asses?

          1. Is he going to be the guy who allowed all those public sector workers to lose their jobs and their pensions (“See? We warned you that he’s a ruthless vulture capitalist!”), or the guy who saved their sorry asses?

            Yes because the alternative will be taking money from tax payers who actually voted for him and giving it to people who never will. Romney is a politician. He is not an ideologue. He is going to do what it takes to stay alive politically. And bailing out California would be political suicide.

          2. Allowing California to go bankrupt would be a worse political disaster.

            Let’s see, CA is solid blue now, so Republicans letting it go bankrupt will cost them, hmm, carry the one, zero electoral college votes, zero Senate seats, and maybe a few House seats? That’s barely a political sneeze.

            Is he going to be the guy who allowed all those public sector workers to lose their jobs and their pensions

            Because they’re such a big part of his base?

            Because pubsecs are so popular with the proles?

            1. Too big to fail, man. Too big to fail.

              You guys make some valid points. All I said originally is that if he thought it would benefit him politically, that he would.

              I didn’t say that he absolutely would.

              Would Obama have more incentive? Most certainly. But that doesn’t mean that Romney absolutely would not bail out a state. Even if it was blue.

            2. Let’s see, CA is solid blue now, so Republicans letting it go bankrupt will cost them, hmm, carry the one, zero electoral college votes, zero Senate seats, and maybe a few House seats? That’s barely a political sneeze.

              And when all the other blue states watch a blue state slide off ther fiscal cliff under Romney’s watch, the only thing they’ll be thinking is, “We’re next…”

              Serious question (because I’m too lazy to look it up), can a candidate win an election without carrying a single blue state?

              1. And when all the other blue states watch a blue state slide off ther fiscal cliff under Romney’s watch, the only thing they’ll be thinking is, “We’re next…”

                Maybe they should be thinking that.

                And, that’s exactly what they’ll be thinking of CA gets bailed out, only it will be more like “Woo-hoo, we’re next!”

                Of course, the other group that will be wondering who’s next if CA gets bailed out is all the voters in red states.

                1. can a candidate win an election without carrying a single blue state?

                  Sure, for certain powers of “blue”. How blue are we talking?

                  What will happen re CA and bankruptcy is one of the following:

                  1) The bankruptcy code gets modified to where Chapter 9 also covers states. There are some serious flaws with this approach, as the 11th Amendment largely gives states the rights to tell the federal government to go screw. The state would have to get something in exchange for it to waive its sovereignty.

                  2) Bailout. Not happening for reasons y’all have already gone through.

                  3) (What I think will happen). The federal government will provide a similar mechanism to the RTC, for holders of CA funny paper. The fed will buy the paper, at a sizable discount, and then undertake various means of getting paid, whether that includes impounding federal funds to CA, self-help (can’t you just see the Marshals impounding CA governmental assets?), or just ignoring some or all of the debt. So, a bailout, but a disguised one.

                  CA can go back to spending, and no one’s sacrosanct pensions need be touched.

                  1. Sure, for certain powers of “blue”. How blue are we talking?

                    Hadn’t thought about that. Coastal blue states? Ie, leave states like New Mexico out of the equation.

                    ) The bankruptcy code gets modified to where Chapter 9 also covers states. There are some serious flaws with this approach, as the 11th Amendment largely gives states the rights to tell the federal government to go screw. The state would have to get something in exchange for it to waive its sovereignty.

                    Federal control of the top state institutions. City of DC, anyone?

                    2) Bailout. Not happening for reasons y’all have already gone through.

                    We’ll see.

                    So, a bailout, but a disguised one.

                    Ok, is there a difference? I mean, aside from the fact that one is wearing a paper bag over its head, the other isn’t?

                  2. Option 3a The Fed initiated QE*+ in 2015 which involves buying state and municipal debt to stabilize the market (wink wink).

                    1. I think any QE^? is going to depend on how Europe reacts to the latest round of infusions. Should be “interesting” to watch the Euro crash, in the Chinese meaning of the word. You’d think the Fed would eventually run out of money at some point?

                      Still, option 3a isn’t much different than what I thought was going to happen. My original thought was that the Federal Gov’t has a much better position in litigation as a creditor than an ordinary bondholder, so why not sell the security to them and let them worry about collecting? Even if the creditor is taking a big haircut on the sale, at least they’re getting something for it, which isn’t guaranteed at all in a bankruptcy proceeding. (Especially post GM/UAW)

                      From 270towin, I still get a GOP victory if the West Coast goes Dem (plus NV), all of NE goes Dem, PA, MD, DC, NJ go Dem, and the 5 state upper Midwest cluster too (WI, MI, IL, IA, MN) Throw in HI and NM for shits and giggles and you still get a 275-263 score. The only blue states I see on the GOP side are maybe VA, OH, CO, and LA. OH is really the linchpin here.

                    2. And by NE, I mean New England. It’s fascinating to me that the election is going to be basically decided by 2% of the voting population (4% undecided at this point, and only half of those will show up to the polls), of four states: OH, IA, NV, NH. You probably can call WI for the Dems, if we’re calling VA and CO for the GOP.

                      That’s what? A half million people total?

                  3. and then undertake various means of getting paid,

                    Yeah, printing.

                    It’s fiat currency all the way down.

        3. I tend to agree with you on this one. This dude has worked too hard to get this job to piss away a second term on a bunch of people who will never vote for him.

          1. It’s not just California’s public sector, but anyone who holds the state’s bonds.

            They all lose.

            Talk about political suicide…

            1. That isn’t hat many people. The economy is 14 trillion dollars. The state of California owes what? $30 billion dollars? Even if they owed a hundred billion it wouldn’t be enough to really affect the general economy.

              1. As far as the federal budget is concerned, $30B is a sneeze.

                1. True. But it is the principle of the thing. The Republican base would never forgive Romney for paying off public sector employee unions in California. He would be done.

                  1. Liberals would have an unending supply of negativity to throw his way if he allowed a state government to go bankrupt. He would be done.

                    1. They have an unending supply of negativity to throw at him anyway. What’s the net downside to him? What’s the beta?

                      I just don’t see it.

                    2. They have an unending supply of negativity to throw at him anyway. What’s the net downside to him? What’s the beta?

                      The net downside is that he’s pretty much telling California Republicans–the people in his own party–“fuck you too.” He does that, and his own party would crucify him, even if it is California.

                      Now honestly, I don’t have a problem with him saying that. The Pubs haven’t been relevant in that state for about 20 years. It’s high time Team Red either give up being a political force there, or surreptiously try to get support for a split-state movement going to break off from the reflexively blue coastal areas, which will always have more people and thus a bigger hive to cultivate (It might make for some juicy water war battles too).

              1. WTF?

                It’s not just California’s public sector, but anyone who holds the state’s bonds.

                Most of the bondholders ARE California’s public sector.

      4. I think he is less likely. Just because of Team politics. But I’ll take what I can get*

        *standard disclaimer applies. Still voting for Johnson.

    2. I have no sympathy for California bondholders.

      1. C’mon man. Oakland has 7% and 8% yields right now on 30 year bonds! Tax-free dude! You know you want a taste of that!

        1. Oakland’s bonds wouldn’t necessarily be affected.

          1. If Oakland’s bonds default after California’s do, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.

  7. As a Californian, let me try and summarize the issue with California voting trends as succinctly as I can with this little anecdote:

    In the district I live in, there have been a great many advertisements for the Dem running for state senate, Julia Brownley. The overwhelming majority of her campaign ads address which pressing issues that are at stake in this campaign: jobs, the economy, balancing the state budget? No, you fools. Her ads are all about access to contraception for women and abortion rights. Because California is surely teetering on the abyss of women being denied birth control and abortion on demand.

    And there you have the issue. Californians are like the sect of so called libertarians that I cannot stand: so focused on the relatively meaningless social wedge issues that will all become moot in the coming fiscapocalypse that they ignore the drier but far more pressing issues of budgetary reality.

    1. Gov. Fluke of California.

    2. Sorry, it’s actually a congressional seat run. But the same issues are advertised by Frank Pavley in her run for state senate.

      1. Fran* Pavley.

    3. Cutting off the water to the Central Valley and building the bullet train in the middle of a fiscal apocalypse is a level of crazy beyond anything the country has ever seen.

      1. Re-elect Jerry Brown!

        1. No, fuck that. It’s California… JUST RE-ELECT!

    4. But at the root “relatively meaningless social wedge issues” should not be trivialized on account of being allegedly, fiscally neutral. The pols love to differentiate and hair-split. Keeps the attention away from the economic reality — all issues are money issues, whether it’s redistribution or funding for enforcement. Comes down to forced appropriation of your money. This “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” mantra undermines libertarianism. As I believe Tom Woods has often warned, makes it into a food buffet — a little of this and little of that. The heart of the philosophy (political and otherwise) is quite robust and isn’t applicable to only certain components of living.

      1. This “fiscally conservative but socially liberal”

        I have never quite got what that is supposed to mean. Since one does not require the existence of the other, which one is more important? For most people who claim that it is the being socially liberal.

        1. Yeah, whenever anyone who says they are fiscally conservative/[fill in the blank] has to make a choice, its always [fill in the blank].

          1. What if you’re fiscally conservative/socially indifferent?

            Both sides use them as wedges that they nver really act on, so… meh?

        2. It is false dichotomy.
          Either one is mistrustful of the state or one endorses its power.
          As they get everyone arguing about where and when it’s okay to push you around, the power monopoly defers to them.

  8. OT – NORTH CAROLINA FINDS 2,214 REGISTERED VOTERS OVER THE AGE OF 110

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G…..-Age-Older

    1. “Many are even older than 110. In fact, it seems that NC has an awful lot of voters that are 112, too. The Carolina Transparency project did a review of the voter rolls this year and found that there are 631 Democrats who are 112 or older. By contrast, the Republicans can only find 229 over 112 voters in the state (and “unaffiliated” found 39).

      And it gets worse. Two voters — and, yes, they’ve already voted in early voting — are over 150! One in Gaston County is 154 and another in Granville County is an astonishing 160!”

      1. Two voters — and, yes, they’ve already voted in early voting — are over 150!

        Gee, I wonder who they voted for.

        Seriously, those are invalid ballots, so there’s no reason not to let us know.

        1. I’m absolutely amazed at how hard the left is trying to act like voter fraud isn’t a problem. Yes, I suspect they’re guilty of it more often than their friends in the GOP, but still. Openly opposing limits on fraud? How can that be viewed in any way other than an open admission that they engage in fraud?

        2. “Gee, I wonder who they voted for.”

          Mashed potato Thursdays?

        3. If you’re that old, you want to get your vote in early, because you never know how fast you’re going to go.

      2. hey t o n y. FUCK YOU!

    2. If there were voter ID cards, the mug shots would be of decaying skulls.

  9. You would hope they are finally getting wise to the fact that unions are literally bankrupting the state. You have years of documented abuse (http://bit.ly/QQhzMY), and at some point you have to be serious about reforming the public sector, otherwise more and more cities will start filling for bankruptcy due to unfunded liabilities. California serves as a cautionary tale to others about what happens when you let unions run the show.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.