Propositions crash and burn:1a,b,c,d,e No,1f Yes (San Francisco: bankruptcy, high school)

[california5]

Originally Posted by rkb0305

People's eyes seem to gloss over when they hear "tax". I bet a lot of voters WERE uneducated. No one wants a new tax, but I bet the same people will complain when services get cut. And I don't mean "welfare" type services. I mean services that everyone uses every day.

There are plenty of money sucking programs that can be cut and save money for the state. They always threaten to cut education, police/fire services to scare people into voting they way they want.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by rkb0305

well, don't start bitching when your kid's teachers are laid off.

Because, of course, the teachers should be the first one's that are let go. Not the administrators, no other employees, no budgets cut.

Nice try - it's good to see the voters are not falling for these types of threats, and have sent a clear message to our politicians that it's up to them to fix this mess. No games, no threats. Just hard choices that may have to include possibly pissing off the unions, making government smaller, and turning down illegals when they put their hand out.

[california5]

Originally Posted by ringwise

Because, of course, the teachers should be the first one's that are let go. Not the administrators, no other employees, no budgets cut.

Nice try - it's good to see the voters are not falling for these types of threats, and have sent a clear message to our politicians that it's up to them to fix this mess. No games, no threats. Just hard choices that may have to include possibly pissing off the unions, making government smaller, and turning down illegals when they put their hand out.

Exactly! Goodness, if Canada advertised they were giving free education, free medical, free food, reduced housing expenses away, how many people would be rushing to move to Canada?
We need to stop giving all the freebies to illegals, we can't afford it and they don't deserve it.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by california5

There are plenty of money sucking programs that can be cut and save money for the state. They always threaten to cut education, police/fire services to scare people into voting they way they want.

But how exactly are the programs that get cut chosen? That's what I'd like to understand. Can the politicians just cut them or do those cuts have to be approved by the voters? How much power does the legislature have in cutting spending without voter approval? Sorry, I'm not very informed on this.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

But how exactly are the programs that get cut chosen? That's what I'd like to understand. Can the politicians just cut them or do those cuts have to be approved by the voters? How much power does the legislature have in cutting spending without voter approval? Sorry, I'm not very informed on this.

If a program has been mandated by the vote of the people, such as Prop. 63, the Mental Health Services Act then it takes a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to place a revision on the ballot as was done for this election. Cutting existing programs isn't easy. In some cases it can be done by majority vote of the Legislature. Some programs the Administration can cut but it's not always very simple. Program cuts also mean personnel cuts and in some cases, staffing levels have been established through collective bargaining and there are union contracts to consider. In other cases the state has to show maintenance of effort in order to qualify for federal reimbursements or programs may be mandated by federal law even though they're staffed and administered by the state or, in certain areas, counties.

There's been a lot of talk about cutting public pensions but that's almost impossible to do retrospectively because of their contractual nature. It might be done prospectively but then again, the unions come into play.

There is no simple, quick solution.

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by roosevelt

Check out the Los Angeles Times article today. Unbelievable, blaming the voters for being so stupid.

The LA Times is the West Coast edition of Pravda.Collectivist positions such as this are the reason I stopped reading it decades ago.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There is no simple, quick solution.

I think it's going to keep getting worse until the state utterly collapses. The state has painted itself into a corner when it comes to spending and has little room to maneuver. The unions and the welfare locust won't give an inch until there's nothing left to take. If the state were a corporation, it would go bankrupt and renegotiate all the contracts but I've heard there's no provision in law for a state going bankrupt. Maybe California can set a precedent there too.

[steelstress]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

I think it's going to keep getting worse until the state utterly collapses. The state has painted itself into a corner when it comes to spending and has little room to maneuver. The unions and the welfare locust won't give an inch until there's nothing left to take. If the state were a corporation, it would go bankrupt and renegotiate all the contracts but I've heard there's no provision in law for a state going bankrupt. Maybe California can set a precedent there too.

Just recently (last 60 days?) the city of Vallejo, CA filed bankruptcy and a judge has determined that the city can now renegotiate union contracts. Seems to me the precedent has been set... let's hope CA follows Vallejo's example!

BANKRUPTCY! BANKRUPTCY! BANKRUPTCY!

[FresnoFacts]

What and how to cut? The LA Times article included this:

The public's contradictory impulses were laid bare by a recent Field Poll. It found that voters oppose cutbacks in 10 of 12 major categories of state spending, including the biggest, education and healthcare. Yet most voters were unwilling to have their own taxes increased, and they overwhelmingly favored keeping the two-thirds requirement for tax hikes.

So what were the only 2 areas that the majority of voters told the Field Poll they were willing to see take cuts in the state budget?

Prisons/corrections and parks/recreation.
http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline...rs/Rls2306.pdf

The legislature has its work cut out for it. No matter where they cut there will be a lot of angry voters. As Curmudgeon says, there are no simple quick solutions.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

If a program has been mandated by the vote of the people, such as Prop. 63, the Mental Health Services Act then it takes a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to place a revision on the ballot as was done for this election. Cutting existing programs isn't easy. In some cases it can be done by majority vote of the Legislature. Some programs the Administration can cut but it's not always very simple. Program cuts also mean personnel cuts and in some cases, staffing levels have been established through collective bargaining and there are union contracts to consider. In other cases the state has to show maintenance of effort in order to qualify for federal reimbursements or programs may be mandated by federal law even though they're staffed and administered by the state or, in certain areas, counties.

There's been a lot of talk about cutting public pensions but that's almost impossible to do retrospectively because of their contractual nature. It might be done prospectively but then again, the unions come into play.

There is no simple, quick solution.

So cutting spending is a lot more complicated than some think. The programs that people think should be trimmed are likely not able to be trimmed, so the state will be limited to what they can actually cut back on - which might be programs people don't think should be cut.

Interesting. More and more, it sounds like the state needs to find a way to file bankruptcy so that it can get out of its contracts.