-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
No football for California schools this fall
- Thread starter justanotherfan
- Start date
CatGrad-UMGradStu
Well-known member
One would assume there are many issues more critical than athletics facing their schools.
https://www.sacbee.com/article242741996.html
https://www.sacbee.com/article242741996.html
I know it is super easy to crap on California. I mean it is a birthright for any red-blooded citizen from the inter-mountain region of the west. I apologize for this overtly political post, I will gladly accept my punishment at later point.
Prior to this mess, there were two things that were absolutely true about California's budget.
1. In January, Newsom's budget anticipated a 6.1 billion dollar surplus. They weren't borrowing money to pay the bills, and they were paying funded and unfunded mandates over and over again. There was no budget malfeasance.
2. Moreover, the state had a roughly 20 billion dollar rainy day account for exactly situations like this. To avoid calamitous cuts to essential services. So rather than having a roughly 60 billion dollar deficit, the state of California found a way to cut non-essential items from the original January budget, shuffled money into essential programs and managed to lessen the impact. Not sure what your guys opinion is of budget management is, but having billions stowed away for a fiscal emergency seems like sound planning.
With all of that, they are still going to have to make cuts. My field (education) is facing a 10 billion dollar short fall, as well as higher education. This wasn't because of some sort of wishful thinking liberal budget management but rather a pandemic that is global and just not centered on the state of California. I mean if Governor Little for Idaho asked for help from the Federal government because of his budget shortfall, I am not sure he'd get tarred and feathered. If Idaho State had to cut their football program because of the 15 million shortfall, where would the citizens be with their torches and pitch forks?
Last point, and I meant to write this yesterday:
The decision to cut fall sports was made, because of a general hesitance to offer on site athletic offerings in DII schools because of what everyone knew in April was going to happen. These schools are heavily funded by state mechanisms and it would look pretty folly if they had to say, well we have to cut services but we'll have football games on Saturday where no one could attend. You can decry that decision, but it does send a pretty shitty message that athletics are spared the brunt budget cuts just so people can have their fix of a metaphor for combat and land acquisition games. Moreover, there was no assurance that the data was going to improve to the point that it made sense to allow students back to campus and get on-site learning. They cancelled because of budget issues but also to allow other schools who had the DII schools on the schedule to make necessary adjustments. They absolutely didn't want to do this in August.
But by all means, burn Newsom's likeness in effigy and wedge this pandemic into your cute little narrative. But I thought I would provide a bit information, some factual granola to go with your morning coffee.
That is all.
Prior to this mess, there were two things that were absolutely true about California's budget.
1. In January, Newsom's budget anticipated a 6.1 billion dollar surplus. They weren't borrowing money to pay the bills, and they were paying funded and unfunded mandates over and over again. There was no budget malfeasance.
2. Moreover, the state had a roughly 20 billion dollar rainy day account for exactly situations like this. To avoid calamitous cuts to essential services. So rather than having a roughly 60 billion dollar deficit, the state of California found a way to cut non-essential items from the original January budget, shuffled money into essential programs and managed to lessen the impact. Not sure what your guys opinion is of budget management is, but having billions stowed away for a fiscal emergency seems like sound planning.
With all of that, they are still going to have to make cuts. My field (education) is facing a 10 billion dollar short fall, as well as higher education. This wasn't because of some sort of wishful thinking liberal budget management but rather a pandemic that is global and just not centered on the state of California. I mean if Governor Little for Idaho asked for help from the Federal government because of his budget shortfall, I am not sure he'd get tarred and feathered. If Idaho State had to cut their football program because of the 15 million shortfall, where would the citizens be with their torches and pitch forks?
Last point, and I meant to write this yesterday:
The decision to cut fall sports was made, because of a general hesitance to offer on site athletic offerings in DII schools because of what everyone knew in April was going to happen. These schools are heavily funded by state mechanisms and it would look pretty folly if they had to say, well we have to cut services but we'll have football games on Saturday where no one could attend. You can decry that decision, but it does send a pretty shitty message that athletics are spared the brunt budget cuts just so people can have their fix of a metaphor for combat and land acquisition games. Moreover, there was no assurance that the data was going to improve to the point that it made sense to allow students back to campus and get on-site learning. They cancelled because of budget issues but also to allow other schools who had the DII schools on the schedule to make necessary adjustments. They absolutely didn't want to do this in August.
But by all means, burn Newsom's likeness in effigy and wedge this pandemic into your cute little narrative. But I thought I would provide a bit information, some factual granola to go with your morning coffee.
That is all.
Grizfan-24 said:
Grizfan-24,
The California hate is just as strong with the locals here in Arizona. I have a friend who won't go visit his daughter who moved there for her job because of it. Craziness.
Will this recommended daily source of factual granola make egriz more, how do I say this, "regular"?
MTJack
California, and to a lesser extent New York, are the favorite punching bags for the Right.
Holding ca up as beacon of good governance...
No state shits on the Constitution more than ca. Ny is a close second.
No state shits on the Constitution more than ca. Ny is a close second.
Not to take a side, but I have always found it ironic that the right constantly bashes California. Their economy is the fifth largest in the world, as 24 points out they run a large government surplus, and the taxes paid out of California quite LITERALLY pay for large government borrowing done in many of the rural (red) states.
Just can't wrap my brain around that one.
Just can't wrap my brain around that one.
indian-outlaw
Well-known member
Yea those damn democrats in CA that lied to us about WMD in Iraq. Suspended habeous corpus in 2006, set up a worldwide torture network, passed and renewed the Patriot act and vastly increased drone strikes world wide. All those things that are near and dear to our constitution. James Madison would have surely been so proud of these principled republicans today.SoldierGriz said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu
Well-known member
EverettGriz said:
I won't take sides either. Would someone please tell us how many dollars Montana receives from the federal government over each dollar our huge population sends the IRS in tax dollars.
CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
This site is rather simplistic, but it gives a good high-level overview of net federal aid per resident. Montana ranks 34th (in other words, only 16 states receive more net federal aid per person).
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/federal-aid-by-state/
CatGrad-UMGradStu
Well-known member
EverettGriz said:
Thanks. I notice it doesn't include government price support for ag. commodities, timber, maintenance of federal properties, roads, parks, etc. Or is that part of the chart I'm not reading.
While Max was a senator, the CRP program received one hell of a bunch of bitching from some other ag. states. Again, not taking sides but it got difficult to listen to relatives in eastern Montana bitch about all their tax dollars going to the western part of the state.
Anyway, ya'll get back to bitching about Cali. and the fucking yankees...
indian-outlaw
Well-known member
Just FYI, Montana is 30th in commodity ag production amoung states. Is it really an ag state? Oh and California is number one by a huge margin.CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
I have a pretty well founded perspective on the purpose of tax dollars and I know that it will differ from the vast majority who post here, and my point is: to each his own. I accept my role as a taxpayer, because more than not it is my belief that it is about the greatest good for the greatest number. Anyhow..
I was struck by a strange dichotomy when I started doing research for my college thesis at the UM in the history department in regards to the role of federal assistance in rural areas. One the one hand, rural areas (primarily due to the role of Ag subsidies) are enormously dependent on the federal government for assistance. Most during the 1980's and early 90's wouldn't have survived the farm crisis without significant federal aid. Yet Montana and other rural states became the hot bed for rural radical and anti-government behavior. They felt, in spite of all the yearly aid,that the federal government was the problem. Maybe it was to some degree, but that has been their target for 40 years now.
I have seen it in both Montana, Idaho and in California, people will be more than happy to accept federal aid when they don't realize it is. Had a family in Idaho getting their insurance through the Idaho insurance collective and meanwhile was ripping Obamacare left and right. They didn't realize at the time, maybe they never did, that those block grants for insurance programs came not from Idaho Coffers but rather in federal government payouts.
The point being, is that no state could survive without significant federal investment. As I tell my students all the time in my government classes, that federal involvement is everywhere and for the most part for the greater good. But again that is neither here nor there.
Appreciate the conversation.
I was struck by a strange dichotomy when I started doing research for my college thesis at the UM in the history department in regards to the role of federal assistance in rural areas. One the one hand, rural areas (primarily due to the role of Ag subsidies) are enormously dependent on the federal government for assistance. Most during the 1980's and early 90's wouldn't have survived the farm crisis without significant federal aid. Yet Montana and other rural states became the hot bed for rural radical and anti-government behavior. They felt, in spite of all the yearly aid,that the federal government was the problem. Maybe it was to some degree, but that has been their target for 40 years now.
I have seen it in both Montana, Idaho and in California, people will be more than happy to accept federal aid when they don't realize it is. Had a family in Idaho getting their insurance through the Idaho insurance collective and meanwhile was ripping Obamacare left and right. They didn't realize at the time, maybe they never did, that those block grants for insurance programs came not from Idaho Coffers but rather in federal government payouts.
The point being, is that no state could survive without significant federal investment. As I tell my students all the time in my government classes, that federal involvement is everywhere and for the most part for the greater good. But again that is neither here nor there.
Appreciate the conversation.
CatGrad-UMGradStu
Well-known member
What percent of Montana's GDP is ag.? I know on the national scale we don't produce anything to speak of.indian-outlaw said:
About all we contribute are a bunch of whiney small businesses that suck up to the tourists and whatever comes out of Gallatin County. Lots of tourist dollars there too. And vacation homes. Lots of them. And fucking Canucks. All over the state. Alberta, British Columbia and once in a while Saskachew one.
indian-outlaw
Well-known member
It is interesting that Montana would have much tourism to offer Canadians. What could someone from British Columbia find in Montana that they don't have in spades there?CatGrad-UMGradStu said:
CatGrad-UMGradStu
Well-known member
indian-outlaw said:
Cheap gas, land and condos, and city fathers who tell the cops to leave them alone so they can act like an ass and distribute their heroin...
indian-outlaw said:
Good Lord. Dems voted in nearly equal proportion for the WMD. No single president killed more with drone strikes than a Dem; it's not even close.
As far as Ca goes...I hear they'd be happy to have you.
