Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7245
Reputation: 252.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:47 pm    Post subject: why is California the poverty capital of america ? Reply with quote

( an interesting op ed about California , the state for which Wynne seems to be taking more of her policy from , green energy , higher minimum wage , marijuana legalisation , welfare spending , huge public service . but none of it seems to be working , and a crazy $958 billions has been spent on welfare since 1992 , just think what else the state could of done with that money ? )


Op-Ed Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?


"Help" sign




Demonstrators and homeless advocates rally in solidarity with those experiencing homelessness and Disneyland workers struggling with poverty wages outside the theme park in Anaheim, Calif. on July 14. (Los Angeles Times)


By Kerry Jackson

January 14, 2018, 4:00 AM



Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. That’s according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income.

Given robust job growth and the prosperity generated by several industries, it’s worth asking why California has fallen behind, especially when the state’s per-capita GDP increased approximately twice as much as the U.S. average over the five years ending in 2016 (12.5%, compared with 6.27%).


It’s not as though California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause. Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients.


“California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price.


The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.


In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some states — principally Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia — initiated welfare reform, as did the federal government under President Clinton and a Republican Congress. Tied together by a common thread of strong work requirements, these overhauls were a big success: Welfare rolls plummeted and millions of former aid recipients entered the labor force.

The state and local bureaucracies that implement California’s antipoverty programs, however, resisted pro-work reforms. In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.

Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base. With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, California has an enormous bureaucracy. Many work in social services, and many would lose their jobs if the typical welfare client were to move off the welfare rolls.

Further contributing to the poverty problem is California’s housing crisis. More than four in 10 households spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2015. A shortage of available units has driven prices ever higher, far above income increases. And that shortage is a direct outgrowth of misguided policies.



“Counties and local governments have imposed restrictive land-use regulations that drove up the price of land and dwellings,” explains analyst Wendell Cox. “Middle-income households have been forced to accept lower standards of living while the less fortunate have been driven into poverty by the high cost of housing.” The California Environmental Quality Act, passed in 1971, is one example; it can add $1 million to the cost of completing a housing development, says Todd Williams, an Oakland attorney who chairs the Wendel Rosen Black & Dean land-use group. CEQA costs have been known to shut down entire homebuilding projects. CEQA reform would help increase housing supply, but there’s no real movement to change the law.

Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor. By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, author of a 2015 Manhattan Institute study, “Less Carbon, Higher Prices,” found that “in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced … energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15% of all households.” A Pacific Research Institute study by Wayne Winegarden found that the rate could exceed 17% of median income in some areas.



Looking to help poor and low-income residents, California lawmakers recently passed a measure raising the minimum wage from $10 an hour to $15 an hour by 2022 — but a higher minimum wage will do nothing for the 60% of Californians who live in poverty and don’t have jobs. And research indicates that it could cause many who do have jobs to lose them. A Harvard University study found evidence that “higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants” in the Bay Area, where more than a dozen cities and counties, including San Francisco, have changed their minimum-wage ordinances in the last five years. “Estimates suggest that a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14% increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating),” the report says. These restaurants are a significant source of employment for low-skilled and entry-level workers.

Apparently content with futile poverty policies, Sacramento lawmakers can turn their attention to what historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly describes as a fixation on “remaking the world.” The political class wants to build a costly and needless high-speed rail system; talks of secession from a United States presided over by Donald Trump; hired former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. to “resist” Trump’s agenda; enacted the first state-level cap-and-trade regime; established California as a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants; banned plastic bags, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers involved in their manufacture; and is consumed by its dedication to “California values.” All this only reinforces the rest of America’s perception of an out-of-touch Left Coast, to the disservice of millions of Californians whose values are more traditional, including many of the state’s poor residents.


With a permanent majority in the state Senate and the Assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years.

Kerry Jackson is the Pacific Research Institute’s fellow in California studies. This essay was adapted from the winter issue of City Journal.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion.....story.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4676
Reputation: 253.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ironically, Trump has given California the means it needs to get enough revenue that it could balance its books again.

It's offshore drilling -- petroleum carries a huge tax load, much of which will go to the state.

I don't think Ontario has that option.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7245
Reputation: 252.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Ironically, Trump has given California the means it needs to get enough revenue that it could balance its books again.

It's offshore drilling -- petroleum carries a huge tax load, much of which will go to the state.

I don't think Ontario has that option.



but California will never go for offshore drilling , they'll be endless environmental challenges and regulations , projects would be tied up in the courts for years
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4676
Reputation: 253.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How much does California control? They might have jurisdiction three miles out, and then it's federal, and if the feds are leasing rights out there ... what would California do?

Anyway, I don't know. One of the changes to the tax code is that American's ability to write down their taxes by deducting their municipal tax bill from it (somehow) has been capped. So people with municipal taxes over $10,000 a year are already being squeezed. Taxing the rich even more, which might make Texas look better and better.

Also Victor David Hanson -- on a video -- told of how the state, which has suffered a four-year drought had record rainfall last year. The state is engineered to divert that water to places where it replenishes the aquifers, etc. Instead, in an attempt to get salmon to return to the rivers, they let it run off into the ocean. They are setting themselves up for an environmental disaster, all while trying to be 'greener' than anywhere else.

Which means California is still worse than Ontario ...
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 744
Reputation: 98.1Reputation: 98.1
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Um, don't think so unless something has changed very recently.

Quote:
The oil and natural gas industry would love to set up drilling rigs in the federal waters offshore states such as Florida, California and North Carolina, but a number of hurdles have long stood in the way of such development. Among these is the federal government’s general prohibition against sharing drilling-related royalties with affected states, which has made some of them unwilling to put their shorelines at risk to potential oil spills. But Washington’s longstanding opposition to revenue sharing may change after the November elections, several key lawmakers said in interviews with Platts.

See more at: https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/will-revenue-sharing-spur-more-offshore-drilling
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4676
Reputation: 253.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Um, don't you think this 'deal-making president' isn't capable of changing a few Obama-era regulations? His guy in charge of this has already exempted Florida because he recognizes the importance of tourism to Florida's economy.

Anyway, I don't know the details. It was just a bit of possible irony and you know, I am a sucker for irony.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 744
Reputation: 98.1Reputation: 98.1
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Um, don't you think this 'deal-making president' isn't capable of changing a few Obama-era regulations?

#1- Obama opened up the areas, See GOMESA ( only Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas get revenue)
#2- The Feds willingly give up revenue ? The second largest revenue source they have ?
Sure... sure they will .

Quote:

His guy in charge of this has already exempted Florida because he recognizes the importance of tourism to Florida's economy.

Not sure what you are saying.

Florida....whereby anywhere nearer than 125 miles...no drilling.
Quote:

Anyway, I don't know the details. .

Oh ok.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4676
Reputation: 253.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TC, you shouldn't feel compelled to go bananas over my sneering at California ... if you have nothing to say, it's OK to say nothing.

I admit I do not know, but those who do seem to think that this is going to be a significant step in shoring up the trade imbalances the US incurs due to oil imports.

Maybe the way is being cleared at several levels. as environmental regulations are gutted and the kangaroo rat of the San Diego desert will possibly enter the endangered species list.

These are the kind of tough decisions being weighed by the Trump administration. On the one hand, the kangaroo rat, and the view in Mailbu; on the other -- a significant step in strengthening the American balance of trade situation and the American economy. Hmmm. Which way to go?

Any bets. TC?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 744
Reputation: 98.1Reputation: 98.1
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
TC, you shouldn't feel compelled to go bananas over my sneering at California ... if you have nothing to say, it's OK to say nothing.


Bananas? Sneering?

Project much ?

I merely posted how your assertion " It's offshore drilling -- petroleum carries a huge tax load, much of which will go to the state. "... is very far off base and to make the correction going forward.

And then again re: Obama and how he opened things up instead of being to blame as you put it.

No malice anywhere.

Quote:
RCO -but California will never go for offshore drilling , they'll be endless environmental challenges and regulations , projects would be tied up in the courts for years

Apparently that is because the State is always left holding the bag when an environmental problem occurs . The taxes go mainly to to Washington. Cali might be more open to drilling if they profited from it. .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4676
Reputation: 253.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I merely posted how your assertion " It's offshore drilling -- petroleum carries a huge tax load, much of which will go to the state. "... is very far off base and to make the correction going forward.


It would be good if you could show how, instead of just snorting ... Are you saying that petroleum does not carry a huge tax load? Are you saying none of those revenues will flow to the state of California? Do you have sources?

And let's apologize for all those Kansans and folks from North Dakota that are spoiling the precious environment of California, as it went from a population of 20 million to 40, without adding a single water desalination plant, etc. etc. After all, what did they do when they clearly knew that the sovereign state of Calfornia had lost its mind. And when they let large amounts of rainwater run into the ocean in a dreamy-eyed hope that the salmon would come back, where were the people of Alabama, to shake them out of their stupidity?

It's clear where the liability lies.

Yeah, there's lots of blame to go around. You certainly can't blame Californians for feeling picked on and humiliated just because they've been so stupid.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 744
Reputation: 98.1Reputation: 98.1
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

It would be good if you could show how, instead of just snorting ... Are you saying that petroleum does not carry a huge tax load? Are you saying none of those revenues will flow to the state of California? Do you have sources?

<facepalm> snorting?
The source was right there for you to read. 6 posts back.

Dont let your anger get in the way of reading comprehension.
Quote:

And let's apologize for all those Kansans and folks from North Dakota that are spoiling the precious environment of California, .......<run on and on>...er run into the ocean in a dreamy-eyed hope that the salmon would come back, where were the people of Alabama, to shake them out of their stupidity?

And this has what to do with where revenue goes? Or is this just filler to obfuscate ?
Quote:

It's clear where the liability lies.

And thats part of the problem. The State is left w the clean up once the profits are siphoned off.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4676
Reputation: 253.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And ... um ... I pointed out that Trump had a stock market boom going well before tax reform and the budget. It was based largely on a successful effort to clean out regulations that didn't justify themselves in terms of the benefits. The people in Malibu risk watching the pelicans croak distressingly -- but it's the price that rich people have to pay in order that the whole US economy is on a stronger footing.

So, yes -- you snort. You snort when you go into your fake outrage routine.

You have to start paying attention. If you're still snorting after already being corrected, then you might as well admit it, you're a snorter with a short attention span. It's a bad combo, like being arrogant and ugly. No wonder your responses are so weak. You just see red and ... go off.

While we're at it -- I am not angry, I am amused.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 744
Reputation: 98.1Reputation: 98.1
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
And ... um ... I pointed out that Trump had a stock market boom going well before tax reform and the budget.

Oh the continuation from the last few Obama years?
Yup.
Quote:


So, yes -- you snort. You snort when you go into your fake outrage routine.

LOL!
Nice try their buddy. Just pointing out your made up facts as it were.
Quote:

You have to start paying attention. If you're still snorting after already being corrected, then you might as well admit it,

Would you be a dear and point those corrections out ? That would be super.
Quote:

While we're at it -- I am not angry, I am amused.

Riiiight......

Nearly every post on this site shows your anger.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4676
Reputation: 253.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can't possibly be this thick. Can you?

Perhaps I should take you at your word -- but I know it won't be enough.

You cited some article from before Trump. Trump is making a stock market boom happen on the basis of the way his people are slashing regulations. Nowhere is this more true than in environmental regulations, which the previous tyrant increased geometrically. So, the regulatory hurdle is diminished. In other words, your point is diminished in impact, at least in the argument.

So what are you getting all huffy about? But wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that Calfornia was saved (financially) by Trump's reforms?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 744
Reputation: 98.1Reputation: 98.1
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

You cited some article from before Trump.


Oh, has the reform commenced? Do the individual States now keep all the oil taxes that used to flow to DC?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


why is California the poverty capital of america ?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB