To: TimF who wrote (486042 ) 6/5/2009 7:15:14 PM From: tejek Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577180 The oft-cited waste and abuse are problems, but the deficit is bigger than the state bureaucracy. California could fire every state employee — including those well-paid prison guards and university professors — close every government office, stop all travel and cease the purchase of paper clips without closing the $24 billion budget gap. The government would be gone, but the deficit wouldn't. If it fired every employee there would be no one left to process and mail transfer program checks or even payments on bonds, so the deficit would be gone. $0 spending with $0 income, zero deficit. (And also zero services, default on debt, etc. I'm obviously not arguing for such a plan). And no roads, hospitals, mental institutions, airports etc........CA would fall back into anarchy.The runaway spending is caused largely by a growing group of Californians making use of basic state services as the cost of those services escalates. More than just basic. CA provides more services per person than many states. Not really.....the services are much better here.The richest 1 percent of residents contribute half of all the personal income tax the state collects. As soon as the economy takes a dip and the stock market stalls, the money stops flowing and the state plunges into a crisis. That's a good point. CA relies too much on the wealthy for its income, so when the income of the wealthy drops with server market corrections and financial difficulties, the state's income drops. It has no choice because of Prop 13. To a lesser extent this is a problem for the federal government (which relies more on the wealthy than most other rich countries do), but it just runs a deficit during bad times, when CA technically isn't allowed to (I say "technically" since they do use certain gimmicks to run deficits, but even with these gimmicks and scaling down to account for CA being smaller than the whole country, CA still can't run deficits to the extent the US government can) In addition CA relies real heavily on capital gains.....with the housing and commercial markets doing so poorly, that source has pretty much dried up.End the two-thirds rule I'd be against such a move, but OTOH its not like I'm in CA or the new taxes would directly effect me. What CA really needs to do is cut its spending. Some of this would be from spending in more efficient ways, but some of it would have to come from reducing the services it provides. CA's had its spending grow faster than population growth plus inflation for a long time. Its time to finally get some control over it. Tim, I think those cuts were made long ago.......the average wait time in a DMZ line in LA is 2 hours.