TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
Start a Discussionhttps://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/tags/

California Legislative Expenses

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by McRat, Sep 3, 2017.

Tags:
  1. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    California's 'green' image came out of necessity, not altruism. LA became one of the dirtiest cities in the world. It was clean it up, or die trying. Tourism and Hollywood were in trouble due to the poor air quality.

    Our state is not really good with money. Just to keep our 80 part-time Assembly officials in support staff and materials is about $160,000,000 per year. This does not include the elected officials salaries or what they spend campaigning. It's just their helpers and 'stuff' they 'need' to deal with minor political issues in minor areas under the control of a state level government. A lot has to do with redundant level of redundancy. California has nearly all the departments of the Federal, County, and City governments. So anytime you deal with anything at the Federal level, or county, or city, you must also normally fund a California dept to do the exact same thing. We even have California Veteran's Affairs. Now, I'm all for helping veterans, but understand that California does not have a military. All funding for the National Guard and all our Armed Forces bases in California comes from Washington DC. But even our Assembly officials need Veterans Affairs staff members for their own use, then another California office with other workers to actually staff the CalVet. This is there simply for votes and to garner more Fed funding. It is 100% redundant, three times over. Assembly, Senate, and CalVet then the actual governing body in Washington. This is repeated again and again for virtually all government agencies, CalVet Affairs is one of the smaller ones.

    This $160 million is just the money that is required to keep 80 part time state employees from having to do much work themselves. Many members of the State Assembly (and Senate) have jobs besides their elected post. This becomes apparent when conflicts of interest kick in and nepotism problems occur.

    All the state had to do was to extend the existing low level of EV funding if they actually meant what they say in speeches. But of course, they do not. They will get their Sacramento EV Showcase City, and EV chargers from VW after they guzzle down a good % for their own families and friends.

    But nobody in Sacramento is going to admit to being hypocrites. Nobody is going to stand up and say: "Screw clean air and advancing American technology, I need the money for my campaigning, which means supporting organizations and industries that will give me donations. EVs simply do not provide me with anything, so why as a California Legislator should I bother with them?"
     
    • Disagree x 1
  2. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    Something our State Government needs to learn from 'ol Ben.
    California currently leads the world in EV technology. That is not a guarantee of future results.

    20770319_10154850504138225_1866213661524070409_n.png
     
  3. ohmman

    ohmman Maximum Plaid Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,850
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    Neither do the following states, yet they all have similarly structured state-based Veteran's benefits associations:
    • Alabama
    • Alaska
    • Arizona
    • Arkansas
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Delaware
    • DC
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Hawaii
    • Idaho
    • Illinois
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Kentucky
    • Louisiana
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Minnesota
    • Mississippi
    • Missouri
    • Montana
    • Nebraska
    • Nevada
    • New Hampshire
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • North Dakota
    • Ohio
    • Oklahoma
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Rhode Island
    • South Carolina
    • South Dakota
    • Tennessee
    • Texas
    • Utah
    • Vermont
    • Virginia
    • Washington
    • West Virginia
    • Wisconsin
    • Wyoming
     
    • Informative x 1
  4. RubberToe

    RubberToe Supporting the greater good

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,631
    Location:
    Pasadena, Ca
    There you go again, trying to use facts when responding to posts! Has that ever worked before??? ;)

    RT
     
    • Funny x 3
  5. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    #5 McRat, Sep 3, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2017
    You misunderstand, the Assembly and Senate have their own 'CalVet' staffing, then there is whole other CalVet bureaucracy spread throughout the state.

    You're kidding me! You mean many other states also have unnecessary redundancy to garner Fed tax dollars and votes? How strange! But remember, few on that list have the biggest EV factory in the Western world.

    At the last study point, for every $1 a state spends on National Guard funding, they get $79 dollars from the Fed. Some states actually help fund their National Guard, but California is not one of them.

    But please explain why an Assemblyperson or Senator needs a Vet liason when we have a CalVet program already? To fight for more funding for the many CalVet offices staffed with State Union employees in their district, more dues, more campaign funding.

    Note though, that if 49 states are corrupt, that doesn't mean it's right. The State Militia was supposed to be independent from the Federal government says all the "2nd Amendment Means State National Guard" theorists.
     
  6. ohmman

    ohmman Maximum Plaid Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,850
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    I cannot verify your claim that there are 120 veteran liaisons solely employed to be assigned to individual members of the legislature. Sorry, I've tried - perhaps you can help.

    My point was that you were using the example I quoted to bolster a claim that California wasn't very good with money. That may be true, but as an example of waste, I would suggest that yours appeared to be more along the lines of "average." I'm open to learning more about where I'm wrong, though.
     
  7. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    Interesting. Try to do the math on this:

    For 2016/17 the CalVet budget submitted by Jerry is:
    Total Dollars $454,016
    Total Positions 3,198.7

    Or $142 dollars per year per employee? Jerry?

    The funding for liasons for the Legislature is about equal to that, but they aren't making less than $1 a day, nor is it CalVet.
     
  8. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    This is how they spend $160 million on staff and support. They don't 'claim' many of their staffers personally. They are attached to committees the official belongs to, or are shared by agreement.
     
  9. ohmman

    ohmman Maximum Plaid Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,850
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    Sorry, but that's a circular argument. Making a claim and supporting it by saying it can't be validated is difficult. Being off topic, I'm going to move our conversation out of Model 3.

    In the meantime, this is the expenditures report for 2016. $135MM, not $160MM from what I can tell. Staff salary is $75MM, and benefits are $46MM. Still a lot of money.
     
  10. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    Uh... Where did I say there were 120 unshared positions for Vet affair liaisons.

    Here is Dec to May 2017, 6 months for support.

    http://assembly.ca.gov/sites/assembly.ca.gov/files/Reports/year_2016-17_expenditure_report_q2.pdf

    Notice something REALLY different about what you found and I what I found?

    Mine is nearly $1 of benefits per $1 of salary.

    Yours is from a member of the legislature, mine is from an accountant working for the state.

    Apparently accountants aren't as good with numbers as elected officials?
     
  11. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    Just think, if Rendon did the EV Rebate Program, it would probably have cost a lot less. Why? Lying about money is an easy way to reduce claimed expenses.
     
  12. ohmman

    ohmman Maximum Plaid Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,850
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    I think you're drawing an erroneous conclusion. There are often front-loaded expenses. You can't compare a 6-month expense report with an annual report. I know you run a business and you are aware of that. I don't think you're trying to deceive, but it's possible you're trying to find the data to fit your intuition.

    Both of our reports are from the same source, but I understand that doesn't mean they're from the same preparer. I can't find who prepares each of these, and who does the auditing of the annual report. Do you have that information?
     

Share This Page