Is California Insolvent? (Sacramento: low income, get credit, income)

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Damn straight. What most people don't realize is that in terms of personnel hours, printing and distribution, it costs roughly $25,000 for each version of an introduced bill. This one's already up to at least $50,000 and will likely climb some more. Multiply that by the over 1,000 bills, resolutions and other idiocies the Legislature has introduced this half session and after awhile you're talking real money, especially as some bills get amended eight ot nine times. Your tax dollars hard at work!

And here you thought they would be concentrating on the budget, right?

Is that additional incremental cost that wouldn't be incurred if the bill wasn't introduced, or just an allocation of current total cost (distributed per bill)?

Big difference between the two cost processes.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Is that additional incremental cost that wouldn't be incurred if the bill wasn't introduced, or just an allocation of current total cost (distributed per bill)?

Big difference between the two cost processes.

Theoretically it comes out of monies already allocated for operations, in this case for the Assembly. However, those overall costs have climbed most years and much of that spending, which is more for political posturing than for substance or need, could be curtailed and the budgets reduced. My stance has always been that no states, not even California, need 1,000-1,500 new laws each year. Some states with part-time legislatures manage to survive with maybe 20 bills a year. So I say again, your tax dollars hard at work!

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Calix

California is hopelessly insolvent at this point without drastic changes that I do not believe there is the fortitude to change. However, a reboot of CA may perhaps change that. CA is often a bellwether for the nation. Its collapse, restructuring and rebooting is exactly what is needed to make things right.

CA should go bankrupt, restructure itself and start fresh, particularly when it comes to the absurd pension obligations that would keep the state perpetually bankrupt for the next 40 budget cycles. The only issue remaining in a reboot scenario is the state would need fresh leadership from top to bottom and I'm not sure how likely that would be.

Can't happen under the current California Constitution which expressly forbids the state from going bankrupt. You'd need a new Constitution to do that.

If it could be done, it would have happened already.

The only other way to achieve what you're talking about would be for CA to either disincorporate and revert to US territory status (not sure if this is possible) or for CA to secede from the Union (which would require an act of Congress under Texas v. White). The latter option would mean instant fiscal relief for California as there would be no more money sent to DC in the form of federal taxes, however I doubt this could ever happen.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by majoun

Can't happen under the current California Constitution which expressly forbids the state from going bankrupt. You'd need a new Constitution to do that.

If it could be done, it would have happened already.

The only other way to achieve what you're talking about would be for CA to either disincorporate and revert to US territory status (not sure if this is possible) or for CA to secede from the Union (which would require an act of Congress under Texas v. White). The latter option would mean instant fiscal relief for California as there would be no more money sent to DC in the form of federal taxes, however I doubt this could ever happen.

Or they simply start defaulting on obligations and use that as leverage to get debt holders to renegotiate.

[thekish]

Originally Posted by majoun

As long as California keeps marijuana illegal it will be insolvent.

Except is is legal and the state is a ****hole.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by thekish

Except is is legal and the state is a ****hole.

Decriminalization is not legalization, as legalization would mean taxation which would earn more revenue for the state.

[antarez]

Originally Posted by majoun

As long as California keeps marijuana illegal it will be insolvent.

How will this solve anything?If Calif. legalizes it would only be a short term gain.Why would anyone pay big bucks for weed when and if it's legalized anyone can easily grow it at home.It doesn't need to be heavily processed like tobbacco.

[jbunniii]

Originally Posted by antarez

How will this solve anything?If Calif. legalizes it would only be a short term gain.Why would anyone pay big bucks for weed when and if it's legalized anyone can easily grow it at home.It doesn't need to be heavily processed like tobbacco.

Why would anyone pay big bucks for bottled water when they can get it for nearly free from the tap at home? And yet, they do.

[humboldtrat]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Or they simply start defaulting on obligations and use that as leverage to get debt holders to renegotiate.

If California defaults on its obligations, California will never be able to borrow money again. Who would be stupid enough to loan California money without any promise of getting it back with interest? There would be no point in passing bond issues because the state would not be able to raise the money for them.

Try defaulting on your credit cards, car loan, etc. and see where that gets you.

[thekish]

Originally Posted by majoun

Decriminalization is not legalization, as legalization would mean taxation which would earn more revenue for the state.

Your arguement is weak. California has decriminalized pot. Other states that have not legalized marijauana or decriminalized it are head and sholders ahead of California when it comes to money. California will still be a ****hole even if marijauana is legalized.

I have a suggestion. California should legalize pot and then when the state is still insolvent we should deport all the hippies that supported legalization of pot.