You done told us, already.

collapsed entities forced to pay MORE for money?

is it not these very same bankers who deliberately and irresponsibly overextended themselves into the marketplace just to pull back and thus collapse the whole credit market?

just saying, maybe the bankers are the ultimate source of trouble on this planet.

Sherrie...I've been an animal advocate for 23 years. You can say I am lying but I am not. I have the cultural knowledge to prove it....I've written about many animal issues on this blog several times, often to many very insensitive writers. Not all in the movement are leftist. In fact, caring about animals is not leftist at all...as I know plenty of leftist who care nothing about the issue. I've also met some old fashioned Republican types who are soft hearted.

In fact I was reading "Veg News" the other day and two readers wrote in. One described herself as "conservative" the other "Christian". We are diverse...compassion knows no political party.

Just the woman I was speaking about, like most others like herself, assumes everyone is as rabid as she. We are not. We do not all think a like. Some of us are independent minded.

I also don't appreciate your rudeness to tell me I am not stating the facts. I do know them. Look them up. Also, telling me to shut up is unbelievably juvenile...but I am not surprised at all.

CA has a program where the state will pay a family member to take care of a ill relative instead of sending that relative into a home. The state pays about 10-12 dollars an hour and saves money doing so.

Well, in all this budget mess, things are being looked at more carefully. This program as well. It turns out there is tons of fraud in that many make up fictional relatives and/or make claims in different parts of the state and collect more money. Apparently, not enough is being done to stop the fraud. Schwartzenegger says that it cost us billions.

So Schwartzenegger suggests we fingerprint those getting this income to lesson the fraud. Sounds reasonable, no? After all, many of us have to be fingerprinted for jobs or our driver's license. What does the legislature say? They say "boo hoo...it will be humiliating"!!!

Yup, that is their answer...humiliating.

This is a perfect example of why we have problems. OUr legislature not only cannot say no, they cannot even say "no" to FRAUD. Is it any wonder that CA is in a mess with legislature like that?

Unbelievable.

writes: "bear in mind that a lot of other States owe most- if not all- of their low taxes and balanced budget to a low population density."

Interesting view - but I'm not sure it's true.

In order of population density (persons per square mile, 2007):

New Jersey: 1171.1

Rhode Island: 1012.3

Massachusetts: 822.7

Connecticut: 722.9

Maryland: 574.8

Delaware: 442.6

New York: 408.7

Florida: 338.4

Ohio: 280.0

Pennsylvania: 277.4

California: 234.4

Illinois: 231.2

Of course most if not all of the above are having financial difficulties. But none of them are in the mess that California is. And they all have problems with things like illegal immigration.

I think the big differences are two:

First is the 2/3 majority requirement for tax bills. That's effectively minority rule, because getting 66% of one party is all but impossible in a place like CA.

Second is the whole byzantine mess of propositions and high expectations. It's essentially a "bricks without straw" situation, where the propositions create unrealistic limits and requirements without the means to fund them.

Propositions also let the legislators off the hook. Instead of being called to account for their actions, the propositions effectively tie their hands and make nobody responsible. Combined with term limits that pretty much guarantee that those responsible will be out of office when things fall apart, and you have a plan for disaster.

The idea that two nearly-identical homes on the same street with the same appraisal can have wildly different taxes just because one has been sold less often than the other is just plain nuts. That's all there is to it. It's probably unconstitutional as well.

The real solution is obvious, but won't happen: Californians have to GROW UP and realize that THEY have to pay the bills.

Not so, actually: if tax hikes are put in place with a sunset clause- which is what I want to see, I think 4 years would be the outer limit- they would be forced to bring things around within the specified period of time, or else have this whole budget deficit fiasco repeat again.

And if the legislature weren't able to rein things in within that time period, I think that would lead to terrible damage to the California Democratic Party, probably reducing them to minority status in both houses.

*****************

Cabdriver....when has government ever respected a "sunset clause"? You know what happens when the end comes? They get together and think of new ways to keep it going! No, you cannot trust them with sunset clauses...I am sorry. Just like stealing from social security government is not trustworthy when it comes to taxes and our money. They say that now but in four years, a new person is in and they give a different story.

I am sorry, they have used up their "trust" account by their actions. They have been given tons of chances...years of chances. They don't deserve more.

There is no putting off. They have put it off for years. They need to cut NOW, not put it off, not fugde it, not avoid it but deal with it NOW. NOW.

Just sell blogging licenses and tap into the hot air generated.

Cabdriver....when has government ever respected a "sunset clause"? You know what happens when the end comes? They get together and think of new ways to keep it going!

That's been known to happen. But by no means always.

If the Democrats of the California Legislature tried to pull that after enacting a tax hike with a sunset clause, I think that the voters would turn them out on their asses, en masse. Because at this point, people across the board have had about enough of that sort of thing.