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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (102321)	1/30/2009 10:35:09 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541960

>>And I think what is needed is for the states to live within their means---otherwise state politicians will always cave/pander to their voters with pork figuring the Feds will bail them out. Any help with state budgets should be tied to state constitutional amendments requiring a balanced budget. Just like the Feds got the drinking age raised to 21 among states that wanted Fed highway money (and they all did). Somebody has to act like the parent in this situation.<< Vinter - That's a simplistic and moralistic view, in my opinion. California has a highly progressive tax system that has always derived the bulk of its income from those making the most money. In some years, this works out well. In years like 2008, however, when those making the most money aren't making so much money, or are even losing it, it leads to deficits. Unless the State is going to have a budget that swings wildly upward and downward to follow the overall economy, we're going to have a problem trying to always balance the budget. Reflect, too, on the fact that Californians pay a much larger amount of taxes to the Federal Government than they receive in Federal spending, even when you prorate things like Defense. So one might say that California has been helping to subsidize other states that supposedly have balanced budgets. - Allen