3 ms·
That doesn't address his point: "Shouldn’t it be possible to run the state on 10.5 percent of income?". I think it most certainly should. As a human being I'm
by holygoat 17y ago
That doesn't address his point: "Shouldn’t it be possible to run the state on 10.5 percent of income?". I think it most certainly should.
As a human being I'm responsible for managing my own budget: if I spend more than I earn, I suffer the consequences. Government, including California's, doesn't seem to view reducing outgoings as a possibility, and thus is obsessed with increasing incomings. One of its approaches to doing so has been to maintain a high tax rate.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- krakensden 17y agoAren't they required by the California constitution to maintain certain percentages of spending for education? Among other things? You have to weigh reduced spending with the consequences of that, and sometimes maybe running a deficit is better. That's not to paint too rosy a picture- California is doing plenty of absurd things with its money, but much of that is mandated by the propositions, not a choice by the legislature (Three strikes means more, unavoidable, prison expenses, the high speed rail bond fiasco, the extravagant research bonds that inevitably get approved and squandered).