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 : Arnold for Governor! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (465)	10/8/2003 1:07:57 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 773

I just posted the population figures; that hardly qualifies as an explosion, and in fact is less than the overall U.S. population growth rate since Davis was elected. Your street is not the whole state, and even if the population went up by five percent a year instead of less than two percent, the per capita spending under Davis would still have risen. In 1998 Davis inherited a state with 33,494,000 people and a budget of $100.2 Billion. That is per capita spending of $2,991. Spending last year under Davis, Year 4, was $166.8 Billion. For Davis to have maintained the same per capita spending rate as he inherited (a good measure of spending restraint), California's population would have to now be 55,756,479. Care to show me that California's population is anywhere close to that amount? California has about 12 percent of the country's population; that number is closer to 20 percent of the country's population.