What Do Californians Think About Their State's Budget Crisis?

[jyl]

Over the past few weeks, I've talked to a number of friends and business acquaintances who live in California, about California's budget crisis.

None of them were particularly concerned about it, or really even very interested in it. None felt that they would be much affected by their state's impending insolvency and government shutdown. One person explained that his kids go to private school and they don't use the library much, so it didn't matter.

I have also noticed that there's little discussion of the topic here, even though we have plenty of Californians. tabs has posted on it twice and those threads died quickly.

So, to the Californians here, I would like to ask you:

1. How concerned, alarmed, anxious are you (or maybe aren't you) about California's budget crisis?

2. Do you think the crisis is likely to affect you in some way? How and why, or why not?

3. What do you expect to happen, and when?

4. What changes should be made to avoid this problem in the future? (I'm really only interested in actions that have a good chance of happening in the real world, not "nuke Sacramento" and similar juvenile inanities. This is not a ricer forum.)

[KaptKaos]

Yeah, um, Nuke Sacramento!!

Good - I feel better now.

I don't think it can be saved and really, I should be planning to leave.

We've imported millions of low wage workers that maximize their state benefits while exporting earners and producers. We continue to tax people and companies and force them to leave the state. We import gangs, violence and corruption.

When some ridiculous percentage of the people in the state are employed by the state, there is nothing you can do. Name one other business where the CEO is put into office by vote of the employees? That CEO is then beholden to the people that got him there, and the cycle continues. The teachers union and the prison guard union wield mighty power here.

It's so broken, I am not sure it can be fixed.

[ckissick]

I feel hopeless to do anytning about it, so why worry? It's like death and taxes. Aside from the occasional Governor, no one I ever vote for gets elected, anyway.

[SteveinTO]

Banks are already debating whether to accept the State IOU's, which they will begin issuing soon. If I get one for a tax rebate for 2008, I plan to immediately stop state withholding with the intent of paying my taxes with their IOU in 2009.

[Wickd89]

Stupidity at its best.

Only thing is that CA economy is SO huge, that successes and failures go accordingly. If I remember correctly, CA has the 8th largest economy in the world; even greater than Brazil's.

Considering how much it cost to live here, it is amazing the state does not have enough money (property taxes, sales tax, etc...)

ON A BRIGHTER NOTE:
Today, I took the Pcar out. Dropped the top on the Carrera this morning at around 730am (temp about 50degrees), drove down the road to Laguna Beach and drove up pass Newport to go to work.
At the end of the day, I drove home to a sunset on the Pacific at about 72 degrees.

That is why I moved back home to Cali......

[Tobra]

1.Extremely concerned.

2.It impacts me directly in many ways. Some of my income is from state employees, some is from people with state funded insurance. They are raising payroll taxes, registration fees, pretty much everything they can. They keep making the cost of doing business higher and higher, and everybody seems surprised with the results.

3.The state will be declaring bankruptcy soon. They have been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul for years, doing accounting gymnastics to keep the illusion that the state is not insolvent alive.

4.Nothing. The "management" that has been running this state is taking over the federal government. There is an aphorism that says as California goes, so goes the rest of the country. Strap in, we are all in for a bumpy ride.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by jyl

1. How concerned, alarmed, anxious are you (or maybe aren't you) about California's budget crisis?

A bit concerned. Not particularly alarmed - I've seen this coming for years. A state like this that is punch drunk on spending was inevitably going to "hit the wall" eventually. I am a tad anxious about it for reasons that I'll get into in a moment...

Originally Posted by jyl

2. Do you think the crisis is likely to affect you in some way? How and why, or why not?

Yes. I expect that the state will declare bankruptcy and go into "restructuring". In so doing, they will shed themselves of some debt burden which (unfortunately for me) includes my 2008 tax refund and possibly my state unemployment insurance benefits. That would suck for me (and probably suck a lot worse for a lot of other people in even worse shape than me). But ultimately I see BK as inevitable for this state. CA simply cannot continue on its present course. It just can't. And it refuses to accept the reality that spending more than revenues support is unsustainable. The state government is in COMPLETE denial of this. But you and I know that the math just simply doesn't work - the state is spending WAY more than it is taking in from all sources and our Legislature continues to try to "solve" this problem by only considering the revenue side of the equation - not the spending side. It's at a point now where it really is paralyzing the state economy - crushing business, driving business away, causing layoffs and job losses and causing people to flee the state for other locales where they actually might have a chance to be profitable. For one, I will not incorporate or start a business here. I have studied and worked hard my entire life with the dream of opening my own business/design practice someday, but I have resigned myself to the reality that CA simply does not want me to succeed here. So I will (sadly) take my skills, aspirations and dreams and base myself someplace else. I may actually do work in the state and physically reside here, but I will never hire an employee in CA and will do everything possible by basing my practice in another state (probably AZ) to avoid the crushing tax burdens and regulatory restrictions of CA. It has simply become way too business-unfriendly to do things conventionally here. I'm certainly not alone here in my thoughts/actions too...

There are other ways the state's over-spending is affecting me (and others) directly - stepped-up enforcement of silly laws that exist for no purpose other than revenue generation, decrease/elimination/scaling back of services and programs, etc.

Originally Posted by jyl

3. What do you expect to happen, and when?

I fully suspect the state will declare BK by summer - this way they can get the bulk of their "IOUs" for state tax refunds pending written off in court. That'll be a huge load off the state from a financial standpoint (but it'll naturally f*ck over the taxpayers).

Originally Posted by jyl

4. What changes should be made to avoid this problem in the future? (I'm really only interested in actions that have a good chance of happening in the real world, not "nuke Sacramento" and similar juvenile inanities. This is not a ricer forum.)

Nothing can be done. Until the prevailing mentality in this state changes from something other than a pseudo-communist one which results in the same buffoons being elected to the State ASSembly year after year, nothing will change meaningfully. You'll occasionally get a new name on a ballot promising "reform" and "accountability" but at the end of the day, those folks will just become the next generation of corrupt, drunken-sailor-spending hacks.

I laud Arnold for actually taking the Legislature on directly and for calling them out on their spending habits and intransigence, but you see where it's gotten him - he's now blocked and stonewalled at every turn and his credibility has suffered as a result. Ultimately the "drunken sailor spenders" in the ASSembly control the show - and anyone who stands in their way (even a popular governor) is stonewalled and marginalized. They eat their own. Ultimately it's all about the underlying philosophy of whose money it is and a sense of entitlement to it. That trumps EVERYTHING else here.

Ultimately I blame an entrenched culture of socialism in the State ASSembly (Legislative branch) for this. It's historically not been shared by the Executive branch - it's been mostly the Legislative (there are some times when the Governor's office has been culpable too, but certainly not always). The Judicial branch is somewhat culpable too, as it has tended to uphold some of the more socialist "principles" of the Legislative branch over the years. The culture of the State ASSembly really is one of viewing every single dollar in the state as belonging to them, rather than the people and businesses of the state. I really truly do believe these folks look at the people and businesses in the state as nothing more than stewards or banks who are temporarily holding THEIR money, and that it's available for their withdrawal and appropriation (as they see fit) by simply writing out a withdrawal slip in the form of new taxes, fees, surcharges and regulatory restrictions. The concept of "people's money" is completely absent from the Legislative branch of this state and any view to the contrary (whether by new members to the ASSembly or the governor's office or proposed efforts at organizing by the populace) is crushed without mercy.

To add to the problem, I see no shortage of socialist/communist thinking in this state from the uber-left types that tend to be ubiquitous in the urban centers (most notably San Fran and L.A./Hollywood). As such, there will be no change until the state literally collapses under the weight of its own obligations to itself, by which time it will be too late. I actually suspect this will happen in the next 1-3 years, leading to a COMPLETE breakdown in government programs, probably even leading to looting, open civil unrest and other social problems to the point where the National Guard needs to be called in to restore order. I see a complete overhaul of the state constitution as a quite possible outcome if/when the complete financial collapse occurs. Yes, I do think this is a real possibility here and probably even a likelihood. There's no way the State of CA continues in its present form. Not a snowball's chance in hades.

[Danimal16]

What can one person do? It just seems that it has been coming for a long time. Fortunately I had no income in California in 2008 so no income taxes. Iraq had its financial benefits.

[the]

Originally Posted by jyl

3. What do you expect to happen, and when?

What they will do, for sure, is raise taxes on everything. Income tax and sales tax are the obvious ones. And then the less obvious ones like payroll taxes and other taxes and fees on employers. And tons of hidden taxes in the form of "fees" for everything from trash collection to golf lessons.


As has already been happening, more and more businesses will flee california.

Even Obama would not do the things they are doing in California (raising taxes, fees, etc.) during an economic downturn, because it's obvious that has a hugely negative impact.

But, California does not have the luxury that Obama, Pelosi and Reid have - the ability to print money. So it has to do the next best thing - confiscate it from its businesses and citizens.

[scottmandue]

I'm a state employee so I'm extremely concerned.

I think they should start chopping heads/salaries/perks of the fat cats at the top who created the problem instead of screwing the worker bees.

But we know that won't happen.

I seriously doubt the state will go under, the economy here is too big for that.

Just my tow cents.

[sammyg2]

I won't try to speak for anyone else, but here's the deal:
The governator told us this was gonig to happen. He said he was going to stop it. We voted him into office based on that promise.
Then, he decided he was going to actually do it (silly man). He went to the state legislature and asked them to pass several new bills that would prevent what is happening now. The democrats in Sacramento said "no way dude, we're having fun spending money we don't have and screwing up this state."

Arnold said you don't do it, I'll take it to the voters. The democrats laughed at him.
Arnold got it on the ballot so the voters could make the democrats sit up straight and stop being idiots.
Unfortunately, Arnold underestimated the power of the democrat unions. Teachers union, fire fighters union, nurses union, police union, etc.
The democrats in Sacramento told all the unions that if Arnold got his way, the democrats won't be able to keep giving the union members everything they want. Boy they didn't want that to happen.

They all rallied against Arnold and his reform bills. No reform! they cried. They collective spend an incredible amount of money on negative campaign adds. The teacher's union spent every penny it had, and then raised dues and spent that, and then borrowed every penny they could and spent that. They were serious.
The moron idiot mush-head average California voter allowed him or herself to be brainwashed by all these negative campaign ads and changed his or her mind. They were all for reform when Arnold was running against Davis, but now that the unions had them all hypnotized, they were against any type of fiscal reform. Evidently the force has a strong influence on the weak-minded.
The unions set out to destroy the state in exchange for more money in their pockets and they have succeeded. They should have been kicked out of the state for good. Every stinking one of them.

So you want to know what I think?
I think the idiots who allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the tax and over-spend democrats deserve everything they are getting, but the rest of us don't.

The only good that can possibly come from this is maybe, just maybe they'll split California into two states and we can get away from the bleeding heart liberal communists in the bay area.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by SteveinTO

If I get one for a tax rebate for 2008, I plan to immediately stop state withholding with the intent of paying my taxes with their IOU in 2009.

While that would seem to the thing to do, remember as screwed up as the state is, they have no sense of humor. We seem to go thru this every year anymore. No budget, no money.

One of the real problems is the lack of respect. I read where some woman was going to send her refund back to the state as a "contribution." First of all, I don't know if the state would know how to process her request. Secondly, obviously she's messed up. I'd cheat the state in every way I could until they quit wasting money.

Let's not go there here. They waste 100's of millions, there's no question about it.

Is this scary? Not really. I'm so used to ineptitude that it seems right on track. Think of CA as one big WalMart in dire straights. Low stock, things tossed all over the floor in the isles, freeloaders, welfare recipients and thieves all crowding inside.

The local trash dump on the outside. Really, our freeways are so littered now they look just like a WM parking lot.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

The only good that can possibly come from this is maybe, just maybe they'll split California into two states and we can get away from the bleeding heart liberal communists in the bay area.

Won't happen. Those in NorCal like spending the revenue generated in SoCal. We'd have to secede. That won't happen because we like their water.

Codependent.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by milt

Won't happen. Those in NorCal like spending the revenue generated in SoCal. We'd have to secede. That won't happen because we like their water.

Codependent.

Dude, they already cut off most of that water after the tree-huggers won that mono Lake fight and the lawsuit brought by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the Owens Valley Committee, and the Sierra Club (asshats, every one ).

We get most of our water from local wells, local reservoirs, and the Colorado river (From the California shore, so it's still coming from our own state ).
They just like to bluff us with that water but secretly they are hoping we don't catch on and bail on them.
I'm so ready to bail on them. What would they do, send pelosi after us?

Besides, if we could get rid of the libs in NorCal, we might be able to close the borders and kick out the illegals and then there would me more than enough water for everyone.

[Zeke]

We still get Sacramento Delta water, not nearly as much as we once did. But, nothing is nothing. And, they still like our money, so unless the whole state voted to split, I'm sure the north could find many ways to stop a secession.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by milt

Is this scary? Not really. I'm so used to ineptitude that it seems right on track. Think of CA as one big WalMart in dire straights. Low stock, things tossed all over the floor in the isles, freeloaders, welfare recipients and thieves all crowding inside.

Exactly, this has been going on for decades... only difference is we have a celebrity Governor this time around to draw more media coverage.

[Noah930]

How legal is it to not refund overpaid taxes, as the state is about to do? If I don't pay taxes because I'm a cheater, I get into big trouble with the IRS and state. As I should. Fines, threat of jail time, etc. They don't care if I've spent all I've got, and don't really have anything liquid with which to pay the taxman. But if the state unilaterally decides to withhold the money they legally owe the people, that's OK? What am I misunderstanding?

Sounds like it would be perfectly fair for me to, in return, agree to pay my taxes at the end of the year, instead of having some withheld along the way. After all, my credit (per FICO score) is pretty impeccable. You know guys like me are good for it.

Good thing I have no house. I'm mobile.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Noah930

How legal is it to not refund overpaid taxes, as the state is about to do? If I don't pay taxes because I'm a cheater, I get into big trouble with the IRS and state. As I should. Fines, threat of jail time, etc. They don't care if I've spent all I've got, and don't really have anything liquid with which to pay the taxman. But if the state unilaterally decides to withhold the money they legally owe the people, that's OK? What am I misunderstanding?

Sounds like it would be perfectly fair for me to, in return, agree to pay my taxes at the end of the year, instead of having some withheld along the way. After all, my credit (per FICO score) is pretty impeccable. You know guys like me are good for it.

Good thing I have no house. I'm mobile.

They are not talking about not paying refunds, they are talking about deferring payment using IOUs.
They still have to pay unless they declare BK. If they do that, they may be able to snake out of paying.

See, they can get away with that and you can't because they have a whole bunch of really expensive lawyers (that we pay for) that they can use against us.
Yep, gotta love them lawyers and politicians.

[Drdogface]

Originally Posted by milt

We still get Sacramento Delta water, not nearly as much as we once did. But, nothing is nothing. And, they still like our money, so unless the whole state voted to split, I'm sure the north could find many ways to stop a secession.

I suppose you know about the peripheral canal that the Guber is attempting to shove down our throats? What with the debt level Ca already has, this will likely add another $20 Billion. He is just DOING it with no approval from legislature or voters as I understand it....construction to begin in 2011. This will ruin the Delta farmers and fisheries. This project was handily voted down decades ago but, as usual, they try again...this time by fiat.

I'd vote to secede but how about and East/West instead of North/South?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Drdogface

He is just DOING it with no approval from legislature or voters as I understand it....construction to begin in 2011.
?

No, he isn't. He can't. He doesn't have that power. He doesn't have that money. It doesn't work that way. If it happens, someone else has to spend that money. Either the state or federal legislature has to decide to spend that money. The governor can't do it. He can't spend a penny that the legislature doesn't give him to spend.
He is part of a group that supports the idea. That group has called to "ease federal and state environmental review standards" pertaining to the development and construction of the peripheral canal, rather than following existing environmental laws and processes". That's it. That's your end run.
They feel the environmental regulations are excessively restrictive and don't pertain to this project.
If you agree or disagree, fine. But leave it at that without the over-the-top accusations.

Peripheral Canal

The Peripheral Canal does not physically exist. As an idea, it is a canal that diverts water from the Sacramento River, through (or around the periphery of) the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta, and into the California Aqueduct, North Bay Aqueduct, South Bay Aqueduct, and San Luis Canal via the Jones and Banks pumping stations. then be pumped to Central and Southern California (including San Francisco Bay Area water providers, like Santa Clara Valley Water District). Construction costs for the project are estimated at between $4 and $7 billion, with an additional $30 billion in land easements.

Currently, that water is being pulled through the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta. The through-Delta system has turned the Delta, originally a fluctuating-salinity estuary, into a freshwater basin. It has also created unnatural north to south flows in the Delta, confusing native species such as the Delta Smelt and disturbing the ecosystem.

Voters defeated a ballot initiative to build the Canal in 1982. Ever since then, the words "Peripheral Canal" have been called the "third rail" in water politics.

In recent years, however, after Judge Wanger shut off pumping stations in the South Delta because of their environmental impact, the idea of a Peripheral Canal has had a revival. Among others, Tom Birmingham, the head of the Westlands Water District, Tim Quinn, the director of the Association of California Water Agencies, and Governor Arnold Schwarznegger's Blue Ribbon Delta Vision Panel have fallen in line with the idea, although the Delta Vision Panel did not rate it as its primary goal.