In response to:

A Modest Proposal

lliam Wrote: Oct 15, 2012 9:14 AM
One eighth is 12.5%, so you and Mr. Williams basically agree on how many people live in CA with regards to the total US population. How much we pay recipients is irrelevant. You are mixing measurements. If we have roughtly 12% of the population our goal should be to have roughly 12% of the welfare recipents. No more, no less. And our welfare policies should be established to manage that number down to 12%. How much we pay those recipients is a matter of budgeting only.
sclaypool Wrote: Oct 15, 2012 2:04 PM
No more,no less?

Why?

California's Health and Human Services Department has 13 departments in areas like aging, nutrition support, child welfare services, public health, etc. costing the state over $50 billion a year. The department referenced here is TANF, or "CalWORKS" as it is called in California. Total state and local expenditures for CalWORKS is less than $2 billion, with matching federal funds.

For whatever reason, Health and Human services has elected to spend a larger proportion of it's total budget on a program whose purpose is to assist people in returning to the workforce. They could, I suppose, reduce the number of participants, which would probably result in an increase in other welfare programs.

California was once the land of opportunity, but it is going down the tubes. Several of California's prominent cities have declared bankruptcy, such as Vallejo, Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino. Others are on the precipice, and that includes Los Angeles, California's largest city. California's 2012 budget deficit is expected to top $28 billion, and its state debt is $618 billion. That's more than twice the size of New York's state debt, which itself is the second-highest in the nation.

Democrats control California's Legislature, and its governor, Jerry Brown, is a Democrat. California is home to some of America's richest people and...