<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Is California a &#034;failed state&#034;?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://calwatchdog.com/2010/01/30/is-california-a-failed-state/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2010/01/30/is-california-a-failed-state/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:11:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: stevefromsacto		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2010/01/30/is-california-a-failed-state/#comment-155</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[stevefromsacto]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=1542#comment-155</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;...general fund spending was 6.10% of personal income, almost double the 3.67% in 1962-63, during California’s “golden age,” when massive infrastructure projects were built — roads, schools, waterways — under Gov. Pat Brown. In fiscal 2007-, the number was 6.55%. For 2008-09, 5.67. For 2009-10, the current budget, it’s estimated at 5.52. Obviously, today the problem isn’t the lack of tax money, but that so much of it is wasted...&quot;

Gee, you kind of forgot to mention how much the population has increased since 1962-63. You didn&#039;t mention the enormous growth in the elderly population. You forgot to mention that all those massive infrastructure projects have to be repaired or replaced after more than 40 years.

You are correct that Prop. 13 was designed to keep elderly widows from being evicted from their homes. But it was not designed to pad the profit margins of corporations. We could split the rolls so that residential homeowners could still be protected while corporations pay their fair share... This would bring millions in needed revenue to the state. But NO, we can&#039;t do that when our real goal is to shrink the size of state government &quot;so we can drown it in the bathtub.&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;general fund spending was 6.10% of personal income, almost double the 3.67% in 1962-63, during California’s “golden age,” when massive infrastructure projects were built — roads, schools, waterways — under Gov. Pat Brown. In fiscal 2007-, the number was 6.55%. For 2008-09, 5.67. For 2009-10, the current budget, it’s estimated at 5.52. Obviously, today the problem isn’t the lack of tax money, but that so much of it is wasted&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Gee, you kind of forgot to mention how much the population has increased since 1962-63. You didn&#8217;t mention the enormous growth in the elderly population. You forgot to mention that all those massive infrastructure projects have to be repaired or replaced after more than 40 years.</p>
<p>You are correct that Prop. 13 was designed to keep elderly widows from being evicted from their homes. But it was not designed to pad the profit margins of corporations. We could split the rolls so that residential homeowners could still be protected while corporations pay their fair share&#8230; This would bring millions in needed revenue to the state. But NO, we can&#8217;t do that when our real goal is to shrink the size of state government &#8220;so we can drown it in the bathtub.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: calwatchdog.com @ 2026-06-09 12:29:02 by W3 Total Cache
-->