Remember all the conservative predictions that California would default on its obligations? That it was financially doomed because of its "liberal" government (an "analysis" that missed the actual underlying cause of California's budget problems, but never mind). Apparently, like many conservative predictions, that prediction was off-target. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...-california/THDjldkdBetoHrlOJGKKdO/story.html This should actually surprise no one: California, like many states, is required to have a balanced budget. In the middle of a recession this can be a daunting thing to achieve, as revenues fall: that's when states face big deficits that have to be made up through spending cuts or tax hikes. But as the economy recovers, tax revenue recovers too. So now most of the states that faced big deficits a few years ago are contemplating surpluses. California does have budget issues, but it's mostly caused by the various popular referenda that have been passed over the years, which have achieved two main things: 1. Limited property-tax increases. 2. Required supermajorities to raise taxes. The first meant many functions traditionally financed at the local level had to be financed through other means -- for instance, by the state paying for them. The second meant that, until recently, a minority party (the GOP in this case) could block tax hikes, but not spending increases, while the majority party (Democrats) could pass spending hikes but not the tax increases needed to pay for them. Leading to complete dysfunction at the state level. This also demonstrates, bye the bye, that "starve the beast" doesn't work -- a conclusion proven in two studies published by the conservative Cato Institute. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2010/05/starving_the_be.html It will be interesting to see what happens in California now that the GOP minority -- thanks in part to their contribution to that dysfunction -- has been reduced to a sliver, too small to block anything even with California's supermajority rules. Perhaps California will start repairing 20 years of neglect to its fiscal house. It's an opportunity, anyway, providing Democrats don't overreach.
From a California news source......it seems that liberal gov't uses some trickery to make that happen. "When Capitol politicians and others talk or write about "the budget," they are referring to the "general fund," which Gov. Jerry Brown proposes to be a bit over $97 billion in the next fiscal year. However, that's never been the entire budget. Whenever it's passed by the Legislature, it also includes "special funds," as well as "bond funds" and federal funds. And there's been so much recent jockeying on how the state keeps its books that referring merely to the general fund as the budget is not only incomplete, but downright misleading to the voting and taxpaying public." "It's misleading to talk about a budget that's just a fraction of the real total, and it's high time that the governor, legislators and others frame it more fully and accurately." http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/16/5117491/dan-walters-real-budget-numbers.html Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/16/5117491/dan-walters-real-budget-numbers.html#storylink=cpy Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/16/5117491/dan-walters-real-budget-numbers.html#storylink=cpy
The Democrats have run the state into the ground for over 50 years controlling the state house and the bureaucracies. Here's a smart idea... build a $200 BILLION dollar train that takes 5 hours to from Los Angeles to San Francisco! All the Democrats will do is figure out another way to spend, spend, spend... but they won't have to look far. They are shutting down San Onofre nuclear plant which will cost California another $200 Billion total + $400 million a year in energy purchases to avoid black outs. The state is screwed.
NOT to mention.....the Governor......ignores the unfunded Teachers's Retirement and Pensions ".... Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor has pointed out, Brown’s multiyear budget plan ignores ever-growing unfunded liabilities for retirees’ pensions and health care. The State Teachers’ Retirement System says it needs $4.5 billion more a year to remain solvent, and a new report released by Controller John Chiang says the state faces an unfunded liability for health care of as much as $64 billion." Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/mar...nt-as-sound-as-brown/?opinion=1#ixzz2UiZmEEP2 - vcstar.com
I don't think your link describes a relevant difference. He's talking about how a lot of California spending is in "special funds" that aren't mentioned in talks about the budget. But those funds are self-funding: they include revenue sources to pay for the spending. That's why they're "special": they don't require annual appropriations to keep operating. His complaint is that the number of such funds serves to obscure the true size of state government. But that has nothing to do with the deficit -- or lack thereof.
The state of California sent a group of legislators here to Texas a couple years ago....in order to study what we do that creates a favorable business environment. Not sure they listened and learned, though. We've gotten a lot of California's business.....as they've moved here for the more-friendly business environment and the low taxes.
Nearly every state has underfunded pension liabilities. Nearly every company does, for that matter. Perhaps reducing that shortfall would be a good use of the surplus funds. But it doesn't change the fact of the surplus.
Heck...we sold our's off... took the money and ran because of Democrat/Liberal attacks on businesses here in California. There are thousands of other small businesses that did the same or left. California is screwed... more takers than producers with 1/3 of all welfare recipients in the nation living in the state.
Well, most people don't believe they actually have a surplus now. So, why aren't they including their unfunded liability for state teachers' health and retirement? You don't consider that an expense that needs to be accounted for in the budget????? Where's this money going to come from....."manna from Heaven?" - - - Updated - - - I feel for ya. It's such a beautiful state too. Just way too many liberals.......
Is that how YOUR state operates? Just ignores unfunded liabilities that amount to $64 BILLION???? - - - Updated - - - I have friends who just moved here to Texas from California as well. It seems they've lost a lot of people.
I don't know enough about that project to discuss its merits, but it's a $68 billion project, not $200 billion. And that's money being spent over the next 15 years, so the per-year cost is pretty small. And it's supposed to take less than three hours to go from LA to SF.
It's mostly a red state in terms of area. It's just that the most populated areas are blue. That's why I disagree with people when they label California as the quintessential blue state. It's not. Compare it to a state like Massachusetts that doesn't have a single red district.
??? Where do you get that? It's a debt. If the state borrowed $10 billion, the annual budget impact would be the debt service on that money, not the whole $10 billion. Same with pension liabilities. And to be fair, "unfunded liabilities" is a very murky calculation, because it depends very much on what you consider the average annual growth of the underlying investments will be over the life of the pension. Most states have rules for that calculation, and it's usually a projection based on recent performance. So for instance, when the recession hit in 2008 a lot of states saw their "unfunded liabilities" soar -- not because they suddenly owed more money, but because growth projections were being based in part on a falling stock market. So I think it's good enough to be within a certain percentage of the unfunded number. Most states miss that benchmark, too. It's a long-term problem that only gets worse the more they wait. But it's not something that only happens in California.
No It's a $30 Billion dollar project as approved by the tax payers. They have not laid one new track and they plan on using some existing low speed track... and the cost is already $68 Billion by the liars' estimate. Under current project plans it will take nearly 5 hours... it is no longer "high speed".... it will cost well over $100 BILLION and it looks more like $200 billion.
See my post above explaining the murkiness of that number. But yes, nearly all states operate that way. Texas appears to have about $35 billion in unfunded liabilities: http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Texas_public_pensions#Unfunded_liabilities Minnesota clocks in at around $16 billion: http://www.twincities.com/politics/...theres-what-pensions-promise-then-theres-what If you read the Minnesota link, it contains a good explanation of what unfunded liabilities mean and how they are calculated.
Okay. That number appears to come from a Stanford research group, and is based on a number of assumptions -- including the assumption that there will be significant cost overruns. But I don't have a particular problem with their assessment, since they're clear on their assumptions. It'll be interesting to see how it actually turns out.
No....I think California has the bigger problem in that regard. Mexicans have lived and worked side-by-side with anglo Texans forever. They assimilate here pretty well, generally. And most are rather conservative in a lot of ways......they are strong Catholics and religious people and they are VERY hard-working. They want to get ahead; not be taken care of. Quite different than the liberal mentality. More conservative, actually. Not to say that we don't have some of the groups like LULAC trying to influence them.....but in general, they are as I described above.
See, I hear that all the time, but it simply isn't an accurate reflection of reality. Obama won the Hispanic vote in Texas in 2012. Democrats in Hispanic areas in Texas won in 2012. Texas Hispanics are still voting for left-wing Democrats, even with a "more tolerant" GOP in the state advocating for in-state tuition for illegals, "community outreach" programs, and all of the other things that Republicans are doing in Texas to try and win Hispanics over. It's not working. Hispanics are voting for wealth redistribution and they are voting against the Republican party because that is the "white people's" party. It doesn't really matter how "Conservative" and "Catholic" they are, they don't vote that way, at all. As Texas becomes more Hispanic, it will become more Democrat. It's that simple. Why else do you think Democrats keep bragging about demography being on their side? It's because it is. That's why Ted Kennedy wanted our immigration laws changed in the first place. He knew a poor and needy underclass would be more likely to vote for the party that wants a big welfare state to take care of them. They want to do to Hispanics what they did to blacks, and by a 3/4 ratio, it's working.
the retirement funind for all employees not just the school teachers has not been fully funded for over 6 years now..is this is acceptable to you liberals?..the dems will probably never fund the missing years because sooner or later there members will forget about it so why bither then..eventually this recession has to come to an end..calif started it in 2006 is when construction and the housing started to feel it..7 years is way too long for any recession to last..18 months to 24 months is normal..
Try again Ray, everything is an optimistic projection. I will say, Brown is the best fiscal conservative California has had in decades http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Does-California-Really-Have-a-Budget-Surplus__Bay-Area.html
