THE COYOTE PRINCIPLE California The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks the Governor's dog, then bites the Governor. The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie "Bambi" and then realizes he should stop because the coyote is only doing what is natural. He calls animal control. Animal Control captures the coyote and bills the state $200 testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it. He calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases. The Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting his bite wound bandaged. The running trail gets shut down for 6 months while Fish & Game conducts a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is now free of dangerous animals. The Governor spends $50,000 in state funds implementing a "coyote awareness program" for residents of the area. The State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world. The Governor's security agent is fired for not stopping the attack. The state spends $150,000 to hire and train a new agent with additional special training re: the nature of coyotes. PETA protests the coyote's relocation and files a $5 million suit against the state. Texas The Governor of Texas is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks his dog. The Governor shoots the coyote with his state-issued pistol and keeps jogging. The Governor has spent $.50 on a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge. The buzzards eat the dead coyote. And that, my friends, is why California is broke and Texas is not.
Except California is not broke...minor detail again. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The governor of California isn't wearing glasses in order to make him look smarter as the Governor of Texas is. After Texas Governor Perry couldn’t remember the major federal agencies he was going to eliminate if he became president and looking like a moron during the debates, his handlers now have the Texas governor wearing geeky black horned rimmed glasses everywhere. But unfortunately those black geeky glasses haven’t improved his mental acuity. “Rick Perry is apparently now wearing horn-rimmed glasses, perhaps an effort to give him the perception of gravitas ahead of his 2016 presidential campaign. But that didn't stop him from saying this on Saturday—in New Orleans, Louisiana: If Perry looked a little different, some things don’t change – like recalling numbers or geography. Touting Texas, Perry declared, “There are many other states that embrace those conservative values, the approach we’ve taken over the years. I’m in one today – Florida.” “We’re in Louisiana,” someone shouted. To which Perry responded: I know. And I said that.” - The Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/06/1229244/-Rick-Perry-forgets-where-he-is# The governor of California doesn’t feel the need to wear black horned rimmed glasses in order to invoke an image of gravitas. And it’s not like PETA doesn’t know about Texas. PETA has chapters in Texas too. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/08/california-v-texas-in-fight-for-the-future/
Brown has staked his governorship on the idea that Californians need to pay higher taxes to help plug a budget gap estimated at almost $16 billion. #8 According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, California's unfunded pension liability is estimated to be somewhere between $120 billion and $500 billion. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...m4K4Dg&usg=AFQjCNHVEmVcpeiTez3Mgv4VHwnnmvEprg The unemployment debacle has been expensive. Employers pay payroll-based unemployment insurance into a fund that then covers the 26 weeks of unemployment benefits that the state pays. But during the crisis, unemployment skyrocketed, and by January 2009, California’s unemployment system became one of the first in the nation to go broke. California itself went broke; in July that year, it issued IOUs instead of checks to pay its bills. To keep state unemployment benefits flowing, the state had to beg the federal government for a bailout. By now, according to Loree Levy, a spokeswoman for the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the state owes the federal government $9.7 billion for state unemployment benefits. How can California ever pay this back? Jacking up taxes on employers, raising eligibility requirements, and/or chopping benefits. None of them are palatable. None of them will help the economy. And the Legislature has not yet found, or even looked for, a solution. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...m4K4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFFAUbTn9UVvfeHw4k5J9V6swhUdQ
California is also heading into an extreme, worse in 500 year drought, that covers most of the state. This will impact the huge farm industries, as well as make it more expensive to run all businesses and homes, due to water shortages and the higher cost that will appear. It does not look good. They need some very expensive geology projects but have no money. Like most liberal failures, they expect the surpluses from the more efficient republicans, to bail them out through common taxes. I would prefer the democrats pool their own money and bail themselves out. All the democratic governors can pool their surpluses and bail out California. I would like to see two tax pools, one for democrats by democrats, and one for republicans by republicans, which only go to their own. As democratic states fail, one by one, without the usual republican tax bail out, the republican can buy them. The current system is like you and you neighbor working together, with you saving and him over spending to buy friend and votes. Since you are a team, he gets all the credit for the parties, but you get to sacrifice and pay the tab. Once you cut the ties, it is better for you while your neighbor will be unable to meet his inflated commitments. In the coyote principle, the excess cost of one is shared between the two, even if the other one is not spending that much. The democrats are a high maintenance wife not worth the cost. It could be time to divorce before she bankrupts the family.
That works out to less than $424 per person. Do you really think that is a big deal? And none of that changes the fact that California debt is and remains highly rated investment grade debt. In short, the state is not bankrupt as you asserted. That is a pretty big range for such a discrete number. Actually a study out of Harvard puts California’s unfunded pension liability at 154 billion dollars and is 32% underfunded. Texas has an unfunded pension liability of 54 billion dollars and is 30% underfunded. And actually those are pretty good numbers when compared to other states. I live in a solid red state and our unfunded pension liability problem is huge when compared to that of either California or Texas. Unfunded pension liability is a problem for all states. If you do a discounted analysis of pension liabilities, Texas has a bigger unfunded pension problem than California. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_.../fwp/MRCBG_FWP_2012_08-Healey_Underfunded.pdf And when comparing the states, one must remember that California is the most populated state in the union. Texas has but a fraction of California's population. California, by population, is 45% larger than Texas. So when you do absolute dollar to dollar comparisons, California will always be larger because it is a bigger state. It has a significantly larger population, a 45% larger population. Additionally the two states have fundamentally different economies. Texas is mainly an oil state deriving most of its wealth form oil. Whereas California has a more diversified economy and more dependent on technological innovation and trade. Actually, it wasn’t the “unemployment debacle”, it was that little thing called The Great Recession which began in the waning days of the George Junior administration. You remember – those days when we were losing nearly a million jobs a month and more with each passing month. Yeah, that did put a crimp in California’s budget along with the budget of every other state heavily hit by the recession. Assuming your statement and numbers are correct, and that is a big assumption given your record, ten billion dollars works out to about $255 dollars per Californian. And you think that is unaffordable? LOL, actually the California legislature has cut costs and raised taxes. They are way ahead of you. Raising taxes and cutting expenses is what Jerry Brown has done in California. And it has worked and continues to work. And California’s economy continues to grow. “Texas and California are robust political and economic competitors. We don’t know which will be the template for the future. As California emerges from its economic and fiscal doldrums and some of Texas’ vulnerabilities become evident, it is now far from certain that Texas will emerge the victor. California is a global hub for trade, tourism, culture and the manufacture of ideas and intellectual property. From high tech and biotech to entertainment, travel and logistics, the state’s brand transcends national boundaries. The Golden State tops the nation in agriculture. It also sets the pace on green energy development, which could lead to a dramatic increase in the state’s energy production. The Texas economy has always been based on energy and agriculture. But the Lone Star State has been building a manufacturing and service base, attracting businesses with lower wage rates, weak unions, a friendly regulatory climate and large fiscal incentives. It remains to be seen whether it can maintain its economic momentum and overcome the inevitable obstacles to growth, such as a popping of the latest energy bubble.” - Reuters http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/08/california-v-texas-in-fight-for-the-future/ One more little tidbit, Texas has higher property taxes than California. The bottom line here is California is not bankrupt. It's bonds are investment grade. It wouldn't have that rating if it were bankrupt as you claimed.
LOL, keep going Wellwisher, I am loving every minute of it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! According to the liberal Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! CATO group and Tax Foundation, Texas and a number of red states are more heavily dependent on aid from the federal government than blue states, including California (CA =32%, Texas = 40%). http://www.cato.org/blog/how-much-does-state-government-depend-federal-funds
Let’s do some more comparisons. Of the 10 richest cities in the US, 5 of them are in California. Texas has zero cities on the richest cities list. In fact all the richest cities in the US save one, are in blue states (i.e. states controlled by Democrats). Of the 10 poorest cities in the US, all of them are in red states (i.e. Republican controlled states) and 2 of them are in Texas. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/america-richest-poorest-cities-165424993.html And a recent study out of Harvard shows red states provide less upward mobility (i.e. less opportunity) than blue states. And our friends in Texas are at the bottom of the mobility index. California has the city with the highest upward mobility index. http://www.ajc.com/news/business/study-upward-mobility-greater-in-north-than-south/nQTkT/
Effective business tax rates are lower in California than in Texas. And during the last business cycle California's economy grew 5 times faster than the Texan economy. And then there is the fact that Californian's are better educated than their Texan counterparts. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Mar/10/california-vs-texas-which-has-best-economy/?#article-copy
California workers are more productive than their Texan counterparts. They are healthier. And they have access to better education and healthcare than their Texan counterparts. According to the US Census California and Texas have similar violent crime rates. It seems all that coyote shooting in Texas really has not done much to stop the coyotes. Maybe that Texas governor needs to get a real set of glasses. http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
Chris Christie, Jerry Brown and Rick Perry are flying on a private plane to a conference in Minnesota. Their pilot, a Mexican guy from Texas, is flying when suddenly he gets a warning light. "Guys, we have a problem. We're dumping fuel and I can't stop it. We're going to lose power in about five minutes and there are no airports in range. I might be able to put us down, but if not, there are two parachutes in the back. You make the call." Jerry Brown goes forward and talks to the pilot. "See if you can find a place to put down. If you don't think you can, tell us before we reach 3000 feet and we'll decide who jumps." The pilot nods and turns towards a dry lake bed. Chris Christie looks at him with disdain. "Let me handle this. Look, pilot dude, I know you have a family back in Texas. I wouldn't want anything to happen to them, if you know what I mean. Just saying. It might be in their best interest for you to land this plane safely." The pilot starts sweating. Rick Perry snorts. "Am I the only one who can see what's going on here? Guy's an illegal." With that he pulls out a gun, shoots the pilot, grabs one of the rigs and jumps out the door. "Great, what do we do now?" asks Christie. "Not to worry. The 'only guy who can see what's going on' just jumped out of the plane with someone's backpack," Brown says.
Why do liberal states pay more in taxes than they get from the federal government and republican states get more? the left wing greater economic power has been subsidizing right wing stupidity for years. as usual a right winger gets the basic facts wrong
Texas is poverty ridden, disease ridden, and as poorly governed as any State in this Union. I'm not sure what "broke" means, but California is having budget trouble because it passed a law against raising taxes on rich people unless they agreed to them, as the rightwing "conservatives" that dominate California politics most years pulled off one of those political stunts that have made the Republican Party in the US a byword for governmental incompetence on six continents - Texas doesn't have this particular problem (the budget problem; the Republican Incompetence problem they have in spades) partly because they don't provide government services, like fertilizer plant safety inspections or gas drilling oversight or parks and schools or the like, and partly because they sponge off the Federal tax base made up of more prosperous and well-governed regions - like California. edit in: Not to pile on here, but people in California just shoot their coyotes same as any Texan, with the same futility of effect coupled with the same comical swagger. http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/...aises-questions-about-hunting-on-public-land/ The only complication in California being the much greater population density of humans in that State - due to the fact that people want to live there.
What I would like to see is the Democrats and Republicans each taking care of their own member tax revenues. In other words, all democrat tax money goes into a pool for only democratic leadership for democratic proposed programs, and all republican tax money goes into a pool for republican proposed programs. Each side can raise or lower taxes but only on members of their own party. Then we let each party progress, side-by-side, and see which works better. The coyote principle would suggest the democrats quickly going into deficit and then raising taxes, until it collapses. While the republicans would build a surplus and lower taxes. With the combined system, the republicans get pulled into the debt, caused by the other side, and help keep the instability, floating.
Coyotes are arguably the most intelligent canid. They learned to thrive in proximity to human habitation long before the European invaders arrived. Some Indian tribes have a coyote god whom they call "the trickster." They have even learned to walk with their tails erect, and to travel singly or in pairs rather than packs, in order to be mistaken for dogs in our cities. They are opportunistic feeders who scavenge from our garbage and attack small animals like cats or smaller breeds of dogs. They prefer not to fight for their food, since there's so much easier food available in our cities. No sane coyote would attack a dog walking with a human. If this happened it would almost surely be rabid so shooting it would be okay.
I am going to do you a favor. I am challenging you to produce credible evidence to support your contentions that Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats are not. Instead of mindlessly repeating myths you have picked up from the Republican entertainment industry (Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al.). I am challenging you to get off your derriere and do some research on your own. If you are capable and accept my challenge, I think you are going to be surprised at what you find and you would burry your suggestion in the deepest darkest place you could find. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business...d-larger-tax-increases-than-obamacare/259300/ Democratic presidents are better for the economy. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy.html It’s amazing what you will learn if you can put aside your partisan programming and begin looking at facts and becoming aware of the world as it really is.
