Posted on 05/17/2009 1:06:48 PM PDT by guyshomenet
Interesting concept.
When Mitch Daniels took over as Gov in Indiana 4 yrs ago, his first order of business was to de-unionize the state employees who had been organized into the UAW with the help of former Gov Evan Bayh.
Don’t know what it is currently, but here is something to consider:
http://www.calinst.org/bulletins/b1204.htm#_1_3
“On Monday, February 14, 2005, the California Institute released the latest report examining the fiscal relationship between California and Washington. Entitled “California’s Balance of Payments with the Federal Treasury: 1981-2003,” the report finds that California taxpayers sent $50 billion more in federal tax dollars to Washington in 2003 than the state received in federal spending for contracts, salaries & wages, grants to state and local governments, and direct payments such as social security and medicare. The discrepancy amounted to $1,409 for every Californian or 79 cents in federal spending for every $1 of federal taxes paid. The $50 billion number represents a new record for any state, but California’s donor-state status is not a complete surprise, given that the state is relatively young (a smaller percentage of older persons suppresses the share of Social Security and Medicare dollars) and relatively wealthy (higher incomes drive higher income tax payments). Relatively, the state also receives a far smaller proportion of federal defense contract spending than it did 20 years before.”
The report is available at http://www.calinst.org/pubs/balance2003.htm . Alternatively, a pdf version is available in two parts: the text and graphics are available at http://www.calinst.org/pubs/Bal03.pdf , and the accompanying tables at http://www.calinst.org/pubs/BalCht03.pdf .
Seems like California has been bailing out other states for a long time. Tide is just turning.
Sounds like a great idea to me. Flush the unions!!
By the tenor of the post, you're not kidding around as you often do. You're seriously perplexed.
I'm going to act as if the question wasn't rhetorical. Applying critical logic, there can only be variables or combination of variables to explain it.
1. We're insane (unable to employ reason or think rationally).
2. We're foolish (ignorant, uneducated, stupid etc).
3.We're becoming or have already become evil (greedy, covetous, selfish, immoral etc).
When in communion act in such illogical and immoral way, on such a large-scale, macro basis, at least one of the above or some combination of all three has be true. It's just math.
As some here have pointed out, California is the microcosm of where this is all headed. This won't end well.
When *we* in communion.
Their pension plans belong to the employees simply because taxes were paid before 10% was contributed to the pension fund twice a month. Excellent financial officers invested in good, strong stocks - no hedges or derivatives.
A year or two ago, dumb Arnie wanted to get his sticky fingers on the over 3 trillion in L.A. County's fund. The other day, he wanted to buy the Collesium. It isn't for sale.
I think the county did loan the city 30 million, which we'll probably never see again.
You can't have more people on welfare than contributors to the system. Duh! Anyone who runs for public office needs to be given an IQ test - heavy on both Federal and State Constitutions, along with a psychological and a polygraph exams.
So, please don't lump all unions together.
Correction: He wanted to sell it.
Does that mean that California will revert back to being a territory?
It's not so hard to imagine California's representatives supporting that... and possibly Oregon, Washington, and Nevada's as well (ie: hoping to keep the California hordes from fleeing their devastated home state)
Hmmm... wonder how that’d affect the electoral college?
Hey I resemble that remark. Not all of us are illegal Mexicans as the MSM would have you think...when they shout "Si Se Puede" (yes we can) they should be shouting "we already did!" and add "ruin this state"....
and we ran out of TP....
Juvenile writing like this is not effective at all. It may get a few yucks here on this site, but is meaningless. Phrases such as, “cleaning himself after visiting the little dictator’s room” is infantile and is something edited out of a junior high school newspaper. Serious people wanting to actually influence opinion don’t write like this. But, having said that, I agree, but then again, you aren’t trying to influence me.
>> “Your post triggered another thought: if the Feds bail out California, will Obama fire Arnold?”
Yeah... then turn control over to the AFSCME.
DG
Save the fish and destroy farming jobs. It’s the PC way.
"Ach der lieber......Obama gonna fire Ahnold? Ai gotda refife my caveer.
Ai gonna be dah singin' cowboy vit Chonnny and Wooty ass my sidekicks."
"Stahnd bi yoe man, geeve heem two arms tah cleeng to.
Undt sometheeg varm tah come home to vhen nights ees coldt undt lonely."
"Stahnd bi yoe man, undt show dah vorld you lov him.
Keep gifing awl dah lof you cahn; Stahnd bi yoe m-a-a-n."
The political temperature and backstabbing will go into high gear after the 4 initiatives to increase our taxes while giving more to illegals and the dregs of society get destroyed by California voters tomorrow.
With the exception of teachers and others on the tax dole, no one we have talked to has voted for (absentee) or will vote for these tax increases. A lot of retired teachers will be no voters, and they said a lot of their peers still voting and with a job will vote no.
..but the some of the teachers unions are voting against 1A because it limits their pay increases I believe....not because they are against raising taxes.
Read that somewhere.
From a Union Organization:
Prop. 1A has teacher groups divided
****************EXCERPT****************
A statewide ballot measure in the May 19 special election has created a big rift in the education world, even though an accompanying proposition would return $9.3 billion to public schools.
The powerful, 340,000-member California Teachers Association has endorsed Proposition 1A, one of six measures included in a bipartisan budget deal to address the state's $42 billion shortfall through 2010. The measure would cap spending and increase the size of California's "rainy day" fund — and, its supporters say, would likely prevent further immediate cuts to the state's public schools.
But one of the teacher group's largest local affiliates, the Oakland Education Association, has broken ranks on this issue. Other groups unhappy with the CTA's endorsement include the California Federation of Teachers, the California Faculty Association and the California School Boards Association. They say 1A appears to be just another quick fix that wouldn't solve the state's persistent budget problems, and that the spending caps would lock public schools into low funding levels and put public services and universities at greater risk of cutbacks.
"It's not comfortable to be in the position of disagreeing with our state organization," said Betty Olson-Jones, president of the Oakland Education Association, which represents about 2,800 teachers, counselors, nurses and librarians in the city's public schools.
Still, Olson-Jones said, "We really cannot, in all good conscience, support any measure that would cap and cut vital social services, because they are needed by our students." …
David Sanchez, president of the California Teachers Association, said that if these measures don't pass, state lawmakers would have to forge another agreement to balance the state budget — a process that could be disastrous for schools and the state as a whole.
AND
*******************************EXCERPT********************************
Teachers’ union representing California’s largest school district says permanent spending cap is “no real solution” to state’s budget woes
LOS ANGELES, CA – United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) today announced that the organization representing 48,000 public school teachers and health and human services professionals in the Los Angeles area opposes Prop 1A on the May 19 ballot. UTLA's House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to oppose the flawed and risky constitutional amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.