Nevada Ads target California Business

[aztecwin]

www.kxnt.com/pages/4955391.php?

Have you been paying attention to these ads that compare our California State Senators to monkeys? Oscar Goodman, Mayor, Lawyer to Crooks and Hedgecock is trying to bring California business to Nevada touting taxes and general business climate. Goodman is not one of my favorite people, but this is a funny in a strange way campaign. The dim Dems in Sacramento respond by further raising taxes on business. I am not leaving yet since I am retired and Nevada has its own set of problems. The idea just strikes me as funny in a sad sort of way.

[davdesid]

Not surprising at all.

Here are some remarks from Congressman Tom McClintock wrt to the subject. (yeah, he's one of the =Perfesser's "boneheads", which makes him all the more credible):

"Congressman Tom McClintock offered remarks in Washington, D.C., on Friday to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute that clearly illustrates why California is facing such a large fiscal mess. His beginning joke is so funny because it is so true:

"I know that everybody likes to poke fun at California - but I can tell you right now that despite all of its problems, California remains one of the best places in the world to build a successful small business. All you have to do is start with a successful large business."

Here is the rest of the speech:

Laugh if you will, but let me remind you that when these policies finish wrecking California, there are still 49 other states we can all move to - and yours is one of them.



I should also warn you of the strange sense of déjà-vu that I have every day on the House floor as I watch the same folly and blunders that wrecked California now being passed with reckless abandon in this Congress.

We passed a "Cash-for-Clunkers" bill the other day - we did that years ago in California.

Doubling the entire debt every five years? Been there.

Increasing spending at unsustainable rates? Done that.

Save-the-Planet-Carbon-Dioxide restrictions? Got the T-Shirt.

To understand how these policies can utterly destroy an economy and bankrupt a government, you have to remember the Golden State in its Golden Age.

A generation ago, California spent about half what it does today AFTER adjusting for both inflation and population growth.

And yet, we had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country. California offered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one. We produced water and electricity so cheaply that many communities didn't bother to measure the stuff. Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and its diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.

One thing - and one thing only - has changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California's government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.

The Census Bureau reports that in the last two years 2/3 of a million more people have moved out of California than have moved into it. Many are leaving for the garden spots of Nevada, Arizona and Texas. Think about that. California is blessed with the most equitable climate in the entire Western Hemisphere; it has the most bountiful resources anywhere in the continental United States; it is poised on the Pacific Rim in a position to dominate world trade for the next century, and yet people are finding a better place to live and work and raise their families in the middle of the Nevada and Arizona and Texas deserts.

I submit to you that no conceivable act of God could wreak such devastation as to turn California into a less desirable place to live than the middle of the Nevada Nuclear Test Range.. Only Acts of Government can do that. And they have.

You can trace the collapse of California's economy to several critical events: the rise of environmental Ludditism beginning in 1974; the abandonment of constitutional checks and balances that once constrained spending and borrowing; and the rise of rule by public employee unions. There are other factors as well: litigation, taxation, illegal immigration - but for the sake of time let me concentrate on the big three.

The first was the rise of environmental Ludditism with the election of a radical new-age leftist named Jerry Brown as governor of the state - an election that also produced overwhelming liberal majorities in both legislative houses.

Like Obama today, Brown lost little time in pursuing his vision of California - an incoherent combination of pastoral simplicity, European socialism and centralized planning. At the center of this world view was a backward ideology that he called his "era of limits" - the naïve notion that public works were growth inducing and polluting and that stopping the expansion of infrastructure somehow excused government from meeting the needs of an expanding population. Conservation replaced abundance as the chief aim of California's public works, and public policy was redirected to developing irresistible incentives for the population to concentrate in dense urban cores rather than to settle in suburban communities. Brown infused his vision into every aspect of public policy, and it is a testament to his thoroughness and tenacity that its basic tenets have dominated the direction of California through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

He canceled the state's highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction. He canceled long-planned water projects, conveyance facilities and dams. He established the California Energy Commission that blocked approval of any significant new generating capacity. He enacted volumes of environmental regulations that created severe impediments to home and commercial construction, empowering an incipient no-growth movement that began on the most extreme fringe of the environmental cause and quickly spread. This movement reached its zenith with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the enactment of AB 32 and companion legislation in 2006. This measure gives virtually unchecked authority to the California Air Resources Board to force Draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.

This has dire implications to entire segments of California's economy: agriculture, baking, distilling, cargo and passenger transportation, cement production, manufacturing, construction and energy production, to name a few.

We, too, were promised an explosion of "green jobs," but exactly the opposite has happened.

Up until that bill took effect, California's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But since then, California's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

The second problem is structural: the collapse of the checks and balances and other constitutional and traditional constraints on government spending and borrowing.

Let me mention a few of them.

The State Supreme Court decision in Serrano v. Priest severed the use of local revenue for local schools and invited the state take-over of public education. AB 8 of 1979 - the legislature's response to Proposition 13 - essentially did the same thing to local governments generally.

This means that vast bureaucracies have grown up over the service delivery level, wasting more and more resources while hamstringing teachers in their classrooms, wardens in their prisons and city councils in their towns.

Next, constitutional constraints on fiscal excesses began to fall. In 1983, Gov. George Deukmejian approved legislation to remove the governor's ability to make mid-year budget corrections without having to return to the legislature. The loss of this provision exposed the state to chronic deficit spending by removing any ability of the governor to rapidly respond to changing economic conditions. In 1989, Deukmejian sponsored Proposition 111 that destroyed the Gann Spending Limit that had held increases in state spending to inflation and population growth. If that limit had remained intact, California would be enjoying a budget surplus today.

The disastrous tax increases by Pete Wilson in 1991 and Arnold Schwarzenegger this year were made possible by this tragic blunder. Finally, we've watched the constitutional budget process that had produced relatively punctual and relatively balanced budgets for nearly 150 years collapse in favor of an extra-constitutional abomination called the big five.

That new process, that began under Pete Wilson and has culminated under Arnold Schwarzenegger bypasses the entire legislative deliberative process in favor of an annual deal struck between the governor and legislative leaders behind closed doors and handed to the legislature as a fait accompli.

This short-circuits the separation of powers that is designed to discipline fiscal excess and it literally bargains away the line-item veto authority of the governor. It is a process that allows legislative leaders to extract concessions from the executive that would not be possible if the separation of powers were maintained. With the checks against excessive spending broken down, borrowing became the preferred method of public finance. The Constitutional requirement that all taxpayer-supported debt be approved by voters began to erode in the 1930's, when a depression-era Supreme Court decision allowed the state to run a temporary deficit in the event of an economic downturn - as long as the shortfall was addressed in the following fiscal year. This practice was narrowly construed until the Wilson administration began using it to justify spreading out a single year's budget deficit over several years.

During the 1980's, Gov. Deukmejian began employing a legal fiction called a "lease revenue bond," to circumvent constitutionally required voter approval.

Although Proposition 13 still protects property owners from unsustainable increases in their property taxes, most of the other fiscal constraints are now gone, and California has entered a period of unprecedented public debt to finance an unprecedented expansion of state government.

The third factor that also can be traced back to the 1970's was the radical transformation that took place in the nature and power of the state's public employee unions. Until that time, state law prohibited public employee strikes against the public and prohibited collective bargaining or closed shops.

During the Jerry Brown era, a series of collective bargaining acts handed to public sector unions all the rights and powers of private sector unions - but without any of the natural constraints on private sector unions. The unions soon brought these newly won powers to bear to elect handpicked officials to state and local office.

Today, political expenditures by public employee unions exceed all other special interest groups, while they hold compliant majorities in the state legislature and most local agencies.

The result has been radically escalating personnel costs and radically deteriorating performance.

The impact on governmental services has been devastating. Despite exploding budgets, service delivery is collapsing. Firing incompetent teachers has become a virtual impossibility, adding to the deterioration of educational quality. Essential services can no longer be performed because labor costs have made it impossible to sustain those services.

Today, California is like the shopkeeper, who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much. Every month the shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks. Ultimately, he will reach a tipping point where anything he does makes his situation worse. Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he's running out of credit. Raising prices causes his sales to decline. And there's only so much discretionary spending he can cut.

That's the state's predicament in a nutshell. California's borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University of California and it is increasingly likely that it will fail to find lenders when it must borrow billions to pay its bills at the end of this month. Ignoring dire warnings, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators from both parties earlier this year imposed the biggest state tax increase in American history.

And I can assure you that the Laffer curve is alive and well. In the first two months after the tax increase took effect, state revenues have plunged 33 percent.

Although th ere are many obsolete, duplicative or low priority programs and expenditures that the state can - and should - do without, there aren't enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California's deficit.

Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions.

Fortunately, we have a model that we know works. A generation ago, it produced a high quality of public service at a much lower cost. It maximized management flexibility and it required accountability at the service delivery level. It recognized that only when commerce and enterprise flourish can we finance the basic responsibilities of government.

Restoring this efficiency will require a governor and a legislature with the political will to wrestle control from the public employee unions, dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery level, decentralize administration and decision making, contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently, rescind the recent tax increases that are costing the state money and roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise.

Alas, we don't have such leaders and even if we did, the systemic reorganization of the state government can't be accomplished overnight. Restructuring the public schools would take at least a year; prisons at least two; and health and welfare three to five years before serious savings could be realized.

This brings us to the fine point of the matter. What Churchill called history's "terrible, chilling words" are about to be pronounced on California's failed leadership: "to o late."

A federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California's bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the state actually adopts the replacement structures, unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the state's crushing debt and looming obligations.

Without these actions, federal intervention will only make California's problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt.

In short, if California won't help itself, the federal government cannot, should not and must not.

And before anyone gets too smug at California's agony, remember this: Congress is now enacting the same policies at the national level that have caused the collapse of California. So whistle past this cemetery if you must, but remember the medieval epitaph: "Remember man as you walk by, as you are now so once was I; as I am now so you will be." The good news is there is still time for the nation to avoid California's fate. If anything, the collapse of California can at least serve as a morality play for the rest of the nation - unfortunately in the form of a Greek tragedy."

[Bob Forsythe]

Um, can either of you boneheads (I reserve that for the right-wingnuts on here, Dave) verify that California doesn't run ads in other states aimed at bringing businesses here?

=Bob

[davdesid]

Um, although I'm sure you don't consider me a "bonehead"...

..heh...

I would never attempt to "verify" that California doesn't add to its exploding deficit by running ads trying to sell sand in the Sahara. It would be a good bet that they do.

I'm absolutely lovin' the meltdown of this dysfunctional state.

[Bob Forsythe]

Aug 28, 2009 16:26:43 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Um, although I'm sure you don't consider me a "bonehead"...

..heh...

I would never attempt to "verify" that California doesn't add to its exploding deficit by running ads trying to sell sand in the Sahara. It would be a good bet that they do.

I'm absolutely lovin' the meltdown of this dysfunctional state.

Of course you are, because you've got your government pension and your government health care, so it really doesn't matter to you. But since you assume California is running ads, how does that make Nevada any more egregious? Ain't like Nevada or Lost Wages has all that great an economy at the moment, given that Nevada is one of the leaders, if not the overall leader, in percentage of increases in home foreclosures.

=Bob

[davdesid]

>>But since you assume California is running ads...<<

I didn't say I "assume California is running ads", I said I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't defend Nevada, either. I don't care about them.

Oh, and nice diversion to your usual "ad hom". Predictable.

Here's a funny for you... yes, you... you government slug with a pension:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0

[Bob Forsythe]

Aug 28, 2009 16:49:50 GMT -8 davdesid said:

>>But since you assume California is running ads...<<

I didn't say I "assume California is running ads", I said I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't defend Nevada, either. I don't care about them.

Oh, and nice diversion to your usual "ad hom". Predictable.

Here's a funny for you... yes, you... you government slug with a pension:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0

YAWN.

=Bob

\

[aztecwin]

Aug 28, 2009 16:17:38 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Um, can either of you otherboneheads (I reserve that for the right-wingnuts on here, Dave) verify that California doesn't run ads in other states aimed at bringing businesses here?

=Bob

I am sure you meant that the way I fixed it for you. Does not look like any of your fellow "boneheads" responded.

Now read over McClintock's entire offering and find some fault. What just struck me as a rather funny shot at California in general and at our idiot legislators in particular is made much more serious when considered in the terms and set of facts laid out by McClintock.

Your challenge to find ads by California or deny that California runs ads also strikes me as beyond bizarre. When it followed that speech by Tom McClintock. It is sort of like asking where to place the blame for the sinking Titanic rather than getting on the lifeboat.

[Bob Forsythe]

Well, let's take just this part of it:

1.He canceled the state's highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction.

2. He canceled long-planned water projects, conveyance facilities and dams.

3. He established the California Energy Commission that blocked approval of any significant new generating capacity.

4. He enacted volumes of environmental regulations that created severe impediments to home and commercial construction, empowering an incipient no-growth movement that began on the most extreme fringe of the environmental cause and quickly spread.

1. Which highway projects did he stop? He came into office in 1975. Seems to me that during his time in office we saw I-15 become 4 lanes in each direction and a number of other freeways upgraded. Could it possibly be that some road in McClintock's district got canceled?

2. I assume that refers to the Peripheral Canal. Ever talk to anyone from Norcal about that? The venom was unbelievable. The wife of a college friend of mine grew up in Sactown and her hatred of that proposed project was unbelievable.

3. See my statement below about that and other things.

4. Total crap. CEQA came into effect in 1972, under Reagan, not Brown and the courts decided that it applied to any private project government approved. Of course, he might be referring to clean air legislation, but I'd like to see anyone, especially those who lived in Smell-A prior to the legislation, tell me that clean air wasn't worth it. However, I will admit that the first laws to control pollution were passed around 1969 - who was the Governor in that year (I remember that date because Ford was offering their "California Special" Mustang, which had a couple of features such as racing stripes but also had Catalytics or some other pollution suppressing device).

My main problem with this is after Brown, we had 8 years of Dukmejian followed by 8 years of Pete Wilson - 16 years of Republicans in the Statehouse and the legislature was nowhere near as loaded with Democrats then as they are now. But forget all that - this guy has to go back to the farking '80s just so he can find a Democrat to blame for all our state's problems.

The problem, gentleman, isn't which party has controlled the Statehouse. The problem is that in good times Californians will vote for initiatives that cost a lot of bucks (and I write that even though my employment these days relies upon funding from the grants provided by those initiatives). But the problem also lies in the huge population we have in this state. If people want to leave, I'm happy to wave and they cross the state line. We've got 38 million people in this state and that's simply unsustainable.

Tell ya what, Dave - go through all those laws that you believe to be egregious (I'm sure you've made a study of them rather than just read what McClintock has to say) and tell us which ones you'd repeal. After all, you apparently assume you're an expert on those laws, so I'd be quite interested in your learned opinion of how they are hurting the state.

=Bob

[aztecwin]

The problem is not what party has done damage, since both are beyond guilty. I see the present group of Legislators and the Governor as having no clue at how to get things back on track and/or are not willing to take the heat for making the changes and cuts needed to get California on solid ground. I can't see going to Arizona or Nevada, but Texas might work for me. The problem is my wife wants to stick it out here. I also happen to think that we are in so much trouble here in California that we will be forced to cut taxes, cut programs, take the pain and eventually come out of it.

[Bob Forsythe]

Aug 30, 2009 6:23:01 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

The problem is not what party has done damage, since both are beyond guilty. I see the present group of Legislators and the Governor as having no clue at how to get things back on track and/or are not willing to take the heat for making the changes and cuts needed to get California on solid ground. I can't see going to Arizona or Nevada, but Texas might work for me. The problem is my wife wants to stick it out here. I also happen to think that we are in so much trouble here in California that we will be forced to cut taxes, cut programs, take the pain and eventually come out of it.

Except Florida is also losing population and it has no income tax and not much in the way of environmental regulation.

www.tampabay.com/news/business/economicdevelopment/article1026447.ece

=Bob

[AztecWilliam]

Aug 30, 2009 10:31:27 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Aug 30, 2009 6:23:01 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

The problem is not what party has done damage, since both are beyond guilty. I see the present group of Legislators and the Governor as having no clue at how to get things back on track and/or are not willing to take the heat for making the changes and cuts needed to get California on solid ground. I can't see going to Arizona or Nevada, but Texas might work for me. The problem is my wife wants to stick it out here. I also happen to think that we are in so much trouble here in California that we will be forced to cut taxes, cut programs, take the pain and eventually come out of it.

Except Florida is also losing population and it has no income tax and not much in the way of environmental regulation.

www.tampabay.com/news/business/economicdevelopment/article1026447.ece

=Bob

Good point. Still, one has to reach the conclusion that something is very, very wrong in California. You can't just continually raise taxes (as the Democrats always want to do). There has to be some sense of balance between what people want from the government and what the economy is able to support.

At the risk of sounding anti-union (which I am to a degree), I have to conclude that the growing power of government labor unions in California has had a very negaive effect on the balance I mentioned above. Union leaders seem to believe that there is an inexhaustable supply of money that can be tapped with just a bit more pressure. They are wrong.

AzWm

[aztecwin]

Aug 30, 2009 10:31:27 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Aug 30, 2009 6:23:01 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

The problem is not what party has done damage, since both are beyond guilty. I see the present group of Legislators and the Governor as having no clue at how to get things back on track and/or are not willing to take the heat for making the changes and cuts needed to get California on solid ground. I can't see going to Arizona or Nevada, but Texas might work for me. The problem is my wife wants to stick it out here. I also happen to think that we are in so much trouble here in California that we will be forced to cut taxes, cut programs, take the pain and eventually come out of it.

Except Florida is also losing population and it has no income tax and not much in the way of environmental regulation.

www.tampabay.com/news/business/economicdevelopment/article1026447.ece

=Bob

Read your own link and you will see that the situations are far different. Florida can come out of its slight decline. I am not sure about California unless thing change drastically.

[davdesid]

>>>Which highway projects did he stop? He came into office in 1975. Seems to me that during his time in office we saw I-15 become 4 lanes in each direction and a number of other freeways upgraded. Could it possibly be that some road in McClintock's district got canceled?<<<the =Perfesser

McClintock wasn't elected to office until 1982, so no, nothing there. As for highway projects canceled, I can attest to the 280/680 interchange in San Jose that stood there like a giant turnstyle for years. Brown and his CalTrans Director Adriana Gianturco (Giant Turkey), were famous for eliminating transportation construction. We used to laugh, and we'd call that unfinished interchange "the Governor Brown Memorial Turnstyle" when we were driving back and forth to the San Jose Gun Shows (gasp).

>>>My main problem with this is after Brown, we had 8 years of Dukmejian followed by 8 years of Pete Wilson - 16 years of Republicans in the Statehouse and the legislature was nowhere near as loaded with Democrats then as they are now. But forget all that - this guy has to go back to the farking '80s just so he can find a Democrat to blame for all our state's problems.<<<the =Perfesser

You obviously didn't bother to read his entire remarks. Or you're cherry-picking. He hammers them all. Republicans and Democrats alike.

viz:

"During the 1980's, Gov. Deukmejian began employing a legal fiction called a "lease revenue bond," to circumvent constitutionally required voter approval."

viz:

"In 1983, Gov. George Deukmejian approved legislation to remove the governor's ability to make mid-year budget corrections without having to return to the legislature. The loss of this provision exposed the state to chronic deficit spending by removing any ability of the governor to rapidly respond to changing economic conditions. In 1989, Deukmejian sponsored Proposition 111 that destroyed the Gann Spending Limit that had held increases in state spending to inflation and population growth. If that limit had remained intact, California would be enjoying a budget surplus today."

viz:

"The disastrous tax increases by Pete Wilson in 1991 and Arnold Schwarzenegger this year were made possible by this tragic blunder. Finally, we've watched the constitutional budget process that had produced relatively punctual and relatively balanced budgets for nearly 150 years collapse in favor of an extra-constitutional abomination called the big five."

>>>The problem is that in good times Californians will vote for initiatives that cost a lot of bucks (and I write that even though my employment these days relies upon funding from the grants provided by those initiatives)<<<the =Perfesser

Thanks for that tidbit of info. It definitely provides me with some unsolicited guidance on voting.

>>>...go through all those laws that you believe to be egregious...<<<the =Perfesser

You could start here:

www.killcarb.org/

[Bob Forsythe]

Aug 30, 2009 11:50:48 GMT -8 AztecWilliam said:

Aug 30, 2009 10:31:27 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Except Florida is also losing population and it has no income tax and not much in the way of environmental regulation.

www.tampabay.com/news/business/economicdevelopment/article1026447.ece

=Bob

Good point. Still, one has to reach the conclusion that something is very, very wrong in California. You can't just continually raise taxes (as the Democrats always want to do). There has to be some sense of balance between what people want from the government and what the economy is able to support.

At the risk of sounding anti-union (which I am to a degree), I have to conclude that the growing power of government labor unions in California has had a very negaive effect on the balance I mentioned above. Union leaders seem to believe that there is an inexhaustable supply of money that can be tapped with just a bit more pressure. They are wrong.

AzWm

What taxes are being raised, William? I'm not sure there's a single tax in this state that can be raised without a 2/3 majority vote, including this City's TOT, which was a totally ridiculous vote since it really doesn't apply to anyone living here unless they get a hotel room for some special purpose.

Plus we require a super-majority to pass a budget, which is totally nuts. I'm sure the right doesn't think so because there is a Democratic majority, but even if there was a Republican majority that wanted to cut spending, it's unlikely they'd be able to do so because of that stupid law.

This state is dysfunctional for two reasons. In good times we agree to too much spending and we have made it almost impossible to pass any sort of budget due to the super-majority requirement.

Well, actually there is a 3rd reason - we have way too many people. One of the reasons I'm not all that worried about businesses leaving is because that will result in a negative population growth and I think that's what this state really needs.

=Bob

[davdesid]

Hmm... thoughts from another "bonehead":

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR2009082802614.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[davdesid]

>>>One of the reasons I'm not all that worried about businesses leaving is because that will result in a negative population growth and I think that's what this state really needs.<<<the=Perfesser

Sounds good...

...but the ones leaving will be the ones who are the most productive.

You'll just run out of other peoples' money to pay for your utopia that much sooner.

[Bob Forsythe]

Aug 30, 2009 13:12:50 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Aug 30, 2009 10:31:27 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Except Florida is also losing population and it has no income tax and not much in the way of environmental regulation.

www.tampabay.com/news/business/economicdevelopment/article1026447.ece

=Bob

Read your own link and you will see that the situations are far different. Florida can come out of its slight decline. I am not sure about California unless thing change drastically.

I'm not so sure. I think this is a operative statement:

Most economic forecasters expect Florida's population dip to be short-lived. Scott Brown, chief economist for Raymond James Financial in St. Petersburg, sees it as a one-year anomaly. But it's a stunning one in a state that has been so reliant on surging population.

"We used to say the growth industry in Florida has been growth, kind of as a joke," he said.

As stated, because there is no income tax, the state relies heavily upon property and sales taxes, thereby requiring constant population growth in order to pay for things and, as the article points out, a lot of that growth comes from retirees moving to Florida.

I don't see how that leads to a stable economic situation. It's simply to narrow, just as San Diego was in the early '90s when we went into a heavy recession when GenDyn shut down (and as we did in the early '60s when the Atlas Missile program was ended. From what I was told by a couple of real estate teachers, plus my uncle, who sold real estate, you could barely give a house away at the time).

=Bob

[Bob Forsythe]

Aug 30, 2009 17:07:52 GMT -8 davdesid said:

>>>One of the reasons I'm not all that worried about businesses leaving is because that will result in a negative population growth and I think that's what this state really needs.<<<the=Perfesser

Sounds good...

...but the ones leaving will be the ones who are the most productive.

You'll just run out of other peoples' money to pay for your utopia that much sooner.

Are they "the most productive"? Prove it. Seems to me it's more likely the lower wage people who can't find jobs who are leaving.

=Bob

[davdesid]

Aug 30, 2009 17:17:25 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Aug 30, 2009 17:07:52 GMT -8 davdesid said:

>>>One of the reasons I'm not all that worried about businesses leaving is because that will result in a negative population growth and I think that's what this state really needs.<<<the=Perfesser

Sounds good...

...but the ones leaving will be the ones who are the most productive.

You'll just run out of other peoples' money to pay for your utopia that much sooner.

Are they "the most productive"? Prove it. Seems to me it's more likely the lower wage people who can't find jobs who are leaving.

=Bob

We'll find out, won't we?

You "prove it" that it's the lower wage people leaving.