Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (134998)	3/27/2001 12:03:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571405

You can argue about if it should have increased greatly or not, but the fact that it did shows that CA was not devastated by forced reductions in taxes and spending from prop13. If CA did not spend enough in any important area it is because they wasted too much money in either less important areas or in waste and overhead. Tim, Those are not reasonable conclusions. First, CA had more $$$ to spend because it grew very quickly in the 80's. However, its not fair to say that prop 13 was not a limiting factor nor that CA spent as much as it needed to to maintain its quality of life. In fact, I would argue that it did not based up the deteriorating infrastructure during that period. As for being short of funds because they spent too much on another category, what is the detail you used to come to that conclusion? ted