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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (14415)	10/29/2003 6:47:29 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793613

no arguments that the state employees should be cut, but a little moderation is in order imho. At the core of this problem is the devastated workforce in CA who used to pay the bills. My 90 employees (total) used to contribute 900K per year in taxes to this state. Now they contribute nothing, and in fact COST something to house. This is a case where hard questions need to be addressed vs. the tired old "lets cut waste" I'd say.

To: LindyBill who wrote (14415)	10/29/2003 6:48:29 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793613

Re California's budget situation: Message 19379787 (see California total expenditure numbers set forth in that post) Excerpt: When Gray Davis was elected as California Governor, California's fiscal year expenditures were $100.2 billion. They were poised to increase to $109.6 billion. The state seemed to be able to survive, to live, with that level of state services. There is always extra that some might want to have, I suppose, but that level of expenditure didn't seem to pose a threat to the continued life of the State of California. In fact, the $100.2 billion was up from $86 billion just three years earlier (see figures pasted below). Then Davis took over, and the State's appetite for money took an astonishing leap. Here are the figures (from the State of California, Legislative Analyst's Office): Grand Total of State Spending, California Fiscal Year 1994-95: $ 86.1B Fiscal Year 1995-96: $ 90.2B Fiscal Year 1996-97: $ 95.9B Fiscal Year 1997-98: $100.2B (Gray Davis elected, November 1998) Fiscal Year 1998-99: $109.6B Fiscal Year 1999-00: $122.2B Fiscal Year 2000-01: $137.7B Fiscal Year 2001-02: $145.8B Fiscal Year 2002-03: $166.8B Fiscal Year 2003-04: $154.7B (projected) lao.ca.gov (click on ALL for spending type) Now the question I have is this. Did California's "vital" needs, its needs necessary to its very survival, grow from $86 billion in 1995 to $166 billion in 2003? The California budget grew from zero to $86 billion in well over a century and went up another $80 billion in just eight years. Message 19387161 (see state employee headcount figures in that post) Excerpt: The most recent data available from the California LAO shows that the state employee headcount increased from 271,254.1 in Year 1 B.D. to 323,602.8 in Davis Year 4 (2001-02). The Web site doesn't have the figures for 2002-03. Year-by-year, here is how the totals look: 1997-98: 271,254.1 1998-99: 282,859.7 1999-00: 296,076.1 2000-01: 311,238.9 2001-02: 323,602.8 And a proposed solution: Message 19386626