rated:

   posted: Apr. 25, 2008 @ 2:49a

alert mods    

Full Story: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080425/state_finances.html

It seems to me that the media always wants you to be in a state of fear so that you feel it is necessary to keep reading their news every day and thus keep their audience high, advertisers happy, etc. Yes, I know its how capitalism works, but what happened to balanced and objective journalism. Maybe its just the fault of my usual source of news--Yahoo, which heavily relies on Associated Press content.

Anyhow, these budget shortfalls they mention in the article don't seem that bad to me, eg:
Delaware, $69 million
California, $16 billion

Delaware has ~800,000 residents so $69 million is ~$86/resident.
California has ~37,000,000 residents so $16 billion is ~$432/resident.

I know state tax revenue is not as simple as $X from X residents and/or X corporations, but these sums of money just don't seem that terrible on a state level. In addition, these are two of the most wealthy states per capita. It seems like it would be very easy to cut out some retarded government programs/subsidies to find this money. We all know how there's always a ton of useless projects at any given time going on. Heck, don't get me started on federal earmarks and congressmen/senator's "pet projects" in their states...

This article also tries to make you feel bad that... "Many states, including Alabama, Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada and Wisconsin, plan to tap their rainy day funds, which contain money set aside for fiscal emergencies. Nevada may use its entire rainy day balance." Oh MY! They are using a rainy day fund for *gasp*, a rainy day! Gee, thats the whole point of the funds and it drives home the idea that our government should indeed spend less and save more to be prepared for downtimes such as we have today.

Maybe I'm looking at all of this in overly simple/naive terms. I'm curious to hear what you all think. I'm just tired of the FUD ratio in mainstream news soaring to the stratosphere.

• reply
• quote

rated:

   posted: Apr. 25, 2008 @ 3:49a

alert mods    

$432/person isn't chump change. California is also the center of the housing crisis, I don't think many folks there feel like shelling out $432. The "stupid programs could be cut" is a tired line too- why not name one of those stupid programs if it's so easy? If California politicians could wave a magic wand and eliminate all the programs that the majority of the electorate thought was stupid, making the voters happy and balancing the budget all at once, they would.

When the economy sinks into recession, as many believe it is, tax revenues are going to suffer at all levels of government. It's not fear mongering, it's fact.

• reply
• quote

rated:

   posted: Apr. 25, 2008 @ 2:32p

alert mods    

Dynastar454 said:$432/person isn't chump change. California is also the center of the housing crisis, I don't think many folks there feel like shelling out $432. The "stupid programs could be cut" is a tired line too- why not name one of those stupid programs if it's so easy? If California politicians could wave a magic wand and eliminate all the programs that the majority of the electorate thought was stupid, making the voters happy and balancing the budget all at once, they would.

"[California's] revenues began to rise in the 2004-05 fiscal year. Since that time, pegging spending increases to inflation and population growth would have allowed spending to grow by 15 percent. Instead, expenditures increased by more than twice that much. If spending growth had been limited to 15 percent since 2004-05, we'd be facing a $7 billion surplus rather than a $2 billion deficit for the current fiscal year." Source: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8878

The aforementioned spending policy has allowed across-the-board overspending in probably every department of the state. Thats why Arnold is now reccomending across-the-board spending cuts. Each department will have to go through their own programs and cancel or cut spending for each of their programs as necessary. For example, California's health department spends $79 million a year on tobacco prevention programs. Sure, its good will, but is all that spending necessary in times of a deficit?

Across the board cuts sound scary in the news but when the state has been rampantly overspending, its an easy fix in my opinion.

Also, I cannot imagine how many millions of illegal immigrants are in California that increase costs of their public health department, transportation department, public safety department/state police, etc. I know some easy fixes for this, but I will refrain from starting a flame war.

Finally, isn't our silly federal goverment handing out more than $434 (eg: ~$600) per person for most citizens next month? There seems to be another easy fix there!

• reply
• quote

rated:

   posted: Apr. 25, 2008 @ 4:43p

alert mods    

zzyzzx said:I don't see any relationship between a states legislature spending like drunken sailors and that particular state being in a recession.
because there isn't.... but that doesn't stop them from using the recession buzzword.

• reply
• quote

rated:

   posted: Apr. 25, 2008 @ 6:40p

alert mods    

ThursdaysChild said:*If I remember where I read it I'll come back and add the citation, but don't hold your breath.How about this.

• reply
• quote

rated:

   posted: Apr. 25, 2008 @ 8:16p

alert mods    

silver360 said: For example, California's health department spends $79 million a year on tobacco prevention programs. Sure, its good will, but is all that spending necessary in times of a deficit? Kinda like saying you shouldn't spend money to change your car's oil, if your budget is tight. In the short term, you're right. In the long term, it ruins your finances.

Expenditures like tobacco prevention will (hopefully) pay off decades from now. After all, there's a link between poverty and smoking. Helping those people quit, or not start in the first place, will help society in the long run... through lower Medicaid costs.

In my humble opinion, the fat in most state's budgets is in salaries and benefits across the board. Too many government employees making huge salaries. And yes, that (probably) includes the guy/gal who administers the $79 million anti-smoking program

• reply
• quote

rated:

   posted: Apr. 27, 2008 @ 6:12p

alert mods    

silver360 said:Full Story: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080425/state_finances.html

It seems to me that the media always wants you to be in a state of fear so that you feel it is necessary to keep reading their news every day and thus keep their audience high, advertisers happy, etc. Yes, I know its how capitalism works, but what happened to balanced and objective journalism. Maybe its just the fault of my usual source of news--Yahoo, which heavily relies on Associated Press content.,

I don't remember a state of fear during the dotcom bubble. It was mostly cheer-leading. I think you expect too much from the media. Or maybe you just want to hammer on the tired old "fair-and-balanced" song again. But seriously, what are you expecting?

That article doesn't particularly instill much Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt into my mind. $69M is $69M and, as you note, it will need to be made up somewhere. It sure doesn't sound like you're advocating tax increases (or maybe you are), so the only other thing is to cut spending. If you're going to cut spending, then the only thing that matters is the total amount, not the per-capita figure.

Hearing that some states are going to tap their "rainy-day" funds doesn't instill Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt. It doesn't make me feel bad either.

• reply
• quote