1.) What is the stage of the budget process that year California gets stuck on? In other words, where is the delay that causes the budget to be late each year?
All of it.
No, seriously though I would say that the 2/3 majority vote needed to pass CA's budget is high on the list. Most states pass their budget with a simple majority, but we are different in that regard. Getting 2/3 of politicians to agree on anything is tough, let alone a budget. The difficulty of crafting a huge budget to meet the needs of a state of roughly 36 million people in economically stressed times is compounded by this rule, which along with sometimes little expertise and poor accountability makes passing the budget tough in California. I could ramble about this, but I think this is one of the more prominent factors.
All of it.
No, seriously though I would say that the 2/3 majority vote needed to pass CA's budget is high on the list. Most states pass their budget with a simple majority, but we are different in that regard. Getting 2/3 of politicians to agree on anything is tough, let alone a budget. The difficulty of crafting a huge budget to meet the needs of a state of roughly 36 million people in economically stressed times is compounded by this rule, which along with sometimes little expertise and poor accountability makes passing the budget tough in California. I could ramble about this, but I think this is one of the more prominent factors.
2.) Is the budget at the local level...say for schools...(be it hefty or insufficient) one that is ever-changing...so that localities are continually asking the state for funding for basic institutions and necessary projects? Or are localities' budgets sufficiently factored into the state budget? (application, re-application, ect)
Yes and no. Traditionally yes, budgets get changed every year and interest groups commonly have to lobby for their chunk of the pie out of that specific budget. However, CA's intitiaive system has drastically changed that. What we as voters have done (and I rant about this to people I know whenever voting time rolls around) is we have locked in money to specific pet projects and that money can no longer be cut. For example there was that parks initiative on the latest ballot (I'm too lazy to look it up right now). Basically it went like: set aside a certain amount every year to go towards saving the state parks.
Great, wonderful, the chipmunks and deer don't have to worry about being evicted anytime soon and we get some nice scenery. I am very much in favor of saving our state parks but it does worry me, because we have now placed these chipmunks in a category that teachers are not in (or roads, mental health services, etc). So at the budget table they may be forced to cut one of these other programs in order to balance the budget but now they can't.
Yes and no. Traditionally yes, budgets get changed every year and interest groups commonly have to lobby for their chunk of the pie out of that specific budget. However, CA's intitiaive system has drastically changed that. What we as voters have done (and I rant about this to people I know whenever voting time rolls around) is we have locked in money to specific pet projects and that money can no longer be cut. For example there was that parks initiative on the latest ballot (I'm too lazy to look it up right now). Basically it went like: set aside a certain amount every year to go towards saving the state parks.
Great, wonderful, the chipmunks and deer don't have to worry about being evicted anytime soon and we get some nice scenery. I am very much in favor of saving our state parks but it does worry me, because we have now placed these chipmunks in a category that teachers are not in (or roads, mental health services, etc). So at the budget table they may be forced to cut one of these other programs in order to balance the budget but now they can't.
3.) Why is the extent of unionization and collective bargaining greatest in the states of the Midwest and the Northeast?
That's where blue collar jobs are.
Again, I'm being funny but there's some truth there. Not being a history buyff regarding the spread of unions in the United States, I dont' have tons of evidence short of conjecture and an addiction to NPR, but I believe that many of the jobs such as manufacturing and mining are more common in the midwest and northeast than they are say on the Westcoast. Now there are lots of these jobs in the South as well, but I believe that unions have traditionally found more resistance there than elsewhere.
That's where blue collar jobs are.
Again, I'm being funny but there's some truth there. Not being a history buyff regarding the spread of unions in the United States, I dont' have tons of evidence short of conjecture and an addiction to NPR, but I believe that many of the jobs such as manufacturing and mining are more common in the midwest and northeast than they are say on the Westcoast. Now there are lots of these jobs in the South as well, but I believe that unions have traditionally found more resistance there than elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment