http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oew-ross-rusch6-2009may06,0,2907974.story
Quote
Prop. 1A: the right budget fix?
Today's topic: Would Proposition 1A help California's broken budgeting system, or just make it worse? And what happens if the measure fails and California doesn't get the billions of dollars in revenue from the increased sales tax, personal income tax and vehicle license fee?
Don't understand Prop. 1A? Don't feel bad -- it's a mess
Point: Jean Ross
Proposition 1A would do nothing to address the fundamental cause of California's persistent budget problems: an imbalance between the revenues raised by the state's tax system and the cost of current programs and services. In fact, Proposition 1A would layer new costs and formulas on top of the complex web of budget rules that already severely constrain the state's ability to balance its budget in tough economic times.
Although proponents talk about beefing up the state's "rainy day fund," they fail to mention that Proposition 1A would divert only half of the annual contribution to the reserve. Funds would first go to pay off amounts owed to schools and community colleges, if Proposition 1B is approved by the voters, and then permanently into an unlimited "supplemental" fund that could only be used for infrastructure -- one of the fastest-growing items in the budget -- or to repay state debt. In brief, Proposition 1A cloaks a major policy shift and a substantial new and permanent spending obligation under the guise of building a budget reserve.
Moreover, Proposition 1A would force the state to make deeper cuts in some bad budget years by requiring contributions to the reserve even in years when the state faces a deficit, would prevent the use of funds in the reserve from fully closing budget gaps in bad economic times, and would limit the state's ability to spend existing tax dollars to restore the deep cuts made in recent budgets once economic growth bolsters state revenue collections.
California will face an $8-billion -- possibly modestly larger -- shortfall on May 20 if Proposition 1A fails. California will face an $8-billion -- possibly modestly larger -- shortfall on May 20 if Proposition 1A passes. That's right: Proposition 1A would have no immediate impact on the size of the state's budget deficit. While proponents have cynically employed scare tactics aimed at convincing voters that the state will fall off a fiscal cliff if Proposition 1A is not approved, the facts are simple: Proposition 1A would not affect state tax collections until Jan. 1, 2011. California does face a significant budget shortfall -- regardless of the outcome of the May election -- due to continuing weakness in the economy.
A responsible debate over California's fiscal future would start now with a plan to address the deficit that will occur irrespective of the outcome of the election, with additional options if the voters fail to approve the "money measures" on the May 19 ballot -- Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E.
Last, but not least, Proposition 1A is wickedly complicated -- don't take my word for it, read it yourself -- and would, similar to other recent ballot measures, undoubtedly result in unintended consequences that would further complicate California's almost incomprehensible budget process.
The bottom line: Proposition 1A is full of false promises, will do nothing to close the state's immediate budget gap and will only make it more difficult for California to respond to the demands of a growing, aging and changing population and the challenges faced by an increasingly competitive global economy. California deserves better.
Jean Ross is the executive director of the California Budget Project, a Sacramento-based nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research group.
Prop. 1A is about more than just increasing state revenue
Counterpoint: Emily Rusch
California's economy is among the 10 largest in the world, but unlike other governments, we must balance our budget each year, an especially difficult feat because tax income fluctuates wildly with the economy. Unable to print money, unless we have a reserve set aside the state is forced to sharply cut spending during recessions -- precisely the moment when enhanced public spending is most needed.
We are in a heap of trouble this year, and we do not have an adequate reserve to get us through it. Consider these examples: 27,000 teachers laid off in March, 12,300 fewer spots at the state's public universities and cuts in our bus, rail and healthcare services, which affect millions of Californians.
We need a more robust rainy-day fund to prevent deep cuts in the future like the ones we are experiencing today. Proposition 1A would require Sacramento to save 3% of the taxes we pay each year until it has a reserve equal to 12.5% of the state's annual income. California would be able to use those savings to get us through tough times, resulting in slightly less spending in the near term but the long-term stability the state badly needs.
Look at public transportation. Despite the benefits it provides our economy, environment and quality of life, legislators frequently cut funding for public transit services in tough budget years -- so frequently, in fact, that many transit agencies no longer budget for money from the state because they cannot count on it to be there. It would be far better for our bus and rail systems if the state supplied public transit agencies with a predictable level of funding rather than the unpredictable roller-coaster they are on today. Of course, if the moderate level of funding is not enough, public transit advocates like myself should make the case for new revenue to support services. Stability is essential for quality public transportation; the same is true for schools and many other state-funded services.
I understand that many question the need for us to vote on this at all and why politicians cannot budget well on their own. But when budget negotiations come down to the wire -- as they always do in California -- it is very difficult for legislators not to spend all available funds. Rainy-day funds have little use unless there are rules that mandate deposits and limit withdrawals. When strict rules do exist, states save more, can borrow less expensively and experience less volatile ups and downs in their budgets. Voters need to send a message to Sacramento that we must not allow California to experience such a dramatic drop in available funds for public priorities in the future.
If Proposition 1A fails, California will have far less revenue over the next four years, no question -- $16 billion, according to estimates by the Legislative Analyst's Office -- that could have gone to help more Californians go to college, provide rail and bus service, fund critical healthcare services for millions of Californians and other programs that are already significantly underfunded.
But the short-term revenue isn't the primary reason to vote for or against Proposition 1A. The measure's revenue enhancements would be in effect for no more than two years, after all, and we need long-term solutions. Voters should support the initiative to ensure long-term budget stability and prevent the dramatic cuts we are seeing today.
Emily Rusch is the state director of CalPIRG, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest advocacy organization.
Prediction time:
It fails big. There is great wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Political careers are destroyed. Possibly The Governator's.
I just saw labor unions are against it. Will vote yes across the board.
I thought it was all the same editorial at first glance :lol:
But yeah, heaven forbid someone tries to curtail spending :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 12:51:19 PM
I thought it was all the same editorial at first glance :lol:
But yeah, heaven forbid someone tries to curtail spending :rolleyes:
Not a bad measure in theory, but introduced under the current situation, Californians would get anything but stability. There'd be a huge gnashing of teeth when spending is cut
across the board, and it'd take all kinds of yellow journalism and op-eds before the voters realized that they voted to bottleneck the money in the first place.
This kind of thing needs to be established when the state
doesn't have a deficit.
Today's the day. This should be fun. :nelson
Apparently with 20% or so of the votes in, all props are failing except one about elected official salaries.
And they've called it. All failed except for the bill to stop our legislature from raising its own salaries when the state has a deficit. :)
Poor California...such a nasty fiscal mess. :(
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2009, 02:13:24 AM
And they've called it. All failed except for the bill to stop our legislature from raising its own salaries when the state has a deficit. :)
Yeah Democracy!
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2009, 07:41:16 AM
Poor California...such a nasty fiscal mess. :(
I suppose the legislature-governor will now have to work for changes that will actual curb our issues as opposed to putting them off. -_-
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2009, 02:13:24 AM
And they've called it. All failed except for the bill to stop our legislature from raising its own salaries when the state has a deficit. :)
Good to see cooler heads prevailed. :cheers:
Quote from: garbon on May 19, 2009, 11:06:43 PM
Apparently with 20% or so of the votes in, all props are failing except one about elected official salaries.
But at least fags can't marry. :D
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2009, 09:24:06 AM
But at least fags can't marry. :D
That election happened 6 months ago, please do keep up.
Anyway, there was a pretty good article in this week's The Economist, explaining why California is ungovernable.
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2009, 09:27:06 AM
Anyway, there was a pretty good article in this week's The Economist, explaining why California is ungovernable.
It is because Californians suck.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2009, 09:22:30 AM
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2009, 07:41:16 AM
Poor California...such a nasty fiscal mess. :(
I suppose the legislature-governor will now have to work for changes that will actual curb our issues as opposed to putting them off. -_-
Heaven forbid such a thought! Wasn't it California which proposed a new mass transit system for billions of dollars, not too long ago? Like they can afford a major proposal like that right now? But I may be thinking of another state, maybe even Massachusetts.
Bummer, I would have really benefited from those props. <_<
Quote from: Jaron on May 20, 2009, 10:56:21 AM
Bummer, I would have really benefited from those props. <_<
As garbon said, gay marriage wasn't on the ballot this time. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2009, 11:00:17 AM
As garbon said, gay marriage wasn't on the ballot this time. :P
:D
Quote from: Jaron on May 20, 2009, 10:56:21 AM
Bummer, I would have really benefited from those props. <_<
California = Bad for Jaron
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2009, 11:00:17 AM
As garbon said, gay marriage wasn't on the ballot this time. :P
:lol:
Har har har
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2009, 09:31:40 AM
Heaven forbid such a thought! Wasn't it California which proposed a new mass transit system for billions of dollars, not too long ago? Like they can afford a major proposal like that right now? But I may be thinking of another state, maybe even Massachusetts.
When in doubt, assuming that Massachusetts is the reckless spender is the good bet. :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2009, 11:00:17 AM
Quote from: Jaron on May 20, 2009, 10:56:21 AM
Bummer, I would have really benefited from those props. <_<
As garbon said, gay marriage wasn't on the ballot this time. :P
Burn :face:
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2009, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2009, 09:31:40 AM
Heaven forbid such a thought! Wasn't it California which proposed a new mass transit system for billions of dollars, not too long ago? Like they can afford a major proposal like that right now? But I may be thinking of another state, maybe even Massachusetts.
When in doubt, assuming that Massachusetts is the reckless spender is the good bet. :lol:
Heh, well Governor Patrick did float an idea of hugely increasing rail transit in the state, at big expense, not too long ago, probably before the economic bust. At about the time the State was also figuring how to pay for the Big Dig via the Mass Pike tolls, (or shut down the Pike agency instead), and also where to find money to perform maintenance and new work on the state's roads and bridges, some or much of that work having been already delayed due to Big Dig expenses. Stuff gets dizzying to keep track of sometimes... :huh:
Speaking of Rail, I thought this was a very interesting article.
QuoteStop This Train!Are trains slower now than they were in the 1920s?
By Tom VanderbiltPosted Friday, May 15, 2009, at 12:22 PM ET
Quick: Can you think of a technology that has regressed since the early 20th century?
Technological progress is usually considered a given. Think of the titters when you see Michael Douglas in Wall Street walking on the beach with a bricklike mobile phone. Then, it was thrilling, almost illicit—Gekko can call Bud Fox from the beach. Now, the average 12-year-old has a far superior phone: smaller, camera-equipped, location-aware, filled with games and a library of music, and so on. We've seen vast improvements in just a few decades, which means the gulf between now and, say, the 1920s seems almost unimaginable.
There is at least one technology in America, however, that is worse now than it was in the early 20th century: the train.
I have recently been poring over a number of prewar train timetables—not surprisingly, available on eBay. They are fascinating, filled with evocations of that fabled "golden era" of train travel. "You travel with friends on The Milwaukee Road," reads an ad in one, showing an avuncular conductor genially conversing with a jaunty, smartly dressed couple, the man on the verge of lighting a pipe. The brochure for the Montreal Limited, from an era when "de luxe" was still two words, assures travelers that "modern air-conditioning scientifically controls temperature, humidity and purity of air at all seasons."
But the most striking aspect of these antiquated documents is found in the tiny agate columns of arrivals and destinations. It is here that one sees the wheels of progress actually running backward. The aforementioned Montreal Limited, for example, circa 1942, would pull out of New York's Grand Central Station at 11:15 p.m., arriving at Montreal's (now defunct) Windsor Station at 8:25 a.m., a little more than nine hours later. To make that journey today, from New York's Penn Station on the Adirondack, requires a nearly 12-hour ride. The trip from Chicago to Minneapolis via the Olympian Hiawatha in the 1950s took about four and a half hours; today, via Amtrak's Empire Builder, the journey is more than eight hours. Going from Brattleboro, Vt., to New York City on the Boston and Maine Railroad's Washingtonian took less than five hours in 1938; today, Amtrak's Vermonter (the only option) takes six hours—if it's on time, which it isn't, nearly 75 percent of the time.
"I don't want to see the fastest train in the world built halfway around the world in Shanghai," President Obama said recently, announcing an $8 billion program for high-speed rail. "I want to see it built right here in the United States of America." There is something undeniably invigorating about envisioning an American version of Spain's AVE, which whisks passengers from Madrid to Barcelona (roughly the distance from Boston to Washington) in two and a half hours at 220 mph and has been thieving market share from the country's airlines.
But Obama's bold vision obscures a simple fact: 220 mph would be phenomenal, but we would also do well to simply get trains back up to the speeds they traveled at during the Harding administration. Consider, for example, the Burlington Zephyr, described by the Saturday Evening Post as "a prodigious, silvery, three-jointed worm, with one stalk eye, a hoofish nose, no visible means of locomotion, seeming either to be speeding on its belly or to be propelled by its own roar," which barreled from Chicago to Denver in 1934 in a little more than 13 hours. (It would take more than 18 today.) An article later that year, by which time the Zephyr had put on the "harness of a regular railroad schedule," quoted a conductor complaining the train was "loafing" along at only 85 mph. But it was not uncommon for the Zephyr or other trains to hit speeds of more than 100 mph in the 1930s. Today's "high-speed" Acela service on Amtrak has an average speed of 87 mph and a rarely hit peak speed of 150 mph. (The engine itself could top 200 mph.)
What happened? I put the question to James McCommons, author of the forthcoming book Waiting on a Train: The Embattled Future of Passenger Rail Service. As with most historical declines, there is no single culprit but rather a complex set of conditions. One reason is rail capacity. From the Civil War to World War I, the number of rail miles exploded from 35,000 to 216,000, hitting a zenith of 260,000 in 1930 and falling by 2000 to less than 100,000—the same level as in 1881. Capacity dropped because demand dropped—people moved to cars, and freight moved to trucks. Despite a World War II train boom fueled by troop movements and fuel rationing, trains have been on the decline since the late 1920s; as a 1971 New York Times article on the debut of Amtrak noted, "railroads asserted that, as an industry, they did not make a profit on passengers after [the] 1930s. They blamed buses, planes and autos and expensive union contracts that increased wage costs after 1919."
Less rail capacity (and rail quality) has coincided with a dramatic rise in freight traffic in recent years, owing in part to a buoyant economy and in part to trains' improving (and now superior) fuel efficiency to trucks—particularly as diesel fuel prices have risen. Despite recent infrastructure spending, bottlenecks are routine, as passenger trains typically yield to passing freight trains. (The recent economic downturn has cut freight traffic, leading to some chatter on rail Web sites about improved Amtrak performance times; one commenter noted, "#422 was running early the whole way ... so much so we sometimes had to sit and 'kill time' shy of reaching stations [so] as not to block main roads through towns.") Sharing rails with freight has a negative effect on passenger speeds for another reason: The rail systems are designed for slower freight trains. Except for the high-speed Acela in the Northeast (and a lone stretch in Michigan), Amtrak is limited to a top speed of 79 mph because to go above that would require all kinds of upgrades to signals, gates, crossings, and ties, among other things. (This Amtrak investigation of a 13-hour delay earlier this year catalogs the typical problems.) What's more, trains themselves can't run faster than 79 mph without "Positive Train Control," a sensor-based safety system that will be mandatory on all trains by 2015.
Hovering over all of these causal factors is a widespread societal shift that occurred, one that saw the streamliners of the 1930s eclipsed by the glamour of the jet age, as well as the postwar automobile boom and the building of the Interstate Highway System. Passenger trains lost their priority to freight, and there simply wasn't the same cultural imperative for speed and luxury on the trains (a condition rather unintentionally satirized in the schlock 1979 TV series Supertrain—the conveyance in question was atom-powered—whose magnate decried "the pitiful state of rail passenger travel in this country today"). Where the Twentieth Century Limited had once touted its trains as having a "barber, fresh and salt water baths, valet, ladies' maid, manicurist, stock and market reports, telephone at terminal [and] stenographer," Amtrak is now scrambling to simply equip itself with Wi-Fi—a technology already available on the bare-bones Bolt bus.
As it turns out, there are actually plenty of examples of "technological regress" throughout history. As this fascinating paper notes, the process of building with cement had reached a high point during the Roman Empire, only to be "lost" until its reinvention in the early 13th century. The United States has lost not so much the technology of rail speed as the public will, the cultural memory; this may have made sense for a historical period, but now, weighed in terms of the congestion, carbon emissions, and comfort of other travel modes, it seems time to reach for the way-back machine. As journalist Philip Longman has pointed out, where "fast mail trains" once "ensured next-day delivery on a letter mailed with a standard two-cent stamp in New York to points as far west as Chicago," today, "that same letter is likely to travel by air first to FedEx's Memphis hub, then be unloaded, sorted, and reloaded onto another plane, a process that demands far greater expenditures of money, carbon, fuel, and, in many instances, time than the one used eighty years ago." In building our "bridge to the 21st Century" we might remember the Roman god Janus, patron of, among other things, bridges: He looked backward as well as forward.
Yeah, interesting article on the contrast of rails of old, and now. I'm very surprised that it takes longer to travel the same routes, but then, the rails aren't so prioritized for passenger traffic like they once were. But that's also probably part of a larger problem of getting more people to take trains instead of autos for longer journeys, or to use trains instead of air travel.
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2009, 02:10:28 PM
Yeah, interesting article on the contrast of rails of old, and now. I'm very surprised that it takes longer to travel the same routes, but then, the rails aren't so prioritized for passenger traffic like they once were. But that's also probably part of a larger problem of getting more people to take trains instead of autos for longer journeys, or to use trains instead of air travel.
Yeah, they're not prioritized at all. Personal anecdotal example: I used to take MBTA commuter rail from Southboro to Yawkey/Back Bay station. We ALWAYS had to wait on CSX freight trains. Yep, it's really more important that those cars full of high fructose corn syrup get to the Breyers plant in Framingham on time than all of these paying commuters get to work on time! :bleeding:
http://projects.latimes.com/elections/2009-05-19/california-propositions/results/map/
Not a single county, apparently. It's a rebellion.
QUESTION: Why are the unwashed masses voting on these items?
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2009, 05:57:22 PM
QUESTION: Why are the unwashed masses voting on these items?
We're California; we care. :)
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2009, 06:04:05 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2009, 05:57:22 PM
QUESTION: Why are the unwashed masses voting on these items?
We're California; we care. :)
TEH PEOPLE can't be trusted to make wise financial decisions.... a fact which Congress seems to realize and be trying to address right now. :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2009, 06:06:52 PM
TEH PEOPLE can't be trusted to make wise financial decisions.... a fact which Congress seems to realize and be trying to address right now. :)
Nor can the people we elect. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2009, 06:09:14 PMNor can the people we elect. :contract:
Notice I said "trying" :(
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2009, 06:16:36 PM
Notice I said "trying" :(
By "people" I was thinking of California government officials. The ones who were giving themselves raises while our state operated for months with no budget.
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2009, 02:57:11 PM
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2009, 02:10:28 PM
Yeah, interesting article on the contrast of rails of old, and now. I'm very surprised that it takes longer to travel the same routes, but then, the rails aren't so prioritized for passenger traffic like they once were. But that's also probably part of a larger problem of getting more people to take trains instead of autos for longer journeys, or to use trains instead of air travel.
Yeah, they're not prioritized at all. Personal anecdotal example: I used to take MBTA commuter rail from Southboro to Yawkey/Back Bay station. We ALWAYS had to wait on CSX freight trains. Yep, it's really more important that those cars full of high fructose corn syrup get to the Breyers plant in Framingham on time than all of these paying commuters get to work on time! :bleeding:
:D
Speaking of Cali, how is Bakersfield?
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2009, 02:57:11 PM
Quote from: KRonn on May 20, 2009, 02:10:28 PM
Yeah, interesting article on the contrast of rails of old, and now. I'm very surprised that it takes longer to travel the same routes, but then, the rails aren't so prioritized for passenger traffic like they once were. But that's also probably part of a larger problem of getting more people to take trains instead of autos for longer journeys, or to use trains instead of air travel.
Yeah, they're not prioritized at all. Personal anecdotal example: I used to take MBTA commuter rail from Southboro to Yawkey/Back Bay station. We ALWAYS had to wait on CSX freight trains. Yep, it's really more important that those cars full of high fructose corn syrup get to the Breyers plant in Framingham on time than all of these paying commuters get to work on time! :bleeding:
Which seems fair to me: the CSX trains are actually paying their own way, but your fare is only a partial payment (assuming it is like most of the passenger rail travel in the country).
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2009, 09:18:33 AM
your fare is only a partial payment (assuming it is like most of the passenger rail travel in the country).
:huh:
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2009, 09:23:38 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2009, 09:18:33 AM
your fare is only a partial payment (assuming it is like most of the passenger rail travel in the country).
:huh:
Passenger rail is heavily subsidized.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2009, 09:25:05 AM
Passenger rail is heavily subsidized.
By what? Taxes. Who pays taxes? Me.
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2009, 09:43:59 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2009, 09:25:05 AM
Passenger rail is heavily subsidized.
By what? Taxes. Who pays taxes? Me.
As well as the 95% of other taxpayers that don't ride the train.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 20, 2009, 11:58:19 AM
Speaking of Rail, I thought this was a very interesting article.
It proceeds from an incorrect assumption: That technology has regressed. Then, the article goes on to say that locomotives are faster than ever, and it's a combination of bureaucracy, advancing technology and lack of interest that have flattened the trains.
also increased freight and reduced track.
I think we should forget about trains for passenger travel, concentrate on freight, decrease the amount of semis on cross country trips and bring back Superbus.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2009, 09:45:31 AM
As well as the 95% of other taxpayers that don't ride the train.
So explain to me why that means passengers trains should be lower priority than freight trains.
My line of reasoning is basically that Breyers is going to pay CSX for corn syrup delivery even if it's late (though they may demand some sort of credit). OTOH, if passenger commuter trains are consistently late, it's going to drive customers away and eventually drive the MBTA out of business. Although it's government subsidized, it is (or at least when I lived there) under constant pressure to be profitable, like Amtrak, under threat of closure... and the commuter lines HAVE been shut down before (in the 1970s) due to continual operating losses.
Also, I think it's less of an issue if a load of corn syrup is late for the ice cream factory than if 5,000 people are late for work. I know from having been to that place that they stockpile corn syrup anyways, so what gets shipped in probably ends up not even being used for a while.
Quote from: Caliga on May 21, 2009, 01:08:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 21, 2009, 09:45:31 AM
As well as the 95% of other taxpayers that don't ride the train.
So explain to me why that means passengers trains should be lower priority than freight trains.
My line of reasoning is basically that Breyers is going to pay CSX for corn syrup delivery even if it's late (though they may demand some sort of credit). OTOH, if passenger commuter trains are consistently late, it's going to drive customers away and eventually drive the MBTA out of business. Although it's government subsidized, it is (or at least when I lived there) under constant pressure to be profitable, like Amtrak, under threat of closure... and the commuter lines HAVE been shut down before (in the 1970s) due to continual operating losses.
Also, I think it's less of an issue if a load of corn syrup is late for the ice cream factory than if 5,000 people are late for work. I know from having been to that place that they stockpile corn syrup anyways, so what gets shipped in probably ends up not even being used for a while.
It sounds as though you've had a lot of time to think on this. Maybe while you were watching the corn syrup train ramble by one morning? :P
Yes, and getting VERY angry. Me = more important than corn syrup. :mad: