(CA) Gov. Brown presents tax hike proposal to voters

[alp227]

Source: SF Chron

Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday unveiled his plan to raise billions of dollars in new tax revenue to aid public education and guarantee funding for local law enforcement agencies that have taken over some state public safety duties.

The governor filed a ballot initiative with the attorney general that would raise taxes on the top income earners in the state as well as raise the state sales tax by half a cent. Both would expire in January 2017, and Brown warned of further cuts to state services if voters reject the proposal in the election in November.

"The stark truth is that without new tax revenues, we will have no other choice but to make deeper and more damaging cuts to schools, universities, public safety and our courts," Brown wrote in an "open letter to the people of California" that was posted on his website and e-mailed to supporters.

He recounted some of the events of his first year in office, including his coming into office facing a $26 billion deficit, significant budget cuts and his inability to persuade Republicans to put a tax measure on the ballot earlier this year.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/06/MN6G1M8M8O.DTL

[RandySF]

1. He can do a lot better than this and get it passed.

[Politicalboi]

3. He could have supported to legalize Marijana

But he wants to do it the hard way I guess. This will probably go down in flames. We already pay 9% I believe, or close to it.

[alp227]

4. You've got to be law-and-order if you want to win in politics

That's why Ron Paul doesn't have much mainstream support.

[Politicalboi]

7. Well Ca does have

"Legal" Marijuana sometimes. LOL! So he wouldn't have looked too ridiculous if he had supported it.

[alp227]

8. that's because it was a ballot initiative for MEDICAL uses only

and look at how the broader Prop. 19 failed last year, shows that the voters are buying into the anti-MJ scare tactics.

[Shoe Horn]

12. 'Law-and-order' is usually just applied to the poor.

Nixon never saw the inside of a court, for instance.



Glen Greenwald did a FANTASTIC talk about this on Link.

One small clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLbGJtLGEuA

LinkLink:
http://www.linktv.org/programs/glenn-greenwald-liberty-and-justice-for-some

[hang a left]

11. Marijuana is decriminalized in Cali

You can possess up to an ounce. You are not supposed to cultivate or sell and distribute.

[sharp_stick]

2. This will be interesting

I'm quite curious to see if he can actually get the voters to approve any new tax hikes.

I've become so cynical that I seriously question the ability to average voter to see beyond their own wallet for a minute.

My cynical side is telling me they'll reject the ballot initiative and then bitch like mad when their roads aren't paved. I hope I'm wrong.

[Politicalboi]

5. LOL!

You're probably right. If they had legalized MJ we wouldn't be talking about raising taxes basically for the poor like this. They should also tax lottery tickets by 10 cents per dollar.

[okieinpain]

9. we have a winner. n/t.

[KamaAina]

6. Oh, this is rich

"If he really cares about protecting schools and our most vulnerable, he will stop whining and get back to the negotiating table so we can hammer out a bipartisan budget deal in time to avoid additional harm to our economy. No one ever said that leadership would be easy," said Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo.

Blakeslee is considered a moderate repuke, one of a handful who has not signed Grover Norquist's odious "No Tax Pledge". Thus, he was considered key to the passage of, you guessed it, a bipartisan budget deal last session. To absolutely no one's surprise, he toed the repuke no-tax party line. Hence, no deal; instead, massive budfget cuts falling particularly heavily on Medi-Cal (our version of Medicaid). Not even Gov. Brown appears intested in restoring those. :(

[Trillo]

10. What does this mean?

He wants to increase income taxes on the wealthy which is a progressive concept, and increase sales taxes, which are considered regressive. If one implements policies with progressive and regressive components, then don't the two tend to cancel each other to some relative degree?

My intuitive guess is this will allow some portion of the middle class, near the point of the increase in income tax bracket (250K?), to receive the least tax increase. Why not instead give the poorest the least tax increase?