let's do this! can you balance CA's budget?

[vash]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl-2,0,6957202.htmlstory


i haven't tried. my low-bid, yesterday's computer isnt cutting it. give it a go!

i'll try from home tonight.

cliff

[Jim Richards]

The choices that are available to the playa are too limited.

[TheMentat]

That is absolutely staggering. Cool application that really gets the point across.

[TheMentat]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

The choices that are available to the playa are too limited.

I agree

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

The choices that are available to the playa are too limited.

Good point...for example, no mention of cutting off bennies to people in our country illegally.

[sammyg2]

Piece of cake. I just cut $14,549,000,000 in 30 seconds and we now have a $5 billion surplus.

the immigrants, welfare recipients, teachers and other state workers ain't gonna be happy about it but I don't care.

[cgarr]

Done! everyone on their own and that's the way it should be!

[tc-sacto]

Someone already proposed a way to balance the budget without cutting vital services....of course nobody in Sacto listened.....oh yea, this back in 03.

http://reason.org/files/acf6885fc0f9f88e93bc07a9d5a7eceb.pdf

http://cpr.ca.gov/CPR_Report/Issues_and_Recommendations/index.html

[HardDrive]

How do you guys feel about the $19.6 billion in new taxes I just laid on ya?

[Danimal16]

This is too restrictive and reflects the author's biases and politics. The criteria that I would use is not contained in the puzzle. Just a cross word puzzle in its current form.

[svandamme]

24 billion surplus... hookers and blow!! yeeeeehaaaw!!!

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I did it without raising taxes and only using the "one time fix" of trying to sell off the workers comp insurance fund. Other than that, it's all cuts and it's 100% sustainable.

And I'd cut a lot more than that, too.

[daepp]

Cool app but completely biased.

Where the "Roll back salaries to 2004 limits"
"Roll back pension benefits to comparable to the private sector"
Cut off aid to illegals
Cut legislative staffs and bennies
etc.

[Netspeed]

It's too narrow having only "cuts" and "new taxes" available. How about "Make the state business-friendly"? Lower the corporate tax rate, businesses move in, and people get employed. Employed people pay taxes and buy items.....

[varmint]

19 million surplus. and i didn't even have to resort to the "one time fixes" bullcrap.

i'm stuffing the money in a trunk and fleeing the state.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by Netspeed

It's too narrow having only "cuts" and "new taxes" available. How about "Make the state business-friendly"? Lower the corporate tax rate, businesses move in, and people get employed. Employed people pay taxes and buy items.....

You nailed it. The key to turning the economy around is JOBS. When unemployment goes up, the multiplier effect is H-U-G-E. CA has exploding unemployment. Predictable effect.

To fix this problem (statewide and nationally) we absolutely need to create jobs. And not *****ty minimum-wage jobs or ones with no benefits either. We need to create REAL jobs with competitive salaries and benefits. When all factors are considered (health care, SS withholding, workers comp insurance, etc.) added to the base salary, it's about $100k per person per year. That's what a real job costs. On average. That's what companies need to spend to get an ass in a chair for one year. I know, I used to do these projections at my last place. Just use $100k - it makes the numbers easy and it's not too far off.

CA "real" unemployment today is approximately 16.5% in a state of approximately 37 million. That's 6.1 million jobs that need creation. At $100k a pop, that costs $610 billion. That's how much we should be trying to extend in tax breaks to the private sector in order for them to create jobs.

If it were up to me, I'd say any business that creates a permanent full-time job with benefits and a competitive salary (specific #'s to be determined by field and position) gets a tax write-off as follows:

2009: $25k
2010: $25k
2011: $50k

This prevents them from "hiring" someone, getting their $100k write-off all up front and then terminating the person the following week (and yes, I think a lot of businesses would be sleazy enough to do that). This way the job created has to be around for at least 3 years and the net decrease in state revenues is spread out.

Seems like a win-win for the state, the population-at-large and the companies (who are effectively getting employees for 25% off the first two years and 50% off the third year).

The idiots in the assembly should read this. In the private sector, this is the kind of thinking we do that's called "problem solving". Maybe they should try it.

[Netspeed]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

You nailed it. The key to turning the economy around is JOBS. When unemployment goes up, the multiplier effect is H-U-G-E. CA has exploding unemployment. Predictable effect.

To fix this problem (statewide and nationally) we absolutely need to create jobs. And not *****ty minimum-wage jobs or ones with no benefits either. We need to create REAL jobs with competitive salaries and benefits. When all factors are considered (health care, SS withholding, workers comp insurance, etc.) added to the base salary, it's about $100k per person per year. That's what a real job costs. On average. That's what companies need to spend to get an ass in a chair for one year. I know, I used to do these projections at my last place. Just use $100k - it makes the numbers easy and it's not too far off.

CA "real" unemployment today is approximately 16.5% in a state of approximately 37 million. That's 6.1 million jobs that need creation. At $100k a pop, that costs $610 billion. That's how much we should be trying to extend in tax breaks to the private sector in order for them to create jobs.

If it were up to me, I'd say any business that creates a permanent full-time job with benefits and a competitive salary (specific #'s to be determined by field and position) gets a tax write-off as follows:

2009: $25k
2010: $25k
2011: $50k

This prevents them from "hiring" someone, getting their $100k write-off all up front and then terminating the person the following week (and yes, I think a lot of businesses would be sleazy enough to do that). This way the job created has to be around for at least 3 years and the net decrease in state revenues is spread out.

Seems like a win-win for the state, the population-at-large and the companies (who are effectively getting employees for 25% off the first two years and 50% off the third year).

The idiots in the assembly should read this. In the private sector, this is the kind of thinking we do that's called "problem solving". Maybe they should try it.

And another thing those idiots in Sacramento (or any other tax-happy politician) don't realize: There are 49 other places to live in this country.

[gassy]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

You nailed it. The key to turning the economy around is JOBS. When unemployment goes up, the multiplier effect is H-U-G-E. CA has exploding unemployment. Predictable effect.

To fix this problem (statewide and nationally) we absolutely need to create jobs. And not *****ty minimum-wage jobs or ones with no benefits either. We need to create REAL jobs with competitive salaries and benefits. When all factors are considered (health care, SS withholding, workers comp insurance, etc.) added to the base salary, it's about $100k per person per year. That's what a real job costs. On average. That's what companies need to spend to get an ass in a chair for one year. I know, I used to do these projections at my last place. Just use $100k - it makes the numbers easy and it's not too far off.

CA "real" unemployment today is approximately 16.5% in a state of approximately 37 million. That's 6.1 million jobs that need creation. At $100k a pop, that costs $610 billion. That's how much we should be trying to extend in tax breaks to the private sector in order for them to create jobs.

If it were up to me, I'd say any business that creates a permanent full-time job with benefits and a competitive salary (specific #'s to be determined by field and position) gets a tax write-off as follows:

2009: $25k
2010: $25k
2011: $50k

This prevents them from "hiring" someone, getting their $100k write-off all up front and then terminating the person the following week (and yes, I think a lot of businesses would be sleazy enough to do that). This way the job created has to be around for at least 3 years and the net decrease in state revenues is spread out.

Seems like a win-win for the state, the population-at-large and the companies (who are effectively getting employees for 25% off the first two years and 50% off the third year).

The idiots in the assembly should read this. In the private sector, this is the kind of thinking we do that's called "problem solving". Maybe they should try it.

Think of all of the coupons you could've clipped in the time it took you to write that.
Happy 4th

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Touche.

[Netspeed]

Originally Posted by gassy

Think of all of the coupons you could've clipped in the time it took you to write that.
Happy 4th

Or IOU's you can "bank"