| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| “Where California goes today, the rest of the nation goes tomorrow” |
| 2011-01-19 |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #7 Giving appointed federal bankruptcy judges power over elected state governments would raise some serious federalism issues. Might be approached by putting the former state known as California into Territorial status while under bankruptcy receivership. Now, that may be questionable only to strict interpretation of the Constitution, but the Left Coasties believe in a 'Living Breathing' document open to such interpretations. Territories do not get to vote in Congress. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-01-19 20:14 |
| #6 I strongly agree with the title statement. Some government unions have E-X-T-O-R-T-E-D pensions of 90% of wages, after 25 years of service. Five ex-chiefs of California legal services are getting pensions of over $500,000 per year. Reminder: court-officer form 0.08% of the population; you form 99.92%. Who would you bet on? Do the politics: Extortion + Bankruptcy = Pension Degradaton. Frankly, it is already in the cards in the "Golden State." The Guv is just waiting to pounce on the parasites. |
| Posted by: Albert Slinesing7956 2011-01-19 17:21 |
| #5 The US Bankruptcy Code has a provision for dealing with an insolvent municipality (city, town, county, township, and such), but not with insolvent states. Giving appointed federal bankruptcy judges power over elected state governments would raise some serious federalism issues. Might want to think about that one for a while before legislating anything. |
| Posted by: Mike 2011-01-19 14:24 |
| #4 oversimplified ballot language tends to obscure more than it clarifies The flip side of Pelosiism: "We mustn't pass the legislation because we understand it." |
| Posted by: charger 2011-01-19 12:56 |
| #3 oversimplified ballot language tends to obscure more than it clarifies Meaning the folks who write the explanations will have to get over their denial? |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-01-19 12:38 |
| #2 A far more useful reform would be reining in the excesses of direct democracy. On contentious social issues, referenda and initiatives may be beneficial, but on more technical aspects of government, oversimplified ballot language tends to obscure more than it clarifies. This is where the writer lost me. The people who fight reasonable ballot measure and who promote spendthrift ballot measures are the same people who have a strangle hold on the legislature. These, of course, are the usual suspects. The public employee unions, the CTA, etc. It's like the guy is telling the people to stand aside and let the politicians keep on screwing us over the way they always have. I don't buy it. I've said it before, Nothing worthwhile ever gets done in this state unless the people are able to bypass the legislature. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2011-01-19 12:25 |
| #1 I would have to guess a general tax increase will increase the costs of goods/services which originate in or travel through California; I understand the solution is likely both cutting spending and raising taxes but as a Made USA consumer there are products from CA (mostly but not exclusively agriculture) I would hate to see shift from affordable to luxery. Is there an accepted format in case of a bankruptcy? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-01-19 11:50 |