California debt: What options are available? (Sacramento, Vallejo: crime, mortgage, loans)

[Baldrick]

I came across this article and thought that it might be of interest.

BBC News - California debt: What options are available?

"In May 2008, too much borrowing and too much spending tipped Vallejo over the edge and it became the largest California city ever to file for bankruptcy.
However, the budget problems of Vallejo are dwarfed by those of California as a whole.
It is a giant economy - if it stood alone, it would be the eighth-biggest economy in the world."

[Curmudgeon]

Clean house in Sacramento. Start from scratch. Abolish public employee unions. Take away the legislature's check book. They don't know how to balance it anyway.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

However, he thinks that many Americans believe there is so much waste, fraud and abuse in the public sector that there is no need to raise taxes, so it will be interesting to see how the citizens of California respond.

^^

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

so it will be interesting to see how the citizens of California respond.

^^

I'd say that past history suggests the citizens of California will continue to elect stupid people to the state legislature, the governor's office, and to Congress.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I'd say that past history suggests the citizens of California will continue to elect stupid people to the state legislature, the governor's office, and to Congress.

... unlike any other place?
... you know: where citizens make rational, intelligent, cohesive decisions and elect highly experienced thinkers to analyze, communicate honestly and with great clarity, consult with those they truly serve, and dedicate themselves to the wise management of the public interests?

Lots of places like that. Just look around.

[ZhugeLiang]

Taxing remittances to foreign countries at a 40% rate would be a great start. America loses approximately $45 billion annually. I'm fairly sure a big hunk of that is coming out of CA alone.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

... unlike any other place?
... you know: where citizens make rational, intelligent, cohesive decisions and elect highly experienced thinkers to analyze, communicate honestly and with great clarity, consult with those they truly serve, and dedicate themselves to the wise management of the public interests?

Lots of places like that. Just look around.

I agree. This occurs in lots of places, perhaps everywhere. But I think California excels at this.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I agree. This occurs in lots of places, perhaps everywhere. But I think California excels at this.

Okay, I'll bite: why do you think that?
Research -- or -- opinion?

Research would ask factors of overall successes to be compared as well as failures -- and evaluate consequences to a relative scale. For example: where does the state stand in terms of economic output (GDP) relative to other states and to population. Debt ratios ... and so forth.

Research would ask about relative positions in crime rankings ...
would separately ask about public fraud and corruption rankings.

Not rely on anecdotal public opinion.

California ranks well in most regards ... near the top in some ... near the bottom in virtually none -- but perhaps a couple.

Opinion, of course, can simply reflect a person's conditioning to react to propaganda and public neurosis ... and to ascribe broadly negative conclusions to the individuals' frustration over their pet-peeve issues. And often those protesting the loudest are the most uninformed.

Don't like California's gun laws? = the whole state is mismanaged and sucks.
Don't like illegals? = the whole state is going down the tubes.
Don't like environmental policies? = the whole state is heading for ruin.

Except: it's not.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Okay, I'll bite: why do you think that?
Research -- or -- opinion?

Research would ask factors of overall successes to be compared as well as failures -- and evaluate consequences to a relative scale. For example: where does the state stand in terms of economic output (GDP) relative to other states and to population. Debt ratios ... and so forth.

Research would ask about relative positions in crime rankings ...
would separately ask about public fraud and corruption rankings.

Not rely on anecdotal public opinion.

California ranks well in most regards ... near the top in some ... near the bottom in virtually none -- but perhaps a couple.

Opinion, of course, can simply reflect a person's conditioning to react to propaganda and public neurosis ... and to ascribe broadly negative conclusions to the individuals' frustration over their pet-peeve issues. And often those protesting the loudest are the most uninformed.

Don't like California's gun laws? = the whole state is mismanaged and sucks.
Don't like illegals? = the whole state is going down the tubes.
Don't like environmental policies? = the whole state is heading for ruin.

Except: it's not.

I don't think there are any generally accepted objective criteria for evaluating the quality of politicians. Perhaps corruption, arrests, and convictions are one way. However since most politicians are not frequently convicted of corruption that is not a very useful measuring stick.

So the evaluation then becomes subjective.

California's fiscal problems have many causes. Some blame it all on the housing crisis. But why was there a housing crisis? Why did California suffer so much? Some of this is probably due to long standing practices in California. Over reliance on volatile income tax. Prop 13. High cost of housing fuels risky loans. Why are public worker unions so strong in California? Because legislators let them be strong. Why are so many pension funds in trouble? Why were overly aggressive forecasts used for investment returns? Why does pension spiking occur?

The state and local governments have a lot do with this. And voters elect these people.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I don't think there are any generally accepted objective criteria for evaluating the quality of politicians. Perhaps corruption, arrests, and convictions are one way. However since most politicians are not frequently convicted of corruption that is not a very useful measuring stick.

So the evaluation then becomes subjective.

I think it is tough ... but results measured by a state's economic and social stats, paint a picture ...

Originally Posted by hoffdano

California's fiscal problems have many causes. Some blame it all on the housing crisis. But why was there a housing crisis? Why did California suffer so much? Some of this is probably due to long standing practices in California. Over reliance on volatile income tax. Prop 13. High cost of housing fuels risky loans. Why are public worker unions so strong in California? Because legislators let them be strong. Why are so many pension funds in trouble? Why were overly aggressive forecasts used for investment returns? Why does pension spiking occur?

The state and local governments have a lot do with this. And voters elect these people.

The majority of states are having fiscal problems ... one of my points. There is a strong collective voice on this forum to single out California as pretty much the worst of the worst. It isn't.

The housing crisis hit California hard because California had been experiencing raging growth -- particularly strong in high-income professions. None of the housing crisis had a thing to do with California governance. Name a factor. It was all a soup of avarice and greed in the investment sector -- and lack of analysis, oversight / control in federal government. States don't have anything to do with national mortgage business rates or practices.

Prop 13? Yeah, well there's fertile field for argument -- pro / con, it is historically unresolvable.

High cost of housing fuels risky loans? True all across the nation. What's that got to do with California governance? Nothing.

Public unions so strong in California? They're strong lots of places for the same reasons and same results.

Pension funds in trouble because of aggressive forecasting? Yeah, again, everywhere ... and the forecasting was based on years of history. Start your complaint with the Reagan White House years.

Pension spiking? Yeah. Ugly. Go to the penalty box -- five minute major for high-sticking.