<p>You’re sad. I’m mad! Mad about producers being sacrificed to non-producers (i.e., massive amounts funding social services to those who largely will not be replenishing the state’s economy). Yes, the scenario in your last paragraph may have to come about – but if so it will be because of the lily-livered CA legislators who have a spending addiction problem and belong in Recovery Programs. And the persistence of this problem just continues to attract more non-producers to the state for the many hand-outs.</p>
<p>There’s something perverse about the specter of public education becoming more privatized (less available) so that the absence of education can be supported.</p>
<p>Post 60:
</p>
<p>If you mean the nat’l economy, that has spillover effect, but the problem continues to be the CA economy. During far more prosperous years, the downward trend was already in place due to spending overtaking revenue coming in. The only reason the State, and UC in particular, have not gone bankrupt much earlier is that, in addition to a huge class of those seeking social services, there is an unusually large prosperous class compared to many states. But they cannot fund the entire State during relative ‘gold rush’ years, due to the sheer size of the population on the other end of the spectrum, not to mention those of mid-level income attending UC’s.</p>
<p>I blame the voters and our out of control ballot measure process (and I don’t mean Prop 13). All the earmarks, restrictions, and mandates passed via ballot measures have left the legislature with very little room to maneuver when a budget crunch comes. I think being a member of the California legislature must be one of the most miserable desk jobs in the state.</p>
<p>What I blame the legislature for is creating recent whole new campuses for the UC that nobody needed and must now be paid for.</p>
<p>coureur, other than Prop 13, I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of ballot measures which dictate funding. Are you saying that because of measures like Three Strikes, much more money is now committed to the prison system? That is true, but in addition, at least one-fifth of those incarcerated are undocumented. They could be deported. So again, keep in mind that there’s a dynamic going on here between legislature and voters: sometimes it’s a symbiosis; at other times the Initiative Process is used to try to <em>control</em> spending and <em>reverse</em> certain social policies because the voters see clearly that there’s no honest public debate happening in Sacramento, or between Sacramento and all the other locations in the state, about policy priorities. It’s very much like a dysfunctional family or business where, instead of reaching a consensus first about where the entity is headed and what choices have to be made to achieve that direction, units here and there are continually undermining other units of the entity, so that the whole entity suffers. The Initiative Process represents, i.m.o., a disjointed, desperate, and dysfunctional (indirect) attempt at legitimate sabotage.</p>
<p>“You’re sad. I’m mad! Mad about producers being sacrificed to non-producers (i.e., massive amounts funding social services to those who largely will not be replenishing the state’s economy). Yes, the scenario in your last paragraph may have to come about – but if so it will be because of the lily-livered CA legislators who have a spending addiction problem and belong in Recovery Programs. And the persistence of this problem just continues to attract more non-producers to the state for the many hand-outs.”</p>
<p>I always thought this is one of the funtions of government, to help those in need.</p>
<p>And maybe, some people with need will turn into productive citizens. Many of those in need are children.</p>
<p>I look at the CalWorks program. Costs the state $1.8 billion. The federal government matches the $1.8 billion. Pays families what $585 a month. And the paretns have to look for jobs. I don’t see anybody getting rich on that program.</p>
<p>We should cut that? What should specifically be cut?</p>
<p>Prop 98 (1988) requires the state to spend over $50 billion a year on education. Prop 42 (2002) stipulates $1.2 billion must go for transportation; Prop 49 (2002) steers half a billion into after-school programs; Prop 63 (2004) sets aside $800 million for mental health services; and Prop 71 (2004) requires the state to spend $3 billion on stem cell research. The autopilot spending list just goes on and on. </p>
<p>Some of these programs I personally agree with and some I don’t. But the point is that all this spending by ballot box sharply limits how much money is left for the legislature to work with in crafting a state budget. They must ballance the budget through an increasingly narrow slice of the pie. And with revenues down it’s obviously getting to be an increasingly impossible task.</p>
<p>Prop 13 put the brakes the legislature’s ability to raise property tax - which was sorely needed at the time, because the taxes were going through the roof due to real estate inflation, while at the same time the state was sitting on a huge revenue surplus.</p>
<p>But since Prop 13 we the voters have refused to live within our means and have increasingly dictated how the remaining taxes must be spent. Don’t blame the legislators for that. Blame ourselves.</p>
<p>State schools in Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia and many other states have dealt with this reality for a decade or more. Yet they have managed to maintain leadership in many areas and even enjoyed some growth passing some better funded publics and privates in competing for research money, producing patents, attracting good students and buildings amazing facilities. They might not build the ultra-expensive stuff you might see at H or Y but they build good quality state of the art buildings in the areas that matter.<br>
The UC has to stop the crying and start planning for the new funding model for state U’s. Flat state funding over time, better fundraising and more focus on the things that matter. It has been done and UC can do it too. They just have the wrong leader heading the UC. He thinks grabbing more money from the state is the only answer. He did the same at Uminn and Texas. They were both better off without him.</p>
<p>The article lowballs the actual cost to Calif budget for benefits to this group at 4 - 6 $billion. More realistic (ie, less political) estimates range from 10 - 16 $billion. This proposition will surely pass and just as surely be overturned a la prop 187. With Sotomajor in the Court, there won’t be any reason to appeal past the 9th Dist (and no reason to to go there anyway). Note to all: California has NO MONEY. This means longterm cuts in UC and other systems needed to prepare for the future. Economic growth increasingly depends on people with technological skills, but we are investing in folks whose main talent is mowing lawns and stabilizing the price of lettuce. California is not just bankrupt, it’s completely bozo. So how about we share some of our multiculturalism with YOUR state? One thing is fer shur - you’ll get better burritos to eat.</p>
<p>True, Barrons, but as it’s been mentioned before, the other states have a single flagship. (And isn’t Michigan up to 35% OOS? I know the UCs are considering this too.) It seems like the UC system is trying to make every school a flagship. There are departments at just about every UC that merit flagship status, and many would argue that UCB is slipping. </p>
<p>The biggest cost savings (as opposed to new revenue streams) will come from elimination of duplication of efforts between the different campuses and among different schools on individual campuses. There is so much waste right there.</p>
<p>Aren’t the Regents meeting on Wednesday? It should be interesting to see what happens.</p>
<p>"Officials estimate that California’s 2.7 million illegal residents account for $4 billion to $6 billion of the state’s roughly $105-billion budget. Most of those costs are associated with schools, prisons and emergency healthcare.</p>
<p>“Are we going to continue asking taxpayers to pay for these services when the state is completely out of money?” asked Hilton, who first rallied against illegal immigration two decades ago.</p>
<p>Most illegal residents contribute to the state through taxes and labor, but research indicates that the costs to state and local governments outweigh the additional tax revenue, at least in the short term.</p>
<p>The nonpartisan state legislative analyst’s office says the measure could reduce costs by more than $1 billion a year if it survives legal challenges.</p>
<p>Peter Schey, a Los Angeles attorney who successfully challenged Proposition 187, said courts would almost certainly strike down the measure.</p>
<p>“This proposal . . . has no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge,” he said. “It is plainly driven by racism and a desire to whip up xenophobia during difficult economic times for U.S. citizens.”</p>
<p>I think people who are part of Calworks, or who use medicaid, or are special needs, etc. need the support and benefit they get from these programs.</p>
<p>On the link provided about illegal immigrants, $1 billion was mentioned as the loss. That’s not going to make or break California.</p>
<p>One of the biggest groups of welfare beneficiaries is single women. What should we do with them?</p>
<p>We need 26 billion dollars. Where are we going to get it?</p>
<p>I don’t know, but kicking out all the illegal immigrants and their families and welfare mothers isn’t really going to work.</p>
<p>I’d say Michigan has two major flagships. MSU is not chopped liver and does ag, engineering, life sciences, and many other areas very well. It just works in the shadow of UM. Viginia also has Va Tech–same thing plus William & Mary. You cannot have all the UC schools having a med school and law and business. It’s just crazy what they are doing. They should set four or five as the main “flagships” that will offer most things and have professional schools. The rest should focus on limited grad areas and forget becoming UCLA. Even Cali can’t afford that nor does it need to.</p>
<p>And you think continuing to support them all is alternatively going to work? Here’s a clue for you: it hasn’t worked, and it’s one of the many reasons why there have been budget stalemates for many years in a row in Sacramento.</p>
<p>Dollars are finite, but some people apparently do not understand this basic mathematical fact.</p>
<p>CA is bankrupt and socialized medicine has become a greater threat. I’d like to be able to work for another twenty years, but when I retire I hope there’s still some value in my UC pension.</p>
<p>“I don’t know, but kicking out all the illegal immigrants and their families and welfare mothers isn’t really going to work.”</p>
<p>You are SO right, dstark. It would cost billions to find them all, fight their lawsuits, and pay to send them home - only to have them come back the next week. But they will leave (California anyway) on their own when this state discontinues services not provided in more prudently managed states.</p>
<p>As for what these people cost, the dollar numbers cited are no more accurate than those for headcount. But if you still believe there’s only 12 million of these folks in the entire US (rather than upwards of 20 million) I’ve got a few California muni bonds to sell you.</p>
<p>For decades CA has been operating on “want” not “can.” The chickens have come home to roost now – for the haves and have-nots alike. (The State has helped, in its negligence, to widen the population of have-nots.)</p>
<p>And I’m impressed that you can smile about it! I figure my UC pension has no appreciable monetary value at the moment, and if medicine is socialized the health plan through the pension will be superfluous, so my UC pension is about as valuable as your Cal munis. I’d like to be more adept at accepting the things I can not change, but I’m disgusted.</p>