Never let go of that Jon Brockman autographed basketball. When the Kings traded the Brock Ness Monster, I died a little, inside.

is it me, or did sacramento magazine get punked by its reader(s)? also, i'm plugging scott's burger shack.

did ailene voisin lose her job? she's terrible.

I hardly believe the spending cuts are complete. I invite a dialogue regarding what cuts need to be made, but given the size of the deficit, I believe that at the end of the day, jobs will need to be lost or wages and benefits will need to be cut. Admittedly, I have no idea what particular sectors are bloated (though I have my suspicions) and I think that a discussion of where the excess is would be appropriate within this forum and how that excess is less beneficial than 10% of a state employee. I was not serious about firing everybody that has turned against Arnold. However, even if I were, that would not create a larger deficit and frankly could go a long way to solving the deficit, but I digress. I would just encourage everybody to try to understand the budget deficit from his perspective instead of lambasting him for trying to do his job.

I am not taking issue with the union's right to freedom of speech, but I am taking issue with the message. The union is complaining about the Governor's work furlough program, a program designed to prevent the State of California from becoming completely insolvent. The problem is that government spending has outpaced growth, which has resulted in a budget deficit of epic proportions. Since the Governor cannot raise taxes without the support of a super majority in the legislature, he is hamstrung and required to cut spending. Thus, his primary recourse is to cut spending, which, unfortunately, involves cutting the wages and benefits of state employees. Let us also remember that the State has increased spending proportionately with tax revenue over the last few years, via the legislature. Daniel, you refuse to ask a hypothetical question, yet you phrase it, anyways. Well, since you've so boldly stated a rhetorical hypothetical question, I will take it upon myself to answer it: Yes, I would give up pay. I would give up pay because the alternative is taking my chances at being laid off once the Government becomes insolvent and I would not want to take my chances at looking for work in a private sector where minimum wage jobs are suddenly in high demand (even though I am currently employed in the private sector). Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be particularly happy about it, but it is still better than the alternative. Paul, the Governor is hardly saying that we should eliminate public goods and you're taking your argument to an extreme, which frankly would be reached in the event that the State becomes insolvent. However, he is saying that we should pare back the level of services in an attempt to get the State's finances under control. I'm not arguing that we should privatize state jobs, but I will say that some unions have caused for their employees to receive wage and benefit packages which are much too high for the value of the labor conferred. You're right, though. It sucks that state workers are going to have to suffer a disproportionate amount of the burden, but at the same time, those that keep their jobs should be counted amongst the fortunate, given the circumstances. Jonathan, how does cutting spending increase the deficit?