Town Square

Post a New Topic

CA State payroll grows in recession...huh??

Original post made by Perspective on Mar 16, 2009

Web Link

Ok, please explain to me why we should pay ever more taxes to grow our government? 2,000 MORE FT employees in a year when we were promised a shrinkage in our State Govt?

Of course, even before I got to that point in the article, I KNEW that someone in State would defend it as needing more State employees to deal with unemployment and homelessness etc..Right. So, when was the last time we actually LAID OFF these employees when the economy improves or unemployment goes down?

If you buy this premise, can you find me any evidence that we have ever shrunk govt in an economic upswing?


Comments (13)

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 16, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Well, let's see, 275 seem to be CHP officers which seems reasonable. I'll wager another set is prison personnel thanks to our idiotically expensive three-strikes law.

Posted by Anna, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 16, 2009 at 2:38 pm

"Ok, please explain to me why we should pay ever more taxes to grow our government?"

This is really very simple: In California, the state employee unions have more political power than the taxpayers.

We've reached a tipping point where those on the receiving end of government largess can extract more benefits for themselves almost at will from the powerless people who are paying the bills.

Absent some political awakening that doesn't seem likely, this will continue until enough productive citizens flee to other states to cause the system to fail and fall of its own weight.

Fortunately (or not), this moment seems to be coming very soon as having passed a (so called) bare-bones budget less than a month ago (that significantly raises taxes), we're already in the hole by another $8 Billion or so. Meanwhile, more and more residents who are having their pockets picked by the thieves in Sacramento are packing up and moving. (Net 144,000 native born citizens left California in the past year - to be replaced mostly by low skilled non taxpaying imigrants, many of whom need subsidization - and the services of more government workers - themselves).

This situation can't go on much longer.

Posted by resident, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Mar 16, 2009 at 2:54 pm

This is pathetic, the state legislatures ought to be ashamed of themselves, including Anna Eshoo! Most of the cuts went out from education. Ugh.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 16, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Well, given that 30% of our prison population is of illegals, and therefore one can assume that AT LEAST 30% of our crimes are from illegals...doncha think it would be a heck of lot better to SHUT OUR BORDER and save a lot of grief and money in cops, prisons, schools, ER use?

That alone would probably balance our budget.

Hmmmmm....good thing to play with, if anyone has the time to look over our state budget and figure out what would happen if we didn't have any illegal aliens here. ( sorry...undocumented residents)

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 16, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Why doesn't Arnold just terminate this kind of stuff?

Posted by Fact checker, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 16, 2009 at 6:59 pm

"Well, given that 30% of our prison population is of illegals, "

Wrong. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, 17% of the state prison population is made up of people born outside of the United States. Note, that's just those not born in the US (many of them are now citizens or here legally). True, in theory there shouldn't be any illegal aliens in prison (that is, they shouldn't be here in the first place), but to throw out a grossly exaggerated figure doesn't help your argument.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 17, 2009 at 8:49 am

Ok, here is a short article with all the "conflicting" data. It is, as usual, dependent on who your source is, what their agenda is, and how they define workds.

Web Link

Bottom line? Between 17% ( if you are a social justice organization) and and 33% ( if you are anywhere from the Justice Dept or Watchdog organizations) of our prison population is non-citizen. In any case, take off 17% to 33% of the prison bill ( and subtract non-legally here education and health care bill) and see how you can AT THE VERY LEAST balance our budget in California. Maybe even make good progress NATIONALLY.

Posted by Fact checker, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 17, 2009 at 11:51 am

But "non-citizen" does not mean "illegal alien".

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 17, 2009 at 12:57 pm

I think Perspective's perspective is that only citizens should go to jail; non-citizens should get off.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 17, 2009 at 8:34 pm


Your citation doesn't say what you said it did.

First, both the 17 percent illegals and the 30 percent non-citizens figures (which you conflate--they're measuring two different things) refers to the *federal* prison population. California doesn't run the federal prison system. It runs the state prison system. Your numbers have *nothing* to do with the prisons California pays for and manages.

Fact Checker's figure refers to the *state* prison population--I haven't double-checked it, but s/he's looking at the right set of numbers. You're not.

But even Fact Checker's numbers don't tell us the percentage of illegal aliens in state prisons, though it would be less than 17 percent.

You need to read more carefully.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 17, 2009 at 9:20 pm

There are no so blind as those who will not see.

Gangs in California are now dominated by groups like MS 13Web Link, they operate in and out of the the state prison and county jail systems, they run illegal immigrants trains and work hand and glove with the narco terrorists in Mexico to import cocaine and meth and female prostitution slaves.
19,000 murders have been committed by such thugs on the border alone in the last 7 years.
They are now involved in kidnapping in CA, Arizona and Texas.

Stanford has warned all students not to go to Mexico for spring break to avoid murder and/or kidnap.

All cooperative health initiatives across the border have been suspended by Texas until further notice, for good reason.

There is a war going on our border with narco terrorist who are well armed, ruthless and spreading north mainly through the jails and prisons.

The gangs arrested in EPA recently where just the enforcers for the narco terrorists, the root and branch was untouched and I doubt those arrested will inform on the other thugs.

To have a major Federal armed invasion less than 1/2 mile from some Palo Alto areas is unprecedented, yet the murders continue in EPA.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 18, 2009 at 8:44 am

OP read it again without your defensive blinders on and see the "big picture"..connect some dots around all you know. Do you think our prison population has a higher or a lower population of illegal aliens? That would be one dot to connect to your reading. Do you think we should pay for ANY illegal aliens to be in our prisons ( look up the cost per prisoner in our State before you answer). How much money would we save, using the most conservative number you can find for number of illegals in our prisons, would we save if we shut our border down, and sent every illegal who got convicted of a crime back to their country? Does it matter if we save 10% of our prison ( and school, and health care) budget or 15% or 20%? Precisely what percentage of savings would make it worth it to you? Do you know what our entire State Budget is? 1.1 Trillion. What is our Budget shortfall? 41 Billion. What percent of 1.1 trillion is 41 billion? Can you do the math? Do you think that at least 5% of our state dollars in prisons, education, welfare for poor kids and health care go to illegals?

Stop trying to show how smart you are by quibbling over real or imagined differences in studies and interpretations, and think "big picture" results. It is like arguing over which study you support which says whether 5 drinks per day or 10 drinks per day make an alcoholic, all while knowing that both are bad for the drunk.

I know you can do it, I saw you do it in the MI debate.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 19, 2009 at 1:18 am


Your blather and suppositions don't really interest me. Not when you make the same kinds of reading errors over and over and over.

All you're doing is showing that you have a bias that interferes with your ability to understand what you're reading. I already know that.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,722 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,938 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,094 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 5 comments | 1,090 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 684 views