Gyroscopic Investing

LOS ANGELES — After years of grueling battles over state budget deficits and spending cuts, California has a new challenge on its hands: too much money. An unexpected surplus is fueling an argument over how the state should respond to its turn of good fortune.

The amount is a matter of debate, but by any measure significant: between $1.2 billion, projected by Gov. Jerry Brown, and $4.4 billion, the estimate of the Legislature’s independent financial analyst. The surplus comes barely three years after the state was facing a deficit of close to $60 billion.

At first glance, the situation should be welcome news in a state overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, who have spent much of their time slashing programs they support. After last November’s elections, the party has two-thirds majorities in the Assembly and the Senate, relegating Republicans almost completely to the sidelines.

Instead, the surplus has set off a debate about the durability of new revenues, and whether the money should be used to reverse some of the spending cuts or set aside to guard against the inevitable next economic downturn.

Ad Orientem wrote: IMHO half the money should be socked away in a rainy day fund and the other half spent on paying down debt. Reducing public debt frees up more money in the form of interest payments no longer required.

That $9,139 [in CA per-pupil spending] is about $1,400 under the national average and less than half of top-spending New York's $19,076. California was 36th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, with Utah lowest at $6,212.

Californians already have the nation's fifth highest overall tax burden.

Ad Orientem wrote:

Instead, the surplus has set off a debate about the durability of new revenues, and whether the money should be used to reverse some of the spending cuts or set aside to guard against the inevitable next economic downturn.

This is California. It's a one party state (always a bad thing) and the Dems will spend that money just like the guy with a maxed out credit card who suddenly gets a bonus from work.

dragoncar wrote: How exactly do you get this or the post title from the quote above?  Sounds like there is a prudent debate over the stability of the surplus and not only how but of it should be spent.  It's stuff like this that makes me worry about my decision to invest in the Pp.

dragoncar wrote:How exactly do you get this or the post title from the quote above?  Sounds like there is a prudent debate over the stability of the surplus and not only how but of it should be spent.

Pointedstick wrote: 1. He lives in California, as do I. We're familiar with the way things work here.

2. What does the PP have to do with California's ability to maintain its budget in a sane manner or anyone's opinion about it one way or another?

dragoncar wrote:
The sheer volume of these zealous right-wing posts make me worry, for example, because they imply that other posts on this forum are subject to lurking biases.  When intelligent people come to different conclusions one one topic, and the same conclusions on another topic, it makes you wonder which conclusions are right, and which are wrong.

dragoncar wrote: The sheer volume of these zealous right-wing posts make me worry, for example, because they imply that other posts on this forum are subject to lurking biases.

dragoncar wrote: When intelligent people come to different conclusions one one topic, and the same conclusions on another topic, it makes you wonder which conclusions are right, and which are wrong.

dragoncar wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: 1. He lives in California, as do I. We're familiar with the way things work here.

OK, so do I.  I don't make up completely unsubstantiated and inflammatory post titles, include a benign article quote in the guise of support, and then draw irrational conclusions based on being "familiar with the way things work."

2. What does the PP have to do with California's ability to maintain its budget in a sane manner or anyone's opinion about it one way or another?

The sheer volume of these zealous right-wing posts make me worry, for example, because they imply that other posts on this forum are subject to lurking biases.  When intelligent people come to different conclusions one one topic, and the same conclusions on another topic, it makes you wonder which conclusions are right, and which are wrong.

craigr wrote: If government carries any debt, there is no way they have a "surplus" of funds. This is just political spin. Clinton said the same thing during his budget with trillions of long term debt on the books and trillions more in unfunded liabilities still in existence.

RuralEngineer wrote: I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks this forums is a bastion of "right wing zealots" needs to get their head checked. Or at least go meet some ACTUAL right wingers first. I guess if you live on a commune, it might seem that way, but there's almost nobody here I'd classify as truly right wing. Everyone's views span the spectrum. The closest we used to have was probably TrippleB.

I think the off-topic section is firmly center right and it's overwhelmingly populated by moderates, on both sides.

My father is a true right winger, so I have some perspective.

Pointedstick wrote: That gets to a peculiar thing I've noticed: an awful lot of liberals equate libertarianism with a flavor of ultra-right-wing-extremism. Which is funny, since liberals share many views with libertarians, but what I believe liberals are perceiving is the core of the movement which, as you say, rejects government. That's terrifying to liberals even if it leads to conclusions that they agree with since modern American liberalism fundamentally, philosophically requires an expansive, activist government.

KevinW wrote: I think most people engage in politics more as a form of neotribalism than as a coherent and self-consistent philosophy.

Pointedstick wrote:

Aren't we all subject to lurking biases? Your choice of the phrase "zealous right-wing posts" reveals yours, for example. We all have different points of view here; that's just normal IMHO. Doesn't mean we have to cast doubt on the choices that others have made just because we may disagree with their political views.

That's sort of a funny way of looking at the world. We all have to agree on everything?

If I sound like a right-wing lunatic, would it blow your mind to hear that I support gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and an end to (what I view as) purposeless, entangling foreign military intervention?

Pointedstick wrote: If you would like to see threads with those titles, nothing's stopping you from posting them.

dragoncar wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: If you would like to see threads with those titles, nothing's stopping you from posting them.

I would not like to see threads with those titles.

Ad Orientem wrote:This is California. It's a one party state (always a bad thing)

Democrat	2011-
Republican	2003-2011
Democrat	1999-2003
Republican	1991-1999
Republican	1983-1991
Democrat	1975-1983
Republican	1967-1975
Democrat	1959-1967
Republican	1953-1959
Republican	1943-1953

rocketdog wrote: People think CA is a liberal bastion, but that's only true in highly visible pockets like L.A. and San Francisco.  Overall it's a red-leaning state.  After all, Prop 8 never would have even gotten on the ballot in a blue-dominant state, let alone get passed.

rocketdog wrote: People think CA is a liberal bastion, but that's only true in highly visible pockets like L.A. and San Francisco.  Overall it's a red-leaning state.  After all, Prop 8 never would have even gotten on the ballot in a blue-dominant state, let alone get passed.