« CA Exodus Denied | Main | Sandbox - 19dec18 »

16 December 2018



,,,Sensing some contradictions here,,,

First you say 35% of state revenues is funded by 1%ers via personal income taxes who are not really that susceptible to the 'feast or famine' thing ,,,then you complain that dems want big corporations to maybe pay more in taxes thereby lessening the feast or famine tax approach

'''it is America’s responsibility to reduce wait-times for hordes of asylum seekers''' sure, that would be nice. It would be nice if America and Cali streamlined all kinds of bureaucratic schemes to eliminate bottlenecks like the Frickkin DMV!!!

George Rebane

M 1103am - Please keep up with published data and information, instead of that "First you say ..." BS. Hard to have a productive conversation with one who is, for openers, unaware that it is precisely the 1% who are most susceptible to the 'feast of famine' incomes. Don't confuse their assets and life styles with annual incomes, which you might be doing.

Don't know what your second point is. Are you agreeing with the NPR reporters?



Pro tip: 1%ers get a lot of their income (1/3? something like that) from capital gains. That's income on the margin and varies quite a lot from year to year, so it is a noticeable lick on income taxes.


re: California revenue model.

I believe they've already found the answer.


Bill Tozer

Looking at another state

Legislators who hope to solve the state's budget crisis with ever-higher taxes should pay attention. The data are clear:
Those who moved out of Connecticut from 2015 to 2016 took with them more than $6 billion in adjusted gross income, or AGI. People who moved to Connecticut brought with them only about $3.36 billion in AGI. The total net loss to Connecticut: $2.7 billion. In one year. That was in the top five of all states, regardless of population.


"Connecticut has had a steady flow of people leaving the state for decades," says Suzanne Bates, director of public policy at the Yankee Institute. "But the pace has increased in recent years—and those years when the increase has been the greatest have been the years directly following large tax increases."

While immigration is helping to staunch the flow of people out of the state, Connecticut's loss of high-income residents is a serious problem because the state's tax code is so dependent on them. A recent study by the state Department of Revenue Services found that in 2014 just 357 families paid $682.5 million in state taxes—11.7 percent of the total haul.

Since the state government's strategy for dealing with ongoing fiscal shortages seems focused almost exclusively on raising taxes, it's probably just a matter of time before even more of those high earners look for refuge somewhere else.


Todd Juvinall

Dow: 18,332.74,on November 8, 2016

Paul Emery


How about Trumps revenue model when he promises:

“We will balance the budget without making cuts in Social Security and Medicare.”



You know George if you give him (Paul) one he might go away happy for awhile. Your call to make but I've dealt with whiny teenaged girls before and sometimes its beneficial for all concerned to take a "loss" for the greater peace later.

This is not so different.


Topic 1: "CA’s revenue model is a disaster"
Topic 2: "NPR told us in detail this morning that it is America’s responsibility to reduce wait-times for hordes of asylum seekers"
Paul: "How about Trumps revenue model when he promises something or the other"

Get thee gone to a sandbox.

Paul Emery

We're talking about revenue models scenes. Does that mean we exclude Trumps? Weak dodge on a technicality. In your view what hope do we have if we subscribe to the same model that our President prescribes?


"CA's next governor is going to be on the edge of a cliff."

Hell, they always are. The state can't print money and has a limited ability to sell bonds, but it keeps on keepin' on. I suppose that the long term plan is a federal bail-out. In the meantime, if you run out of short term money, you cut libraries/parks/anything that regular people really like.

Layoffs tend to be a no-no since a)all state employees are necessary and in fact essential and b).gov employees are disproportionately female and POC so don't be firing them you Nazi.

One hope is that the high-speed Selma Express will boost the economies of both Bakersfield and Fresno as the populations of both flee from their own town to go to the green hills of the other.

Thank goodness for increased educational spending though.


"We're talking about revenue models scenes"

Is "CA’s revenue model is a disaster" so hard to parse?

What does 'CA' mean to you? A parrots call? Canada? Cost Analysis?

Do the voices in your head just fill in the other part of a conversation?


"Does that mean we exclude Trumps? Weak dodge on a technicality. "

Also, just to give an old man a break, I'd say that they are very different.

I'm happy to respond to a GeorgeR post on the federal budget, but this is not that. States are very different beasts not least of which is control of a currency. Having a shitty fiscal situation is not unique to Blue Mob Utopia, just look at Kentucky.

The interesting thing would be to see what makes states different from each other. There is something to be learned there.


Posted by: scenes | 17 December 2018 at 03:56 PM

Scenes....in your view are you just allowing Paul to default to his comfort zone of "Inquisitive radio newsman" (Insert your Les Nessman jokes here) and is this a sound idea?

Paul Emery

So fish and scenes, both Trump supporters, how does Trump balance the budget without making cuts in Social Security and Medicare.? George, feel free to chime in.


Posted by: Paul Emery | 17 December 2018 at 04:31 PM

So Paul in your view, your increasingly sketchy memory prevents you from remembering that I have zero interest on being a contestant on the Uncle Punchy show?!

Paul Emery

Thanks for confirming that you don't have the ability to defend the positions of Donald Trump. Sorry it's too difficult for you. This man has no friends, not even you. Even the Fox Judge has abandoned him.



Put the question into the sandbox and I'll consider it.

re: State revenue.

Ignoring the spending half of the ledger, how can you squeeze more money out of everybody? With a bit of political will, you could filter out the business cycle by building and tapping savings, but I admit that's not gonna happen.

It might do wonders to flatten the tax tables a bit, but I'm not sure. If nothing else, it might get the California working class to clamor a bit less for free stuff. You could always put the hammer down on farmers and the resource extraction biz as they can't simply leave the state. Basically put them on life support with the .gov receiving most of the profits...this would require a close eye on commodities pricing of course.

It's a lot easier to shrink the CA state spending than to turn another screw on the serious taxpayers, but that's a different matter.

Paul Emery

Don't worry fish, you will be safe by confining yourself to the company of the Circle of Jerks.

George Rebane

Wanna talk about revenue models here? Then let's start with CA's as introduced above.


Posted by: Paul Emery | 17 December 2018 at 04:49 PM

Yeah.....well the “Jerk Store” called and said they’re running out of you!

George Rebane

Italics Mr fish, please.


Oooh. Fancy schmancy chart.


Don Bessee

A southern swamp drainer who likes the President, very interesting? Its probably only half of the graft. More would be dangerous.

Lopez Obrador set aside an extra $3.7 billion aimed at jump-starting ailing state oil company Pemex [PEMX.UL]. He earmarked $7 billion for cash-transfer programs for the elderly and unemployed youngsters, but that was less than had been expected.

To fund the new plans, the budget proposes some steep cuts for parts of the federal government, including a third less for the environment ministry. It is also proposing a 6 percent reduction in the budget of the public National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the largest university in Latin America.

That prompted criticism from opponents and some supporters that he was failing on election campaign promises. Much of the new spending covers pledges made during the campaign.
In the lower house of Congress, where Lopez Obrador’s National Regeneration Movement (Morena) party holds a majority, Finance Minister Carlos Urzua faced loud protests from opposition parties on Monday.
Conservative politicians held up placards protesting the cuts, including less money for gender equality initiatives and some human rights organizations.



Scott O

re: ‘DeBlasio Sees Too Many Asians’
C'mon, George - did you really think any of the left wing hyenas that show up here to throw rocks and call us conservatives names are actually going to comment on this? They're way too busy reading an article on Slate or Mother Jones or Salon about how Trump is the most evilist and awfulist ogre ever, ever, ever to walk the face of the Earth.


RE CalTrans:

Garbage in, Garbage out!

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

All of this analysis was done using downscaling UN IPCC Climate models with high Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP 8.5) greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions scenarios. In other words, they used the worst case of failed climate models for the analysis.

Validation of the IPCC climate models started in 1980, as the model results were compared to the real data. By 2015, no climate model agreed with any of another climate models, and the average global-temperature prediction was far higher than the real world data showed. In 35 years the models failed to predict the climate! How well do you think those failed models will have performed by 2100?

So CalTrans used the UN IPCC models that have failed to predict the climate and were rescaled to predict California's environment for the analysis, generating the classic garbage in, garbage out analysis. If you start with a failed model and rescale it, you end up with a useless model Garbage In, Garbage Out!

”The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr. David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
- Al Gore, Climate Change activist

Posted as a comment in The Union

Scott O

Continuing the theme of 'skin color and gender are all that matter' -
From No-Joy Reid on MSNBC: "They can’t run two white guys. The idea that you have Joe Biden talking to Beto O’Rourke and saying maybe they could be a ticket. I personally find it hard to understand how you get the requisite turnout among voters of color if it’s a two-white-male ticket,” Reid told her guest. “I mean, women are going to be outraged if there’s not a woman on the ticket, and voters of color are going to say: well, then why are we participating?”
But, but, but, hey - If they don't run a white dude that can skateboard why should white guys show up and vote?
I'd love to know how Reid chooses her CPA, lawyer and brain surgeon.

Scott O

"Climate modeler"??!!
That's one heck of a title.
I suppose the models are for true believers only.
Pretty cool gig that you get to keep even when the models don't work out.
Love to see the business card - climate modeler for hire - 'what climate do you want me to model'?

George Rebane

Computer models, such as the plethora of General Circulation Models (GCMs) used to predict quantitative climate change, are difficult to construct but fairly simple to validate. None of the existing 30+ GCMs have been validated anywhere near the accuracies that would be required for models that predict system behavior for either military or commercial purposes. The acceptance of their demonstrably erroneous results is through political diktat and not through any rigorous engineering or scientific testing. Their exercise is meant to convince the lay folks like the innumerates who also contribute to these comment streams.

Scott O

"Their exercise is meant to convince the lay folks like the innumerates who also contribute to these comment streams."
Yep - like I posted: "what climate do you want me to model"?

Scott O

It just gets better - "A national survey of women of color political organizers, activists, donors, and party leaders shows Sen. Kamala Harris as an overwhelming early favorite of the group ahead of the 2020 presidential election."
Gee- lets us just turn the color thingie around and what do you know -
Funny how that only works one way. And where are the Left Wing Elite?
Those towering giants of pure intellectual genius?
And then - "The second most popular candidate was Rep. Beto O’Rourke, whose closer-than-expected Senate race against Ted Cruz in Texas this year has propelled him into the national spotlight. O’Rourke was a top three choice for 38.3% of respondents, followed by Joe Biden for 25%,..."
Closer than expected?
Considering the lopsided money and media hoopla, the Irish guy got his clock cleaned.
But - he can ride a skateboard and skate out of a drunk driving rap and Uncle Joe is pretty good at a sly feel up the gal, so they're pretty good Dem candidates.
Remember when the left was just totally against 'big money' and white male gropers?
So long ago - maybe like 15 minutes or so.
New morality and new morals.
Time just flies when you're on relative time.
Oh - where is the Nevada County Morality Police?
I already know where one of them is - "I didn't/won't vote for them.

Bill Tozer

Re: America is supposed to reduce wait time for hordes of Asylum seekers? Our facilities are overrun.

When the sad news of the 7 year Guatemalan girl’s death hit the news, my reaction was the real news here is size of group the girl was traveling with and the location. About 179 and in New Mexico. We are catching 5,000 illegal aliens deemed family units or with family members (allegedly) every month on the southern border. Just wait until it’s 5,000 a week applying for asylum.

“U.S. authorities this week encountered groups of 257 and 239 people consisting of families and unaccompanied children, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said Tuesday. The Border Patrol found groups of more than 100 people along the entire U.S. border with Mexico about eight times during the budget year that ended Sept. 30 and encountered nearly four times that amount since Oct. 1.

“This is a brand new phenomenon,” McAleenan told reporters in a conference call. “It’s really challenging our resources.”

In a group as large as 250 you’re going to have medical issues,” McAleenan said. “You’re going to have people that have the flu, and people that have scabies or lice or other skin conditions, and so we are making hospital runs with pretty much every group that arrives at this time.”

Only about 30 vehicles a day enter the U.S. at the Antelope Wells, compared to tens of thousands at San Diego’s San Ysidro crossing, the nation’s busiest. McAleenan said buses typically drop off Guatemalans near Antelope Wells and they cross a barbed-wire fence to reach the U.S.


Scott O

BT - and we're the bad guys. First health care they've ever had.
We so racist.
The feftista - "whip us, for we are sinful oh Laird! Make us pay for our sins unto those who livith a thousand leagues away"!

Bill Tozer

Scott O.

A point of clarification of my term “we are catching.” 5,000 a month turn themselves in to agents seeking asylum. Looking for our agents, waiting hours for them. That includes unaccompanied minors. We catch 5,000 ‘regular’ illegal aliens every single week in the RioGrande sector alone.
Wonder how many we don’t catch that are drug mules or illegals brought in by coyotes. Be it smuggling drugs or coyotes, it’s all Cartel controlled.
Kudos to the Border Patrol for that bust of the illegals packing in the ingredients to make Fentanyl and others packing in heroin. That deadly combination is killing kids and wrenching havoc on whole communities in West Virginia and the heartland. Devasting. Go tell the parents whose kid just OD’ed that we have no need to secure our border. Bastards.

Opps, the topic is asylum seekers. Me bad.

I have never seen Candice Owens this upset. From Sept. Not at her best, but heck, we all have our moments. Poor asylum seekers in those filthy conditions. Outrageous. Get them out of processing!!!


Just yesterday a couple of Dems visited one center in Texas and complained that the kids playing soccer in the field “did not look happy. Sure, they went playing m but something didn’t feel right. Something is wrong.”

Bill Tozer

Agreed after reconsideration. Trump has done good on a lot of foreign policy, not to mention stopping Turkey when they had amassed 50,000 troops on the border and were ready to go in and massacre the Kurds. There are other examples. But, this one he may need to rethink this one. Spot on about Kurdistan. He’s looking for places to cut. It would be nice.

The outpost has to remain. It’s right on the road blocking Iran’s silk highway through Iraq Syria, and into Israel. And we have to keep an eye on the shipping lanes in the region. My bigger concern is not Israel or ISIS. The real target of Iran is not Israel, it’s us. The real target of China is not building sea basesor region superiority, it’s us. They are building aircraft carriers and nuclear subs. The real target of Russia is not some stupid country like Ukrane or even NATO. They are building some nasty super sonic weapons and can knock our our electric grid from satellites. With all that said, we cannot give up any bases.

It was the Marines the Iranians killed in Lebanon, not the Lebanese. It wasn’t the Iraqis the Iranians killed in the Gulf War. It was our troops. And the nukes Iran will built and launch aren’t for Israel. They are for us. Gotta keep that outpost. It’s strategically located and we must not give it up....our children’s children may need be saved by that base. They all are trying to choke us off either strategically, economically, or militarily.

This really could be a one day story. Or a couple weeks in and out.

Paul Emery


In your opinion what is the reason Trump wants to pull out of Syria?


"The US staying in Syria to maintain the current power balance..."

If the current power balance is unending civil war, that would make some sense. I just don't see the US strategic (or any other) interest in getting involved there.

If we are playing the game of Risk in the real world, simply back the local strong man (likely Assad), calm the place down, bribe/threaten him to be nice if that matters to you. Any other system is likely trying to set up a system that has never existed in the area and requires an organic birth rather than help from outside. If not Rome, or Constantinople, or Istanbul, you might was well run a mini-state from Damascus.

Also, Kurdland sounds like a failed state to me. The Turks or Iraq would go to war before you'd simply carve off a piece of their country (Syria is there already), it would be surrounded by enemies, if you gave every tribal group in the area statehood (and then the sub-groups within the tribe), you end up with nothing but chaos.

It's beyond me why the 17 intelligence agencies and US policy wonks generally want to play state builder in that region. You'd think that Iraq and Libya would have been lesson enough. Heaven help us if we're in the same mood when the population explosion in Africa starts shaking the world.

Bill Tozer

Another view. Pat Buchanan.
Love the debate. I still hold to the belief, in this case, we should have 2,000 Special Forces in Syria remain. And yes, I would like to bring some troops home for reasons of the heart and that Libertarian (and vestiges of the embedded liberal streak of youth that remains)
Tammy Bruce said it best years ago after 911 and has repeatedly done since. To paraphrase, “It does not matter what you believe, how hard you work in Women’s issues or any ideology you cling to and fight for. It does not mean a thing if we are wiped out in attack.” Shorland: “Without Security, it is all for naught.” 911 did change things.
“However, given the strength of the opposition to a U.S. withdrawal — Israel, Saudi Arabia, the GOP foreign policy establishment in Congress and the think tanks, liberal interventionists in the Beltway press, Trump’s own national security team of advisers — the battle to overturn Trump’s decision has probably only just begun......

“Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria at least has assured us of a national debate on what it will mean to America to extricate our country from these Mideast wars, the kind of debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into invading Iraq.”


1) Trump will bring some boys home from Afghanistan instead.
2) This story will lose its legs soon enough....until the next ISIS attack. It is discouraging to realize that we are stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq for decades to come. Like Welcome the Hotel California...but you can never leave. That’s the reality. The alternatives are not alternatives.

Paul Emery

Perhaps I missed it.

George, in your view why does Trump want to pull out of Syria. He doesn't seem to say why he made that decision and why it is so urgent.

George Rebane

PaulE 1048am - That's a puzzle which a lot people at DepState and DoD can't solve today - I join their conundrum. The best I can tell is that candidate Trump promised getting out of the mideast as one of his foreign policy objectives, and now he's trying to make good on that. Bad plan.

scenes 812am - Mr scenes, the needle on your spectrum of mideast resolutions seems to swing from peg to peg. There is little reason to believe that founding a Kurdistan would result in the domino effect you lament - "...if you gave every tribal group in the area statehood (and then the sub-groups within the tribe), you end up with nothing but chaos." And I believe that a case can be made to Iraq and Turkey (today Syria doesn't count) to relinquish sovereignty of a small piece of their real estate to bring the Kurds into a productive alliance against Iran and other foreign influences (Russia, China), than keep them forever as a culturally cohesive population seeking to regain their place in the sun.

I really believe that Turkey and Iraq would see their national interests benefiting from such a new regional order. The alternative is perpetual war or a coordinated ethnic cleansing of Kurds, similar to what Turkey attempted with the Armenians a century ago. The world is too transparent today to allow that solution.

But don't get me wrong, I just think that such a solution exists and is best, at least, from the US perspective. I have no idea what other interests Iraq and Turkey may have that would not be served by such a Kurdistan as an ally.


"Mr scenes, the needle on your spectrum of mideast resolutions seems to swing from peg to peg."

I think I'm being fairly consistent. My view is that from a US-centric point of view, your best bet is to bribe/threaten the current strong man. One will always emerge at the end of the day in that area and it's better that he's your bastard than someone else's. A few pallets of cash is cheaper than sending the 10th Mountain Division.

One problem is that if your Departments of State and Defense continue to take on the role of active management of the rest of the world, the Law of Unintended Consequences always takes hold.

I appreciate the concept of forward basing when dealing with the handful of real adversaries, but that can be achieved in different ways than attempting to create a modern state in the middle of Indian country.

Would the world be better off with a Kurdistan? I just don't know but don't think we'll ever find out. Would it be an ally of Iraq/Turkey/Syria? I sincerely doubt it. Should the US be involved in creating the thing especially to the extent of armed force? Heck, no.

Paul Emery

Well spoken George (11:10)

Bill Tozer

Like, when haven’t we screwed the Kurds over by breaking our promises to them? Name a time, I am all ears.

Scenes @ 1:38 pm
“I appreciate the concept of forward basing when dealing with the handful of real adversaries, but that can be achieved in different ways than attempting to create a modern state in the middle of Indian country.”

In the middle of Indian country. Like having F Troop stationed at Fort Courage?

Well, the current mission of the 2,000 Special Forces in Syria is to save/get people out of harms way. Plus some little commando raids on pockets of ISIS in the area (smaller villages). Yes, even with help coming in at the Mach 1, there is always the possilty that all 2,000 could get wiped out, worse case scenario. It’s what they are called on to do. 300 Spartans standing in the 15 meter wide gap on the road from Baghdad to Damascus.....then on to Israel through Syria or on to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I cannot go along with turning the specific area over to the control of Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Russia. Israel needs a friendly face in the region. Once we pull out, folks say we can be back in in 16 hours. But, Fort Courage has to stay. We can use the base for other things in the future. But once we leave Fort Courage, can we ever get back in? I think not. Not guareenteed. That is the problem.
And for some reason, everybody on both sides aisle don’t have a problem with staying in Afghanistan or reducing forces. It’s like not an issue people really care deeply about. That was the “Good War.”

Kurdistan might be like the tribal areas on the Pakistani Afghanistan border region. Either way, Fort Courage is in too stragetic of a speck on map to walk away from it. Ice Station Zebra.

George Rebane

scenes 138pm - My peg-to-peg metaphor denoted your very certain and extreme (i.e. bookender) views, not that you have been inconsistent. I have no problem believing in a future alliance of a sovereign Kurdistan with former enemies Iraq and Turkey. The world has seen much more extraordinary turnarounds when all parties see mutual benefit (e.g. post-war Germany and Japan). But, of course, nothing is guaranteed. If religious fanaticism enters into the equation, then insane results are most likely.

Bill Tozer

Other voices. Arguments for withdrawing out of Syria.


From someone who as been there:


Bill Tozer

Andrew McCarthy has an interesting article on the conservative debate and POV in withdrawing from Syria, the Kurds, Turkey, Mid-East policy, and not securing public consensus before jumping in.


The comments to this entry are closed.