Question: the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers from the federal government is pretty crazy to me. I'll grant some imbalances are necessary - you will always have richer and poorer areas of the country. But when he gap is as wide as it is, and then it is turned into a tool for punishing CA due to our politics, at what point should CA seek to seriously tackle this? Firstly of course is the very long shot possibility of successon, but I was wondering if there might be something in the tax code that would allow CA to shut off the flow of money to the federal government? Perhaps by implementing some kind of massive tax and dividend scheme (e.g. naively I'm thinking if I'm allowed to deduct state taxes - what stops CA from taxing 100% of my income, so I pay nothing to the federal government, then CA pays me a "dividend" equal to my income minus whatever the real tax rate should be (30% or whatever).
Much of the wealth in California comes from high technology. The research of the high technology came from the Federal Government. The training of the PhDs that created the research (think semiconductors) came from the NSF and NIH and other federal funds.
Thus, it is not unlike a VC making early stage investments in a company.
BTW, I'm in NY State and it also has net tax outflows.
Much of the wealth in California comes from high technology.
I think you need to get out of SV more often.
The top 3 ranked sectors in California by GDP are: (1) health, education - 18%, (2) real estate, rental and leasing - 17% and (3) trade, transportation and utilities - 16%.[1]
Not sure where tech would fall, but probably in: information - 6% or professional and technical services 9%.
Silicon Valley seems like it's a big deal when you're in the middle of it, but it's nowhere near the biggest GDP contributor in the state.
But what is california's trade balance with other states? I suspect it "exports" more than it imports. So paying more in tax (by some measure) is the price of remaining in the federation. US states are so integrated that generalizing them into givers and takers isnt very honest imho. It makes for gòod headlines and fans state pride, but always omits important detail. As example: How much of california's wealth comes from intelectual property laws, laws created and managed by the fed?
But it isn't progressive, right? An individual in CA who makes 50k gets less in Federal funding to projects that would benefit them, than if that same individual moved to another state, and made the exact same amount.
Not saying I agree with the conceit that a state should have the level of economic autonomy argued for the the original post, but your argument doesn't hold water.
Some of the things CA "receives" from the federal government are zero percent interest rates and preferential access to vast capital markets, a heavy implicit labor cost subsidy via immigration policy, an implicit promise of massive earthquake insurance, access to the Colorado River, copyright & patent protections for its primary industries...
Looking at fiscal inflows and outflows isn't the benchmark of who gains from a relationship and whether it is positive-sum.
That dividend would be federally taxable income. :)
I mean I guess they could keep taking more and more money from you every year and giving more and more back, but generally any money they give you would be subject to federal taxes, unless they give it and take it all away again every year, just to give it back again.
It would be a huge headache but I suppose it could work. Especially if they made it like a voluntary tax overpayment or something.
Edit: Also, unless you have it all sitting around in cash, any money you spent during the year on non-deductible things you'd have to pay tax on.
CA cannot stop tax collecting by the Feds --and residents will not risk getting hauled into the Pen for avoiding tax payments.
It'd be ironic if California became more nationalistic than people at the national level --I mean, why not SF county ask residents not to pay Sacto and why not the FinDi ask their residents not to pay taxes to SF county? How far do you want to take that? Down to the "sovereign citizen" -which would seem the opposite of what you are looking for.
the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers
Do you have a firsthand source for that, or are you just quoting unsupported media quotes? The one study on that topic that I've seen omitted a lot of Federal spending in CA, such as transfer payments, military personnel, CA's share of defense spending, etc.
Remember that CA has had a lot of power in Congress under Democrats, including two senior Senators and the Speaker of the House twice.
Every state gets two senators and the one that's served the longest is called the "senior" senator and the other the "junior". By definition a state can't have two senior senators.
A charitable interpretation would be to note that as of the 114th Congress, both California's senators have high seniority, which is how senate rank and privileges are determined.
Boxer's retirement leaves CA in the 115th Congress with Feinstein, 8th, and Harris, 97th.
Northern CA sends a lot of its water to Southern CA. The Owens Valley is where the LA gets most of its water. There are water deals between different states. San Diego gets the majority of its water from the Colorado River. Seven states have agreements on how much water they can take from the Colorado River.
> By any measure, Caltrain is the equivalent of a dated personal computer running Windows 95 way overdue for an upgrade. Rush-hour trains are so crowded that their aisles are filled with passengers. Trains break down frequently and the locomotives belch plumes of black smoke into the air — a sight more in line with the early industrial age than 21st century Silicon Valley.
As a frequent commuter, I couldn't agree more with this paragraph.
Blame San Mateo county in the 50s who chose against participating in the then BART project. If they had voted in, BART would be going down the peninsula to SJ (sorry Morgan Hill) and there'd be no need for a Caltrain. But as we know, SM voted down participating in BART and now we are left with Caltrain on the pen. and BART going the long way to SJ (via Fremont).
I'll take Caltrain in its current state over BART any day.
BART is a costly system and they've been masking the true costs for decades by deferring maintenance, the $3.5B they've gotten from taxpayers is just a portion of what they need to bring the system up to date. And worse, they can spend up to a third of that on operational costs... which are sky high in part because BART is saddled with high labor costs and can't rein in its union's lucrative work rules. Case in point, the Warm Springs station is not even open yet, but it's fully staffed, including janitors to clean an empty, unused station.
But the problems don't end there -- BART's equipment is non-standard gauge so every order is a custom order with high lead times and there's no world market for BART's gauge. While Caltrain is able to supplement capacity by buying surplus cars.
And BART is designed with no passing tracks, so there's no such thing as an "express" train. Want to go from San Jose to SF? Well you've got to stop at every station in between. While with Caltrain you can take a 5 stop "baby bullet".
And finally, the capacity of nearly the entire system is dependent on how fast passengers can get on and off the trains at Embarcadero station. BART has a billion dollar band-aid for that, by digging out the other side of the station so passengers can board from both sides. What they really need are multiple tracks, like what Caltrain has at their SF station (and other high volume transit systems throughout the world)
I grant you the custom gauge issue. That's unforgivable. Labor costs (Janitor earning quarter mill) are something they can work on --They just seem unwilling to go the union-busting way. Passing tracks, I'm not aware of most Caltrain stations having passing tracks --they just schedule things so far apart they can pass at a couple of stations. I'd prefer more frequent service.
A ring around the bay or a second Transbay tube would alleviate the Transbay bottleneck.
On the plus side it's all electric and works with minute headway.
Which cars are you referring to?? The new haven line M8's are some of the newest rail cars in the country, if not the newest.
I know there are some M2 sets still sometimes used but those will be replaced once the 30-60 some odd bar car sets come in.
Also on a separate note, you really can't fault the MTA here for running old cars, they actually do some pretty good maintenance on there fleets both commuter and subway. Running old cars is about maximizing the invest in your fleet, the average lifetime generally being around 40 years.
It seems the MTA learnt there lesson with differed maintanance after the 80's. Just look at the current state of MBTA to the north or WAMTA to the south (it also helps the MTA has a large dedicated funding stream which allot of other transit properties in US lack)
they have M8s but on certain lines they still run those old ones that are over 40 years. Back in 2013 40% of the fleet was out of service due to extremely cold weather
Nothing really wrong with old trains tbh assuming they are maintained and refurbished.
The intercity 125 in the UK despite being over 40 years old is still fast (125mph), reliable (engines have all been replaced fairly recently) and very comfortable and quiet, even in standard class.
And in my experience, the 125 is much nicer than the newer Pendolino, which is claustrophobic, dimly lit, and the areas around the toilets smell of piss.
If you want to see a case study in exactly what you're talking about, you could check out the Australian version of the same train, the XPT, which is in dire need of refurbishment.
The thought is that "subway" mass transit can be full of people, even stuffed, but "commuter" lines are a bit lighter after they deboard passengers at the first few suburbs and you can find a nice comfy seat somewhere around the midway point.
The midway point of this line is Palo Alto, which is also a big destination. There are several other stations in the middle which are also big destinations.
Here in Southern Ontario (GO train) I have never seen aisles full with passengers. Although on the lower level there are some people standing, the upper deck is usually all seated. Often with some free seats.
The GO Train is probably my favorite commuter rail service. People line up properly at the doors, it's never too crowded, it's clean, there aren't delays very often, and it's generally civilized.
The bay area is a bit of a mess public transportation-wise, and at least for this particular project, the cost seems not all that large in the scheme of things ($1.9B overall, need $647M in federal money). I hesitate to propose this because I fear there might be a flame war, but is there any way we could tax some of the large tech companies very slightly to quickly get enough money to make Caltrain and other public transportation systems modern and sustainable?
Isn't the GO pass priced such that you buy it for everyone and then Caltrain hopes that peak usage isn't too high as a result? Which means you don't have enough data to evaluate if it's priced correctly or not. I bet Caltrain makes individual deals with Stanford and other large users that reflect actual usage.
They should've started high speed rail in the bookends, since any construction there would have immediate benefits for hundreds of thousands of riders, and instill public confidence in the project. That would've helped Caltrain electrification right there.
> They should've started high speed rail in the bookends, since any construction there would have immediate benefits for hundreds of thousands of riders, and instill public confidence in the project.
The bookends are the most expensive part to build in, and the parts with the best existing mass transit; their of the least marginal value until they are connected with each other.
San Jose into the Valley is quite a sensible initial operating segment, in terms of bang for the buck.
Well the Caltrain electrification is in one of the book ends.
The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance (as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part sooner rather than later?
Exactly -- the HSR Authority is investing heavily in upgrades to Caltrain and Metrolink; they provide tangible benefits to commuters in the cities while building the infrastructure they need to run the high-speed trains in the cities. They can't get the high-speed trains running between SF and SJ until electrification and upgrades to the corridor are finished.
And at the same time, they're doing construction in the Central Valley, which is cheaper and easier on a per-mile basis. Just wish they could find a way to do it faster though; 7 years for SJ-Bakersfield seems like an unreasonably long time.
The initial operating segment was always going to be near one of the Phase 1 endpoints (LA/SF) to somewhere in the middle (nothing else that doesn't require the whole north/south alignment to be built before running any trains makes sense.)
It's true that building the smaller initial construction segment in the Valley was driven by economic development concerns, but the Valley needed to be part of any sensible initial operating segment anyway, so why not start building their if the side benefits were greatest there?
> The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance (as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part sooner rather than later?
This is much like the broken-window-fallacy. The reason not to start in the middle is because the middle (especially on its own) doesn't have a lot of inherent value.
Heck, if the train here (minus wages) costs more than it is worth this is a straight-up broken-window-fallacy.
Congratulations! You've proved you can type the phrase "broken-window fallacy". Just be careful -- if you do it three times in a single comment, a ghost will appear in your bathroom mirror.
Meanwhile... if you're going to build a high-speed line from SF to LA, why not start the project by
1. In locations which already have rail infrastructure, upgrading that infrastructure to the required standard, and
2. In locations which lack existing infrastructure or connections to the planned stops of the line, get the construction on that going
And if as a side effect it boosts the economies of the places in (2), well, that's a nice side effect. But "we were going to do this anyway, doing it in this order gets this side effect that's useful" is not the broken-window fallacy.
Plus, you know, infrastructure isn't generally built for its high profit margins; it's built because of the profit it generates in other sectors.
>Heck, if the train here (minus wages) costs more than it is worth this is a straight-up broken-window-fallacy.
Not really. Lots of projects can start out in the red and then provide more value longer-term. This is particularly true when talking about improving transit to impoverished areas.
Because no one will ride that section. If you start on the ends people will actually pay money to ride the train, which then funds construction on the other part of the train and provides steady jobs instead of only temporary ones.
If you want to provide welfare to people without jobs, then provide welfare. Don't provide secret welfare and call it a high speed train.
> If you start on the ends people will actually pay money to ride the train
The initial operating segment runs through the Valley to San Jose; that's pretty close to the S.F. end , and is the third biggest city in California (and the second biggest covered by the whole Phase 1 LA-to-SF alignment.)
Obviously, the initial operating segment isn't going to connect both ends, and short of doing that, where specifically would be better than the actual planned IOS?
Sure, the initial construction segment is a small section in the valley that would probably see little ridership without being connected to some place nearer to the endpoints, but the ICS is not the whole IOS.
Politically it would've helped the project much more to have had tangible success in the economic heart of CA, impacting shitloads of people (and voters).
Yup. The train is a huge boondoggle, mostly because they are building it backwards. Building the middle part where no one lives is easier and will make a lot of jobs in a lot of poor areas, but then it is just a secret welfare program, not a useful piece of infrastructure. Let's just provide welfare if that's the goal, and then build some useful infrastructure like electrified tracks in the Bay Area and bullet train to Stockton that people might actually ride and then use those fares to pay for the rest of the train.
> Building the middle part where no one lives is easier and will make a lot of jobs in a lot of poor areas
The planned initial operating segment has one endpoint in the third largest city in the state, and passes through the fifth largest city in the state, so the idea that it's in a place where no one lives is, well, what recently has become known as an "alternative fact".
Actually you're the one pedaling in alternative facts. The initial operating segment was going to be Stockton to Fresno until people complained about how stupid that was, and then they added San Jose.
> The initial operating segment was going to be Stockton to Fresno until people complained about how stupid that was, and then they added San Jose.
Since we're discussing how the existing project is being built and is planned to be operated, and not historical plans that have been rejected as suboptimal, that would be irrelevant in any case. It's also, AFAICT, not true; in both the final 2014 Business Plan with the Merced to Burbank IOS, and the draft 2016 Business Plan (they are done in even numbered years) which shifted to the San Jose to Bakersfield IOS, Stockton was not only not part of the IOS, but not even part of the Phase 1 SF-to-LA plan, only the Phase 2 expansion to Sacramento and San Diego, which is more of a vague concept than a concrete plan.)
Given that government bond rates are virtually zero, it would seem to make more economic sense to issue bonds to pay for construction rather than using operating income from an earlier segment.
building the middle part where no one lives is easier and will make a lot of jobs in a lot of poor areas
It will make a lot of temporary jobs -- and transient workers will come from hundreds of miles away to work on the project and will leave when it's done so many of the jobs won't directly benefit local residents. Small towns will see a brief increase in business during the construction, then it'll die away, along with the small businesses that sprung up to support it.
I think the Central Valley was a giant fait accompli to get the rest of the project funded in case of a political crisis.
The prevailing mood in 08-09 was also that CAHSR would be used similarly to the economic stimulus passed by congress. You would think listening to CAHSR blog and their ilk back then that Fresno and Bakersfield were the navel of the world.
I commute daily between SF and San Mateo, which covers about a third of Caltrain's line. I get delayed due to mechanical failures (usually on other trains) once a month or so on average.
One just happened last week. A problem with the air brakes that made them evacuate an entire car on the train. I've been on other trains that lost all electrical power in the passenger cabs. Had engines that could not start after pulling into stations. Not too mention when one train breaks down others get stuck behind it.
Happened to me once two weeks ago. I've also been on a train that had 'broken down' where it couldn't leave a station after coming to a stop.
Also accidents with cars and pedestrians happens more frequently than they should. I don't know if the upgrades to the line include raising and separating the track wherever possible.
Yes, there is a lot of grade seperation work in the project.
Tbh it's pretty nutty the US doesn't do more of this, even in new schemes like LAs light rail there are dozens of at grade crossings. While more expensive in the short term to build i think really you should be aiming for 100% grade seperation for new projects, even if that means closing some less used roads to make it affordable.
I'd estimate I have a significant delay on my way to/from work probably once or twice a month. Whether it's equipment failure or an incursion onto the tracks, it's usually a mess when it happens, and adds at least an hour to the trip since they have to single-track the problem segment of the line until everything is cleared.
That's only part of the benefit of electrification. Electric trains accelerate more quickly, so you're delayed 100% of the time, today, compared to the schedule possible with an all-electric Caltrain.
This is a real shame. I believe this would have allowed 6trains per hour each way throughout the day, bringing the service closer to real urban rapid transit.
It would also have a big impact on journey times as electric trains can accelerate and decelerate a lot quicker than the current diesel ones.
Why don't they look at variable tolling on 101 (or at least an express toll lane) and divert funds to this project? That would seem like a win win: transit users get upgraded service which would encourage more people to switch and drivers have less traffic to deal with as people move to transit, plus they can pay for a more reliable journey if they are in a rush.
Considering the great job CA has done playing ball with the new administration I'm not exactly surprised said administration is in no hurry to shovel money in their direction. /s
I think the train makes sense. House prices are out of whack and the roads are packed. It will encourage growth in Modesto and the Central Valley which will bring not just commuters but other businesses and ease roadway congestion. The Central Valley communities will improve and it'll reduce pressure on rents across the Bay area.
> The Transportation Department is withholding $647 million in federal grants for a $1.9 billion project that would modernize and increase the capacity of Caltrain. About 65,000 people use the rail line every day to commute between San Francisco and San Jose
OK. Just thinking out loud here. $1.9 billion. 65,000 people per day. That's about $30K per person.
In other words, you can almost buy a Tesla Model 3 for each person. Yet, that would not deal with congestion. Scratch that idea.
Is this a point-to-point route? Are most of those people going from San Jose to San Francisco or are there a ton of stops in the way?
Next thought is: How many electric buses could one purchase with that money? At $400K each, 4,750 buses. That's a lot of eco-friendly buses!
OK, but, how many do we need to move 65,000 people per day? Well, if all 65,000 want to go at once, about 1,625 buses. And that would cost $650 billion, or 1/3 of the $1.9 billion set aside for this project.
How would 1,625 electric buses, for 1/3 the cost, affect the region?
Yet, it is probably reasonable to assume we don't need to move all 65,000 people at once.
In looking around it seems reasonable to assume around 2,000 riders per hour on average. If we go with 10,000 (why not?) we would need 250 buses. Now our equipment cost is down to $100 million.
BTW, if we switch to natural gas buses that cost goes down to $62.5 million. Not saying this is the best option, just providing comparative data.
I am not going to reach any conclusion here. Just exploring very, very rough numbers quickly. I think this would only work well if the bus riders are "long haul", meaning they don't have to stop at every freeway off-ramp and navigate surface streets to pick-up and drop-off people.
One could use check-in/out to optimize bus routes. Don't stop where nobody wants to get on/off.
There's a lot of space between $100 million and $1.9 billion. That's 19 times more taxpayer money spent. Is this sensible? Does it survive mathematical analysis more strict than my quick 10 minute think?
On the one side I think I'd rather spend $100 to even as high as $500 million on an electric powered bus infrastructure. Why? Because this would be a huge shot in the arm for that industry and the consequences could ripple throughout the nation. Bus prices could go down from the current $400K, new technologies could be spurred into existence and electric vehicle adoption across the board (passenger cars) is likely to see gains as well.
My numbers could be completely off the mark, I know. That said, on an admittedly very flawed first inspection, I would not be surprised if investing a few hundred million on a next-generation electric bus transport system might be better than dumping 19 times more money on rail.
I doubt this approach would make any sense at all in a place like Los Angeles, but this Caltrain case might be unique.
I'd rather invest in the future whenever possible.
How I think of it: its 1.9 Billion to upgrade the line and increase capacity. Say double capacity. You have to average that out over the life expectancy of the upgrade (20 years maybe, how long have the tracks been there now). Of course there are maintenance and operation fees, but the railway is probably paying those now.
So in construction costs:
1900000000 dollar /130000 riders /20 year = 700 $/rider/year.
It helps the economy of the city/state as more people can live and work there increasing you tax base. Helps housing smooth out housing prices a little as people can commute the same time from further out.
Also you have to compare against the cost of increasing road capacity.
Trains carry a lot of people and aren't subject to traffic like busses. Nobody likes taking the bus, it has a stigma for some reason.
Its expensive, but infrastructure always is. Oddly so in the US.
The rider experience associated with boarding >20 buses per hour per station at rush houris likely to be nightmarish. It's not ideal to screw over transit riders; there's a reason Caltrain was built in the first place. If people switch to cars, there are major hidden costs. You're also ignoring the cost of 250 * ~$80k/year * [weekend-factor ~= 2] + insurance for the drivers and maintenance on the buses which will quickly eat up your margin.
Personally I think the Dumbarton rail bridge would improve the overall economy more by shifting some activity towards the cheaper South Bay but Caltrain electrification is a very good thing.
In looking around it seems reasonable to assume around 2,000 riders per hour on average.
Nope. Most riders are on the train at the same time most drivers are on the freeways -- during morning and evening rush hours. And that's also when Caltrain runs most of its trains -- outside of the rush-hour periods, they only run one train per hour in each direction, while during rush hour you see a train more like every 15 minutes.
So you do need to move most of those 65,000 people all in a short time period, which means any road-based alternative will just be contributing to the already-bad congestion on the roads at those hours, and will need its entire fleet mobilized during the rush hours in order to try to keep up with demand.
So the $1.9B includes the prices for the rails and infrastructure. Your electric bus calculation doesn't include any cost for road construction, expanding existing roads or building new ones. When you add that in, I'm willing to bet that the cost is similar or exceeds the gap you are describing.
Words can't express how sad I feel about people who write and believe in such a logic. Where is our humanity gone?
How can you think that by helping people (legal or not) you are doing something wrong? USA is a country that has a massive problem with not accepting what it is, what it has, and what it could have. But then again, a country is made of diverse people. I feel happy that some people in California feel that they need to help and support those who are most vulnerable and mistreated by the system.
The poor living legally in your country ARE NOT competing for resources with "illegal aliens" you call them (I find it absurd to even consider a person, a HUMAN BEING, to be illegal, but that's a different topic). Your country has way more resources available than those dedicated to eradicating poverty.
> The poor living legally in your country ARE NOT competing for resources with "illegal aliens" you call them
I am generally support immigration. But we need to remain realistic.
Of course such competition exists. If an anti-poverty program for only me costs X, then that program for a million people will cost more [1]. It takes more resources, in aggregate, to maintain something for more people. That, in turn, means there are fewer resources for e.g. saving piggly-wiggly turtles or whatever. You could raise taxes, but that just means fewer resources in taxpayers' pockets in favour of more anti-poverty programs and piggly-wiggly turtles et cetera. Resources are finite, human wants are unlimited, and political capital is a delicate thing.
Leaving the hairy question of immigration aside, you're assuming that economic systems on the scale of nation-states are zero-sum. It's not at all clear that providing a service to one person v.s. a million people is "cheaper" on that scale, because when you're talking about a nation you also tax those million people.
You can take this logic to its extremes and assume that if you had only one very wealthy person living in the US that providing services for that one person would be cheaper. That wouldn't be the case.
Then how about if there's 100 million people? 300? 600? Generally speaking having more people should increase the economic efficiency. If you have a tax base of 600 million people that's going to give you more resources to save your piggly-wiggly turtles than if you had 100 or 300.
> "Leaving the hairy question of immigration aside..."
I am all for legal immigration.
Your comment might be correctly phrased as "leaving the hairy question of illegal immigration aside..."
> "you're assuming that economic systems on the scale of nation-states are zero-sum."
I'm not assuming that at all. I'm simply making a statement that California taxpayer funds (and since money is fungible) and federal funds are used to fund people who live in this country illegally and that is only because the citizens of California elected politicians who are not fiscally responsible and seem to feel that it OK to use taxpayer funds to pay for people living here illegally.
As I originally stated, if Californians simply elected responsible politicians they would have the funds for paying for the electric train without the federal grant.
> Your comment might be correctly phrased as "leaving
> the hairy question of illegal immigration aside..."
No, it really couldn't. I'm replying to your economic fallacy of
asserting that "[a] program for a million people will cost more [than
a program for one person]". Of course that's literally true in terms
of absolute dollar amounts, but it's not true in the sense that
actually matters. I.e. if you had a million extra people in your
country would they be a net drain on your economy, or net
contributors?
To answer that question it doesn't matter that they're illegal
immigrants or legal immigrants. You can't assume that just because
someone's illegal they're more likely to be a net drain on the
economy, actually the reverse is probably likelier to be true, since
an illegal immigrant will seek work but can't make use of social
services provided to people legally in the country.
> I'm not assuming that [illegal immigrants are a
> net drain on the economy] at all.
I really hate to put words into someone's mouth, but the most generous
reading of what you're saying really does sound like that's what
you're actually saying.
You're asserting that having X number of "illegal" immigrants is going
to have some linear drain on the economy as a function of X, it's not
at all clear that that relationship exists in any sense, i.e. it could
be a gain not a drain, and it could be non-linear.
I'm not stating myself clearly enough. I'm simply stating that taxpayer money should not be paid to support people who are living in this country illegally. Instead they should be living in the country that they are legally residents of and receive education, health etc from that county.
The correct term for the people is illegal aliens. No quote marks.
>I find it absurd to even consider a person, a HUMAN BEING, to be illegal
I don't understand this. What would you propose as a replacement term for people here illegally? The term 'undocumented resident' just seems like handwaving to avoid the fact that these people are violating the law. If we can't use the word 'illegal' to describe violations of the law, then things become silly (e.g. "undocumented bank withdrawal").
> "Words can't express how sad I feel about people who write and believe in such a logic. Where is our humanity gone?"
The correct term is illegal aliens. I didn't create the term, but I do use the language correctly.
My humanity is for those poor people who live in the US who don't get enough funding as it is and who lose out on the funding because of illegal aliens. That is where my humanity is. My question to you is where is your humanity for the poor Americans, many who don't have nearly the IQ of readers of HN and who are losing their jobs and not getting enough support.
> "The poor living legally in your country ARE NOT competing for resources with "illegal aliens" you call them (I find it absurd to even consider a person, a HUMAN BEING, to be illegal, but that's a different topic). Your country has way more resources available than those dedicated to eradicating poverty."
That is an incorrect statement. There is only so much tax money and much of that money is used for funding K-12 education, university education, healthcare, etc. etc. for illegal aliens instead of better funding the poor.
>Much of that money is used for funding..illegal aliens
Er, maybe, but far, far more is used on maintaining massive military superiority[0][1][2][3].. if it's tax dollars you're worried about, you ought to have far bigger concerns than "illegals".
The point here is not government spending priorities, but spending efficiently and justly in the fund distribution we have now.
In other words, we do spend money on illegal aliens, we spend more money on other things, but we should not be spending any money on illegal immigrants, no matter what else we're spending money on.
That's why we always use bit shifts for division. it doesn't matter if we're using an exponential algorithm instead of a linear one: the thing we should care most about is how fast that division is.
The vast majority of children of immigrants in public schools are US citizens by virtue of being born in the US. This argument about spending money on educating illegal immigrants is pretty facile.
I see that you don't say you want immigration labor laws enforced. What you say is that you don't want illegal immigrants to get benefits.
This is sadly typical. There are plenty of people here in California who are fine with using illegal immigrant labor to save money getting crops picked or construction built, but if one of these laborers slices their hand open on piece of equipment and needs to go to the emergency room, then and only then does the hand-writing about "spending money on illegals" begin.
I have no patience for this sort of sadistic, extractive capitalism. Especially when it wraps itself in a faux mantle of concern about the law. If you don't want illegal immigrants in this country, then enforce the labor laws against the employers.
What's ironic of course is that most of the 14 California congresspeople who signed the letter represent districts who are heavily dependently upon illegal immigrant labor, and thus upon the very sort of lax enforcement of immigration laws that they claim to be against. At this point, I'd be more than happy to see ICE conduct a vigorous enforcement of immigration laws throughout the Central Valley. Perhaps staring in September?
Right. I have heard people make the literal argument that while we should go after illegal aliens, we should _NOT_ go after those who hire undocumented workers, as to punish or penalize them for doing so would be "unfair" to them, because it would make them noncompetitive against other employers doing the same.
And at the same time they stammer that the idea of a drug dealer telling a cop "It's unfair to me, because all these other people are out here selling drugs too!" is somehow in no way the same thing.
Capitalism writ large. It's perfectly acceptable to break the law to make a profit if you're a company, but not to be breaking the law to give yourself a livelihood.
Holding transit money hostage to punish the state for other transgressions is petty and authoritarian. Instead, step up enforcement of the immigration issue and keep the train issue separate.
And before you scream, "sanctuary state!", either decide immigration is a state issue or not, but don't say it's a federal issue and then rely on states to enforce it. That's a pretty typical MO for the federal government -- demand that the states enforce things that cost money but don't actually provide money for it.
The hostage-taking here is in the form of the $647 million omnibus transit bill encompassing the Caltrain electrification portion.
It's like kidnapping a kitten and demanding a $100 ransom for "kitten food" or the kitten dies... then spending $1 on kitten food. And you'll likely have to pay more to get the kitten back later anyway.
The Democrats are free to introduce a clean bill with just the Caltrain electrification funds. A clean bill (funding ALL of it, even) would sail through Congress.
Support for amnesty and lighter policies against undocumented immigrants comes from both sides of the aisle in CA -- a significant portion of California's economy comes from agriculture in the Central Valley, and almost 100% of the workers there are undocumented. They're a huge net contributor to California's economy.
> California spends an enormous amount of money on illegal aliens
Do you have a source on how much this is in aggregate, preferably both in gross (total) and net (minus the value of undocumented migrants'/illegal aliens' economic input to the California economy) terms? I'm just sceptical that this--versus so many other categories of frivolous state spending--is the lowest-hanging fruit.
You know California is a net contributor to the federal government, right?
By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it.
> "By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it."
Not if the funds are paying for people living in these states legally.. Surely you see the distinction between funding people legally living in the US and those living here illegally.
What I know is that if California elected responsible politicians that used tax money for Californians and not for people living in the state and country illegally they wouldn't need the federal money.
Get rid of your politicians and elect responsible ones and stop whining.
A major flaw in your argument is the implication that undocumented individuals in CA (or the US in general) do not pay for the services they use. While in certain cases that might be true, in others they are net contributors. See social security taxes [1].
I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument without providing much data or grappling with the practical implications of your argument. Even if we were to take all the money we spend as Californians on undocumented immigrants, would that actually come close to the funds we should be receiving for Caltrain electrification? I'm not sure. And what damage to our communities would be done by removing that money from the system? Immigrants, undocumented and fully documented, grow the larger economy and are meaningful parts of our community, and I'm pretty sure we'd be worse off without them.
The February study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says that, on average, the nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented residents pay a total of about 8 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes each year[0].
That's total taxation, encompassing sales tax, and (for those not being paid "under the table"), income tax and FICA. Again, that's a national average; in CA, sales tax would make it higher). That's not remotely paying all of their own way overall.
As for overall impact: "Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform said the $11.74 billion tax contribution covers only a small fraction of what undocumented residents and their dependents use in government services. The Washington, D.C. organization, which favors stricter immigration enforcement, estimates it collectively costs state and local governments about $84 billion a year to provide education, health care, public safety and other services to undocumented residents and their dependents."[0]
As for Social Security, they get that back as much as legal residents do, if they file for it. Quoting your source: "He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits." That's retirement benefits alone, being paid out already. As these payees age and retire, they'll collect far more than they paid in, and that will worsen as lifespans increase... hence it being referred to as a "Ponzi Scheme".
"We lose money on every transaction, but we make it up in volume!"
> "A major flaw in your argument is the implication that undocumented individuals in CA"
"undocumented individuals" is a euphemism that does not help the discussion and tends to minimize and obfuscate the language so as to seemingly minimize the fact that they are living in the country against the law. The correct term is illegal alien (look it up if you don't believe me).
My argument is a simple one that I think most people agree with which is this: people that live in this country illegally do not deserve taxpayer funds. I am not making any assumptions, just a statement.
I am not sure that most people would agree with you on that; at least, I personally do not agree that people who are in this country illegally do not deserve taxpayer funds. I think that's very similar to saying that someone who pays no taxes does not deserve taxpayer funds, which I also disagree with. Since most people who are living in this country illegally are paying one form of tax or another, the only difference between the two groups is the amount they've paid.
Receiving taxpayer funded benefits such as K-12 education or health benefits has nothing to do with whether someone pays taxes or not when (think retired or disabled people for example) but rather whether they are living in the country legally or not.
The amount of money spent for K-12 education people who live in California illegally as well as university education and healthcare far, far exceeds the < $800 million federal grant for the train.
> "I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument..."
I don't believe I'm an inflammatory argument. Fiscally responsible politicians would not spend tax money on people who are not legally in the country except on law enforcement.
The solution to the train and other fiscal problems is simply electing fiscally responsible politicians. The newspaper article mentioned the problem of federal funding and I mentioned a levitate and proper solution. If Californians don't elect politicians who are fiscally responsible and who feel that it is OK to spend taxpayer money on people living here illegally, they only have themselves to blame.
I don't see any argument that says that the Federal gov. (again because money is fungible) should be funding people who are living in the country illegally.
Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory. Fiscally responsible politicians should carefully consider the larger questions and tradeoffs including costs of enforcements, larger contributions to the economy, and how much those immigrants actually pay in taxes. How about sales taxes?
Or approaching the question from the other direction, how about the larger benefits of the electrification project? By withholding money this way (and I'm pretty sure nobody responsible for the withholding has been making the same arguments you are, but happy to be shown otherwise), are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?
> "Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory.
Well, they are people living here illegally. I don't see that as inflammatory but a statement of fact. How else would you say that?
> Fiscally responsible politicians should carefully consider the larger questions and tradeoffs including costs of enforcements, larger contributions to the economy, and how much those immigrants actually pay in taxes.
No, fiscally responsible politicians should not be using taxpayer funds to fund people who are living in the country illegally -- against the law except for law enforcement.
Do you realize that many Californians associate more strongly with the undocumented immigrants than they do with people from the south? That is California. That is the state they want to have. It won't be run the way you want it to. I grew up there. I would much rather have my money flow to my neighbor, someone who works hard and is essential to the economy, than someone in Mississippi, no matter their citizenship status.
> "I would much rather have my money flow to my neighbor, someone who works hard and is essential to the economy, than someone in Mississippi, no matter their citizenship status."
You mean, no matter whether they are living in the country legally or not. Well, OK. But I see that there are a lot of veterans that have served their country throughout America and I believe they deserve our support over neighbors who are living in the country illegally. Let's agree to disagree on that one.
Man, you really are upset with the idea of people living in California "illegally". Have you ever speeded and gotten away with it? Does that mean you also live in California "illegally" as that would make you also a scofflaw?
I am upset about the whining. Suck it up California. You elected politicians who use your tax funds on people who are in the country illegally and then you whine because you aren't getting federal funds. Since money is fungible it simply means that you want federal funds to pay for people who live in the country illegally. If you really want funding for the rail which I agree should exist, simply elect politicians that are fiscally responsible. It really is that simple. If you're unwilling to do that, stop whining and suck it up.
Haha. The moocher states can keep mooching and whining. Noblesse oblige. We will clothe you, keep you fed, and give you jobs. And you will complain and try to bite the hand that feeds.
But our kindness is indiscriminatory. Our hearts are big. And we're ever so strong. California will take care of even the lamest of the lambs.
If you want to be fiscally responsible, that train clearly should not exist since it will be used by illegal aliens.
Instead, they should spend the money on giving their law enforcement tanks to keep at each existing station and then if an illegal alien gets on board, they can quickly destroy the tracks and/or train. That way, no money will be spent on aliens, period. Plus, the police get the armaments they need to defend against this immigrant threat.
I didn't make the argument that California should or should not fund anyone over anyone else. That is up to the (good) people of California.
You seemed to indicate the California could have chosen to spend its money in a different manner. You started off by pointing out "Money [is] fungible". I was just pointing out the logical conclusion of that argument.
Instead of down voting, please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally instead of funding a train for people who are here legally.
I don't think anyone wants to fund them, and we aren't. We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. The California agricultural economy would collapse without them since employers can't afford to pay legal wages.
Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem. But as it stands, California is getting a damn fine deal out of their illegal Mexicans.
> We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it.
That fact is immaterial. The fact is that they're breaking the law, despite any other effects.
Would you be ok with somebody living in your back yard if they watered and weeded the garden? After all, they're contributing more to the property than they are taking out of it.
Well is material, since OP specifically said this:
> please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally
Which I addressed. I also stated that the fact they're here illegally is another matter. This was the line in which I did that, in case you have trouble reading:
> Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem.
> please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally
So your argument is that as long as each individual immigrant contributes to society, you're fine with aiding and abetting their breaking of the law? If somebody were a serial bank robber that donated most of their taking to charity, would that be acceptable also, since they're arguably performing a net service to society?
> Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage
In case you have problems reading, the business model of their employer has no relation towards their legal/illegal status. I don't know why you'd highlight that particular quote of yours.
People should have the courage to state their opinion instead of simply down voting. I did not state something that was incorrect at least as far as I know and if I did, I would like to know what is incorrect about it.
Perhaps there should be a rule that when downvoting, people state the reason. I suspect that some readers believe that people living here illegally deserve taxpayer funds. If so, they should have the courage of their convictions.
> 200 illegal aliens are allowed to attend at in-state tuition
Even assuming your premise here, take the differential between in-state and out-of-state UC tuition and multiply it by 200.
That's going to be something on the order of like 3 million dollars? Versus 650 million in transit funding? I propose that "illegal immigrants" is a pointless red herring with respect to this issue.
Is there a reason to believe that the distribution of funds vs the economic activity generated by illegal immigrants is significantly different from any other group?
I'm not sure how accurate it was, but someone wrote a piece about how there's just no way to measure how much a cost that group of people inflict vs contribute. The title of the article kind of says it all, undocumented and unmeasured.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/undocumented-and-unmeasure...
This set expectations for generations of businesses and workers and obviously continues to this day. The re-branding of welcome migrant workers to vile illegal aliens is just politics.
Do migrants depress the wages of American workers? Probably to some degree (I suppose it's like the H1B visa program). Do they interfere with the sovereignty of the United States? I think the argument is ridiculous, just pandering to nationalists.
People are down voting, the but the assessment is a correct one: California citizens need to elect responsible politicians that spend money on people who live in the the US and CA legally instead of those illegally. If they elected responsible politicians that understood this, they would have their train funded.
Taxes should be only spent on people living in the US legally. Not certain why people have a problem with that.
They're much more likely downvoting you for trying to hijack the thread with an unrelated political topic/flamefest and then complaining about getting downvoted.
But it is related. The fact is that the NYT article was complaining about the lack of federal funds, but the true fact is that if the citizens of California elected politicians who did not unwisely pay for people living here illegally, they would have the money for the electric rail. Since money if fungible, since California politicians decided that taxpayer money should go towards people living here illegally, then it means that federal funds are going towards people living here illegally. I think this argument is very sound. I'm really tired of people writing articles and other complaining without stating the full context.
If that electric rail is so very important to California, and I believe it is, then the citizens of California should elect officials that do not use valuable and scarce taxpayer funds to pay for services for people living here illegally. They should elect politicians that spend taxpayer money for the benefit of people living here legally which includes the electric train.
You can relate almost any topic to any topic with the insight 'money is fungible'. Using this to switch subjects to your favourite flamerant is bad, your comment was bad and you should feel bad.
It's largely irrelevant. A few million from college student fees is never allocated to the transportation portion of the budget. Also, the Department of Transportation (federal) has program for infrastructure. If you all don't want that money spent then ask the majority GOP to ax those programs. But as long as those programs exist then California and all other state governments have the right and duty to get as much return on those tax funded programs as possible.
> Not certain why people have a problem with that.
I'm even less certain you're willing to listen to anyone who tries to explain to you how faulty your logic is. Especially since you repeatedly try to distill down the complicated topics to bumperstickerisms.
Please explain why taxpayer funds should be funding people who live in this country illegally. To state that it is a bumperstickerism without providing an explanation for why this is so is an ad hominem attack.
The Federal government is also notoriously lax on prosecuting employers who use undocumented workers. Can you explain why:
a) the Fed withholding funds from California somehow "because" they have spent money supporting illegal aliens is somehow different from:
b) California wanting to withhold funding from the Fed because of their relative disinterest in prosecuting those who knowingly employ undocumented workers (thus exacerbating, if not indirectly causing situation A in the first place)?
I'll assume you are sincere, and write an answer. There are a few reasons I can think of.
1. They (people who live in this country illegally) and their families are often also taxpayers, so... why shouldn't they benefit?
2. It helps promote social stability and harmony.
3. It offers stable households for children growing up in their families.
4. It's the humane way to run a society. It makes our society more humane and less mean spirited, and thus better not just for them, but for the rest of us as well. Maybe this looks like a restatement of #2 but if you think about it, #2 follows from this one. Many of the points follow from each other. For example, the next one:
5. It arguably reduces the types of crimes that emerge when people are in desperate circumstances, which can include theft, burglary, violence, extortion, scamming, and others.
6. It increases public safety, for example if they can get driver licenses, then the existing system which gives everybody an incentive to learn and follow traffic rules will also apply to them, without the extra costs that would be incurred were we to deal with them as extraordinary cases using some other special system.
One thing that shouldn't change is the Caltrain ticketing UI. The interface is simple enough to use, and it responds to user input instantly. I can select the ticket I want with four taps in about a second, where the only slowdown is the actual payment.
Only a small amount of that $647 million was going to Caltrain electrification. It was wrapped in a boondoggle of an omnibus transit spending bill. The real political battle here is to limit Federal spending on CA's ill-routed HSR.
The Democrats are free to introduce a clean bill with just the Caltrain electrification funds. A clean bill (funding ALL of it, even) would sail through Congress.
Voters kicked radical Republicans out of Sacramento so now they're getting D.C. to their dirty work for them. Luckily many of them will lose in 2018, including Darrel Issa.
.svg){kind=link}