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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (5451)	1/5/2010 11:15:38 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Most state capitols? Where? Whom? To my knowledge there is not one state in the West [Pacific and Rocky Mt states] that has not cut back on expenditures. In addition to the possibility that your knowledge is simply wrong, or that the "cut backs" are really just decreases in the planned increase; "in the West" isn't the whole country, and you can increase these specific (probably temporarily) cutting back something else. The states cut back where things are most flexible (probably to add the spending back later), but this type of spending is harder to cut back later (in fact for a time they are committed not to cut it back by accepting the money), it takes over control of the state budgets giving them less and less flexibility to adapt to future situations. If those states have a very strong economic recovery than they can probably find a way to deal with it. If they don't (either because the country goes in to a severe double dip, or just grows slower going forward, or because something specific about the state) than they are creating a lot of problems for themselves. How much you want to bet that the unemployed people in those states would not agree? Irrelevant. If accepting the funds threatens to bankrupt the state, who agrees or disagrees with the policy doesn't change that fact. And this is bad why? Logic tells you that if people are paid more, then they have more money to spend. Because it increases the federal and state deficits, and reduces the amount of work that can get done for the money. Government spending isn't a free lunch, if you waste it lavishly you have less to spend elsewhere, and/or your in more debt. Throwing extra money at the construction workers beyond what you need to spend to get them to do the job, means less construction at more cost. The "more cost" part means your draining more from the rest of the economy. The intent of the stimulus was to stimulate the economy. If it did its job, then the states will take in more revenue in 2010 than in 2009. It doing its job is a quite questionable idea. Also "take in more income" != "take in enough income to afford all this spending.

To: tejek who wrote (5451)	1/5/2010 4:26:47 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Most state capitols? Where? Whom? To my knowledge there is not one state in the West [Pacific and Rocky Mt states] that has not cut back on expenditures. So what states is this author talking about.... Examples of total state spending in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 in the following states (figures for 2009 and 2010 are estimates): California: $141 billion; $153 billion; $169 billion; $187 billion New Jersey: $45 billion; $48 billion; $51 billion; $54 billion Ohio: $49 billion; $50 billion; $52 billion; $54 billion Texas: $69 billion; $75 billion; $83 billion; $91 billion ... Even More Update: Pity the poor, poor states. In 2005, they had aggregate revenue amounting to $1,049 billion. In 2008, they pulled in a total of $1,251 billion and still were going broke (those are real numbers, btw, not estimates). It's like a disturbing version of F. Scott Fitzgerald's essay, "How to Live on $36,000 a Year," which describes how the author's balance sheet took a beating precisely when the big bucks started rolling in. reason.com

To: tejek who wrote (5451)	9/2/2010 11:10:20 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Public Sector Unions, It Really Is That Bad ... An example of just how warped all of this is, from the WSJ. The Pension Bell Tolls - WSJ.com: "For an illustration of everything wrong with the nation's public pensions, look no further than the compensation in Bell, California. Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo stepped down three weeks ago after news broke that he was making $800,000 a year to oversee the blue-collar town of 40,000. Now the Los Angeles Times reports that records show Mr. Rizzo's compensation was double that amount—some $1.5 million a year. That number included the 28 weeks of vacation and sick time Mr. Rizzo was allowed annually—at a cost of $386,000. Good work, if you can get it. Mr. Rizzo's comp also spiraled up thanks to the city's contributions to his pension and other retirement plans. Mr. Rizzo is in line to collect at least $600,000 annually in guaranteed pension payouts upon retirement, thanks to California's generous formulas based on time served and compensation. Those payouts—which could add up to tens of millions of dollars over Mr. Rizzo's lifetime—help explain why the Golden State is currently $6.2 billion in the hole for retiree pension and benefit payments. According to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a nonprofit that advocates pension reform, Mr. Rizzo is hardly alone. The foundation lists 9,111 retired California government workers receiving pensions in excess of $100,000 a year. The top earner, one Bruce Malkenhorst, receives $510,000 a year for his tenure as city administrator of Vernon, California (population, 91). Not including health benefits." amateureconblog.blogspot.com