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: tejek who wrote (135025)	3/28/2001 12:35:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571762

LA needs mass transit badly I think more mass transit in LA might be a good idea. I'm not automatically against all government spending or public progects. .....and its building as much as it can afford. But funds are limited to a special law passed in the early 90's, I think, and monies they can get from the feds. If it is limited by some law passed in the early 90s then it is that law you should complain about not prop13. I think there is a law to restrict CAs total government spending or taxation (not sure which but it shouldn't be to hard to find out) to grow no faster then the combined growth of both population and personal income (growth in personal income has been higher then the inflation rate in CA for many years, and thats why CA's spending can go up 13 or 14% a year like his has lately even if it is supposedly capped). Once again do you think the politicians are shorting the transp. budget so there can be more traffic jams? I believe the politicians underestimated the transportation needs and where reluctant to put to much into public transport as opposed to road spending. I also think that there must be plenty of other things that are getting all of this new money if CA government spending is growing 14% a year. How fast does it have to grow to meet what you think is required 25% a year? Personally I think there will always be useful things that are not done by the state government because resources are finite. If there was a one off 25% jump to cover all these vital requirements and then state spending increase went back to their normal high rate from a higher base, I imagine in a few years many of the people making arguments like yours would find that even more tax and spending increases where needed to cover the horrible under-funding of "critical priorities". And any new program created by all of this new spending would establish its own constituency and would be difficult or impossible to cut back or eliminate if it was no longer needed. As for law enforcement in LA, they do have a small force for a city of their size but that has more to do with LA's spending priorities then the state government's. I wouldn't be against more state taxes and spending if it was the result of a transfer of responsibilities from the federal government to the state and a concurant reduction in federal taxes and spending. Tim