California Special Election

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=meadandale]
1999-2000: $85 billion
2007-2008: $138 billion

That’s an increase of 62%. Not quite double but not nearly as low as your numbers indicate. Over that period, property tax revenue doubled and to hear the counties talk, the state takes the majority of the property tax revenue for themselves.

Did the population of CA increase by 62% in 7 years? 30%?[/quote]
Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.

Of course, increases in revenue would also need to be inflation adjusted.

[Anonymous]

Why did you choose 1999/2000 as the the benchmark year? Was CA so much better off back then that it is now? Why is that year the standard? (If all we have are relative numeric comparisons, one could even argue that spending in 1999 was too low…)

I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.

[Anonymous]

Why did you choose 1999/2000 as the the benchmark year? Was CA so much better off back then that it is now? Why is that year the standard? (If all we have are relative numeric comparisons, one could even argue that spending in 1999 was too low…)

I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.

[Anonymous]

Why did you choose 1999/2000 as the the benchmark year? Was CA so much better off back then that it is now? Why is that year the standard? (If all we have are relative numeric comparisons, one could even argue that spending in 1999 was too low…)

I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.

[Anonymous]

Why did you choose 1999/2000 as the the benchmark year? Was CA so much better off back then that it is now? Why is that year the standard? (If all we have are relative numeric comparisons, one could even argue that spending in 1999 was too low…)

I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.

[Anonymous]

Why did you choose 1999/2000 as the the benchmark year? Was CA so much better off back then that it is now? Why is that year the standard? (If all we have are relative numeric comparisons, one could even argue that spending in 1999 was too low…)

I do agree that state employee pensions are overly generous. But I don’t know the numbers. How much of the budget goes towards pensions? Is it 30% of the total budget? (probably not that high) Even if was that high, and we slashed pensions by 33%, that only reduces the total budget by 10%. Still not enough. (And BTW, there’s no law against you or I becoming a state employee — we could enjoy the perks as well.)

In general, we are probably in agreement with the basic sentiment that government spending is too high. But vague, generic rants about it don’t help, and only clutter the message boards. A real solution will require some homework – crunch some numbers and propose a specific course of action. Otherwise it’s just complaining.

Although I’d like to see the gov’t change course on some fiscal matters, I certainly don’t think any of this is anywhere near depressing. Even if we go totally broke, we can still go outside and enjoy the sunshine. After all, we live in California.

[Anonymous]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.[/quote]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Population grew by about 8%, so if we normalize the 2000 budget number to 2008 using CPI and population growth, it comes out to about $114 billion.

Using meadandale’s 2008 number, the size of the budget per capita grew a total of about 20% over an 8 year period. That’s 2.5% per year. Definitely creeping upwards, but I’m not sure I’d label it as out of control.

[Anonymous]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.[/quote]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Population grew by about 8%, so if we normalize the 2000 budget number to 2008 using CPI and population growth, it comes out to about $114 billion.

Using meadandale’s 2008 number, the size of the budget per capita grew a total of about 20% over an 8 year period. That’s 2.5% per year. Definitely creeping upwards, but I’m not sure I’d label it as out of control.

[Anonymous]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.[/quote]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Population grew by about 8%, so if we normalize the 2000 budget number to 2008 using CPI and population growth, it comes out to about $114 billion.

Using meadandale’s 2008 number, the size of the budget per capita grew a total of about 20% over an 8 year period. That’s 2.5% per year. Definitely creeping upwards, but I’m not sure I’d label it as out of control.

[Anonymous]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.[/quote]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Population grew by about 8%, so if we normalize the 2000 budget number to 2008 using CPI and population growth, it comes out to about $114 billion.

Using meadandale’s 2008 number, the size of the budget per capita grew a total of about 20% over an 8 year period. That’s 2.5% per year. Definitely creeping upwards, but I’m not sure I’d label it as out of control.

[Anonymous]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Based on the CPI, $85b in 2000 dollars is $106b in 2008 dollars.[/quote]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Population grew by about 8%, so if we normalize the 2000 budget number to 2008 using CPI and population growth, it comes out to about $114 billion.

Using meadandale’s 2008 number, the size of the budget per capita grew a total of about 20% over an 8 year period. That’s 2.5% per year. Definitely creeping upwards, but I’m not sure I’d label it as out of control.

[meadandale]

[quote=4plexowner]unfortunately we have dug ourselves a very deep hole with Keynesian economics and fiat currency
[/quote]

Yep, this is a good discussion of the subject…

http://www.givemeliberty.50megs.com/An%20Economics%20Lesson.htm

[meadandale]

[quote=4plexowner]unfortunately we have dug ourselves a very deep hole with Keynesian economics and fiat currency
[/quote]

Yep, this is a good discussion of the subject…

http://www.givemeliberty.50megs.com/An%20Economics%20Lesson.htm

[meadandale]

[quote=4plexowner]unfortunately we have dug ourselves a very deep hole with Keynesian economics and fiat currency
[/quote]

Yep, this is a good discussion of the subject…

http://www.givemeliberty.50megs.com/An%20Economics%20Lesson.htm

[meadandale]

[quote=4plexowner]unfortunately we have dug ourselves a very deep hole with Keynesian economics and fiat currency
[/quote]

Yep, this is a good discussion of the subject…

http://www.givemeliberty.50megs.com/An%20Economics%20Lesson.htm

[Author]

Posts