This is not to say there’s not a ton of money that California spends which isn’t necessary to provide a high level of government services. I’m certain there’s a ton of waste in the budget; several good examples have come up in this thread. But Californian voters have had a major role in creating this mess, both by directly voting for more spending than our tax revenues will support, and by reelecting legislators and governors who can’t or won’t spend the state’s budget efficiently.

Also, it’s hard to argue that these pay packages have any rationality other than “because our union can muscle it through”. Other than some sort of “working class heroism” argument, what possible rationale is there for paying these people so much? Their packages are frequently better than the compensation packages for four-star generals.

One aside: an unfortunate result of term limits was even more union power by weakening the state legislature, which is why I’m not a big fan of term limits as a cure to what ails us nationally.

And for the “love it or leave it” argument, I love my state and am not interested in leaving. I thought the “put up or leave” arguments were reserved for us evil right wingers :)

You offer an honorable and vigorous argument from the left of center, but you fail to recognize one fact. Much of the govt spending in California is NOT for service to the general public, but to PAY the salaries and incomes and pensions of bureaucrats . The bureaucracy — like the Blob with Steve McQueen — is growing and growing and growing, while the private sector producers will start to leave the state.

I don’t say this as a right-winger, I’m pretty much a center left type of dude.

It’s a similar problem to the bussing movement by the left in the 70′s. It sounded like a good idea. I like integrated schools. But, in fact, people who don’t want their kids bussed will simply moved to the burbs or send them to private school.

–HB

You seem to equate low taxes with no money for public services and this simply isn’t the case. I live in Texas, a state with no income tax, and our services aren’t lacking.

In fact, for 2008, Texas was responsible for the majority of all job creation in the nation. This is a fact.

Low taxes means more businesses, and more businesses mean more jobs, and more jobs means more tax payers.

And more tax payers means more money for… wait for it…

PUBLIC SERVICES

So, I’m sorry, but your argument is partisan bunk.

“California voters have consistently voted for high services and low taxes…”

Do those “high services” include, if memory serves, $14 million for a study on sea otters? Or the $45 BILLION on a new train system? A train system no one will use because everyone in the state WANTS to drive! Did California suddenly think it was New York?

Billions upon billions are blown on the most absurd projects in your state and the citizens aren’t getting a thing for it.

Really, your argument is patently and proveably absurd.

One of the major problems in California is its tax revenue stream is mostly based on income and sales taxes, which are very volatile. The so called “car tax” which was more stable was cut to almost nothing, and property tax rates are very, very low, especially on commercial property that has not changed hands in many years.

If you don’t like taxes in California, by all means get the heck out of the state. I understand house are cheap right now in Las Vegas.

But, hey, things can’t be too bad, economically.

Santa Clara County City council (San Jose area) just voted to jointly finance a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers that would use city redevelopment money, tax hotel money and quote ” other funds” (from the local taxpayers ) to help subsidize a new 900 Million Dollars (US) football stadium.

Government is good. Everyone should love government.

It’s your friend when others are not your friend.

Even Guv. Arnold Schwarzenkennedy who supported all those lovable propositions was in Washington peddling the same economic malarkey has heard the voice of the CA voters.

He said, he heard the anger of the California voters.

Shouldn’t we all feel good about that ?

As a government, with a captive revenue stream, its politicians can basically do whatever sounds nice to the fluffy bunny crowd and local editorial writers (sorry for being redundant) and wins points with the unions, and tomorrow’s voters be damned.

When governments fail, they should go bankrupt and be reorganized, just like companies.

Isn’t it unethical to allow past agreements to cripple present and future economic stability? Situations change. And agreement made when it was financially responsible to do so should be open to be revisited when keeping that promise threatens the existance on the promising body.

Ethics don’t enter into it. Especially when keeping “promises” fall upon the wallet of people outside of California.

I am not a citizen of California. Why should I have to pay for California’s inability to keep its promises to its citizens?

Isn’t that more unethical? And, in the final analysis, isn’t that the very definition of taxation without representation? My tax money (more than likely) is going to the State of California and I have no say in how the state gets to spend the money.

Sorry, the graver sin is Washington giving my money to a state I have no say in running.

Better they cut pensions then ask 49 states to bail them out.

sorry my comment was vague — i more or less agree with eric’s clarification. if an employee signed up with a defined benefits package, it is unethical to deny it to them later on. capping the pensions or providing alternative retirement plans like 401k deals is reasonable that’s what’s agreed upon at the outset.