Due to an ongoing health crisis in the family, blogging will be 'on and off' as time and circumstances permit for the foreseeable future. I also beg your indulgence if I am slow in responding to emails. New posts will appear below this notice.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Can you balance California's budget?

Try your hand here. There are a number of things I would like to do that were not on the options list. But I suspect some are prevented by law or one of those %^&#ed public referendums that have helped make California effectively ungovernable.

3 comments:

David Dickens said...

There is something very wrong with this calculator. Even if you agree with all of the cuts, you cannot make the deficit up, which is ludicrous because the state budget is $134 million. They aren't even offering 15% in cuts.

I'd probably start with 20% across the board cuts and then scale back the ones that state law specifically forbids. The bulk of the cuts I'm sure would be in income. I would offer every union a choice. They can vote to make it up with salary and benefit cuts, layoffs or half and half.

If I'm left with a train wreck here or there, I'd try some of the one time fixes (they don't even include land sales in the one-time fixes).

I'm sure there are numerous state parks that could be sold to private developers (and no, I don't mean Big Sir or Shasta, but lesser parks).

One thing this propoganda.. er I mean useful article does is point out how much we have to spend to get Federal funds. But then if the Feds are paying then we aren't really spending. Sort of a false choice.

Anonymous said...

Actually raising taxes would reduce the deficit by 2/3rds.

The budget crisis in California is a false one, supposedly created to "reduce government" but in actuality created to preserve the status quo for very wealthy individuals and corporations.
It's the end result of the ideology that government is somehow an inpingement on individual liberty rather than a common obligation.

Reactionary said...

"It's the end result of the ideology that government is somehow an inpingement on individual liberty rather than a common obligation."

I am hard-pressed to see how government is not an impingement on individual liberty. Or why government is necessary for me to meet my obligations to my fellow man.

In fact, it's becoming increasingly clear that government is a dreadful enemy of the people.