U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 23, 2009 05:45 PM UTC
66 Comments
You must be pretty dense over there, Pols, if you don’t understand this one.
If we hadn’t had A-B, then the general fund would have grown much faster during the boom years.
The so-called spending “base” would therefore be much higher, and the fairly modest (by national standards) fiscal challenges we’re facing now would pale in comparison.
The delta between revenues and spending would be much, much higher than what we’re facing now.
Did A-B change the amount of money spent? No. But it did change the type of programs it was spent on. A-B reduced the growth of recurring spending programs and diverted some of the money during the boom years into non-recurring capital and transportation programs. Legislators find it easy to cut capital and transportation programs because the current legislature doesn’t put a priority on those projects. Instead, they want to spend money on entitlements like Medicaid. But once you create those entitlements, they are enormously hard to cut.
The Pols are right on:
California restricted its own ability to collect revenue to fund vital services that residents expect, just like Colorado did. Colorado wasn’t going to hit the Arveschoug-Bird limit in the forseeable future anyway, you know this, the argument is meaningless. This is about the gutting of the state’s ability to meet basic needs by ideologues just like Josh Penry, a much more important story about California that needs to be told here.
And I agree with the Pols, Penry should never mention California’s “binge and purge” again if he knows what’s good for him.
A/B hasn’t kept us from becoming California. Besides what the thread talks about, California is able to borrow money (deficit spend) and Colorado state government can’t do that except in very limted circumstances where there is funding in place to pay off the debt (TREX project).
What has kept us from becoming like California is the state constitutional requirement that Colorado must balance the state budget every year. That provision has been in the Colorado Consititution since it was adopted in 1876. In today’s Denver Post, it looks like we are going to have to cut around $380 million out of the new state budget when the new fiscal year begins on July 1st. Those cuts will be required by the balanced budget provision not A/B or TABOR. A/B and especially TABOR were designed to destroy government not rein it in and that is why those kind of provisions need to be removed from state statutes and the state constitution. The right-wing’s fascination with destroying government has been shown to be not only foolish but unsupported by most people, including most Republicans. Time to return to representative government.
The Republicans were the ones who passed SB-1 eliminating what was an effective and responsible reserve account for monies in excess of the A-B limit, and instead, transfered them to transportation. But somehow this was NOT a violation of TABOR? I guess it’s only when Democrats want to increase funding for important programs that the Republicans cry foul.
Removing A-B just gives the legislature the flexibility to do their job and re-priortize the budget each year. Is it too much to ask to believe in the system of government our founding fathers envisioned… Representative Government?
And Karate Kid, you said this legislature doesn’t make transportation a priorty. I would strongly disagree. They passed FASTER (which Repubs were against) providing an enormous increase to transportation funding, and they passed SB-228, which included an unprecedented General Fund appropriation to transportation (which Repubs were ALSO against). Who’s really against transportation?
Penry yet again offers no solutions to Colorado’s problems, only blame.
California is in a deficit because of Prop 13????
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’ve worked extensively in Hollywood as a filmmaker – the reason why the California economy is terrible is because –
1. Labor Unions are pricing out businesses, thus decreasing the amounts of revenue
2. Municipal and State red tape – way too much paperwork is filled out before anything can happen, again, decreasing the amount of incoming revenue from businesses
3. The State House and Senate literally have almost ZERO checks on tax spending — they can write themselves a check, at taxpayer expense, at will
You’ll also notice that, until the late 80’s, early 90’s, California was dominated by Republicans who didn’t abuse the tax system the way the current Democratic majority has — thus, the majority of California’s budgetary problems have accumulated under widespread Democrat control
As of right now, Prop 13 has greatly prevented further runaway spending, but it’s a drop in the bucket
Again, Colorado is in deficit, but nowhere near as much as California, especially in terms of percentages and per-capita amounts that mathematically even the scoreboard
let’s review
CALIFORNIA –
Prop 13, but has a GIGANTIC fiscal crisis
COLORADO –
AB, Gallagher, TABOR, and a minor fiscal crisis
CONCLUSION –
Technically, if CP’s argument was correct (choice word here is “was”) then Colorado would be in a bigger budgetary mess than California currently is
The rest of the nation can learn from Colorado and ADOPT TABOR
So Prop 13 allows for the State Legislature to increase taxes behind a 2/3 vote
Never discount the taxing urges of California legislators
Democrats dominate the legislature in California and can normally wrangle a 2/3 majority to go with major pork-barrel increasing taxes, especially when it benefits their own State House and Senate districts
The Democrats and Labor Unions have driven California into the ground – and sadly, Californians will still not forgive Republicans due to the racism that pervaded behind Prop 187 – we were WRONG to support that awful initiative and now we’re paying such a terrible price for it
Sadly, I have no idea how long Californians will hold this grudge – we as Republicans need to simply apologize, openly, for Prop 187 and try to take back the good state of California
I think this is wrong. I lived in CA from ’77 to ’90. As I recall, Republicans would take the Guv’s office, but not the Assembly or Senate. It wasn’t just Prop 187 that led to a Dem majority in CA.
As for Prop 13, it’s an amazing slow-motion train wreck. Can you imagine next-door neighbors living in identical houses paying taxes that differ by an order of magnitude? How can that be right?
As for labor unions and red tape, I’d love to see you back that up with some real facts, not just some opinion that you’re trying to pawn off as truth.
Regarding labor unions, movie productions have fled California – I would chalk this up on labor unions
Los Angeles had a record LOW for total film production days in 2008 –
http://broadcastunionnews.blog…
This is a long article, but it correctly identifies unions as a partial culprit for destroying Hollywood in saying –
“One factor contributing to the currency arbitrage: Hollywood unions, which have helped make filmmaking a more expensive venture thanks to onerous work rules, salary demands and unwillingness to allow producers to hire nonunion talent or let members work on projects it doesn’t certify.”
http://www.reason.com/news/sho…
As far as red tape goes, a good example would be the fact that it costs $500+ to file an LLC in California – that’s gonna move a lot of small businesses to Nevada and Arizona, especially at-home ones
Film permits in the City of LA are also astronomical, in comparison to other cities
The movie industry use to be one of California’s most PRIZED and profitable industries — now if unions and politicians are severing our film industry, you can imagine what they’re doing to all other major industries
They even think unions are to blame for nobody reading them.
And you want to get elected to something?
Things get heated in here – if you can’t take it, then get outta the kitchen…..
let them eat cake…
In the paraphrased words of Walter Mondale – “Where’s the beef, CT?”… you got none….
I am past weary of the privileged complaining about things like Unions and taxes being too high…
In 1978 Californians were saddled with the third-highest tax burden in America. In a massive grassroots uprising, California voters placed limits on property taxes and the ability of the legislature to raise taxes. The result was that California’s annual average rate of spending growth fell to 2% through the 1980s – down from 9% growth in the 1970s. California’s state per-capita expenditures fell to 16th in the nation in 1990 from 7th in 1979. The economy soared, growing 14% faster in the 1980’s than the U.S. average. However, what Coloradopols didn’t mention is that these limits on taxation, spending and revenues were tossed overboard incrementally with the passage of initiatives that exempted certain segments of government spending — health care, education, transportation, etc… — from the limits. The Legislature in California also ducked the supermajority required for tax increases by simply calling those tax increases “fees”. What followed was three decades of creeping government growth that have come home to roost in the form of a $21.3 billion budget shortfall for 2009. Any of this sound familiar?
California’s “limits” on spending and taxation have been so watered down that they are about as meaningless as Ritter’s so-called hiring freeze.
What she/he said!
CP – you just got OWNED
Do remind me what you are running for next…so I can donate heavily to your opponent.
Though he’s pretty coy about it still.
If he does run, I’m sure Cary Kennedy would love your financial support. Here’s her Act Blue page.
It’s safe to say she can count on a check from me, if Ali is our alternative.
Boy, I can’t possibly understand why you wouldn’t want to handcuff yourself on those three areas. I mean, who needs that crap anyway, right? As long as the government isn’t growing, that’s all I care about.
[/snark]
I remember the 80s in CA. Do you?
Do you have any understanding of WHY the CA economy grew so fast in 80s? It was Reagan’s military spending (mostly aerospace in the LA basin). Keynesian economics, pure and simple.
And do you remember what happened when Bush41 was elected and curbed that spending? I do. I bailed out my sister so she could stay in her house. Real Estate prices dropped what, 40%?
I’m sorry that the details get in the way of such a beautiful story, but they usually do.
And you, MAH, you want to be state treasurer and you and don’t know shit about any of this stuff. How the fuck can you be treasurer when you applaud policies that have clearly failed elsewhere? Learn a little history before you try to subject the rest of us to your shopworn cliches.
Colorado’s budget deficit is nowhere near as bad as California’s
As a matter of fact, we’re in better shape than most states
What’s the difference
We have TABOR
The rest don’t
end of story
Colorado has high elevation.
Colorado has low budget deficits.
Therefore low budget deficits are caused by high elevation.
End of story.
TABOR makes our state very unique, in that, few states have legislation that restricts taxing as heavily as our good state does – I think correlations are very relevant in this case
I prefer facts to beliefs.
Correlations aren’t convincing.
I explained why A-B has mitigated the problem (not caused it, as Pols posits) and no one has countered my original post (with any credible specificity). So how about that for correlation? Ali is right on this. California is a mess, and it’s a spending problem, not a lack of taxation. A-B has prevented runaway spending on entitlements. That’s why we are better off.
This is pretty much what Penry was saying, although you supply a few more numbers–that don’t, we might add, exactly help your case. Allow us to explain.
This isn’t about spending “limits” or lack thereof–that’s a bogus frame, but maybe the right frame if your goal is to obfuscate the real issue. Relaxation of those limits, as occurred this year in Colorado with the repeal of Arveschoug-Bird, was done in response to the need to provide basic services that residents expect–after all, didn’t California’s population grow by more than 2% annually on average in the 1980s? Your own figures explain the need for what they did. This point has been made over and over again, and it may come down to an irreconcilable philosophical disagreement–some want “government” to “shrink” no matter what, while others would still like schools and roads and health care at the equivalent level of service as the state grows. It’s where, as Don Marostica would say, the ideological rubber meets the road. Fair enough.
Proposition 13’s core component, steep reduction of property tax rates, is the single largest factor responsible for California’s budget crisis. By forcing the state and local governments to rely on recession-sensitive sources of revenue like sales and income taxes, they are left extremely vulnerable to economic downturns. The problems California faces today are caused by the state’s constitutionally self-imposed inability to fund itself, and in this way it’s an experience accurately comparable to Colorado’s. Furthermore, California’s supermajority requirement was a major factor in their protracted budget fight in the legislature this year–doesn’t look like “fees” were able to extricate them.
If you want to have a discussion about the underlying need for services like education, health care, transportation, etc. customarily provided by a state government, that’s a conversation worth having–and a question decided by voters every 2-4 years as they elect their representatives. But there’s really no point in trying to deny the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Be proud of Proposition 13, like TABOR, if that’s your inclination, but it’s senseless to take credit for “cutting taxes” while blaming other people for the directly resultant shortfalls.
When Ahnold ran for Governor, Warren Buffet was his economic adviser and told Ahnold that he should try to have Prop 13 repealed. Ahnold told Warren Buffet if he mentioned it again he would “make him do 500 sit-ups.”
Smart guy, that Governator.
. . . engaging a shrink-government-Republican in a conversation about what government services they do and don’t want to pay for. Reminds me of what I used to say when running for the legislature – don’t talk to me about cutting taxes and fees, instead, tell what you don’t want government to do any more.
I appreciate CP’s response
However, I would continue to more so blame the amount of public employees, wasteful programs, wasteful spending, red tape, and labor unions as reason for California’s current fiscal mess – not Prop 13
because you can’t come up with a single concrete argument to refute CP’s position. Man, reading your comments is making my brain hurt. Stop the hurting!
My response to AJB above is referenced, which makes direct referral to labor unions and their disastrous effect on the Californian economy – it’s earlier in this discussion
If you want more then I’ll point to this article –
http://www.sacbee.com/capitola…
As of right now, it only takes every Democrat, along with 6 Republicans, to approve every tax measure with 2/3 – not a difficult proposition by any measure
HOWEVER — the best link –
A chart of California’s budget over the years –
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgetin…
Some things you’ll notice from this PDF –
From 1999 to 2009, California’s General Fund came close to doubling ($57 to $94), well past inflationary rate, not including the federal funds that were being contributed – so despite all the argument over Prop 13, clearly, legislators in California found ways to get money
Also, in that same timespan, California’s population grew from 33 million to 36 million –
http://www.google.com/publicda…
Certainly, such population growth, plus inflation, isn’t enough to warrant such a large increase of tax collection
In addition, you’ll also notice on that PDF that federal funds to California, in that same period, have almost doubled
So let’s better understand this –
In the last 10 years, Californian taxes have greatly increased – population growth is minor, inflation steady – and Federal Funds have almost doubled
What is it that California is spending so much money on these last 10 years?
As the above facts demonstrate, clearly, Prop 13 has not stopped additional taxes from flooding California
And despite an additional 3 million people in 10 years, how could one clearly claim that taxes would need to increase so drastically over this 10 year time span just to accommodate 3 million of 36 million?
I’ll tell you what a portion of this money is going to – labor unions –
Good article here –
http://www.sacbee.com/capitola…
Excellent article here –
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…
Now the above article is from the SAN FRANCISCO GATE – just understand that before criticizing it for not being a left-leaning news outlet
The article basically points to labor unions that are driving up state salaries in California and increasing worker positions – and sadly, the California Governor is not in a position to veto these salary hikes
And as the article points out, labor unions have plenty of money to spend, considering that they can afford millions in lobbyist fees, paid for by the California taxpayer, and for that matter, Federal taxpayers
This is merely an example of the out-of-control spending taking place in California, further demonstrating that Prop 13 is not the problem – the solution is introducing TABOR to California
I love this part:
Makes you wonder what the reason was for that Republican engineered recall of Gray Davis, doesn’t it?
Come to think of it, didn’t your daddy Malik Hasan help out with that, Ali? He’s a big GOP moneyslinger, isn’t that the only reason anyone pays attention to you?
I think you missed this paragraph from the same article –
“Some of the pay increases in recent years have been out of Schwarzenegger’s control, including previously negotiated pay raises for some employee unions and court-ordered pay hikes for medical workers in the state prison system that are estimated to have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.”
I highly suggest reading the entire article before critique
As far as Terminator is concerned, I volunteered for the recall and I’m proud that I did
As far as why people pay attention to me…. you tell me – you’re the one responding, son……
Cali budget(your source)
99-00: $66B
09-10: $92B
Annual increase: 3.4% compounded annually
Cali population:
’98: 33M
’08: 37M
Annual increase: 1.0% compounded annually
CPI (U.S.):
’99-’09: 2.5% compounded annually
TABOR allows an increase in spending equal to CPI + population growth. In Cali, CPI + pop growth over the past decade = 3.5%. Spending increased at a 3.4% rate. The spending increase in Cali over the past decade has been less than that allowed under TABOR guidelines. Thus, having TABOR in Cali would not have fixed their budget mess.
I don’t want to get insulting here (I know I got that way yesterday and I apologize), but please do your homework. I managed to come up with all this in about 15 minutes.
AJB –
Solid numbers here, however, the numbers you analyzed were the General Fund numbers only
You have to throw in the Special Fund and Bond Numbers to get a true perspective of the tax situation, and then add in the contributed Federal Funds to get an exact amount of money being spent by California legislators
The total amount, from 1999 to 2009 went from $109 to $202 – well exceeding any kind of self-imposed TABOR limits, from my deductions
Apologies accepted and my apologies for harsh rebuttals
I went back to the table that you graciously provided and for budget totals (6th column over), I see $85B in 99-00 and $131B for 09-10. That’s 4.4% compounded annually. (For a valid comparison, you don’t count the Fed $. TABOR addresses state revenue only.)
I also looked up the CA CPI. Their index increased from 163.7 to 224.8 from ’98 to ’08. that works out to 3.2% compounded annually.
Thus CPI + pop growth = 3.2 + 1.0 = 4.2% that would be allowed by TABOR in CO. Not so different from 4.4% seen in Cali.
Furthermore, I imagine that those “special funds” and bonds in CA are really no different than the “user fees” and bonds that lawmakers (Rs and Ds) have used in CO over the past decade to evade TABOR and balance the books here.
I’m doing this math using a napkin and an iPhone at an all night diner – this could get “fuzzy” — nonetheless –
1. I was referring to the 1999 to 2009 numbers which would be $75B to $136B – I was adverse to using 2010 numbers since they’re estimations – nonetheless, let’s go with $85B to $131B over 10 years
2. We both agree on a rate of 4.4%
3. TABOR would be growth plus inflation – thus, we’ll take the starting budget figures and multiply it by 4.4% for 10 years
Thus, we’re going to start with $85B X 1.044, and from there, continue multiplying the results by 1.044, for ten years, so we are accounting for each year’s growth+inflation
Based on that calculation…… I’m going to post California’s TABOR-budget, compared to its actual realized budget, and subtract the two, giving my best estimation of the actual ‘overtax’— rounding and estimation is used:
1999-2000
$85,000,000,000
2000-2001
$88,740,000,000 — $96B: $7B overtax
2001-2002
$92,644,560,000 — $99B: $6B overtax
2002-2003
$96,720,920,640 — $106B: $9B overtax
2003-2004
$100,976,641,148 — $104B: $3B overtax
2004-2005
$105,419,613,358 — $107B: $2B overtax
2005-2006
$110,058,076,346 — $119B: $9B overtax
2006-2007
$114,900,631,705 — $130B: $15B overtax
2007-2008
$119,956,259,500 — $138B: $18B overtax
2008-2009
$125,234,334,918 — $136B: $11B overtax
2009-2010
$130,744,645,654 — $131B: $0.5B overtax
Total Overtax – $80 Billion
CONCLUSIONS (estimated figures) –
As of 2010, Californians are overtaxed by $0.5 billion — in light of the fact that they are receiving around $67B in Federal Funds the same year, such spending calls to question what the extra $0.5B is being spent on??
Granted, being $0.5B over TABOR, if you’re California, doesn’t seem so bad
However – it’s important to evaluate the numbers year by year, in which, the TABOR estimations are far below the actual amount of tax that was collected by the State of California
In the last 10 years, California’s realized spending has violated TABOR limits by the tune of $80 billion – not including the enormous amounts of Federal dollars that are coming in
Again, these could all be shallow estimations…. but if 4.4% is the agreed growth, then judging by the numbers above…. what was it that California had to spend an extra $80 billion on the past 10 years??? That’s an additional $8 billion every year, not including the Federal Funds
I would continue to submit that TABOR would be great thing for California
Lastly, I will give GREAT credit to the fact that California is actually returning to TABOR estimations, but that doesn’t forgive the $80 billion in damage done, previous to it
Lastly 2, the fact that California has a Republican Governor the last few years has clearly helped it in coming back around to a budget that is more reflective of actual need and they’re making the right decision by slashing budgets
(alright – if the math above is far too fuzzy, then I blame the iPhone)
In fact, the way you approached the problem is better than what I did, but if we pick nits (I’m afraid we’re resorted to that), then every year should be treated as its own baseline (like you did for the initial 99-00 calculation). Looking at it that way, CA met TABOR revenue increases in 5 of the last 10 years (01, 03, 04, 08, 09) and failed in the others.
So, depending on the set of numbers and how one wishes to approach them, CA either met TABOR limits, grossly failed TABOR limits, or met them about half the time.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
I looked up CA personal income, and found it here:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_…
1998: $936B
2008: $1.57T
Back to State revenue:
1998: $75B
2008: $136B
Revenue as a percentage of personal income:
1998: 8.1%
2008: 8.7%
Measured this way, tax rates are essentially half a percent higher now than a decade ago. It would be interesting to see how this stacks up year-by-year (the data is the 2 tables, if you have time).
The average personal income growth per year is 5.3%, a bit higher than the 4.2% CPI + pop growth rate.
Granted its a half percent raise, but unless I’m mistaken, that does not include fees (car fees, license fees, etc) which is all taking major hits to California wallets – that would be my best response
Seriously. If you think that those are the biggest reasons why our state is hundreds of millions of dollars in the hole, then I’d like to see which specific wasteful programs and wasteful spending you would eliminate.
When you just pop off a bunch of GOP buzz words, and say how much you love TABOR, without giving any specifics, it just makes you sound like the current crop of Republican elected officials. Maybe you should spend more time listening to Don Marostica, and less time listening to Jon Caldera and Josh Penry.
My responses are above
Regarding Colorado, my personal suggestions –
1. Governor Bill Ritter has hired WAY TOO MANY new state employees in his tenure – those jobs need to be eliminated
2. Corrections (prisons) is probably our worst runaway budget –
2a. get rid of the 3-strike-law – it’s putting too many petty offenders in jail for way too long of a period
2b. send drug users home with GPS bracelets and required rehab – staying in prison can often increase one’s chance of committing another crime
2c. ban all political contributions from companies and associated labor unions that manage jails and build jails in Colorado – I’m looking at you, Cornell Employees PAC/Cornell Company
2d. ban Colorado 527 groups from accepting any contributions from prison builders/managers – I’m looking at you, Accountability For Colorado
3. Reformat Medicaid –
3a. In the last few years, Colorado Medicaid has lost 4 of its 5 originally contracted private HMO’s, over disputes of reimbursement – our budget has exploded since then – re-contract those other 4 HMO’s and pay them better reimbursement fees
3b. completely privatize Colorado Medicaid – such a move would save enough money to expand it to the point of insuring Colorado’s uninsured, while still saving capital, if that move is desired
4. Higher Education – learn from Stanford University – CSU and CU need to allow students and Professors to privately retain patents on developed intellectual property, not have those patents go to the school – such a policy was pioneered at Stanford and many say it single-handedly created Silicon Valley – we oughta have the same in Boulder and Fort Collins
5. Public Schools – too many administrative jobs – eliminate them – hire more teachers instead, if needed
6. Severance Tax – oil companies will hate me for saying this, but we really need to consider Colorado’s severance taxes, which are the lowest in the nation – I’ll remind everyone, from what I know, that the majority of our natural gas consumers are in the midwest…. thus, an increase in severance taxes really won’t effect Coloradans, but I could be wrong?
Total savings is in the billions, in my estimations
As a Republican, I say give that money back to the people
Bans never work. They just help people get creative with campaign finances which makes it even harder to follow the money trail. Personally, I think campaign finance should be wide open – anybody can give any amount to any candidate or PAC – but with full disclosure. No exceptions to disclosure. In this age of computers, it’s trivial to type someone’s name in, and if you’re willing to give money to a cause, you should be willing to have your name associated with that cause.
The only effective alternative I see to that is 100% public campaign financing. Which probably still runs afoul of free speech considerations.
I stopped reading after #2, sorry.
I completely agree with you
And yes, bans normally make the system worse and create more money ‘under-the-table’
I use the word ban as a way to get the conversation started – if we could revert back to the ‘old’ system, with 110% transparency, then that is clearly the best solution
policy-wise? Is it something the legislature would have to sign off on? What if leg committees or courts or bureaucrats whittled it down to 86.75 percent? Please elaborate lest I think its an empty string of jargon.
of everything – every contribution and info behind each one, whether it be a labor union, corporation, or individual
Not much else I agree with you on, except for maybe #5 (though I don’t necessarily think it would save that much money, but it’s not a bad idea.)
Thanks for answering my question though. I’m always amazed at how Republicans are able to dodge giving specifics, but I was pleasantly surprised when you actually made an attempt to give supporting evidence.
No worries!
Honestly, more people would be loving on privatized Medicaid if they saw the differences between our average HMO’s compared to the most competent government ran programs
For additional thought – studies show that Kaiser Permanente heavily outperforms the UK’s NHS –
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content…
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g…
From following links off your top link:
PubMedCentral isn’t selling a product?
This report is found in numerous websites and authorities beyond BMJ – google it
If it looks like it would work, that’s great, but I’d like to see an in-depth analysis.
The best analysis I can provide is the comparison above, between NHS and Kaiser Permanente
NHS is often heralded as one of the best ran government healthcare systems, whereas Kaiser is an average US HMO
I’ll see if I can find more articles, but the report above was done by British researchers who came out in favor of a privatized system over a government ran system
As far as saving money, those assumptions are based on my own estimations – I’ll figure out a way to publicize that data more clearly
On point #6.
But I believe 527s–being named after the FED tax code are allowable under federal law, and not sure that how state law can affect/limit them.
re: #2d
I could be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure we have jurisdiction over how 527’s are allowed to participate within State-based races
lol – cool that we agree
or agreeable
I’m not really sure on 527s, as far as being able to limit which type of legal entities can take advantage of that part of the US tax code.
why are you lolling?
because hell just froze over! we agreed!
I laugh in times of severe surprise
what’s your usual response?
you don’t as well?
Weeping over surprises?
At least wait to see if the surprise is a good one or bad one?
Unless you weep when in times of joy? In that case – weep on, my man!
CNN/Money has this map for budget deficits:
Where does your state rank?
I noticed that Nebraska has a much smaller deficit than Colorado. Also, in reading the map, it is important that they are showing the deficit itself rather than it’s percentage of revenues / spending. Of course that makes all of the larger states look worse off.
Anyway, taking Nebraska as an example, they have only one chamber in their legislature. That must be the cause of their lower deficit. Two facts, obviously one is the cause of the other. How could I be wrong?
I’ll do my research – there has to be a good reason as to why Nebraska is in better shape than others
Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska have $0 – now that’s worth looking into….
Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, and (you forgot to mention) Wyoming have no budget deficit because they are some of the least populated states. They are 44th, 47th, 48th, and 50th respectively. Not saying that’s the whole reason–#49 Vermont has a $239 million budget deficit–but it’s not that mysterious that four of the least populated states would be running surpluses or balanced budgets.
And with enormous natural resources that they tax the crap out of. And Alaska gets a massive amount of money from the federal government. #1 per capita.