California State Agencies

  • caseyboy

    Staggering! They all have a budget I assume. Think about the legislation that passed to create these agencies. Mountains of paper. And then the rules and regulations issued by the agencies themselves and another Mt Everest in paper. I hope today's vote starts on a path to limited government.

  • Doug

    "On a path to limited government"? In California? Are you crazy? Everyone here simply KNOWS that the reason the state is on the verge of fiscal collapse is because there's not ENOUGH government in government. Only more government can save us. Think I'm making this up? Just watch the election results and see what color California is on 11/3....

  • ADiff

    It sure sounds like they have "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass [their] people, and eat out their substance", doesn't it.

    But "they wanted it thus", apparently, as we learn this morning California ballot initiative AB23 was resoundingly defeated. If I were from California I'd probably consider that just the final "nail in the coffin", but as an Arizonian I look at it as (probably) good news. We'll be happy to provide a more conducive business environment to any and all firms seeking to escape the additional operating costs Californians have chosen to impose on businesses there!

  • Jeff

    I believe California refuses to cut their government because they expect a bailout. Their electoral votes make them "to big to fail".

  • Here's a link to a pdf chart of all those agencies and where fit in California's government hierarchy: http://www.cold.ca.gov/Ca_State_Gov_Orgchart.pdf

  • caseyboy

    Jeff, the problem for CA is that the US House goes under Republican control in January 2011. So unless the lame duckers can get an aid package for CA through congress in the next 2 months, CA will be in for a very unpleasant surprise. And with 17 more Republican Governors coming in to power you can bet the states will raise hell if US income taxes, paid by their constituents are used to bailout CA. I can't envision how a bailout happens now given the mood of the electorate. Good luck Jerry Brown you are going to need it.

  • Doug

    Ah, but you non-Californians fail to understand our secret weapon: we now have Jerry Brown at the helm again! Good times are just around the bend. Again.

    I have a good friend who has a business making race cars. Prop. 23 had him scared to death. Reality has set in this morning, and his business is about to be crushed. He will, indeed, have to either retire or pick up and move out of state, taking his 8-employee payroll with him. No doubt these same ex-employees will find jobs in the burgeoning green energy business (that Prop. 23 supporters touted) that is sure to flourish now!

    I've never personally witnessed civil strife, but I am certain to do so pretty soon.

  • ADiff

    Doug,

    You should tell him that Arizona and Texas are great places for such a business, with distinct advantages for the race car business...of course the climate's not quite southern California, but like the song says "call some place paradise, kiss it good-bye".

  • Jeff

    Casey,

    I'm a cynic. The republicans want those 55 electoral votes just as bad as the democrats. In the end, I expect California, Illinois, and New York to get their bailouts. Sure, Boehner will wring his hands, scold the states to fix their budgets, and promise to never, ever, ever do this again.

    But in the end, they'll bail them out.

    It doesn't matter if there's an R or a D after their name. Buying votes with other people's money is all these guys know how to do.

    Jeff

  • Doug

    Jeff: you haven't been paying attention to California politics, have you? When was the last time California sent its electoral votes to a republican? Answer: 1988.

    I've long maintained that you could run Stalin, Mao, or Saddam Hussein for any high office in California. If you stuck a "-D" after his name, he'd still take the state in a landslide.

  • Ted Rado

    The talk of a bailout for California raises some interesting political questions. Here in Oklahoma, we have a balanced budget amendment. This, together with a "rainy day fund" and considerable belt tightening, has allowed us to get through the economic storm reasonably well.

    Oklahoma is one of the lowest income States in the Union. To ask us "Okies" to pay more federal taxes to bail out one of the richest States, which spends money like a drunken sailor, is absurd. If you think this last election was a "tsunami" against the entrenched US politicians, just try a California bailout an see what happens.

    If the Californians want to keep their fingers on their self-destruct button, thay can do so at their own expense.

  • Jeff

    Actually, I pay close attention to politics. Close enough to know that presidential election politics drives some of the most stupid policies on earth. Yes, the idea of Republican's pandering to California doesn't make any sense, but remember, this is the party that nominated Bob Dole and John McCain.

  • Not Sure

    Ted Radio:

    According to The Tax Foundation, in 2005 (most recent data available), Federal spending received per dollar of taxes collected in California was $0.78.

    In Oklahoma, it was $1.36.

    I'm sure Californians would be happy to stop subsidizing you guys anytime. How about it?

  • Every time they tell you that failure to pass a new tax will mean cuts to police and fire departments, understand that they are saying that the "California Task Force on Culturally and Linguistically Competent Physicians and Dentists", the "California Acupuncture Board", and the "California Spatial Information Library " are more important than police and fire protection. And that every single other agency on that list is also more important. It's out of the question to cut even one of those, but police and fire departments? Meh, they're expendable.

  • Ted Rado

    Not Sure: You are correct. Nobody should subsidize another. I don't know what the federal spending in Oklahoma goes for. Because of the mild climate and low population, there are a lot of military facilities here. If there is some egregious robbing of others to subsidize OK, it should be stopped.

  • Not Sure

    Ted Radio:

    "If there is some egregious robbing of others to subsidize OK, it should be stopped."

    Agreed. For all states, and all people.

    I think what we need to get away from is the idea it's one state vs. another, when it's actually the rulers vs. the ruled.

    Regardless of where you live, the people in government who *Know Better* (both R's and D's) are the ones who have got us in the position we are in. The sooner this is recognized, the sooner we can get on with fixing the problem.

  • Ted Rado

    The basic problem is that many consider the government as a source of freebies. Not so. The government takes from the citizens and passes out this money so as to get them the most votes. Every dollar one gets from the government came out of some taxpayer's pocket. Yet we collectively believe that the government "gives" us something. What blithering nonsense! Yet we buy it, voting for those who promise to "give" us the most. The pols are liars and we voters are idiots to believe it. There is no such thing as a free lunch!

  • caseyboy

    Not Sure - Your numbers are correct, but the monies that flow back to the states includes the payroll paid to Federal employees located there. Certainly government jobs held in OK has a positive impact on the state, but there is a quid pro quo, services rendered for payment received. An economic transaction of sorts. There is no equivalency in a bailout of CA or any state.

    Doug - you may be more cynical than me. Even republicans know they can't pry electoral votes away no matter what they do. A bailout of CA, NY or IL would create a constitutional crisis and could result in states presenting formal articles of secession under breech of the 10th amendment. Remember the republicans will dominate state government and the mandate seems clear to me.