Just went over the California state page and looked at some budget stuff. The problem isn't just revenues. They are forecasting a $6 billion drop in revenues from the recession but the hole is projected to be somewhere between $18 and $24 billion. The reality is that the state is spending way too much money. For instance, on K-12 Cali spends $45 billion on approximately 6 million students. That is over $7k per student. You can get a fancy man private education for that kind of dough. We have the same issue here in MN (think we spend over $8k per student).
I don't know about MN, but in CA I'd say most of that's going to administrators rather than classrooms. I've seen school district headquarters that were fancy enough to host heads of state. LA's school district has approx 4000 administrative employees. 2400 of them make over $100k. Meanwhile, average teacher salary is $63k - less than in San Jose, let alone NYC, Chicago or San Francisco.
Just went over the California state page and looked at some budget stuff. The problem isn't just revenues. They are forecasting a $6 billion drop in revenues from the recession but the hole is projected to be somewhere between $18 and $24 billion. The reality is that the state is spending way too much money. For instance, on K-12 Cali spends $45 billion on approximately 6 million students. That is over $7k per student. You can get a fancy man private education for that kind of dough. We have the same issue here in MN (think we spend over $8k per student).
I don't know about MN, but in CA I'd say most of that's going to administrators rather than classrooms. I've seen school district headquarters that were fancy enough to host heads of state. LA's school district has approx 4000 administrative employees. 2400 of them make over $100k. Meanwhile, average teacher salary is $63k - less than in San Jose, let alone NYC, Chicago or San Francisco.
Yeah the indirect costs and special education mandates eat up a massive part of the state school budget. The whole public education system needs a massive overhaul. More money and taxes is throwing money down a black hole for a system that is fundamentally broke
Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.
And that picture is excellent.
It's the only argument that can be put forth to support the assertion, made by KevinNash, that
Other [non-corporate-income] types of tax increases will only depress revenue further.
And it fails, naturally, because even if you assume that the Laffer Curve represents something real about the way the world works, we're still clearly on the left side of it, as demonstrated by the fact that the Bush tax cuts did not raise revenue equal to or greater than their cost.
Mathematically speaking 0% of 70% is still 0%. If the laffer curve doesn't represent something real then we may as well just raise taxes to 100% and see how that works out.
The laffer curve represents something real, and if you raised taxes to 100% you would see a substantial, if not complete, depletion of revenue. Of course, that means pretty much nothing.
People who trot out Laffer seem to think that the only possible argument against high taxes is decreased revenue, and that's silly. There are lots of reasons not to raise taxes, including basic fairness, market distortion, and so on. As was mentioned, we're almost certainly on the left side of peak revenue.
Here's the thing, though, and I'm talking to you yahoos on both sides: the Laffer curve has never been proven or disproven. There is pretty much no evidence of its actual shape other than the basic sense of the idea that people who were taxed at 100% would have no incentive to work. The economy is complex as fuck, and every period of revenue gain or loss can be explained by any one of dozens of factors to the point where it's impossible to pin the blame on anything.
Revenue rose during the 80s even as taxes were cut - but there's no evidence that revenue wouldn't have risen even more with slightly higher tax rates, because taxes were not the only thing affecting the economy.
Revenue fell during the 00s when taxes were cut sharply - but the economy was eating itself for much of that period, and there's no evidence that revenue wouldn't have fallen more given higher taxes.
At the end of the day, tax cuts stimulate the economy and tax hikes depress the economy, in general. A tax cut will cost less than a static analysis would indicate, and a tax hike will generate less than a static analysis would indicate. The details vary and the numbers vary, but those two factors are pretty much givens in the general case. Stupidly structured tax cuts will probably cost more, and well structured tax hikes will probably generate more.
tl;dr: Stop treating the economy like it has one goddamned independent variable.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Not going to belabor the point given that Saammiel more or less addressed your response and you have an obvious obsession with California, but a state with a population of 35 million (even if it is the 10th largest economy in the world) is not the critical fulcrum for the entire global economy. The Russian economy (which is larger than California) and Italy (same size) have melted down on multiple occasions over the past 10 years without the rest of the world entering a massive depression. California is important but I am not heading to the bomb shelter because a state that has chronically been dealing with massive deficits (primarily though heavy borrowing) is finally having to face the music.
I could deal with a Constitutional Convention to remove the ability of ballot proposals to call for mandatory spending without equivalent increases in revenue.
I say think bigger. A Constitutional Convention to reform that ass-backwards system of government.
Has Lou Dobbs blamed illegal immigrants for not paying taxes, using social services, and singlehandedly causing the collapse of California?
Any time he appears on my television (or a television I'm watching) I semi-yell "(I'm Lou Dobbs and) I hate Mexicans." I've got my girlfriend, my sister and a bunch of our friends doing it. I think it has to sweep the nation. Whenever you see Lou Dobbs, do an impression of his deep bowel movement voice and add to the end of any of his sentences "and I hate Mexicans."
This is ridiculous. No doubt the impending budget catastrophy of California is a Big Deal, but sorry the world doesn't revolve around California regardless of what some of its citizens might think. First of all, you don't have some magically fluid labor force that other states lack. In fact, prop 13 inhibits labor fluidity by disincentivizing home moves. No doubt it will hurt other states, but you are making the wild assumption that a majority of any given state's trade is conducting with California, which is ludicrous as a generality.
I also fail to see how a governmental budget crisis will lead to some post apocalyptic scenario where throngs of refugees will be fleeing to North Dakota to steal their jobs.
Also, rent control is pretty much retarded. If you want to give people housing credits, fine, but distorting the entire rental market is dumb. Especially since there isn't anything like 'housing price appreciation controls'. If you really were so enamored with the mobility of Californians you would be fine with letting them be priced out of their rental units so they could move somewhere cheaper and embrace that new lifestyle.
And California is pretty much SOL unless they can beg the federal government for some sort of bailout. Collectively its citizens helped dig it into this mess and I have no idea how they will dig themselves out. No one is going to lend them money and I doubt they can raise taxes or cut spending enough to make up the shortfall with their retarded restrictions. So welp.
Also, the laffer curve is stupid and no one should ever use it. Yeah it holds at the extremes of 0% taxation and 100% taxation. Yay, since that is oh so useful for crafting policy. Just like the thought that there is an inverse link between inflation and unemployment, it should be left in the dustbin of terrible economic ideas.
In fact California does have a magically fluid labor force which other states lack. We have the highest percentage of US Citizens who live here who weren't born in this state, and also the largest number of people who weren't born in this country. So yes, yes they will be going to North Dakota and taking the jobs. The solution in the end you see will be enormous layoffs in government, leading to more layoffs in assosciated businesses ad so forth creating high unemployment.
Your attitude is insanely isolationist, America has free movement of labor, California is an enormous contributor to the US federal budget. As we go, so do you. Try and pay your federal employees without the money California gives (and yes, this is true for almost all large States. I'd say the total failure of the state government in any State as large or larger than Minnesota would be disastrous for the entire US economy. California however is big enough that if it can't sort itself out it would be a disaster for the world economy)
Regarding rent control though, its actually a required byproduct of the ability to move freely. If people couldn't afford to move to the cities (which they couldn't in San Francisco without rent control creating 'unfair' competition) then noone could move there. Even in a time of enormous oversupply of housing in the US, California is still short of places for people to live in many cities.
However I don't think us bickering over how bad it is going to be for other states and the world is of much use. I'm sure there must be some thoughts out there as to steps we can actually take to solve the problem. It's not like we have to pay off the entire deficit, in a recessionary climate we can run with some deficit to be a stimulus to growth.
I could deal with a Constitutional Convention to remove the ability of ballot proposals to call for mandatory spending without equivalent increases in revenue.
I say think bigger. A Constitutional Convention to reform that ass-backwards system of government.
I say we call a Constitutional Convention and then nuke the site from orbit so we can start over again with fewer retards.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As was mentioned, we're almost certainly on the left side of peak revenue.
This, it seems to me, is the only point about the Laffer Curve relevant to the discussion of CA's fiscal problems. It strongly suggests that raising taxes is, in fact, a means by which we could close the deficit gap. That's not to say it's the ideal way, and it's certainly not the only way, but it is certainly a possible way, and maybe even a feasible way, despite what some people in this thread have argued.
What are you even talking about? California having a large number of people immigrating means that the American labor force as a whole is fluid, since you know, they came from other states. And you have a high number of immigrants because you both border Mexica and LA is a huge port. And if they are so hell bent on leaving a state with huge governmental deficits why didn't they leave already, since you know, the California government has been in a state of semi-crisis for a long time. And yet, I don't see North Dakota being awash with Californian immigrants (sorry Colorado and Arizona).
Also, what the heck does a California state budget crisis have to do with their outlays to the federal government. I don't understand your view that this will be some sort of Mad Max scenario.
Places like San Francisco are short of places to rent because of things like rent control and their ill advised restrictions surrounding property. If rent were allowed to rise naturally it would reach some equilibrium between the supply of people renting property and people willing to pay a given price to rent said property in a city. Even Paul Krugman generally believes they are bad policy. I mean if you really want to address things like the abuse of the elderly and disabled by landlords, do so, but not under the guise of some overarching price freeze with unintended consequences.
Finally, you can only run deficits if someone is willing to buy your debt. Who the hell wants to buy bonds from California? It would be a terrible investment. The whole reason California is in this mess is not because it is running a deficit (it has been for a long assed time), it is because no one wants to lend to them in the current credit crisis because they got caught screwed already making risky investments and they don't want to make more.
As was mentioned, we're almost certainly on the left side of peak revenue.
This, it seems to me, is the only point about the Laffer Curve relevant to the discussion of CA's fiscal problems. It strongly suggests that raising taxes is, in fact, a means by which we could close the deficit gap. That's not to say it's the ideal way, and it's certainly not the only way, but it is certainly a possible way, and maybe even a feasible way, despite what some people in this thread have argued.
The other problem with that laffer curve is that different taxes have vastly different results. If I tax you 90% income tax, then of course you will work less hard. However if I add a 2c water tax, can you drink less water? I bet no.
Not that I'm saying we should tax water, but we should tax something, and that something should be gas. Oil prices fell again today, they're below $45 now. A tax an gas will keep US consumers thinking about energy efficiency, and get cash into Californias coffers.
I think a major problem is both the democrats and republicans have basically carved up the state into safe Democrat and safe republican seats. If you don't have to worry about tracking to the center to win an election there is no reason to compromise, hell it might even hurt you, so nothing gets done.
We've just been borrowing more and more money and now it's finally caught up with us. Though I would say that it's because of California being economically so powerful that the state has been able to be run so fucking retarded and get away with it for so long.
Centrists are twice as fucking retarded as partisans.
This strikes me as needing some sort of explination because it's reading to me as "The people who don't favor extremes in terms of governing are worse for government than those who are" and you're a smart guy Than so I have trouble believing that was your intent.
Say you've got a project that would cost $100 million. You've got the Democrats on one side, wanting to do the project, and the Republicans on the other side, not wanting to do the project. Then, the centrists get involved, and bring their "down-to-earth common sense" into play, and say "well, let's meet in the middle, and just spend $50 million on the project." So, not only do they not have a working project, they just pissed away $50 million for nothing, as well. That is what centrists do.
I think a major problem is both the democrats and republicans have basically carved up the state into safe Democrat and safe republican seats. If you don't have to worry about tracking to the center to win an election there is no reason to compromise, hell it might even hurt you, so nothing gets done.
We've just been borrowing more and more money and now it's finally caught up with us. Though I would say that it's because of California being economically so powerful that the state has been able to be run so fucking retarded and get away with it for so long.
Centrists are twice as fucking retarded as partisans.
This strikes me as needing some sort of explination because it's reading to me as "The people who don't favor extremes in terms of governing are worse for government than those who are" and you're a smart guy Than so I have trouble believing that was your intent.
Say you've got a project that would cost $100 million. You've got the Democrats on one side, wanting to do the project, and the Republicans on the other side, not wanting to do the project. Then, the centrists get involved, and bring their "down-to-earth common sense" into play, and say "well, let's meet in the middle, and just spend $50 million on the project." So, not only do they not have a working project, they just pissed away $50 million for nothing, as well. That is what centrists do.
Thats not true, thats not a centrist, thats an idiot. A right wing person has an ideological attachment to cutting government spending, low expenditure is to him a fundamentally good thing. A left wing person has the opposite attachment, to him government projects are fundamentally good. How strongly you lean each way defines how strong this attachment is.
A true centrist should operate without ideology, judging each taxation or spending plan on it's own merits and in terms of the total picture of government. A centrist should enter each new decision without preconceptions based on decisions they made before other than how this new decision will be affected by them.
Say you've got a project that would cost $100 million. You've got the Democrats on one side, wanting to do the project, and the Republicans on the other side, not wanting to do the project. Then, the centrists get involved, and bring their "down-to-earth common sense" into play, and say "well, let's meet in the middle, and just spend $50 million on the project." So, not only do they not have a working project, they just pissed away $50 million for nothing, as well. That is what centrists do.
Thats not true, thats not a centrist, thats an idiot. A right wing person has an ideological attachment to cutting government spending, low expenditure is to him a fundamentally good thing. A left wing person has the opposite attachment, to him government projects are fundamentally good. How strongly you lean each way defines how strong this attachment is.
A true centrist should operate without ideology, judging each taxation or spending plan on it's own merits and in terms of the total picture of government. A centrist should enter each new decision without preconceptions based on decisions they made before other than how this new decision will be affected by them.
This "true centrist" is a mythological figure, every bit as real as Zeus.
Just went over the California state page and looked at some budget stuff. The problem isn't just revenues. They are forecasting a $6 billion drop in revenues from the recession but the hole is projected to be somewhere between $18 and $24 billion. The reality is that the state is spending way too much money. For instance, on K-12 Cali spends $45 billion on approximately 6 million students. That is over $7k per student. You can get a fancy man private education for that kind of dough. We have the same issue here in MN (think we spend over $8k per student).
I don't know about MN, but in CA I'd say most of that's going to administrators rather than classrooms. I've seen school district headquarters that were fancy enough to host heads of state. LA's school district has approx 4000 administrative employees. 2400 of them make over $100k. Meanwhile, average teacher salary is $63k - less than in San Jose, let alone NYC, Chicago or San Francisco.
And this goes back to Prop 13 (notice a trend here?) - when the local tax bases were slashed to the bone, the state had to pick up the slack, which has caused a mass of problems for school districts and the state.
Seriously, there's a reason that whenever California has revenue issues, people start pointing at Prop 13. It was a very bad idea that got passed by using a crisis to push people to vote for it without looking too closely.
Say you've got a project that would cost $100 million. You've got the Democrats on one side, wanting to do the project, and the Republicans on the other side, not wanting to do the project. Then, the centrists get involved, and bring their "down-to-earth common sense" into play, and say "well, let's meet in the middle, and just spend $50 million on the project." So, not only do they not have a working project, they just pissed away $50 million for nothing, as well. That is what centrists do.
Hey, you stole my argument for why political "cooperation" is a terrible, terrible thing.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Say you've got a project that would cost $100 million. You've got the Democrats on one side, wanting to do the project, and the Republicans on the other side, not wanting to do the project. Then, the centrists get involved, and bring their "down-to-earth common sense" into play, and say "well, let's meet in the middle, and just spend $50 million on the project." So, not only do they not have a working project, they just pissed away $50 million for nothing, as well. That is what centrists do.
Thats not true, thats not a centrist, thats an idiot. [/QUOTE]
That's both a centrist and an idiot.
To be fair, most centrists aren't dumb. They know their idea of cooperation is retarded. They're just cynical enough to know that the clumsy walrus ballet of their chromosomally-expanded brainchildren will appeal to the masses.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So, being actually serious with this, does anyone want to start a proposition for next year or the year after to change how the proposition system works (and handle any of the needed changes in terms of what would be broken just by changing the prop system)?
So, being actually serious with this, does anyone want to start a proposition for next year or the year after to change how the proposition system works (and handle any of the needed changes in terms of what would be broken just by changing the prop system)?
I think propositions can only be passed during Congressional election years, so it would have to be for 2010.
And changing the proposition system may very well be considered a revision.
Send around a petition to add a proposition to scrap the proposition system.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Say you've got a project that would cost $100 million. You've got the Democrats on one side, wanting to do the project, and the Republicans on the other side, not wanting to do the project. Then, the centrists get involved, and bring their "down-to-earth common sense" into play, and say "well, let's meet in the middle, and just spend $50 million on the project." So, not only do they not have a working project, they just pissed away $50 million for nothing, as well. That is what centrists do.
Thats not true, thats not a centrist, thats an idiot. A right wing person has an ideological attachment to cutting government spending, low expenditure is to him a fundamentally good thing. A left wing person has the opposite attachment, to him government projects are fundamentally good. How strongly you lean each way defines how strong this attachment is.
A true centrist should operate without ideology, judging each taxation or spending plan on it's own merits and in terms of the total picture of government. A centrist should enter each new decision without preconceptions based on decisions they made before other than how this new decision will be affected by them.
This "true centrist" is a mythological figure, every bit as real as Zeus.
Operating without ideology used to be the entire tenet of English politics, not so any more though Ideology should be the ultimate dirty word in politics.
I don't think that centrists are as rare as you think though, it's just that many of them aren't as smart as you need to be and find themselves easily led one way on another by Idealogical arguments one way or another. This is less their fault and more the fault of the fact that "Lets weigh the facts and make the right decision" is less exciting an argument than "Lets cut that red tape!" or "Save those poor orphans!" You need to be very charismatic, very smart, or both to pull it off.
I'd say John Major was a centrist, as was Tony Blair in his first few years. Obama has centrist tendancies, however it's difficult to know exactly where he stands due to the enormous right wing slant to US politics while he was in power. As a centrist who opposes enormous slants in results, it is perfectly normal to push the complete opposite way from the prevailing wind in order to achieve maximum swing back towards the center. We'll only see exactly where he really stands once things are back to a more sensible political climate. Schwarzenneger himself could be cast as a centrist.
Being a centrist doesn't mean you don't have a voting history, or a usual preference. It just means you see nothing fundamentally bad with either camp in fiscal politics.
Say you've got a project that would cost $100 million. You've got the Democrats on one side, wanting to do the project, and the Republicans on the other side, not wanting to do the project. Then, the centrists get involved, and bring their "down-to-earth common sense" into play, and say "well, let's meet in the middle, and just spend $50 million on the project." So, not only do they not have a working project, they just pissed away $50 million for nothing, as well. That is what centrists do.
Thats not true, thats not a centrist, thats an idiot. A right wing person has an ideological attachment to cutting government spending, low expenditure is to him a fundamentally good thing. A left wing person has the opposite attachment, to him government projects are fundamentally good. How strongly you lean each way defines how strong this attachment is.
A true centrist should operate without ideology, judging each taxation or spending plan on it's own merits and in terms of the total picture of government. A centrist should enter each new decision without preconceptions based on decisions they made before other than how this new decision will be affected by them.
This "true centrist" is a mythological figure, every bit as real as Zeus.
Operating without ideology used to be the entire tenet of English politics, not so any more though Ideology should be the ultimate dirty word in politics.
I don't think that centrists are as rare as you think though, it's just that many of them aren't as smart as you need to be and find themselves easily led one way on another by Idealogical arguments one way or another. This is less their fault and more the fault of the fact that "Lets weigh the facts and make the right decision" is less exciting an argument than "Lets cut that red tape!" or "Save those poor orphans!" You need to be very charismatic, very smart, or both to pull it off.
I'd say John Major was a centrist, as was Tony Blair in his first few years. Obama has centrist tendancies, however it's difficult to know exactly where he stands due to the enormous right wing slant to US politics while he was in power. As a centrist who opposes enormous slants in results, it is perfectly normal to push the complete opposite way from the prevailing wind in order to achieve maximum swing back towards the center. We'll only see exactly where he really stands once things are back to a more sensible political climate. Schwarzenneger himself could be cast as a centrist.
Being a centrist doesn't mean you don't have a voting history, or a usual preference. It just means you see nothing fundamentally bad with either camp in fiscal politics.
You're the one who said that a centrist is a person who comes in "without preconceptions," which is bullshit, because no one comes into a situation without preconceptions.
Obama isn't a centrist, he's a pragmatist. Neither John Major nor Tony Blair came into office without preconceptions. No one has ever come into office without preconceptions. You can't neutrally weigh facts and "operate without ideology" unless you've never before made a decision or had an opinion in your entire life, and if that's the case, you're a fucking idiot who has no business making any sort of decision.
There's nothing inherently wrong with ideology. It simply means you have a certain set of principles about which you're fairly inflexible. If one of these is something like "murder is wrong", that's a good thing. Ditto "everyone should have equal rights". We need people with strong ideologies, because without them there can be no vision. We need those who say, "I believe strongly that we should be doing this, now let's do it." What we need are those with ideologies tempered by pragmatism and realism. The belief that we should do X coupled with the realization that a necessary precursor is to do Y.
I wouldn't want a government run by nothing by pure pragmatists. It would be a visionless mire of utilitarian fuckmuppetry.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So, being actually serious with this, does anyone want to start a proposition for next year or the year after to change how the proposition system works (and handle any of the needed changes in terms of what would be broken just by changing the prop system)?
Proposition 1 : The state legislature now requires a simple majority to pass any fiscal measures.
Proposition 2 : A propostion to raise spending which is not accompanied by measures to fund it with current revenues requires a super-majority (2/3) to pass. One which also details rises in current taxes to pay for it in it's entirety requires a simple majority
Proposition 3 : Beginning as soon as this measure passes, a 60 cent per gallon gas tax will be imposed in California. This tax will be halved for agricultural vehicles. Should the price of gas rise above $4 per gallon excluding this tax, it will be cut to 30 cents. This measure should raise around 9-10 Billion dollars.
Proposition 4 : All state employee salaries will be adjusted downwards by an equal fraction to balance any leftover budget shortfall. The first $50K of a state employees salary will be exempt from this reduction. The maximum cut here will be $2 billion. State salaries will be readjusted back upwards once other taxes are passed to match the shortfall. Total state worker wages in California are around 13 billion.
Proposition 5 : Double Californian tax on Cigarettes from 25 cents per pack to 50 cents per pack. Savings from the current tax in healthcare costs have been estimated at 84 billion over 15 years, and an additional 1 billion dollars could be raised in direct revenue.
This should hopefully cut the deficit by about 13 billion dollars, and provide enough of a buffer (and the ability) for the administrators to agree on real spending cuts and tax rises to cover costs.
I am skeptical that your Prop 4 is feasible. If you exempt the first $50k, I really don't think there's much left to cut in order to realize meaningful savings. I certainly doubt there's $2B floating around.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I also don't approve of the general "Spending is out of control so let's implement massive and permanent new taxes to fund it!" vibe of your propositions.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah, not seeing 3 or 4 pass. 1 and 2 would be doable, but would be a fight and the people making the legal wording would have to be watched like HAWKS. 5 would probably pass.
There's nothing inherently wrong with ideology. It simply means you have a certain set of principles about which you're fairly inflexible. If one of these is something like "murder is wrong", that's a good thing. Ditto "everyone should have equal rights". We need people with strong ideologies, because without them there can be no vision. We need those who say, "I believe strongly that we should be doing this, now let's do it." What we need are those with ideologies tempered by pragmatism and realism. The belief that we should do X coupled with the realization that a necessary precursor is to do Y.
I wouldn't want a government run by nothing by pure pragmatists. It would be a visionless mire of utilitarian fuckmuppetry.
Republican ideology - Taxes are bad.
Fundamentally flawed
Democratic ideology - More government spending is good
Fundamentally flawed
The last thing we need in politics is ideology. We need level headed people who judge each idea on it's merits. Taxes can be good, spending can be bad, it all depends on the situation and what the country requires. Those guided by ideology are inflexible and stuck in the past. If something is demonstratably true (like 'equal rights are important') then it's not an ideology, it's a fact and people are welcome to use it to guide them in all situations.
I can believe strongly with ideology. In fact I can believe far more strongly because I took the time to understand and evaluate. Ideologists believe X because they have always believed X and always will. An ideologist is like a broken clock, right twice a day, but almost always wrong. I'd rather have a centrist who can be nearly right all the time.
There's nothing inherently wrong with ideology. It simply means you have a certain set of principles about which you're fairly inflexible. If one of these is something like "murder is wrong", that's a good thing. Ditto "everyone should have equal rights". We need people with strong ideologies, because without them there can be no vision. We need those who say, "I believe strongly that we should be doing this, now let's do it." What we need are those with ideologies tempered by pragmatism and realism. The belief that we should do X coupled with the realization that a necessary precursor is to do Y.
I wouldn't want a government run by nothing by pure pragmatists. It would be a visionless mire of utilitarian fuckmuppetry.
Republican ideology - Taxes are bad.
Fundamentally flawed
Democratic ideology - More government spending is good
Fundamentally flawed
The last thing we need in politics is ideology. We need level headed people who judge each idea on it's merits. Taxes can be good, spending can be bad, it all depends on the situation and what the country requires. Those guided by ideology are inflexible and stuck in the past. If something is demonstratably true (like 'equal rights are important') then it's not an ideology, it's a fact and people are welcome to use it to guide them in all situations.
I can believe strongly with ideology. In fact I can believe far more strongly because I took the time to understand and evaluate. Ideologists believe X because they have always believed X and always will. An ideologist is like a broken clock, right twice a day, but almost always wrong. I'd rather have a centrist who can be nearly right all the time.
And I'd rather have an immortal completely benevolent absolute dictator. Both of those are equally likely to exist.
I suppose if you define ideology as "ideas that are bad", then they are, in fact, bad.
Tautologies are funny that way.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I am skeptical that your Prop 4 is feasible. If you exempt the first $50k, I really don't think there's much left to cut in order to realize meaningful savings. I certainly doubt there's $2B floating around.
I would think there would be, even if everyone earns the mean salary there's still 2.6 billion to be cut, and I bet the wage balance is far closer to 80% earning 55K, 10% earn 40K, 10% earn 150K, meaning theres lots of cash being given out in that 50K + bracket. Maybe its a bit steep though, I thought of Prop 4 as a way of stimulating the legislature and state workers to get cracking on using their new fiscal powers from Prop 1 to pass cost cutting measures to accompany the two big new taxes in 3 and 5. Perhaps 1 Billion would be a more reasonable goal.
I simply reckoned you'd have more luck getting people on board to raise taxes since these two taxes would have backing , than to cut spending. People say they want to cut spending, but when it comes down to it noone will ever actually make a decision to do so, since there are always cute puppies, or sad little children and old people.
I suppose if you define ideology as "ideas that are bad", then they are, in fact, bad.
Tautologies are funny that way.
So you agree then, ideologies other than those based in demonstrable truths have no place in politics. Things fall down is a truth, you may base all your ideas on it. "High taxes will be bad for the economy" is not a truth, and people should not hold ideological beliefs about it. They should judge ideas on their own merit, and without bias.
I suppose if you define ideology as "ideas that are bad", then they are, in fact, bad.
Tautologies are funny that way.
So you agree then, ideologies other than those based in demonstrable truths have no place in politics. Things fall down is a truth, you may base all your ideas on it. "High taxes will be bad for the economy" is not a truth, and people should not hold ideological beliefs about it. They should judge ideas on their own merit, and without bias.
"High taxes" is an ambiguous term that means nothing.
edit: More generally speaking, politics is a field of uncertainty and gray areas. Nothing is proven. If you govern based solely on "truth" then you'll be stuck there trying to figure out how to turn shit like "things fall down" and "light travels at c" into viable policy. You need beliefs. But you also need to be open-minded to enough to see when your ideology needs tweaking.
Again, you can define ideologies as "stupid beliefs that have been disproven", but that says little about anything.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I suppose if you define ideology as "ideas that are bad", then they are, in fact, bad.
Tautologies are funny that way.
So you agree then, ideologies other than those based in demonstrable truths have no place in politics. Things fall down is a truth, you may base all your ideas on it. "High taxes will be bad for the economy" is not a truth, and people should not hold ideological beliefs about it. They should judge ideas on their own merit, and without bias.
"High taxes" is an ambiguous term that means nothing.
edit: More generally speaking, politics is a field of uncertainty and gray areas. Nothing is proven. If you govern based solely on "truth" then you'll be stuck there trying to figure out how to turn shit like "things fall down" and "light travels at c" into viable policy. You need beliefs. But you also need to be open-minded to enough to see when your ideology needs tweaking.
Again, you can define ideologies as "stupid beliefs that have been disproven", but that says little about anything.
OK, I can see I suppose how "No ideologies ever!" is in itself an ideology. I'd just like to see a lot more willingness to reevaluate from measure to measure from our politicians and a lot more eagerness to do what is best. It's not that I'm saying these beliefs shouldn't exist in someones head I guess, but that I am saying the decision process should go...
Consultation -> Rational Evaluation -> Beliefs
As in, you only go with your beliefs once you decide that you can't see how to vote simply by dispassionately weighing the pros and cons as detailed to you either by your own understanding, or by experts.
Yeah, not seeing 3 or 4 pass. 1 and 2 would be doable, but would be a fight and the people making the legal wording would have to be watched like HAWKS. 5 would probably pass.
Agree, with 5 you could probably triple the increase and it'd still pass.
3 would likely bring about an instant trucker's strike, which would shut down major ports like Long Beach and Los Angeles.
2 would lead to an epic campaign battle, making Prop 8 look like a gays & Mormons make out party. Practically every adult in the state has a vested interest in that one, one way or another.
4 would likely fail. To even have a chance it would have to have something about suspending legislator's pay and perks first. You'll never get support for cracking down on accountants and highway patrol while Assembly members are getting a tax-free $170 daily meal allowance.
Yeah, not seeing 3 or 4 pass. 1 and 2 would be doable, but would be a fight and the people making the legal wording would have to be watched like HAWKS. 5 would probably pass.
Agree, with 5 you could probably triple the increase and it'd still pass.
3 would likely bring about an instant trucker's strike, which would shut down major ports like Long Beach and Los Angeles.
2 would lead to an epic campaign battle, making Prop 8 look like a gays & Mormons make out party. Practically every adult in the state has a vested interest in that one, one way or another.
4 would likely fail. To even have a chance it would have to have something about suspending legislator's pay and perks first. You'll never get support for cracking down on accountants and highway patrol while Assembly members are getting a tax-free $170 daily meal allowance.
Without 3, or something major to replace 3 we may as well be pissing into the wind. 3 is the big money earner here. My thought was that with the recession, oil prices are now so low, that complaining about a 60 cent rise seems absurd. After all, it was $5 6 months ago, who cares that you can't get gas for $1.40, be happy you can get it for $2. 3 would also get the environmental lobby on board, and hopefully this would get the young vote out. By the time oil prices go back up, everyone will have forgotten about the tax, or it suddenly will seem like a much smaller percentage. The tax cut at high price is also written right into the bill, so that might help. Oil is also relatively demand inelastic with price and hugely price elastic with supply, tripling oil prices drove demand down only a few percent and perhaps if this tax pushes demand down a bit further it might well cost less to the consumer.
You can also get the nationalist angle. "Foreign oil producers are lining their pockets with American money spent on oil! Lets put a stop to it with this duty! California first! What, you don't support the gas tax? You miserable terrorist! Get back to Iran!". It's also effectively a tax incentive for clean energy, since they would be more competitive.
4 could be reworded to be an escalating cut perhaps. First biting deep into the legislature until they take the tough decisions we need, and then moving down the ranks if they refuse to act to find cuts.
Posts
MWO: Adamski
I don't know about MN, but in CA I'd say most of that's going to administrators rather than classrooms. I've seen school district headquarters that were fancy enough to host heads of state. LA's school district has approx 4000 administrative employees. 2400 of them make over $100k. Meanwhile, average teacher salary is $63k - less than in San Jose, let alone NYC, Chicago or San Francisco.
Yeah the indirect costs and special education mandates eat up a massive part of the state school budget. The whole public education system needs a massive overhaul. More money and taxes is throwing money down a black hole for a system that is fundamentally broke
The laffer curve represents something real, and if you raised taxes to 100% you would see a substantial, if not complete, depletion of revenue. Of course, that means pretty much nothing.
People who trot out Laffer seem to think that the only possible argument against high taxes is decreased revenue, and that's silly. There are lots of reasons not to raise taxes, including basic fairness, market distortion, and so on. As was mentioned, we're almost certainly on the left side of peak revenue.
Here's the thing, though, and I'm talking to you yahoos on both sides: the Laffer curve has never been proven or disproven. There is pretty much no evidence of its actual shape other than the basic sense of the idea that people who were taxed at 100% would have no incentive to work. The economy is complex as fuck, and every period of revenue gain or loss can be explained by any one of dozens of factors to the point where it's impossible to pin the blame on anything.
Revenue rose during the 80s even as taxes were cut - but there's no evidence that revenue wouldn't have risen even more with slightly higher tax rates, because taxes were not the only thing affecting the economy.
Revenue fell during the 00s when taxes were cut sharply - but the economy was eating itself for much of that period, and there's no evidence that revenue wouldn't have fallen more given higher taxes.
At the end of the day, tax cuts stimulate the economy and tax hikes depress the economy, in general. A tax cut will cost less than a static analysis would indicate, and a tax hike will generate less than a static analysis would indicate. The details vary and the numbers vary, but those two factors are pretty much givens in the general case. Stupidly structured tax cuts will probably cost more, and well structured tax hikes will probably generate more.
tl;dr: Stop treating the economy like it has one goddamned independent variable.
Not going to belabor the point given that Saammiel more or less addressed your response and you have an obvious obsession with California, but a state with a population of 35 million (even if it is the 10th largest economy in the world) is not the critical fulcrum for the entire global economy. The Russian economy (which is larger than California) and Italy (same size) have melted down on multiple occasions over the past 10 years without the rest of the world entering a massive depression. California is important but I am not heading to the bomb shelter because a state that has chronically been dealing with massive deficits (primarily though heavy borrowing) is finally having to face the music.
I say think bigger. A Constitutional Convention to reform that ass-backwards system of government.
Any time he appears on my television (or a television I'm watching) I semi-yell "(I'm Lou Dobbs and) I hate Mexicans." I've got my girlfriend, my sister and a bunch of our friends doing it. I think it has to sweep the nation. Whenever you see Lou Dobbs, do an impression of his deep bowel movement voice and add to the end of any of his sentences "and I hate Mexicans."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In fact California does have a magically fluid labor force which other states lack. We have the highest percentage of US Citizens who live here who weren't born in this state, and also the largest number of people who weren't born in this country. So yes, yes they will be going to North Dakota and taking the jobs. The solution in the end you see will be enormous layoffs in government, leading to more layoffs in assosciated businesses ad so forth creating high unemployment.
Your attitude is insanely isolationist, America has free movement of labor, California is an enormous contributor to the US federal budget. As we go, so do you. Try and pay your federal employees without the money California gives (and yes, this is true for almost all large States. I'd say the total failure of the state government in any State as large or larger than Minnesota would be disastrous for the entire US economy. California however is big enough that if it can't sort itself out it would be a disaster for the world economy)
Regarding rent control though, its actually a required byproduct of the ability to move freely. If people couldn't afford to move to the cities (which they couldn't in San Francisco without rent control creating 'unfair' competition) then noone could move there. Even in a time of enormous oversupply of housing in the US, California is still short of places for people to live in many cities.
However I don't think us bickering over how bad it is going to be for other states and the world is of much use. I'm sure there must be some thoughts out there as to steps we can actually take to solve the problem. It's not like we have to pay off the entire deficit, in a recessionary climate we can run with some deficit to be a stimulus to growth.
I say we call a Constitutional Convention and then nuke the site from orbit so we can start over again with fewer retards.
This, it seems to me, is the only point about the Laffer Curve relevant to the discussion of CA's fiscal problems. It strongly suggests that raising taxes is, in fact, a means by which we could close the deficit gap. That's not to say it's the ideal way, and it's certainly not the only way, but it is certainly a possible way, and maybe even a feasible way, despite what some people in this thread have argued.
Also, what the heck does a California state budget crisis have to do with their outlays to the federal government. I don't understand your view that this will be some sort of Mad Max scenario.
Places like San Francisco are short of places to rent because of things like rent control and their ill advised restrictions surrounding property. If rent were allowed to rise naturally it would reach some equilibrium between the supply of people renting property and people willing to pay a given price to rent said property in a city. Even Paul Krugman generally believes they are bad policy. I mean if you really want to address things like the abuse of the elderly and disabled by landlords, do so, but not under the guise of some overarching price freeze with unintended consequences.
Finally, you can only run deficits if someone is willing to buy your debt. Who the hell wants to buy bonds from California? It would be a terrible investment. The whole reason California is in this mess is not because it is running a deficit (it has been for a long assed time), it is because no one wants to lend to them in the current credit crisis because they got caught screwed already making risky investments and they don't want to make more.
The interpretations of the commerce clause are absofuckinglutely ridiculous. That is all.
The other problem with that laffer curve is that different taxes have vastly different results. If I tax you 90% income tax, then of course you will work less hard. However if I add a 2c water tax, can you drink less water? I bet no.
Not that I'm saying we should tax water, but we should tax something, and that something should be gas. Oil prices fell again today, they're below $45 now. A tax an gas will keep US consumers thinking about energy efficiency, and get cash into Californias coffers.
So who are the people who say "Well we won't do BOTH projects but we will do one or the other?" Anti-Centrists?
Thats not true, thats not a centrist, thats an idiot. A right wing person has an ideological attachment to cutting government spending, low expenditure is to him a fundamentally good thing. A left wing person has the opposite attachment, to him government projects are fundamentally good. How strongly you lean each way defines how strong this attachment is.
A true centrist should operate without ideology, judging each taxation or spending plan on it's own merits and in terms of the total picture of government. A centrist should enter each new decision without preconceptions based on decisions they made before other than how this new decision will be affected by them.
And this goes back to Prop 13 (notice a trend here?) - when the local tax bases were slashed to the bone, the state had to pick up the slack, which has caused a mass of problems for school districts and the state.
Seriously, there's a reason that whenever California has revenue issues, people start pointing at Prop 13. It was a very bad idea that got passed by using a crisis to push people to vote for it without looking too closely.
Hey, you stole my argument for why political "cooperation" is a terrible, terrible thing.
Thats not true, thats not a centrist, thats an idiot. [/QUOTE]
That's both a centrist and an idiot.
To be fair, most centrists aren't dumb. They know their idea of cooperation is retarded. They're just cynical enough to know that the clumsy walrus ballet of their chromosomally-expanded brainchildren will appeal to the masses.
And changing the proposition system may very well be considered a revision.
Operating without ideology used to be the entire tenet of English politics, not so any more though
I don't think that centrists are as rare as you think though, it's just that many of them aren't as smart as you need to be and find themselves easily led one way on another by Idealogical arguments one way or another. This is less their fault and more the fault of the fact that "Lets weigh the facts and make the right decision" is less exciting an argument than "Lets cut that red tape!" or "Save those poor orphans!" You need to be very charismatic, very smart, or both to pull it off.
I'd say John Major was a centrist, as was Tony Blair in his first few years. Obama has centrist tendancies, however it's difficult to know exactly where he stands due to the enormous right wing slant to US politics while he was in power. As a centrist who opposes enormous slants in results, it is perfectly normal to push the complete opposite way from the prevailing wind in order to achieve maximum swing back towards the center. We'll only see exactly where he really stands once things are back to a more sensible political climate. Schwarzenneger himself could be cast as a centrist.
Being a centrist doesn't mean you don't have a voting history, or a usual preference. It just means you see nothing fundamentally bad with either camp in fiscal politics.
Obama isn't a centrist, he's a pragmatist. Neither John Major nor Tony Blair came into office without preconceptions. No one has ever come into office without preconceptions. You can't neutrally weigh facts and "operate without ideology" unless you've never before made a decision or had an opinion in your entire life, and if that's the case, you're a fucking idiot who has no business making any sort of decision.
I wouldn't want a government run by nothing by pure pragmatists. It would be a visionless mire of utilitarian fuckmuppetry.
Proposition 1 : The state legislature now requires a simple majority to pass any fiscal measures.
Proposition 2 : A propostion to raise spending which is not accompanied by measures to fund it with current revenues requires a super-majority (2/3) to pass. One which also details rises in current taxes to pay for it in it's entirety requires a simple majority
Proposition 3 : Beginning as soon as this measure passes, a 60 cent per gallon gas tax will be imposed in California. This tax will be halved for agricultural vehicles. Should the price of gas rise above $4 per gallon excluding this tax, it will be cut to 30 cents. This measure should raise around 9-10 Billion dollars.
Proposition 4 : All state employee salaries will be adjusted downwards by an equal fraction to balance any leftover budget shortfall. The first $50K of a state employees salary will be exempt from this reduction. The maximum cut here will be $2 billion. State salaries will be readjusted back upwards once other taxes are passed to match the shortfall. Total state worker wages in California are around 13 billion.
Proposition 5 : Double Californian tax on Cigarettes from 25 cents per pack to 50 cents per pack. Savings from the current tax in healthcare costs have been estimated at 84 billion over 15 years, and an additional 1 billion dollars could be raised in direct revenue.
This should hopefully cut the deficit by about 13 billion dollars, and provide enough of a buffer (and the ability) for the administrators to agree on real spending cuts and tax rises to cover costs.
Republican ideology - Taxes are bad.
Fundamentally flawed
Democratic ideology - More government spending is good
Fundamentally flawed
The last thing we need in politics is ideology. We need level headed people who judge each idea on it's merits. Taxes can be good, spending can be bad, it all depends on the situation and what the country requires. Those guided by ideology are inflexible and stuck in the past. If something is demonstratably true (like 'equal rights are important') then it's not an ideology, it's a fact and people are welcome to use it to guide them in all situations.
I can believe strongly with ideology. In fact I can believe far more strongly because I took the time to understand and evaluate. Ideologists believe X because they have always believed X and always will. An ideologist is like a broken clock, right twice a day, but almost always wrong. I'd rather have a centrist who can be nearly right all the time.
Tautologies are funny that way.
I would think there would be, even if everyone earns the mean salary there's still 2.6 billion to be cut, and I bet the wage balance is far closer to 80% earning 55K, 10% earn 40K, 10% earn 150K, meaning theres lots of cash being given out in that 50K + bracket. Maybe its a bit steep though, I thought of Prop 4 as a way of stimulating the legislature and state workers to get cracking on using their new fiscal powers from Prop 1 to pass cost cutting measures to accompany the two big new taxes in 3 and 5. Perhaps 1 Billion would be a more reasonable goal.
I simply reckoned you'd have more luck getting people on board to raise taxes since these two taxes would have backing , than to cut spending. People say they want to cut spending, but when it comes down to it noone will ever actually make a decision to do so, since there are always cute puppies, or sad little children and old people.
So you agree then, ideologies other than those based in demonstrable truths have no place in politics. Things fall down is a truth, you may base all your ideas on it. "High taxes will be bad for the economy" is not a truth, and people should not hold ideological beliefs about it. They should judge ideas on their own merit, and without bias.
"High taxes" is an ambiguous term that means nothing.
edit: More generally speaking, politics is a field of uncertainty and gray areas. Nothing is proven. If you govern based solely on "truth" then you'll be stuck there trying to figure out how to turn shit like "things fall down" and "light travels at c" into viable policy. You need beliefs. But you also need to be open-minded to enough to see when your ideology needs tweaking.
Again, you can define ideologies as "stupid beliefs that have been disproven", but that says little about anything.
OK, I can see I suppose how "No ideologies ever!" is in itself an ideology. I'd just like to see a lot more willingness to reevaluate from measure to measure from our politicians and a lot more eagerness to do what is best. It's not that I'm saying these beliefs shouldn't exist in someones head I guess, but that I am saying the decision process should go...
Consultation -> Rational Evaluation -> Beliefs
As in, you only go with your beliefs once you decide that you can't see how to vote simply by dispassionately weighing the pros and cons as detailed to you either by your own understanding, or by experts.
Agree, with 5 you could probably triple the increase and it'd still pass.
3 would likely bring about an instant trucker's strike, which would shut down major ports like Long Beach and Los Angeles.
2 would lead to an epic campaign battle, making Prop 8 look like a gays & Mormons make out party. Practically every adult in the state has a vested interest in that one, one way or another.
4 would likely fail. To even have a chance it would have to have something about suspending legislator's pay and perks first. You'll never get support for cracking down on accountants and highway patrol while Assembly members are getting a tax-free $170 daily meal allowance.
Without 3, or something major to replace 3 we may as well be pissing into the wind. 3 is the big money earner here. My thought was that with the recession, oil prices are now so low, that complaining about a 60 cent rise seems absurd. After all, it was $5 6 months ago, who cares that you can't get gas for $1.40, be happy you can get it for $2. 3 would also get the environmental lobby on board, and hopefully this would get the young vote out. By the time oil prices go back up, everyone will have forgotten about the tax, or it suddenly will seem like a much smaller percentage. The tax cut at high price is also written right into the bill, so that might help. Oil is also relatively demand inelastic with price and hugely price elastic with supply, tripling oil prices drove demand down only a few percent and perhaps if this tax pushes demand down a bit further it might well cost less to the consumer.
You can also get the nationalist angle. "Foreign oil producers are lining their pockets with American money spent on oil! Lets put a stop to it with this duty! California first! What, you don't support the gas tax? You miserable terrorist! Get back to Iran!". It's also effectively a tax incentive for clean energy, since they would be more competitive.
4 could be reworded to be an escalating cut perhaps. First biting deep into the legislature until they take the tough decisions we need, and then moving down the ranks if they refuse to act to find cuts.