California was hit the hardest by the dot-com burst and the subsequent 9/11 economic downturn. We face a 15 billion dollar budget, and a governor who ran a campaign on repealing taxes would have mitigated some of the deficit.
The governor proposed a 15 billion dollar bond measure. Now, I don't know how this works. Are we just writing ourselves an IOU? Granted, I think that with the critical mass of jobless bright people tinkering around, California will come up with the next big technological/economic growth engine, but what are the practical ramifications of ignoring a budget deficit that large? If there aren't any, why don't more people do it?
[ January 08, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Aren't states required by most state constitutions to balance their own budget? They issue bonds for large projects that can't be covered in one year. Part of the reason the Fed government goes over so often is because they do not count the bonds they issue as outside the budget (roughly - forgive the generalities).
I would think the main difference between other bond issue and this proposed bond issue is that it isn't going for a specific, "one-time" project. Instead, it's to cover general operating costs, on top of the bond issues for large projects. It's like buying groceries with a credit card.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:California was hit the hardest by the dot-com burst and the subsequent 9/11 economic downturn.
And I bet you live there, don't you? I've heard the "our state was hit the hardest" routine before. New York was hit the hardest. Texas was hit the hardest. Seriously, I don't know who to believe any more.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
California doesn't have a real budget deficit: $50billion more in taxes are leaving the state than are being returned in services. What it has is a bunch of Republican-voting welfare states using the federal government to leech off of California's economy.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Texas was NOT hit the hardest. We were hit, but Dallas weathered it pretty well, and the budget was taken care of without a major crisis. I'm not sure why.
Well, besides being Texas. *hides from pies*
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
aspectre, I didn't understand your post. Could you elaborate?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think he may be taking shots at farm subsidies and states who don't produce enough industry and/or innovation to cover their operating costs and federal programs. That said, California is blessed with fantastic weather, so I don't mind doing giving out a little more money to the Union.
Posted by Jill (Member # 3376) on :
I really do think CA was hit the hardest from the dot-com burst. I live in the Silicon Valley, where practically all jobs are in some way technology-related, and we've been hit really hard. Then there was the whole energy crisis. That didn't help. New York suffered the most after 9/11 for obvious reasons, but California has suffered too.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Vermont was hit worst! We were poor at the top of the dot-com craze and after it we were... more... poor.
Never mind.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Maybe it's just because it's really late...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is anything not the fault of dastardly Republicans?
Sometimes I feel compelled to ask, since rain on picnic day and California's problems are now getting blamed on Republicans.
I mean, come on, if there's a place in the universe that has historically been captained by Democrats, it's California.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Maybe it's just because it's really late...