California

Take a Look at Where Californians Are Fleeing To

Everything's bigger in Texas, including the number of Golden State residents who move there.

|

Click through for readable/interactive version.
Sacramento Bee

Between 2004 and 2013 California lost nearly 1 million in population from migration, according to new Internal Revenue Service tax return data analyzed by the Sacramento Bee.

The trend shows what has long been understood: the state's economic environment is sending residents fleeing to other states. The biggest beneficiary was Texas, gaining about 600,000 from California while losing about 350,000 to California. In fact, states in all regions of the country except for the northeast and Mid-Atlantic areas received more Californians than they've sent to the Golden State.

The income drain is estimated at $26 billion annually. The short Sacramento Bee piece notes that California's population is still actually growing from births and foreign migration. They're just not staying there.

And even as California loses population to other states, it is still managing to grow its tax revenue, something to keep in mind when anybody complains that the state needs to take even more money from people in order to solve its problems. But Californians aren't getting better government service for this money, thanks to the state's debts and pension crisis. All that extra money is going to pension obligations, which continue to grow as part of the budget. Noted by David Crane of Govern For California in a guest piece in a guest commentary for the Bay Area News Group newspapers:

To have any chance of moving ahead, those Californians require high quality education, reliable, safe and inexpensive public transportation, affordable and functional courts and colleges, a functional safety net, and a tax system that encourages employment and wage growth.

But those citizens and their hopes are the first casualties of a political system that cuts services and raises taxes, fees and fines to finance ever-greater retirement, health care and corrections costs. When that happens, they receive fewer and shoddier services despite higher tuition, taxes, fees and fines, utilize deteriorating infrastructure, and seek work and wages in a less robust employment environment.

To add insult to injury, last year the state shifted $170 billion of pension costs to the school districts. As California struggles against growing financial inequality caused in large part by educational inequality, what sense does it make to shift dollars from classrooms to pensions?

Tax increases don't solve the problem. In 2012 California voters passed a temporary tax increase known as Proposition 30 designed to generate an additional $50 billion in revenue over seven years. But as the math makes clear, all that revenue, and more, is being consumed by increases in retirement, health care and corrections spending.

Read more of his commentary here and check out the Sacramento Bee's interactive map here

NEXT: Hot August Fright: The Month Republicans Lost Their Minds Over Immigration

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. LET’S TRACK ‘EM LIKE FEDEX DOES PACKAGES!

    2. To keep them in, right?

      1. That sounds like something Communists would do.

      2. What else would you build a border wall for?

        1. To keep that dang dog out….why do you think the Chinese built the Great Wall?

          1. Fucking Mongorians?

              1. ROR!

          2. Who ret the dog out? Woof, woof, woof, woof.

        2. What else would you build a border wall for?

          Jobs… shovel ready.

          Duh.

    3. Seriously. Texas does not need loopy California hippies and hipsters. They should have to swear an oath of allegiance to Texas along with a formal renunciation of all things Californian before they get a drivers license.

      1. There are more conservatives in California than there are in Texas.

        People tend to forget that, since the conservatives in question are so outnumbered by left-wingers that they have little say in government here.

          1. Here is one example. Multiple by the states’ populations and you get 11.0 million conservatives in Texas and 11.7 million in California.

            The big difference is the liberals: Texas has 9.7 million, California has 14.2 million.

            1. I admit that I scaned through the article but I saw nothing to back your statement.

              I only saw Texas once and Cali once mentioned once in the text.

              Were is the stat that backs you claim ?

            2. Yeah, there’s already plenty of progressive-variety ‘liberals’ in Texas. Mostly Yankee immigrants and their good-for-nothing kids. Mexican immigrants have made great contributions to Texas culture and economy; it’s the Yankee immigrants who cause all the trouble here.

              1. “there’s already plenty of progressive-variety ‘liberals’ in Texas”: Austin

    1. Imposter!!

    2. So Alabama was the cradle of Islam?

      1. It split off from Mormonism.

      2. There’s a story on the same page about fishermen rescuing kittens they found swimming in the Warrior River.

      3. You could say Islam is one of the “Alabrahimic” religions. /rimshot

    3. I don’t think the dating really shows much of anything. Muhammad is generally regarded as living from 570-632, and founded Islam around 610. The date range extends to 645 AD, so all things considered this isn’t very good evidence in favor of the idea that the Quran actually predated Muhammad. Especially adding on the fact that the parchment could be significantly older than the writing.

      1. Yes. And the suggestion that parts of the Quran are from oral traditions pre-dating it is not new.

      2. From the Times article:

        Keith Small, from the University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library, said that carbon dating was not always reliable and the dates announced last month applied not to the ink but to the parchment. The provenance of the text is also unclear and its calligraphic script is characteristic of later inscriptions.

      3. Right, this is less than a decade (dates vary on when this happened) before Uthman ordered the creation of exemplar Qurans to standardize the text in order to stem the tide of proliferation of versions that happened after the death of Muhammed.

        And only the parchment was tested ? if this is a palimpsest, the text could be newer than the parchment. You need to test the ink to find out when it was written (although you can use other techniques to see if anything was erased first).

    4. The fragment is carbon dated between 568AD and 645AD. Muhammad founded Islam between 610 and 622 — i.e., during the date range given for the fragment.

    5. MUHAMMAD DOESN’T REAL!

      Time for Christ Myth Theory 2.0.

      That being said carbon 14 dating has a few problems when it comes to extreme, pinpoint accuracy. Geological, atmosphere and solar changes can screw things up.

      1. John Titor|8.31.15 @ 7:10PM|#
        “MUHAMMAD DOESN’T REAL!”
        Seriously, is there any evidence for him?

        1. Sevo, I’m not sure if you responded to my last inquiry, but do you believe that Socrates was real? Attila the Hun? Sargon of Akkad? Diogenes? Cincinnatus? Servius Tullius? Boudica? Because all those people have lackluster primary sourcing but their existence is supported by secondary sources.

          You seem to have a rather blatant anti-religion bias that makes you incapable of objectively looking at secondary sources. The ‘Jesus Myth’ theory is seen as a joke in academic history for a reason. It’s because it’s used as a prop by atheists in the same way Christian apologetics are used by fundamentalists. A purely objective statement of Jesus’ historicity was that he likely existed, but could have not (i.e. an agnostic position). But since you need to prop up the new atheist philosophy you have to jump to the conclusion that he didn’t. Unacademic, unobjective. Please don’t bring your ideological baggage into my field.

          Also, if you start screaming that I’m a ‘bleever’ (which I’m not)because I recognize the complexities of historical primary and secondary sourcing, we’re done here.

          1. Anyway, to answer your Muhammad question: Thomas the Presbyter is the first non-Islamic reference to Muhammad, and he was writing an account of the Islamic invasion of Syria. Armenian, Greek, Coptic, and Jewish texts from the same period largely parallel the Islamic histories of Muhammad’s conquests.

            If you want to know more, the best book I’ve read for non-Islamic sources is Seeing Islam As Others Saw It.

            1. *Not Syria, Palestine. Bloody Roman Eastern provinces always get mixed up in my head.

    6. The Daily Mail is definitely a reliable source on something this important.

      1. If you’d prefer the original article which is mostly behind a paywall, here you go.

      2. Here’s a free version of the above link.

        At the time the discovery was hailed as confirmation that the Koran had faithfully preserved the words passed on by Muhammad for more than 1,350 years. Now, several historians think the parchment appears to be so old that it contradicts most accounts of the Prophet’s life and legacy, and may “radically alter the edifice of Islamic tradition”. These claims are strongly disputed by Muslim scholars.

        If the dating is correct, the “Birmingham Koran” was produced between AD568 and AD645, while the dates usually given for Muhammad are AD570 to AD632. At the very latest, it was made before the first formal text of the Koran is supposed to have been collated at the behest of the caliph Uthman, the third of the Prophet’s successors, in 653. At the earliest it could date back to Mohammed’s childhood, or possibly even before his birth.

      3. Perhaps they could have a peer review with IS?

      4. The Daily Mail is definitely a reliable source on something this important.

        Sarcasm, Irish?

        This comment is a true reflection of Irish’s natural (or native if you prefer) conservatism. He immediately distrusts a non-establishment publication while trusting in traditional interpretation. In fact, I’m sure it’s emblematic of his inherit racism.

        /Bo

    7. I would enjoy this immensely if it were true. I would like Parsippany to be the cradle of Judaism.

  1. The biggest beneficiary was Texas, gaining about 600,000 from California while losing about 350,000 to California.

    That would be 350,000 who foolishly bought time-shares.

    1. My thought when I read that was “beneficiary my ass!”

      1. No kidding. Imports to Texas never seem to learn from leaving their home state. “Well I just moved because I needed work”, do ya think the reason you can get work here and not back home might be because of the damn policies you supported back home. Freaking A.

    2. It is yet to be determined that Texas is actually going to benefit from this legal migration.

      From what I understand Colorado did not.

      Except for legal pot that is.

    3. So it was Californians, not Mexicans who took er jerbs?

      1. There are no native Texan surfers, anymore.

  2. We don’t need one on the border of the future state of Jefferson, but, in general I’m in favor of anything that keeps them from infecting the rest of the country any more than they have already.

  3. Let’s see, 40 percent of nothing is… carry the zero…

    Yeah, makes sense. The only people who can afford to live in the Golden State is the 1%, since increased taxation makes little difference to them, so jacking up taxes on the 1% makes perfect sense in a place like California.

    1. The 1% and the calpers retirees can afford to live there. Plus their 30% of the welfare cases in the US.

  4. Texas’ success is just because land is cheaper!

    /krugman

    1. And food, and gas, and employment overhead. And government drag.

  5. Seems odd that the only kind of debt you can easily ditch is “public debt.” I vote myself the goodies and then when the bill is due, I just move away.

    1. Well a lot of California public pensioners voted themselves public goodies, but they since they are expecting a check rather than a bill, they won’t be able to move away from the problem.

      It seems highly plausible that California municipalities will start defaulting on their pension debts with the next 10 years. The courts can insist they pay, but at a certain point there won’t be any money to pay actual working public employees.

      1. …..actual working public employees.

        I understand each of those words….just not when arranged in that order.

      2. I wonder what percentage of CA pensioners live in CA after retirement.

        1. I was thinking this myself. I don’t think CA has a law that you have to stay in the state to get your pension but I think NY has tried to do this or talked about it to keep that money in state and not in FL.

    2. I vote myself the goodies and then when the bill is due, I just move away.

      Jesus, this is an ingenious scheme. Why didn’t I think of it before. (takes notes)

      /Jersey voter

  6. And Texas will change because of these Californians like in Denver:

    From NPR a few years back:

    Lots of Californians have moved to Denver and its environs, bringing a progressive strain of politics with them and angering more conservative parts of the state ? so much so that 10 northeastern counties are planning symbolic but serious votes on secession this fall.

    Conservatives have discovered that living on the far side of the Rockies is no longer far enough to get away from the influence of West Coast liberals.

    “California migration, to a degree, has altered Colorado politics,” says Mike Krause, vice president of the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Denver. “I see California license plates in my neighborhood and on my commute all the time.”

    1. That’s funny because I live in CA and I see Colorado plates on my commute every day.

      1. The Californians are in their trunks.

      2. Just people visiting back home to rub their good fortune in their one time neighbor’s faces.

    2. BUT MEXICANS

    3. I live in Colorado. Those Northeastern Counties are backwater shitholes and are more than welcome to leave. They are basically the “dry counties” so to speak, and all 18 peoplel who live there hate everything and everybody but Jesus and Cows.

  7. And Texas will change because of these Californians like in Denver:

    From NPR a few years back:

    Lots of Californians have moved to Denver and its environs, bringing a progressive strain of politics with them and angering more conservative parts of the state ? so much so that 10 northeastern counties are planning symbolic but serious votes on secession this fall.

    Conservatives have discovered that living on the far side of the Rockies is no longer far enough to get away from the influence of West Coast liberals.

    “California migration, to a degree, has altered Colorado politics,” says Mike Krause, vice president of the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Denver. “I see California license plates in my neighborhood and on my commute all the time.”

    1. I don’t think the scale is the same. The migration from CA to CO was much more massive as a percentage of the existing population. The Texas population is 5 times bigger than Colorado.

      Furthermore, I don’t think you’ll see nearly as many hard core progressives moving to Texas. Colorado was a vacation spot and a cheaper retirement community for them. You had a lot of rich Californians buying second houses there. Texas would be a slice of Hell from a hard core progressive point of view. So, I think the immigrants will tend to be more economically oriented and just looking for a good job.

      Of course since all of these numbers are based on IRS data, they completely ignore the movement of illegal aliens. At a guess California, with it’s relatively generous welfare benefits, is having net growth from illegal immigrants, even from those who originally settled in other states. Which is, of course, a further drain on it’s public resources.

      1. Illegal immigrants do not use a large amount of welfare.

        1. I think its mainly a scale thing. Plus, in CO they all moved to a relatively small handful of communities, but in Texas they are likely spread among several large conurbations, which will dilute their idiot voting habits.

          1. Most that can will probably move to Austin and that area.

            It’s like DC in regards that it’s the center of government and the leeches that stick to government.

          2. Most that can will probably move to Austin and that area.

            It’s like DC in regards that it’s the center of government and the leeches that stick to government.

        2. They use lot of public services like schools and don’t really produce a lot of tax revenue to pay for that.

          1. “don’t really produce a lot of tax revenue to pay for that.”

            Not true. If they pay sales taxes and rent, then they pay for the schools. Plus, many, if not most, work on false social security numbers, and therefore pay taxes just like anyone.

            1. And once you have a fake ID, you can get welfare just like the rest of us, too.

            2. Where is the data on this, even if it’s estimate? Most illegals are very low skilled and wouldn;t even pay income taxes if they were illegal (they’d get money back) so I do know being illegal probably does help gov on that front.

              I just don’t see how a lot of poor people contribute much to the tax base even with sales, gas, and rent. We know at the fed level it’s only people in the top 50% who pay for everything — mostly due to income taxes, so I tend to think it’s the same at the state level (CA relies on income taxes as much or more than sales taxes).

            3. “Not true. If they pay sales taxes and rent, then they pay for the schools. Plus, many, if not most, work on false social security numbers, and therefore pay taxes just like anyone.”

              If you’re working on a fake social security number, why can you not also get welfare illegally? Furthermore, as Root Boy mentioned, we’re talking about VERY low wage workers, so I seriously doubt they’re coming anywhere close to paying for the public utilities they use.

              1. A not unusual setup in our area for the undocumented is two families, with several kids between them, sharing an apartment, with all the kids going to public school. I hardly think that the small amount of rent they are paying ‘pays for’ the cost of their kids attending the schools.

            4. Not true in Texas.

              Texas school funding comes from property tax and the rent of 10 people living in a one bedroom apartment doesn’t cover much property tax per person when all the women are on WIC and SNAP. I see them using Lone Star EBT cards all the time so don’t try to tell me differently..

              I support immigration. It is the only way to keep Social Security solvent. I just don’t support unfettered mass illegal immigration even though the Tony Troll would call me racist.

              1. “I support immigration. It is the only way to keep Social Security solvent.”

                Ummm or we could raise the retirement age to 72, and then index it to life expectancy from there. That would fix it without requiring an ever increasing population.

                1. While we’re doing that can we cut it back to 2% instead of 12.4%?

          2. And hospital emergency room for their primary health care when there are plenty of private clinics, at least in Texas.

            The clinics require cash though and aren’t free.

        3. they do need to be educated in the public schools

        4. “Illegal immigrants do not use a large amount of welfare.”

          And your proof for this is what ?

          Every store in Texas that sells food, large and small, has a sign that reads WIC Accepted Here” in Spanish.

          It is common in the illegal community for the man to work ( often for cash off the books) and the wife to collect as much welfare as possible and raise a passel of children since they aren’t legally married in the US. I know it happens because I know some of the offenders on the shrimp boats where I buy shrimp.

          Cytotoxic, what makes you think you know what is going on on the streets 2000 miles away in a foreign country from where you live to the point you should have an opinion on what is and isn’t happening ?

          Here is something you can worry about in you own country.

          http://www.thestar.com/news/gt…..-only.html

          In short, Toronto kicks a disabled guy off the waiting list for subsidized housing because the building is designated Muslim Only.

          When you fix that shit I’ll be willing to take you concerns about America more seriously.

          Untill then………. not so much.

      2. I can tell you’ve never spent much time in Austin.

        1. I find Austin highly overrated. Nowhere near as cool as the very bohemian New Orleans, that is, if you’re actually into “weird” as a lifestyle rather than a slogan.

          But the countryside around Austin is pretty nice.

          1. Austin was better in the 70s and 80s when it was not only weird but original.

            Now it’s just phony and put on weird for apperances.

            It has become a caricature of its once real self. Back in the day when a joint could send you to jail in Texas you could sometimes openly smoke and no one batted an eye in Austin. Willie, Waylon Jennings, Krisstofferson, et al gave Austin it’s aura and college students who couldn’t get into or afford UT went to San Marcos State just to be near the party scene. Naked titties at Hipie Hollow on the lake. The Good Old Days.

            But back in the days of The Aramadillo World Headquarters and The Outlaws and the origins of the Texas music scene it was real.

            Now ? Bleh. Or maybe I;m just getting old. or maybe both.

            1. Agree completely. You could get 2-to-life for simple possession of a joint, but there were outdoor concerts in Buda and China Grove where the cops didn’t seem to care.

              1. in Buda and China Grove where the cops didn’t seem to care.

                Well, to be fair, they were just lookin’ to the East.

      3. Furthermore, I don’t think you’ll see nearly as many hard core progressives moving to Texas.

        It’s true. All of my liberal friends think I’m nuts for even considering Texas.

        1. Yes. To CA progressives, Texas is the proverbial heart of darkness. I expect this is largely more conservative Californians who would judge Texas a tolerable place to transplant to.

  8. California will be fine. They still lead the nation in bankrupt green energy companies and half-built light rail projects transporting a small number of people short distances to destinations they don’t care to visit.

    1. I was in Kansas City last week, and my hosts drove me past their soon-to-be-built light-rail/trolley line. They were really excited and think the train is just what they need to revitalize their town!

      I just smiled and nodded, no reason to be a spoil-sport.

      But hey, the famous barbecue was damned good, despite the dozen pictures of the time Obama visited the restaurant plastered all over the walls.

  9. This is very topical since I live in CA and have been looking at property in Texas.

  10. Illinois and Michigan are in the Nnortheast now?

    California even lost population to MAINE!

    Here’s hoping California loses some House seats in 2020.

    1. Glad to see Michigan lost this race 🙂

      1. ditto

    2. “Here’s hoping California loses some House seats in 2020.”

      Apportions are based upon total population, not legal residents, so CA will probably not loose any seats. Texas will certainly gain a lot of seats though. Generally speaking the North East is hemorrhaging seats and the South is gaining them.

      1. THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

      2. The south will rise again!!!

        1. Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others! #FloridaMan

          1. *hands Al miniature flag*

            You’re a great American.

            1. You’re a towel!

      3. based on total population as a percentage of total population of the whole country.

        If they grow at a smaller rate than the rest of the country, they do risk losing seats.

      4. “Apportions are based upon total population, not legal residents, so CA will probably not loose any seats.”

        The last census was the first time since the Gold Rush that California didn’t gain any seats. I think it’s very likely California will lose seats because the entire south is growing much more rapidly than the North and California, both because of migration patterns moving to southern states and because southern states have higher birthrates.

  11. One of the really interesting things about that article is that it tracks incomes as well as bodies.

    And CA is hemorrhaging incomes. A quick scan shows maybe two states (IL and NY) that have exported any significant amount of income to CA, on net. Almost every other state is either less than a million bucks in the red, or in the black.

    Probably need more analysis, of course, but to me that suggests that CA is exporting mainly middle and higher income families, and importing mainly lower income families. Which, if true, is consistent with the economic incentives that have been created – if you are earning, you want a lower-tax, lower-regulation place; if you aren’t really earning, you want a place with nice weather and a safety net.

    1. Louisiana has been losing people with brains and money for decades and the state’s only response is more taxes.

      So I doubt California will be any different.

    2. I wonder whether an exit tax would run afoul of the commerce clause or if Roberts would look the other way in California’s case.

      1. I’m guessing the answers to your question are:

        Yes
        Yes

      2. Oh, piffle. It wouldn’t be an exit “tax” (which would be unconstitutional).

        It would be an exit “penalty”, and thus perfectly halal.

        1. Until someone points out that a penalty requires due process and the it is a tax again.

      3. New Jersey has one.

    3. A quick scan shows maybe two states (IL and NY) that have exported any significant amount of income to CA

      Making assumptions about this, I would say this is because a move from IL or NY to CA is politically and economically a lateral move. Out of the retard pan and into the retard fire.

    4. I don’t know how all these poor people afford to live here. 75%+ of their incomes have to be going to housing.

  12. To have any chance of moving ahead, those Californians require high quality education, reliable, safe and inexpensive public transportation, affordable and functional courts and colleges, a functional safety net, and a tax system that encourages employment and wage growth.

    None of which government can provide well or sustainably. So what David Crane is effectively arguing is for more of the same thinking that mired California in this mess and not for what is truly necessary, fundamentally rethinking the role of the public sector.

    1. Yeah, that line is a load of statist BS.

      1. high quality education – no correlation with amount of money spent
      2. inexpensive public transpo – meaning highly subsidized and serving only 6% of the population, and don’t forget high speed rail

      The rest can be had with less money (don’t have so many laws the court system can be more efficient)

      1. And public transit policies inevitably include industry-ennervating mandates on fleet vehicles and factory emissions, so it’s a bit like arguing that California merely needs a smarter dose of lead. Like, rather than slowly supping on the stuff, instead taking it to the forehead in a single ~200 grain ballistic package.

        1. Yep, that is what high speed rail is – the fastest way to bankrupt public transportation. Once it gets up to a 100B hole they will start stealing from local budgets to pay for the Fresno to Stockton line.

          Was at Google a couple of weeks ago and saw all the private buses they run on 101 and into the campus in Mt. View. How do they do that???

          1. Yup. I just did the reverse- moved back to California from Colorado.

            The big problem here is that, once again, you have an example of a state being killed by unseen costs. They have created all these laws to (poorly) deal with seen costs, and this has slowly created a job-killing, growth smothering morass that silently saps away productivity.

            And so people like in this article say the only solutions are to address even more seen costs while bringing about ever more numerous unseen costs. Mass transit will never alleviate the pains of moving around SoCal. But creating a fluid economy where it is easier for jobs and people to relocate would make life easier. Unfortunately, everything from building codes that make shacks into $500,000 houses and make moving a business impossible are never perceived as a possible problem.

  13. Sadly, they insist in bringing their culture with them.

    1. Now now, all cultures are equal and stuff or something.

    2. “The policies were great, they just needed to tax people on a higher rung than me.”

    3. When you run away from a place, the first thing you want to do is make the new place just like the old one!

      1. They think they can get away with “some tweaks” (common sense!) without turning the new place exactly like the old one.

        I wonder, what restrictions on voting can a state get away with in this day and age?

      2. This right here is why I will never understand “educated” liberals. They never seem to connect these two dots that are right next to each other with labels exclaiming “Please connect me!”

        1. It even happens within California.

          A recent online discussion on the little-town website NextDoor had a man complaining that he had moved from Oakland to the suburb in question, and he thought the suburb really needed to embrace ‘high-density downtown housing’ like was so great in Oakland.

          I innocently asked, if Oakland was so wonderful in that regard, why did he move to this town, and perhaps he’d like it better to move back there?

          The caterwauling in the posts after that was deafening. Who the hell was I to say he wasn’t welcome here?

          So, to sum up: Person moves out of city A to nearby city B. Person then complains that City A is much better than City B. A questioning person says if City A was so much better than City B, why did he ever leave City A, and why not return? Then every person in City B screams at questioning person for being ‘xenophobic’ and ‘unwelcoming’.

      3. How does the old Eagle’s line go?

        “Call some place paradise and kiss it goodbye” ?

        I think that is it.

        1. Or “you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

          1. Where it that? Oh yeah, Hotel California.

          2. perfect

  14. I feel bad for Texas. Californians carry and transmit their “progressivism” like rats and their fleas carrying a plague.

    1. Let the bastards bake. A few Summers in Texas will hopefully spur them on to seek new digs outside the state.

      Plus, once we get open carry rolling, that’ll hopefully scare the animists right back out.

  15. It is by our own compliance that we let the few corrupt individuals within government rob us of our land, our wealth and our children’s future.

    Non-compliance is not anarchy but the refusal of the many to be victimized by the corrupt few who claim to act in the name of the public interest.

    SayNo2Gov

    1. *furiously fills out request for newsletter*

  16. “And even as California loses population to other states, it is still managing to grow its tax revenue, something to keep in mind when anybody complains that the state needs to take even more money from people in order to solve its problems.”

    Shows no signs of slowing down, courtesy of O-care:

    “Lawmakers face deadline for finding Medi-Cal fix”
    […]
    “California lawmakers hope to tackle major issues in the state’s health care program for the poor over the next two weeks, starting with how to ensure the state doesn’t lose $1 billion in federal funding.
    The potential billion-dollar loss comes as critics say Medi-Cal is already struggling to meet the needs of the 12.5 million people who rely on the system.
    In calling a special session on health care, Gov. Jerry Brown told lawmakers to find long-term funding for Medi-Cal so the program doesn’t rely on the state’s general fund. Democratic proposals call for an expanded tax on health insurers and a new tobacco tax to help restore lost services and improve care.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a…..474962.php

    1. Democratic proposals call for an expanded tax on health insurers and a new tobacco tax to help restore lost services and improve care.”

      What could go wrong?

      1. Exactly. And what happens when everyone stops smoking and there’s no more tobacco taxes?

        1. Or keeps smoking………..
          Nevada smokes.

      2. A tax on health insurers will never be passed on to the consumers so that was smart.

        /Tony

    2. The only reasonable solution to Sacramento spending all our money is to give them more of our money to spend.

      Blame Prop 13.

      Then blame the Republicans in Sacramento, the Mormons in Utah for being anti-gay, Donald Trump for being anti-immigrant, and the god damn Republicans in Sacramento.

      1. “…and the god damn Republicans in Sacramento.”

        BOTH of ’em!

        1. Those Republicans are so racist and homophobic. I don’t know how they sleep at night.

  17. I think Sacramento and the progressives should just keep focusing on gay marriage, and everything else will eventually all fall into place.

  18. NYC is getting so bad I’m thinking of improving my lot by moving to… NJ.

  19. Reason commentariat: collectivism is teh bad unless you collectivize cops and Californians.

    1. Are you saying its wrong to collectivize collectivists?

      What if they want you to? Should I have to get a safe word first?

      1. It’s one thing to collectivize progressives, people who’ve freely chosen to collectivize others on superficial bases. But California is a state that includes a pretty wide diversity of people, including many libertarians.

        1. I reserve all of my collective disdain for Michigan.

      2. “No tolerance for intolerance!”

    2. The problem with cops is that, while there are undoubtedly many good ones, you don’t get to choose to only interact with the good ones. Police apologists say “a few bad apples” but forget that the whole saying is “it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch”. This means that you have to aggressively purge the bad apples, not give them a slap on the wrist and a paid vacation. It is unfair to collective them, as it will only turn more of them against you. However, until there is meaningful reform, it is hard not to collectivize them. I don’t get a choice when a bad cop decides to fuck with me!

      1. It is unfair to collective them, as it will only turn more of them against you. However, until there is meaningful reform, it is hard not to collectivize them. I don’t get a choice when a bad cop decides to fuck with me!

        Cleaning up my thoughts a bit:

        It is unfair to collectivize cops. It is moreover a bad idea, practically speaking, because it will turn many of them against you (war on cops! us vs them! thin blue line! etc.). The likelihood of being fucked with by a bad cop is pretty low, but it is not something that you have any choice over. When you see many examples of cops getting lesser treatment because of being cops, or being defended by other cops despite having done reprehensible things, it can be difficult to look at someone in uniform and not see the bad side of their profession before evaluating them as an individual.

        1. I get this, completely.

          I’m not immune to trend recognition and realizing that some populations are more likely to evidence certain behaviours (i.e. cops and aggression, Californians and retardation, etc.). And I’ll be guarded in interactions with people based on the tendencies that characterize their population groups (though it baffles me that the people who seem to recognize cop’s tendencies act standoffish with them and thereby increase their chances of being murdered). But I judge each individual as precisely that: an individual.

          1. I certainly won’t speak ill of a person just because he’s a cop, and I do think some people here rush to judgment on the “police abuse” stories. But many cops readily invite some measure of collectivization with the attitudes they express and the organizations they are members of.

        2. The fact that bad cops are tolerated is proof that there are no good cops. Good cops wouldn’t tolerate that shit. If you ever hear cops talk shop, they actually joke about the bad apples. They think it’s funny that this guy on the force will assault against anyone who looks at him wrong, or that he steals stuff because he can, or that he routinely lies in court. They think it’s funny. It’s a joke. But it’s not funny. It’s not a joke. Those are real lives that that guy is ruining. Like I said, good cops wouldn’t tolerate that shit for one second. Their job is to catch bad guys. Bad cops are bad guys. Good cops would do something. Good cops don’t exist.

          1. I think a lot of the “good cops” are afraid not to toe the line; it’s one thing not to fuck with the little people, it’s another thing entirely to turn on your “brothers in blue”. I would imagine that the experience is like “cocktail parties” on steroids; if you don’t rock the boat, everybody is your best friend and will cover your back (right or wrong). If you cross them, you better be one tough-skinned, resourceful motherfucker, and hope you don’t get the Serpico treatment.

            The worst thing to ever happen to the police was unionization; it wasn’t that long ago that politicians would fire the lot of them if they misbehaved. Now, what can anybody do about it?

    3. Reason commentariat: collectivism is teh bad unless you collectivize cops and Californians.

      The worst ones will collectivize the Reason commentariat. As if there aren’t three distinctly different commenters here, each with their own vast collection of sock-puppets. (Which one are you again?)

        1. But who’s on first?

        2. I am also Sugarfree, Nicole, and Episiarch, so I’m responsible for all our worst commenters.

          1. I always knew there were no female libertarians.

          2. Thank god, I’m not actually responsible for my own actions. I knew it! Where the fuck is that heroin I set aside?!?

            1. That’s what happens when you hide for stash while you’re still noddin’ out.

            2. If you were my headmate, you’d be fronting all the time.

              reference material

  20. So I’m flipping through channels last night and I happen upon this show Madam Secretary which I assume is CBS trying to make Hillary into some sort of Hero of the people. I only saw about 10 or 15 seconds of Tia Leoni’s God awful acting. She was on some soap box rant about global warming. I was getting nauseous in that short amount of time. Not sure if it was the global warming rant, the horrendous acting, or the whole concept of the show. Probably all three.

    1. My wife watches that accursed show. It is nine kinds of horrible, seven of which have Lovecraftian names that human mouths cannot properly pronounce.

      1. I feel for you. My wife has watched some some pretty god awful shows. There was some show that was a knockoff of the Twilight movies that was terrible. I think if if she watched that I would have to head out to a bar Sunday nights. She feels the same way about my football though.

    2. I caught about two minutes of that show yesterday as I was fiddling around trying to figure out why my TiVo wasn’t offering me my internet options.

      Holy. Fucking. Shit. The dialogue was like a skit about making fun of the incredibly formulaic, predictable, derivative dialogue in most shitty TV shows. Except…it was serious. I think the line was something like this:

      Madame Secretary: I’m out of cards to play here, Dave.

      Dave: Then get new cards.

      There is a reason I watch almost no network television.

    3. Yeah, that show is a pretty transparent attempt at plowing the field for Hillary. Funny thing, looks like she aint gonna make it. I think Obumbles is torpedoing her. I guess even he can’t be wrong all the time.

      1. I’m trying not to get my hopes up yet, but yeah she’s yesterday’s news. They want another young, inexperienced blank slate they can project their prog fantasies onto. I’m not seeing anything in the wings though so who knows.

        1. It isn’t hipster hell compared to, you know, NYC or San Francisco.

          It’s hipster hell compared to what else is going on elsewhere in the Carolinas.

          It’s isn’t even hipster hell as bad as Austin.

          And hipster isn’t really all that hellish most of the time.

          You know how to tell the difference between a hipster and a homeless lumberjack?

          1. They both smell terrible, have outlandish beards, and wear the exact same kinds of clothing. The difference is that a hipster’s clothes are color coordinated.

          2. NYC is only hipster hell in one corner of Brooklyn, you know. A corner that is very easy to avoid because it’s not on the way anywhere.

            1. I’m not a hipster, but I have to admit that every once in a while I see something hipsters got that I want.

              I want one of those electric skateboards.

              The ones that go 18 mph, go uphill, charge in an hour and have a 4-8 mile range?

              https://vimeo.com/98363771

              I’d love to skate up to PV from Hollywood Riviera in the South Bay, up the hills in SF, or around Mission Hills in San Diego. I’d skate to work like that if I could for sure.

              1. That’s pretty sweet.

          3. Yeah, I’m counting on them for some good grub and craft beer anyways:)

            1. I think hipsters are actually starting to ruin beer with their fads.

              Some of the wildly reviewed IPAs out there are practically undrinkable.

              And don’t forget, for every ten beers hipsters have turned us onto, they’ve also brought back Pabst Blue Ribbon, which is an unpardonable sin. If you’re gonna make beer flavored kool-aid, why flavor it to taste like shit? How can drinking such a shitty massed produced beer possibly be hip? It’s soooooooo bad, it’s hip?

              They jumped the shark on that one.

              1. Yeah, and I agree with you on the IPA’s. The Hops are supposed to balance the sweetness not be the whole flavor. Another reason I’m looking forward to Fall. I’m lucky that the bar and grill by me keeps a good mix year round of 40 beers on tap. They don’t go all IPA for the summer.

        2. We thinks she old news but her die hards will never falter. I just hope she doesn’t have enough.

          Don’t the Dems realize the Reps are going to dirty trick her to death and take any free thinking independent ,or middle or the roader?

          If such a mythical creature exists ?

    4. Madam Secretary is truly pathetic. It’s like Aaron Sorkin fan-fic stretched into teleplays.

  21. Speaking of assholes moving into a great place and fucking it all up:

    I used to dive this river a lot. It was paradise. You could spend all day and rarely see people. In a day maybe five boats would pass.

    Then people from the eastern seaboard started moving in. My brother, who lived there, complained that the local police jury and city councils were taken over by proggies, or as he put it, “Every motherfucker there has a ponytail, a beard and wears sandals.”. Now it is crowded. Fuckin’ shame.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-AQ3f0KUyE

    1. My wife and I are getting ready to go to Asheville, NC in a couple weeks. We love the Smokies and have spend a lot of time in Tennessee along the northern side of the mountains. Wanted to go somewhere new. Everything I read makes it sound like hipster hell but I’m guessing that’s an exaggeration:) Looking forward to the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Pisgah National Forest. Might even look for some retirement property while were down there. Just looking for now.

  22. Californians want to flee the big shit pile they’ve created. Yet they will never admit it was their policies, and wants of control over others that caused the damage. Because if only the right top men, this time were in charge…. It would all work!!

  23. I left Oregon after the Californians ruined it. I left Colorado after the Californians ruined it. Now I’m in Maine, and the Massholes are ruining it.

    1. Let me guess: Portland – Denver – Portland.

      The problem is you, dummy.

  24. I love how people in this thread are referring to “California progressivism” and the threat it poses to the country — as if we were the source of the infection rather than just the highest-profile victim. This was a free and business-friendly state until a quarter-century or so ago.

    1. In 1990? Not by my recollection.
      Maybe ‘around the late ’60s when we started the first business; that only took about a week, and we were dealing with chems that were later declared haz-mats.
      By that time (early ’80s, as I recall), the hax-mat permits took several weeks to work out and several inspections before solvents were “permitted”
      It’s gotten worse, but that was pretty ‘un-friendly’ right there.

    2. California gets a bad rap because

      1. It’s a winner-takes-all state with a lot of electoral college votes,
      2. It’s such a large market that when they make regulations, the rest of us have to deal with them, too.

      I live 3000 miles away from California, why the fuck do all the cars have California-spec emissions?

  25. This article can’t be right. Nobody would ever want to leave California. They have common sense gun control that eliminates crime. They have tax rates and minimum wage laws that reduce income inequality. And soon, they’ll have an extremely efficient light rail system just like most of Europe.

    Why would anyone want to leave that state??

    /sarc

    1. “Sadly”, the courts just overturned our “sensible, crime-reducing” ten-day waiting period. So the only thing left to do is run for our lives.

    2. Got the sarc, but a state legislator from SF (can’t remember which hag it was) once claimed taxes would never cause anyone to leave SF, since it ‘was so pretty’.
      The woman was profoundly ignorant of business in general, and yep, she was promoting and passing laws based on that abysmal ignorance.

      1. claimed taxes would never cause anyone to leave SF

        No, just the middle class.

        I guess I am what passes for middle class in NYC – which basically means I get fucked in the ass on tax day and I don’t get anything in return. Cue Deblasio or one of his flunkies crying about “tale of two cities” – gee, I wonder why?

        1. Her comments were really aimed at businesses; Pac Bell had just decamped to San Ramon with their hundreds of employees. She was arguing they left because of some other reason that’s long forgotten.
          But, yes, the m-c is largely gone; the school system (heavily unionized) sucks, eating out is 10-20% more than across any border (regulated benes and M/W), housing horrendously expensive (building regs / rent control). Standard D city government where the least lefty is not quite capsized to port.

          1. There is an interesting (long) article on the current home page of City Journal detailing how NYC is basically run by and for the service and hospital workers union. They call the shots. And what are we going to do about it, vote for Republicans? Yeah, right.

  26. When a virus infects a cell it takes control of the cell’s machinery to produce more viruses. Eventually the cell bursts releasing many copies of itself to infect the rest of the host. That is California in a nutshell.

  27. Take a Look at Where Californians Are Fleeing Metastasizing To

    Fixed that for you.

    Californians stay Californish; they don’t see the light, they just hate facing the consequences and go elsewhere, infecting other states with the particular California brand of nuttery.

  28. Most of the real hard core proggies I meet here in SF are originally from the Northeast.

  29. Bottom line is that California baby boomers, the generation of San Francisco hippies that fully embraced the self-serving ideology of entitlement and socialism that was so prevalent in their time and thus never bothered to prepare for their own retirement, has grown old and is now bleeding their children and grandchildren dry in order to finance their own old age. They aren’t having any of it and are fleeing to a place that still tolerates and to a certain extent embraces freedom. But the more of them that leave, the more that California’s decline will continue. I can only imagine how the housing market will collapse there in another 20 years due to massive vacancies made by the Baby Boomers finally beginning to die off. Perhaps the whole culture of the state will change.

  30. Oh great, now they can come here, find out what a liberal shithole Austin is, move there and make it more like San Francisco.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.