California state is cutting down

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
NSR,



it sounds like you are describing the old "waste-fraud-abuse" argument so often heard from 'tax reformers'. and yet, i've never seen any article identify more than a percent or two of such potential cost savings.



what would you cut to get us to 10% or 15%?
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1217814773]NSR,



it sounds like you are describing the old "waste-fraud-abuse" argument so often heard from 'tax reformers'. and yet, i've never seen any article identify more than a percent or two of such potential cost savings.



what would you cut to get us to 10% or 15%?</blockquote>


Let's start with focusing on the $3 Billion fraud in the Medi-Cal system.http://ag.ca.gov/bmfea/medical.php



Anybody placing bets on what the real rate of fraud is given it is another self reported number like the drop out statistics?



Overall, I'm highly annoyed with the three card monte game of financing and more importantly, trying to determine where the money really goes.



The site, IMHO, is an agenda pusher.



But, I've said my piece on other forums too. If we need more taxes, the taxes need to come from the bottom 60% in an order to bring parity and damping demand. Property taxesa are good, the vehicle tax, etc. People hate them. Frankly we have a problem, we want services, we want the other guy to pay for them.
 
I played with that site and I came up with a $700M surplus, while increasing education funding and minimal cuts to services. I agree that the "options" presented were skewed to one end, because there were few options for across the board cuts. I voted against Prop 98 in 1988 because it seemed like a dangerous idea to give an open pipeline of funds to the education lobby and it's proven to have hamstrung the fiscal abilities of the state. In the end, raising taxes was the only option in their little web game that covered the shortfall. In reality, raising taxes in a recession is counter-productive to ending the recession. For now, California citizens are screwed unless 2/3 of the state legislature are willing to vote against automatic increases in public education funding and suspend Prop 98 for one year. Failing to accomplish that means there is going to be a lot less of everything else the state provides.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1217813710] The problem is only partial macro and larger micro: efficiency, abuse, largess.



<snip>



Overall due to legislative inaction, we've ballot boxed ourselves a shit sandwich. </blockquote>


Where is my line by line audit? Where is my piles of government waste?



<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/recall.main/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/recall.main/index.html</a>



<blockquote>He said he will order a complete audit of California's budget to "go line-by-line" looking for waste. </blockquote>


I would argue due to voter meddling via the ballot box, we've created an unempowered legeslative shit sandwich.



For years I've heard the Republicans rant and rave about all the government waste. The voters of California recalled Gray Davis for being a dolt. Yet it continues. The Republicans either:



1. Have no spine, because I don't care WHAT they cut so long as they balance the budget or

2. Use the "look! look! Governement waste!" as a soundbite distraction because everything has waste, and Republicans have no solutions, but they can make the Dems look bad in meantime.



At least with Dems you know they are going to raise taxes and they aren't demogoging to the voters, around the issue the voters caused.



We cap taxes and then mandate spending. No kidding we are running deficits. Eventually this will stop and we will have radically reduced spending and radically increased taxes to cover the difference.



Or for those of you in Rio Linda, you can only drive a train down a dirt road so far.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1217823345]



Where is my line by line audit? Where is my piles of government waste?



<snip>



<blockquote>He said he will order a complete audit of California's budget to "go line-by-line" looking for waste. </blockquote>


I would argue due to voter meddling via the ballot box, we've created an unempowered legeslative shit sandwich.



For years I've heard the Republicans rant and rave about all the government waste. The voters of California recalled Gray Davis for being a dolt. Yet it continues. The Republicans either:



1. Have no spine, because I don't care WHAT they cut so long as they balance the budget or

2. Use the "look! look! Governement waste!" as a soundbite distraction because everything has waste, and Republicans have no solutions, but they can make the Dems look bad in meantime.



<snip></blockquote>


60% of the legislature is which party? Frankly, Arnie is spineless, however when he an attempted to address it previously, the public and teachers union rounded bitch slapped him into the next year.



Revenues are up over 20% above population and inflation growth. It is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem.



K-12 is 40% of the budget. Is it well spent? Is the core difference in Irvine USD's success and Santa Ana USD's relative failure simply funding? Is the only reason IUSD does as well as it does on going expenditures and new infrastructure and the teachers, parents, and students are frankly immaterial to the success and all we need to do for Santa Ana and LAUSD is give them enough money to spend like Irvine and have campuses like Irvine?



It really is a simple discussion. We can either cut K-12 spending and Health and Human Services about 15% each to make up for the current shortfall and likely shortfall from declining revenues OR we can raises taxes about those same 15% since raising taxes usually results in close to half of what they project for revenue.



So is it



Door A) 15% cuts to HHS and K-12

Door B) $20 Billion in sales and income tax increases.



Alternatively, piss everybody off and go for half of each.



I don't see the value in the 20%+ real growth we've had, hence I say cut. Across the board if nobody in the Legislature will id programs to go.



Otherwise, if the only difference IUSD and LAUSD is funding, then I say raise taxes, but someone really is going to have to sell that to me.
 
[quote author="lawyerliz" date=1217727319]

Ok, so what does awgee think should be cut? Be specific.



</blockquote>


The department of Health, Education, and Welfare.


The IRS


The Federal Reserve.


All corporate and farm subsidies.


All tax funded arts programs or subsidies


Half the defense budget


The SEC, CIA, FBI, ATF, IRS, and anything else with a three letter acronym


Anything proposed by Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, George Bush, or any other Republican or Democrat.


Anything not specifically mentioned in The Constitution.


And when you ask what I would cut, my answer is I would not just cut these budgets, but rather I would delete the departments and funding completely.


And I would double spending on prosecuting corporate despoilers of the environment. And since that is not in The Constitution, we need a Constitutional amendment to protect the environment.


And I would see what we could do to get Ralph Nader and Maxine Waters exiled to Siberia. Just because they are so irritating.
 
I took the survey/questionaire, but thought it was spineless. I could balance the budget easily. Instead of asking me questions about how Medical money should be spent, I would just eliminate it completely and get rid of any state gov functions concerning it. I would get rid of half of school administration. The questions should not be mamby pamby how to spend more questions, but rather how many state government organizations can you eliminate and how fast. Is that specific enough Liz?
 
The impacts on the budget and economy also show a strong liberal bias. For example, the questions on lowering state income taxes and corporate taxes assume that lowering tax rates reduces state revenues. The fact is that businesses are moving out of state or making expansions out of state because of high state income taxes. Leaving them alone or raising taxes will reduce revenues, not increase them.
 
You bust Medicaid, you bust the health care system as we know it (they'll get buried in bad debt from the folks who are currently served by Medicaid), as bad as it is.



You can bust the schools, I'll feel good about that one. I got two white dogs, no fear here.



You can lower funding to prisons, you soft on crime, and you become a commie bastard.



There's 85% of the state budget, and where almost all the increases went. Pick your poision.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1217836098] For example, the questions on lowering state income taxes and corporate taxes assume that lowering tax rates reduces state revenues.</blockquote>


I agree.



We should reduce the corporate tax rate to -0-, since every reduction in taxes so far has resulted in an increase in revenues to whatever treasury was collecing it.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1217849572]You bust Medicaid, you bust the health care system as we know it (they'll get buried in bad debt from the folks who are currently served by Medicaid), as bad as it is.



You can bust the schools, I'll feel good about that one. I got two white dogs, no fear here.



You can lower funding to prisons, you soft on crime, and you become a commie bastard.



There's 85% of the state budget, and where almost all the increases went. Pick your poision.</blockquote>


I thought that was 90% of the budget. K-12 is 40%, HHS is 30%, Higher Ed 10%, Prisons 10%. (Okay, 39%, 29%, 11.6%, and 10%.) HHS & K-12 is 70%.



Okay, our poison, 20% tax increase. Top tax bracket starting at $32K income, 11.1%. State sales tax 8.75%, (yeah, that's 1.5% higher than now).



Why 20%? Because tax increases net less revenue. Think just a straight 10% will do it? Fine, Sales tax 8.0%, income tax at 10.25%.



If we give it to them do you really think they won't be $5 billion short again next year?
 
I don't remember advocating one position or another.........I just pointed out the pitfalls of each option. I sincerely don't care what they do so long as they get it balanced. I really don't. I do have an opinion, but my opinion matters not if the state is busto.



Here's a year by year breakdown. Add up K-12, higher ed, HHS, and Prisons. There's 80-90% of it.



<a href="http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1981">http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1981</a>



HHS is mostly MediCal. It runs out of control for the same reason that your health insurance premiums run away at a rate above inflation. I don't remember seeing a radical increase in services offered, but I know several physisians who will no longer take new MediCal patients because the reimbursements are so low they can't possiblly make a profit on them. You find me somebody who is a medical provider who is happy with the MediCal reimbursements, and ask if they are happy with the proposed new reimbursement rates. You could dump HHS's whole staff and not even scratch it's budget.
 
Health care is a commodity, not a system. Eliminate Medicaid and Medical.




Eliminate half of all school administration jobs.




Eliminate 95% of appeals for death row inmates.




There you go no_vas. Budget problem solved.
 
You eliminate Medicare and Medical, you better change the law because Hospitals cannot deny care to 'emergency' cases. You will bury them in bad debt, and break all the hospitals. Ever wonder why it's hard to keep a trauma ER open?



If you dump half the admin, dump half the instructors and double class sizes. They do it in Japan, they make it work fine. Eliminate the public school system alltogether. Mandate that parents pay for schools or face jail time. You create them, you pay for them. Don't even get me started on those douchebags who want 'vouchers', an oppourtunity to transfer cost my tax dollars to thier snotty kids' private school of choice.



There are roughly 400 people waiting thier fate on death row. Of 170,000 currently being held. It's a start, but it's a pimple on an elephants ass relative to the gravity of the problem, and the Feds are making noise that the population is roughly 30,000 too high. But nice sacrificial lamb (no pun intended).



I'd sincerely like to have a logical and rational conversation on the topic, but I see I'm wasting my time. We would all like to spin hyperbole and conjecture and simple soundbites that make us feel good as we all collectivly head to hades in a mythical handbasket.
 
I was listening to John & Ken the other day on AM 640. They said the thing the media is NOT SAYING other than long lines at the DMV due to the reduction in workforce is that the state budget has increased 40% in the last 4 years and those funds have been spent and then some.



I also took the survey, however I didn't like the survey results, they would say "status quo" or "raise taxes"...how about C) reduction by 5%, D) reduction by 15%, etc??
 
No_vas - It is not hyperbole to me. It is reality.


I did not say dump half the teachers, just half the administration. Class sizes would not double. You would just get rid of alot of uncessary expense.


And folks were receiving health care long before there was Medical or Medicaid and hospitals stayed in biz.


The appeals for each death row inmate cost $20 mil. Maybe Eva can verify. And I got nothing against changing all death sentences to life imprisonment without possibility of parole if it saves the taxpayers. It costs $50,000 per year to house a state prison inmate. That's alot cheaper than the appeals. And give the prison inmates hard labor again. Shovels are alot cheaper than excavators.


I am a realist and I "realize" that people can survive and pay for their own services and they did pay before the government started paying. And they did it for alot cheaper.
 
And the hospital emergency issue is fairly easy. Stabilize the emergincies and send everyone else to their own doctor. Once an emergency is stabilized, send them away to their own doctor. If they can't pay a doctor, they need to ask for charity. Let's stop hiding behind a bunch of political correct BS, and start dealing with reality. If you do not have the ability to pay for an essential service, you need to ask for charity, not force someone else to pay for your demands.
 
<em>"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality."</em> - H.L. Mencken


Just something to think about.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1217849791][quote author="WINEX" date=1217836098] For example, the questions on lowering state income taxes and corporate taxes assume that lowering tax rates reduces state revenues.</blockquote>


I agree.



We should reduce the corporate tax rate to -0-, since every reduction in taxes so far has resulted in an increase in revenues to whatever treasury was collecing it.</blockquote>


No_Vaseline, that's a rather spurious argument. The fact is that tax revenues would be equal with either a 0% or a 100% rate. With a 100% tax rate, there is no incentive to produce, and without incentive, no economic activity occurs. With a 0% rate, there is lot's of incentive to produce, but no revenue created for the state from production.



Of the two, the 0% rate would be preferable for society because the economy would be so robust that most government services would be unneeded.



But it's ridiculous to claim that we are anywhere near the point of diminishing returns from lower tax rates. At a maximum of 10.3% for state taxes (there is a 1% surcharge for people earning more than $1 million a year on top of the 9.3% rate that kicks in at absurdly low rates), there is plenty of room to cut rates without compromising revenues.



The argument you are forwarding is the favorite of people who advocate big government.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1217889609]<em>"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality."</em> - H.L. Mencken


Just something to think about.</blockquote>


I wholeheartedly disagree.



If a child is bound and determined to be a sheep, they'll be a sheep. More often than not, the parent at home wants them to be a sheep. I'm with blk when he says that a medium/high achieving student is better served in a worse school than a good school because it's easier to stand out. But that's a different discussion for a different thead.



Lets talk class sizes and staffing levels and ratios.



In 1976, the elementary school I went to had two classes per grade K-6, and a class size about 25. That's twelve teachers and six aides (half a day per teacher). It also had a full time school nurse, a head custodian and two assistant custodians, three lunch ladies, a full time speach pathologist, a principal, and two secretaries. 11 staff, 14 teachers, and 6 teachers aids(full time). We also had two teachers dedicated to the MGM program, but they weren't teachers, so there's another 2 admin.



(Are teachers aids admin or teaching staff? I think only teachers count as teachers, everybody else is admin).



By 1978, prop 13 had passed. We now had 28 students per class, twelve teachers, a principal, one secretary, and two custodians, and three lunch ladies, and two teachers aides for grades K and 1 (part time). The sole remaining Nurse worked for the district and was responsible for 9 campuses. 14 teachers, 2 aids (part time), 7 admin.



And then it got worse. By the time 1982 got around, we were 35-37 deep in class sizes with the same staffing.



They have not, to my knowlege, radically increased staffing since then. So, who do you lay off if you want to cut back 50% of admin?



You need a principal (1).

You need somebody to perform custodian stuff (2).

You need a couple of lunch ladies (3).

You need somebody to answer the phone and do admin(1).



Do you ask the teachers to come clean thier own rooms?

Do you ask the principal to put in more than the 70 hours he's currently doing (I know a couple, this is pretty standard)?

Do you close the cafeteria and violate federal mandates for school lunches?

Do you stop answering the office phone?



This ignores all the extra stuff schools are asked to do now (Megans law compliance, the whole No Child Left Behind drama). More unfunded mandates.



I'd argue you already got your 50% reduction in staff. It happened in 1977. The fat left in 1976 when Prop 13 passed.



The only solution to increase efficenticy in public schools is to increase class sizes. For real. It is the only actionable cost reducer you can do. Oh wait. We've voted in manditory class size maximums so we can't do that. Another voter driven mandate that ties the hands of Sacramento and local school officals.



You notice the luster has come off of Greenlight and the other private charter school groups? Notice they can't get thier costs in line either? Hmmnnnnnn............



I often wonder who'd want to be a teacher these days. I look at potential teachers candidates the same way I look at politicians. Why would any sane person want this crap job?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top