http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090616/us_nm/us_california_whitehouse
QuoteWASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House on Tuesday dashed hopes that the federal government would help California overcome a mammoth budget crisis that has brought the state dangerously close to an economic meltdown, saying the state will have to solve the problem on its own.
"It's obviously not an easy time for the state of California," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told a briefing when asked if the administration would provide emergency financing for the state.
"We'll continue to monitor the challenges that they have, but this budgetary problem unfortunately is one that they're going to have to solve," Gibbs said.
California's revenues are plunging amid recession, rising unemployment and the prolonged housing crisis, and the state is unable to borrow its way out of its immediate financial trouble by issuing debt because of its budget gap.
It will run out of cash within weeks if it does not balance its books, according to State Controller John Chiang, who estimated last week California was "less than 50 days away from a meltdown of state government."
One potential rescuer has been the federal government, and for nearly a year California Treasurer Bill Lockyer has pressured the U.S. Congress and the president to help the state with debt markets.
While U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said this spring the administration was looking into assisting California and other states, it has yet to offer any help beyond that included for all states in the $787 billion economic stimulus plan passed in February.
"Obviously many states throughout the country because of the slowdown in our economy find themselves with severe budgetary constraints," Gibbs said. "The president believed and addressed part of this in the recovery and reinvestment plan by ensuring the largest amount of fiscal relief that we've seen move to states in the history of our country."
Gibbs said he didn't "know the degree to which we've analyzed each of California's individual (budget) cuts."
This is not the first time a U.S. president has closed the federal wallet to a struggling state or city.
In 1975 the New York Daily News ran the headline "Ford to city: drop dead," when then President Gerald Ford denied assistance to New York City that would have allowed the U.S. financial capital to sidestep filing for bankruptcy.
WASHINGTON'S REBUFF ADDS TO DEBT MARKET WOES
Standard & Poor's ratings agency on Monday put $67.1 billion of California's debt on alert for a possible ratings cut because the state may run out of cash by the end of July.
Dick Larkin, director of credit analysis at Herbert J. Sims & Co Inc in Iselin, New Jersey, predicted a downgrade.
"To say they've got big problems is an understatement. The budget problems are too large for the rating agencies to be comfortable with single-A ratings on the state."
Washington's view toward California is one more reason to not hold the state's debt, said Tom Tarabicos, a financial adviser at Wells Fargo Financial Advisors Network in Roswell, Georgia.
"We're selling every California bond we can," Tarabicos said. "We don't like them."
Instead, Tarabicos said he may buy into California's general obligation debt next year should its yields rise to reflect inflation and continued risk to the state's finances from ongoing economic weakness.
"Sometime next year you'll be able to buy California GOs somewhere around 7 percent or 8 percent," Tarabicos said, referring to general obligation bonds, adding:
"Nothing is going to change in that state, fiscally, over the next two or three years. I just don't see anything positive coming out of there. It's going to be dead for quite a while."
Thanks for ensuring that Jaron will be homeless, Obama. <_<
Fuck Hussein. I should have voted Green. <_<
Didn't California say they wouldn't take help if it was offered anyways?
I'll take some help. :P
Quote
"Nothing is going to change in that state, fiscally, over the next two or three years. I just don't see anything positive coming out of there. It's going to be dead for quite a while."
The man's an optimist.
Of course he works at Wells Fargo, so waterboarding would only be too kind for him.
This is the correct move. California has the means to balance a budget as soon as they find the political will.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 03:12:26 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090616/us_nm/us_california_whitehouse
In 1975 the New York Daily News ran the headline "Ford to city: drop dead," when then President Gerald Ford denied assistance to New York City that would have allowed the U.S. financial capital to sidestep filing for bankruptcy.
Think the LA Times or the SF Chronicle will have the balls to run a "Obama to state: Drop Dead" headline? :yeahright:
And so the will of the people is fulfilled. California voted for a budget meltdown, and a budget meltdown they will have. Maybe when the state is reconstituted they'll take out those ballot initiatives.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2009, 07:14:30 PM
And so the will of the people is fulfilled. California voted for a budget meltdown, and a budget meltdown they will have. Maybe when the state is reconstituted they'll take out those ballot initiatives.
To be fair to Californians, in our most recent special election for budget balancing procedures, the measures that were voted upon would only have pushed the financial meltdown further down the road. I think Californians are courageous for saying "No, Obama, we don't support your foolish economic procedures. We're taking a stand, here and now."
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 07:18:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2009, 07:14:30 PM
And so the will of the people is fulfilled. California voted for a budget meltdown, and a budget meltdown they will have. Maybe when the state is reconstituted they'll take out those ballot initiatives.
To be fair to Californians, in our most recent special election for budget balancing procedures, the measures that were voted upon would only have pushed the financial meltdown further down the road. I think Californians are courageous for saying "No, Obama, we don't support your foolish economic procedures. We're taking a stand, here and now."
They are courageous, but stupid. Obama's enormous ego will never allow any state who shuns him to survive.
2 years ago, Hong Kong received 3 dollars in taxes for every 2 dollars spent. We put the extra money in savings. Now, when revenue has dropped, we can maintain the same spending level without cutting services or raising taxes.
California chose not to have a rainy day fund. California will reap whatever it sows. And it should.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2009, 10:10:48 PM
2 years ago, Hong Kong received 3 dollars in taxes for every 2 dollars spent. We put the extra money in savings. Now, when revenue has dropped, we can maintain the same spending level without cutting services or raising taxes.
California chose not to have a rainy day fund. California will reap whatever it sows. And it should.
Unlike Hong Kong, California likes to ensure humane standards of living for its citizens.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 10:22:09 PM
Unlike Hong Kong, California likes to ensure humane standards of living for its citizens.
That's wonderful. Pay for it.
We'll take care of our own affairs, thank you Mr. basement dweller.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 10:22:09 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 16, 2009, 10:10:48 PM
2 years ago, Hong Kong received 3 dollars in taxes for every 2 dollars spent. We put the extra money in savings. Now, when revenue has dropped, we can maintain the same spending level without cutting services or raising taxes.
California chose not to have a rainy day fund. California will reap whatever it sows. And it should.
Unlike Hong Kong, California likes to ensure humane standards of living for its citizens.
See what humane standards you guys can maintain when you are broke :lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2009, 01:10:19 AM
See what humane standards you guys can maintain when you are broke :lol:
Better to have lived the good life for a little bit than never at all, Mr. 10 foot square box.
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2009, 01:35:00 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2009, 01:10:19 AM
See what humane standards you guys can maintain when you are broke :lol:
Better to have lived the good life for a little bit than never at all, Mr. 10 foot square box.
Somehow I think the living standards that you referred to can only be described as "humane" if they are sustainable :P
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2009, 07:26:55 PMThey are courageous, but stupid. Obama's enormous ego will never allow any state who shuns him to survive.
Sorta like the blue state base closings after the 2004 election?
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 10:22:09 PM
Unlike Hong Kong, California likes to ensure humane standards of living for its citizens.
:yeahright: CA has the worst state budget in the country, and seeing as how somebody from NJ is telling you that, that's
bad. As for the "you want the best, you pay for the best" argument, it should be noted that the California government is also directly responsible for a lot of the exorbitant cost of living.
Poor California; in a seriously bad situation. Seems to be the way many of our state, federal and local governments operate though, and Cali isn't the only one in such trouble.
If only California public employee unions had Obama in their pocket like the UAW does, then California would become "too big to fail".
California is way past too big to fail. It is too big to rescue.
Good. The richest state in the union should not be getting the rest of our money.
We reserve that for our biggest corporations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts418
QuoteAlmost every state is suffering from the effects of the recession, but not every state accounts for 12 percent of the national gross domestic product. According to AP, if California goes down, so goes the nation: California's annual $1.7 trillion economy is the world's eighth-largest economy and provides a significant chunk of tax revenue for the government; California alone funds many social programs for the entire nation.
I'm happy to report that the rest of America is going to get an invitation to our mandatory party. Please be on time. :bowler:
Jaron, you can come live in my basement. I have a spare bedroom down there. :)
Oh, please, it's not like California would turn into Africa overnight. At worst it'll become Mexico.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2009, 01:40:32 PM
California's annual $1.7 trillion economy is the world's eighth-largest economy and provides a significant chunk of tax revenue for the government; California alone funds many social programs for the entire nation.
Well it is a state that's untouchable like Eliot Ness.
See we have all been blaming Washington for all our troubles when the real culprits were in Sacramento.
Such a wealthy state, huge economy, and still it found ways to go seriously into financial problems, possibly leading to default or bankruptcy. What a sad mess....
Would bankruptcy cancel those ruinous propositions, sort of like bankrupt companies can cancel union contracts? I would guess not, but maybe I'm wrong.
Quote from: KRonn on June 30, 2009, 01:51:48 PM
Such a wealthy state, huge economy, and still it found ways to go seriously into financial problems,
Oh are you describing the US as a whole? :o
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2009, 01:53:09 PM
Would bankruptcy cancel those ruinous propositions, sort of like bankrupt companies can cancel union contracts? I would guess not, but maybe I'm wrong.
Imagine if bankruptcy nullified laws. The day of bankruptcy would be California: Total Anarchy.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2009, 01:54:18 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 30, 2009, 01:51:48 PM
Such a wealthy state, huge economy, and still it found ways to go seriously into financial problems,
Oh are you describing the US as a whole? :o
Hehe... the USA also does seem to be trying to get to the same point as fast as possible! But isn't there yet.
Quote from: KRonn on June 30, 2009, 01:51:48 PM
Such a wealthy state, huge economy, and still it found ways to go seriously into financial problems, possibly leading to default or bankruptcy. What a sad mess....
If it isn't so wealthy it may not get into such a big hole. The more you earn, the more you spend. When you earn less, you still spend as much.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2009, 10:38:44 AM
California is way past too big to fail. It is too big to rescue.
NY will be joining them soon enough. :cry:
Move over California, make some room for others... lots of other states are going through huge budget problems.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31680340/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
Calif., other states face tough budget choices
State lawmakers feel heat as begin new fiscal year without a budget
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Legislators in more than a half-dozen states, their revenues evaporating in the recession, are frantically working to stave off government shutdowns and devastating service cuts. California failed to meet a midnight deadline and now may need to issue IOUs instead of paying bills.
Across the country, lawmakers are feeling the heat as their legislatures began the new fiscal year without a budget in place.
In Illinois, the sputtering drive to come up with a state budget broke down completely Tuesday, leaving the state without any plan for paying its employees or delivering government services. The session ended without any firm plans to return or even for Gov. Pat Quinn and legislative leaders to resume negotiations.
In Pennsylvania, talks between Gov. Ed Rendell and top legislators ended Tuesday night with no substantial progress, aides said. Rendell said he didn't think an agreement would come soon. The state faces the prospect of not being able to pay state employees if they cannot resolve an impasse.
The end of June marked the end of the fiscal year in many states, meaning lawmakers worked late Tuesday to pass budgets in a year that has seen the recession take a devastating toll on government finances.
Fallout from California's budget mess threatened to spread nationwide because of the sheer size of the state's economy. The Senate rejected three bills designed to save $5 billion, including $3.3 billion in education funding cuts that had to be enacted before Wednesday.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat, called Republicans' refusal to vote for the measures "an irresponsible position to take." At least two Republican votes were needed to put together the two-thirds majorities required to approve the legislation, which passed the Assembly last week with bipartisan support.
Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Connecticut and Mississippi also were among the other states that raced against the clock to pass budgets — and avoid crippling consequences.
Faced with a budget stalemate, the Ohio House voted in favor of a seven-day spending plan that will allow the state to keep operating while budget talks continue, the first temporary budget Ohio has been forced to approve in 18 years.
Indiana narrowly averted a large-scale government shutdown after coming to terms on a budget.
Mississippi lawmakers approved most of the $6 billion budget, but left one agency — the state's utility regulatory agency — unfunded. The Public Service Commission said it didn't know how the agency would continue to function, but Gov. Haley Barbour has said he can run the agency by executive order.
In Connecticut, Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed an executive order to keep the government running without a two-year budget in place. While she contends the average taxpayer won't notice any change, municipal officials fear delays in state grants that fund everything from road repairs to education.
In the wee hours Wednesday, the Arizona Legislature completed action on budget bills to implement most of a compromise $8.4 billion budget negotiated with Gov. Jan Brewer. Lawmakers omitted a sales tax increase that Brewer wanted, and her spokesman declined to say if she would sign the bills.
In Pennsylvania, state workers will receive only partial pay on July 17 and July 24, after which paychecks will be withheld entirely until the impasse is solved. They will then be paid retroactively.
Rendell said 10 banks and credit unions have agreed to help 69,000 state employees by offering them low- or no-interest loans and lines of credit.
In most states, the debate centers around whether states should be raising taxes to bridge the budget gaps. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't sign anything that raised taxes or fees beyond what he has already proposed.
Click for related content
Crisis looms as Calif. misses budget deadline
Census: Large cities are now growing quicker
Pending home sales rise for 4th straight month
"They should forget about that," the Republican governor said, accusing Democrats of going through a "song and dance. Let's get to work, fix it."
State Controller John Chiang has said he would have to start issuing the IOUs on Thursday unless lawmakers took steps to stem the state's red ink by then.
Roughly $3 billion worth of IOUs will be issued in July unless a compromise on closing the deficit is reached quickly. They will be sent to state contractors, college students, welfare recipients, low-income seniors, the disabled and others who depend on or deliver state services. Counties will not get paid for social programs they administer.
Quote from: KRonn on July 01, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
Move over California, make some room for others... lots of other states are going through huge budget problems.
Is there somewhere we can see how much each state is short?
Anybody else think the Depression will end within 15 years?
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2009, 11:20:49 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 01, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
Move over California, make some room for others... lots of other states are going through huge budget problems.
Is there somewhere we can see how much each state is short?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gapmap/index.htm
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 01, 2009, 11:33:40 AM
Anybody else think the Depression will end within 15 years?
It's not so much a Depression thing as it is a legislative incompetance thing.
Wyoming seems to suck at recessions. Too small to fail, to inconsequential for anyone to care.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 01, 2009, 05:22:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2009, 11:20:49 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 01, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
Move over California, make some room for others... lots of other states are going through huge budget problems.
Is there somewhere we can see how much each state is short?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gapmap/index.htm
$590 million, for our size is pretty bad, but it doesn't cross the line into catastrophic like some of the other states.
from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/north_america/july-dec09/budget_07-01.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/north_america/july-dec09/budget_07-01.html)
more from unions gone wild:
QuoteJEFFREY BROWN: In Illinois, there was also legislative stalemate today. Last night, union workers protesting cuts to programs blockaded the doors to the statehouse chamber. They demanded an increase in state income taxes, which help pay their salaries.
Quote from: KRonn on July 01, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
In Pennsylvania, state workers will receive only partial pay on July 17 and July 24, after which paychecks will be withheld entirely until the impasse is solved. They will then be paid retroactively.
I'm surprised. It would be illegal for employers not to pay salary owed within 7 days of pay day in Hong Kong. I know I will raise hell if I'm not paid fully.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2009, 11:06:27 PM
I know I will raise hell if I'm not paid fully.
And risk being sent to Outer Mongolia?
Quote from: citizen k on July 01, 2009, 11:54:37 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2009, 11:06:27 PM
I know I will raise hell if I'm not paid fully.
And risk being sent to Outer Mongolia?
There are many, many insults and unfair practices and hellish conditions that can be endured. Not being paid is NOT one of them. Yes, I will raise hell if I am not paid. You won't get an ounce of work done until you pay.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 02, 2009, 12:58:49 AM
There are many, many insults and unfair practices and hellish conditions that can be endured. Not being paid is NOT one of them. Yes, I will raise hell if I am not paid. You won't get an ounce of work done until you pay.
Has been tried. Has failed. How does the company generate revenue if nobody's working? You just kill the company that much faster.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 01, 2009, 05:22:56 PM
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gapmap/index.htm
3.5 Billion? Well we're boned. Our legislature will NEVER raise taxes so I guess our already struggling public sector is going to continue to decline.
At 2.4 Billion Michigan's isn't so bad; but this is our third straight year of budget crisis. We now have to cut state police and highway funding.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2009, 11:06:27 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 01, 2009, 10:50:42 AM
In Pennsylvania, state workers will receive only partial pay on July 17 and July 24, after which paychecks will be withheld entirely until the impasse is solved. They will then be paid retroactively.
I'm surprised. It would be illegal for employers not to pay salary owed within 7 days of pay day in Hong Kong. I know I will raise hell if I'm not paid fully.
Yeah, but when you're employed by the government, and the government doesn't have any money, what are you going to do?
In the end, you'll take whatever you're given, because you're too afraid that they'll fire you and bring in some college grad in your place.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 02, 2009, 09:03:27 AM
At 2.4 Billion Michigan's isn't so bad; but this is our third straight year of budget crisis. We now have to cut state police and highway funding.
Why not just demolish all the highways leading into Detroit? Save some money like that.
Quote from: LA Times
THE CALIFORNIA FIX
The Golden State isn't worth it
Our high-benefit/high-tax model no longer works, especially compared with low-tax states like Texas.
By William Voegeli
November 1, 2009
In America's federal system, some states, such as California, offer residents a "package deal" that bundles numerous and ambitious public benefits with the high taxes needed to pay for them. Other states, such as Texas, offer packages combining modest benefits and low taxes. These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right.
It's not surprising, then, that there's an intense debate over which model is more admirable and sustainable. What is surprising is the growing evidence that the low-benefit/low-tax package not only succeeds on its own terms but also according to the criteria used to defend its opposite. In other words, the superior public goods that supposedly justify the high taxes just aren't being delivered.
California and Texas are not perfect representatives of the alternative deals, but they come close. Overall, the Census Bureau's latest data show that state and local government expenditures for all purposes in 2005-06 were 46.8% higher in California than in Texas: $10,070 per person compared with $6,858. Only three states and the District of Columbia saw higher per capita government outlays than California, while those expenditures in Texas were lower than in all but seven states. California ranked 10th in overall taxes levied by state and local governments, on a per capita basis, while Texas, one of only seven states with no individual income tax, was 38th.
One way to assess how Americans feel about the different tax and benefit packages the states offer is by examining internal U.S. migration patterns. Between April 1, 2000, and June 30, 2007, an average of 3,247 more people moved out of California than into it every week, according to the Census Bureau. Over the same period, Texas had a net weekly population increase of 1,544 as a result of people moving in from other states. During these years, more generally, 16 of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels had positive "net internal migration," in the Census Bureau's language, while 14 of the 17 states with the highest taxes had negative net internal migration.
These folks pulling up stakes and driving U-Haul trucks across state lines understand a reality the defenders of the high-benefit/high-tax model must confront: All things being equal, everyone would rather pay low taxes than high ones. The high-benefit/high-tax model can work only if things are demonstrably not equal -- if the public goods purchased by the high taxes far surpass the quality, quantity and impact of those available to people who live in states with low taxes.
Today's public benefits fail that test, as urban scholar Joel Kotkin of NewGeography.com and Chapman University told the Los Angeles Times in March: "Twenty years ago, you could go to Texas, where they had very low taxes, and you would see the difference between there and California. Today, you go to Texas, the roads are no worse, the public schools are not great but are better than or equal to ours, and their universities are good. The bargain between California's government and the middle class is constantly being renegotiated to the disadvantage of the middle class."
These judgments are not based on drive-by sociology. According to a report issued earlier this year by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., Texas students "are, on average, one to two years of learning ahead of California students of the same age," even though per-pupil expenditures on public school students are 12% higher in California. The details of the Census Bureau data show that Texas not only spends its citizens' dollars more effectively than California but emphasizes priorities that are more broadly beneficial. Per capita spending on transportation was 5.9% lower in California, and highway expenditures in particular were 9.5% lower, a discovery both plausible and infuriating to any Los Angeles commuter losing the will to live while sitting in yet another freeway traffic jam.
In what respects, then, does California "excel"? California's state and local government employees were the best compensated in America, according to the Census Bureau data for 2006. And the latest posting on the website of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility shows 9,223 former civil servants and educators receiving pensions worth more than $100,000 a year from California's public retirement funds. The "dues" paid by taxpayers in order to belong to Club California purchase benefits that, increasingly, are enjoyed by the staff instead of the members.
None of this happens by accident. California's interlocking directorate of government employee unions, issue activists, careerists and campaign contributors has become increasingly aggressive and adept at using rhetoric extolling public benefits for all to deliver targeted advantages to itself. As a result, the political reality of the high-benefit/high-tax model is that its public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good. Instead, the beneficiaries are the providers of the public services, and certain favored or connected constituencies, rather than the general population.
The recession will eventually end, and California's finances will get better. Given its powerful systemic bias against efficient and effective public services, however, the question is whether the state will ever get well. California's public sector has pinned its hopes for avoiding fundamental reform on increased federal aid to replace dollars the state's fed-up taxpayers refuse to surrender. In other words, residents in the other 49 states -- the new 49ers? -- would enjoy the privilege of paying California's taxes. Their one consolation will be not having to endure its lousy public services.
If, on the other hand, America's taxpayers (and China's bond buyers) succumb to bailout fatigue, California may reach the point at which, after every alternative has been exhausted, it is forced to try governing itself competently. You wouldn't know it from putting up with California's transportation and educational systems, but there actually is a principled, plausible argument to be made for the high-benefit/high-tax model. For the sake of both California and their own political ideals, its advocates ought to be leading the charge against every excess and inefficiency that deprives taxpayers of good value for their dollars. That won't happen until they stand up to their coalition partners by breaking their Faustian political bargain with California's self-serving governmental-industrial complex.
A lot of generalizations in there, and some stupidity too. I think the points about the effectiveness of the spending are right on, though. Texas has the best highways in the nation in my experience. And the state employees in Cali have a ridiculous racket going. Does that invalidate the idea that providing more services with higher taxes is doomed to failure? Of course not. It means it's doomed to failure without sufficient safeguards against abuse and corruption.
FWIW, My impression is that New York State has some of the best schools in the country, despite being California-lite. When I moved from Rochester to Ohio between 6th and 7th grade, the stuff I was taught was two years behind where I had been.
Doesn't necessarily invalidate it, no. But you can't change the facts that Americans move pretty easily, and that the poor will be attracted to high benefit states and the rich will be repelled from high tax states.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 02, 2009, 02:57:59 PM
FWIW, My impression is that New York State has some of the best schools in the country, despite being California-lite. When I moved from Rochester to Ohio between 6th and 7th grade, the stuff I was taught was two years behind where I had been.
It's tremendously difficult to have quality education where evangelical Christianity predominates.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2009, 03:06:13 PM
Doesn't necessarily invalidate it, no. But you can't change the facts that Americans move pretty easily, and that the poor will be attracted to high benefit states and the rich will be repelled from high tax states.
Does that actually happen? I've never heard of anyone moving out to California because it has higher benefits for the poor.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 03:31:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2009, 03:06:13 PM
Doesn't necessarily invalidate it, no. But you can't change the facts that Americans move pretty easily, and that the poor will be attracted to high benefit states and the rich will be repelled from high tax states.
Does that actually happen? I've never heard of anyone moving out to California because it has higher benefits for the poor.
See: Mexicans.
They also move to Texas.