Thursday's Letters to the Editor

That's right John Horvath. Just keep your small mind closed. Don't ever respect anyone with an opposing opinion. Just keep repeating to yourself "I am right and anyone and everyone who opposes illegal immigration must be racist!"

That way you can live in your own fantasy world and never confront the real world.

The vast majority of us recognize that illegal immigration is, obviously, illegal. And it hurts all Americans as well as all non-Americans who use legal means to enter our country.

Blah Blah Blah, Michael Warners is sucking up to King Scotto. The latest Scotto cronie now that the King has filled the City Council with his cronies he is moving to the school board. What a joke this city has come to.

Way to go Steven A. Fuller. The sooner that Senator Boxer is removed, the better for the State and the country. She is an embarresment to the state of California. We will be working on encouraging the voters to remove this incompetent U.S. Senator in 2010.

Torrancejim wrote:

Way to go Steven A. Fuller. The sooner that Senator Boxer is removed, the better for the State and the country. She is an embarresment to the state of California. We will be working on encouraging the voters to remove this incompetent U.S. Senator in 2010.

God, let's hope so

Well John,

There are a couple of little issues here:
1) If someone wants to live in Mexico, they can always emigrate. But to live in your home year after year and have to watch your community become a 3rd world country speaking a foreign language is the result of an "invasion". And guys like you are responsible.

2) In case you haven't noticed, John, the State of California is BROKE!!! All of these nice unionized "services" provided to "all the people who need them" has pretty much bankrupted the state. Now you may think that you can stick someone else with the bill for that, but in reality it's gong to suck every nickel out of your pocket too.

3) I know that you don't believe in laws, John, or you wouldn't have said such a stupid thing. Why have laws if they aren't going to be enforced? Playing by the rules is important in societies, people who don't are a problem.(So are people who make bad laws, and those who fail to do their jobs.)

4) And finally let me suggest that you on the left overuse the word "racist" all the time, especially when you have nothing but bankrupt arguments.

Not a Revisionist wrote:

Well John,
There are a couple of little issues here:
1) If someone wants to live in Mexico, they can always emigrate. But to live in your home year after year and have to watch your community become a 3rd world country speaking a foreign language is the result of an "invasion". And guys like you are responsible.

I was immediately struck by the irony of this statement within the historical context of California. The Californios felt exactly the same way, with verifiable evidence to support their feelings. The issue then was the conversion of the Mexican territory into the American state of California resulted in many well-to-do Californios to illegally loose their holdings and live to old age dying as paupers.

Not a Revisionist wrote:

Well John,
There are a couple of little issues here:
2) In case you haven't noticed, John, the State of California is BROKE!!! All of these nice unionized "services" provided to "all the people who need them" has pretty much bankrupted the state. Now you may think that you can stick someone else with the bill for that, but in reality it's gong to suck every nickel out of your pocket too.

A calmer, more rational, more informed understanding of the fiscal issues is reported in today's lead article in the DB. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_STA...

For John Horvath - do you also propose that when the illegal immigrant student has all the degrees they have earned from scholarships to universities then we must give them some special status in order that they can be employed WHERE THEY WANT TO WORK?
We need to expose the delayed effect that these scholarships create when the educated graduate finds his degree is pretty worthless in most industries due to hiring laws.
What then Mr. Horvath? Do we just erase all security guidelines and legal requirements for employment? Or do we take the bull by the horns and refuse to be attacked for what the parents did to the kid, not you and I.
I know what I'm speaking of, have seen it and watched how rich employers actually think they are doing something "good" by promoting the children of their employees in scholarships and even hiring lawyers to fight to get them scholarships.
I guess this makes them feel better about not paying decent wages and all the taxes, much less then they get out of any retirement headaches because they helped the kids get to a point where they'll be responsible for the parents in old age and solve the rich employer's headaches about what to do with the old maid.

TomFromPV wrote:

That's right John Horvath. Just keep your small mind closed. Don't ever respect anyone with an opposing opinion. Just keep repeating to yourself "I am right and anyone and everyone who opposes illegal immigration must be racist!"
That way you can live in your own fantasy world and never confront the real world.
The vast majority of us recognize that illegal immigration is, obviously, illegal. And it hurts all Americans as well as all non-Americans who use legal means to enter our country.

Well, is this the pot calling the kettle black? The last sentence sounds right out of the union public position playbook.

I hope Mr. Wemers reads this.

Yes, Torrance is known for its schools, safety and home values, but just in case you are contemplating any form of parcel tax to help resolve the city's and school's deficits, I would suggest you mandate that Torrance city workers be furloughed before any further tax increase.

State workers are being furloughed 3 days a month, City of LA workers 2 days a month. What about City of Torrance workers? Are they being furloughed?

I'm surprised, Slug. You've always struck me as a fairly objective guy. The Judy Lin story, however, is as one-sided as you'd expect from an former Sac Bee reporter. She, once AGAIN ignores the incredible amount of revenue that this state has received over the last 5 years. It's the SPENDING that's outpaced everything, creating the budget mess. The state workforce has grown, pension contracts have swollen beyond unsustainable levels, entitlement programs have grown (33% of US welfare recipients live in CA - a state with 12% of the population), excessive regulation has cost billions in lost economic activity, illegals are a net cost of over $10 Billion/yr, etc. The Lin piece offers perspective in as much as it compares our woes to other states, but there's very little substance to the underlying reasons we're really in this mess.

slug wrote:

<quoted text> A calmer, more rational, more informed understanding of the fiscal issues is reported in today's lead article in the DB. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_STA...

Tyler wrote:

I'm surprised, Slug. You've always struck me as a fairly objective guy. The Judy Lin story, however, is as one-sided as you'd expect from an former Sac Bee reporter. She, once AGAIN ignores the incredible amount of revenue that this state has received over the last 5 years. It's the SPENDING that's outpaced everything, creating the budget mess. The state workforce has grown, pension contracts have swollen beyond unsustainable levels, entitlement programs have grown (33% of US welfare recipients live in CA - a state with 12% of the population), excessive regulation has cost billions in lost economic activity, illegals are a net cost of over $10 Billion/yr, etc. The Lin piece offers perspective in as much as it compares our woes to other states, but there's very little substance to the underlying reasons we're really in this mess.
<quoted text>

My browser wanted to make sure I got your message clearly because all of sudden it bogged down when I clicked to look at something else.(I had to close it and reopen it)

The overall article was terribly slanted to issues associated with revenue more than spending. The reason? "Historically, states have their worst tax revenue year soon after a national recession ends. At the same time, higher joblessness and underemployment mean more people need government-sponsored health care and social safety-net programs, further taxing state services.", according to the article.

States have to balance budgets, unlike the feds because the feds control monetary policy. During dire economic times, the state should have the capacity to borrow. Because of borrowing during not so dire times, California has more limited choices. Long term and short term debt payments will have their impact, if not already.

State employee size isn't the big thing everybody makes it. http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-oct08-govt-e... There is a qualifier at the end saying the CA DOF population numbers are used rather than U.S. Census numbers.

Art Laffer's WSJ 2003 commentary during the Davis recall days on revising the tax code in Cal was absolutely the best I have seen written on the subject. No better tax reform can be taken to improve California's economy and depoliticize taxes than his suggestions.

Also, for years my opinion on spending is for the common functions of government (public safety, highways, recreation, water, education, etc, where use is open to all) should have priority over the uncommon functions of government ( redistributive things like welfare, health care, etc, where means testing is applied). That doesn't absolutely give up one for the other, but the uncommon functions reform during good economic times and it never happens. During economic times like these, it is hardly the time politically to address those issues.(A co-worker is hoping mad that the state always hits the unemployed and disabled the hardest during a bad economy while public safety employees get raises and increased benefits. I disagreed, but didn't argue because he gets too excited about the issue - if you know what I mean)

Maybe this is too long and I should have just said I appreciate your point. But, as you can tell, I like robust discussions.

I'm not surprised about your browser. I tend to have that effect on computers - not in a good way.
I'm actually quite thankful that it isn't so easy for CA to borrow right now. If the legislators did borrow huge amounts (which they would), it would just be incorporated into future budgets as expected revenue. It's this charming technique during windfall years that has increased budgets to its recent levels.
I hadn't seen that chart before and agree the size of gov't may not be as relatively large as I had thought it was. But, I've never been a fan of basing policy on what others do. The fact is that the state grew by 48 workers per day for over a decade. And, it continued to grow this year when the private sector was laying off so many. That chart also doesn't address our state salaries/benefits relative to other states. I'd be curious to see that - even though it probably wouldn't sway me one way or the other. The fact is I don't think the increase in state gov't has made very many Californian's lives better.
I tried looking up the Laffer piece. Was it the "California Drainin'" one? At the end of that, he talks about tax cuts. Something that I, as a taxpayer in the highest taxed state, would love to see.
I'm curious to know where you disagree with your coworker. During rough economic times, the unemployed and the disabled are hit the hardest because the state just doesn't have the extra $ for largesse. It's hard to argue with numbers. Which is why, yes, if I were a disabled person who was not getting the $ I'd be fortunate enough to receive in better years but saw state pensions and payrolls grow during the same years, I'd be upset, too.

slug wrote:

<quoted text> A calmer, more rational, more informed understanding of the fiscal issues is reported in today's lead article in the DB. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_STA...

Sorry Slug,
Your story has an "AP" (All Propaganda) byline. I hate to be this way, but I'd rather have facts than spin and all you get with AP stories is spin.

And it's hard to be totally "rational and informed" in one sentence. But I think since you are one of those unionized bureaucrats, that you have a bit of a blindness in the direction of the problems caused by that particular life-form.

Not a Revisionist wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry Slug,
Your story has an "AP" (All Propaganda) byline. I hate to be this way, but I'd rather have facts than spin and all you get with AP stories is spin.
And it's hard to be totally "rational and informed" in one sentence. But I think since you are one of those unionized bureaucrats, that you have a bit of a blindness in the direction of the problems caused by that particular life-form.

I'm probably as anti-union as you. However, in this case - Slug is correct, you are not.

Tyler wrote:

I'm not surprised about your browser. I tend to have that effect on computers - not in a good way.
I'm actually quite thankful that it isn't so easy for CA to borrow right now. If the legislators did borrow huge amounts (which they would), it would just be incorporated into future budgets as expected revenue. It's this charming technique during windfall years that has increased budgets to its recent levels.
I hadn't seen that chart before and agree the size of gov't may not be as relatively large as I had thought it was. But, I've never been a fan of basing policy on what others do. The fact is that the state grew by 48 workers per day for over a decade. And, it continued to grow this year when the private sector was laying off so many. That chart also doesn't address our state salaries/benefits relative to other states. I'd be curious to see that - even though it probably wouldn't sway me one way or the other. The fact is I don't think the increase in state gov't has made very many Californian's lives better.
I tried looking up the Laffer piece. Was it the "California Drainin'" one? At the end of that, he talks about tax cuts. Something that I, as a taxpayer in the highest taxed state, would love to see.
I'm curious to know where you disagree with your coworker. During rough economic times, the unemployed and the disabled are hit the hardest because the state just doesn't have the extra $ for largesse. It's hard to argue with numbers. Which is why, yes, if I were a disabled person who was not getting the $ I'd be fortunate enough to receive in better years but saw state pensions and payrolls grow during the same years, I'd be upset, too.

Sorry I didn't get back more timely. Laffer updated the article in a revision published here. I liked his earlier piece better because it was more detailed and better pitched, I thought. Regardless, I'm glad he is sticking with the concept. He is right on, but I would add some points and make some minor modifications =http://www.foxandhoundsdaily. com/blog/arthur-laffer/califor nia-needs-a-flat-tax-solve-its -budget-problem

When you start doing state employee salary/benefit comparisons between states other issues are always present - cost of living, labor laws, housing, crime, desirability, etc. that impact salary comparisons. Salary comparisons between Northern California and Southern California, where I have direct knowledge of the attempt to use those comparisons in MOU negotiations in a couple of government agencies, have been rejected without negotiation nor reconsideration because it is recognized and commonly accepted that the cost of living up north is more expensive.

Where did the 48 a day increase come from? It adds up to about 175,000 over the period. What percentage of the total is that? Last year, the entire 15 million workforce in California had 2.518 million of those working at some level of government. http://www.edd.ca.gov/About_EDD/pdf/urate2009...

Tyler wrote:

I'm not surprised about your browser. I tend to have that effect on computers - not in a good way.
I'm actually quite thankful that it isn't so easy for CA to borrow right now. If the legislators did borrow huge amounts (which they would), it would just be incorporated into future budgets as expected revenue. It's this charming technique during windfall years that has increased budgets to its recent levels.
I hadn't seen that chart before and agree the size of gov't may not be as relatively large as I had thought it was. But, I've never been a fan of basing policy on what others do. The fact is that the state grew by 48 workers per day for over a decade. And, it continued to grow this year when the private sector was laying off so many. That chart also doesn't address our state salaries/benefits relative to other states. I'd be curious to see that - even though it probably wouldn't sway me one way or the other. The fact is I don't think the increase in state gov't has made very many Californian's lives better.
I tried looking up the Laffer piece. Was it the "California Drainin'" one? At the end of that, he talks about tax cuts. Something that I, as a taxpayer in the highest taxed state, would love to see.
I'm curious to know where you disagree with your coworker. During rough economic times, the unemployed and the disabled are hit the hardest because the state just doesn't have the extra $ for largesse. It's hard to argue with numbers. Which is why, yes, if I were a disabled person who was not getting the $ I'd be fortunate enough to receive in better years but saw state pensions and payrolls grow during the same years, I'd be upset, too.

I'm gonna try the Laffer link again http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/arthur-...

I found something I highlighted years ago that I had long forgotten. Relevant in the current economy. From an econ textbook called The Economic Way of Thinking (1991) by Paul Heyne page 503

"Whether you decide it is a consequence or a coincidence, the fact remains that our most rapid inflation and highest unemployment rates since WWII appeared after both major political parties had committed themselves to fine-tuning of the economy through aggregate-demand management."

Jerry Orlemann wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm probably as anti-union as you. However, in this case - Slug is correct, you are not.

Slug is and has been for a long time a UNION member.

you know what wrote:

<quoted text>
Slug is and has been for a long time a UNION member.

Yep. 25 years - in an open shop,even. I joined the second week on the job because I wanted a say in the process that was going to determine my wage, benefits and working conditions.

I got very annoyed at a negotiation strategy the union negotiators used on a MOU several years ago. I found the vote count for the MOU flawed and successfully argued to have the vote overturned. One negotiator was on the union board. I ran against him and won - by two votes. After my first meeting on the board, I wished that when the voting results for the board were announced I had called for a re-vote. I was aghast at the politicization of the union and that the board members didn't seem to represent the general interests of all the members. However, I did not fault the board members, as many who were of my thinking refused to participate in any way (especially, voting) as a form of rejecting the politics of the leadership. I swear it doesn't get more stupid than that.

I was on the board for 5 years. There were many votes where I was the lone dissenting vote. The general manager actually had to stop saying, "by a unanimous vote". More solo no votes than that union had ever seen before. A couple of times visiting members to the board meetings approached me afterward and praised me for what I said and my vote.

One time, I had had it and told a fellow black female board member that she was stupid, out loud. The place came unglued. I sincerely apologized to her privately after the meeting and at the next meeting made a formal apology to her as part of the record.

Of course, she is not stupid. Actually, she is very bright. About a year later, her teenage son was shot in the head in a case of mistaken identity. He is OK. But, when I found out I would have done anything for her. We still communicate regularly, although we are political opposites and don't even work for the same agency.

So, when somebody says Slug is a UNION member, you now know the story.