Why States Must Compete: New Jersey vs California

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, sure, Luns. Texas has more money now... and they have a drout, and a HORRIBLE education system, and a lot of other problems that keep getting pushed by the way side.

Are drouts something they teach kids about in the PA educational system?

That's what we call trouts here in PA (our "t"s sound like "d"s).

[Night Strike]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – After the 2001 terrorist attacks, California lawmakers sought a way to channel the patriotic fervor and use it to help victims' families and law enforcement. Their answer: specialty memorial license plates emblazoned with the words, "We Will Never Forget."

Part of the money raised through the sale of the plates was to fund scholarships for the children of California residents who perished in the attacks, while the majority -- 85 percent -- was to help fund anti-terrorism efforts.

But an Associated Press review of the $15 million collected since lawmakers approved the "California Memorial Scholarship Program" shows only a small fraction of the money went to scholarships. While 40 percent has funded anti-terror training programs, $3 million was raided by Gov. Jerry Brown and his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to plug the state's budget deficit.

Millions more have been spent on budget items with little relation to direct threats of terrorism, including livestock diseases and workplace safety.

Moreover, the California Department of Motor Vehicles has been advertising the plates as helping the children of Sept. 11 victims even though the state stopped funding the scholarship program seven years ago. The specialty plate fund continues to take in $1.5 million a year.

Californians who lost loved ones in the attacks take the raid on the license plate fund as an affront to the memory of those who died.

"I can't believe that they would do that," said Candice Hoglan, who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area and bought a plate to commemorate her nephew, Mark Bingham. "We're paying extra for the plate; we're making a point, and it means a lot to us."

Bingham was killed on United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, and was one of the passengers who led the attempt to wrest control from the hijackers. His mother, Alice Hoagland, also was troubled by the program's apparent drift from its original purpose.

"I'm sorry that as we retreat in time from 9/11, we seem to be retreating in our resolve never to forget," she said in a telephone interview.

The plates, which cost an initial $50 plus a $40 annual renewal fee, feature an American flag partially obscured by clouds and the "never forget" slogan. Residents of California, where all four jetliners were bound when they were hijacked, have bought or renewed the plates more than 200,000 times since 2002.

Of the other states directly associated with the 2001 attacks, only Virginia has established a similar specialty plate program. Yet it did not set up a special fund for the proceeds of its "Fight Terrorism" plate.

For the past decade, the California DMV has said on its website that the money will "fund scholarships for the children of Californians who died in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks and helps California's law enforcement fight threats of terrorism." It advertises the program with the slogan, "Be a patriot."

While the DMV description of the program was not "totally disingenuous," the department should probably remove references to the scholarship program, said Joe DeAnda, a spokesman for the state treasurer's office, which disburses the money.

"It's out of date and it's on DMV to update that," he said.

Late Friday, the department modified the description of the license plate on its website to remove the reference to the scholarship program in response to the investigation by the AP, which began in March. Spokeswoman Jan Mendoza said the reason promotional materials were not updated sooner was "unknown."

The DMV still lists the scholarship program on the online and hardcopy form drivers fill out to buy the license plates, but Mendoza said the department will change this next time the forms are printed.

The legislation establishing the plates had earmarked 15 percent of the revenue for scholarships.

Yet only $21,381 has reached the children and spouses of the three dozen California residents killed during the terrorist attacks. The state treasurer's office closed the scholarship program in 2005, the sign-up deadline for potential recipients, and has $60,000 in reserve.

The total amount dedicated to scholarships was 1.5 percent of the $5.5 million raised through the sale of the plates through 2005.

The original legislation said the remainder of the money would go to "law enforcement, fire protection, and public health agencies" to be used "exclusively for purposes directly related to fighting terrorism."

But in 2008, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, borrowed $2 million to close a budget gap. Last year, Brown, a Democrat, borrowed another $1 million.

Neither loan has been repaid nor are their deadlines to ensure they will be. Elizabeth Ashford, a spokeswoman for Brown, said the loans have done no harm.

"We're trying to simultaneously balance the budget and fund important programs," she said. "If there was an indication that borrowing this money was going to negatively impact this program, we wouldn't borrow the money."

The rest of the monee reading "WE R 4US," said she signed up for the program primarily to show respect for victims of the 9/11 attacks. Anderson said she was disheartened but not surprised to learn that much of the money has gone to fill the state deficit or used for general purposes.

"That's California," said Anderson, who now lives near Austin, Texas. "It's kind of a given these days -- nothing is spent on what it's supposed to be."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/29/california-11-fund-raided-to-plug-deficits-finance-other-programs/#ixzz1wJQJAxrd

[spurgistan]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. –
The rest of the monee reading "WE R 4US," said she signed up for the program primarily to show respect for victims of the 9/11 attacks.

You'd think Fox News could at least fill a story with things that resemble sentences in English. Even for not really being a news organization, there's just a low bar for putting out stuff people can read.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, a lot of the problems in California revolve around them treating illegal immigrants the exact same as state citizens, and in some cases even giving them special protections (like not requiring drivers licenses). California treats illegal immigrants better than it does US citizens from other states, which is a major part of why they're in debt and will continue to have a ballooning debt.

No illegal immigration is a nice target.... just as blaming the Irish, blaming the Chinese immigrants, etc....all made convenient target.

Its called diverting blame. Make people angry at those who really are victims themselves and ignore the ones that cause the problem.

As a very key example, note how you keep referring to "illegal immigrants" and pretty much ignore employers... and ignore the tangential benefit to bigger corporations who don't usually hire the illegal immigrants themselves, but who benefit from generally reduced costs that result from heavy illegal employment. (sometimes just in the industry as a whole and sometimes as contract labor/direct reductions from specific sources that use illegal employment).

But no, the bottom line is that as long as people refuse to consider that they do owe the country a portion of their success, to keep the infrastructure, the education and general way of life going... as long as its "me and not THEM...".... well, we have been through a time of highly limited government already. It GAVE us the Depression.

[PLAYER57832]

$3 million was raided by Gov. Jerry Brown and his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to plug the state's budget deficit.

So Arnold and Jerry were in cahoots all along?

And how is it that this money was taken? (hint CA operates by referendum)

[section deleted .........]

Aaah.. here we go:

But in 2008, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, borrowed $2 million to close a budget gap. Last year, Brown, a Democrat, borrowed another $1 million.

Neither loan has been repaid nor are their deadlines to ensure they will be. Elizabeth Ashford, a spokeswoman for Brown, said the loans have done no harm.

"We're trying to simultaneously balance the budget and fund important programs," she said. "If there was an indication that borrowing this money was going to negatively impact this program, we wouldn't borrow the money."

Not saying I think this was a great thing.. but why wasn't the fact that this was a loan mentioned up front?

[Night Strike]

$3 million was raided by Gov. Jerry Brown and his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to plug the state's budget deficit.

So Arnold and Jerry were in cahoots all along?

And how is it that this money was taken? (hint CA operates by referendum)

[section deleted .........]

Aaah.. here we go:

But in 2008, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, borrowed $2 million to close a budget gap. Last year, Brown, a Democrat, borrowed another $1 million.

Neither loan has been repaid nor are their deadlines to ensure they will be. Elizabeth Ashford, a spokeswoman for Brown, said the loans have done no harm.

"We're trying to simultaneously balance the budget and fund important programs," she said. "If there was an indication that borrowing this money was going to negatively impact this program, we wouldn't borrow the money."

Not saying I think this was a great thing.. but why wasn't the fact that this was a loan mentioned up front?

So it's ok that the state government is lying to its citizens since it's just a "loan" (that includes terms that will probably never be paid back)?

[Night Strike]

Actually, a lot of the problems in California revolve around them treating illegal immigrants the exact same as state citizens, and in some cases even giving them special protections (like not requiring drivers licenses). California treats illegal immigrants better than it does US citizens from other states, which is a major part of why they're in debt and will continue to have a ballooning debt.

No illegal immigration is a nice target.... just as blaming the Irish, blaming the Chinese immigrants, etc....all made convenient target.

Its called diverting blame. Make people angry at those who really are victims themselves and ignore the ones that cause the problem.

As a very key example, note how you keep referring to "illegal immigrants" and pretty much ignore employers... and ignore the tangential benefit to bigger corporations who don't usually hire the illegal immigrants themselves, but who benefit from generally reduced costs that result from heavy illegal employment. (sometimes just in the industry as a whole and sometimes as contract labor/direct reductions from specific sources that use illegal employment).

But no, the bottom line is that as long as people refuse to consider that they do owe the country a portion of their success, to keep the infrastructure, the education and general way of life going... as long as its "me and not THEM...".... well, we have been through a time of highly limited government already. It GAVE us the Depression.

I have always held the position that employers who hire illegal immigrants should be punished harshly.

And California has the highest (or near the top) income tax rate of any state in the nation. They have the harshest "environmental" taxes and regulations. If you want ALL people to owe a portion of what they earn to the state, why do you only want the rich to pay more in taxes? ALL people should pay taxes, not just the "rich". The greediest people are the ones who keep demanding that the government gives them more handouts, not the ones who are tired of paying the majority of their income to the government.

[Crazyirishman]

This thread is full of lolz

The core problem with California is the ideology of people that live there, it's not the politics themselves, but the mentality that trickles into the politics

[GreecePwns]

inb4 WHAT HOW DARE THEY?

[huamulan]

It's funny when white Americans whine about immigration.

Do people in the USA really pay a 'majority' of their income to the government or is that a massive exaggeration?

[Night Strike]

It's funny when white Americans whine about immigration.

Do people in the USA really pay a 'majority' of their income to the government or is that a massive exaggeration?

Very few people whine about immigration. It's the illegal immigration that people of all colors should be upset about and work to stop. Those are two HUGELY different things.

And yes, there are some people who pay close to or more than half their income in taxes. The top federal tax bracket is 35% (39.6% if Obama gets his way), Social Security and Medicare taxes are about 6%, and some states have state income taxes of 9-11%. Even some cities have income taxes on both their residents and the people who work in those cities. That all could add up to more than 50% in such areas, and some people even factor in property taxes and sales taxes as part of their overall tax total.

[huamulan]

What's the difference between illegal and legal immigrants? The lack of tax paid by the illegals? Because judging by some of your other posts a tax-less work arrangement is your ultimate fantasy.

[Woodruff]

It's funny when white Americans whine about immigration.

Do people in the USA really pay a 'majority' of their income to the government or is that a massive exaggeration?

Very few people whine about immigration. It's the illegal immigration that people of all colors should be upset about and work to stop.

They are two very different things, but we shouldn't be working to STOP it (that will never happen), we should be working to FIX it. One way to do a significant inroad in that direction is to stop making it so bloody time-consuming to become a citizen of this country. It is flat-out ridiculous how long the process takes.

And yes, there are some people who pay close to or more than half their income in taxes. The top federal tax bracket is 35% (39.6% if Obama gets his way), Social Security and Medicare taxes are about 6%, and some states have state income taxes of 9-11%. Even some cities have income taxes on both their residents and the people who work in those cities. That all could add up to more than 50% in such areas, and some people even factor in property taxes and sales taxes as part of their overall tax total.

In other words, no.

[Woodruff]

What's the difference between illegal and legal immigrants? The lack of tax paid by the illegals? Because judging by some of your other posts a tax-less work arrangement is your ultimate fantasy.

No. Legal immigrants are here legally. Illegal immigrants are not here legally. It's fairly self-explanatory.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, a lot of the problems in California revolve around them treating illegal immigrants the exact same as state citizens, and in some cases even giving them special protections (like not requiring drivers licenses). California treats illegal immigrants better than it does US citizens from other states, which is a major part of why they're in debt and will continue to have a ballooning debt.

No illegal immigration is a nice target.... just as blaming the Irish, blaming the Chinese immigrants, etc....all made convenient target.

Its called diverting blame. Make people angry at those who really are victims themselves and ignore the ones that cause the problem.

As a very key example, note how you keep referring to "illegal immigrants" and pretty much ignore employers... and ignore the tangential benefit to bigger corporations who don't usually hire the illegal immigrants themselves, but who benefit from generally reduced costs that result from heavy illegal employment. (sometimes just in the industry as a whole and sometimes as contract labor/direct reductions from specific sources that use illegal employment).

But no, the bottom line is that as long as people refuse to consider that they do owe the country a portion of their success, to keep the infrastructure, the education and general way of life going... as long as its "me and not THEM...".... well, we have been through a time of highly limited government already. It GAVE us the Depression.

I have always held the position that employers who hire illegal immigrants should be punished harshly.

And California has the highest (or near the top) income tax rate of any state in the nation. They have the harshest "environmental" taxes and regulations. If you want ALL people to owe a portion of what they earn to the state, why do you only want the rich to pay more in taxes? ALL people should pay taxes, not just the "rich". The greediest people are the ones who keep demanding that the government gives them more handouts, not the ones who are tired of paying the majority of their income to the government.

I actually don't say that only the rich should pay more. I say that the wealthy should pay more and you stomp in with "they already pay more than their share".

The answer is that a CEO of a logging company that destroys 4 watersheds has a MUCH higher public debt than someone manning the register at Real Goods.

Looking at a flat income tax to fix problems is itself part of the problem. I have always advocated for people paying for the damage they cause directly.

[Night Strike]

I actually don't say that only the rich should pay more. I say that the wealthy should pay more and you stomp in with "they already pay more than their share".

The answer is that a CEO of a logging company that destroys 4 watersheds has a MUCH higher public debt than someone manning the register at Real Goods.

Looking at a flat income tax to fix problems is itself part of the problem. I have always advocated for people paying for the damage they cause directly.

Then pay for the damages. Don't make every richer person may more money to the government simply because they make more money.

[huamulan]

'No. Legal immigrants are here legally. Illegal immigrants are not here legally. It's fairly self-explanatory.'

That's your problem with them? Anyone who breaks any law is automatically BAD?

[Woodruff]

'No. Legal immigrants are here legally. Illegal immigrants are not here legally. It's fairly self-explanatory.'

That's your problem with them? Anyone who breaks any law is automatically BAD?

By "your problem" are you referring to me specifically or the nation at large?

The answer is very different, depending.

[huamulan]

You specifically. You're the one who is speaking out against illegal immigrants in this case.

[Woodruff]

You specifically. You're the one who is speaking out against illegal immigrants in this case.

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Care to check again?

[huamulan]

I was asking Night Strike why immigration and illegal immigration are such 'HUGELY' different things. He clearly has a big problem with illegal immigration but is okay with regular immigration. I was trying to clarify why.

When you joined in I assumed you were helping clarify what the problem with illegal immigrants is. Apparently you were not.

[Woodruff]

I was asking Night Strike why immigration and illegal immigration are such 'HUGELY' different things. He clearly has a big problem with illegal immigration but is okay with regular immigration. I was trying to clarify why.

When you joined in I assumed you were helping clarify what the problem with illegal immigrants is. Apparently you were not.

Actually, I was. Whether I agree or disagree with a situation is hopefully irrelevant to my understanding of that situation. Do you really feel that unless I agree with a situation that I cannot understand the situation?

Truth be told, I'm pretty "middling" on the situation. Illegal immigration IS a problem for this country, but there are many reasons why and there are some things that would go a long way toward fixing the problem (such as the "shorter time for legally immigrating" that I mentioned previously) or at least putting it into a reasonable position. As things stand now, the official stance on illegal immigration in the U.S. is really untenable and unreasonable, in my opinion, and has been for quite some time.

[PLAYER57832]

As things stand now, the official stance on illegal immigration in the U.S. is really untenable and unreasonable, in my opinion, and has been for quite some time.

This is absolutely true. I am interested in why you think shortening the time to become a citizen would help, since illegal aliens are now not eligible for citizenship. (but maybe that belongs in another thread)

[PLAYER57832]

I actually don't say that only the rich should pay more. I say that the wealthy should pay more and you stomp in with "they already pay more than their share".

The answer is that a CEO of a logging company that destroys 4 watersheds has a MUCH higher public debt than someone manning the register at Real Goods.

Looking at a flat income tax to fix problems is itself part of the problem. I have always advocated for people paying for the damage they cause directly.

Then pay for the damages. Don't make every richer person may more money to the government simply because they make more money.

OH please! You don't want anyone to pay more! Any time I come in with specific damages various corporations and such cause, you chime in with that old saw about how I just want wealthy to pay more.

Those at the top are not, as you claim over-taxed, unless you look at very narrow definitions of what constitutes income. THAT is a big part of the problem.

Per the "pay for damages". Nice try, but you cannot ask one person to restore the income of 5 generations of families of fishermen, tourism dollars or any of the other losses that have come from the paradigm that says "prove to me unequivacobly that you are causing direct and immediate damage, in court or I will continue to do just as I please and you can just wait for any payment of damages..... later."

Beyond that, from a banking/economic standpoint, many of the wealthiest should pay more becuase their "work" is not work. It mostly is just usary that does not truly benefit society. They produce nothing, they create nothing, they just skim money off of those who do work.

[Woodruff]

As things stand now, the official stance on illegal immigration in the U.S. is really untenable and unreasonable, in my opinion, and has been for quite some time.

This is absolutely true. I am interested in why you think shortening the time to become a citizen would help, since illegal aliens are now not eligible for citizenship. (but maybe that belongs in another thread)

Per parents that I've spoken with who happen to be in this country as illegal immigrants, they WANTED to follow the legal process for becoming a citizen, but when they saw the ridiculous timeframe involved, their desperation to get out of (specifically Columbia and Mexico) drove them to move here illegally instead. If the timeframe were a more reasonable one, then those sorts of people would be much more willing to "hang on" in their current location long enough to get it done legally. There really is no good reason why the process should take as long as it does.