California seems to be incapable of living within its means. Whatever money it sends to D.C. is simply not germane to the question of it balancing its budget.
This being the case, it is even more remarkable the financial straits that California finds itself in. It has some of the biggest advantages geographically and started with and still generally has a wealthy and high income tax base.
The state of California also chooses to tax well above that of other states - stats here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html - and still manages to run a massive deficit.
Plus, because of California's high cost of living, a worker in California is paid more to do the same work as in another state, yet falls in a higher federal tax bracket and so pays thousands more per year in Federal taxes for doing the same work and experiencing the same standard of living as a citizen of another state.
California could add a few percent to state income taxes and inconvenience its residents minimally in comparison with the high rates of Federal taxation Californians experience (due to higher cost of living).
It's just so far out of proportion that I consider it absurd to spend much time worrying about California's budget.
So does every other resident of every other state, you act like this is some problem unique to CA. Not to mention that if the sate did raise it's income tax that would help it's residents pay a lower amount of federal tax because don't you normally subtract your state tax liability from your earnings to determine your federal taxable income? Sounds like you need to write your legislature and beg for an income tax increase.
You forget - that worker gets to live in CA. That worker thinks that the cost-of-living premium is worth it because if she didn't, she'd be living somewhere else.
If the benefits that you get from living in CA are less than the costs that you pay, you should leave. Seriously.
What? You like it here and are just trying to reduce the costs? That's not nearly as noble a crusade....
CA elects congress critters that push the programs that do that spending, so CA can't complain that the money goes elsewhere.
Also, if even 10% of the money sent to DC were used to cover CA's expenses, there would be no budget problem.
Is this a serious question?
> If it is, then why focus on one state's budget when the Federal deficit is massive and orders of magnitude more costly to the nation (and to California) than California's own state budget issues?
Yes, we're going to feel that pain at some point too, and it will hurt orders of magnitude more than California failed budget pain.
> Also, if even 10% of the money sent to DC were used to cover CA's expenses, there would be no budget problem.
It doesn't matter how much money you take in if you spend more than that amount of money. When an organization is consistently over their budget, the solution is more complicated than "get more money".
I think it's generally California bashing... probably fueled mostly by culture warriors.
This is not to say that California has no problems, but I think it's fairly absurd to focus on them when we have such massive Federal problems.
If you want trust the citizen voters (and I don't) I would suggest an independent California Reserve should set property and income tax rates based on spending and the economic cycle.