About Berkeley's poverty rate, it doesn't seem like he considered that just like rich people can move to other states, poor people can move too. Maybe the poverty rate of Berkeley is high precisely because it's better to be poor in Berkeley than in Oakland or Emeryville? When a city cuts down on social services, they are just externalizing the costs onto neighboring communities.<p>I know that Santa Cruz was trying to get rid of its reputation as "a good place to be homeless in" exactly because homeless people from all over the Bay Area came there.
As one small point, Greenspun waxes eloquent about the "big government" stupidity of the Berkeley Tool Lending Library.<p>Well, what is the Berkeley Tool Lending Library? It's a couple of sheds and some low-hours guys there taking care of the equipment. We got wheelbarrows, we got various small power tools, we got rotor tillers, we got tree pruning equipment, some ladders, etc. Lots of people benefit but, by eye, I'd say the main beneficiaries are homeowners who otherwise would have to buy under-used equipment from Home Depot or hire a contractor. The budget is freaking small. The social benefits (including bottom-line contribution to the local economy) is freaking huge. He's talking through his hat on that point, at the very least.
<i>"I pointed out that California collects a larger percentage of its citizens’ income than all but five other states (10.5 percent; source). Shouldn’t it be possible to run the state on 10.5 percent of income?<p>Despite the fact that all of my interlocutors had university educations, sometimes including PhDs, all were so deeply invested in the idea that their insolvent state government is starved for revenue that they were unable to parse the information."</i><p>Perhaps they were just stunned that someone with a PhD doesn't know that income tax isn't the whole story?<p>California state revenue, 2009: $88 Billion (source: <a href="http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pd...</a>, chart SUM-01)<p>California population: 36.8 million (July, 2008; source: US Census)<p>CA Revenue per capita: $2391.30<p>Texas state revenue, 2009: $78 Billion (source: <a href="http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/taxbud/bre2008/BRE_2008-09.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/taxbud/bre2008/BRE_2008-09.pdf</a>, page 3)<p>Texas population: 24.3 million (July, 2008; source: US Census)<p>TX Revenue per capita: $3209.88<p>"Conservative" Texas takes in almost a thousand bucks more per person in taxes and fees than does "liberal" California.<p>UPDATE: I made a mistake. The numbers for Texas are reported on a biennial basis, whereas for California, they're reported on an annual basis. See my reply to cwan below for details. When you get the annual numbers from the Texas budget summary, they appear to take in about 32% less per capita than California.
I think it's clear that the problem with California is not the taxation rate (which after all at 10.5% is not much higher than the national average of 9.7% and ranks only 6th) but rather that the entire state government is incredibly broken.<p>A big portion of the state's revenues are constitutionally mandated to go to certain programs via the ridiculously easy referendum process.<p>Meanwhile, Proposition 13 requires a 2/3rds majority vote to pass any sort of budget, and a hardened radical element in the Assembly would rather see the state go down in flames than raise taxes (even when coupled with spending cuts).<p>I think the very short term limits (3 terms) for assembly members feeds this tendency because they don't have enough time to get good at legislating and compromising before being kicked out of office.<p>At the same time the (vast majority) Democrats in the assembly don't want massive spending cuts -- but you must admit they have the majority! A 2/3rd requirement to pass a budget is incredibly undemocratic.<p>The result is unrestricted borrowing and inevitable collapse.
I've always thought Greenspun's articles were interesting and well written, so I'm disappointed to see such a transparently ideological and sarcastic article.
Move over Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. The right has a new hero and it's ... Phil Greenspun? Who knew!?<p>Now Phil is surely much smarter than I. No argument there. I would never have the confidence to go to Harvard and try to straighten out the PhDs there about how Massachusetts should be run. They would call me names like Carpetbagger and such.<p>Where does Phil get his 10.5% tax rate number? From the Tax Foundation <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation</a>. Where do they get their numbers? It's vague. Does it include sales tax and workman's comp etc.? The same foundation complains about California Corporate tax burden being the highest in the nation at an outrageous 8.3%. Hmmm. 8.3 < 10.5. And don't give me any of that trickle down baloney about not taxing corporations.<p>Pensions are a great boogie man of the right wing. They cost so much. It's much cheaper to stop paying those folks. If they haven't amassed fortune enough to retire using that huge 40k salary by now, tough luck.<p>I had better stop now before I get all worked up. After all I'm just a dumb old computer programmer who doesn't know much about economics. Phil's a s m a r t old computer programmer ...<p>Sigh. I'm actually a bit of a fan of Phil's. It's just that the harsh conservative position is hard for an unemployed 50+ programmer to swallow these days. I don't have a "fat" pension. When I go for interviews I rarely see anyone over 40. Good luck to you all, and don't look down on us "over the hill" workers. Just look away.
"None could accept the idea that their state had a spending problem rather than a revenue problem"<p>"For roughly 60 years, Berkeley has offered more services to its residents than virtually any other city in the U.S."<p>This should point out to him his mistake, I would think. He is assuming that the correct answer is to lower taxes (or keep them the same) and spend less. But this isn't a correct (or wrong) answer, it is one option. Maybe people in California would rather pay higher taxes and get more services. It works pretty well for a lot of European countries.
Philip is so right. The Bay area stinks. Every body should move to Texas or to Boston where life is so much better. Real estate prices are way too high. The politics here are way to liberal. The government is way out of touch with what's realistic. The whole state is going to collapse any day underneath its own weight.<p></looks through San Jose real estate listings>