Which Way, California?

"The state must fund programs essential to the survival and well- being of our women and children."

At whose expense?

Hand-wringing over women, children, the disabled, and the elderly is fine, but we need concrete proposals, Ms. Rose.

Maybe we should begin by repealing or at least modifying the 3 Strikes law, and release non-violent offenders from prison. Put an ankle bracelet on them so we know where they are at all times, it would save a lot of $$.
Not all disabilities are created equal. In California, being an alcoholic or addict is considered a disability and entitles you to a monthly paycheck forever. I don't think that's money well spent. It should get you a one time reputable detox program, cost paid for by the State but to be recouped over time from your earnings. If you can't clean up your act, too bad, I don't want to pay for you to remain addicted.
If you are single and don't have a job, don't get pregnant. Get free contraception and an education.
Fix the State employee pensions system so they don't get to "spike" their pensions. Go to a defined contributions pension plan for all new employees.
Instead of raising taxes that are already higher than in most states, work to bring back more of our Federal taxes back to California.
Consider fostering a more business-friendly climate in California so we can stop losing jobs to Texas. Bringing more businesses to California would not only solve the State's budget woes, it would create much needed jobs.

Rehab is cheaper and far more productive than incarceration.

"blackpoodles" says: In California, being an alcoholic or addict is considered a disability and entitles you to a monthly paycheck forever."

Forever? Not true.

You would need to be much more than an addict to get SDI or SSI benefits. Short term -- 30 to 45 days, with possible renewal -- aid is available in some circumstances, and requires doctor certification and renewal.

In fact, the Social Security Administration will deny benefits to someone whose drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor to his or her disability. The key factor the Disability Determination Service must consider is whether or not the SSA would still find you disabled if you stopped using drugs or alcohol.

Wouldn't treatment be cheaper than incarceration? Supervisors vs guards?

so glad you don't need a job, wolverine! If you did, you just might have to move to Texas.

Ken,
Treatment is significantly cheaper and more effective than incarceration, but you need to be willing take on the prison guard union. It can be done, but you must be prepared for a lot of fear-mongering.

"For residents in a state-approved alcoholic recovery home or drug-free residential facility, the maximum payable period is 90 days. (However, disabilities related to or caused by acute or chronic alcoholism or drug abuse which are being medically treated do not have this limitation.)"
This from http://www.edd.ca.gov/disability/DI_B...
The way I read this, if you are a chronic alcoholic and as a result contract liver disease or some other alcohol-induced illness, you can keep claiming disability payments as long as the illness continues. If you continue to drink and get sicker as a result, you will keep getting disability payments, and probably will use them to drink more. Do you think that makes fiscal and public health sense? I don't.

As I said, you would need to be much more than an alcoholic to gain disability support. Liver disease would qualify as 'much more.'

Your new nuanced example is in marked contrast to your initial statement that "being an alcoholic or addict is considered a disability and entitles you to a monthly paycheck forever."

Even in the case you make, as I said earlier, the "Disability Determination Service must consider is whether or not the SSA would still find you disabled if you stopped using drugs or alcohol"; if not, the benefits would disappear.

As to whether it makes fiscal and public health sense, I think it makes public health sense to aid people before their conditions become chronic (and far more expensive) and we generally don't abandon sick people as policy.

Fiscal sense? In an era of limited and diminishing resources I realize a triage must be practiced, determinations made as to the hierarchy of the deserving. The devil and difficulty is in the pesky details, needless to say.

So I painted with a broad brush in my initial comment about the State sending alcoholics disability checks, fine. Bottom line is in times of limited resources, choices have to be made.
Good, affordable education is essential. Disability payments to alcoholics are not. Let charitable groups handle that.
Improve schools (part of it involves changing how teachers get retained or not, part of it necessitates increased funding, and then there is the painful topic of how much gets spent on a few severely disabled children, and whether it is fair to the rest of the kids. We need college to be affordable again. We need passable roads. We need intelligent regulations that do not discourage job creation and business initiative, so that we can grow our way out of this mess.
We don't need wishful thinking and hand-wringing.

Ummmm...

1. Why are women having kids they cannot afford to raise and why are you proposing to forcibly take my money (taxation) to pay for women's personal choices?

2. The way to raise your income is work hard, go the extra mile and be sure your boss knows it. If that doesn't work, make plans to find a new job before quitting your current one.

3. Why are government jobs mostly held by women and thus women are mostly dependent on productive taxpayers for their livelihood? Why is that? Perhaps you ought to incent and encourage women to be less dependent on government for either their job or for childcare or for your long list.

It sounds like what you are primarily interested in maintaining a permanent welfare state of women depending on government and taxpayers to fund their personal choices and needs.

Brown is blackmailing Californians. Why does Brown always pick-on the most vulnerable and education? He should close corporate and commercial tax loopholes, introduce an oil extraction tax, an oil corporation, windfall-profits tax, Chevron of San Ramon made $27 billions in 2011 and paid no federal tax and trim the service-debt paid to Wall Street. These taxes have to be rolled-back. These budget cuts will prolong the recession. Why should the students and the most vulnerable be blamed for the budget crisis.

This article has inspired me to stand in solidarity with Ms. Rose. As a result of reading this, I'm having a sex change operation. Denmark here I come.

What is most interesting is what she didn't say. If you don't cut something, then how do you stay fiscally sound?

California does NOT have a revenue problem. The combined revenue from property, income and sales taxes puts us 6th out of 50 states in per capita tax revenues. Why is that not enough money when 43 other states tax less then California and are still able to balance their budgets??

We don't have a revenue problem, that's the truth. We have a spending problem. That's where the answer lies. Until we change the culture in Sacramento, just throwing more money at the problem is not the answer.

Some people just have a problem or two.

The answer, of course, is to increase taxes, increase regulations, and make the state more hostile to business while making it more hospitable to welfarians (we have 38% of all welfare recipients in the nation), and keep young retired public union members in Cadillac pensions (fun fact: average pension for a CA public union employee $68k/yr, average wage for working adults in CA $47K/yr) and the best health care insurance available with COLAs.

It has gotten us to this point but a few more years ought to finish the job.

I agree, Botany. We need more people in Sacramento who have had to make payroll and understand what it takes to create and maintain private sector jobs.

" ...property, income and sales taxes puts us 6th out of 50 states in per capita tax revenues."

Botany, is there a link for that stat you can share?

EastBeach: Here's the link. You will need to scroll down for the California data. Data is of 2009

http://taxfoundation.org/article/stat...

Botany I went to your source, http://taxfoundation.org/article/stat..., and found it biased...all they talk about is the onerous tax burden, the stats are difficult to follow... I can't accept "...property, income and sales taxes puts us 6th out of 50 states in per capita tax revenues" without serious caveats.

Ms. Rose: In your world, do men exist or are we obsolete? Also, the "children" sales pitch is a bit transparent.

I'm a person who feels that ALL people are in this together, and need to work together. I realize in the "progressive" world that makes me a male chauvanist, but I probably don't make enough $$$ to get a date with most of these women anyway.

(Ain't the truth annoying?)

Here is another link, East Beach. http://www.mymoneyblog.com/state-tax-...

Any way you look at it, the State of California is taking in a lot of tax money.

I can vouch for Botany's stats; they're solid and from a valuable resource.

What I can't vouch for is Botany's conclusions, which fall far short. For example, balancing state budgets is rife with trickery and cooked books, and I don't believe the ranking of state tax amounts allows for meaningful conclusions; there's no association of how the money is actually used. Would you really like to be living in a low yield state without many of the benefits and advantages California has?

This article explains current challenges faced by all states from the diminishing tax base, and Federal contributions, due to recession. California is, believe it or not, responding better and in better shape than most other states.

:: States Continue to Feel Recession’s Impact ::
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=...

A more complicated set of problems are facing the states, and I don't see the simplistic solution of 'more cuts, and no tax increases,' so often recited herein, could be any sort of meaningful long or short term solution.

Just one example of the problems arising from year after year of cuts, as taken from he article above:

"Spending cuts are problematic during an economic downturn because they reduce overall demand and can make the downturn deeper. When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, eliminate or lower payments to businesses and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. In all of these circumstances, the companies and organizations that would have received government payments have less money to spend on salaries and supplies, and individuals who would have received salaries or benefits have less money for consumption. This directly removes demand from the economy. "
-- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

This may be off-topic...or maybe not, but what about that proposed high-speed rail which is now estimated to end up costing over $100,000,000,000, even as those numbers grow faster than a bodybuilders' muscles on steroids?

What you need to remember is that California, you, and the rest of the world were all doing fine until we followed the conclusions of taxpayer.org, Botany, jukin, blackpoodles and the George W. Bush/Cheney administration.

What you need to understand about budget and the economy is that it takes money to make money. California has a Trillion Dollar economy. It takes a lot of revenue to fuel that economy. Making that economy work for everyone is tricky, requires concentration, thought and even compassion. And that is why you cannot take the advice from those operatives hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms.

Binky: "Would you really like to be living in a low yield state without many of the benefits and advantages California has?"

That's where the rub is. Not many would. California has 1/8 of the nation's population but 1/3 of the nation's welfare recipients. We have become a "high yield" magnet for those welfare recipients. After all, where would you rather live on the public dole, Wisconsin or California? They have become their own political force. There is an entire contingent of politicians ready to pander to their every request. So Binky has posed the question if it is appropriate to continue to pander to that segment of the population, or should California be more attractive to people that create jobs and help our economy?

Hi Don,

Yes it takes money to make money. It also takes hard work, risk-taking, smarts, optimism, integrity, customer service, good ideas, integrity, and more. That is, unless you were born with a big fat silver spoon in your mouth.
The government does not fuel the economy. It is there to provide infrastructure (I include education in that column), public safety, and regulate commerce.
Don't get me wrong, I pay my taxes, and I am grateful for government services. I can personally vouch for what a great job the California Dept of Insurance does, and I think most government workers take pride in doing a good job and deserved to be compensated fairly for it.
However, having donated my time to a project meant to serve a poor neighborhood in Sacramento where I got to see first-hand how the various public agencies had a vested interest in maintaining their "clients" in a state of permanent infancy, the scales fell from my eyes and I am no longer a knee-jerk liberal.
What I want my taxes to go to: good affordable schools, good roads with bike lanes, parks, public safety and law enforcement (within reason, I think 3 strikes is a disaster), scientific research, environmental protection (again within reason, not all chemicals are deadly), support for the arts, a single payer medical insurance system.
What I don't want my taxes to go to: endless wars, bailouts to giant banks, overly generous public employee pensions we cannot afford, subsidies to industries that can well fend for themselves, bridges and train tracks to nowhere, and welfare checks to people who are capable of working.

Not everyone can star on a reality show. Who wouldn't be in agreement with what laurencehauben wrote. But who determines "capable" and who is going to hire all of these "capable." Our economic system has never fully employed the nation; let alone hire those that are less than perfect.

"Permanent infancy" seems a rationalization, perhaps of the frustration and futility of your volunteerism. Perhaps you just weren't cut out for the job or volunteer work because social services work is frustrating because it is never ending. There will always be a certain number of people who will always need assistance. And that is what happens to many, many cannot conform to our elective corporate structured economy. It turns out that it is a lot of people.

Glad to hear you're against all this wall street corporate and oil company welfare though. That's really encouraging because that is where the really big money goes. Corporate executives at the top sometimes get paid too much too.

California has 12% of the US population and 30% of the welfare.
Until that gets cleanned up and only the people that really need welfare are getting it, we will continue to be in this mess.
And of course then there is pensions, government salaries, and the whole issue around senority and job security. And then there is the % of the California population is prison and at a cost well above (I think it is double) the US average.

After we fix all of the above we can go after the layers of government bureaucracy and lack of effectiveness.

Once that gets fixed CA should be swimming in money...but I am not holding my breath.

Free sterilizations for all!

Don,
The people I met in that Sacramento neighborhood just about broke my heart. They had been on public assistance for so long that they had no sense of initiative left. The right-wing would call them lazy. I saw people who were dis-empowered, depressed, convinced of their helplessness by a welfare system that had no interest in helping them graduate out of the various assistance programs. We need to differentiate between helping and enabling. Not all are capable of being rocket scientists or captains of industry, but almost everyone is capable of contributing something to society, even if it is just keeping the sidewalks of the neighborhood clean.
A friend once used this analogy: a Democrat sees a drowning man and throws him a lifebuoy, but lets go of the rope, leaving him to flounder. A Republican sees a drowning man and throws him a lifebuoy, keeps hold of the rope, but makes it too short, because swimming is good for you.
Both approaches have problems.

First of all, do some research on the Womens' Foundation and you'll find a group of self-congratulatory left-wingers focussed exclusively on womems' issues giving themselves awards for their selfless generosity.

But their political positions always seem to come down to spending other peoples' money. How 'bout working on financial and personal responsibility issues?

Why is CA spending so high? Duh. Because of its extremely attractive 'support' programs, i.e. giveaways, and excessive compensation to government employees at all levels.

Here is a point on which to focus: Try starting a business in California and compare it to trying to start a business in Nevada or Arizona. Businesses find California, and especially Santa Barbara, VERY unfriendly and it just isn't worth jumping through the hoops and paying Protection Money to the petty tyrants who run the government boondogle. When these businesses leave the state, the jobs go with them.

True dat. For example, I started a business 10 years ago which lost money for its first three years. Nevertheless, I had to pay $800 per year to the state of California in "income tax" (on non-existent income). Since my business is very locally oriented, I can't move it out of state. My income from this business amounts to minimum wage, significantly less than I pay my employees.

JohnLocke: And you didn't even tell us how much it cost to start up that business but I'll bet it cost an arm and a leg.

I was told be someone that they wanted to start up a dog kennel a number of years ago and by the time all the inspections were done they would have to pay somewhere around $10,000, and that didn't even ensure they would get their business license.

$50,000 in leasehold improvements.

Ouch.

Women can choose not to have sex with irresponsible sperm donors and therefore they do not need throw their lives into your model of lifelong welfare dependency.

Back to basics, Rose. Preach abstinence and procreation ONLY in a committed and financially responsible relationship. Otherwise your current hand-wringing is a waste of everyone's time, space and electrons. You are so dated, Rose.

If single-parent households are the best guarantee for life-long poverty, stop throwing money at the consequences and start attacking the cause. Start now, Rose. Start now. Go back and re-write your editorial.

Oblati: The premise of organized feminism (as opposed to true feminism--as feminism, like Christianity, has become corrupted by money and politics) is that women must have equal or even superior rights while at the same time believing that they are incapable of taking responsibility when given those rights.

The politics of victimization are alive and well here. Ironically, if more men honored their commitments to their wives and kids, maybe there wouldn't be so many angry feminists running around, but there is plenty of blame on both sides.