Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I consider Dan Walters (in that great conservative paper, the Sacramento Bee) to be one of the most perceptive commentators on contemporary California politics. It doesn't surprise me, klk, that you evaluate him differently. After all, I usually agree with what he says, so he must be right in my eyes. Apparently, you usually disagree with what he says, so he must be wrong in yours.
Your argument fails, however, because you fail to rebut his points. You just call him names. If he were a think tank with an agenda (think Hoover Institution on the right, or California Budget Project on the left), and announced a poll that supposedly supported the think tank's position, the mere reminder of the source's bias would carry some weight. When a commentator makes arguments supporting his or her position, merely stating the commentator's bias does not negate the substance of the argument unless someone offered it as quasi-scriptural.
As an example, if I state that Milton Friedman said exchange rates should not be fixed, but don't give the argument why, claiming Friedman's bias is a sufficient rebuttal. If, on the other hand, I quote his argument, and you dismiss it by saying that Friedman is biased, it is a sub silencio admission that you cannot refute his argument.
Your response to Walters falls in the latter camp. Since you disagree with his analysis, I'd like to see the counter argument you make to contradict his.
Thanks.
John
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
Curious to hear from those who know more about this than me. California is described as being broke. Texas is also described as the same. Yet these two states seem quite different to me. Are there commonalities (with specifics) that they have? Or did they just chose two paths that took them to the same destination? Or something else?
Politicians in both states have, for years, pushed costs down the road in order to avoid charging current tax payers. Future retirements benefits (that have not been funded) for public workers is one big example, but there are others.
California is a generally high tax high service state whereas Texas is on the other end (despite being far richer than southeastern states, Texas is competing with Missippi in categories like poverty, citizens without health care, etc.) Silicone valley didn't happen just because some 20 something people found San Jose delightful to live in.
Being "broke" is mainly a choice. There is no shortage of money in either state to pay for the level of services, higher taxes could easily pay for them. Texas has low taxes. Cali has high taxes compared to other states, but its one of the richest places in the world. The money (if not the political will) is there.
Or you can cut spending. In Texas, this would make a brutal situation worse. In Cali, the problems might take longer to show up. But Cali is "spending down" the infrastructure that has been built up over many years. Transportation and education are two examples of investments made long ago that the state has reaped a lot of benefit from. Driving both into the ground (especiall the UC system) will cost the state dearly in decades to come.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
. Yet these two states seem quite different to me.
The primary reason they both are having problems is because the country is in a recession, which led to lower tax revenues. Texas' problems have shown up later because it gets a large amount of revenue from taxing gas and oil production, much like Alaska does, plus it only does its state budget every two years, so it took longer for the shortfall to show up.
Its funny that both Alaska and Texas tax its oil and gas production, but when California tried to do something similar, it was fought by the right as being evil.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
|
|
It's all Roxjoxs fault. When he left & took his tax base with him Ca. started having trouble & that is that.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
j el, obviously i was unclear.
but you're correct, i seldom find walters's columns to have much analytic value. that's not a function of his party membership. i would have no trouble citing any number of columnists with democratic party membership whose columns are equally weak. the notion that someone, even someone really good, would have something smart, original and useful to say on a weekly basis, year after year, strikes me as weird-- at some point, columnists all become dilettantes, even the ones who started out as serious folks. to the extent that i follow the punditry, it's not because i expect anything of serious analytical interest to come out of it, but more as a guide to intra-party fighting. you'll notice i almost never link to editorial columns.
and i'm not "calling him names." my judgment on that particular column is a professional judgment. if peter schrag had written something similarly rambling, i'd have been equally critical. but then, i'd never have linked it. so far as this column goes, for all i know, walters is ill or having a bad day and had to phone in something random to hit a deadline. we all have bad days.
the piece is a weird mix of theoretical pretension, intra-party sniping, and one bit (CEPA/EPA) of current hipster reference. and i doubt that he realizes the irony of the double meaning of "liberalism." he means "liberalism" as it usually gets used in popular talk about american politics, i.e., "liberalism" as whatever is being done by New Deal Democrats (and, in this case, Republicans like Nixon, Schwarzenegger, Whitman, etc.). but his complaint about liberalism (that it turns government into a sausage factory in which various interest groups and social classes engage in unsavory sorts of deal-making) was a traditional complaint of old regime conservatives (and their later, 20th century successors in central europe) and the reason they insisted that we all need a good strong king instead of that stupid democracy stuff.
i don't think walters knows or cares about that irony. but yeah, one of the irritating things about this piece is that it requires an audience that is so completely ignorant of political history and theory that it doesn't know the original meanings of Liberalism and Conservatism or the history of the way that market economies and parliamentary democracy successfully overthrew absolutism and feudalism (or the way that fascism helped to destroy vienna and weimar).
again, not that it matters for this thread. the let's-end-the-epa campaign is going to have some successes on the national level. but the california electorate wants lower taxes AND comparatively high levels of environmental protection. it won't believe that it can't have both.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
but the california electorate wants lower taxes AND comparatively high levels of environmental protection. it won't believe that it can't have both.
Bullseye, klk! I would add that we also want high levels of expensive government services, the best roads, the best schools from kindergarten to post-doc, the best law enforcement and fire protection, etc., etc. -- and someone else to pay for them. We all know you can't get them for free, but we think they should be free for us, just not for others.
I personally think that California cannot leave either cuts or increased revenue out of the mix to get out of our problems. Unlike the federal government that can print money, we cannot. If I had my druthers, we'd be spending most of the state budget on investment both in physical infrastructure and in human capital. That means both better roads and better schools. That also means taking a very hard look at everything, but particularly at subsidies, handouts, incarceration expense, and the price we pay for goods and services compared to the price others pay.
We'd also look extra hard at both the costs and benefits of regulation but, as Walters points out, California government really does a lot of taking from some and giving to others. Most regulation doesn't really consider who does the paying.
I've been both a big contributor, through lots of taxes and fees, and a very great beneficiary, having received an undergraduate and two advanced degrees form the UC system for very modest tuition. Unless we Californians take adult responsibility for this state, and soon, I doubt that many others will have what I had.
John
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
MESSAGE TO CALIFORNIANS
once you move outta state you won't be able to come back because it's too expensive.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
Yes, really. Your "supporting" link fully illustrates how little you understand about federal (i.e. GS) compensation system. The little chart you linked illustrates the level of education required to compete for an opening at said level, barring any other experience. It has absolutely nothing to do with promotion.
Further, you talk about quality of degrees with the implication that there are a bunch of professional public sector workers with degrees in irrelevant liberal arts fields, which again illustrates that you are completely full of sh#t and talking out of your ass. Minimum degree requirements are field specific. A GS 0800 engineering position requires a degree with a specific criteria set:
"Degree: professional engineering. To be acceptable, the curriculum must: (1) be in a school of engineering with at least one curriculum accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) as a professional engineering curriculum; or (2) include differential and integral calculus and courses (more advanced than first-year physics and chemistry) in five of the following seven areas of engineering science or physics: (a) statics, dynamics; (b) strength of materials (stress-strain relationships); (c) fluid mechanics, hydraulics; (d) thermodynamics; (e) electrical fields and circuits; (f) nature and properties of materials (relating particle and aggregate structure to properties); and (g) any other comparable area of fundamental engineering science or physics, such as optics, heat transfer, soil mechanics, or electronics."
Most professional series are similarly structured in degree requirements specific to the field. And with those qualifications met, you can then compete with others for a chance at the opening.
When I worked for the EPA, everyone in my division was a grad from one or another of the top 10 civil/environmental engineering programs in the country. Joe Diploma Mill wouldn't stand a chance of landing one of those jobs.
Further, advancement has nothing to do with another degree. At best, it could open the opportunities to compete for jobs the GS-11 level for PhD holders, and beyond that aside from a very very few research-specific GS-12 positions, it doesn't even confer that benefit. I went from GS-02 to GS-12. I have a masters degree in a field unrelated to my work. That masters has zero bearing on anything related to my work, compensation, or available opportunities in the system.
Stick to something you know about. Maybe internet wankery, for example.
I just saw this from Elcapinyoazz and wanted to reaffirm that what he said here is absolutely correct.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about government pensions/bennies/pay. The reality is that when the Economy sucks, that government workers are easy targets because generally speaking, they are more protected by poor economic times.
I have no clue about CHIPS other than the old TV show.
I went back to work for the Federal Government 10 years ago for better vacation. That was the biggest reason. While I accept I have better vacation than my counterparts, I seem to work longer hours (for free) than most of my private counterparts at about 50% of the pay. Thats right, my pay is probably less than 50% of that of my private counterparts. What I get for that is increased stability, better vacation and I dont have to move where the company tells me (although, I am somewhat subject to move).
The reality is that there are jobs where you want highly qualified people to represent you as government employees.
Sorry for the digression...
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
|
|
If it's not Roxjox maybe it's the . Yep that's it.
By the way how come every gov. agency in the state has large brand new cars & trucks.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
If it passes there will be no such thing as a mortgage in CA.
Will the last one out please turn out the lights
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
yeah fatty we know.......you would tool them.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
You boys blew it with me with your proxy wars and shitting on my environment. You will have to focus on the redneck vote from here on out. Good luck with your Palins, Perrys and Bachmanns (lol). Enjoy!
Bill Clinton is endorsing Bachman...
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
alright, so it looks like its going limp. yep, lost voters.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!