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%
July 06, 2009 03:27 PM UTC
80 Comments
Help support the best news source in Afghanistan (and previously Iraq) – Donate to keep Michael Yon reporting
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…
just wait till she takes on the MSM.
lol….she’s going into the thought police business now?
Heck, maybe she’ll file a suit against herself, for defamation of character, like the ethics complaint she filed against herself. That would get her the attention she craves. Can Van Flein represent both the plaintiff and defendant at the same time?
Its really too bad he BHO surrounded by thousands of radical left wing crazies. Feeding our President YES MEN responses that center on low expectation spend and tax philosophies have driven a wedge into the electorate, resulting in increasing negatives for the President.
The only thing that matters in an economy is that money flows. When money stops flowing, Bad Things™ happen.
Whether money flows through the private sector or the public sector is of less consequence than small-government types like yourself make them out to be. Provided it flows, and flows efficiently, it all keeps the economy moving.
Hence the stimulus, and – I would argue, though Obama hasn’t yet proposed it – hence the need to raise taxes. The stimulus puts money into the economy in ways that it will be spent, getting the economy moving where it had stagnated due to the credit crunch. The need to raise taxes is less direct; so long as we’re paying interest to foreign interests, we’re not doing our best with the money we take in. We could reduce spending, but that directly impacts the economy; or, we could raise taxes selectively, targeting money that isn’t “moving” well – aka rich people’s wealth. Of course, there’s a balancing act to be done; so far, Obama is IMHO doing the best he can with a lousy situation.
That doesn’t have anything to do with my post.
Also, and on a completely unrelated note, that’s not how English works.
most particularly to witness the massive success of the massive public deficit-spending project called “World War II,” which, undisputed by anyone I know of, ended the Great Depression and laid the basis for decades of unprecedented economic growth.
The empirical proof of the historical and the discipline of economics v. Libertad’s blind and unsupported ideological assumption. I wonder which people should accept as the more probably accurate orientation?
Why do you have this obsessive need to try to spread misinformation? Do you hate humanity so much that you are compelled to try to promulgate ignorance in the hope of creating and sustaining more suffering and less prosperity than we are otherwise capable of achieving?
rarely do. That’s why I gave up responding to L’s “reponses” a while back. It was like having a conversation with someone completely devoid of short term memory, using the GOP talking points list to compensate. Why bother?
Meant this as a reply to sxp’s “have you been on a message board before?” Makes me look the pot calling the kettle black this way.
From her web site:
RealClearPolitics brings to light this years achievements on transparency when it involves facts that don’t sell the agenda. Obama needs to take credit for his decisive leadership on transparency.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
And pretty much dismissed… You’re a few days late to the party.
The guy isn’t a climate scientist – he’s an economics guy. Climate Progress provides a good summary of the debunking.
We have much more to fear from the economic consequences of fighting AGW than we do AGW itself.
Maybe we should be listening to economists….
How long did the Great Depression last? Probably nowhere near as long as the bad things climate change can wreak on us.
we have physical science. Fortunately, all use facts based on measurable data from points in time.
For those that percieve the glacial melt started in 1900, 1975 (or whenever Al Gore said it started in his movie) jump to the 5:00 mark. http://www.discovery.org/v/30
You have to actually use the data correctly in order to come up with a valid thesis.
you mean omitting the facts to sell the story you want sold. Watch the video Phoenix Limping.
Please, more! It’s been so long since I’ve had such pleasant reminders of grade school…
I’ll try to stomach the video later this evening…
of peer-reviewed academic literature documenting the precise measurements that lead to overwhelming empirical support for the fact of global warming, and the extremely close congruence between the curve of its acceleration and curve of the acceleration of carbon emissions since the advent of the industrial revolution. Time-lapse photography actually makes visible the melting of glaciers. Core samples illustrate the acceleration of that melting. The science is well developed (including such phenomena as reduced heat reflection/increased heat absorption as a result of the melting glaciers, thus accelerating the warming trend even more), empirically verified, and almost universally accepted in broad strokes by the scientific community (there is, as always, some academic debate about some esoteric details, but very little debate about the basic fact).
This nonsense you spew is right up their with Holocaust-denial.
We are in unfortunate need of a new Open Thread, because Steve managed to invoke the corollary to Godwin’s Law.
the moon-landing, then. Or denial of the theory of evolution. It’s all the same to me.
I picked the Holocaust because it is the best example of a nearly universally recognized fact, that few of us have first hand experience of (though I have pleny of second-hand experience of it), that a small but dedicated group of people deny the existence of. In this case, there simply are not too many superior comparisons for global-warming-denial. The fact that Nazism and all things related to it have become such a strong point of reference for human folly is because…they’re such a strong point of reference for human folly. Archetypes are a part of how we thing, and this has become an important archetype. More importantly, when something actually does bear a very close correspondance to some aspect of Nazism, to be constrained not to draw the comparison in order to avoid using that archetype strikes me as a bit dysfunctional.
Here’s another, slightly more trivial, variation on Godwin’s Law: Almost every post uses the word “the.” Get over it.
Hey-zeus Aych Keerist!
Lighten. Up.
Really, no heaviness intended. My response was meant in perfectly good humor.
being “a joke” doesn’t mean being removed from human discourse. Many very substantial statements are delivered as jokes; if that were all it took to insulate one’s speech from the possibility of response no one would ever have to endure contradiction. (And, in fact, invoking “it’s just a joke” is a very popular technique for trying to insulate oneself from contradiction or rebuke, though I recognize that your statement isn’t an example of that: It was really just a joke).
I’m not a climate scientist. This Guy Is (PDF), and he rather thoroughly picks apart the presentation to which you linked. This response is what it means to have peer review – the Robinsons’ presentation would never have survived to publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
he’d learn us a thing or two about that corrupt peer review process, yes he would!
Libertad, can you channel AS for us and tell us how we can’t trust peer review? You know, shoot the messenger and all that?
But Harvey just compared AGW to the Holocaust. A.S. Might be closer to the centerline on this one.
and science sure seems to think that it is, then it’s going to be a hell of a lot worse than the Holocaust. Just sayin’.
You’ve been quiet all day. Have you been mulling all this over?
for someone on the denial side to come back with a solid article rebutting the rebuttals we tend to post in these discussions.
The link I posted provided a serious peer review (though only one peer) of an AGW denial paper – in fact, a review of an update to one of the “key” AGW denial papers. I don’t see a rebuttal from the paper’s authors.
Just busy.
I’ll maybe be around in full later tonight.
You’ve pulled this before: I just compared one case of denying a strongly supported and widely accepted but rarely personally verified fact with another case of denying a strongly supported and widely accepted but rarely personally verified fact. That’s what comparison is: Taking two things that are similar in some ways, but different in other ways, in order to utilize recognition of some quality belonging to one in the realization of a similar recognition of the same quality belonging to the other.
The fact that the two things being compared are different in some essential ways is absolutely necessary in order to be able to make a meaningful comparison!!!
there’s something implicitly dishonest in suggesting that I was comparing all aspects of global warming to all aspects of the holocaust. In my comparison, it is clear what aspect is being compared: Denial of something that reasonable people accept as fact. Your post derives its rhetorical value from the implicit suggestion that I was comparing some other aspect(s) of the two phenomena, such as their relative moral weight, or destructive force. Those aspects were in no way implicated in my comparison of the two phenomena.
The two things have one powerful quality in common: They are examples of what rational people recognize by the weight of evidence to be factual in nature, but that are nevertheless denied by a small group of fanatical and motivated ideologues who do contortions to avoid the weight of the empirical evidence. That’s a very powerful and salient similarity.
I didn’t compare global warming to the holocaust: I compared denial of global warming to denial of the holocaust.
They have nothing in common. It’s a non sequitur used to make people feel bad if they don’t buy the AGW stuff hook, line, and sinker. You can write as many paragraphs as you want to say “nu-uh!” but it is what it is.
Denying the Holocaust is not in the same universe with questioning a controversial scientific theory.
It’s a nearly-universally accepted scientific theory, among climate scientists (and among most other scientists, for that matter).
Denying the holocaust is in precisely the same universe: Both are overwhelmingly supported by clear empirical evidence. Both are denied by a small and highly motivated group that resists the force of that clear empirical evidence for ideological reasons. That is a lot in common.
No “nu-uh” about it. I’ve listed in past posts links to entire catalogues of peer-reviewed articles on the subject of global warming. The evidence is overwhelming. Denial of the phenomena in the face of such evidence is similar to denial of any historical event or observable phenomenon in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To be honest, the better comparison is to denial of evolutionary theory. There are more, and more closely corresponding, points of comparison.
It’s very controversial and very much up in the air in terms of its overall effect.
All I’m saying is that in debate, ixnay on the Olo-caust-hay.
There is far more certainty about the origins of the current climate change than there is about economic conditions, for example. And more certainty about AGW than about the correct diplomatic moves. There’s more certainty about the current global warming theory than there is about the origin of Man, or about many fundamental physics theories.
AGW is currently “controversial” the same way the detrimental effects of smoking were “controversial” even after many studies showed strong links to lung cancer and other health issues – that is, it’s a controversy driven by an agenda. The agenda is control of energy policy and profit; the result is people buying into the “facts” in crappy reports that are published by fake “science” organizations because they can’t pass peer review.
I won’t go pissing you off by comparing climate change skepticism to Holocaust denial, but you and your fellow skeptics have resoundingly failed to address the mounting pile of evidence supporting AGW theory with credible counter-evidence.
There has to come a point where you have to put aside your favorite theories about how the world should work and try to evaluate the available evidence objectively. In light of all the good points about climate science brought up by Phoenix, Steve, myself and others, can you either a) counter these points or b) address any flaws of these points?
Remember: it’s one thing to have concerns about the affects of policies meant to address climate change – and you bring up many legitimate concerns there, from whether China or India will play along to the effectiveness of things like carbon credits (something I’m personally skeptical of – it seems like trying to have your cake and eat it, too). But that’s separate from the issue of whether humans are having more than a negligible impact on the climate, and I for one don’t see how reasonable, logical people can conclude that that’s not happening.
Here is my issue as simply as I can state it:
I don’t not believe in AGW. I am naturally not responsive to hysteria, particularly hysteria that has made Al gore a very, very wealthy man. Hysteria that seems to be focused on wealth, and the redistribution of it on a global scale.
I am skeptical of the resulting effects on the earth from Co2 levels rising, and how expanding government is somehow going to mitigate that.
How’s that?
… because I was talking about the science. The very large number of peer-reviewed papers from scientists and researcher all around the world supporting AGW.
You say that you “don’t not believe in AGW” but then go on to address the politics of it, not the science. You comments support my growing belief that your skepticism is driven by free market ideology and the challenge policy presents to it.
You say you’re “skeptical of the resulting effects on the earth from Co2 levels rising” but don’t say why.
What I want is concrete, logical reasons for this. There’s a ton of good science saying that rising CO2 is leading to a rise in the earth’s mean temperature. Setting aside any and all questions of what to do about that, why aren’t you convinced that that’s happening?
I don’t necessarily disagree with the fact that Co2 is rising as a result of human activity.
My point is that I don’t think the effect of that rise can be accurately predicted, and certainly not mitigated by a tax increase.
You seem to be leaving it up to “it’s controversial, and I don’t want something controversial taking our money”. That’s not science, it’s a value judgment wrapped in skepticism.
I want to have a real solution. Not one driven by a general desire of liberal Dems to want to grow government and create more ways to tax people.
The same studies that prove man’s addition to the Co2 content of the atmosphere are not as certain as to its eventual effect. If these minds admit they can’t accurately model this, how can a know-nothing like Nancy Pelosi have a solution that will be effective enough to warrant hamstringing the US economy?
I am not interested in growing government and taxing people just for the sake of doing so – and I’m guessing you’ll find precious few Democrats who are.
And the point of my post above is that the modeling is certain enough. It has been trending in one direction for years now – toward more rapid and more extreme problems. It has been doing so right alongside empirical data showing the reality of the situation.
You have a choice: act now, spend money to move forward (and grow new businesses while you’re at it) and have about a 1% chance that the models weren’t right; or, don’t act and have a 99% chance that you’ll be spending money for a very long future of consequences. Risk management-wise, it’s a pretty simple calculation.
You don’t need take offense at anything I say to you.
Forgive me, but we just spent more money in the first 90 days of a Dem Pres., Senate, and House than we’ve ever spent before.
It’s part of most ‘Progressives” DNA that they love to tax, and trust government to fix things. I’m not sure that any action taken by the US would make even the slightest dent in global Co2 levels, and even the AGW folks don’t seem to be too sure.
Haven’t the last 10 years been a big anomaly in most of the models in terms of temperature not following the Co2 rise?
it’s part of most free marketer’s DNA to think slashing taxes and trusting the free market to fix things?
Sorry, but I had to take a dig at that one. Can the free market right this ship?
The free market is basically natural law.
I don’t think it’s a dig at all.
The free market owes no allegiance to society or its betterment. The free market’s track record for trashing the world, from abandoned leaky mines to monumental deforestation to wasteful shipping of food from halfway around the world, the free market has earned the scorn of those who wish to solve this problem.
And I think “natural law” is a silly concept, FWIW. Humans can decide what’s logical, but elevating philosophical concepts to the same status as physics is hubris.
I think, at least, that we can take this to mean that you agree that manmade CO2 is a problem.
As far as solutions go, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the models all project a pretty grave outcome if we do nothing. Are the models inaccurate? I say that they’re the best to go on.
As far as specific ways to address it are concerned, I really am in the dark here. I don’t understand carbon credits but, as I’ve said elsewhere, am skeptical that it has any effect other than assuaging the guilt felt by an environmentalist who lives in America and probably consumes more than his or her fair share of fossil fuels. (I sure fit that description!) Finding ways to cut fossil fuels consumption ought to be the primary focus.
I don’t know what can be done internationally, as the world’s two most populous nations join the First World (and likely will be followed by others in the coming century). I would hope that our leadership would prove a model for them; I think they’ve felt safe ignoring Kyoto because, hey, the USA did too so why not? But that’s admittedly a crapshoot.
(I don’t want to get into a debate about Kyoto, BTW; from my rather uninformed view, it’s not working out according to plan but I can’t say it’s because it was too ambitious of what.)
So why would we pass the largest tax in history on ourselves to do nothing?
Fuck China and India. Why should we let then catch up to us economically, technologically and militarily for nothing?
Link.
I suppose there are a few things at play.
First of all, China and India, being part of this world, certainly will be affected by AGW as much as anyone. India perhaps even more; I don’t know how much of their coastline is like neighboring Bangladesh, but it takes very little rise in the sea level to flood most of that country (which is why any cyclone that hits Bangladesh is such a disaster regardless of its strength). It’s in their interest to participate in cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, I’m not naive enough to believe that they’ll just go along for that reason, compelling as it is, because when the money is rolling in as your economy is growing exponentially it’s hard to find the discipline to do the right (that is, costly and for no profit in return) thing. Even in the USA, when we should know better, we bought up SUVs when the economy was great and gas was cheap, when we should have known that both conditions were ephemeral and could bite us in the ass in short order, as happened.
Still, it’s something of a kneejerk reaction to just think that they won’t do anything at all in light of rising temperatures, altered weather patterns, and disappearing ice caps.
On the other hand, I for one was never raised to believe that you yourself shouldn’t do the right thing because no one else was. Even if India and China thumb their noses at us, we should still go ahead and try to curb our emissions anyway. I don’t know that the only solutions being proposed involve high taxes and expanded government, or that they have to. I do understand the concerns about government bloat, because even “conservatives” like Reagan and George W. Bush presided over government expansion, illustrating the political reality about how much Americans want government services. But I don’t know what other institution can muster the resources necessary to address a problem this big.
China and India both told Obama to pound sand on a treaty yesterday.
Without a binding agreement that’s followed by all the big countries, this thing is a no-go.
because we’re setting a terrible example. No one is going to change their habits when we tell them to when we haven’t yet.
We have to take the first step. India and China won’t tell us to “pound sand” if we’re not being monumental hypocrites on the issue.
They know what the kind of limits being proposed would do to their economies, and they don’t suffer from the self-loathing and false guilt we’re currently being urged to feel.
China and India have no problem with self-exceptionalism. We should follow their example.
then that’s insanity.
It’s interesting, I’ve never heard of doing the wrong thing because someone else is, as being a valid ethics point.
Besides, they’re following our example all along. America perfected capitalism, after all. So it would be strange to start following the follower, don’t you think?
We know Co2 is rising, but we only have vastly varying theoretical computer models to tall us what the result is, and we have a hysterical, rich, hypocritical, fat, rib-devouring, 20,000 square foot mansion-living asshole as the main spokesman raving about disaster that even the most ardent AGW scientists are cringing at, because they know it’s overstated at this point.
China, Russia, India and Brazil have been making announcements lately that they would like to form an alliance to diminish the superiority of the US. No better way to do it than to claim ‘developing nation’ status for themselves, and then guilt gullible US liberals now in power into ruining their own economy.
Screw them. The US is so much cleaner and responsible already than China and India. If this is such a problem, they need to be on board 100%. Besides, if the warming that’s theoretically supposed to come actually happens, it’s not going to be the US that suffers the most, it’s them.
Anecdotally, I was at a conference with the NHLPA a few years ago. They’ve started some kind of green program with their dues, and had the Canadian version of Mr. Science speak at their conference.
He ranted for thirty minutes about the life and death, absolutely Wagnerian future that awaits us with global warming, and that’s why the NHL’s green initiative was so great.
My thought was, if it’s such a life and death issue, then we need to shut the NHL down immediately. Think of the carbon footprint of an entertainment package like the NHL! All the flights, all the plastic in the pads and equipment, all the people traveling to the games, all the electricity used to freeze the numerous ice surfaces…
It’s moronic, hypocritical posturing like at that conference that leads to my cynicism. I hope you can try to understand where I’m coming from.
But… Climate change science – the findings of all those papers and studies, all the ones that have passed the muster of the scientific method – stand independent and unchanged by any hysteria, political agendas, gnashing of teeth, etc. It’s one thing to doubt the science based on scientific reasoning; it’s another because the messenger is (or is perceived to be) a big hypocrite.
Regarding the computer models… They are the best data that we have at this time. Like a business that makes projections (that often don’t turn out to be all that accurate) in order to steer policy, we need to steer our own policy based on what we can predict, using our best data and models that we have available to us. Like PR said elsewhere, you don’t wait for 100% agreement from all corners; there are always objections, concerns, skeptics, etc.
As for China and India… maybe it’s your objectivism, but you seem to assume a lot about their motives and think that they’ll just break with their biggest customer and go it alone. It’s a global economy now – no one can just do their own thing anymore.
Also, if necessary, the US can leverage that if we wish. I’m sure the EU and Japan would be quite willing to go along with it. I think, however, that self preservation would ultimately make them play along. Especially if, as you say, they’re at greater risk. (Not sure how; we have a hell of a lot of our population and commerce at sea level, after all.)
From Mongabay.com:
Or at the very least running a strong race toward renewable energy. Check news releases from the past couple of days, or from the past year or three. They’re on track to meet or beat us to Obama’s 2020 goal…
They’ve got a serious pollution problem from coal, not a lot of oil resources… They know they’re going to have to rely in something else and they’re well on their way to implementing it.
We have more to worry about from India, which hasn’t shown much interest in upgrading…
Is a disaster. They are building something like two dirty-coal plants a week. They aren’t going to adhere to any Co2 emissions standards. Just because they have no problem with keeping 500 million people in servitude to the State doesn’t make me feel any sympathy for them in terms of per capita emissions.
Part of me still believes that AGW was thought up by a bunch of lefties, sitting around a room together asking ‘what do rich people have in common that we could get them for..?’
‘I know! Co2!’
that you, even in jest, could ever believe that lefties are just sitting around devising ways to seize property. We’re not commies, you know!
As long as you’re willing to acknowledge that your feelings are at odds with the facts, I’m fine with that. It’s a first step…
Banking industry? Auto industry?
Congress Targets Wealthiest Earners For Health Reform Funds.
The wealthier get more, therefore they need to give back more.
I know that will probably make your head explode, but this is just how you keep America from becoming a third world nation. Not to mention fix all the problems that a deregulated free market and “cut taxes but spend spend spend” Bush administration have wreaked on the economy.
After all, it might foster entire industries that lead to the future economic might of our country. More efficient appliances, more efficient energy generation… Oh, the horror!
If the predictions are even close to right, the economic consequences of doing nothing will be the cost of rebuilding some portion of our largest coastal cities, plus the costs of damage from increased storm activity, plus the costs of more difficult agricultural climates.
I don’t disagree that we need to assess economic costs of any decision. Aside from that, and I’ve already posted my thoughts on the economic costs, this guy was recycling material from global warming denial sites that had already been debunked and dismissed. He wasn’t making an economic claim – he was trying to inject discredited climate theories into the discussion, and obviously was ready to make political hay on FOX News when the inevitable result of his “report”‘s rejection became fact.
LB, while I very strongly disagree with you, I think your position is well within the bounds of reason, and that that is precisely the kind of thing that reasonable people of good will have to debate, research, analyze, and arrive at some conclusion concerning.
Talk about a well adjusted, forthright and principled leader … nah, just jump to the link and read about her leadership.
http://news.smh.com.au/breakin…
For those pride blinded spend and taxers, here is a recent summary of leadership moves:
– Gas tax hike, vetoed
– Internet tax creation, vetoed
– Card Check, vetoed (again)
– Duplicative universal children’s health care program, likely vetoed
– Scaling back high-tech investment tax credits, likely vetoed
– Establishing a moratorium against the eviction of Native Hawaiian families, likely vetoed
Local HIPols members must be blowing their brains out. Her record closely mirrors one of say Congressman Tancredo.
and quite liberal in practice. The Democratic legislature in HI is totally nuts.
Weekend interviews 4th one is with yours truly.
A common refrain of the lefties on this website is that Prop. 13 caused (or was a primary contributor) to California’s fiscal mess.
Today’s column by columnist Dan Walters (he’s a bit left of center) in the Sacramento Bee does a good job debunking that argument:
http://www.sacbee.com/walters/…
Yet the critics are so tilted they propose a death spiral…
… current commercial assets are priced at 40%+ discounts from top transaction values (and still aren’t moving), yet we have these idiots proposing to cram down more taxes on the property owners.
CA, a spend and tax model the progressive crowd wants so badly to believe in…
Yes, California has a high tax burden. Per capita, it’s 10th in the nation. By income, it’s only 18th highest. By no means has it’s taxing capacity “maxed out” – a relatively meaningless term considering successful countries with much higher tax burdens than any location within the United States.
Reading the article, you couldn’t tell Dan Walters is a lefty – as an editorial writer, he doesn’t go reaching for too many facts, but those he uses to rebut the assessments of those running the system belong to the fiscal ultra-conservatives who brought in Prop. 13 in the first place.
Proposition 13’s main contribution to California’s brain-dead budget (for today) is the 2/3 super-majority budget. When the minority party decides to gum up the works by opposing any plan short of their complete demands, they can do it – they have complete control over the budget because they hold firm on idiocy. There were some reasonably tough decisions made in the budget proposal – a combination of targeted taxes and some deep service cuts. It may not have been perfect, but it’s certainly better than the “kick the old lady out on the street” approach that the GOP legislative minority wants.
Now, Prop. 13 has its good points and bad, but today that’s the issue. Compromise should never equal holding the state hostage.
You need to look at combined state AND local burden. You’re making the same mistake that Pols and the Bell Institute always repeat (in order to try and make a feaux point!). Many Western states rely more on local governments to deliver services, so the appropriate measure is state and local burden.
Here is a link. California ranks 6th in the nation in state and local tax burden per capita.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/t…
Colorado, incidentally, ranked 34th last year, the same as it was in 2000.
PPIC “Just The Facts” 2009(PDF).
When your state is 6th in local and state tax collection you’ve pretty much maxed out the takings of the people. Worse though is the CA spending and jobs growth models which the Guv has tried to deploy here in CO.
Remeber a few years ago when the state legislature rolled the Guv on his budget – you nearly forgot about that grounding in reality. What about all those energy sector jobs … why the net decline in jobs for this sector?
As to other “successful countries” taxation … during our recent global downturn we’ve had the following tax regime proposals (and these are just the corporate tax efforts):
You’re like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie…
There are many countries throughout the world whose tax burden dwarfs the total national, state, and local burden of California. They aren’t dying…
Yes, you can cite Ireland – the industrialized country with the lowest overall tax burden – which has despite (or perhaps because of) that honor suffered most during this recession.
Or you can cite governments lowering corporate taxes in lean times – which helps keep the companies floating in tough times. But our own real corporate tax rates are already so low that such a solution wouldn’t work here. Think of Germany’s move on corporate taxes as being equivalent to our stimulus package and you’ll be closer to what they’re trying to accomplish.
I know when all you have is a hammer (tax cuts) everything looks like a nail. I wish I could say reality was that simple.
It’s too long to re-format for here, but it deals with some rather disturbing research on Social Security Numbers: depending on your place and date of birth, it may be possible to guess your full 9-digit SSN with as few as 10 guesses.
It’s not surprising when you realize the extent of the problem: SSNs aren’t random, and there are only one billion of them – and three hundred million of us in the country right now.
There are implications – which I cover in detail – about the feasibility of immigration reform with this issue hanging over everything. Go read it – please?