quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
I may be slightly off here Qwerty, but I think just the money spent on unfunded manditory Federal Requirements ALONE for California is larger than the entire state of Alabama's yearly budget.

And that is something that California for sure did not "chose to contend with."

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
I may be slightly off here Qwerty, but I think just the money spent on unfunded manditory Federal Requirements ALONE for California is larger than the entire state of Alabama's yearly budget.

And that is something that California for sure did not "chose to contend with."

I disagree. How many representatives does california send to the house of representatives? How many electorial votes do they have for the president? There is no state in the union that has more power at the federal level then california. Not even close.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
I may be slightly off here Qwerty, but I think just the money spent on unfunded manditory Federal Requirements ALONE for California is larger than the entire state of Alabama's yearly budget.

And that is something that California for sure did not "chose to contend with."

I disagree. How many representatives does california send to the house of representatives? How many electorial votes do they have for the president? There is no state in the union that has more power at the federal level then california. Not even close.

Can you try making a direct link between what I said and you said? Thanks, your response does not make sense to me.

What does the amount of Federal votes have to do with anything? California does not have the majority of votes anywhere... just a lot of votes... that never is unified in congress. Yes... we do actually have conservative Republicans representing us in the House... believe it or not.

quote:

I may be slightly off here Qwerty, but I think just the money spent on unfunded manditory Federal Requirements ALONE for California is larger than the entire state of Alabama's yearly budget.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:
All federal mandates pass the house of representatives for which California has a lions share of representation. If California didn't chose to deal with federal mandates it wouldn't have let them clear the house. Your premise only holds true for the time period 2006 onward. Some of these laws were passed as far back as the late 1980s and in the years following. The all time #1 killer for ANY of the 50 states is the fact that NO Hospital can turn away someone entering the Emergency Room regardless of their ability to pay. For states with high numbers of illegals, that is very, very expensive. California alone loses somewhere around $1 Billion/year for that law when all the lost revenue and uncompensated expenditures are considered. Florida and Texas are close behind. That law has forced 100s (literally) of ERs to close down across the nation creating a real safety hazard for all the rest of us. The #2 killer for the 50 states is the Primary and Secondary education requirement that even "illegal" children must be taught. The Fed does partially compensate that unfunded mandate... but only to the tune of a few dollars per student based on a formular for the total student population (citizen and illegal). Again, very minor assistance.

Neither of the above is desired by any State Government... not even California. I AM NOT TALKING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SUCH AS SAN FRANCISCO! Only the states themselves.

As for a lot vs a majority. California has a disporportionate number of reps in the house. It may not be the majority but its the biggest single block without contest. Yes, and they are made of of Conservative republicans/Democrats as well as the liberals you fear so much. Again... that DOES NOT make for a unified voting block. Check some of your more popular vote issues for Cal delegates and see for yourself.

To say they aren't responsible for their own missery is to make a whopper of an excuess. 9 times out of ten it is california driving those mandates in the first place. Take a look at the recent extension to SCHIP. Who led the way on that? Ohh thats right Pelosi from California. And she did it recently enough that the state's fiscal situation had to have been obvious at the time she passed it. But she did it anyway. Tell me how many California Reps voted against that? You are single issued focused... And is SCHIP unfunded? We are talking of UNFUNDED MANDATES... not just mandates in general.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

I may be slightly off here Qwerty, but I think just the money spent on unfunded manditory Federal Requirements ALONE for California is larger than the entire state of Alabama's yearly budget.

Are you suggesting that CA pays more per capita for UFRs? Good question! I know that California is used by the Fed to pay for other states programs. There is ample documentation to support that, including the article I linked to. But I think California, Florida, and Texas does hive a higher amount of undocumented people residing within their respective states on a per capita basis. So that answer could easily be affirmative. That the Federal government has discriminated against CA or somehow let AL off the hook? I think the Federal Government uses funds generated in states like California, Texas, and Florida to offset states like Alabama that do not have the same ability to pay an equal share (per capita). Feel free to cite some examples but I don't think so. Otherwise, I can't see where your comparison, even if valid, makes any difference ... CA's state budget (and population) is huge ... so anything within it is likely to be (relatively) huge as well. And that was my point for the other poster. Because of the sheer size differences, no one can make a logical argument comparing their own state's fiscal responses to that of California... or Texas, or even Florida. We (and the two mentioned) have problem issues that are not as readily found in other states... specifically of those found in the most economically disadvantaged states.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
The all time #1 killer for ANY of the 50 states is the fact that NO Hospital can turn away someone entering the Emergency Room regardless of their ability to pay. For states with high numbers of illegals, that is very, very expensive.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
Yes, and they are made of of Conservative republicans/Democrats as well as the liberals you fear so much. Again... that DOES NOT make for a unified voting block. Check some of your more popular vote issues for Cal delegates and see for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
You are single issued focused... And is SCHIP unfunded? We are talking of UNFUNDED MANDATES... not just mandates in general.

quote:

Originally posted by sw614:
I do not bad mouth California because of its ongoing fiscal issues, I bad mouth California due to it wanting all social services they can think of but do not want to fund them. I bad mouth California due to the sanctuary policies of some cities. I bad mouth California because of their continual leftists policies that hae contributed to their situation.

I like California because it is a beautiful state and I have enjoyed the times I have spent there.

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
The all time #1 killer for ANY of the 50 states is the fact that NO Hospital can turn away someone entering the Emergency Room regardless of their ability to pay. For states with high numbers of illegals, that is very, very expensive.

Again california's choice. They chose to offer sanctuary status. You really should prove that statement if you can. You are confusing a few CITIES with the state itself. And even with the "sanctuary" cities... Immigration is a function of the Federal Government and the Federal Government alone. No state may make or pass laws governing Immigration within their borders. To do so is an unconstitution infringment upon Federal powers. The Supreme Court has settled that dozens of times since the 1960s alone. So you are taking a "symbolic" gesture of a very few towns... and painting the entire state with the color. Is that honest of you?

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
Yes, and they are made of of Conservative republicans/Democrats as well as the liberals you fear so much. Again... that DOES NOT make for a unified voting block. Check some of your more popular vote issues for Cal delegates and see for yourself.

Maybe so. But it doesn't change the fact that their inability to work together for the benefit of california is their own problem and no one elses. Okay... that is true. And over 30 states have that very same problem including perhaps your state??? So whay are you personally singling out California? The media I understand... they do it because California has the 8th largest economy in the World and it's GDP, Taxes, etc., make up over 12% of the entire United States' resources. That is why they do it. Is that your reason too?

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
You are single issued focused... And is SCHIP unfunded? We are talking of UNFUNDED MANDATES... not just mandates in general.

I am not single issue focused, I simply use SCHIP as an example of recent legislation passed within the time period of this fiscal crisis. An issue that mandates state participation and co-funding. A program driven through the house by a california representative. Its but one of many. It just happens to be the most recent.

And your right. The issues do go back into the 80s and even far before that. But like SCHIP who is it cheerleading the way to expansions in these programs?

You have the power to fix your situation. But like your state assemblies your national representation is more interested in BUYING votes and playing politics then it is in the best interest of its citizens.

California's own worst enemy is itself. I am not going to fault that logic. My point was there were outside pressures on California finances that were not caused by the state. And that those pressures are not faced on an equal footing by every state in the Union.

That the state is more than willing to slit it's own fiscal throat... heck yes. The same way that over 30 other states are doing as we speak.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:

You really should prove that statement if you can. You are confusing a few CITIES with the state itself.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
And even with the "sanctuary" cities... Immigration is a function of the Federal Government and the Federal Government alone. No state may make or pass laws governing Immigration within their borders. To do so is an unconstitution infringment upon Federal powers. The Supreme Court has settled that dozens of times since the 1960s alone. So you are taking a "symbolic" gesture of a very few towns... and painting the entire state with the color. Is that honest of you?

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
Okay... that is true. And over 30 states have that very same problem including perhaps your state??? So whay are you personally singling out California? The media I understand... they do it because California has the 8th largest economy in the World and it's GDP, Taxes, etc., make up over 12% of the entire United States' resources. That is why they do it. Is that your reason too?

quote:

Originally posted by floersh:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:

You really should prove that statement if you can. You are confusing a few CITIES with the state itself.

If the state wanted to prevent that they could. We had a gun rights issue very similar here in Georgia where the state overruled the city of Atlanta. same could happen there if they wanted to. But they kinow the political cost and thus pass the buck and make excuesses.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
And even with the "sanctuary" cities... Immigration is a function of the Federal Government and the Federal Government alone. No state may make or pass laws governing Immigration within their borders. To do so is an unconstitution infringment upon Federal powers. The Supreme Court has settled that dozens of times since the 1960s alone. So you are taking a "symbolic" gesture of a very few towns... and painting the entire state with the color. Is that honest of you?

I am not familiar with the supreme court cases. I do know that illegal immigration is called illegal because there are laws on teh books. I also know that the state of Arizona has taken fairly extreme action against illegal immigration in recent years and to the best of my knowledge has not been swatted by the Fed nor the supreme court. Of course I could have missed it. California just likes to make excuesses.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:
Okay... that is true. And over 30 states have that very same problem including perhaps your state??? So whay are you personally singling out California? The media I understand... they do it because California has the 8th largest economy in the World and it's GDP, Taxes, etc., make up over 12% of the entire United States' resources. That is why they do it. Is that your reason too?

I am not singling out California. In fact you are the one that brought it up. I am simply squashing excuesses as that is all they are.

Ultimately if you get to the root of the problem it comes down to pizz poor representation by a two party system that seeks to demonize the other and buy off their own constituants as they seek to strengthen their temporary hold on power to damn with the long term consiquences of their actions. And that is the same whether it is Califnornia, Kansas, Georgia, or Alabama.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:

quote:

Originally posted by sw614:
I do not bad mouth California because of its ongoing fiscal issues, I bad mouth California due to it wanting all social services they can think of but do not want to fund them. I bad mouth California due to the sanctuary policies of some cities. I bad mouth California because of their continual leftists policies that hae contributed to their situation.

I like California because it is a beautiful state and I have enjoyed the times I have spent there.

About the only policy that I can agree with you on was the passage of Prop 13. But at the time, THAT WAS the response of the people to a state government running amoke and being fiscally not responsible.

quote:

Originally posted by TheTruth275:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related<

quote:

Originally posted by sw614:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtMarsh:

quote:

Originally posted by sw614:
I do not bad mouth California because of its ongoing fiscal issues, I bad mouth California due to it wanting all social services they can think of but do not want to fund them. I bad mouth California due to the sanctuary policies of some cities. I bad mouth California because of their continual leftists policies that hae contributed to their situation.

I like California because it is a beautiful state and I have enjoyed the times I have spent there.

About the only policy that I can agree with you on was the passage of Prop 13. But at the time, THAT WAS the response of the people to a state government running amoke and being fiscally not responsible.

Very true, Art. But now the bill is due and I do not see how they are going to get out of it.

quote:

Originally posted by scooter_mech:

quote:

Originally posted by TheTruth275:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related<

What the hell does this have to do with the topic. This is at least the second time "truth" has posted this story.

In 2003 California governor Grey Davis was recalled. A big reason for his removal was out of control spending. Grey Davis was recalled less a year after winning re-election. He wasn't recalled over the budget, or lack thereof, He was recalled because he handled the energy crisis both poorly and too late. Kinda like what folks thought about Bush when Bush was playing golf during a crisis... or whatever it was... Schwarzenegger was elected to replace him. Under his leadership, conditions have gotten much worse. He has bankrupted the state. I had nothing against the Governator but I did not support the means by which he came into office. Arnie has done okay as far as dealing with the Democrats and Republicans of the Legislature. I am not sure anyone can help them idjits.

Now I fear that Obama may be doing the same thing with the country. There is no way you can intelligently make any assessment on Obama's prowess in the hotseat. hasn't been enough time. Most of what we are seeing is a continuation of the economic conditions brought forth under the Bush reign. Lets see where we are at next january.

quote:

There is no way you can intelligently make any assessment on Obama's prowess in the hotseat. hasn't been enough time. Most of what we are seeing is a continuation of the economic conditions brought forth under the Bush reign. Lets see where we are at next january.