Deficit Reduction Made Simple

Deficit Reduction Made Simple—-For Simpletons.

The left in tax projections are the masters of trend line analysis. They assume that every dollar earned last year will be their the following year and every year thereafter. The taxpayer will just bend over and not make any choices to delay or reduce taxable income. They also assume that raising the level of taxes will have zero impact on consumer spending and economic growth.

There is one and only one item of which the government has control of and that is spending.

“Over the longer term — 20 years — letting all of the Bush cuts lapse would close only about 40 percent of the budget gap. But 40 percent is a great start. No one is seriously suggesting that all deficit reduction should come from higher taxes. Much of it will have to come from slowing the growth rate of medical spending, which is the main cause of the long-term deficit.”

.
What part of “letting ALL of the Bush cuts lapse would close only about 40 percent of the budget gap” is so difficult to understand? This means there is still 60% outstanding.
.
The main cause of the debt is purely spending. Period. We spend too much on everything.
.
Passing a credible tax system, based in a flat or fair tax, with major……repeat MAJOR spending cuts by limiting the size and scope of the Federal government is the only way to solve the debt problem.

First of all, if Congress does nothing we’ll have no appropriations bills for fiscal 2012. The reason the govt almost shut down a few days ago was because we had no appropriations bills for 2011. The bill that is supposed to be passed in the next day or so, embodying the Obama surrender, is an appropriations bill. That will get us to September 30 of this year. If we do nothing more, government will then grind to a halt. (Actually, it won’t take that long. If we do no more, we’ll run out of debt ceiling in a month or two. Yawanna see the mother of all crashes? Don’t raise the debt ceiling.)

What Leonhart and others (he’s hardly the only one) are talking about is letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, exactly as all of them would have done at the end of 2010 if not for another Obama surrender. That’s like a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean — a good start. But it’s only a start.

The Freep is correct, at least in general principle, in pointing out that raising tax rates won’t yield a dollar-for-dollar increase in revenue. It will have some depressive effect on the economy, and it will also prevent some discretionary transactions that would otherwise occur, and be taxed. But of course the same people who understand this and point it out are the people who seem to think that tax cuts can perform magic — that the revenue forgone by higher rates is more than offset by the revenue from the increased economic activity generated by the lower rates. That is fantasy of the most egregious sort.

Robert Heinlein had it right: TINSTAAFL – There is no such thing as a free lunch. We can suck it up or we can go down the drain. Ryan would take us down one drain. Let’s hope Obama offers us more than an alternative drain.

“Let’s hope Obama offers us more than an alternative drain.”

.
The Obama “drain” is to raise taxes, period. No cuts to spending, simply raise more revenue.
.
The previous thread / post explains the liberal approach, and it all boils down to taxing people more and more. That is always the solution, history has also proven that is always the solution for liberals. And, it does nothing to tackle the real problem.
.
The real problem IS our tax code and how it has been manipulated by the special interest groups lobbying the Legislative and Executive branches.
.
If you truly want the big corporations and fat cats on wall street to pay their fair share of taxes, then pass a flat across the board tax on everything. Pass a balanced budget amendment that puts caps on the amounts that can be spent. Hand that to the Legislative Branch and the President and say “We the People have decided, this is all you get from us and this is all you can spend”.

Rusty — A lot of the problem is on the spending side, although I know you and I disagree strongly on where the cuts ought to come. (Let’s save that one for another day.) But it is also true that our national tax burden is actually low in comparison to most countries with roughly comparable individual affluence.

There are many functions that are most economically performed by government, whether by government employees, contractors funded with tax money, or in the form of more-or-less outright subsidies. That it is difficult to figure out the correct mix is evidenced both by the strong disagreements within and between the parties and by the effort that went into the recent spending cuts.
.
So there are two mixes for consideration — the mix of spending cuts and revenue increases necessary to trim the deficit, and the mix within the spending cuts and tax increases. We could, for example, abolish DOD and disarm. Or we could take away in taxes the first $25,000 of everyone’s income (which would leave everyone who earns $25,000 or less with no money). Now obviously neither of those is going to happen. But we have to do something.
.
Is there a reasonable middle ground? I suppose that depends on what you mean by “reasonable middle ground.” I have my definition, you have yours, and they’re undoubtedly far apart. It is in great measure because I see no way to bridge the gap between those who believe as you do and those who believe as I do that I think we’re already circling one drain or another.
.
But whatever else you say, don’t deceive yourself that this is easy. If it were easy, it would have been done long ago.

“. But of course the same people who understand this and point it out are the people who seem to think that tax cuts can perform magic”
.
I do not believe they are magic. I do believe that the higher tax rates are and the more the government tries to pick winners and losers through the tax code more productive resources are wasted in tax avoidance (legal & illegal) that could otherwise be harnessed for economic growth & jobs.

I do agree that the major issue is the tax code. I remember I was at a dinner with then Sen. Bill Bradley and we had a great discuss of just what you suggest. Make the tax code broad and flat. He also explained the difficulty in doing it and how it must be phased in over time. The problem and probably the biggest issue is once the tax code is re-done any changes by Congress should require unanimous consent before any changes to it. Otherwise Congress left to their own devices will meddle putting back to what we have now. The tax code is to raise revenues to provide necessary services not for social engineering.

One example of what we need government and taxes for –

Pennsylvania continues to lead the nation in the number and percentage of structurally deficient bridges – those rated “poor” in some part of the support structure or deck.

A recent report by Transportation for America, a group that advocates for more federal transportation funding, listed Pennsylvania as worst in the nation with 26.5 percent of its bridges structurally deficient (5,906 of 22,271). New Jersey ranked 27th, slightly better than average, with 10.3 percent of its bridges structurally deficient (674 of 6,517).

But in 2011, after four years of rising numbers of bridge-repair projects and three years of an “accelerated bridge repair” program, Pennsylvania will do less with less.

The state Department of Transportation plans to fix 320 structurally deficient bridges in 2011, compared with 577 in 2010, according to department projections. It plans to spend $780 million on bridges in 2011, down from $923 million in 2010.

In Pennsylvania, all 10 of the busiest deficient bridges are in Philadelphia or Montgomery County. Six are on I-95 between the Betsy Ross Bridge and Port Richmond, and three are on the Blue Route (I-476) between West Conshohocken and Plymouth Meeting. The busiest is a Pennsylvania Turnpike bridge just east of the Willow Grove interchange.

The six I-95 bridges will cost about $570 million to fix, part of a larger $1.4 billion tab for repairing that stretch of I-95. Figuring out how to pay to rebuild I-95 through Southeast Pennsylvania will be one of the biggest challenges for Corbett and legislators; one recurrent proposal is to make I-95 a toll road to provide repair funds.

Stimulus funds were used recently to begin to address the problem, but they are gone. The bridge that was listed as worst in the state was repaired with the first stimulus money. Since it is one I travel at least once a week, I was glad that was done before it collapsed.

Only one of the worst is on a toll road – the rest are on interstates. These bridges are heavily used by trucks bringing goods to consumers, for example. How would we deal with this problem without tax money?

I read the Leonhardt piece yesterday and think it has a lot of merit. Alas, as bobell pointed out we need to have a budget and appropriations before that would happen.

I understand the opposition from the Republicans in Congress to letting the tax cuts expire. After all, they have made a lot of money from them over the years. I don’t understand the opposition from people who (I assume) don’t make over $250,000 per year. Goodness knows taxing dividends at 15% instead of ordinary income has benefitted me, but I was doing fine when they were taxed as income. The fact that millions made by hedge fund managers manipulating money is taxed at the 15% rate is wrong. That is a loophole that should be fixed. However, I suspect that if the code is tinkered with, the home mortgage interest deduction will go before that one.

Freak, seriously, I have been explaining to you over and over again how deficits work. At least you had the common sense not to use the utter stupid line: “we have a spending problem”. But you might as well have.
.
Taxes are a tool to get deficits under control, Bill Clinton used it very successfully in the 90′s. You might want to check upon that era. W Bush did the same thing very successfully by cutting rates which promptly resulted in an increase of deficits.
.
The BS line that lower taxes will pay for itself, or “the trickle down theory” has been proven false time and time again by what actually happened. So spare me this spending crap.
.
The solution will have to come from spending cuts and higher taxes including for those making less than 250k)

See 1.1

By law Act 44 of 2007 the Turnpike Commission was to pay to PennDOT $750 mil in 2007-08, $850 mil in 2008-09 and $900 mil in 2009-10. That comes to about $2.5 bill in the last 3 years.

Where did those funds go? No doubt sucked up by the Davis-Bacon law or perhaps the Turnpike still supporting an antiquated staffing systems. Since EZ Pass went into affect, the percent of tolls collected electronically rose form 2% in 2002 to 63% and yet union workers (yes collecting public employee sized wages and benefits) fell a grand total of17% from 1094 to 902, almost solely through retirement and attrition.

Again not a tax problem but spending
.

Only one of the worst is on a toll road – the rest are on interstates. The Turnpike Commission has nothing to do with the other nine of the worst bridges.

Yep. It’s not that hard to balance the budget. Allow income and some other taxes to return to surplus-era levels, stop occupying foreign countries, and we’re most of the way there: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=809205qv
-
But Paul Ryan doesn’t care about the deficit, of course.
-
That’s why he supported all the Bush-era GOP policies that created the deficit– Medicare Part D, invading and occcupying Iraq, the tax deferrals (as Milton Friedman put it, “to spend is to tax.” But as Dick Cheney explained GOP dogma: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” That is, “we can get away with exploding the deficit, so we will”).
-
Remember, the long-term deficit problem is largely the result of the occupations (which, in all fairness, Obama has now shouldered some responsibility for) and tax deferrals. See: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
-
As Reagan and Bush Sr. advisor Bruce Bartlett has put it, there was a time when Republicans cared about the deficit, and enacted policies to rein it in. That ended in the 1990s for the GOP, at which point the deficit became something to ignore when in power, and to browbeat the president with when he’s a Democrat.
-
Balanccing the budget wouldn’t be that hard, as you can see at the first link above. But Republicans don’t care about the deficit.

Taxes don’t necessarily cause an economic drag. If taxes on the very wealthy are put towards things like national infrastructure (transportation, the energy grid), education, and healthcare, they could give an economic boost.

Most of the wealth in this country floats upwards. Republicans complain that half of country does not pay any [Federal] taxes. That’s because half of the country does not earn enough money to pay taxes.

Trickle some of the money back down, and it can be put to productive use.

“The Turnpike Commission has nothing to do with the other nine of the worst bridges.”

Yes but Act 44 forces the Turnpike Commission to pay to PennDot around $900 million per year. And $2.5 billion over the last 3 years. So your argument is another empty plea for higher taxes.

PA also has the 9th highest gasoline tax already at 31 cents/gal.

It ain’t taxes.

“Yep. It’s not that hard to balance the budget. Allow income and some other taxes to return to surplus-era levels, stop occupying foreign countries, and we’re most of the way there:”
.
Or take spending down to those surplus-era levels and taxes probably would not have to be increased and people could keep more money to spend on the economy producing more tax revenue.
.
But then the left doesn’t care about deficits just more spending.

“That’s because half of the country does not earn enough money to pay taxes.”
.
Another baseless statement.

Yes over half pay no taxes while the top 10% pay over 70% of the taxes and yet according to “liberal fairness” that’s not enough. Bottom line its spending not taxes. You can talk about infrastructure education et al and a large percent is wasted simply because the government will be involved.

@freep
.
While I have no opinion on Pennsylvania in particular and Ivy disagrees with you, 3.3, 4.1 and 4.3 are some of your more reasonable posts.
.
They are ‘agreeing to disagree’ and a bit closer to what I was getting at in this link here, http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/04/11/5-things-obama%e2%80%99s-learned-about-boehner/comment-page-1/#comment-267220
.
If your posts look more like those and less like @ 1, you will find that not only will the discussions be more productive, but you’ll enjoy them more, and you’ll learn at least as much as I learned from you just now. Which is far more than I learned observing you for the past three weeks prior.
.
Nobody expects you to stop using ‘the left’ as a generic blame gesture immediately, but I for one appreciate the more objective tone and want to see more, it helps me understand where budget cutters are coming from without using vapid soundbites and shallow, divisive accusations.

“Bottom line its spending not taxes. You can talk about infrastructure education et al and a large percent is wasted simply because the government will be involved.”
-
That is all made up in your brain, and is not true.
-
As to our Gilded Age-level social stratification, here’s an article about it: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/how-oligarchs-took-america

50 years ago, the wealthiest 1% of Americans accounted for one of every 10 dollars of the nation’s income; today, it’s nearly one in every four. Between 1979 and 2006, the average post-tax household income (including benefits) of the wealthiest 1% increased by 256%; the poorest households saw an increase of 11%; middle class homes, 21%, much of which was due to the arrival of two-job families.

This one has more pictures: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
-
We know we can have 1990s-era tax levels and economic prosperity, beccause we had economic prosperity in the 1990s. But returning to surplus-era tax levels is politically incorrect to Republicans, who, as we know from the Bush Jr. era, do not care about the deficit.

Everybody will have to pitch in, however Paul Krugman showed it in December 2010 that dollars given to f.i unemployment benefots yield over $1.50 return whereas given thru the top 2% bush era tax cuts only yield a $0.37 return to the economy. Which one would be better for the economy and society as a whole, hhmmmmm lemme think….
.
I think it is a disgrace that 50% doesn’t pay taxes because they are below or too close to the poverty line. The poverty line is in itself already too low for anybody to realistically make ends meet. The wealth redistribution as performed by the Bush-era tax cuts and which is even more so proposed in the Ryan “plan” is ridiculous and reprehensible. It is about time that the strongest shoulders help this country out even more, it is the patriotic thing to do!

I like it. When centrist corporatist “conservatism” meets radical right-wing corporatist “conservatism,” the best you can probably hope for is nothing. If only there were another way to do public policy.

“If your posts look more like those and less like @ 1, you will find that not only will the discussions be more productive, but you’ll enjoy them more, and you’ll learn at least as much as I learned from you just now. Which is far more than I learned observing you for the past three weeks prior.”
.
I appreciate the post but I will say that you would have more impact if you would give the same feedback to some on the left here. It seems I get this useful feedback from time to time but never do I see any of the left here reprimand some of their brethren.

While I may agree to disagree here with Ivy, the important point is I respect Ivy’s opinions.

“Taxes are a tool to get deficits under control”
.
But the question is why is spending not a tool to get deficits under control? Why does spending go one direction only and for items that the federal government has no business being involved.
.
“seriously, I have been explaining to you over and over again how deficits work.”
.
And I might take you seriously if you truly had a clue.

Joe, I made two replies to the discussion about funding for bridges and they both disappeared into the ether – not even indicating they were in moderation. Can you see them or did they truly disappear. I included a link to a pdf, but it was from the PA House of Representatives.

“.I think it is a disgrace that 50% doesn’t pay taxes because they are below or too close to the poverty line.”
.
It owuld be a disgrace were true. It is another falsehood spread by the left to justify attempts to re-distribute wealth. And one thing is never considered is how much of those not paying taxes receive transfer payments from either the federal, state or county governments.
.
”
As to our Gilded Age-level social stratification”

Really Mother Earth News? I must have missed the amendment where wealth had to be distributed according some bell curve. Of course, the left never considers the negative impact of any regulation, taxes at every level of government might have on trapping the same people they supposedly care so much about.

Back to the corporate conspiracy lunacy

Maybe your posts are with the Act 44 monies. lol

“the poorest households saw an increase of 11%; middle class homes, 21%, much of which was due to the arrival of two-job families.”
.
How much of this economic shell game was also caused by the increases in single parent households and divorce? Whereby in the 70s you had a household earnings $60,000 you now have 2 households earning $30,000.

Once again the law of unintended consequences for social behavior that was favored.

Probably. lol
.
I pointed out that the funding was to come from tolling I 80, which didn’t happen, so beginning 2010 the contribution was capped at $200 million. Doesn’t make much of a dent in the $1.4 billion needed for my section of I 95.
.
I don’t like bridges and want to think the ones I drive over aren’t going to plunge into the drink!

Then stay an ignorant a$$. Just to my point, I mentioned spending and revenue increase. Get the sh!t out of your eyes so you can read for once.

freeinpa, I repeatedly link to sources for my factual assertions.
-
You then resort to making up hypothetical reasons why we maybe shouldn’t care about facts.
-
Maybe I’m wrong– maybe we collect more in corporate taxes than ever before, maybe the bottom 50% is secretly stealing from the wealthy somehow, maybe returning tax levels to where they were when we had a surplus would cause mass appendicitis. Who knows.
-
If I’m wrong, prove it with facts. Please stop with this, “I just know it’s the hippies’ fault, with their dancing and divorcing and regulatin’ and all that lazing about on gubmint money they do– I’m sure of it!” Please stick to facts.

not exactly how i see things of course, but great writing is always appreciated

“Back to the corporate conspiracy lunacy”
.
This from the guy who’s always screaming about the destruction being caused by liberal political power.

“But the question is why is spending not a tool to get deficits under control?”
.
First and foremost, spending is not just the random placement of money done for it’s own sake. This isn’t Tammany Hall of the 1900s or Earl Long of Louisiana in the 1940s and 50s. These are all programs that the will of the people demand. Please do not forget that the armed forces are all “spending” and just as it would be moronic to run around blindly shutting down every other military base, etc, etc other spending works the same way. People want these programs, that is why they are there.
.
Second, Government spending creates jobs. So, it is in boom times you cut spending and raise taxes and during slow times you build up deficits.
.
Since spending on hiring the unemployed creates more jobs than tax increases on the wealthiest cost at a ratio of ten to one in most cases, if you want to cut the deficit during a recession, you must raise taxes.
.
You can realistically take one of four positions:
.
1)You hate the deficit so much that you will support a raise in taxes and maintain current spending since it is more important than unemployment or higher taxes.
.
2)You hate the deficit, but hate unemployment more than the deficit and raising taxes, so, you increase spending and raise taxes to dramatically decrease unemployment.
.
3)You hate the deficit but, since you hate raising taxes more so, you ignore unemployment, ignore the deficit and give away tax cuts.
.
4) You hate both taxes and the deficit so much that you gut programs that people want and need and keep taxes low, and brace yourself for a double dip recession as unemployment increases dramatically instead of decreases.
.
Here is what you can not do, whine and cry about a tax increase, whine and cry about unemployment and whine and cry about the deficit since you can solve only two of those, at most at one time.
.
Pick one or two of those issues – not all three.
.
Be honest you are favoring option #4 with 25% unemployment but low taxes and no increase in the deficit.

Rusty,
.
28% of our expenditures go towards military related expenditures during a time when we are winding down actions against two, greatly technologically inferior enemies (hence, not needing submarines anti-tank tanks, anti-tank missiles- much of the expensive toys) and, relative to what we have, limited manpower.
.
So, cut the military related expenditures in half and we’ll be well on our way to paying off the deficit.
.
This can be done while maintaining serviceman/servicewoman pay and benefits, but getting rid of new toys.
.
A huge majority or our foreign bases are overstaffed and over equipped relative to the possible threat of the cold war they were prepared for. A huge share of our heavy cavalry (anti-tank, tanks, for example), Navy and even much of our newest fighter jets are decades ahead technologically than any possible or reasonably likely enemy.
.
No new DOD toys if we want to cut the deficit!

Well if Congress had done nothing all along, we wouldn’t be in debt up to our necks.
.
Here is how “the rich” will avoid paying higher taxes:
.

http://asheham.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/americas-turncoat-corporations-600-in-ireland-avoid-taxes-and-emply-100000-workers/

“The tax code is to raise revenues to provide necessary services not for social engineering.”
.
What “social engineering” are you bringing up?
.
Our individual tax code subsidizes a few things:
.
1) Marriage
.
2) Children
.
3) Saving for retirement
.
4) Buying a home
.
Even though I am not qualified for any of those things myself at this time, I do intend to do three out of four of those things (starting a second career late in life and marrying at an older age, I do anticipate working until my late 80s, so, I doubt I will spend even ten years retired – they’ll be hauling my corpse out of the office in about 45 to 50 years when I am 85 or 90 years old).
.
There are many, many tax breaks for large corporations including the oil industry.
.
If we are “socially engineering” we are putting people into marriage, homes, children and, by subsidizing the oil industry, a massively large gas guzzling SUV.
.
I object only to that last part.
.
Some things, like green energy, are known to have external benefits. Some tax relief for this, on the job training by businesses does make sense, but, I think you are 100% incorrect in saying that the government picks winners and losers.
.
It appears that the the winners hire lobbyist for tax breaks, and force all other taxpayers, including their competition into losing out on their revenue, dropping the burden on everybody else.
.
Once again, most of the personal income tax breaks I strongly support and believe that you would too..
.
My mother was widowed in early 2009. Suddenly she found out that in 2010 she had a tax increase now filing as a single person household. But, for 40 years she had the tax benefits of marriage with my father as well as the tax benefits of supporting four children which I strongly support.

“While I may agree to disagree here with Ivy, the important point is I respect Ivy’s opinions.”
.
You have been far less abrasive than usual in this post so far (but have not yet reacted to anything I have written so, I expect that to change given how eager you are to toss insults at me), but, you do not seem to acknowledge things like the fact that taxes on high incomes have some, but very little dampening of demand in the economy while government hiring or previously unemployed people or people earning dramatically less has a huge increase in demand for private, for profit goods and services, climate change or other things determined to be facts by people who spend 40 to 50 years of their life studying.
.
By no means would I say that I can create models for climate change, advanced macroeconomics or most of these things. But, unlike you I do not claim that I am so brilliant that I can learn in five minutes from a partisan, political article more than than what has been shown to be true by tens of thousands of people who have spend 40 to 50 years of their lives studying these things.
.
If you said that your priorities are that you hate taxes and the deficit so much that 25% unemployment right now is completely acceptable to you as a barter then I would completely disagree with your priorities, but, respect how you face reality that economics and politics are all about trade offs and almost never about simple solutions.
.
Occasionally there are revenue saving ideas which, unless a large corporation with powerful lobbyists is making money off of it, make it through with no disagreement. But this is rare.
.
As I stated above, your choices are: to be concerned about unemployment only, to be concerned about taxes only, to be concerned about the deficit only, to be concerned about taxes and the deficit but not unemployment or to be concerned about the deficit and unemployment, but not taxes. No single policy will take care of all three priorities well.
.
So, acknowledge your priorities and we can, easily agree to disagree.
.
Pretend that there are no trade offs and lowering taxes more will do magic, then I will correct your factually incorrect statements again and again.

“not exactly how i see things of course, but great writing is always appreciated”
.
Thanks. So do you not think corporations control much of government policy-making or do you just not see that as a bad thing?

Deficit reduction and liberals go together like oil and water.
.
I have one word for you: California.

“But then the left doesn’t care about deficits just more spending.”
.
This is you claiming to understand other people’s POV.
.
But then progressives do care about programs they promised to maintain as the will of their constituents more than deficits just more stimulating of the private, for profit sector of the economy to produce more jobs.
.
Now, that would be a fair statement
.
Note: I did not say what you or others I disagree with think or want.
.
It’s all about priorities, Freeper. Priorities.

Meltdown, this is the best link you have ever sent.
.

I just finished watching a piece on CBS 60 Minutes about American corporations who have relocated in Ireland and Switzerland in order to pay less corporate taxes. This is a story that infuriates me. Large corporations who started their businesses here in this country have turned their back on their country, some giving up their citizen ship and moving to another country to avoid paying taxes – to avoid paying into our society, their country. I see all of them as traitors. Their loyalty is to the money they make and the shareholders, not to America, not to their fellow Americans. You want to know why there is no

.
Thank you.
.
Keep in mind one things: Many, if not all – I do not think Ireland does, I didn’t ask my brother when he went there a couple of years ago if he knew – have a VAT which fills their coffers rather than taxing the corporation as much.
.
But, this is a loophole for anti-American corporate greed supported by corporate lobbyists which must be closed.
.
If, say, 80%, for example, of a company’s gross revenue comes from the United States, then 80% of their revenue should be taxed at the rate for American businesses regardless of where they put their headquarters.
.
(For that matter, if it were 1% or 100% I would say exactly the same thing – proportionate to revenue, not by nominal location of it’s headquarters).
.
Damn, Meltodwn!
.
Keep this up and I might not only have to call you “reasonable” but possibly even “liberal”
.
Be careful about that. Keep on being reasonable and you will be mistake for the people you hate.

Deficit reduction and conservatives go together like oil and water.
.
I have one letter for you: W

There fixed ot for ya!

Here is what I have seen about California:
.
Imagine a financially dysfunctional marriage.
.
The husband is a miser and the wife is a spendthrift.
.
So, he opens a private bank account separate from hers, does not give her access to it and gives her an allowance for about half of what she spends, but leaves her with all of the credit cards!
.
Gee? How do get in debt that way?
.
Well, requite a super-majority to raise taxes and you have that problem.
.
Have it like all of the other states and taxes will, sometimes go up and spending will sometimes go down to match the budget.
.
The super majority for tax laws is moronic at best.

“…requite a super-majority…”
.
Ooops.
.
…require a super-majority….

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlfcF1I5e_g&w=480&h=390
.
Weeks more of conjecture, posturing and lobbying.
It is simple, like Mr. Creosote, the rich need to be purged.
.
NSFW
.