Gary, please learn a little more about Proposition 13.

Private persons were only ancillary beneficiaries of this law. When private residences turn over, they are then taxed at the current value. The quiet pushers of Prop 13 were the utilities who held vast expanses of CA property and would not envision ever letting it go. It has changed hands, of course, but corporate ownership changes are not reassessed.

So most of the private residential property has since been reassessed to a current value.

The free ride goes to the big corporate utilities. Sound familiar? Like maybe your home state or your home nation?

If California bothers the rest of you, then pleeeez, set us free. Throw us out of the Union run be sleazy rascals from Texas and Chicago.

We'll soldier on.

Is everyone so clueless they have failed to notice that real property values have declined? That areas where they depend on property taxes are doing pretty bad? That fake revenue those areas pretend are available today based on last year's valuations will be reduced on examination?

TODAY'S POLITICO-ECONOMY 101 EXAM QUESTION:

A) Suppose the economy is normal and taxes are normal and basic services are adequate. And Jim is giving a lot of cash to every state legislator.

B) Then the economy starts booming and tax revenues soar, and the legislators give a chunk of that to Jim for some sort of thing some company he owns does.

C) Then the economy sours and tax revenues decline and legislators raise taxes while cutting...basic services. Which everyone accepts because tax revenues have obviously declined.

Suppose the above ABC scenario is repeated many many times over 100 years. What state do we expect taxes to be in? What state do we expect Jim (& equivalents) friends to be in? What state basic services?

How is this different than California 2009?

Well, the way to fix the current problem is three actions: 1) gather up ALL the legislators and the Governator at send them to Devil's Island for a lifetime vacation 2) Remove the 2/3 rule for passing taxes 3) Replace the legislators and Governor with HONEST folks (if any can be found).

Anything less will not fix the problem.

I'm fixing to move to the west coast , leaving another state which has the same fiscal problems and park closings as California- they call it Connecticut.

Freeways with ten lanes and still overcrowded? humm, try US route 7 which they just finally completed into a four-lane road for another TWO MILES in New Milford; with no middle left turning lane like the more intelligent planing states have [ Redding, CA ? ]. this took them seven long years and still CT is NOT finished!

Same old Repug-nican shit with "Governatress" M. Jodi Rell - cut everything from schools, social services but do NOT raise that income tax 0.5% on the 5 percent most wealthy, because they create the jobs. [ many corporations are surely leaving Connecticut for, yes, TEXAS , well as, North, Bible-belt Cacklacky, Oregon and Washington State, etc.

She has been promising the Danbury-New Milford Metro-North RR connector for 3 years now, yet still, that single lane, rusty-rails, freight train track. Rell's fucking whole plan does not even make sense; as the Danbury-Norwalk train track is still one track/two ways. The smarter idea would be to connect that train to Southeast, New York's existing, electrified, Metro-North to the city [NY City]via the existing double-track freight line from Danbury to Brewster/Southeast.

But at least Connecticut has those many pretty, two lane, still " rural " state roads; full of asshole drivers whom tailgate as if they were still in Brooklyn, NY!

And so, I don't have to live in or near any bigger city, as I am not corporate nor could either afford or give a rat's asshole for the fucking overpriced " cultural offerings"; or even the god damn shopping malls selling useless fashion shit in starvation sizes 0-14 and under!

I am still undecided between still fairly " affordable" Northern California and Southern-Central Inland OREGON [ 25% CA and 75% OR ; leaning more toward rural, slightly CHEAPER, yet still close-in to both Medford, Eugene,Corvallis Southern-Central inland Oregon! Someplace between Chico/Red Bluff, CA to the south and Corvallis/Salem to the north; but at least 15-20 miles INLAND where it gets warm enough to walk around town in a sports' bra/shorts all Summer long! [ forget Eureka, CA or Newport, OR , too chilly in Summer!]

I hear everybody say online[ many whom are former CALIFORNIANS!], and can see on Google Maps street views and satellite- that OREGON is loads more green and very pretty.

I also hear all these " warm and friendly" [ gag me! ] so called " progressive liberals" here in Connecticut, whom are

" always too busy " and about as useful when it comes to making friends as frozen shit in the Upstate New York Cow Pasture in Winter; all tell me " Oregon is so awesome! My girlfriend moved there and she says Portland, Eugene, Salem, etc. is so awesome and she loves it!"

I guess I will figure it out when I get there and see for myself. By the way, my friend Steve whom is formerly from Westchester County, NY feels that San Francisco is overrated but okay; the people , he says; are more phony than Westchester/White Plains area of New York.

OREGON????????

Mathematics and budgets are racist.

It's racist to say that undocumented, non-tax-paying consumers of public services could have any kind of drawback to a state budget. It'd probably be discriminatory to mention that undocumented workers who get paid under the table are not cannot be covered by their employers' workman's comp when they're injured on the job and have to visit the ER, where they are unable to cover medical costs themselves. It's definitely bigoted to mention that the children of non-taxpayers attendance at school might make it hard for the state to cover payment for teachers.

Math is racist against illegal immigrants. Because illegal immigrants are always a different race than Californians, who compose one of the most multi-ethnic populations in the country. Yeah, that argument makes sense.

I suppose it'd be mean to kick out the illegals, but I guess legal, documented Californians will just have to tighten their belts.

You have some valid complaints, however sarcastically you've put them. Up to a point.

But what needs to be understood is that California's problems with undocumented workers and illegal immigrants have a lot more to do with practical facts like geographic proximity to Mexico, agriculture as the #1 industry in the state, and the widespread employment practices of contractors (mostly Anglo) in the building trades and the restaurant industry than they do with State policies that roll out the welcome mat for illegals.

And it's the practical factors that are the intractable ones. There's no way to really separate Calexico but so far from Mexicali. And even an electric fence all the way along the CA-Mexico border would not be long enough. To be effective, it would need to be built all the way to Oregon.

It's expensive to have to deal with the medical needs of illegal immigrants. Their children- who, if born in this country, are American citizens by Federal law (and however one feels about that, it is not due to California liberalism)- face all of the challenges that newcomers have ever faced, in terms of learning in the school systems.

But if you really want to know about what throwing money down a rathole would look like- just try separating the legals from the illegals, rounding them up, detaining them, and sending them back across the border (which will never be anything but porous, with anything less than a Death Ray shield in place.

The overwhelming majority of the immigrants I've encountered in California give me the impression of legit, legal working folks. Few of the illegals make enough money to be liable for the State's income taxes, even if they were legal. They do pay CA sales taxes.

Illegal immigration is a huge burden on California- but in my view, the greatest cost is connected to a small minority that is nonetheless disproportionately over-represented in the CA court system, jails, and prisons: criminals. 1 in every 5 inmates in California prisons is an illegal immigrant. That's less than 35,000 illegal immigrants. But they cost the State plenty. And that doesn't even factor in the cost of their depredations against the public.

I think we need to work out something with Mexico, to- at minimum- split the cost of their incarceration in our prison facilities.

I also think there ought to be an easing of restrictions to allow for the integrating of the illegal-but-honest Mexican immigrant working population (most of them) into the system. I'd personally support having legal immigrant workers pay an additional tax burden, which is sure to raise the ire of some immigrant's rights advocates. But as many advantages as they're able to obtain from this country, I don't think it's out of line for them to be taxed to defray those costs.

But overall, it is a huge dilemma, across the entire country. Because it's tough to stop the movements of people across borders in the 21st century. In a lot of ways, the conditions are stacked in favor of the immigrants. And I'm not sure I'd be up for what it would take in the way of State power and expense, in order to be truly effective in stopping that. It's something I'll need to listen and study up on more.