As for your last sentence, CA state/city/county employees are known to get very generous pensions and some take additional gov't jobs after they "retire" at age 50. You can thank their unions for taking care of them. It's a nationwide problem but CA is especially bad. At least many of the illegals are doing real work to get their benefits. Not that I support handouts to illegals, but picking strawberries for 12 hours a day is probably harder and more beneficial to society than pushing papers and providing awful customer service to the public...
just found this little stat: "though it has only about 12% of the total U.S. population, Californiaâs share of the welfare caseload has risen from 22% in 2002 to over 30%." http://mangans.blogspot.com/2008/05/california-welfare-capital-of-us.html
Cutting welfare, education, and services without cutting pensions, wages, and other govt spending will result in a LARGER deficit in the long run. That's because the cuts they propose impact the private sector disproportionately while maintaining the size of gov't. This results in ballooning pension plan obligations even though the gov't workforce has not increased. The same effect was seen with the federal stimulus package. Because too much stimulus went to fed/state/local gov't, the public sector layoffs did not happen. Because too little went to the private sector, tax receipts are still falling. So, the stimulus was actually a bad thing because it prevented much needed gov't layoffs.
I didn't know that welfare was so big there. Seems there are a lot cheaper places to live if you just want to suckle the gov't teat. I always knew that Frisco spends a ton on homeless. Here's a charming little story about a homeless fellow in SF named Joe Dinovo: http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-11-04/news/17626297_1_streets-homeless-people-san-francisco From the story: The Chronicle and horrified passers-by encountered Dinovo, a one-legged drug addict, lying in his own vomit at high noon last summer on the sidewalk near 16th Street and South Van Ness Avenue. He was naked from the waist down. . . Awakened, Dinovo cursed bystanders, ate from a trash can, then urinated and gushed diarrhea into the street. I didn't dig for this story, it was the very first link I got when I googled "how much does san francisco spend on homeless". As to how much SF spends per homeless person? Even I was shocked. "By the city's last count, there were some 2,000 people living on the streets." "The Chronicle found they are spending more than $200 million this year on the homeless, about the same as San Francisco spends annually on its Fire Department." $200,000,000 / 2000 = $100,000 each. Let that sink in. San Francisco spends $100,000 per homeless person, each year. Well, I guess I now know why CA roads are in shambles, the schools on par with the 3rd world, and they can't balance the budget.
I am an outsider from Canada. Sounds like too many government entitlements and lots of unaudited skimming from the gov't coffers. We have the same problems but our taxes are double maybe triple yours. Canadians seem to be too stupid and immune to taxation and spending.
That can't be... many US taxpayers pay 60% of their income in total taxes already. Obama/Peolosi want even more.
It can't be becuase it isn't. We do have some nasty taxes in some areas but it isn't double or triple.
I've personally known 2 women who rec'd CA state welfare checks for a year for a medical disability. If all ya gotta do is get a Doc to sign off on your disability to get free money from a state, how long can that state remain solvent? That question has now been answered.