" Poll shows California voters want budget cuts somewhere, just not to things they like ." That headline from the June 10 Press-Enterprise seems to sum up the problems California is facing in balancing its budget.
There's been much finger pointing on this issue, mostly at the legislature. They have a difficult job, trying to close a gap of about $17 billion between planned expenses and scheduled revenue. The difference is significant: more than 10 percent of the governor's proposed $141 billion budget .
Matthew C. Scallon
June 13, 2008 at 06:03 AM
The study claiming all these economic benefits for gay "marriage" came from the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. As I said before elsewhere , these benefits could as easily come from signing ceremonies for powers of attorney without the costs of the eventual divorces.
In any event, we are using as our source of economics information a law school. Economics from lawyers. No offense, Chuck, but lawyers aren't expert on everything, especially economics.
As I told one accountant with whom I was having a heated argument, "Tell you what, pal, I won't do your taxes, and you won't program my computer. Deal?" Tell you what, Chuck, if Alan Greenspan promises not to try your cases, please leave economics to, well, economists. Deal?
Chuck
from Escondido, CA
June 13, 2008 at 01:03 PM
Actually Matt, no deal. The day we leave all discussion to self-appointed experts will be a sad day for us all.
Matthew C. Scallon
June 13, 2008 at 07:30 PM
@Chuck, well, thank you for replying. For a while, I thought you weren't paying attention.
The "self-appointed experts" could more accurately described your source. Alan Greenspan wasn't self-appointed.
Rob Moutrie
July 01, 2008 at 11:06 PM
This is an important and often forgotten side of California (and worldwide) politics. First, the tendency to demand more services without considering (or paying) the costs, and secondly, the growing sense of "only-if-it-benefits-me" in policy choices. And the interaction between the budget deficit and voter's conscience when it comes to initiatives also needs to be discussed. However Matt, you decided to criticize rather harshly one closing comment which was not, on the whole, relevant to the article, and was intended only as a comedic closer. Matt, in less intellectual forums, we would call what you wrote "off-topic flaming." I, and the author as well I'm sure, would appreciate comments on the more relevant (and interesting) sections of the piece.
Matthew C. Scallon
July 10, 2008 at 04:59 AM
@Rob Moutrie, could you be so kind as to explain to me how I was being harsh or "anti-intellectual." Please also explain to me how, in critiquing Chuck's last comment, I was going off-topic.
