California faces its day of fiscal reckoning

Source: Associated Press

The day of reckoning that California has been warned about for years has arrived. The longest recession in generations and the defeat this week of a package of budget-balancing ballot measures are expected to lead to state spending cuts so deep and so painful that they could rewrite the social contract between California and its citizens. They could also force a fundamental rethinking of the proper role of government in the Golden State.

"The voters are getting what they asked for, but I'm not sure at the end of the day they're going to like what they asked for," said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, which represents the hard-hit construction industry. "I think we've crossed a threshold in many ways."

California is looking at a budget deficit projected at more than $24 billion when the new fiscal year starts in July. That is more than one-quarter of the state's general fund.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090523/ap_on_re_us/us_california_day_of_reckoning

Not that I'm complaining.

Income taxes are very low in CA for those with deductions. I eliminate almost all my taxable income on my state return iva legitimate write-offs.

Not that I'm complaining but I am able to exclude virtually 100 percent of my state income tax (I'm self employed with real estate investments) and have not paid state income tax in years.

OTOH, property taxes suck me dry each year. Ugh...

as a result of the subprime crisis.. The property tax rate is 1% of value.. Compared to most states that is nothing.. In Michigan with the collapse of the housing market, property taxes are often range from 10% to 25% of the value of existing homes, not yet abandoned. That mostly due to the lack of jobs.

not everyone here is so fortunate.

Your personal income tax would be low in ANY STATE.

If you would like to pay the state more, I'm sure they would be happy to take it from you.

"starving the beast" looks like. What is limited government?

When the far RW Repubs in Arizona are asked who will feed the poor, they say "the churches." Let's see if the churches step up and do so in California.

You'll have public employees demanding raises with no regard for the circumstances or the taxpayers. You'll have the government punishing the public by eliminating the services (like code enforcement, street sweeping, and beach cleaning) that they ought to be providing, while funding the beautification projects in the nicer areas. You'll have the government looking for workarounds on the limited funding, by raising water bills, garbage collection fees, license fees, and of course it wouldn't be quality government if they didn't see the police departments as a source of revenue.

Look for new taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, hotel rooms, and all those new taxes which have a track record of being good for business.

and the extent of the mess varies from one county to the next. Locally, the answer has been layoffs, 600+ teachers in my county, school closures, 10%+ layoffs of local government staff, across the board salary freezes and salary reductions for government staff (for those not laid off), furloughs, 4 day weeks (the fifth being unpaid with government offices closed), fee increases, fewer firefighters and police, delay and or shut down of needed infrastructure projects.

None of this is being done to "punish the public". The money simply is not there to pay for stuff.

JEB started with "roll back" tax rates and budgeting. The "roll back" tax rates were designed to keep tax revenues fixed while real estate values bubbled. Then there were the two ammendments that reduced revenues further. At this point, we have one of the smallest, lowest paid, and consequently least expensive public sectors, when measured in dollars per taxpayer in the US. We have no "personal property tax" (intangibles tax was repealed by JEB) and no income tax.

Just wait for when the hurricanes hit and people begin to notice that there is no money to respond and only a fraction of the staff to clear the drainage pipes and canals. When they begin to note that the "Cat Fund" (our collective deductible on hurricane reinsurance) is dry (short by 2 billion).

Virtually none of this is the result of "waste, fraud, and abuse". Republicans have been going at State and local government budgets with a meat cleaver for over 20 years with little Democratic party opposition (in some places no elected Democratic candidates since 1976). There is no money for waste. There is not even money to keep the lights on and the doors open. The taxpayers who voted for these ammendments and the republicans have almost gotten the government they always wanted to pay for (none).

The problem in FL has always been that the people expect services, but decline to pay taxes whenever asked. People tell me all the time that they are taxpayers and demand service. What they don't add out is that they paid on average less than $30 a year for service from the agency I work for. See how far $30 a year takes you with a plumber. You will not get the clogged sink fixed for this.

Laying off teachers and school closures aren't in and of themselves bad things depending upon how and why it's done. If they aren't needed, then they aren't needed. Of course that starts a fight on the definition of 'needed'. Some of the corruption in this regard is simply unacceptable. You don't choose the school to close based on who will make the least amount of noise, but you also don't close a local elementary school so that you can play statistics games at another school.

The "the smallest, lowest paid, and consequently least expensive public sectors, " argument isn't going to fly around here, because as it stands these are amongst the best paycheck jobs around and have been for some time. For the last 20 years or so, the government workers have been valuing their positions on a false formula, comparing their salaries to people in similar positions in other areas, rather than comparing their salaries to the average resident of the municipality. It doesn't matter how much the city workers, cops, or school teachers make in Montauk New York - what matters if how much the taxpayers make in Seminole.

We pay plenty in taxes. Even with the rollback and home devaluation, I am paying more than twice the property tax that I was in 1995. I am paying 7% on nearly every dollar I spend as well. I am paying a parking tax. I am paying increased water and garbage fees. I'm paying bridge tolls, ramp fees, dump fees, and all manner of user fees. And I have no problem with any of that.

What I have a problem with is how it is spent. I object to the obscene costs of public projects which are built on a corrupt interpretation of the "lowest bidder" design. I object to city buildings which have the AC set at 72ºF. I object to my local government buying themselves a boat. I object to public funds being used to save an "historic" building which isn't historic. I object to local funds being used to bail out guys who built stupid "City Centre" crap that amounted to more places to spend money without actually making anything. Actually, I object to almost anything that isn't directly related to operating schools as schools, roads, police, code enforcement, and emergency services.

or simply accept them. The facts are that Florida is a low tax state. We do tax a bit more than Mississippi, but not much. Now I do understand that Seminole taxes are a bit higher than average for Florida, but then so are the property values. The statistics for the cost of our public sector in dollars per taxpayer are official bureau of labor statistics numbers. We have in fact one of the leanest public sectors in the nation, and this survey was before the recent layoffs, furloughs, and salary cuts.

I am not familiar with the salary schedule at Seminole County, but have never been tempted to take a job there, although I have had offers. Given the recent layoffs now totalling 10 percent of the County workforce, I am feeling pretty good about my decision in this regard.

I agree with you that the "city centre" thing was a scam to rival the plot of "The Music Man". Seminole is by no means special in this regard as I have met with County and City officials and developers from most central Florida jurisdictions over such plans. It was all about the very trendy "TND" concept being promoted by certain Architects, their clients, and the urban institute. During the boom, everyone had to have one.

Where I live now, I chose because it had higher taxes and "A" rated public schools. In my case it was significantly cheaper to pay the higher taxes, the higher mortgage payment, and the various fees than it was to cover private school tuition. As the police had found dead bodies in the parking lot of the "D" to "F" rated neighborhood public school where I used to live, I felt I had limited options.

Now as far as salary schedules go, I took a 20+ percent pay cut from my private sector job to work for the State. Pay and benefits wrapped together, I was still making significantly less than my counterparts in the private sector a year ago. However, I am still working, and many of them currently are not.

That program has been cut way back and you'll see sex offenders not bothering to register when they move any longer because they know that nobody is looking for them.

Thank you very much.

Knowing where sex offenders and predators live and knowing that they are staying outside of school zones is important to the community. There are so many THOUSANDS of them here in FL that you cannot keep up with them unless there is a maintained registry. It involves quite a bit more action than simply 'watching our children'.

a perennial whipping boy.

your statement is ridiculous.

" are there no workhouses?"

The return of Ebenezer.

shelter, clothing and medical care, too, not only that can of beans that's been in the back of your cupboard for the last three years. They are often physically and/or mentally challenged, emotionally messed up and/or elderly, so many need a variety of services as well. Some are poor bc they've recently been released from prison. Many need serious vocational rehab. And so on. Churches are just not able to deal with all that.

Yet, that's what our Leg. here in Arizona say when asked what they poor will do. They say the churches will help. The Leg. is controlled, and I mean controlled, by a couple of neoLibertarians who have managed to piss off even the conservative Republicans. I just hope people remember this in 15 months. I think the ramifications of their actions will be felt for years and should start getting painful about Sept.'10.

Most people really don't understand the uselessness of churches when it comes to dealing with these types of needs, and frankly, it would be very difficult to grasp it without being 1) intimately involved in the minutiae of the ongoing needs of real people who are in desperate need, and 2) privy to the entire range of services available to meet those needs. In the large scheme of things, churches (with a very few exceptions) are doing very little in the way of charitable work. As a professional (now retired) who worked for many years with people who were "down-and-out", I can attest to the fact that churches simply aren't players in this area; it is tax funded programs that are carrying the ball. In my experience, churches are almost invisible in that world.

Ask any clergyman to tell you the names of agencies and staff who provide meaningful services to those in need. You'll likely get a blank stare, or the names of people who are on some piddling church committee that doesn't do squat. Not only are they not players, they probably don't even know who is. Their contributions are minuscule... a drop in the ocean. And quite frankly, in my experience they don't possess the professionalism, nor are they willing to invest the resources necessary to make a serious contribution to the needs of people who aren't making it in the world (usually due to disabilities). Churches are all about their own self-perpetuation - this simply isn't what they do.

On those rare occasions when church representatives DO appear on the scene, they tend to be wide-eyed, "do-gooder", busy-body types. They present with a very enthusiastic demeanor and a desire to find a "quick-fix" for whoever they have taken under their wing at the moment. As the complexities and the grinding realities of the things that need to be addressed (over a long period of time) become apparent, they quickly become bored with the process and vanish from the scene, leaving the pros to carry on (almost always to the relief of all the professionals involved).

While I wouldn't say that churches do nothing (although most do nothing of much significance), I would say that the things they typically do barely nip at the edges. Their "charitable work" might involve providing a room to store canned goods and used clothes "for the poor". Or perhaps they will provide a Thanksgiving Day meal for the poor... those massive events where two or three hundred church people show up to swarm over 20 or 30 "poor" people who wander in and appear to be confused about what the hell they have gotten themselves into. And of course this annual meal is always accompanied by newspaper photos, long lists of businesses who "contributed", and lots of mutual back-patting and self-congratulations... and then they all go home, satisfied that the poor are taken care of until next year. It's all based upon a 12th century understanding of human needs grounded in the "charity" paradigm.

However, after three decades on the front lines of human services work, I would be the last to advocate that churches become more involved in providing human services (for many reasons). As one who actually saw them in action, I tend to think it's best they stay the hell out of it for the sake of those in need. What I WOULD advocate is taxing religious institutions, and using the proceeds to provide for people in need.

You seem very angry and bitter. Are you forgetting that churches are just people who are not professionals? Are you forgetting that most of these churches are filled with people who are the down and out themselves, with not much to give except time and energy? I agree, they are not professionals but many, many churches ARE filling needs which the government does not provide in areas where it is often unnoticed. My purpose in posting this isn't to say that you are completely wrong, only that your statements aren't completely right either. My family and I have spent thousands of hours over the years volunteering our time, sweat, love and money with not just single churches but groups of churches who have pooled their resources to help those in need. Many times the church office is the one of the first places people call or go to for help. MANY TIMES we have had people, both singles and families walk in from the street with nothing but what was in their car and requested help. Every single time our church has been there, too. We have been burned many times but we believe that it is a risk worth taking. Both my family and another took in a young homeless couple a few years ago (we housed the young man and someone else housed the young woman as they were having relationship issues). We helped them both finish their GED, both of them were given training and employment by people in the church. We gave them clothes, fed them, a used car to get to their job. Not one time did anyone from the government help that couple because they were on a list of hundreds of others needing help and just another number. Not to pat ourselves on the back, but just wanted to say that your blanket statements are not accurately reflecting what is going on in a number of different areas. The churches I work with were going to the areas devastated by Katrina where the government and celebrities weren't going or completely ignoring (mostly the poorest areas of Mississippi). We (collective churches of various denominations) sent group after group to repair and rebuild homes, not just of those affected by the storms but those whose homes were in *any* disrepair. It didn't matter how it happened, they were there to help the communities in need. Guess what...they are STILL going to those areas because the work isn't finished and I doubt it ever will be, but no government or professional agency is telling them what to do. All of those people have pretty much pulled out because they think that they have done enough. Instead of pushing churches aside you should pull them close and offer to show them how they can better use their time and money. After all, isn't everyone's goal to HELP people??

"You seem very angry and bitter."
No, this is simply your emotional reaction to what I said rather plainly. As I said, I am retired now. I have no dog in this hunt. But I have decades of experience on the front lines, I do care about the people I worked with, and what I say is accurate. These people are at risk. Your reaction to my views was rather emotional, and that is fairly typical to what I observed in my work.

"Are you forgetting that churches are just people who are not professionals?"
No. That's exactly what I said - they aren't professionals. They often don't know what they are doing.

"Are you forgetting that most of these churches are filled with people who are the down and out themselves, with not much to give except time and energy?"
That's nice, but it is no replacement for a well-funded government funded safety net. See... many of the people you reference attend churches where they're likely to hear about "tithing" (a flat-tax they are asked to pay to the church) and voting against the evil baby-killing Democrats. Furthermore, depending on what brand of religion you're into, all the work you do may very well be undone a thousand-fold by other churches who have managed to help sell the plutocracy's neo-con agenda, turned this country to the right, and shredded the safety net. In the aggregate, churches have done far more harm than good. And what you do is nice, but it's a drop in the ocean.

"My family and I have spent thousands of hours over the years volunteering our time, sweat, love and money with not just single churches but groups of churches who have pooled their resources to help those in need."
Again, this is nice, but it's a drop in the ocean. It takes MONEY to do what needs to be done. LOTS and lots of money. And churches aren't providing that. Churches spend their money primarily on self-perpetuation. It is a massive lie, and it is extremely dangerous to our most vulnerable citizens to push the notion that churches are able to meet their survival needs.

"Many times the church office is the one of the first places people call or go to for help."
First, I do not believe that is true; it definitely isn't true in my area. Second, those who do approach the church office should be referred to agencies who will know how to get them what they need (or whether there is any program that can help - sometimes there isn't).

"MANY TIMES we have had people, both singles and families walk in from the street with nothing but what was in their car and requested help. Every single time our church has been there, too. We have been burned many times but we believe that it is a risk worth taking."
If you could really meet their needs, that's good. But you may have just kicked the can down the road a ways and delayed getting to the root of the problem. Unless you really know what your dealing with, you do not know what to provide. Hence the need for professionals. And you were probably "burned many times" because you didn't know what you were dealing with. Professionals usually determine that first. Churches (usually) don't have the tools to do that. It takes money and expertise.

"Not one time did anyone from the government help that couple because they were on a list of hundreds of others needing help and just another number."
And why do you think that is? Could it be the lack of sufficient funding caused (at least in part) by many, many churches pushing the republican agenda? Or people, like you, blaming those horrible government programs where people are "just another number". It is that mindset, pushed by churches, that enables politicians to dismantle the social safety net and replace it with handouts from churches.

"Instead of pushing churches aside you should pull them close and offer to show them how they can better use their time and money."
First, I believe churches and government should be separate. Second, churches helped facilitate the destruction of the safety net. Their priorities, by and large, aren't centered on the needs of people. And the little they do provide (in the aggregate) is a token gesture. On the day they begin to pound the drums for progressive policies on a national level, I'll believe they give a rip. Until then, they remain part of the problem. A decent safety net requires a national commitment, money, and manpower (and taxes to pay for it). Many churches have stood in the way of that.

"After all, isn't everyone's goal to HELP people??"
No! Of course not. Furthermore, it's important to understand that it's possible to do more harm than good. It takes far more than the desire to help; the wrong kind of help can make the problem worse - a problem I saw all too often.

I hope this helps clarify my post and answers your questions. Good luck to you. You seem like a nice person who is very well intentioned.

It's obvious we both are looking at this from vastly different perspectives, too. I hope that one day you will be able to open your mind a bit more and not be so judgmental.
I too want the church and state to be separate. We do not take any government funds or help and do give people many gov't contacts for programs that would help them. Part of the problem is that government response is SLOW. We help to fill that gap (like the Salvation Army does when they show up the same day your house burns down to give you a place to stay and other immediate needs). That's what neighbors (and neighborhood churches) are supposed to do! I am sorry that you have such a jaded view of us but I am not one who believes that the gov't by any means should take that job and do it all. If a person doesn't want our help they are certainly under no obligation to take it. We offer it to ALL who come to our door to ask. BTW, we are not just 'well-intentioned' people. We actually do try to practice what we preach, we happily work with other groups who are not just like us because we have the same goal of helping people. I'll let the people we helped be the judge of whether or not that work was effective for them.

Just empty them, save for the murderers and rapists. The state can't afford to babysit non-violent drug offenders and petty theives anymore.

And in the process, you might bust the thuggish prison guard union in the process.

Murderers, rapists, molesters, robbers, burglers, attackers, and the criminally insane. Also hold on to those convicted of whatever they call prostitution with a deadly disease.

Actually, I think we'd find out that there really aren't that many folks in prison for simple possession and nonviolent possession with intent to distribute, but I could be wrong.

Is a major reason for incarceration, and more often than not that is result of a failed drug test.

Call me severe- but one word which irritates me a lot is "mistake". "I made a mistake.", no, you chose to rob a convenience store with a gun. That is not a mistake. A mistake is getting on the wrong bus. A mistake is flipping the switch for the garbage disposal instead of the overhead light. What you did was a criminal act of violence with the willingness to kill. No parole for you.

I'm not completely sure that I can even agree that parole violations and probation violations for nonviolent crimes should be overlooked in our scenario. The point of parole and probation is reform. You are supposed to be smart enough to figure out how to avoid going back to jail, ie don't screw up. How does not sending you back to jail work toward the goal of rehabilitation?

We can agree that the drug war is stupid. But if a person can't stay out of trouble for the term of his probation or parole how much sympathy are we supposed to have for him? Is there a reason to believe that he will become a law abiding citizen if allowed to slide?

The biggest budget item that they are going to have to slash is Medicaid. The poor and the vulnerable will be the hardest hit.

Since the 1960s the Federal Government has paid MATCHED any dollar a state pays for Public Welfare costs (The Federal Government does have a limit, it is the "Standard of Need" which is also the Federal SSI amount of $674 in welfare payments. While the Federal Government pays 100% of SSI costs, it only pays 50% of Welfare costs (up to $674).

Yes, NO state pays its welfare recipients anywhere near $674, for no state wants to pay 50% of the costs of such payment (And the 50% of the cost of such medicaid payments for people on welfare).

One last comment, the major cost of Medicaid in most states is the cost of long term care in Nursing homes. Medicare only pays for three days of such care, after that the Senior citizen has to pay OR Welfare through the Medicaid program has to pay. To cut Medicaid means a lot of senior citizens will lose long term Nursing home care, something the nursing homes can NOT afford. Given that Federal Laws prohibits removal of a long term resident of a Nursing home, if the state does NOT pay the bills, the Nursing home will have to take the hit. Nursing home will thus demand payment OR that the State do something about the people in the Nursing homes. Given nursing home care is the #1 cost of Medicaid, and it is illegal to remove Nursing home residence, that means the state MUST make the payments. If the State does NOT, the Nursing homes will sue the state for the Payment and the Courts will order the Payments to be made. That is one of the cost of taking the Federal Money for Welfare, and every state has taken such money.

Go to the State of California budget pie chart.. The total cost of General Government and Legislative, Judicial, and Executive..
Those budgets are . Gen. Government. - 8.5 billion dollars or 5.9 % and Legislative, Judicial, Executive = 6.073 billion dollars or 4.2 % of the state budget..
Put computers in control. Fire all humans. The state still has a 5.5 billion dollar deficit.
The Corrections Budget is 10.065 billion or 7%.. K-12 education is 45.122 billion dollars or 31.5%.

how long do you think it will take for them to become better professional thieves or graduate to murderers.. And you'll return home to see them first hand as uninvited house guests.

Get ready, residents of the other 49 states and territories. We are going to pay for this one as well.

My cousin in Oakland and I were talking about this very subject tonite. She said that Schwartzenegger doesn't take a salary-is that correct? She also said that she heard (or read) that Jerry Brown will run again. She said she liked him as mayor of Oakland, but not a Guv back in the '70s.

The 100 something thousand a year salary is irrelevant to this multi-millionaire.

Schwarzenegger's pay is $212,000 per year. He donates it to some cause and gets a tax deduction.

In my book he is getting paid, he takes the money out of the states fund. What he does with it doesn't matter, he cost the tax payers $212,000 a year.

But what happens then when all the other states start lining up at the troph for their own bailouts?

Who gets bailed out and who does not? Will blue states or swing states get bailed out, while bright red states are told to drop dead?

The precedent that could be set by bailing out California could be dangerous.

And I second what LeftyMom said.

For every tax dollar that leaves California, we get 70 cents back.

If the feds weren't robbing us blind we'd be doing okay.

because of Enron and Schwartzennegger?

<snip>

"Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “solutions to California’s energy woes” reflect those of former Enron chief Ken Lay. On May 17, 2001, in the midst of California’s energy crisis, which was largely caused by Enron’s scandalous energy market manipulation, Schwarzenegger met with Lay to discuss “fixing” California’s energy crisis. Plans to “get deregulation right this time” called for more rate increases, an end to state and federal investigations, and less regulation. While California Governor Gray Davis and Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante were taking direct action to re-regulate Califonia’s energy and get back the $9 billion that was vacuumed out of California by Enron and other energy companies, Schwarzenegger was being groomed to overthrow Davis in the recall. Thus canceling plans to re-regulate and recoup the $9 billion."

<more>
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/13-schwarzenegger-met-with-enrons-key-lay-before-the-california-recall/

Ah, here it is!

:nopity:

Most federal money comes in the form of Federal Income Taxes. Would you folks raise your income tax to gather in what he feds do not take?

There are a lot of states that pay more than they receive. Michigan only gets around 90 cents back per dollar. MI has been in recession for 8 years and could reach unemployment around 20% later this year. If any state should get assistance it's MI.

y'all have been making money off us for years.

Folks, that is not the problem.
That is the solution, as far as Republicans are concerned.

The Social contract has been systematically intentionally erased over these past 20 some years.

Little by little the Feds and state governments have stopped providing services to citizens.
Education, health, crime, consumer safety and protection...all taken away.

That was the plan.

the trojan horse that is Proposition 13 has finally achived its goal

Since Raygun was Governor, CA has been sliding further and further down the drain. He began the degradation and the voters have wholeheartedly supported it ever since.

One example, you had the best education system in the world and it was totally subsidized, today it ranks among the lowest and you can't even keep the buildings standing, meanwhile the administration of the LAUSD sucks up nearly half the money the government extracts from you, the citizens, to go toward education.

This is just one area of the systemic mismanagement that plagues what was once nearly paradise on earth.

What was Dianne Feinstein's net worth when she was first elected? What was Nancy Pelosi's? etc., etc., etc...

:hi:

I'm in CA. Seen CA going down the toilet in many ways over various special interests for years. I'm suspecting the Feds bail it out to some extent,,,,, but would rather they didn't. This situation didn't just appear out of the blue. The legislature has refused to come to grips with the budget for years, and rational decisionmaking to the benefit of the general population has been missing for years. I really don't imagine anything getting fixed unless the train wreck is allowed to happen. A bailout will not fix the problem,,, it only postpones it for a bit.

now its a model of governmental and societal implosion. Even back in the 90s in Mississippi, after the LA riots there were dozens of Californians moving to my little county, all ready to tell us Mississippians how to turn into Californians (no thankyou).

than 400K....STILL!

edited to clarify thought.

Meanwhile, you can get a whole damn house in any other state in the country for 100K.

The seriously sketchy neighborhoods have houses going for $25K. There was a cover story in the Bee about it a while back.

As far as nicer houses in nicer neighborhoods? One of the nicest places in my Dad's neighborhood, a gigantic 5 BR house on a corner lot with a pool, went for $170K not long ago.

Our CA Republicans have truly fucked it up, in the modern Bush style.

Kaloooooogian.

Jesus I miss Gray Davis.

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a07/BudgetReform/default.aspx


(Sacramento) – California State Assembly Budget Committee Chair Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) knows, in today’s politically charged atmosphere, it can be difficult to separate fact from fiction when it comes to the state budget. The veteran lawmaker wants to help you understand where state revenues come from, how the revenues are spent and why. In this Special Edition Assembly Web Report video Assemblymember Evans exposes the myth making rhetoric related to the budget.

Them tax cuts allowed the rich to get richer on the backs of the rest of us...

by the schwarzenf(*&_er. that's his ONLY reason for being in sacramento. :grr: :mad: god, i cannot wait until he's gone!

and most of everyone else. That is the latest I have heard.

Now that newspapers are on the rapid decline and their stock is sold on the penny market.............

In the early days of our nation, the hemp plant (a.k.a. cannabis) proved a valuable resource for hundreds of years, instrumental in the making of fabric, paper and other necessities. This changed during the Industrial Revolution, which rendered tree-pulp paper making and synthetic fibers more cost-effective through the rise of assembly line manufacturing methods. A more efficient way of utilizing hemp was a bit slower in coming.It was not until the early 1930's that a new technique for using hemp pulp for paper making was developed by the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the patenting of the hemp decorticator (a machine that revolutionized the harvesting of hemp). These innovations promised to reduce the cost of producing hemp-pulp paper to less than half the cost of tree-pulp paper. Since hemp is an annually renewable source, which requires minimal chemical treatment to process, the advent of hemp pulp paper would allegedly have been better for the environment than the sulfuric acid wood-pulping process. Hemp had many champions, who predicted that its abundance and versatility would soon revitalize the American economy. William Randolph Hearst, media mogul, billionaire and real-life model for Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, had different ideas. His aggressive efforts to demonize cannabis were so effective, they continue to color popular opinion today.In the early 1930's, Hearst owned a good deal of timber acreage; one might say that he had the monopoly on this market. The threatened advent of mass hemp production proved a considerable threat to his massive paper-mill holdings -- he stood to lose many, many millions of dollars to the lowly hemp plant. Hearst cleverly utilized his immense national network of newspapers and magazines to spread wildly inaccurate and sensational stories of the evils of cannabis or "marijuana," a phrase brought into the common parlance, in part due to frequent mentions in his publications.
(snip)
http://www.reefermadness.org/propaganda/essay.html

The figures I found range from as low as $30 a day to as high as $80 a day. One news article mentioned that elderly prisoners cost up to $75,000 a year which is three times more than an average inmate.

I'll agree with you that, its not worth spending $100,000+ to put on trial and incarcerate for a couple years recreational pot smokers.

Just like we would be paying two to three times more for a gallon of gas if all costs were realized at the pump. The same would be true if the costs to society were itemized for obtaining and holding persons in prison. I am not siding with the prisoners but more of being critical of the failed concept of prisons

Costs for new prison health program called 'staggering'
http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1362022.html

Close a few prisons that just house drug offenders. Maybe stop special elections like this one, too. So wasteful. And what about that stupid recall? What a fucking colossal waste of money. And for what? I notice Ah-nuld didn't have any problem with that.

disaster. That's why they need us to make their decisions for them. Remove their rights to vote and it will be the 2nd step to healing. (The 1st step is admitting they have a problem.)

:thumbsup:

Fuck them if they can't come up with a balanced budget and spend the taxpayers' money responsibly.

He is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil.

Never mind the cadre of douchebags (legislature) in the pockets of lobbyists who were committed to creating unsustainable expenditures for the last three decades. Never mind the electorate voting for every "No puppy will ever be sad, Ever!" initiatives that made it's way to the ballot despite the fact few voters ever considered that the money would have to be paid back with interest.

California has shit in the bed and wants somebody else to clean the sheets.

Enron was their heyday but it's been going on for a half century. The thing is that we Californians have discovered the even more slimy trick of getting would be republicans elected as Democratic. Their little gamut funding a republican style adgenda with the election failed because we were on to it long before they ever came up with it :-)

not live anywhere else.

(I have lived in New York, Michigan, DC and Maryland by the way)

How we could elect a fool that calls it Cal - E- 4 -NE -A is beyond me.

:rofl:

wouldn't it be fun to have an actor for governor? Are you having fun yet?

after the collapse.