Re: Stupid Governator to Eliminate ALL State Park Funding

http://yubanet.com/california/California-State-Parks-Foundation-Rejects-Proposal-to-Remove-Core-Funding-for-State-Parks.php

What a jerk this guy is. So the voters of CA did not approve his ballot measures for yet more handouts from the citizens of the state, Governor Jerkweed is threatening to eliminate all state park funding, a mere 1/10th of 1 percent of the annual state budget. He's totally doing this to "punish" the voters for not giving him yet more money to still not balance the budget. Screw you Arnold!!!

If you think Yosemite gets crowded now...just wait until all state campgrounds are closed. That'll be fun. Forget ever getting a campsite again...

I guess there will still be the Forest Service campgrounds...and I'll have to carry my bike over the gate at Mt. Diablo to do my weekly ride...no cars should be a bonus though



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2009 10:15PM by cthenn.

And we recalled Gray Davis because?

Let's make a list of the things we would like from the budget to get it balanced. I'll start with:

1. Increasing the existing property tax to 150% of whatever you are paying now. (not too popular)
2. Double the state income tax. (not popular either)
3. Close the prisons.

---

Old Dude



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2009 11:27PM by mrcondron.

My vote is to recall mrcondron.

See post 3

---

Old Dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2009 10:40PM by mrcondron.

See post 4

See post three.

---

Old Dude

California has the tenth largest economy in the world. Surely the state can figure out how to collect some money!

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2009 08:17AM by Frank Furter.

Quote
bill-e-g
And we recalled Gray Davis because?

Hey, leave me out of the "we"...I voted for McClintock in the recall election.

We don't want to start a political thread here on a peaceful Yosemite board...but instead of raising the people's taxes to pay for an ever-expanding government, how about they learn to live within their means? And this should not involve something incredibly short-sighted and simply retarded by eliminating ALL state park funding.

Let's start by taking away all the legislators' perks, like free cars and per diems. (Yeah, I know that's nothing, but it solves the budget problems about as well as taking away state park funding). Those jerks are getting paid a helluva lot more under the table by lobbyists.

Start with abolishing Prop 13.

Here is twist. If the State Parks are closed, will the Capitol Building itself also be closed? Might improve how the legislature functions.
Maybe should allow camping on the Capitol Park grounds.

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=495


In Montana, we have a legislature that meets for 3 months every 2 years and a balanced budget with a reserve!

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
cthenn

Let's start by taking away all the legislators' perks, like free cars and per diems. (Yeah, I know that's nothing, but it solves the budget problems about as well as taking away state park funding). Those jerks are getting paid a helluva lot more under the table by lobbyists.

I thought it was solely the governor. Actually such a large number of the budget items must be funded by law the only thing that can be done in low revenue times is to cut those programs that are not mandated. Raising revenue doesn't seem to sit well with the electorate. It's California's way of doing the state's business.

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron

Quote
cthenn

Let's start by taking away all the legislators' perks, like free cars and per diems. (Yeah, I know that's nothing, but it solves the budget problems about as well as taking away state park funding). Those jerks are getting paid a helluva lot more under the table by lobbyists.

I thought it was solely the governor. Actually such a large number of the budget items must be funded by law the only thing that can be done in low revenue times is to cut those programs that are not mandated. Raising revenue doesn't seem to sit well with the electorate. It's California's way of doing the state's business.

Part of the problem is that the original 1988 Proposition 92 set a mandate for minimum funding for education and annual increases. I believe there were other passed ballot propositions that set further mandates.

At the time I read about it and thought it was a bad idea. It wasn't so much that education wasn't important, but I could sense that in bad years it could set up the public for a nasty shock since other types of funding would be considered "discretionary".

Bingo! The prop system trumping the legislature.

---

Old Dude

Actually, do you recall when a former Yosemite Superintendent closed a number of campgrounds - Bridalveil included - for the same reason?

I don't want to darken the air in one of the world's finest environments with dirty politics, but I think we realize that a lot of funds are being diverted to an ever-growing number of non-citizens. I have felt for a long time that a lot of those problems can be cured with paying attention to current laws, but it isn't being done - and our parks will suffer accordingly.

When Mike failed to open Bridalveil, I thought it was an act of personal courage and boldness.

I reside on the east side of Yellowstone, and we know that our mineral, natural gas and petroleum-based state funding is going to plummet in the near future. The next year is probably survivable, but subsequent to that could prove interesting.

As California goes, so goes the nation - in time - so I've been watching to see how they cope with the problem.

Quote
cthenn
http://yubanet.com/california/California-State-Parks-Foundation-Rejects-Proposal-to-Remove-Core-Funding-for-State-Parks.php

What a jerk this guy is. So the voters of CA did not approve his ballot measures for yet more handouts from the citizens of the state, Governor Jerkweed is threatening to eliminate all state park funding, a mere 1/10th of 1 percent of the annual state budget. He's totally doing this to "punish" the voters for not giving him yet more money to still not balance the budget. Screw you Arnold!!!

I

I wholeheartedly disagree. Arnold has to make these decisions.

I've advocated, and wrote an email to Schwarzenegger a few years ago, that state parks should be privatized and users of those parks should pay to play. Instead, the state parks stayed on the state budget and the entrance fees were trebled. The tripling of the fees was fine but leaving the parks on the state teat didn't, and still doesn't, make any sense.

The state parks need to figure out what their bare minimum budget is and charge entrance fees accordingly. It is that simple.

Are you certain you want to privatize public park lands, and start paying some private corporation $69 per person to get in, where you used to pay $6 per car to park? When public resources are privatized, the cost of using them invariably skyrockets.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2009 10:10AM by Bob Weaver.

Quote
Bob Weaver
Are you certain you want to privatize public park lands, and start paying some private corporation $69 per person to get in, where you used to pay $6 per car to park? When public resources are privatized, the cost of using them invariably skyrockets.

Actually, the opposite is true as long as there is competition and not monopoly. We have rules for that.

Government mandated liability car insurance. What percentage of your insurance bill is it?

How much does a washer on a government airplane cost as opposed to a private airplane, even though it's the same washer? (Remember the $2,000 hammer argument)

Are you saying your health care will be cheaper when it's government run? I will start laughing if you say yes.

If it costs $69 to get into a state park, like I said, so be it. Pay to play. You're claiming someone else should pay, not you. This is why California and pretty much all governments are in trouble now. They have proven themselves incapable.

How is there competition as long as one corporation controls access to the park? You would have to set up two entrance gates, side-by-side, and allow visitors to choose which gate to go in - and the two gates would have to be run by two unrelated corporations, thus they would have to compete on price. How is that possible though? What do you think would happen if Delaware North was given control of the entrance gates of Yosemite?

Quote
Bob Weaver
How is there competition as long as one corporation controls access to the park? You would have to set up two entrance gates, side-by-side, and allow visitors to choose which gate to go in - and the two gates would have to be run by two unrelated corporations, thus they would have to compete on price. How is that possible though? What do you think would happen if Delaware North was given control of the entrance gates of Yosemite?

Seems rather like the early days of US national parks before the National Park Service was established. The Bright Angel Trail in Grand Canyon was "improved" by a private entity before the establishment of the national park and a toll was charged. There were competing trails that were "improved" or built to compete with Bright Angel Trail. Hermit Trail was improved by the AT&SF Railway and tolls weren't charged. The then new NPS built the South Kaibab Trail to bypass the tolls at the Bright Angel Trail. The rights to collect tolls on the Bright Angel Trail were still maintained until the 1930s when it was ceded to the NPS.

Quote
Vince

If it costs $69 to get into a state park, like I said, so be it. Pay to play. You're claiming someone else should pay, not you. This is why California and pretty much all governments are in trouble now. They have proven themselves incapable.

Why bother having a government then? Just make everything into a private business...schools, highways, state and national parks, forests. You want to walk to the store, you pay the sidewalk owner a toll as he sees fit.

Government does have a purpose; there are things that we all need in common, and fortunately some had the foresight to realize that if we didn't keep government-owned-and-run open space, we soon wouldn't have any.

Yes, we all pay for that, along with the schools and roads, police, fire, etc. Some think it should all be privatized, which is a joke. Private enterprise serves its investors; charge the user plenty, pay the actual workers as little as possible, give the user as little as you can get away with, and pay the investors, who do nothing, as much as you can from what's left. Want a tram to Glacier point and the top o' the falls, an expanded curry village, several more Ahwahnees, a nice gambling casino, deluxe 'upscaler' tents with king beds and mints on the pillows tended by room service? Let private enterprise handle it, and that's what you'll get.

Not all of us have the same idea of basic needs that the government should handle, but every time I drive by places like Malibu where overpriced rich peoples' houses block the beach, and realize it would all be like that if we hadn't put a stop to it, I'm glad it's not all handled by greedy private enterprise.

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

Quote
Sierrafan

Why bother having a government then? Just make everything into a private business...schools, highways, state and national parks, forests. You want to walk to the store, you pay the sidewalk owner a toll as he sees fit.

Government does have a purpose; there are things that we all need in common, and fortunately some had the foresight to realize that if we didn't keep government-owned-and-run open space, we soon wouldn't have any.

Yes, we all pay for that, along with the schools and roads, police, fire, etc. Some think it should all be privatized, which is a joke. Private enterprise serves its investors; charge the user plenty, pay the actual workers as little as possible, give the user as little as you can get away with, and pay the investors, who do nothing, as much as you can from what's left. Want a tram to Glacier point and the top o' the falls, an expanded curry village, several more Ahwahnees, a nice gambling casino, deluxe 'upscaler' tents with king beds and mints on the pillows tended by room service? Let private enterprise handle it, and that's what you'll get.

Not all of us have the same idea of basic needs that the government should handle, but every time I drive by places like Malibu where overpriced rich peoples' houses block the beach, and realize it would all be like that if we hadn't put a stop to it, I'm glad it's not all handled by greedy private enterprise.

Post o' the Year! Awesome!

Quote
Vince
If it costs $69 to get into a state park, like I said, so be it. Pay to play.

We're already paying, Vince. But you want us to pay more. I think that sucks.

Quote
eeek

Quote
Vince
If it costs $69 to get into a state park, like I said, so be it. Pay to play.

We're already paying, Vince. But you want us to pay more. I think that sucks.

Apart from the hundreds of other reasons why this is an incredibly stupid idea, it's just not going to happen. Period. So, what's the realistic solution? The parks will close, and so then what?

Quote
eeek

Quote
Vince
If it costs $69 to get into a state park, like I said, so be it. Pay to play.

We're already paying, Vince. But you want us to pay more. I think that sucks.

So.,..who should pay, then? Be serious. Pay to play. Simple.

This used to be a discussion about state parks, not about national parks.

Quote
Vince


I wholeheartedly disagree. Arnold has to make these decisions.

I've advocated, and wrote an email to Schwarzenegger a few years ago, that state parks should be privatized and users of those parks should pay to play. Instead, the state parks stayed on the state budget and the entrance fees were trebled. The tripling of the fees was fine but leaving the parks on the state teat didn't, and still doesn't, make any sense.

The state parks need to figure out what their bare minimum budget is and charge entrance fees accordingly. It is that simple.

Right, taking away 1/10th of 1 percent of the state's budget solves the problem. Stop funding state parks because they are suuuuuuuuch a huge drain...how about taking away some of the 60-something percent of the world's 7th or 8th largest economy we spend on a failing education system? That's one place to start.

There is so much ingrained waste in government, and this piss-ant amount aint gonna mean jack squat. The dick is doing this purely to spite the voters. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Because we didn't give him the go-ahead to spend more and more money to "fix" the budget, he's gonna take his ball and go home. Now all outdoor enthusiasts have to suffer because he's a whiny little bitch.

Flabby old man, go away. And learn to speak English while your at it!

Dude,
Seriously... the 4-mile trail is open. No snow. Free and Clear for your enjoyment.

Quote
joe_schmo
Dude,
Seriously... the 4-mile trail is open. No snow. Free and Clear for your enjoyment.

Dude, dude, thanks for adding nothing dude. I mean, like seriously, duh.

Quote
cthenn

Quote
joe_schmo
Dude,
Seriously... the 4-mile trail is open. No snow. Free and Clear for your enjoyment.

Dude, dude, thanks for adding nothing dude. I mean, like seriously, duh.

Dude, Calm down. Geez. Go for a walk.

It's a PROPOSAL. It's not going to happen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2009 09:07PM by joe_schmo.

Another opinion:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-hiltzik28-2009may28,0,426544.column?page=1

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
Another opinion:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-hiltzik28-2009may28,0,426544.column?page=1

This article tells us to do what Americans do the best: bitch and whine...

But I must admit I feel better, cause now I know it's not my fault.
I've been bitching about Bonds for years and years and years.
Unfortunately I am invariably wrong when I check the results.

Headline: Congratulations - Bond Measure passed again...

To be fair to all in California (a state I was all too happy to leave three years ago):

California budget: $135 billion
Shortfall: $21.4 billion

I propose an across-the-board cut of 16 percent. Every agency takes a hit but nothing is eliminated.

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

Nice idea Vince. It makes the most sense but the crafters of many of the state propositions over the years have put in mandated funding therefore it's illegal to reduce the annual funding even if the state runs into a shortfall, ergo we are now in trouble with no way out that does indeed make sense. A lot of these mandated funding programs in fact have automatic increases year to year. The voters passed them while the legislature sat idly by.

---

Old Dude

Both Bodie and Mono Lake are on the list of parks to be closed.

Maybe he should just close 80% of each park.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

You are thinking small and don't see the real card Arnold plays. Arnold personally doesn't want to close the parks any more than you. And he knows that will not really happen though one can be sure some parks will close as government needs to cut back in all areas. However he knows that is one issue that will hit a sore nerve across a wide demographic of influential members of our population. And their outcry will provoke the Democratic controlled legislature to do more than sit back simply rejecting his proposals. Same can be said about his Republican brothers and even more so. None want to be the person that wields the knife but rather for political reasons to be the one that cries and whines how unthinkable such and such would be...wah wah wah. Thus they view the other side intractably while blaming Arnold for the roll he must play. Despite the fact we people will rant and rave, taxes must be raised. And governement must be sliced up.

Unfortunately the real parts of goverment that ought to be pruned are legally protected or invisible within the complexities of the state bureaucracy. All manner of excessive retirement benefits and such that get put into employment contracts when politicians of the correct persuasion come into office. I would like to see all state employees take a 10% pay cut across the board top to bottom. There are many highly payed management employees often with fancy degrees in any bureaucracy that make large salaries and at some point end up doing little work yet find ways to exist in niches of management. Getting rid of those layers is often impossible because each layer is intrenched with lower managers that become paranoid if the boat is rocked in any way. Accordingly the solution is often whole sale slaughter pruning out whole divisions and departments and starting over. And that is exactly what we ought to do in many cases starting with the departments of education and corrections.

David, why do you say, "Taxes MUST be raised"? You're joking, right? Raise them 100% and I guarantee that you will still have the same $21 Billion dollar deficit. Or more. The politicians in Sacramento will spend all that you give them, and then some. Raising taxes is not going to balance the CA budget. Heck, California is already one of the highest taxed states in the USA. If high taxes were the answer, CA would have a surplus.

Those of us who live in the other 49 states just sit back and laugh UNTIL you want us to guarantee your loans. If Californians want their $9 billion dollar high-speed rail, go for it. If you want to have the the cleanest air and only ride 10-speed bikes or drive Priuses, we admire you for that. If you want to drive all the businesses out of the state, that's okay. If you want to have confiscatory tax rates that drive the working class out of the state leaving only those who pay little or no taxes, we like that too. We need your good jobs in our states. So please keep driving the wage earners out of CA by raising taxes ever higher. If Villaraigosa and Newsom want to establish "sanctuary cities" where the laws of the USA are not enforced, that's okay by me. I'd rather have all the illegal immigrants in your state and not mine, (I know, in CA you call them "undocumented citizens", but you know what I mean...) We can't afford to give them free health care and welfare in our states. We're close to broke, too...just not by $21 Billion.

So we're good for all the things that you get when you vote for these same buffoons over and over...Republican or Democrat. The teacher's unions and SEIU control almost everything in California and the legislature is not going to take them on if it means a legislater losing his/her job. Arnold tried to cut a few bucks out of SEIU contracts and Obama threatens to pull all of the CA stimulus money. So there is no hope in making cuts. Just more spending.

But don't ask those of us who don't have the warm weather, nice beaches, and wonderful mountains to pay for your toys. It takes a lot of gall for Arnold to say California is going to "lead the way" for the rest of the country and then asks the rest of the country to pay for his brilliant leadership. (Gray Davis now seems like Einstein compared to Arnold.) It's easy to propose all these wonderful things for California if Arnold can get ALL U.S. taxpayers to guarantee the loans. Count me out, please.

By the way, before anyone jumps on me about "illegal immigrants", I would gladly roll out the red carpet for anyone who gets in line and comes here legally. I know even using the term "illegal immigrant" makes me a white, racist, bigot from flyover country, but I am not. I just think coming in through the front door is the right way to do it. Living in the shadows can't be much fun for any family. Allowing businesses to keep these people in the shadows to keep their wages low is morally wrong.

Sorry for the long post, I just hate giving more to Caesar than to my family and I don't believe raising taxes is the answer. I would love to tell my boss "You MUST raise my salary" similar to David saying we MUST raise taxes. But I'm pretty sure my boss would tell me to go back to work and make some cuts...because he doesn't have any more to give me. As taxpayers we are all tapped out. Drive more wage earners and businesses out of CA with higher taxes and see what happens. Those sucking from the public trough will soon find the pickings even slimmer.

More on topic, most times I would agree with Vince - "pay to play." If it costs $69 to maintain a state park for my use, then I should have to pay $69. But there must be some exceptions and I think our wild areas should be some. I don't want a few rich people roping off Yosemite, Yellowstone, or other national treasures to themselves. And they would, if they could. There should be some places set aside for all to enjoy at a reasonable cost. As John Muir so eloquently said...

"Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul."

Heard a recent news story about tax increases approved in Oregon. There is no way out of California's budget trap than to increase revenue and taxation is the most reasonable in the current situation. The services of government will not be cut ( the right wants more prisons and business incentives and the lefts want social support and quality of life issues) so the equation is clear. The taxation should be structured to focus on those with high net worth and high incomes. Anyone with incomes greater than $500,000 should be subjected to a significant progressive tax and property taxes should be raised.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
Heard a recent news story about tax increases approved in Oregon. There is no way out of California's budget trap than to increase revenue and taxation is the most reasonable in the current situation. The services of government will not be cut ( the right wants more prisons and business incentives and the lefts want social support and quality of life issues) so the equation is clear. The taxation should be structured to focus on those with high net worth and high incomes. Anyone with incomes greater than $500,000 should be subjected to a significant progressive tax and property taxes should be raised.

The same is true at the national level. Many lawmakers in DC are making noise about cutting back on government spending but most of them are back at the pork barrel trough whenever the opportunity presents itself. One way or another we have to pay for everything we want.

wbny, you sound like a great many people that spout their usual political tax positions. However you fail to grasp the utterly enormous hole we our currently in. If California has say 20 million taxpayers then $21B is about $1,000 for every one of us. As I noted, I'm all for some serious axing of programs. But that will not be anywhere close to enough. What they ought to do is a one time tax increase to square the books that will shock Californians into reality the next time they vote for all the expensive projects or liberal politicians that increase government bureaucracy. You see the California people and the politicians they elect ask for it all but fail to have long term sources of stable revenue to carry out what they want. Especially all the social programs that are often court ordered. Thus we in the state as well as the Federal government need to return to what had been the way our government was run with balanced budgets.

How about looking at that most sacred of all cows: Prop 13?

Your state should look at an asset based tax and take on those who have had a free ride on state services to 30 years. The property taxes in California are disproportionally low and have been a "free ride" for those who have owned (now very expensive) homes for more than 20 years.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2009 06:31PM by Frank Furter.

Quote
Frank Furter
How about looking at that most sacred of all cows: Prop 13?

You think?

I'd have to see real numbers on this one. The turnover on houses in California pretty much keeps the market value and assessed value close.
It was needed at the time of it's passage and maybe it could stand some tweaking but I doubt that had it not been passed we would not be in the situation we're in today.

One property tax proposal I heard put forth in the late 1960s by some guy running for congress out of Manteca was to tax by the square footage of your lot. You could put anything on it from a hovel to a mansion and the tax rate would be the same.

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
I'd have to see real numbers on this one. The turnover on houses in California pretty much keeps the market value and assessed value close.

I cannot find data on either side. I suspect the strongest "non-data" argument is that Warren Buffett has reportedly advocated that action. All of the links below are opinion.

http://choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/05/californias-budget-problem-prop-13.html

http://www.squarefeetblog.com/commercial-real-estate-blog/2009/02/26/proposition-13-property-taxes-and-tenants/

http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/the_crushing_blow_of_howard_jarvis/6623/


However, it makes sense that there should be a progressive property tax (higher tax rate on more expensive property) and that commercial real estate, at least, should be excluded from Prop 13. The very rich are disproportionately exempt from sales taxes (a smaller fraction of income used for purchasing taxable goods) and usually sufficient mechanisms exist for the rich to avoid taxes than exist for the typical wage earner. Asset based tax will tend to even the tax burden. Those with more expensive assets benefit most from stable and smoothly functioning society anyway, seems reasonable that they should pay more to enjoy those assets (in an unstable, high crime situation, those with more money will have more to loose than those of lesser means).

In addition, property taxes are fairer because there are no ways to avoid paying them (no offsetting tax breaks) so far as I can determine.

Maybe there should be a 0.1% "net worth" tax for a few years as an alternative. In addition, I believe California is prohibited by the state constitution from accumulating money or an economic cushion. Some of this economic mess could have been diminished by an economic reserve fund.

Someone mentioned that the budget shortfall represented $1000 for every Californian. Actually doesn't seem like much. 1/30 cost of new car; less than most monthly house payments.

In the longer term, Californians may need to revise their constitution to a more balanced approach to economic issues. Doesn't make sense to approve programs that no one wants to pay for.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan