DiFi on the draconian California budget cuts: Tough sh*t, you voted for it !!!

[marmar]

from the SF Chronicle:



Feinstein's tough love: Californians voted for cuts, now they'll get them


Democratic U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Friday had some tough love regarding Californians' growing complaints about major cuts to state services -- welfare, health care and parks among them -- in the wake of Tuesday's special election. Her take: You wanted them, you got them.

Listen here.

Feinstein was asked her reaction to the massive budget cuts, including an additional $3 billion in reductions announced today that would impact school busing, in-home services for the disabled as well as K-12 funding, during a visit this afternoon to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

And the Senator, who hasn't entirely closed the door to a 2010 gubernatorial run, had a direct comeback: the governor and the legislature now have no alternative.

"I have been around in 15 elections. I have never seen a time when the voters did what they did, in view of what they were told about cuts, in the enormous defeat of these propositions,'' she said. "I can't give you the reason for it, but I can tell you, to me it was astonishing.''

"And what they said is, in so many words, take the cuts, because that's the alternative. And nobody wants them, but people have to understand.'' ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=40875&tsp=1

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Stuck clock but she is right

I voted, and not for cuts, but I was overruled by the other three who voted in the state...

[shanti]

84. bull

the whole "special election" was a sham. doesn't matter if it passed or not, der fuhrer and his handlers had his own agenda. this unqualified bimbo wasn't installed for no reason at all.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Actually, she's right. My firm did a LOT of polling in Calif. and they NEVER want to pay taxes, yet

they want govt. services.

DiFi's right on this one.

[Cant trust em]

6. Bing! Bing! Bing!

It is the central problem for California. We can't have the best universities, the best social safety net and the best transportation infrastructure without paying for it.

[question everything]

39. And all the ballot measures that mandate funding of all type of programs

but never details how they would be funded.

I think that one of the propositions that failed was to take money from these programs.

[Deja Q]

9. Seconded.

Most people are like that song, "Money for Nothing" and don't realize it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACGUasFWVsI

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. You and I talked about this the other day

now it is coming home to roost

This state either realizes, pay for them services or compete with Mississippi in that quality of life game

[Captain Hilts]

11. Was this driven by Republicans???? Was Calif. a high tax state before 13? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

Yes, and the third rail of US politics now is higher taxes

Also 13 was done with the best of intentions to protect the property of very long time residents, mostly in their senior years, who's houses went up in value like almost instant, and could no longer afford the taxes

But 13 has led to weird things.. . Warren Buffet pays less property taxes than I do...

13 needs to be repealed and the whole tax code revised... but chiefly Californians need to understand this low tax, high services economy is unsustainable. To run all them services, well we need to pay for them... and the devil is in the details.

As to republicans what they did in the 90s is that they passed legislation requiring 75% of the member of the house and senate to approve it. That ain't gonna happen, and Cali is paying now for the "conservative stage" in the 1990s.

[Selatius]

17. I think quite a few haven't learned that nothing good ever came for free.

The Europeans learned about good infrastructure the hard way. They watched it get destroyed in not one but two world wars. They pay high taxes, but they also expect great infrastructure and services like single-payer health insurance in return. There is a trade-off in every investment decision, but some decisions yield greater returns on investment than others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. True and Muricans in general have been propagandized to the

evils of taxes for thirty plus years. Well it is coming home to roost. For once I am so glad I don't have kids.

And yes, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes (gasp) so we could have world class education from Kindergarden to PhDs, like we used to. But we used to pay for it too.

And I don't have kids... there are days I wonder about my fellow Californians in particular, and Americans in general

[Selatius]

23. I would pay higher taxes for health insurance coverage. Right now, I have none.

I am literally one catastrophic illness or one catastrophic car wreck from financial ruin.

I used to want kids, and I remember thinking that couples and people who didn't have kids were somehow less or lacking than those that did. I guess that was the socialization I got growing up in Mississippi. Now, after reading about avoiding catastrophic global warming being all but impossible given current trends and after witnessing one of the worst presidencies and idiotic wars in American history, I don't feel sorry for those who don't have kids anymore.

I feel sorry for those that do. Their children and their children's children are going to grow up in a battered world. They're going to know nothing but high gas prices and scarce food. They're probably going to be sucked into wars for the remaining sources of fossil fuel left on the planet if not wars for prime farmland and drinking water. They're going to watch forests wither and farmlands turn to desert because of climate change. They're going to watch small island nations disappear under rising oceans and witness massive hurricanes on global warming steroids submerging American cities like New Orleans.

It's going to be a cruel century, I fear. It's my nightmare.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Of course, taxes can and should pay for health care,

single payer, everybody covered

World class education,

World class law enforcement and EMS

You know what we used to have (save for health care)

We didn't because of the navy. We have three parrots, our eternal two year olds, but kids. I told my BIL at this point if I had a young family I'd consider moving away from California. It's going to be horrible here and yes overall. I fear California is leading the way, and not in a good way.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. I was actually having an argument with a friend of mine the other day...

...that was very reminiscent of this. My basic argument was: Let's say you have a billion dollars. You can either use it to fund a ballot-measure initiated program that implements sports programs for mentally disabled children (which is good) vs. fixing an aqueduct that supplies the same mentally disabled children (and everybody else) with water for drinking. On the one hand, it's horrible to deprive mentally disabled children of much needed services. On the other, these services are not of much use if the people in question have no clean water supply. That is, in a nutshell, the situation which California is confronting right now. And at some point, something is going to have to give. Either we go into massive debt via bonds (not sustainable,) raise taxes (not workable due to the fact that all of the Republicans in CA are massive anti-tax crazies,) or cut spending (not politically tenable for the reasons expressed above.) So really it is a very bad situation.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Divisible vs. Indivisible benefits of society. nt

[Retrograde]

30. so why did my county (Santa Clara) vote in additional sales taxes

to fund transportation last November? And not for the first time?

We also voted for some of the funding measures this month. Unfortunately, the rest of the state doesn't agree.

[Occam Bandage]

55. Because your county is not representative of CA. nt

[ShadowLiberal]

68. Which is the whole problem with letting voters have a direct say in the budget/tax process

It would be better if somehow some 3rd party group of people who weren't politicians decided what tax rates to put on stuff, the politicians could only say stuff like "we'll earn most of our tax revenue through income taxes, and X% of it from the top Y% income earners in the state".

[Lorien]

114. The same is true in pretty much every state. nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mythsaje]

4. Read some of the responses n/t

[rpannier]

5. I liked the idea one of the responders had

that required all propositions had to include the tax increase to pay for it

[pkdu]

7. Sorry folks but she's right...if only 22% can get off their arse and vote

...and most of us vote "NO" then we deserve what we get !...

[msongs]

8. no gay marriage 50%+1 = democracy yet CA budget pass w/50%+1 = tyranny by majority???

the ultimate hypocrites, republicans, in alliance with their bible thumper friends, claim we need to honor the majority no matter what (outlaw mormon marriage, anyone) yet those same repubs shriek in horror when it is suggested maybe the legislature should be allowed to pass a budget with a simple majority vote.

looks like next year is a good time to try again to get approval for the legislature to have a simple majority budget process.

all the people screaming because of budget cuts can show up at the polls and THIS TIME approve that change.

Msongs
Riverside CA

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

35. He was being kind.

Frankly, I'd rather he was my Senator. ;)

[Occam Bandage]

15. She's right. Californians vote for money for dumb shit, and vote against tax hikes.

They oughtn't be surprised when necessary services are then cut.

[shanti]

85. AND

they vote freaking musclehead "actors" into office too!

[bemildred]

16. We voted for her too, when will we learn? nt

[KittyWampus]

19. do you disagree with what she said regarding topic of opening post?

[bemildred]

20. I disagree with the notion that it is up to the electorate to fix the budget problems.

That is what our "representative government" is tasked with. If they fail to do that, the electorate will replace them with someone else, until the electorate is once again happy with the results.

[Occam Bandage]

26. That would be reasonable, if not for the fact that CA allows the electorate

to directly create budget problems.

[bemildred]

28. Well, there are problems with it.

But CA allows the legislature to directly fix budget problems too.

[Occam Bandage]

29. And that's what the legislature is doing. Fixing the problems that the electorate created,

both directly (through the utter failure that has been direct democracy) and indirectly (through CA voters' demand that legislators provide more services and reduce taxes in every session).

The electorate may not like it, but it's the obvious result of a long chain of stupid elections and stupider decisions on propositions. You cannot eternally demand the government spend more and take in less, and expect there will never be repercussions.

[bemildred]

31. It does not appear to me that the problems are fixed, or are being fixed.

I don't want to be in the position of defending the California electorate, they can vote for stupid things. But on the other hand I see zero chance that anything useful will be accomplished by the governor/legislature throwing tantrums because the electorate does not vote the way they were told to. If they don't want to lead, they should resign. My impression is that the legislature and/or governor are not able to find their own assholes with both hands and a road map, and I am not willing to get into the failures of the voting public while it remains the case the the "leaders" are worse failures.

[Occam Bandage]

57. They can't raise most taxes, because of what the voters did.

The only option they have is to cut spending. The electorate cannot claim it is not responsible when the problem is a combined result of 1. the propositions they passed, and 2. the legislators who were re-elected over literally decades of poor financial planning.

I'm getting fed up with watching Californians perpetually blame anyone who tries to clean up their messes. Yes, budget cuts suck. Guess you shouldn't have voted to cap property taxes. And guess you shouldn't have voted out any legislators who didn't promise to raise spending and cut taxes. Now spending has to shrink. It isn't a "tantrum;" it's fiscal reality. When you have no money, you need to either get more money, or spend less money. And if you can't do the first, you gotta do the second.

[bemildred]

59. So what is it we need them for if they are just helpless tools?

One never gets far in politics by blaming the public. The legislature could have put propositions on the ballot to redress the structural issues in the state budget, they did not. They gave us a contrived, cowardly mess instead, and it was rightly rejected, by a 2 to 1 margin. They need to be replaced with a legislature that is willing to do what is needed, and that has more than fear and threats in its arsenal of means to convince the voting public to vote for it.

[Occam Bandage]

78. They're doing what is needed now. And CA doesn't like it one bit.

The California electorate seems absolutely convinced that the budget is utterly unrelated to either taxes or government spending, and that it is possible to fix the budget without raising taxes or cutting spending. Every time the legislature or a Governor suggests doing either, the dumbfucks in California vote them out in favor of another pandering jackass who promises lower taxes and more services.

It's absolutely bizarre to watch a stream of Californians complaining that the legislature won't do what's needed, that they're too highly taxed, and that they refuse to stand by while the government cuts spending on services. If it's true that the legislature won't do what's needed, it's because Californians insist on electing leaders who refuse to do what's needed.

CA's budget crisis isn't a one-year, short-term, easily-fixed mistake. It's a massive, deep-seated problem that's been coming for decades, and that's been coming because of the deliberate decisions of the Californian people. You're right that nobody gets far in politics by blaming people for their own actions. But I'm not in politics, so I can safely say what Californian politicians (with the exception of DiFi and a few others) are too cowardly to say: California put itself into this situation. Don't like the budget crisis? Tough shit. You voted for it.

[bemildred]

83. Oh yeah, this is exactly what California needs.

You can take your anger and ram it up your ass. So can DiFi. I have voted for her every time she ran here, but I never will vote for her again.

[ContinentalOp]

97. Great false choice there.

"Hey Californians, you can either increase sales taxes which fall disproportionately on the poor, or we can cut much needed social programs, slash education funding, etc."

"wait, but why cant we..."

"NO those are your two choices"

[shanti]

87. thank you!

:thumbsup:

[Spider Jerusalem]

62. In a state where funding and taxation are subject to direct ballot initiative...

then the legislature's hands are tied to a certain extent. What the issue highlights is the abject failure of direct democracy in California by means of propositions and initiatives and the need for state-level constitutional reform.

[bemildred]

74. So then, you agree with me? nt

[shanti]

86. never again!

n/t

[ContinentalOp]

21. I still haven't seen anybody explain how those wonderful propositions would have prevented cuts.

They were ALL cuts, plus a spending cap! The only tax increase would have taken effect two years from now. But then it makes sense that a DINO like her would have supported Arnold's props.

[girl gone mad]

32. They would NOT have prevented cuts.

They might have slightly reduced cuts. They were talking about raising some $6B when the shortfall is $28B and growing by $2B per month. On top of that they were poorly written. Of course DiFi would be an Arnold apologist.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

22. Sad but true

Californians have been warned for thirty years about the (cumulative) impact of the halfwit propositions they have voted for, but majorities have believed the well financed bloviating of the Reichwing and approved them anyway. I am no particular fan of the Governator, but this shitstorm is NOT his fault. Cal governors have had their hands tied ever tighter by idiocies like Prop 13 and the 2/3 requirement of both houses for tax increases, two of the most spectacular pieces of stupidity that have ever been dreamed up. (Don't even get me started on "three strikes" :mad:)

Memo to the masses - if you want government services, SOMEONE has to PAY for them.

Yes. the pain is going to fall most on those least responsible (when does it not in this country?) but the greater mass of Californians have no one but themselves to blame for this tsunami of insanity.

[shanti]

88. he absolutely

has a hand in what is happening now! or did you forget enron? the auto registration fiasco? etc., etc.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

92. I thought the Enron scams were back in 2001-2

which is pre-Ahhnuld.

[shanti]

94. they were

but he was installed to prevent us being paid back, and it worked!

[Greyhound]

25. Seven years since I left that state of psychosis, but to play devil's advocate,

what I heard, and felt myself, once you get into the debate was not so much an unwillingness to pay for services but a deep-seated anger at the monumentally wasteful way in which the government spends the money we give them and the stupidity so many of the things it is spent on.

Just look at what Pete Wilson went through trying to bring some semblance of sanity to the budget process in LA.

[MadHound]

27. California got a reputation for being a uber liberal place,

But the fact of the matter is that when it comes to taxes, Californians vote like rabid conservatives. After thirty years of things like Prop 13 and other anti-tax bullshit, well guess what, California now gets to pay the piper. This is what happens when you follow the conservative mantra of no new taxes.

The sad thing is that California's economic collapse is going to take down the rest of the country with it. After all, California is/was the 8th largest economy on Earth, and when you take that kind of money out of our national economic picture, well, we're all screwed.

So hey, thanks California! Your anti-tax bullshit is not only going to doom your state, but drag the rest of us along for the ride.

[taught_me_patience]

36. Fuck I'm sick of this shit

Do you live in California and pay our outrageous taxes? We have a 9% sales tax and 9% income tax. Do you pay that much? We simply can't pay any more. Our unemployment rate is 11%... how much shittier would the economy be with even higher taxes? I'm sick of people in other states bitching that we have "anti-tax" bullshit. Why can't the federal government bail us out? They've been sucking our teat for $50B/year and give billions to banks but nothing for California? FUCK THIS SHIT.

[REP]

38. 9.25% in my county

I pay a LOT of state taxes and huge sales tax. This isn't something taxpayers caused.

[LibDemAlways]

41. We are heavily taxed here, I agree. My husband and I paid a big

state income tax bill this year and the sales tax did, indeed, just go up another per cent. The only people who get a Prop. 13 break are longtime homeowners who bought when prices were low. People who buy homes at today's inflated prices pay big property tax bills.

People who don't live here are clueless about our tax situation and have no business pontificating about it.

[ContinentalOp]

42. Exactly!

It's not like nobody in CA pays property tax. It's just that they fall more far more heavily on the young and the older owners get a somewhat unfair break. We pay around 1.3% of the original purchase price of our house, so that's just under the national average. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/11leonhardt-avgproptaxrates.html This list shows CA pretty close to the bottom, but that's surely adjusting for current market value. Because our real estate prices are so inflated, the actual dollar amount we pay is pretty high and this site shows that the median property tax bill in CA puts us at the 10th highest spot in the nation. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/PropertyTaxesWhereDoesYourStateRank.aspx

[Bluenorthwest]

100. Not just longtime homeowners,

also longtime holders of massive amounts of profit making real estate. And that is why the people got stuck with it in the first place, and why it is seemingly impossible to remove.
I don't live there anymore, but I did for the vast majority of my life, my first ballot had a 'No on 13' vote and the last in CA was against Arnie. And this bit of information might grab your notion of who can and who can not speak about CA. I still pay income tax to CA. In every state of the union, there are people paying taxes to CA, who have never lived there, many of whom have not even been there in years. I file in CA, I pay to CA, from age 18 to the freaking grave. So with the payment of tax, comes the right to speak.
So lots of people who don't live there send yearly checks are sent to the FTB, from all over America.

[ContinentalOp]

111. Why would you pay income taxes in CA if you never lived there?

I'm not doubting you, I just can't figure out how that works.

[LibDemAlways]

112. Did not intend to insult anyone who pays taxes in CA, whether or

not they live here. If you pay California taxes, you are a California tax payer. My husband lives in California but works in Washington State, where there is no state income tax. However, since his "home office" is in LA, he pays CA state income tax on money earned in Washington, to the tune of over $12,000 last year.

[MadHound]

47. Quit 'cher whining.

I've seen you all over these boards the past couple of days whining and moaning about your tax rates, when the fact of the matter is that your taxes are no worse than others and better than some. I live in Missouri, our state sales tax is 7%, CA's is 7.25%, but guess what, while we still have to pay sales tax on food, California doesn't. Individual city and county taxes vary by locale, but the modest city that I lived in until a few years ago has a sales tax rate of 3.10% tacked on to that, making for a total of 10.3%. The county that I moved to, just a couple dozen miles down the road has a sales tax rate of 1.5%, making for a total of 8.5%, and that's for sales out in the county. Sales tax in any of the small towns is higher due to city sales taxes that are tacked on, for totals of 9% or more. Quit 'cher whining.

Furthermore, while the upper income brackets does indeed pay 9.3% income tax in CA, the lower income bracket only pays 1%. Compare this to 6% for the upper income bracket in Missouri and 1.5% for the lower income bracket in Missouri. What, you must be one of those rich fucks who doesn't want to contribute, quit 'cher whining.

Then let's get to the real kicker, property taxes. While the median amount of property taxes per $1000.00 is $8.22 in Missouri, in California the median rate is $4.77/1000.00 of valuation. Hello, McFly! How the hell are you going to fund your state services when your property taxes are so insufficient? Why do you think that everything from a game of basketball at the city gym to zoo admission is no longer free or low cost? Because you fools, in your rage and anger threw the baby out with the bathwater and passed Prop. 13. You were warned decades ago, by folks like Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson that this shit would happen, that your state would implode economically, and now you're having to pay the piper. Hell, even the big businesses in the state fought against Prop. 13, even though they stood to benefit the most, because they knew that by taking away state funding, infrastructure would crumble and California would go into the toilet. And so it has. California ranks right down there with Mississippi in terms of education, your roads and infrastructure are crumbling, and now you're faced with this ultimate implosion. Hell, even ten years ago, when things were starting to get really bad, despite the fact that people in the know, reasonable people both liberal and conservative pointed out the looming crisis and begged the public to eliminate, or at least modify Prop 13 in order to keep the state solvent, but noooo, all you Jarvis wannabes stuck your heads in the sand and said no. So quit 'cher whining.

Sorry, but California is not that different from many other states when it comes to taxes. It certainly isn't the top taxed state in the country, in any category. What California has done is tied the hands of it lawmakers and in its madness did away with it's main source of revenue. And now, when you're faced with the ultimate destruction of your state, here you are, crying again that you don't want anymore taxes. Well, bub, you made your bed on this one, this is the ultimate result of the rabid conservative movement of paying as few taxes as possible, live with it. And again, quit 'cher whining.

The really sucky part of this whole scenario is twofold. First, those who are well off, and who like yourself supported the no tax mantra have the means and wherewithal to vacate the state, leaving the crumbling hulk of California for the poor and less fortunate to deal with. But what really sucks is that the collapse of California will have nationwide effects and negatively impact the country in a huge way, possibly bringing the rest of us down. Good job, it is anti-tax idiots like you who might bring down not just the state of California, but the entire nation. And the rest of us had absolutely no say in the madness you and your ilk perpetrated so long ago.

So quit 'cher whining.

[tabasco]

48. Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.

[bemildred]

49. That's very good.

Now if our "leaders" were to start spending some time pointing these obvious facts out, and putting propositions before the voting public that would remedy these structural failures, and fighting vigorously for their passage, and being scrupulous to avoid waste of the public monies, then I would start to believe that they actually mean well. A fish rots from the head.

[taught_me_patience]

53. I have a legit complaint

observe:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html

California # 6 - 10.5%
Missouri #32 - 9.2%

Secondly, your "median" numbers are screwed because it is irrelevant compared to the marginal tax rate on property. Someone buying a new home pays about 1.25% or $10.25/$1000 in valuation. Valuations are probably triple Missouri.

Looks like we have legit complaint to whine.

[MadHound]

54. No, it looks like you're relying on rabid right wing think tanks

And convoluted number crunching to try and prove your point. The fact of the matter is that the Tax Foundation is the same group of nutters who bring you their screwy little "Tax Freedom Day" that day that they supposedly have figured out when you stop working to pay taxes and start working for your own earnings. Sorry, but their bogus bullshit has been proven wrong time and again. The numbers that you threw up in your post are simply more bogus bullshit. Next time try using the original sources, like I did, rather than some rabid RW think tank that somehow mushes the numbers together to get whatever the hell they feel like.

Second, you obviously have forgotten your basic measures of center, namely what the term "median" means. Yes there is going to be half of the population of California that pays above that $4.77/1000 number, but on the flip side half the population pays BELOW that $4.77/1000 number! No matter how you try to spin it, the fact of the matter is that you guys cut your own throat with Prop. 13 thirty years ago. You were warned about it then (again, by big business of all people, the ones who gained the most from it), you were given several warning in the subsequent years and decades, along with ample opportunity to rectify the matter and prevent this economic tsunami from coming ashore. But noooo, you cried out that there should be no new taxes, stuck your heads in the sand, and now whine and moan now that the tsunami is breaking onshore.

Sorry, but you made your bed, now lie in it. What did you do ten years ago when the government was screaming that Prop. 13 needed to be reformed in order to prevent this catastrophe? Chant the same mantra that you're doing now, no new taxes? What did you do when Pete Wilson was trying to straighten out the mess, vote for Arnie?

The only legit complaint that you have to whine about is the fact that you and the majority of your fellow Californians were big enough dumbasses to fall for the anti-tax mantra of the rabid RW. The rest of the country didn't force this on you, you're not paying an overall outrageous amount of taxes (especially given the amount of services you've voted for yourself and the amount of infrastructure the state has to keep up). No, you and your fellow anti-tax nuts have slowly strangled the once fine state of California, and now all of us, across the country, get to pay for your stupidity as California economically implodes and takes the rest of us with you.

Gee, thanks for nothing.

[ContinentalOp]

61. Your history is all screwed up.

Prop 13 was passed over 30 years ago. Most of us didn't vote for it, couldn't yet vote against it, and in many cases weren't even born yet. And I don't recall Arnold ever running against Pete Wilson, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Also interesting that you would credit a Republican with "trying to straighten out the mess". The very man who won his Senate seat by running in favor of Prop 13, against his opponent Jerry Brown who was opposed to it!

[MadHound]

64. OK, you may have not have been around to vote against Prop 13

But gee, it's not like the opportunity to overturn it, modify it, restructure, do something about it hasn't been put forward time and again for the past thirty years. What did you do then, yawn widely and go on your merry way. Hell, ten years ago when people were trying to avert this train wreck, it turns out that more were in favor of Prop. 13 then than at the time of its passage. Hello, McFly!

Oh, and get your history straight, Pete Wilson was a voracious opponent of Prop. 13, along with Jerry Brown and Big Business. "Wilson's opposition to Proposition 13 contributed heavily to his poor performance in the gubernatorial election and, ironically, to the fiscal crisis confronting Wilson twelve years later when he succeeded in the governor's race." <http://www.answers.com/topic/pete-wilson>

Sometimes it helps to have been old enough and politically aware enough to know what went on way back when.

[ContinentalOp]

75. Something is screwy...

from your own link "In 1982, Wilson won the Republican primary in California to replace retiring senator S.I. Hayakawa. His Democratic opponent was outgoing two term governor Jerry Brown. Wilson was known as a fiscal conservative who supported Proposition 13 while Brown opposed it. " :shrug:

Since you were alive at the time I'll have to defer to your memory. Accordingly it would be nice if you would not blame me and millions of other Californians who weren't even alive when it was passed.

[Occam Bandage]

80. Prop 13 could theoretically have been overturned in every single election since.

But yet there was no attempt to do so.

[ContinentalOp]

98. OK, I didn't think so.

MadHound made it sound like I had somehow voted against every anti-Prop-13 initiative that was placed in front of me, when I don't ever recall seeing one.

[ContinentalOp]

60. You're wrong right in your second sentence.

California's state sales tax is 8.25%, the highest in the nation. With local taxes added on it's above 10% in most areas. Kind of makes the rest of your argument moot when you can't even get simple numbers correct.

[MadHound]

63. My bad, my original information came from a source that was a year or so old

That said(and yes, it would help if your government would clean up its web site), it still doesn't mitigate the fact that your property tax, thanks to Prop. 13, is fucked up royally. That's where your problem is, and yet you and your fellow Californians have refused, time and again, despite warnings from people ranging from Jerry Brown to Big Business(who benefits the most from Prop. 13) that continuing down the road you're on was a recipe for economic disaster.

As far as being above 10%, well, as I pointed out earlier there are many locales that have sales tax rates approaching or above ten percent. But more to the point, we don't artificially suppress our main source of funding, namely property taxes. We're smart enough to realize that if we're going to have state services, we need to pay for them. Again, $4.77/$1000.00 dollars of valuation is your median property tax rate. That's insane! We don't offer near the amount of services that California does, yet our property tax rate runs at a median of $8.22/$1000.00 of valuation.

It is property tax, and Prop. 13 where you and your state has screwed the pooch, and you would best be served by raising that number quickly. Otherwise down the toilet you're going to go, and have nobody to blame but yourselves. Sadly, you're going to take the rest of the country down with you, all because you followed the anti-tax pied piper to its ultimate, messy conclusion.

[votingupstart]

67. interesting figures - i realize i dont really know my own citys tax

i will have to do a little more research on my own town to figure out the specifics for me

[MadHound]

69. You can find the information here

<http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/sutprograms.htm>

Be careful, apparently as part of the state's cutback in services they're not cleaning up their website very well. I made the mistake of doing a search on state sales tax and wound up quoting a figure that was a couple years out of date and a percentage point off.

[votingupstart]

73. thanks

[Cleita]

33. That's okay! Blame the lack of leadership of our politicians on us!

The initiatives were incomprehensible to most Californians who tried to vote so they voted against them. Most of them stayed home because they couldn't even make a protest vote. They couldn't understand the right and wrong side of the ballot. But go ahead and blame us.

[Occam Bandage]

56. I blame the direct democratic system California has. As you point out, voters are too stupid

to comprehend the meaning of ballot initiatives, to say nothing of the long-term effect. You can't possibly educate the electorate, because any serious attempt at discussion is drowned out by well-funded advertising and media campaigns. Voters are stupid and should not be allowed to directly vote on legislation; they should vote for representatives and then vote based on what kind of job the representatives did.

Of course, CA voters did that stupidly too, always demanding more spending and lower taxes. And now, they're feeling the results of their abject stupidity.

[malletgirl02]

58. The Dark Side of Direct Democracy

I agree, I was going to make an OP about the problems of direct democracy but you said it better than I could. Many people think that direct democracy makes things better, but as we seen with the budget crisis in California and Prop 8 there is a dark side.

[shanti]

89. i believe this

most people don't give a rat's ass about politics, but i bet they sign that recall petition!

[BlooInBloo]

66. Blaming the electorate for how the electorate votes makes perfect sense to me.

[Cleita]

70. Too bad I didn't save my election materials.

I would put the propositions up as they were written and ask DUers exactly how they would have voted on them or if they could even understand them? How is the average working person, raising children, supposed to find the time to figure them out with all the doublespeak involved. I couldn't. I voted according to recommendations that democratic groups I trusted recommended.

[creeksneakers2]

34. Its not just California

Same thing at the national level. People want lots of stuff but aren't willing to pay for it. They are like children. Its time that reality struck.

[havocmom]

51. We have olur WINNUR!

Cannot have things without paying for things. The infrastructure built in the 30s by FDR's 'stimulus package' is crumbling and needs to be rebuilt. Sadly the scions of FDR's enemies have fallen for the lie that society does not have to pay to make a nation great. We are now seeing the results of that mindset.

California is just leading the way because it is such a huge economy that its demise is very graphic. The problem is national and while I rarely agree with DiFi these days, she has a point. Can't have all the goodies without paying.

Creeksneakers also has a point: People are childish and reality is hitting them in their fantasies.

[JI7]

37. California pays a lot of taxes and a lot of it ends up in red states where they don't pay as much as

we do.

[LooseWilly]

40. The initiatives were about borrowing.

They were a collection of schemes to turn the state lotto system over to the state, and in exchange the state "promised" to cover the lotto income which is currently guaranteed to go to schools... the initiatives then proposed to borrow $5B against future income of the lotto... and then had some analysis that suggested that allowing increased pay outs would increase lotto ticket sales and overall lotto income.

I voted against them, because I didn't trust the state to honor its "commitment" to pay a like amount toward schools once the lotto was turned over to the general fund control of the state.

It was an attempt to fake a budget that would've essentially been a band aid on a financial hemorrhage.

The whole scheme reminded me of some of the most fanciful plans of the least competent hustlers that I saw in the years I drove a taxi in Oakland. People with schemes to pick up handicapped subsidy taxi vouchers from their grandmothers, which they somehow dreamed that I'd then buy off them at face value, which would then leave them with a cool $50 or $100 in their pocket... and they then dreamed that I'd be so happy to have bought the vouchers off them at face value, that I wouldn't bother to charge them for driving them across town, and then back. Some of them even figured that we'd become such great pals on the ride that I'd then lend them some of the money back... since I "knew where to find them"... which generally meant that they'd called for the ride from someone else's house.

If the lawmakers of California... and specifically the Republicans... refuse to raise taxes... I would've hoped that the Democratically controlled legislature would've made a point of cutting the budget of their pet programs... like cops and prisons. Apparently local California Democrats are just as unwilling to play hardball as the national Democrats though. Always easier to go after the poor, handicapped, and the children.

So be it. If the Democrats won't play hard ball... maybe the people will. Sooner or later, maybe pressure will be put on Republican lawmakers... or maybe California will become a third world state.

I'm kind of fascinated to watch metaphorical shit hit a metaphysical fan...

[Luminous Animal]

43. Excellent post.

Not one of the props had anything to do with raising taxes. Feinstein is a corporate welfare piece of shit.

[shanti]

90. that's how

i saw these initiatives too. smoke and mirrors....we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

[jbnow]

44. Clearly there has to be cuts but welfare and health care?

What, cut luxuries from those on welfare? Anyone getting welfare is barely scraping by. Anyone getting help for health care has no other options.

Reminds me of that 60 minutes segment where lack of funding closed the only oncology center that treated the uninsured. They felt bad but had to make cuts.
They showed the people with cancer no longer getting treated

It wrenches your gut.

[Luminous Animal]

46. Clearly the wealthy need to pay their fair share in taxes.

When the poor in California pay 12% of their income in taxes and the rich a mere 7%, there is something grossly amiss.

[Hannah Bell]

45. she's a lying tool.

[havocmom]

52. who occasionally makes a valid point. How much can you take out of a store

without paying for all of it?

[shanti]

91. even a broke clock

is right twice a day! she gets no credit here!

[Bandit]

50. And to think Davis was recalled for "Fiscal Malfeasance"..

California you have to dance with the one that brung ya..

[Cleita]

Davis was recalled because the Bush White House wanted a Republican

Governor that wouldn't question the malfaesance of Enron in our energy crisis of that time. Darryl Issa, the Congressman who started it all, was a tool of the White House because he thought they would anoint him governor, but once they were done with him, they made him step down and pushed for Arnold instead, someone they knew the moderate Democrats would vote for. The recall had Karl Rove's stamp all over it. Governor Ann Richards before she died, just about said so in an interview she did.

[Occam Bandage]

79. All the Rovian politics in the world don't work if the electorate doesn't go along with 'em. nt

[Cleita]

71. Davis was recalled because the Bush White House wanted a Republican

Governor that wouldn't question the malfaesance of Enron in our energy crisis of that time. Darryl Issa, the Congressman who started it all, was a tool of the White House because he thought they would anoint him governor, but once they were done with him, they made him step down and pushed for Arnold instead, someone they knew the moderate Democrats would vote for. The recall had Karl Rove's stamp all over it. Governor Ann Richards before she died, just about said so in an interview she did.

[LooseWilly]

110. Davis was recalled, ostensibly, over a plan to raise auto registration fees...

to cover the monies the state had to pay to cover the re-financing of energy deals as Enron defrauded the state.

Davis and Lt. Governor Bustamante filed lawsuits against Enron, and all the Execs at Enron to try to recover lost monies...

Ken Lay and various other energy types who've been associated with Cheney's secret Energy Policy meetings attended the meetings with Schwarzenegger to plan his run in the recall.

Once Schwarzenegger won, he settled the lawsuits for pennies on the dollar.

Now, after numerous attempts at re-districting and cutting education and cutting wages for nurses and so on have been only mildly successful... Scwarzenegger is now passing a... raise on auto registration fees (though he did veto a yacht tax).

Agreed... California voters have shown ourselves to be rather stupid... but on the other hand... we never voted for Bush. The rest of you fuckers from the other states foisted him on us... so maybe we'll call it even? It was his buddies at Enron who cost us our surpluses from the dotcom boom...

And I'm not sure why other states give a goddamn anyway... California contributes so much more to the National Treasury than most states that, if we were to get a big bailout... it wouldn't be like we hadn't earned it... like paying unemployment for years and then finally having to collect on it.

I'm looking at you, Kansas...

[BlooInBloo]

65. She's right. Ironically, she's a prime example of people deserving what they vote for.

[Jennicut]

72. These are the states with the highest tax burden

"New Jersey residents paid 11.8%, topping the charts. New Yorkers were close behind, paying 11.7%, and Connecticut was third at 11.1%. The top 10 were rounded out by Maryland (10.8%), Hawaii (10.6%), California (10.5%), Ohio (10.4%). Vermont (10.3%), Wisconsin (10.2%) and Rhode Island (10.2%)." http://retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html
Why can't CA buckle down and raise the taxes slightly? It would be on par where the NJ, NY, and CT are and I live in CT and believe me, the taxes are not killing us here. We are used to it.

[ContinentalOp]

76. Because a 2/3rds majority is required to raise taxes in the legislature...

and the Republican minority blocks it every time. More to the point though, you've just pointed out that CA is nowhere near the bottom of the list, and yet to hear some of the critics here you would think CA is some kind of tax-free libertarian "paradise" like Alaska.

[Jennicut]

77. CA is near the top as far as taxes go but the laws in the state are completely dumb

I know they were made way before many on this board were even born so it must be frustrating. I am glad we live in CT were we cannot even vote propositions, it makes everything worse (for the most part).

[shanti]

81. she will NEVER get my vote again!

and i doubt i'm alone! i've been disgusted with her for years, but this really takes the fucking cake! :mad:

[Ignis]

82. Ugh, DiFi. Even IF you're right, this is tone deaf.

She wasn't out in front of ALL the props BEFORE the election to scold in this way. And you can't blame CA's current crisis on this last election.

How about she shoulder some blame for not working harder against anti-tax props like 13 over the past 30 years?

[Taitertots]

93. It is the failure of Democracy

Sometimes the best medicine is hard to take. Getting people to vote against their self interest for the betterment of everyone is a increasingly hard sell.

[bemildred]

95. It is the failure of oligarchy and plutocracy.

The fuckers with all the money are too stupid to run the state well.

[Taitertots]

96. The failure of democracy

The fuckers with the voting power are too stupid to elect a functional government.

The fuckers with all the money are too stupid to run the state as well. Thats why we should be keeping the wolves out of the hen house in the first place.

[bemildred]

99. Money is power.

There is a reason all the politicians spend all their time getting "contributions".

[Taitertots]

101. Votes are power

The reason politicians spend all their time getting "contributions" is the people are too stupid to hold them accountable.

Thus, the failure of democracy. The people make their decisions based on ignorance and self interest and complain when they get the obvious results.

[bemildred]

102. Well, that is true, but the politicians don't seem to want to change it either.

I don't know of anyone off-hand that has ever asserted that you could run a democracy with ignorant, uneducated, propagandized voters. So where are our "leaders" stepping up to fix the problem?

[Taitertots]

103. The failure of democracy continued

The "leaders" are just as self interested as everyone else. Unable to make choices that negatively effect them for the betterment of everyone else.

The "leaders" are just people who fool the people. No one would win elections with an accurate assessment of the US and an accurate assessment of what needs to be done. The people would never accept it. It requires hard work from them for benefits they may never see.

[bemildred]

104. Right. So they are just a bunch of tools, like I said.

We need to get the word out.

[Taitertots]

105. It is the failure of democracy

Convince the people of California to vote higher taxes for themselves.
Convince people to turn off the TV and read a book.
Convince people to work harder for less, instead of work less and expect more.


What the people need and what they want are often excusionary. The more of one you get the further from the other you go.

[bemildred]

106. It is the failure of a bunch of tools. nt

[Taitertots]

108. The tools we elected....

Hence the failure of democracy.

[bemildred]

107. Why do we need "leaders" if they are incompent and/or not interested in leading?

How dishonest is it, exactly, to gut the state education system for decades and then complain that the public is easily mislead?

[Taitertots]

109. It has less to do with the public education system and more to do with people

Try to get someone to come up off their money voluntarily. Why did we gut the education system? Too many people knew it would benefit them.

Why do we have a crisis in Cali? Too many people knew the budget cuts would benefit them.

Things which benefit society more than they cost individuals are the first to fail under democracy.

[WI_DEM]

113. I have to agree with the others who said the same thing--CA voters did this to themselves

They don't want to lose the precious proposition 13 and yet they now don't want these budget cuts. Sorry, but Californians have to do what other states are doing and make some tough choices. It tragic that the programs that will be cut will be those affecting the most vulnerable and voiceless in the state. You can't have government by proposition.