As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

California is bankrupt, Schwazenegger promises vengeance upon those who oppose him

124

Posts

  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    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.

    We're in a deflationary spiral, so a big regressive tax push might not go over so well. And oil being inelastic on the demand side would mean that in practical terms the consumer would be footing more of the tax than the supplier. A tax hike like that probably couldn't be handwaved away politically with nationalist sentiments easily, either.

    As for the whole proposition system, someone was telling me that Washington and Oregon's prop systems are almost the same as California, but is there a reason why they haven't gotten quite as deep in trouble? Did California just screw up more so with it?

    Savant on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    Thanatos on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Savant wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    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.

    We're in a deflationary spiral, so a big regressive tax push might not go over so well. And oil being inelastic on the demand side would mean that in practical terms the consumer would be footing more of the tax than the supplier. A tax hike like that probably couldn't be handwaved away politically with nationalist sentiments easily, either.

    As for the whole proposition system, someone was telling me that Washington and Oregon's prop systems are almost the same as California, but is there a reason why they haven't gotten quite as deep in trouble? Did California just screw up more so with it?

    I bet the other two states don't have the requirement that you need a supermajority in the assembly to pass any fiscal measure, while also letting people pass spending demands with a 50% +1 vote. It's a recipe for high spending without high taxes, since who is going to take the time and energy to campaign for less spending in schools, or more taxes?

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    Well, and the fact that you will never get anyone to vote for 'less police and prisons'. That's pretty much the only aspect of government that everyone wants more of, even staunch republicans.

    Hopefully once the legislatures hands are untied, and the spear of 4 is at their backs they will find the guts to make cuts to law enforcement and prisons, since no ballot measure ever will.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Couscous on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    Because rape and other forms of abuse only occur to drug offenders.

    Couscous on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    Because rape and other forms of abuse only occur to drug offenders.

    I thought the idea was the imprison less people therefore lessening the cost burden on the correctional system. It doesn't mean relaxing security within the prisons itself.

    KevinNash on
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    Because rape and other forms of abuse only occur to drug offenders.

    Because if we reduce the stress on our over-crowded prisons less abuse will occur.

    tofu on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    Because rape and other forms of abuse only occur to drug offenders.

    I thought the idea was the imprison less people therefore lessening the cost burden on the correctional system. It doesn't mean relaxing security within the prisons itself.

    Exactly, fewer people, fewer court dates, less overcrowding, less people to feed and clothe etc. The best way to overcome violence in prisons, is to have fewer people in prison.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    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 see what you're saying but I disagree. In that scenario I don't think the centrists are to blame, everyone involved is. Basically I'm saying shitty governing is shitty governing and left right and center are all more than capable of it.

    In that scenario the correct response to a compromise of spending $50 million for half a bridge is not "Well... I guess we still get to sorta go ahead with it so it will bring some jobs to my constituants/well... $50 million is a lot but at least it's not $100 million." It's "Are you fucking retarded?"

    I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what the definition of a centrist is. To me it's someone who thinks there is a viable middle ground on most issues. Basically a pragmatist. Now please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to define it as someone who places getting at least something done on a given issue (perhaps so that they can say in their next re-election bid that they did something for example) without any reguard to it's tenability. That I would define as just plain horrible governing.

    HappylilElf on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.
    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.
    The fewer correctional officers there are, the less abuse there will be.

    Thanatos on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.
    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.
    The fewer correctional officers there are, the less abuse there will be.
    Certainly less abuse by COs, but what about other prisoners?

    Note: I agree with you somewhat Thanatos, in that many people in those sorts of authority power situations are bastards. However, not all of them are, and the problem with prisons does not necessarily fall completely on them.

    Fencingsax on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.
    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.
    The fewer correctional officers there are, the less abuse there will be.
    Certainly less abuse by COs, but what about other prisoners?

    Note: I agree with you somewhat Thanatos, in that many people in those sorts of authority power situations are bastards. However, not all of them are, and the problem with prisons does not necessarily fall completely on them.
    In California, 99.999% of the problems with prison fall entirely on them.

    Thanatos on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I know saying 'no' to tax increases is the party line for Republicans, but what's their alternative other than getting rid of things that some people really want and others may or may not care about?

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • wishdawishda Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what the definition of a centrist is. To me it's someone who thinks there is a viable middle ground on most issues. Basically a pragmatist. Now please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to define it as someone who places getting at least something done on a given issue (perhaps so that they can say in their next re-election bid that they did something for example) without any reguard to it's tenability. That I would define as just plain horrible governing.

    But a pragmatist isn't someone who believes there's a viable middle ground on most issues. A pragmatist is someone who is willing to use the best solution to a problem, no matter which side it comes from. That means that sometimes the crazy lefty is just completely right and fuck what the righty thinks, and vice versa.

    The most pragmatic government we have ever had was FDR first two terms - the New Deal era. His administration studied governments across the world and copied ideas wholesale from communists, facists, monarchies and republics. Basically, they said "fuck ideology" and started throwing shit at the wall to see what would stick.

    In some departments, he had different teams implemented diametrically opposed solutions in different areas of the country. The best outcome becomes the national plan. If the plan from fascist Italy worked better than the one from moderate Britain, the government went with the fascist plan.

    Centrism is the direct opposite of pragmatism. It's the idea that compromise and moderation are greater virtues than accomplishing the goal. In our system, centrism is the core philosophy mainly of comfortable elites who don't want to rock the boat too much for fear that too great an upset could cast them aside.

    wishda on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    Oh, you mean like that proposition we just had up for vote. The one that failed miserably.

    Yeah, that'd be cool.

    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.
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    Oh, you mean like that proposition we just had up for vote. The one that failed miserably.

    Yeah, that'd be cool.

    Everyones anti drug until their kid or niece or nephew has a charge against them and then its all "blah blah he or she just needs help, not prison, he's a good kid". Ever wonder why Rush Limbaugh's ratings never tanked after his pain killer scandal? Its because at least 90% of the people you meet are willing to flip their outlook the second someone they care about is in trouble.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • wishdawishda Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    RedTide wrote: »
    Everyones anti drug until their kid or niece or nephew has a charge against them and then its all "blah blah he or she just needs help, not prison, he's a good kid". Ever wonder why Rush Limbaugh's ratings never tanked after his pain killer scandal? Its because at least 90% of the people you meet are willing to flip their outlook the second someone they care about is in trouble.

    You know how reformers are always complaining about how the drug laws disproportionately effect minorities? How a middle-class white kid can get off with probation and counseling while a poor black kid will go to prison for the same offense?

    Our society's dirty little secret is that most people realize this. They still support the drug laws because that's the way they like it.

    wishda on
  • templewulftemplewulf The Team Chump USARegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.

    And that picture is excellent.

    I know I'm way late on this, but could you elaborate?

    I've always found it implausible, except around the top 5 and bottom 5 percent or so. Is there anything specific that makes it retarded? (Keep in mind my entire economic expertise comes from many hours of NPR and PA D&D)

    templewulf on
    Twitch.tv/FiercePunchStudios | PSN | Steam | Discord | SFV CFN: templewulf
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    templewulf wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.

    And that picture is excellent.

    I know I'm way late on this, but could you elaborate?

    I've always found it implausible, except around the top 5 and bottom 5 percent or so. Is there anything specific that makes it retarded? (Keep in mind my entire economic expertise comes from many hours of NPR and PA D&D)

    That's more or less it. It's just extremely obvious, and Laffer is an economist of no actual importance in economics.

    To prove my point:
    wiki wrote:
    Laffer is best known for the Laffer curve, a curve illustrating tax elasticity which asserts that in certain situations, a decrease in tax rates could result in an increase in tax revenues. Although he does not claim to have invented this concept (Laffer, 2004), it was popularized with policy-makers following an afternoon meeting with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in which he reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin [1] to illustrate his argument (Wanniski, 2005). The term "Laffer curve" was coined by Jude Wanniski (a writer for the Wall Street Journal), who was also present. The basic concept was not new: Laffer himself says he learned it from Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes.[1]

    He was part of Reagen's economic team, and is basically nothing more than a republican hack. People (read: republicans) use his curve to justify lowering taxes, when any idiot can see we are obviously not past the point of diminishing returns for the tax rate.

    EDIT: Oh and I didnt know this, but its directly applicable to this thread:
    Earlier in his USC tenure, Laffer played a key role in the writing of Proposition 13, the California property tax cap initiative that spawned a host of similar laws around the United States and is generally credited with launching the tax revolt of the 1970s and 1980s

    geckahn on
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    templewulf wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.

    And that picture is excellent.

    I know I'm way late on this, but could you elaborate?

    I've always found it implausible, except around the top 5 and bottom 5 percent or so. Is there anything specific that makes it retarded? (Keep in mind my entire economic expertise comes from many hours of NPR and PA D&D)

    Because the laffer curve is an entirely obvious concept, but terribly hard or impossible to map a real curve for our country?

    I actually have a signed and framed laffer curve drawn by Arthur Laffer in my office. It was free.

    Edit: Hmm, I totally, managed to miss Geckahn's response.

    Septus on
    PSN: Kurahoshi1
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    You'll just be throwing the poor people into jail for being unable to pay the fine, while the middle class kids smoke up at their leisure.

    Speaker on
  • templewulftemplewulf The Team Chump USARegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    templewulf wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Anyone who cites the laffer curve as proof of anything is mentally retarded by association.

    And that picture is excellent.

    I know I'm way late on this, but could you elaborate?

    I've always found it implausible, except around the top 5 and bottom 5 percent or so. Is there anything specific that makes it retarded? (Keep in mind my entire economic expertise comes from many hours of NPR and PA D&D)

    That's more or less it. It's just extremely obvious, and Laffer is an economist of no actual importance in economics.

    To prove my point:
    wiki wrote:
    Laffer is best known for the Laffer curve, a curve illustrating tax elasticity which asserts that in certain situations, a decrease in tax rates could result in an increase in tax revenues. Although he does not claim to have invented this concept (Laffer, 2004), it was popularized with policy-makers following an afternoon meeting with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in which he reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin [1] to illustrate his argument (Wanniski, 2005). The term "Laffer curve" was coined by Jude Wanniski (a writer for the Wall Street Journal), who was also present. The basic concept was not new: Laffer himself says he learned it from Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes.[1]

    He was part of Reagen's economic team, and is basically nothing more than a republican hack. People (read: republicans) use his curve to justify lowering taxes, when any idiot can see we are obviously not past the point of diminishing returns for the tax rate.

    EDIT: Oh and I didnt know this, but its directly applicable to this thread:
    Earlier in his USC tenure, Laffer played a key role in the writing of Proposition 13, the California property tax cap initiative that spawned a host of similar laws around the United States and is generally credited with launching the tax revolt of the 1970s and 1980s

    Thanks for the link. I knew Laffer was a Reagan Republican hack, but I didn't want to discount him too quickly. Stopped clock, twice a day, etc.

    Plus, isn't a large portion of the curve completely obviated by our graduated tax system? No one turns down a promotion due to being put in the next tax bracket. I think we all long for the day when we pay more in taxes than we net in takehome pay.

    templewulf on
    Twitch.tv/FiercePunchStudios | PSN | Steam | Discord | SFV CFN: templewulf
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Speaker wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    You'll just be throwing the poor people into jail for being unable to pay the fine, while the middle class kids smoke up at their leisure.

    We're not talking about like 10,000 dollar fines here man.

    geckahn on
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    You'll just be throwing the poor people into jail for being unable to pay the fine, while the middle class kids smoke up at their leisure.

    We're not talking about like 10,000 dollar fines here man.

    How many $500 fines do you think a $1,200 per month budget can sustain?

    If the fine is $50 and doesn't go up due to repeat offenses, that would be fine. Anything hefty will fuck over the poor.

    Speaker on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    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.

    Revisions:
    Prop 1 : Cool beans.
    Prop 2: I'd add an exception for short term spending (say a program can not be above the budget for more than 1 year). Deficits are not inherently bad, as long as they are kept under control long term. On the other hand, I'm not sure how workable such a system would be in the first place.
    Prop 3: Even if this could pass, it would be dangerous. In MA we relied on a capital gains tax for a big chunk of our revenue. When capital gains dropped, it killed out budget (not CA level but...). If you dropped the tax rate at $4, just as demand would also be dropping...
    Prop 4: Is almost certainly illegal. Government workers are by and large unionized and are protected by collective bargaining. You can not arbitrarily cut their pay. A quick google suggests SEIU represents 140K of them for instance.
    Prop 5: I don't know enough about the figures to comment

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • wishdawishda Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Speaker wrote: »

    If the fine is $50 and doesn't go up due to repeat offenses, that would be fine. Anything hefty will fuck over the poor.

    In the liberal hotbed of North Carolina, possession of 1/2 an ounce or less is fined at $200 with a mandatory suspended sentence. Half to 1 1/2 oz. is $500 with community service and probation preferred and a mandatory maximum sentence of 45 days.

    As a point of comparison, a quarter of marijuana of shit quality will cost $30 to $50 and decent quality will cost $100 or more. So, the fine for 1/2 an ounce is pretty much equal to the cost of 1/2 and ounce of good weed.

    I don't think it's too far a stretch to say that a person who can afford to spend $50 on a quarter can afford $200 to stay out of jail.

    wishda on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Malkor wrote: »
    I know saying 'no' to tax increases is the party line for Republicans, but what's their alternative other than getting rid of things that some people really want and others may or may not care about?

    Step 1: Lower Taxes
    Outcome 2A: Deficit increases
    Step 3A: Increase rhetoric about big spending liberals, return to step 1

    Outcome 2B: Cuts to funding causes government to function less ably
    Step 3B: Increase rhetoric about government being the problem not part of the solution

    Outcome 2C: Waste is cut without harming services
    Step 3C: Crow about fiscal responsibility

    These outcomes are only problems if you want the government to function.
    I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

    Why would a group that is openly hostile to government in general (a omnipotent Republican President, no civil rights and mandated evangelicalism don't count of course) want government to function and prove them wrong?

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Speaker wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    You'll just be throwing the poor people into jail for being unable to pay the fine, while the middle class kids smoke up at their leisure.

    We're not talking about like 10,000 dollar fines here man.

    How many $500 fines do you think a $1,200 per month budget can sustain?

    If the fine is $50 and doesn't go up due to repeat offenses, that would be fine. Anything hefty will fuck over the poor.

    Fines are convertible to community service. If some poor schmuck wants to have eleventy million hours of community service instead he can just do that.

    And yeah, CA fucked up almost every prop put out this year, which is why the whole system needs to get flushed down the toilet. We hire those folks in Sacramento to do the whole "making laws" thing because we really don't want the average uninformed voter to be involved in policy/legal minutiae and deceptively worded legislation. At least those idiots have smart people working for them to explain that X bill is dumb because of loophole Y put in by lobbyist Z.

    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
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Speaker wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Realistically, the hands-down, far-and-away best place to cut spending is law enforcement and correctional facilities. Never going to happen. Not in a million years. The unions are too powerful and too retarded.

    I would prefer to do something that won't lead to prisoners being open to more abuse.

    Ahh, but the best place to cut costs first would be to say "Minor drug offences can no longer get you sent to jail, instead it's always a fine". So in fact, people wouldn't be in prison to be abused.

    You'll just be throwing the poor people into jail for being unable to pay the fine, while the middle class kids smoke up at their leisure.

    We're not talking about like 10,000 dollar fines here man.

    How many $500 fines do you think a $1,200 per month budget can sustain?

    If the fine is $50 and doesn't go up due to repeat offenses, that would be fine. Anything hefty will fuck over the poor.

    Fines are convertible to community service. If some poor schmuck wants to have eleventy million hours of community service instead he can just do that.

    And yeah, CA fucked up almost every prop put out this year, which is why the whole system needs to get flushed down the toilet. We hire those folks in Sacramento to do the whole "making laws" thing because we really don't want the average uninformed voter to be involved in policy/legal minutiae and deceptively worded legislation. At least those idiots have smart people working for them to explain that X bill is dumb because of loophole Y put in by lobbyist Z.

    The thing is, if the fines put poor people in jail, well, they were gonna go to jail anyway. At least some people aren't going to jail when they weren't doing anything harmful to others and they are creating new revenue.

    JebusUD on
    I write you a story
    But it loses its thread
  • wishdawishda Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Fines are convertible to community service. If some poor schmuck wants to have eleventy million hours of community service instead he can just do that.

    The bonus is that neither fines nor community service cost the state money, except in court costs. In places where the decriminalization has taken the form of a misdemeanor ticketing offense, that's not even an issue.

    I don't know about other states that have decriminalized, but North Carolina made the step explicitly to control costs. The state had been on a jail spending spree for years. However, there's been a growing realization that while the public may say they like politicians who put criminals in jails, they don't like politicians who cut services, school funding and infrastructure projects because the money is tied up in running the jails.

    wishda on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    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.

    Revisions:
    Prop 1 : Cool beans.
    Prop 2: I'd add an exception for short term spending (say a program can not be above the budget for more than 1 year). Deficits are not inherently bad, as long as they are kept under control long term. On the other hand, I'm not sure how workable such a system would be in the first place.
    Prop 3: Even if this could pass, it would be dangerous. In MA we relied on a capital gains tax for a big chunk of our revenue. When capital gains dropped, it killed out budget (not CA level but...). If you dropped the tax rate at $4, just as demand would also be dropping...
    Prop 4: Is almost certainly illegal. Government workers are by and large unionized and are protected by collective bargaining. You can not arbitrarily cut their pay. A quick google suggests SEIU represents 140K of them for instance.
    Prop 5: I don't know enough about the figures to comment

    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.

    In Prop 2, this is only for proposals brought up by the people. Short term budget deficits are indeed fine, but I view them as too complex an issue to be decided by a popular vote. Impact committees need to be formed to evaluate the worth of aquiring the debt.

    With 3 remember that petrol is hugely demand inelastic with price, and ideally we would like people to consume less, it would be good for California's and the USA's balance of trade. When the price tripled from 1.50 for nearly 5 dollars, demand fell a few percent. Effectively any drop in demand would be good, and any revenues would also be good. Its a win win situation.

    5 is just some easy cash, and easy savings on healthcare costs which will pass without too much difficulty.


    Based on the current flow of the thread though I would add...

    Proposition 6 : Possession of cannabis in California will now be punishable by a fine (sliding scale with amount) or community service, and the confiscation and destruction of the drugs. Repeat offenses in a year will increase the amount. Possession with intent to sell, or direct sale will carry a steeper fine AND community service.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.

    It's not a pay cut, because the decisions of maybe 200-300 people would affect many tens of thousands of other employees not at all related to the budget decisions process?

    Septus on
    PSN: Kurahoshi1
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.

    It's not a pay cut, because the decisions of maybe 200-300 people would affect many tens of thousands of other employees not at all related to the budget decisions process?

    This is a fantastically bad idea for that specific reason. If you think that some specific set of the workers for the state are overpaid, then slash their salary to what's fair. If you don't think they're overpaid, then don't tie their yearly income to the winds of fate.

    I can hardly imagine how impossible it would be to plan a family budget on an annual income that varied based on the state's budget deficit.

    MrMister on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    MrMister wrote: »
    Septus wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.

    It's not a pay cut, because the decisions of maybe 200-300 people would affect many tens of thousands of other employees not at all related to the budget decisions process?

    This is a fantastically bad idea for that specific reason. If you think that some specific set of the workers for the state are overpaid, then slash their salary to what's fair. If you don't think they're overpaid, then don't tie their yearly income to the winds of fate.

    I can hardly imagine how impossible it would be to plan a family budget on an annual income that varied based on the state's budget deficit.

    Actually, every state employee is responsible for keeping the budget in line. It's not just salaries, its expense accounts, use of resources, efficient working practices. Any state worker could easily hope save the state a few dollars in costs over the year, whether it be printing on both sides of a piece of paper, or eating a cheaper restaurant when on expenses.

    They have three options, do their jobs and balance the budget (which will include layoffs and pay cuts that the administration decide on), get fired, or take a pay cut.

    I don't think they are overpaid (barring the top earners, hospital administrators etc, but they are a small fraction of the total spend), I think we don't have the money to pay them. So either they need to decide how to save the money, or this proposition will.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Any state worker could easily hope save the state a few dollars in costs over the year, whether it be printing on both sides of a piece of paper, or eating a cheaper restaurant when on expenses.
    Guys, if they can all just pitch in by saving a few dollars, the budget will magically stop being millions of dollars in the whole.
    emotdownsop2.gif

    Couscous on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    so, unsurprisingly, it isn't just california with a huge deficit. Minnesota does too!

    JebusUD on
    I write you a story
    But it loses its thread
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I heard Schwarzenegger might sell California to Russia.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    I heard Schwarzenegger might sell California to Russia.

    But can Palin see Sacramento from her house?

    Incenjucar on
Sign In or Register to comment.