California May Reduce Carbon Emissions By Banning Black Cars 685
Legislation may by 2016 restrict the paint color options for California residents looking for a new car. Black and all dark hues are currently on the banned list. The California Air Resources Board says that the climate control systems of dark-colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings — especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours.
Global Warming Theater (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe. But... (Score:3, Funny)
... this way finally all the future cars will be metallic-silver, metallic-gray and pristine white.
Future might actually look something like the future we were promised so many times.
W-T-F (Score:5, Funny)
There is no way this can pass legislation.
Re:W-T-F (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:W-T-F (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I would agree with you, but it's +5 at the moment. Maybe with the economy the way it is, a lot of moderate lefters can't afford to be douchebags anymore.
Re:W-T-F (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe there's not a vast left-wing conspiracy, just like there's not a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them evil and/or an asshole.
Re:W-T-F (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would agree. And I would also say that it's not limited to the liberals in California. The Conservatives are just as if not more unpragmatic as the left. Hence the complete impass they've currently reached where neither side is doing anything because of the other.
That being said California has led the way on lots of legislation that both sides take for granted now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the climates system for heating works of the engine waster heat, air conditioning does not.
Of course that will change with electric cars.
In fact, running the heater is better for the engine in that they will run more efficiently. Naturally only after a certain temperature.
"There is no way this can pass legislation."
"Probably not, but if it does there is no way it will hold up in court.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And this, friends, is a prime example of why government should NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES attempt to legislate a solution to a technical problem, no matter how tempting it will be. We're on track to have all vehicles be electric or hybrid within probably a decade. At that point, heating systems will be electric and will drain power just like air conditioning systems.
Once we are mostly electric, for every day when you would have used your heat, you are losin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but its a popular misconceptions that the air conditioner in a car is a poor use of horse power. In many many popular car designs running the A/C makes more sense energy wise then an open windows at speeds over 50 or so. The air envelop inefficiency of an open windows costs more power in moving the car down the road then turning the A/C compressor takes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is a great point. The windows. They let in a lot of heat, you can tell this because the trunk of a black car is still not nearly as hot as the rest of the car. So we should really have white interiors, and heavily reflective or tinted windows that allow us to still see out. Actually I wonder if this wouldn't be a good application of LCD windows that would turn mostly opaque when the car was off and be clear when the car was running so that cops can still peek inside and you won't have a hard time
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, cause when I'm driving down the road in the late morning and early afternoon, I really need to see the sun perfectly reflected in the windshield of oncoming traffic!
I don't know about other countries, but here in Canada, it is actually ILLEGAL to have a reflective paint job. I'm sure they would treat reflective windows the same way.
Re:W-T-F (Score:4, Insightful)
A/C compressers in cars don't use much power, though. Maybe 5hp, at most. You'd get more efficiency by cutting out weight.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A/C compressers in cars don't use much power, though. Maybe 5hp, at most.
Yeah, you can get that much power back with some VTEC decals, brok^H^H^H^Hracing muffler and a flame paint job.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Rule of thumb is you lose a cylinders worth of power, and I don't think people will give up their air conditionair
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>A/C compressers in cars don't use much power, though. Maybe 5hp
That's true however an engine in an efficient hybrid car at ~2000 typical rpm is only generating around 25 hp, so you're talking about a 20% reduction in available power.
And if you upsize the engine to minimize A/C impact, well then you have a less-efficient car overall that wastes gasoline.
This is why the Prius II and Civic Hybrid II moved to electric-based A/C, to minimize the load on the engine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Air compressors in cars use an enormous amount of power. Figures are 20-40 HP (~15-30 kW).
The solar gain in a car is enormous no thanks to all that glass letting in the sun and no (legal) way of shading the windows to keep it out while you're driving along. Dark cars do have a slightly higher solar gain than lighter one, so this would have a small effect on overall fuel consumption, but not in the middle of summer, where the compressor runs full time anyway. The effects would be so negligible compared to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A/C compressers in cars don't use much power, though. Maybe 5hp, at most
Look at a power curve for engines some time. At typical RPMs you use not driving aggressively, car engines can only make well under 100hp.
Also, it's a lot more than 5hp; 10-15 is a better estimate.
Still, this pisses me off to no end. CA already has civil-rights-violating emissions laws. You can be stopped and searched at any time for illegal engine modifications, "illegal" being anything that isn't CARB certified. Virtually ev
Re:W-T-F (Score:4, Interesting)
Compressors turn off while you're accelerating hard, so you don't notice.
It's a really annoying feature in America's southwestern deserts: in the summer, jump on the accelerator and you catch a blast of heat in the face for your trouble. Maybe they should disable the ventilation fan at the same time to mitigate the annoyance?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A friend of mine in Florida had a 1990 Toyota Camry back around Y2K. Despite having a V6, the A/C was such a drain on the power that everyone referred to the 'A/C' button as the 'Turbo' button. There was a significant difference in available power when the button was toggled. He claimed it had been like that even when he first got it (when it was only 2 or 3 years old).
20% solar reflectivity (Score:2)
Won't that mean lots of glare? Is the plan to reduce carbon emissions by causing everyone to crash into each other?
Re: (Score:2)
Living here in California, what I think would make a bigger difference than telling my wife her Prius can't be black is getting the old, beat-up, emissions-test-failing cars off the road. But then there are issues with that, too.
Re:20% solar reflectivity (Score:5, Insightful)
Making a new car creates a lot of CO2 in itself. "Emissions" usually mean particulate, not CO2. Confusing these two forms of pollution is a big problem.
The Prius is a red herring. The most eco-friendly car you can buy is a 20 year old Geo Metro.
Re:20% solar reflectivity (Score:4, Insightful)
The Prius is a red herring. The most eco-friendly car you can buy is a 20 year old Geo Metro.
I agree, pending nothing wrong with the engine or cat. However, driving a Geo Metro isn't as safe (20 years of safety research and no structural fatigue), as comfortable (working A/C) or reliable (the Geo is more likely to break down in the next year than the Prius). It's a trade-off.
But I'll admit I'd burn down a forest if I knew it would keep my wife that much safer. Mod me as a troll for saying it, but at least I'm not being fooled by fake-safety like many SUV drivers have been.
Overboard (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I'm all for protecting the environment, but this is just going overboard. If the paint is toxic, then yeah, the government should get involved, but them dictating the mere color of my car is just giving them FAR too much control over the lives of everyday citizens.
Re:Overboard (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply put, a "black" paint with 20% reflectivity is not black, it is gray (unless they are counting wavelengths outside the visible range). Still, it is not the radiation hitting the outside of the car that heats it up so much as the color of the interior. Take a black car with a white interior, and a white car with a black interior, put them both in the sun and see which one heats up faster. Light gets in through the glass, and if it remains light it can also get out through the glass. Once absorbed and r
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Congratulations. I'm halfway down the comment page, and you're the first commenter who seems to have actually RTFA.
I can't wait to see how Fox is going to spin this one....
It's also funny to watch the states-rights conservatives twitch whenever California tries to pass some sort of innovative or unusual legislation (which they've historically tended to do quite a lot of).
Ford saying - modified (Score:5, Funny)
Henry Ford (modified) : Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is not black. (wiki [wikimedia.org])
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems to a bigger problem. Also dark asphalt roofs seemed a bit ridiculous next to reddish ceramic tiles.
(Don't laugh, one of the problems of climate change is when the poles shrink/melt, the reflectivity of ice and snow gives way to water which rather absorbs the heat, basically escalating a rising problem with temperature).
Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need to cool pavements down though, do you? That's why they want to ban dark cars, because they use more fuel in order to keep them cool.
TFA specifically mentions that these techniques have been used successfully in buildings so banning dark asphalt roofs is probably something they'd do for new builds.
Re:Perhaps they should ban dark pavement (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard a representative of the concrete industry on NPR a couple months ago (and double-checked here [concreteresources.net]) saying that the city of Atlanta reduced its average temperature by six degrees, just by switching to lighter-colored concrete instead of darker-colored asphalt. That will affect the cooling requirements of buildings, even without any change to the buildings themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they are painted with reflective silver paint. Though some choose not to do so either out of ignorance or monetary reasons. We had a shoddy contractor promise to paint a newly installed large roof after it had set for a week. They never came back to do so. Roofers charge big bucks and do the most slipshod work possible. Out of three roofers we used including one large "trusted" operation, all did a crap job and never wanted to hear about problems afterward.
Let's ban blue jeans next. (Score:2)
Retardifornia (Score:3, Funny)
Is California where all the stupid people go?
Re:Retardifornia (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a Texan living in California, I'd have to say Texas is worse. By far, they are dumber, the civil infringements are greater (you practically have no 4th amendment rights in Plano,) and it's the home to one of the biggest embarrassments on this planet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Texas is much worse. You can get arrested for not wearing your seatbelt.
As opposed to California, where they shoot you in the back while you are restrained by two other officers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They hold my hand when I cross the street too? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They hold my hand when I cross the street too? (Score:5, Funny)
Not really, you'll just have to buy carbon credits for all the emissions that happen in the process.
Is A/C Mandatory? (Score:5, Insightful)
My old VW's climate control system was my windows. How's that gonna work harder in a black car?
Re:Is A/C Mandatory? (Score:5, Informative)
In a black car, you have to roll the windows down further to keep it cool. That means more drag on the motion, and the engine has to work harder, resulting in more pollution, and an increased consumption of fuel.
Re: (Score:3)
In a black car, you have to roll the windows down further to keep it cool.
Ridiculous. You can't roll the windows down any farther than all the way, and that's generally how far you need to roll them down in order to rest your elbow on the doorframe and tap your hand on the roof of the car in time with AC/DC, no matter what color the car is painted.
Take Action for the sake of Taking Action (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorta like the first cell phone law (can't talk on the phone but can text message on the phone). It sounds like a case of "we need to something so we can say we're doing something, even if it's stupid." Then when interviews come up ("what did you do for this-or-that issue?") politicians can talk around it by referencing legislation that they passed to "help climate change," knowing that most people will smile and nod and think they are doing well and not actually look up the legislation to see just what brilliant ideas were in it...
Maybe I'm cynical. :)
Or, maybe I like black cars. Who knows.
lolw00t? (Score:3, Insightful)
Article is WRONG... (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't a ban on black cars. It is a requirement that at least some fraction of all solar radiation be reflected so cars don't heat up that much.
A car with "black" paint, as long as that paint reflects UV and IR, and at least scatters some light (You want a glossy paintjob anyway), combined with UV/IR reflective window treatments, will meet the requirement.
And true, it may cost $50/car to $150/car more, but on the other hand, the cars won't get so miserably hot when sitting in the sun. So it would actually benefit most consumers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem, according to the article, is that the paint makers haven't been able to make "black" paint that meets those requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine that window treatments and a white or otherwise highly reflective roof would get you most of the benefits since what you're worried about heating and cooling really is the passenger compartment. The hood is over the engine which will be hot no matter what when the car is on, and in fact a hotter engine compartment at start up may increase the fuel efficiency since the time to fully warm up the engine will be less. The doors of the car will likely get relatively little direct radiative ener
Re:Article is WRONG... (Score:4, Funny)
I'd solve it by making the car a flat black, absorbing heat so it doesn't reach the interior. The heat would be dissipated through the giant fins which will soon be all the rage (again).
Re: (Score:2)
If this bill cause fins to come back in style, I am all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the technology existed, then I would be all for this. However, at this time, it does not exist. And for the small, minuscule, savings this will produce for emissions, I have to say that this is ridiculous. You will save more on emissions by forcing all cars sold in the state to have limiters on their engines to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the whole point - to get all those smart scientists to figure out how to make dark paint that reflects heat.
Even if they don't end up enabling the legislation - who wouldn't spring $150 for the keep your car a bit cooler in the summer for no energy option?
Re:Article is WRONG... (Score:5, Funny)
Just leave the base color black, and cover 20% of the car in white-ish spots that look like bird droppings. Then if it ever does get bird shit on it, no one will know.
Just a thought.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just ban inefficient cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why ban either? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the question should be what the right thing to ban is with the presumption that "We gotta ban something!" There are better solutions...
And they've tried them. When CA mandated better fuel economy the Federal Government (read: Bush Administration) took them to court claiming that only they could dictate fuel standards. And the Feds won. (Ever notice how when the Feds don't have the money to pay for something they're in favor of states' rights but as soon as the states do something the lobbyists in DC don't like the Feds hate states' rights?) My point is that CA has been trying to do other things, and this is but the latest in a long string
Mythbusters confirms it! (Score:4, Informative)
Mythbusters did a bit about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_3)#Biscuit_Bazooka_Spinoff [wikipedia.org]
Now mind you, it only came out to a 9 degree F difference, windows up etc., so really it's not particularly significant, and the law's still dumb.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
uh..I hate that show so damn much. Granted I have only seen about 10 episodes, but in every 'test' they overlooked a critical part of what they were testing.
It's horrible.
The Golden State... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they should call California the Green State and make green the official state color. Plus I don't have to change the paint job on my car.
Banning car windows next? (Score:2)
A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact we are politely discussing the merits of this proposal instead of laughing at and/or preparing boiling oil for the idiots responsible shows we have lost the Republic our mighty forebearers gave us in trust.
The idea that a Free People would meekly submit to some pinheads who will tell us what color we can paint our cars is laughable. So obviously this, among hundreds equally insane examples, proves we are no longer such a nation.
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them? Are we all teenagers?
1. Paint your car a color that reflects light.
2. Inflate your tires.
3. Drive slower.
Each of these will improve your fuel economy noticeably. None of them require you to drive less or get a dinky car. What's the case for not doing them -- contrariness?
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them?
Because I am a fully functioning sentient human being both capable and deserving of the right to determine for myself what course of action is "smart".
If doing X is the smart thing to do, I invite you to attempt to persuade me by the overwhelming force of your reasonable arguments.
On the other hand, if you tell me I must do X at the point of a spear, I will quickly conclude that (1) you have little respect for my basic humanity and (2) your argument must not be that good in the first place.
As it happens, I enjoy driving fast ( I do own a small car, mostly for performance reason). It gives me pleasure to do so and I get to my destination sooner. I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment. Why people insist on forbidding me from taking part in a simple pleasure on my own dime is entirely beyond me.
Re:A Republic... if you can keep it. FAIL! (Score:4, Insightful)
I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment.
Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them. The basic premise here is flawed.
You don't have the right to urinate into a public swimming pool either, even if you offer to "pick up the tab" for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are asserting that purchasing a legal good and using it legally is equivalent to "urinating in a pool".
I'm not asserting that. For one thing, the legality is what is under question here ("should I be legally able to do unconstrained emissions so long as I pay for them?"), so it cannot be used as the underlying reason. My example was merely to demonstrate that "it's alright, I'm gonna pay for that" is not a valid excuse for a large variety of activities out there, both legal and illegal - and those of them that are illegal are that for a reason!
That said, the law being discussed in TFA is silly regardless of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them. The basic premise here is flawed.
It isn't flawed, you just don't understand it. The carbon tax isn't there to pay to have carbon sucked out of the atmosphere, it's to compensate for the use of a scarce public resource (the atmosphere's ability to absorb carbon) and encourage it to be used wisely.
You don't have the right to urinate into a public swimming pool either, even if you offer to "pick up the tab" for it.
This isn'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment.
Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them. The basic premise here is flawed.
Only if you assume that the carbon tax won't motivate others to reduce their consumption. It's not necessary that everyone be low-impact, only that the collective impact be sufficiently low. Assuming we had a viable definition of "sufficiently low", then the solution is to ratchet the tax up until collective emissions fall below that level. Those who choose to emit more than average but are willing to pay for the privilege are automatically factored in.
Offensive (Score:4, Insightful)
This has to be the most offensive thing I will read today. The idea that the government can tell a person what color their car can be should deeply offend every American, even those living in California.
Re:Offensive (Score:4, Funny)
well...
I was thinking that a compromise would be to allow separate but equal parking spaces....
Welcome to the Nanny State (Score:2, Insightful)
California is cursed with the worse nanny-state politicians in the country. It's destroying the economy too - the state is nearly bankrupt, businesses are leaving, taxes are on the rise. It's a total disaster. If you want an example of what happens to an economy when Democrats have complete power, just look to California for an example.
And for the record, Arnold is NO republican!
The interior color makes a bigger difference. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a black car with a black interior and a black car with a light gray interior. The gray one is far cooler in the summer.
Fight the Power! (Score:5, Funny)
Just like the government. Always trying to keep the black van down...
OH BOY! PASTEL! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm ready for Raymond Cocteau, SanAngeles, and the end of the Franchise Wars now!
Hot dogs! Armor hot dogs! The dogs...kids...love...to...biiiiite!
Lame (Score:3, Interesting)
Trivial effect outside of California (Score:3, Insightful)
Since car color is relatively trivial when it comes to operations, such a ban could be implemented without having much of an impact on other states. They would just avoid shipping dark colored cars not meeting the reflectivity requirements into California.
It is the mechanical systems that are much more expensive to vary by vehicle.
Considering the increase in the number of cars in California, the fact that the smog isn't as bad as it was in the 1960's is a tribute to the smog control practices.
Re: (Score:2)
If you tint your windows, you meet the requirement under this law.
Hint: Summary is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are cyclists banging into black cars in epidemic numbers or something?
Maybe more cyclists should watch where they're going. They're only four times your size after all. Hard to miss.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And when you start paying a usage tax to BE on the road with cars (who pays a gas tax for the same purpose), I'll stop trying to run you off them.
Re:Black cars. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope to fuck this isn't another thing that affects the rest of the states...since the auto companies no longer like making CA only version of their cars.
Fuck CA..their stupid air pollution controls and all have screwed it up for the rest of us who don't have air problems.
Thank goodness at least I live in a state with no 'sniff' tests...so, I can at least put on after market exhaust with impunity...and have performance AND a nice pleasant 'rumble' of an exhaust note.
Damned granola state...ruining it for everyone else. Now..they're broke, won't live within their means...and the rest of us are gonna have to bail them out I guess....
Ok...rant off...I'll go sit in the corner now and try to cool off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Black cars. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Black cars. (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI, the air of the planet is the air of the planet... CA emissions spread to your state.... Your state's emissions spread to CA and the rest of the planet as well...
That said, and I am a Cali resident, I agree with your main point. We seem to have a pretty stupid approach to dealing with real problems by focusing on things that do *relatively* nothing at all.
An example of what I'm saying is the C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) which leads all the CA emissions policies, etc. Had CARB, instead of making stupid emissions rules that don't really mean shit, pushed to completely ban combustion engines in cars in the 80s --- the induced market would have us all rolling in clean electric vehicles sourcing power from renewable resources.... But instead they got focused on stupid distractions, just like this stupid 'ban black paint' idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, I don't think so, unless they helped push nuclear power plants to pick up the slack in power. Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it'
Re:Black cars. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it's a coal burner, well...
Consider electric power to be a sort of "common language" of electricity. If your car runs on gasoline, then gasoline is the only source that it'll run on. But if your car runs on electricity, then it runs on gasoline, or coal, or nuclear, or hydro, or whatever you care to power your community with.
But when the gas runs out, you aren't stuck with a bunch of machines that you can't afford to run. When better, cheaper, cleaner power sources are discovered, the cost of adoption is dramatically reduced, because every type of power can be converted into electrical. This would untether your economy from any one source, for ever!
"Exporting our smog to the power plant that handles our section of the grid" should be a national priority.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck CA..their stupid air pollution controls and all have screwed it up for the rest of us who don't have air problems yet.
Fixed that one for ya. What again is the problem with more efficient vehicles? Do you need a five litre engine to feel better about yourself?
Thank goodness at least I live in a state with no 'sniff' tests...so, I can at least put on after market exhaust with impunity...and have performance AND a nice pleasant 'rumble' of an exhaust note.
So you put looking cool and convenience above taking care of your surrounding environment? I hope I'm not your neighbor. And if you're one of those obnoxious little shits who thinks causing 120db of racket is "cool," you're a fucking twit. Your blast pack is a douchebag cowbell.
Damned granola state...ruining it for everyone else. Now..they're broke, won't live within their means...and the rest of us are gonna have to bail them out I guess....
New York and California subsidize the rest of the country, and have for decades. That's beca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"So you put looking cool and convenience above taking care of your surrounding environment? "
Yes.
I consider that a declaration of war.
The environment is a common resource, and you damaging it for a net quality of life gain means a net loss for me. So either we can have the government step in and force us to play nice, or we can tell the government to get out of our lives and then I'll take it into my own hands by slashing your tires.
Your life is yours to do with as you please only in as far as what you do doesn't affect others. Therefore, this does not apply to common resources, i.e. the air we breathe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet..they still can't pay their own bills.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because we have the Republicans holding the budget of the state hostage every year. I would love if we could get a higher income tax on the wealthy (of which I am one) and redo Prop 13 to only include non-income primary residences.
Re:Black cars. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the Republicans are the one thing keeping this state from going completely bankrupt. Thank goodness for the required 2/3rds majority to raise taxes, or else the Democrats would probably be taxing us all at 50% to fund their bloated, useless, and dysfunctional programs. Not that that stopped them in the end, they just decided to call their new taxes "fees" to get around the constitution. Damned lawyers.
While I vehemently oppose nearly all of CA Republicans' stances on social issues, at least they are true fiscal conservatives unlike the Republicans in the US congress. Hey CA Democrats, how about tightening your belt in a recession and cutting all those pet projects that are going nowhere? That's what the rest of us have to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If that many people depend on the govt for jobs....then I think you might have insight as to one of the big problems of the state!?!
The govt should not be the primary employer of the people in a state. Laying off govt workers should only be a blip in unemployment numbers, even if you cut like 30% off them at one fell swoop.
Re:Black cars. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm neither republican or democrat, but living and voting here, you see every year, Democrat politicians continually pushing for more programs that may or may not be good ideas (banning black cars? - democrat nurtured.), but that we definitely can't afford...
And how exactly does the delay of the state budget cause the state to go broke... are you suggesting that the state not having a budget will cause it to spend more or earn less? I guarantee that with the way the legislature attempts to spend money, holding up the budget can only have the opposite effect of what you propose.
Further, why do you suppose the Republicans held up the budget? Perhaps because the state was literally, out of money, and democratic lawmakers were relentlessly pushing additional spending measures on the budget.
And yes, then there was also the issue of taxes. If you're a wealthy, high paid worker that's willing to put your money where you're politics are, that's fantastic, and commendable. But if you're an employer, such as myself, you're taxes are going to have a very real effect on the lives of current and potential employees--And that's exactly what we need right now, fewer jobs being created, right? So that we can pay out even more in unemployment benefits, right?
Sim-city got it right- case-and-point, the current Corporate mass-exodus from California. Which I'm sure is also because "the budget was held up by republicans". Christ.
California's budget problems are as obvious as your blue-collar neighbor in the McMansion with an Escalade in the driveway (or maybe that's just a California thing). It's all quite poetic: the most materialistic and consumerism-stricken populace in the nation is represented by politicians who continuously want expensive, shiny, new, fashionable things (policies, programs, etc) for their 'constituents'.
Look, I hate the legislation of morality and religion (prop 8) as much as.... well, a lot. But I would trust my brother's wife with a checkbook register sooner than I would California democrats.... and that's really fucking bad.
*"Most Liberal" Stats: Voters: 44.4% Dem. / 31.3% Rep. Assembly: 63.7% Dem. / 36.3% Rep. Senate: 24 Dem. / 15 Rep. Icing: Nancy Pelosi
Tax Revenue "holes"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we have the Republicans holding the budget of the state hostage every year. I would love if we could get a higher income tax on the wealthy (of which I am one) and redo Prop 13 to only include non-income primary residences.
Ah, perhaps you would have better luck handling the tax revenue if a good portion of your (how shall I put this gently) "legally-challenged residents" actually paid taxes...