San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

I've never understood the argument that a series of smaller 'fornias would somehow be easier to govern. We have x revenue and y expenditures. Dividing those up unevenly would just create a massive power grab for the revenue and fight over who takes the expenditures.

Seems to me that you have two choices at this point, raise taxes or lower spending. They are not mutually exclusive. Anything else is just shuffling the deck chairs on the you know what.

Josh

Oh, Josh, come on... Raise taxes? Lower spending? Don't go into politics, coz you're not getting my vote, buddy. I only vote for politicians who lower my taxes (the lower the better) and also give me good schools, nice roads, and a good amount of pork.

What are you saying? Not possible anymore? End of the rope? Well, now you're certainly not getting my vote. I want my pony and I want it now!

Thank you josh for alittle bit of fresh air. OP, please explain what problems are plauging either end of CA that isnt also sucking just as much in the other.

Housing?
Economy?
Taxes?
Environment?
Education?
Health Care?
NFL Teams sucking?

Calif. tax refunds to be delayed starting Feb. 1

Jan 16, 3:40 PM (ET)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California's controller says he will begin a 30-day delay on tax refunds and other payments starting Feb. 1 because the state is running out of money.

Controller John Chiang said Friday he must delay $3.7 billion in payments next month because lawmakers have failed to address California's growing deficit.

With a $41.6 billion shortfall over the next year-and-a-half, the state is on the brink of issuing IOUs.

I tried to schedule an appointment with the dmv today. First available is 3 weeks from today. Operator said she has worked for the dmv for 20 years and has never seen cut-backs like this - both hours of operation and staff.

CA State politicians should be voltunteer positions.

Problem solved.

Tell me why this won't work....

Split the legislature into two houses. The house of revenue and the house of spending. Voters elect different representatives to both houses. The house of revenue can tax and raise money in whatever way they see fit, but can not spend money. The house of spending can spend money as they see fit, but can't raise or change taxes or revenue generation. Nor can the house of spending spend more than the house of revenue provides them. (No funny accounting tricks here. The house of revenue provides X dollars and the house of spending can only spend up to X dollars, no more)

The way I see it, suddenly we have one batch of candidates that will campaign and answer for how little they will tax, and another group that will campaign and answer for how they spend. This will force the voters to face this problem and find a balance.

XBoxBoy

...and welfare checks!!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-...

2 main problems in California:

1. The politicians are exaggerating with regard to state debt/deficit so that the coming tax increases will be more acceptable to the public

2. Public Employee Unions - they are absolutely sucking everyone and everything dry. They have destroyed this state, without a doubt.

Is there any way for the state to relieve itself of the massive costs associated with the Public Employee Unions besides a filing of BK? As I see it, it is exactly the same thing that is happening to the US Auto companies. They'll be filing in 3-6 months so how much longer can California stand it?