3 ms·

> Worse is the attempt to feed the state governments between five hundred to a trillion dollars to shore up budgets of states that are not even trying to clip t

> Worse is the attempt to feed the state governments between five hundred to a trillion dollars to shore up budgets of states that are not even trying to clip their expenditures This is so frustrating to me. States pretend like their budgets are sacrosanct and refuse to take any action to prepare themselves. They’ll milk every last drop from their constituents before they start cutting fat.

wins32767 6y ago
What fat do you think the states should cut? Can you give specific examples?
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  How about salaries and pensions? California spends more on their sweet-heart pension package than they do on education. Also any service that is temporarily furloughed because of shelter-at-home should have their employees furloughed as well. In other words they should experience the pain the same way as the rest of us.
- hiram112 6y ago
  Links like these that show the absurd salaries, pensions, etc. that public sector employees are making in junk-bond states like Illinois, NJ, NY, and California are a dime a dozen if you search Google News: * https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/10/26/illinois-100000-club-94000-six-figure-public-employees-and-retirees-cost-taxpayers-12b/#431de327481a https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/10/26/ill...
dragonwriter 6y ago
> States pretend like their budgets are sacrosanct and refuse to take any action to prepare themselves Very many states going into this had substantial rainy day funds, and many states have done what they can't to cut expense:service ratios while boosting services (sometimes under preprogrammed, federally-governed formulas, as for many state-federal confunded entitlements) such as employee pay cuts (like the furloughs in California). The idea that states have done nothing to prepare or that states aren't taking steps on their own is preposterous. States are structurally more limited than the feds in how they can financially respond to an urgent crises, and for that reason have always relied on the feds being part of that response, but they are not generally failing to do their part as far as financial steps; some are falling down on the public health parts, but mostly that's a result of pressure directed from the federal executive branch, not independent state intransigence or nonfeasance.

wins32767 6y ago

What fat do you think the states should cut? Can you give specific examples?

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
How about salaries and pensions? California spends more on their sweet-heart pension package than they do on education. Also any service that is temporarily furloughed because of shelter-at-home should have their employees furloughed as well. In other words they should experience the pain the same way as the rest of us.
hiram112 6y ago
Links like these that show the absurd salaries, pensions, etc. that public sector employees are making in junk-bond states like Illinois, NJ, NY, and California are a dime a dozen if you search Google News: * https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/10/26/illinois-100000-club-94000-six-figure-public-employees-and-retirees-cost-taxpayers-12b/#431de327481a https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/10/26/ill...

dragonwriter 6y ago

> States pretend like their budgets are sacrosanct and refuse to take any action to prepare themselves Very many states going into this had substantial rainy day funds, and many states have done what they can't to cut expense:service ratios while boosting services (sometimes under preprogrammed, federally-governed formulas, as for many state-federal confunded entitlements) such as employee pay cuts (like the furloughs in California). The idea that states have done nothing to prepare or that states aren't taking steps on their own is preposterous. States are structurally more limited than the feds in how they can financially respond to an urgent crises, and for that reason have always relied on the feds being part of that response, but they are not generally failing to do their part as far as financial steps; some are falling down on the public health parts, but mostly that's a result of pressure directed from the federal executive branch, not independent state intransigence or nonfeasance.