Case study in Republican insanity: California to go belly-up?
 

We're quite a long way into the Twilight Zone already.

I guess you have to laugh. Maybe Kidicious will have to get a job, and stop hitting on his alcoholic bipolar neighbours.

edit: I guess he'll have a lot more to choose from, since I heard that a bunch of prisoners will have to be let out, because the state can't afford to keep them in gaol.

This is ****wittery of epic proportions.

or get this. They do what my state does and cut the state budget enough to create a balanced budget. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/idea.gif

don't tell me a state as big as Cali doesn't have plenty of pork to cut.

NV doesn't have rules that prevent tax increases absent a 2/3 majority.

And yeah, for some reason I doubt that 30% of a state budget is useless "pork."

OK. Then the future taxpayers of California will be that much stupider.

It looks like if the Dems can't convince another Republican to join them, they'll have to start over.

California's problem is that they have to fund some of that pork because the people voted for it to be funded. They can only cut some things, and they can't raise taxes at all.

It's pretty obvious they need to either lose the binding referendums or the super-majority for budgets rule.

ftfy.

QFT. I can't wait to see taxpayers start complaining (in the press or even in court) about their daughters getting raped and their sons getting shot because prisoners got set loose early, only for the sane to respond "you were the cheap bastards that refused to pay for locking them up, and you got what you paid for!" http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Of course, when a halt in various entitlement checks results in massive riots and looting, the response too the lootees can be the same. This is what you wanted. You did this.

I just don't want those prisoners heading my way. We have gotten so much crime from California. In fact, I blame all of our crime on California http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/tongue.gif. Back in the day we only had mob killings. Then the California gangs moved in...

Half of those prisoners shouldn't be locked up in the first place. So yea, let those non-violent offenders go. Good for the budget, good for the state. http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

They're laying off 20,000 people this week. That's not enough cuts for you?

Direct democracy works fine as long as you have an educated public. Direct democracy plus private financing means that really bad policies that favor the rich get passed.

No, what percentage of the state workforce is that?

8.36%
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd/empinfo/demo/index.shtml

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif
What do you base this 20%+ number on?

You have quite an imagination!

He himself included ?

Thue's got a point...

-Arrian

What do you base this 20%+ number on? My personal knowedge of how many government emloyees I could eliminate from my department and still get the work done. In the case of California, a reasonable expectation of organizational loss for money saving purposes without overwhelming those left with change.

I could actually eliminate many more, but baby steps http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/biggrin.gif

His irrational hate of the government and everyone that works for it. Its broken, so fix it.

And yes I include the military in those cuts, primarily the officer corps actually.

So in some cases it's okay to punish someone before they've been convicted?

2) note that $1 million worth of stuff was actually almost disappeared And so presumably they took steps to make sure that doesn't almost happen again. None of which necessitates sending him to jail.

If you punish someone who does something bad [like trying to secret monies after being released from jail because of a promise not to], then the bad behavior tends to not be repeated.