Ueberroth outlines economic plan for California

[quade 4]

I'm tellin' ya (and have been), Ueberroth is looking better than Schwarzenegger every minute.

(And this coming from a life-long Democrat.)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/uberroth.recall/index.html

and

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/calif.recall/index.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I like some of his ideas. But - with regards to the hiring freeze in government - we need mass firings in government. Perhaps we should take the government down to its levels in 2000 or 1999. How many billions would that save?

And, if anybody really wants to invogorate the state, try proposing some reform to this workers' compensation system that is so destructive of jobs and employers.

McClintock is my boy. And I will take Ueberroth over Arnold.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,118]

> we need mass firings in government.

Who do we fire? Cops? Teachers? Energy regulators? CALTRANS people?

I hear "fire em all" a lot, as often as I hear "cut taxes." The details are often tricky in both cases. Both are catchy phrases to use during an election, but I am far more interested in the phrases that must follow - who we fire, what replaces them, what we do without when they are gone, why we don't need it.

[AndyMan 7]

Likewise, I hear "cut down on welfare/medicaid/X" fraud frequently, but I never hear an acknoledgement that investigating and prosecuting, or even just cutting off services is expensive.

It's frequenlty cheaper to give a benefit to everyone, then it is to adequately determine who actually deserves it. Benefits that are selectively distributed are frequently poorly enforced, because that's the only way its cheaper then giving it to everyone.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[TEB6363 0]

Yea, fire um all!!! Wait! Shit!! I'm one of them

Once the plane takes off, you're gonna have to land - Might as well jump out!!

[lawrocket 3]

I don't know who to fire. All I know is that the costs need to come down. The way to do that with government is to cut and/or elimate programs - a lot of them - and lay off the people involved in those programs.

Sure, there will be hurt. The government employees will hurt. The people of the State of California will hurt. People elsewhere will hurt. I will hurt.

But in the long run, someone has to have the anatomy to do it.

For example, we could lay-off 100,000 CalTrans workers and replace them with shovels with kick-stands. The same amount of work will get done.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,118]

>But in the long run, someone has to have the anatomy to do it.

Someone has to have the balls to cause our energy infrastructure to collapse? To let our roads become unsafe? To not educate our children?

I agree that you have to be smart about how you fund basic services, so you get the most bang for the buck. But being smart takes brains, not balls. Balls and no brains just get you into fights. (And sometimes, unfortunately, elected.)

[lawrocket 3]

I understand that. I'm not advocating that schools get shut down or that power grids get shut down. Seems to me that power grids and infrastructure and schools were in existence in 2000 and 2003. Did California hire an additional couple of hundred thousand people to make sure that rolling blackouts continue? I don't think so.

In any company, there's plenty of waste. Get rid of the waste. People will bitch and yell and scream about any proposed cut. Not a freeze, a cut.

It sucked when the people at Enron lost their jobs. The whole event had a ripple effect on the economy and on the infrastructure. There was a whole lot of pain.

What if someone had cleaned house at Enron and gotten things right? Might be leaner, meaner, cleaner, and profitable.

What if the government said, "Poor Enron. Here's 40 billion dollars to help stabilize you?" We'd find Enron in the same condition in another 5 years, because the defective system that they set up was still in going.

Meanwhile, we'll accept business as usual for a deficit of up to 45 billion dollars? Which was in worse shape? California or Enron? Which is supposed to provide services to more people? Which has a more corrupt CEO and Board of Directors? Maybe if Enron wasn't busy having useless subsidiaries who lost money (they did employ people and perform services) then we would still see Enron distributing power.

Someone has to trim the fat. Someone has to get rid of the people and services that don't provide bang for the buck.

Maybe California government should return to the business of providing infrastructure and education (maybe let the locals worry about primary and secondary education). Maybe California ought to get rid of its offices in Tokyo and Mexico City. Maybe California ought to get out of the business of advertising California to Californians and instead focus on those aspects that mean services to the citizenry.

California or Enron. Which is a bigger financial mess? Foresight on the basis of hindsight may be 20/20 on this issue, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,118]

>What if someone had cleaned house at Enron and gotten things right?
> Might be leaner, meaner, cleaner, and profitable.

The problem at Enron was not that they had too many people, it was that they lied about their profits and how they made money (i.e. gaming the system.) If you had fired, say, 1000 secretaries there to "clean house" upper management would simply have made even more money before the company collapsed - and there would have been more people unemployed a year sooner.

On the other hand, if you had simply gone in 4 years ago and told them to use standard accounting practices and abstain from unethical transactions (and gotten them to listen of course) those 1000 secretaries would still have jobs AND Enron would still be in business. That's an example of where spending MORE money (i.e. on straightening up Enron) results in more tax income (Enron paid tens of millions in taxes) more employment and a more stable economy.

>What if the government said, "Poor Enron. Here's 40 billion dollars to
> help stabilize you?" We'd find Enron in the same condition in another
> 5 years, because the defective system that they set up was still in
> going.

That would be dumb. Paying an investigative team 20 grand 4 years ago to investigate Enron would have been smart. Is that sort of money the "fat" you're talking about trimming?

>Maybe if Enron wasn't busy having useless subsidiaries who lost money
> (they did employ people and perform services) then we would still
>see Enron distributing power.

Enron never distributed power. They were energy brokers who really had nothing to do with the generation of power, or even getting the power from the utilities to the users. They bought and sold energy futures and

But take the CA energy crisis. Davis could have stopped it in its tracks by allowing the utilities to charge whatever they wanted to customers for power. There would be a massive price spike, people would have used less power, demand would have dropped, the market would have gotten competitive again (i.e. generators who generated more power would make more money) and the price would have dropped again. Two months of pain then the market is stable. This actually happened in San Diego because SDG+E could set whatever price they wanted for power. It actually worked quite well until the government stepped in and capped power prices again, but that's a different story.

But Davis didn't do that. He didn't let PG+E and SCE raise prices. He "saved people money." Result was a billion dollar deficit, bankrupt utilities and a dysfunctional power system. Had he allowed them to pay more in the beginning we would now be in much better shape.

That's why it takes brains to know what to do, not just balls to "trim the fat." Sometimes that makes things worse.

>Someone has to trim the fat. Someone has to get rid of the
>people and services that don't provide bang for the buck.

Don't you think that EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN EVER has promised to do this? And don't you think that a good many of them have tried? Don't you think Davis is trying this now since he knows his future as governor depends on it? At some point you start cutting things off that people need, and they don't vote for you the next time. At some point you realize that the majority of people in government actually do stuff.

>Maybe California government should return to the business of
>providing infrastructure and education (maybe let the locals worry
>about primary and secondary education).

I agree; those should be its primary business.

> Maybe California ought to get rid of its offices in Tokyo and Mexico City.

That's fine, as long as the savings from those cuts outweighs the income (via taxation) of the business and tourism those offices generate and help sustain. If not, you can still close them, but be sure you know where you're going to get the extra money once they're closed. And admit that you're going to either raise taxes or cut other services to do it.

>California or Enron. Which is a bigger financial mess?

I'd say California. Enron can go out of business, at which point their finances get very simple. California can't.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

> we need mass firings in government.

Who do we fire? Cops? Teachers? Energy regulators? CALTRANS people?

I hear "fire em all" a lot, as often as I hear "cut taxes." The details are often tricky in both cases. Both are catchy phrases to use during an election, but I am far more interested in the phrases that must follow - who we fire, what replaces them, what we do without when they are gone, why we don't need it.

I don't have an answer to your question yet, but as soon as I find the answer to the following question, I can voice my two-cents: How many police, fire, safety, educators were hired out of the 44,000 hired duringDavis' hiring freeze? State Police isn't hiring.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

On the other hand, if you had simply gone in 4 years ago and told them to use standard accounting practices and abstain from unethical transactions

Bill. Standard accounting practices mean balancing a budget. Standard accounting practices mean being honest with voter investors about what state's financial problems really are. davis conveniently waited until after the election to say that the deficit was around what Bill Simon claimed it was.

And by cleaning house, I mean from the top down by getting rid of wasteful departments, inclusing department heads.

Quote

Paying an investigative team 20 grand 4 years ago to investigate Enron would have been smart. Is that sort of money the "fat" you're talking about trimming?

That's right. Had the State of California not spent like there was no tomorrow, we wouldn't have to worry so much about trimming the fat. No somebody's gotta get this state off of its collective heroin. And the withdrawal pains will be substantial.

Quote

Enron never distributed power. They were energy brokers who really had nothing to do with the generation of power, or even getting the power from the utilities to the users. They bought and sold energy futures and

Exactly right. You took the bait. Enron's utility was not what everyone thought it was. It was a fiat. It's powers were not what everyone believed. It caused hurt when people lost their jobs and their money, same as will happen here if that happens The world may actually be better off without Enron.

So it is with many of the state bureaucracies. They may seem powerful and useful. People may wonder what would happen without them. And in a couple of years, many, if not most, state bureaucracies will be a "remember when we had a department of (fill in blank) and then California got rid of it? And life went on without it."

A temporarily detox followed by a status quo that shows, in hindsight, it wasn't really that necessary.

Quote

Don't you think that EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN EVER has promised to do this? And don't you think that a good many of them have tried? Don't you think Davis is trying this now since he knows his future as governor depends on it? At some point you start cutting things off that people need, and they don't vote for you the next time. At some point you realize that the majority of people in government actually do stuff.

No, I don't think that a good many have tried to trim the fat. I believe that if a politician wanted to, he could and would. Especially a governor. But, it would be political suicide to do it. Much like Walter Mondale, who was honest enough to admit that he was going to raise taxes.

At some point you have to start cutting off stuff people need. Yes, you do. And if you need it badly enough, you'll find a way to get it, even if it costs me my Sunday night pint of Boddington's. I guesss I'll settle for a Budweiser at home, and pay for the needed thing with the money I would have spent on I want.
Everybody in the government does stuff. Not everyone does particularly useful stuff, though.

Quote

Enron can go out of business, at which point their finances get very simple. California can't.

Exactly right, once again. But California can sure scale back its operations.

As always, billvon, a great post. I disagree with you on many things, but I respect you tremondously.

My wife is hotter than your wife.