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 (231498)	5/4/2005 3:08:15 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571897

CA's problems did not start with Gray Davis. You forget I lived there for a several years well before Davis was governor. If they started before he was governor than it was particuarly stupid for him to increase spending by such a great amount. Right before Gray Davis got into office, the state when through a major recession that was nearly a depression. Again, S. CA lost 1.5 million people and nearly a million jobs in 4 years. The state's economy was a near catastrophe. Gov't spending had been reduced dramatically to cope with the mess. It doesn't have enough income to pay its bills because its bills are too high because the government spent too much money. If that were true, then the infrastructure would not be falling apart as consistently as it is. It is if discretionary is reduced to accommodate mandatory spending. Infrastructure is far from the only thing CA spends money on. Also spending on infrastructure isn't automatically effcient effective spending on infrastructure. Huh? Please explain. Bottom line: CA doesn't have low tax rates. It depends on which survey you look at......most surveys show CA in the middle edging towards high. No survey shows CA with low tax rates. They range from just above middle to one of the highest, but "just above middle" isn't low. I never said it had low tax rates but it doesn't necessarily have a high one either. It depends very much on what survey you're reviewing. But again, its a moot point if the tax revenue is insufficient to pay its bills. Not having enough to "pay the bills" doesn't mean that tax income is low, in CA's case it means the bills are too high. According to the first article, there was a surplus when Gray Davis took over......and he spent it. Not unlike Bush. However, there is a critical difference between Bush's and Davis's handling of the national and state economies respectively. When Bush took over, the country was flush and had been flush for years. There was no pent up demand or considerable deferred maintenance. With Davis, that was not the case....for roughly eight years, there had been service cutbacks on all levels to accommodate the huge drop in revenues during the recession. When better times happen, its natural to try and do the improvements that were put off during the bad times. Do I agree with Davis's deficit spending........of course not? However, in his defense, its hard to keep things in line when the need is great.......and the need was great in CA during 1998. Even now, Arnold is having a tough time towing the line on spending. And why is that? Its not just that Californians are greedy and/or corrupt or that gov't spends for the sake of spending.........there is a constant and deficit need for improvements in that state. And the problem can get more complex. Here in WA state, tax revenues have just started coming back. Meanwhile, there are projects that have been deferred for 5 years. One of them is a viaduct in downtown Seattle that was damaged in the last big quake. For safety reasons it needs to come down. If it were replaced exactly as is.........a hi rise road, the cost would be $4 billion......I am guessing. However, many people want it put underground.......for aesthetic and financial benefit reasons. That would put the cost, and again, I am guessing, at $6 billion. Its a hard call because the feds can give very little help with this one. If it were a private corp. I suspect it would likely go with the cheaper duplicate hi rise replacement. However, a gov't can go with the more costly one and its very likely Seattle will go that way. You would probably object whereas I am all for it. As it turns out, the Seattle area will have to pay a higher gas tax to pay for the viaduct whether its the 'cheap' or expensive replacement. Again, you get what you pay for. ted