Fuck you Feinstein and the rest of you who want CA to suffer.

[Luminous Animal]

Californians did not vote against taxes because there were no tax propositions on the ballots.

Get it? Not one of the propositions had anything to do with raising taxes.

Zero, none, nada.

Prop 1A was a Grover Norquist wet dream of capping expenditures. It would have had as much as a debilitating effect on future budgets as prop 13.

1B was a strong arm prop "for the children" to coerce people into voting for 1A.

1C robbed funds from the lottery earmarked for education.

1D robbed funds from the tobacco tax from one necessary program to another.

1E shifted funds from one necessary program to another.

NONE OF THE PROPOSITIONS WOULD HAVE MADE STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO CALIFORNIA'S BUDGET MORASS. NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE RAISED NEW TAXES. ALL OF THEM, BAR 1A AND 1F, WOULD HAVE ROBBED PETER TO PAY PAUL.

The propositions were a scheme of disaster capitalism devised by our idiot governor, anti-public services republicans and weak democrats.

[Duer 157099]

1. Goddamn right

It's infuriating to hear them say how we "asked for it"

It was the Sophie's Choice Initiative -- put the blame in the right place, on the Nazis for having to force the choice!

[Captain Hilts]

46. Actually, you voted for it. nt

[rwenos]

2. Your Words are Too Strong, But . . .

I thought the propositions on the special election ballot were bogus too. Does it make any sense to rob mental health funding to dump the money into the General Fund?

A loyal lifetime Dem, I have to wonder at the clowns in the Legislature, both majority Dems and minority Pubs. Maybe the problem is term limits, because they are all bagmen for lobbyists nowadays -- with only 6 years to serve in the Assembly and 8 more in the Senate.

And why is there no rioting in the streets of Sacramento outside the Capitol for Single Payer? Sheila Kuehl proposed it and got an arrow in the back.

Beautiful state, our California. Weird government.

[Luminous Animal]

5. I am outraged that people on DU

would support the notion that any scheme coming from our corporate bought and owned governor and his republican cronies in the legislature would come up with a solution that would actually help the citizens of California.

[slackmaster]

47. It's not just the corporations that own the government of California

The public employee unions have a lot to do with it too. But they're really no different than the corporations.

[mike_c]

55. I disagree most strongly....

I cannot speak for other unions, but my own union, the California Faculty Association, works pretty tirelessly on my behalf, and for the rest of my CSU colleagues. It's the reason we have "middle class" salaries and benefits, and decent work loads and work place conditions. The union officers are all faculty members themselves.

Solidarity!

[Overseas]

75. But it is the dogmatic Republican minority who have the govt by the balls.

Because we have not yet overturned the rule requiring 2/3 of our legislators to approve any tax increases. Some dogmatic Republicans have pledged never to vote for any tax increases. Their party loyalty is more important to them than critical services for citizens that may not be Republicans.

[Hannah Bell]

7. not too strong. they're deliberately dismantling every vestige of progressive policy in the state

and throwing people out of work, cutting off essential services -

not too fucking strong at all, by a long shot.

deliberate impoverishment of the state & its people, & it's coming to your state soon.

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. 'it's coming to your state soon. Another MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[Captain Hilts]

45. It's easier to blame DiFi. She didn't run for Governor. Like her or not, she's no fool.

She knew what was coming.

[SoCalDem]

154. republicans think that if they remove the "carrot", they can use the stick

to "shush" all the brown people across the border, and then they can have the "Father Knows Best" California again..and the "Gidget" era will return to California..:sarcasm:

[lolly]

76. Problem is the 2/3 rule

No meaningful changes could be made in the budget or in revenue because a handful of right wing yahoos had the power to tie up the entire government.

[pnwmom]

116. Prop 1A was a good one and should have been passed.

It would have RETAINED a recent tax increase -- without that, tax monies will drop further. And it would have established a rainy day fund, which is necessary to help even out the ups and downs in the economic cycle. Many other states, including WA, have them, and they're an important and effective part of the budgeting process.

[ContinentalOp]

136. And it would have given us a spending cap that we would have been saddled with for decades.

30 years from now we would all be sitting around talking about the latest CA budget crisis and blaming it all on the morons who voted for Prop 1A.

[xxqqqzme]

3. I'm w/ you on all the reasons you state.

What did di fi rattle on about now. I really want a different Senator.

[bananas]

4. k&r nt

[Hannah Bell]

6. k/r: i saw about three threads today saying it was the voters' fault

for not voting to raise taxes.

If a Democratic board can't get the facts right...

[Luminous Animal]

8. Thanks Hannah.

It totally boggles my mind that people on DU would actually think that Arnold and the Republicans, who mainly devised these props, would do so out of a desire of saving public institutions.

I posted on another California post (a good one asking for solidarity amongst progressives) the very real fact that the poorest in California pay 12% of their income in taxes while the wealthiest (that is, millionaires) pay a mere 7%. Not one single person acknowledged this gross discrepancy. Elsewhere, in other threads, people cautioned against taxing the rich because they "might leave California". What the everloving fuck?! If the poor aren't leaving this glorious state despite their onerous tax burden, why the hell would the rich leave?

[Hannah Bell]

10. The poor will be leaving, though...when there's no work or public benefits.

They're being "relocated" a la New Orleans.

[Luminous Animal]

15. We are so fucked both state and nation...

and everyone is sitting around and twiddling their thumbs. I am 51 years old and I am exhausted by the effort of trying to teach people to understand that politicians don't give a flying fuck about you and you or you. The corporate media has been largely successful in convincing the populace that activism is "unseemly" and by every indication, "discussing" on a political board has supplanted direct action. And people wonder why Nader abandoned activism and tried national stage electoral politics because, according to modern wisdom, voting is our only political outlet thus abrogating all power to our "leaders".

[Dr.Phool]

30. Give that woman a cigar!

"Discussion on a political board has supplanted direct action".

We're not going to get anything until people take to the streets. I live in Florida, and it's just as bad here. Hapf the population should be in Sacramento, Tallahassee, and Washington, shutting the whole place down.

People in Europe have things like good wages, universal health care, and decent public transportation because the government fears the people. They'll shut down the whole place at the drop of a hat.

We don't have too much time to accomplish anything between commercial breaks.

[rwenos]

11. The Rich Will Not Leave

You point out a Pubbie meme that deserves to be exploded. Nobody with the resources to enjoy la dolce vita in California is going to leave because they change the marginal tax rate at the top of the income curve from 8% to 12%.

Aside from the fact that such a regressive state income tax is shameful, why do you think the rich of California live here? Because it's worth it to them to get the amenities available here.

I've lived elsewhere. Seventy-degree weather on New Years Day, the sands of the Pacific, the mighty Sierra, Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, San Francisco, Coronado Island, Mendocino County, the Hollywood Bowl, the Rodin sculpture garden at Stanford Univeristy. Where else, 'mon?

The rich ain't leavin'. They should be made to pay more of their share.

[Hannah Bell]

16. Who's gonna make them?

[Luminous Animal]

17. Why the hell do we not have an oil extraction tax?

Every other oil producing state levies this tax. Why not California?

[rwenos]

19. Excellent Question

Ask Gordon Getty. Depending on which wife he's with this week.

Also the ghost of Armand Hammer. Maybe even the ghost of Edwin Doheny.

(!)

[Luminous Animal]

21. (!)

[Left Coast2020]

148. And what about the tax cheats too?

I saw piece on Ed Show the other day on this: tax cheats owe this state about $11 billion--not including interest. I'm refering to those who hide assets offshore in the Cayman Is. I suppose Gov. "BoobenGrabber" does not have a problem with tax cheats? Has anyone on "K" street thought of this?

[pnwmom]

24. That would represent a 50% tax increase -- on top of federal taxes,

of course. People who are settled in CA might not leave, but a sharp increase in the income tax might make growing businesses think twice about locating there. California's "regressive" state income tax is actually one of the highest in the country. And you're dreaming if you think that everyone would love to live in California.

What California really needs is a more balanced tax system, without so much reliance on its income tax only. When people are out of work, no tax money's coming in. That's part of why California is having so much trouble balancing its budget now. That, and the stupid budget-related propositions that have been tying the legislature's hands for years.

[rwenos]

26. Everybody Said the Insco's Would Leave Too

When Prop 103 passed 15 years ago.

Guess what? They didn't leave.

I've lived in the Northwest, I know what people there think of California. My point wasn't what YOU think of the Golden State. Hate us if you want.

My point was that the rich people who like living here (and there are WAY MANY) won't leave. California has the world's seventh largest economy, measured as an independent country.

You sound like an anti-tax Repub. Why blow against the wind?

[pnwmom]

28. In my state, a couple years ago we finally copied your state and passed

a proposition that prevents the legislature from approving tax increases unless they have a 2/3 majority. This will come back to bite us, just as your proposition is hurting you.

I'm not an anti-tax Repub. I'm frustrated with people who can't do math and can't face reality. When people are polled about taxes and government services, they always say they want to keep all their services but they want to reduce their taxes. They always say that the only thing they want to cut is "waste and fraud." And way too many people are stupid enough to think that -- instead of ever raising taxes -- we could cut 5% or so out of the budget in the form of waste -- every single year. They don't get it that if you tried that eventually there would be no money in the budget at all!

And people who think that the $24 billion budget gap in CA could be wiped out simply by raising taxes on the rich haven't done their math either.

[Hannah Bell]

32. baloney. poor californians pay more, percentage-wise, than either the rich *or* the upper middle.

and when the top 1% takes 30% of total income, don't tell me who doesn't have the math on their side.

[pnwmom]

65. You need to recheck your facts. Here are the numbers for all the states.

No state in the country, other than Hawaii, has a higher UPPER marginal tax rate than California, where the tax rate begins at 1.25 and goes to 10.55.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/228.html

And you're also stuck with that stupid budget law that requires a 2/3 majority for any increase.

[Hannah Bell]

140. the tax foundation is funded by the same folks who fund cato, etc.

the usual right-wing suspects, the same ones who funded clinton's blue dress impeachment.

i get my numbers direct from the IRS & bureau of labor statistics, thanks.

a 10.55% top rate with liberal deductions is nothing v. a mandatory sales tax ranging from 8.25% to 10.25% in some locations.

Sales taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAt 8.25%, California has the highest state sales tax, which can total up to 10.25% with local sales tax included. Sales and use taxes in the state of ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States - 177k - Cached - Similar pages

there have been numerous studies of who pays state taxes. read some of those.

[mike_c]

57. prop 13 hamstrings the state's ability to raise revenue via property tax...

...and forces increased reliance on income and sales taxes. That, combined with politician's natural aversion to taxing the rich, set off a domino effect of regulations that stripped money from localities, etc, to fund the state. Prop 13 MUST go, but under the current state constitution it is untouchable-- it would require another ballot measure and people-- including the wealthy and those who simply want to be wealthy-- voting to increase their own taxes, and not just a little. It just won't happen.

We need a constitutional convention. A do-over.

[pnwmom]

67. I watch California's problems and they make me sick -- because they're

probably in our state's future too, since we passed our own version of a 2/3 majority bill too (a couple years ago). At least we don't have a Prop 13 equivalent -- so far.

[slackmaster]

135. They were completely out of control raising property taxes in the early '70s

My parents experienced it. Their property tax quintupled between 1970 and 1975.

How is that reasonable or fair? At least under 13, property taxes are very predictable. People can budget for them.

[mike_c]

138. and the state is crippled because commercial property enjoys the same benefits....

Prop 13 is not ALL bad-- and the protection your parents enjoy, while it needs some revision, is not the problem.

[JVS]

14. I hope CA taxes the rich

[pnwmom]

25. There aren't enough rich people to solve the $24 BILLION budget gap.

People keep wanting easy solutions that won't affect them personally -- but there are none. Average people are going to have to contribute to solving the budget crisis, not just the wealthy. The idea that everyone can keep getting state services while holding down and even lowering taxes is what has brought California to this crisis.

[Hannah Bell]

31. yes, there are, someone posted a list of california billionaires here,

& just on that list there's enough.

throw in the mere millionaires & there's plenty.

the money didn't just vanish into a black hole, you know.

http://www.groco.com/readingroom/fin_calibillionaires.aspx

10% of the world's billionaires live in california.

they'd love to get the riffraff out.

[pnwmom]

64. Do you really think all that money is taxable in the State of California?

The reason for the budget gap is that the State is overly dependent on the state income tax (instead of a more balanced combination of taxes), which has fallen precipitously because of the recession. It's not that the money has disappeared into a black hole.

[votingupstart]

90. I'm am not sure they would stay

just playing devils advocate - but the rich guys (i also don't speak with any authority as i am not) didn't get rich by spending a lot of money, why wouldn't they move to another state with lower taxes or incorporate their holdings (houses/cars/clothes etc) into an offshore company like the Kennedy's do?

i am not trying to pick apart your argument -i also believe that everyone should pay their fair share

[DatManFromNawlins]

149. They'll just list their primary residence elsewhere

Most of these rich folks have multiple homes. In the age of the Internet, they don't need to be IN California to conduct business there.

[Dr.Phool]

27. Like the Oldsmobile commercial.....This IS NOT your fathers DU.

This place has pretty much gone collectively nuts. Not the place it used to be.

[pnwmom]

12. The voters need to push the legislature into raising taxes to close the

budget gap. And they need to repeal the decades old proposition that requires a 2/3 approval vote for any tax increase.

[rwenos]

18. Yes and Yes

The two-thirds vote is destroying state government, and with it the economy and quality of life. It's got to go. The only way is an initiative constitutional amendment. Maybe this time people will be disgusted enough. It will take a political cataclysm, I think.

Sort of like the one Bushie boy engineered, that resulted in the election of a brilliant, complex multiracial man as President. The Euro's are still trying to figure that one out, don't you thing??

[pnwmom]

23. The voters in my state passed a similar proposition two years ago, much to

my disgust. I'm not sure it's part of our constitution, but it's sure to wreak havoc unless it's overturned. Fortunately, we haven't had anything as stupid as Prop 13 also pass.

[slackmaster]

44. If they eliminate that supermajority requirement and raise taxes,

They'll just piss it all away like they've been doing for a long time.

[pnwmom]

107. What you call "pissing away" all the money means spending it on schools,

education, and other essential state services. You can't get something for nothing.

[slackmaster]

131. Schools and other essential services could be run more efficiently

As they are in most other states.

[ContinentalOp]

137. What does that even mean?

We're about #27 in per-pupil spending. That means the majority of states spend more per pupil than CA. How can you say most other states run their schools more efficiently? :shrug:

[slackmaster]

165. They could start by letting non-violent drug offenders like my friend "Ricky" out of prison

Lay off some guards, shut down some prisons, etc.

People who think higher taxes are the only way to fix the problem invariably use appeals to emotion like spinning a reduction in planned increases in school spending as "slashing school spending" which will hurt The Children. People who work on state-funded programs need to figure out how to do more with less. People in the private sector get asked to do more with less all the time, and we usually manage to do it.

[pnwmom]

142. California already has one of the highest numbers of students per teacher.

You need to learn more about your own state.

[JI7]

9. i'm from California and the people, voters are to blame

when they supported the recall and got excited over having the terminator for governor.

[pnwmom]

13. True. The majority of people voted for him, and the majority of people

years ago voted for the 2/3 approval requirement for the legislature to raise taxes.

[Hannah Bell]

20. Most people weren't cynical enough to understand the possibilities. But they're getting there.

[Luminous Animal]

22. We need a Constitutional Convention.

I'm pushing for a parliamentary form of government with instant runoff voting. Either that or we split the state into 3. Idiots get the east, sane folks along the coast, and legal gun totin' pot growers up north. Yeehaw!

[votingupstart]

93. Nice - ill take a section of the Coast and the North nt

[Captain Hilts]

38. Folks here see everything on a personal basis. Hate DiFi? Then it's her fault. Stooopid. nt

[slackmaster]

42. The Governator is not the issue

The legislature has been over-spending for decades.

[ContinentalOp]

66. Well, he could actually try to lead you know.

Maybe if he had advocated some Prop 13 reforms early on, when he was popular, the idea might have gotten some traction. Maybe if he could use his celebrity to try to explain some of these problems and solutions to people in a simple way then we could make some progress.

But he's not interested in doing that. He's interested in cutting taxes, cutting services and bleeding the state dry to fulfill some kind of Norquistian fantasy. He's interested in pushing arcane ballot propositions to make the people directly vote for the cuts so that the legislature doesn't have to share any blame or actually take any responsibility for doing their job.

Perhaps he could actually try to reign in his own party that consistently obstructs any progress in our state legislature. But it doesn't work that way. He doesn't give orders, he takes them.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

51. I honestly don't think it even matters any more who the governor is.

We could have the superhuman bastard offspring of James T. Kirk and Alice B. Toklas as governor, and it still wouldn't change the fundamental equation of politics in this state, which is that people want lots of services that they refuse to pay for.

[mike_c]

58. as much as I despise Arnold...

...he's not really responsible for this situation. He has not helped much, but I don't think Davis would have done any better.

[martymar64]

29. Its saddens me greatly to see the Golden State suffer so much

I lived in California on and off for a dozen years and I love that state more then any other. I live in TX right and would love to return to CA, just not right now because of the economy. I've always felt that repealing Prop 13 would go a long way towards restoring some fiscal sanity to the state. I'm not a budget expert, but I feel that Prop 13 was the worst thing ever to happen to CA.

Good luck to my former and future neighbors. I'll be rooting for your success always.


And BTW, DiFi can fuck right off.

[Captain Hilts]

40. DiFi's the first politician to speak honestly about this topic in years. The adult in the room. nt

[ContinentalOp]

68. If by "adult" you mean somebody who cynically lied about the nature of the propositions

to provide support for her Republican cronies, then yes, I guess she's an adult.

[truedelphi]

98. She also was the top person choosing the candidate that Ahnold ran against

She put in place this rodent-looking guy that most California's had never heard of. Not a smart move when the Republican candidate is a well known movie actor with a bit of charisma.

Meanwhile Steve Westly was snookered (Probably by the voting machinery) in the Primaries.

And then there is her Pro-Iraqi War resolution - with her husband cashing in immediately for $ 27 million in war contracts.

Di-Fi deserves every bit of scorn that every DU who dislikes her might toss her way.

[MadHound]

33. I don't want Californians to suffer

However for thirty years the citizens of the state of been bringing this catastrophe upon yourselves, what with Prop. 13 and the like. California was warned that this would happen back in the day by people like Brown and Wilson that the passage of Prop. 13 would destroy the state, but noooo, the anti-tax folks wanted their wet dream and passed it.

Even ten years ago, as the infrastructure was crumbling and the school system was going under, when the signs of serious decay were obvious to everyone, the citizens of California didn't want to do anything to modify or eliminate Prop. 13 in order to make the state economy viable again. No new taxes still ruled the day.

So now you're finally having to pay the piper. I'm sorry that it came to this, but in many ways, yes, the citizens of California brought this on themselves. What's really sad is that while the well off can afford to flee the state and escape the madness, the poor and unfortunate are going to, once again, be stuck with the short end of the stick. Furthermore, the collapse of California is going to have a ripple effect across the country, and your anti-tax madness of the past thirty years could very well bring the rest of us down.

[cascadiance]

34. There's an added drain on your budget that probably many don't factor in... Unemployment!

Yes, and not only for those who are unemployed in California, but those who "fleed the state" (there were many of those people INCLUDING myself last year) that tried to get away from the horrendous cost of living, and dark employment futures to other states (like Oregon in my case) to escape this.

Now if those of us who left California get laid off shortly after we move to a new state, it isn't the new state's coffers that pay for unemployment for us, but California's funds. The way unemployment works is that they look at the previous 18 months and where you worked during those 18 months. If a majority of it is in another state, the state you reside in doesn't pay the bill. In this case, probably many people have California as being where they worked a big chunk of that time, even if they don't presently live there.

I'm not on it yet, but in a month I'll be collecting unemployment from California soon, just having been laid off myself. It would be an interesting study to see how many people left California during over the last year and to see what's happened to them where they've moved to, to get a rough idea on how much more California is paying this year because of these variables, which aren't normal either I would submit.

I have to admit, that knowing layoffs were likely coming in waves where I was, the last thing I wanted to have happen was to get caught laid off in California where I didn't want to stay long term with its real estate mess, and didn't want to not be able to move anyplace else without a job to get a house, etc. in a different location if I'd waited until after I'd gotten laid off, so that moved up my schedule of looking to move away. I wouldn't have wanted to try and find a job in California and not be honest with a new employer that I probably didn't want to stay there long term if I were to get a job. I'm guessing I'm not the only one that had that strategy, and others feeling the same way also accelerated their plans to leave the state last year if they had any thoughts towards doing so.

So I'm glad that I can look for a job where I want to be living, but the side effect of that is California's footing the bill.

[hfojvt]

80. that doesn't seem to be universal

I moved to Kansas in August 2002 and got laid off in March 2002. Since my job was in Missouri I collected unemployment there. They tried to encourage me to collect unemployment from Iowa instead, but also said that the payment would be lower.

My checks came from Missouri. Unless Missouri was getting reimbursed from Iowa somehow. It may be that the filer has an option and typically goes with the more generous state, which might be California for cost of living reasons.

It may also depend on how much you made in various states too. I made about $2.50 an hour more in Missouri than I did in Iowa, so that may have made the Missouri unemployment check bigger.

[cascadiance]

130. Yeah, it's not a simple rule, but it is a certain percentage of 18 months that factors in...

I think I was told that if I'd moved here earlier than November, there might have needed to be a shared arrangement with Oregon to pay unemployment. However, when I came, even though I'd been here for 5 months, I will get all from California, though I've nto started collecting it yet. My guess is that it is a 12 month period that determines it from 18 months before you were laid off. So probably had I moved here a month or two earlier, Oregon might have had to pay some... Still, I have to believe that my situation is a more common situation than usual now with the economy the way it is.

I also have to believe though that it has to be an "agreed upon" formula between most states so that some don't profit more than others, and it seems like the feds have to arbitrate somehow between them. Sounds like you have an arrangement between three different states. I trust it is between whatever two states you resided in that determined who was footing the bill.

[Bluenorthwest]

127. I also left CA a couple of years ago due to stupid cost of living

and also came to Oregon, where I now pay the vast majority of my State taxes. It is also where I spend what gets spent, and buy what gets bought.
When I left people thought it was hilarious! But the fact is that for the last few years people have been moving out of CA in large numbers, five in a row now where more moved away from than moved to CA. Lots more. The remaining population increases by birth but the trend of moving into CA has reversed, and stayed reversed. Year ending July 2008, CA lost 144,000 to out of state moves more than it gained by moves into the state.
California leads the country in the number of people moving out of State.

[cascadiance]

129. Just a year ago, they showed a net decrease in population in San Diego itself...

... where I moved from, where more people for the first time in many years were moving away than moving in.

When you saw that recently also that only 9% of San Diegans were above the median salary needed to "properly" afford to buy a house, many could read between the lines, and conclude that unless you had a lot of other life commitments to live there, it was time to leave.

[Captain Hilts]

43. Yep. The truth hurts. It's a microcosim of the the RNC has been marketing nationwide. DiFi's

actually being the adult in the room here.

You want services, you got to pay for 'em.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. Amen to that. n/t

[hfojvt]

79. me neither

living in California is already punishment enough

[dana_b]

89. exactly

although I was too young to vote on prop 13, my folks voted against it and were pissed it pass. They knew what was coming. my mom especially remembered and despised Ronald Reagan and all the fucked up stuff he did to our state. So actually I'd go back to that time period.

Anyway, we voted eliminate prop 13, didn't happen. We have wanted more taxes, hasn't happened. We sometimes feel like we don't belong here - even though we all were born here (except my stepdad who was from NV.). I don't know where else I'd go though since my entire family is here.

[slackmaster]

132. Is paying high taxes NOT a form of suffering?

I personally make little use of state-funded services other than roads.

:hi:

[MadHound]

161. What do you consider high?

Sure, California pays a higher sales tax than most, but not all, of the states. But then again, your property tax, thanks to Prop. 13, and which is normally the main revenue generator, is one of the lowest in the country. The median rate for property taxes in CA is $4.77/$1000.00 of valuation, while here in Missouri, it's $8.22/$1000.00. Especially for the amount of services CA provides, that tax rate is absurdly low, and one of the largest contributing factors as to why California is in the mess it's in now:shrug:

[slackmaster]

166. You conspicuously avoided mentioning the tax that is the highest in the nation

Our personal income tax. My state income tax is quite a bit higher than my property tax.

Property tax has never been the biggest revenue generator in California. Giving government the ability to raise that or any other tax indiscriminately makes it extremely difficult for responsible individuals and families to work out budgets. The problem is that we have a government that is dominated by incumbents who are beholden to corporations and unions. They'll spend every penny we give them, and more.

We need different people in the legislature and the Governor's mansion.

[glitch]

36. I tried to K & R this thread but was told I already had. I am pretty sure I hadn't.

Haven't had my tea yet though. It could be me.

[patriotvoice]

48. With a username like "glitch", what do you expect?!

:toast:

[glitch]

49. lol! I should have chosen something like "seamless perfection always" nt

[Captain Hilts]

37. DiFi's correct on this one. Hurts, doesn't it?

Fuck Californians who keep voting IN FAVOR of tax cuts and service increases. Cry babies.

[martymar64]

59. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

Isn't she and her husband still heavily invested in the Military Industrial Complex? For that alone, she can fuck off.

Until she heavily comes in favor of repealing Prop 13, the original cause of California's fiscal woes, she has not much credibility in my book.

Californians in favor of tax cuts and service increases are not looking at this realistically, I agree with you on that. It still doesn't make DiFi any less of a scumbag, though.

And if you are saying that Californians in general should suffer, then I'm afraid that you and I have no more to talk about. You don't see any of us expressing glee that your Chesapeake Bay is dying and along with it the livelyhood of the fishermen and crabbers in MD, so I suggest that you think about that before you broad brush attack an entire state.

[Captain Hilts]

60. I've done a ton of polling in Calif. about spending and tax issues. nt

[martymar64]

99. What does that have to do with my point?

OK, you've done a "ton of polling". Who did you do the polling for and when and on what specific tax issues? Prop 13? The proposition system as a whole? Are these polls you've taken available for inspection? If so, where does one find them?
And what does that have to do with DiFi's wish for her own constituents to suffer, or your characterization of all Californians as being stupid and deserving of all the suffering they get?
If you're going to broad bush attack the entire population of a state, you're going to have to provide a little more than "I've done a ton of polling".

[Luminous Animal]

63. Californians have raised taxes to pay for services.

These props were not about taxes but rather institutionalizing a Grover Norquist style TABOR scheme (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/08/norquists_tax_ax.php) and shifting funds from one essential service to another.

As pointed out in this article from 2008, Californians are willing to raise taxes to fund services:

By my count from semi-official election results available the day after the election, they passed 26 of 32 proposals to issue school and community college bonds; each of these measures, which raise local property taxes to repay the bonds, required a super-majority (55 percent) vote for passage. They approved 13 of 24 proposals to create or raise local per parcel property taxes to pay for a variety of services, including schools, libraries, parks, and law enforcement; parcel taxes can be passed only with a two-thirds vote. They approved tax increases not just in the liberal Bay Area but also in the Central Valley and Orange County. Overall, they passed 49 of the 75 tax-increase measures on local ballots around the state. And in many of the cases where the measures failed, it was with a majority that fell short of the required 55 percent or two-thirds requirement.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/06/thirty_years_af.html

[pnwmom]

110. The most important proposition WAS about taxes -- it was written to RETAIN

a recent tax increase and to set up a rainy day fund, so that in good years a small percent could be set aside to help out when a bad year came along. Not having such a fund is one reason California is in so much more trouble ( proportionately) than other states.

Prop. 1A

A YES vote on this measure means: Various state budgeting practices would be changed. In some cases, the state would set aside more money in one of its “rainy day” reserve funds. Higher state taxes recently passed would be extended for up to two years.

[Luminous Animal]

133. No, written to extend

the sales tax increase to 2012 and the VLF to 2013. Both are not due to expire until June 30th, 2011.

So, tell me, what does this one and two year extension beyond the 2011 expiration date have to do with the 2009/2010 budget?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. People voted against them for no other reason than that they were pissed off at the government.

I doubt most people even read them, and I know that most people didn't understand them. This system is stupid and broken.

[XemaSab]

74. I think I understood them

and I think they stunk.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

87. To give you an example of what I'm talking about...

This is from pages 23 and 24 of ballot initiative 1A, which is twenty-six fucking pages long:

Third - That section 21 is added to Article XVI thereof, to read:

SEC. 21, (a) On or before May 29 2011, and on or before May 29 of each year thereafter, the Director of Finance shall do all of the following, reporting the result in each case to the Legislature and the governor:

(1) Separately estimate General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year for the current fiscal year.

(2) Determine the revenue forecast amount for the current fiscal year in the manner set forth in subdivision (d)

OK, so far so good...

(3) Estimate the amount, as of that date, of any General Fund obligations arising under Section 8 for the current fiscal year, including any maintenance factor allocation for the current fiscal year required pursuant to to subdivision (e) of section 8 that have not yet been funded by the state.

Wait - what?

(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), "unanticipated revenues" for a fiscal year, for purposes of this section, shall be the lesser of the following:
(A) Estimated General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year reported pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) minus the revenue forecast amount for the current fiscal year.

(B) Estimated General Fund revenues, transfers, and balances available from the prior fiscal year for the current fiscal year reported pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) minus the expenditure forecast amount for the current fiscal year determined pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 20

This is why I did not vote. This is legislative work, not voter work, and I am unwilling to use the "arguments for" and "arguments against" sections of the voters' guide to make my decisions for me.

[pnwmom]

115. If you're unwilling to use "arguments for" and "arguments against" and you're not willing

to wade through all the technical verbiage either, then you're part of the problem.

When my daughter in CA voted this year, she spent more than an hour wading through the initiatives, and even called to discuss them with me. It's easy to say that "this is legislative work" but the fact is that the legislature is bound by that 2/3 vote requirement.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

125. The arguments for and against are not the actual text of the law.

I've read the actual text of the initiatives, all 100+ pages of them. I've provided a small snippet of the actual text of the law, and I would invite you or anybody else to actually explain what it does. Hell, I'll donate $100 to DU in the name of whoever can actually provide a human-readable description of what this portion of the law does, and why it should be implemented this way. Sorry, no, I don't feel comfortable voting on something I do not understand.

[lolly]

77. This person voted against them

And I would willingly have voted for many actual tax increases, but these were not tax increases.

They were asking us to agree to stealing from Peter to pay Paul. The budget would still have been a mess and there would have been massive cuts, but they would be able to say to us "hey, you agreed to cut all this funding to schools/disabled/etc."

[dana_b]

91. bingo!! n/t

[pnwmom]

105. One of them was written to RETAIN a recent tax increase. Since you voted against it,

you contributed to the problem.

This was the proposition that was meant to establish a "rainy day fund" -- which many other states have. These funds allow states to put aside some money in flush years so that it is available to help in lean years. It was a good idea and should have been passed.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/quick-reference-guide/prop1a.htm

A YES vote on this measure means: Various state budgeting practices would be changed. In some cases, the state would set aside more money in one of its “rainy day” reserve funds. Higher state taxes recently passed would be extended for up to two years.

[Luminous Animal]

111. No it wasn't. It was to extend a recent tax increase beyond June 30th 2011.

Get it? Our legislators increased some taxes until June 30th, 2011. These increases will stay into effect until June 30th, 2011.

"As part of the larger budget agreement made in February between the Governor and the Legislature, the state’s sales tax increased by 1 percent April 1. The 17-month spending plan approved Feb. 19 calls for $15 billion in program cuts and spending reductions, $12.8 billion in temporary tax increases and $11.4 billion in borrowing.
The sales tax increase is temporary and will sunset June 30, 2012 if voters approve the proposed Budget Stabilization constitutional amendment on the May 19 Special Election ballot. If voters reject the amendment, the rate increase will expire one year sooner, June 30, 2011.

Other tax-related measures connected to the May 19 special election include:

* Vehicle license fee increase: An increase in vehicle license fees will adjust rates from the 0.65 percent to 1.15 percent, except for heavy vehicles. The increase is effective for registrations beginning May 19 and will expire June 30, 2013 if voters approve the proposed spending cap constitutional amendment. If voters reject the amendment, the rate increase will expire two years sooner, on June 30, 2011.

* Personal-income tax increase: Increases existing personal-income tax brackets by .25 percent. The highest rate becomes 9.55 percent, not including the 10.33 percent millionaire surtax. These bracket increases will be reduced to .125 percent if the federal stimulus trigger is pulled as a result of the state receiving at least $10 billion. These changes are effective for the taxable years 2009 and 2010. Alternative Minimum Tax will increase to 7.25 percent, or 7.125 percent if the federal trigger is pulled.""

http://www.calrest.org/go/cra/news-events/newsroom/california-state-sales-tax-increase-in-effect/

The so-called rainy day fund was a Grover Norguist ("drown government in the bathtub) TABOR style budget scheme which would have put California, just like Colorado, into a perpetual budget crisis.

TABOR - http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10411

[NMMNG]

139. Bingo

That's why our household voted against them all except 1F.

[roody]

94. I voted against robbing the mental health fund because a few

years ago I vote to establish it.

[pnwmom]

112. The people aren't going to fix the system by stupidly lashing out, if that's

what they did.

They had an opportunity to RETAIN a recent tax increase (Prop 1A) and establish a rainy day fund (so that some money could be set aside from flush years to help manage bad years) and they said no. If they thought they had a broken system before, now they're going to find out what a broken system really looks like.

[slackmaster]

41. 1A most definitely would have extended an existing sales tax increase

So you are actually wrong about that.

NONE OF THE PROPOSITIONS WOULD HAVE MADE STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO CALIFORNIA'S BUDGET MORASS.

On that you are right.

The propositions were a scheme of disaster capitalism devised by our idiot governor, anti-public services republicans and weak democrats.

I'd call it a lame attempt by a spineless government to delay the inevitable fix that must be done.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

52. There's no point in arguing it.

OP has been on this rant for weeks. I tried to talk sense into him/her regarding exactly the point you made about extending the taxes for a few more years, to little effect.

[Bluenorthwest]

128. I read up thread that you did not even vote because you could not

comprehend the text and felt over worked by the effort. And now you claim the ability to 'talk sense' into other people? Do you see the irony, or a kind that exists only in California? Your posts seen as a group are like a snapshot of why CA can not solve a thing.
You did not vote. And yet you lecture those that did. I rest my freaking case, and give the Golden State props for audacity in the face of disaster.

[Luminous Animal]

54. This is the title and summary of 1A

from the Secretary of State
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop1a-title-sum.htm

STATE BUDGET. CHANGES CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROCESS.
LIMITS STATE SPENDING. INCREASES “RAINY DAY” BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND.


* Increases size of state “rainy day” fund from 5% to 12.5% of the General Fund.
* A portion of the annual deposits into that fund would be dedicated to savings for future economic downturns, and the remainder would be available to fund education, infrastructure, and debt repayment, or for use in a declared emergency.
* Requires additional revenue above historic trends to be deposited into state “rainy day” fund, limiting spending.

This is the legislative analysis summary

* Higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion from 2010—11 through 2012—13 to help balance the state budget.
* In many years, increased amounts of money in state “rainy day” reserve fund.
* Potentially less ups and downs in state spending over time.
* Possible greater state spending on repaying budgetary borrowing and debt, infrastructure projects, and temporary tax relief. In some cases, this would mean less money available for ongoing spending.

Not mentioned in the summary is the fact that it would have increased the Governor's authority to reduce spending.

Yes, passage would have extended tax increases that are already in effect and not set to expire until July 2011. Prop 1A would have extended the tax increase expiration by one to two years. But Californians did not need to amend the its constitution to extend the increases to 2012 or beyond.

[ContinentalOp]

69. Extending an existing temporary tax is not a "tax increase"

unless you're a spinning Republican. Please explain to me exactly how a higher sales tax two years from now would have prevented cuts in this year's budget. :shrug:

[slackmaster]

81. It's an increase compared to letting the tax hike expire

It means an extension of the increase in the amount of money taken out of the pockets of people who buy things.

Sales taxes are the most regressive of all. They affect poor and middle class people disproportionately compared to the wealthy.

[ContinentalOp]

96. And how would that increase, which would take place two years from now...

and fall disproportionately on the poor, help us with our current budget problems NOW, this year? How would it have prevented any of the cuts being discussed now?

[Luminous Animal]

101. The tax increase does not expire until June 30th 2011.

"The sales tax increase is temporary and will sunset June 30, 2012 if voters approve the proposed Budget Stabilization constitutional amendment on the May 19 Special Election ballot. If voters reject the amendment, the rate increase will expire one year sooner, June 30, 2011."
http://www.calrest.org/go/cra/news-events/newsroom/california-state-sales-tax-increase-in-effect/

And yes, sales taxes are the most regressive of all and California sales taxes are a large reason why the poor pay 11.7% of their income in taxes while the rich pay only 7.1%.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

141. That link contradicts your own repeated assertion that these ballot measures...

...had nothing to do with tax increases. From your own link:

Personal-income tax increase: Increases existing personal-income tax brackets by .25 percent. The highest rate becomes 9.55 percent, not including the 10.33 percent millionaire surtax. These bracket increases will be reduced to .125 percent if the federal stimulus trigger is pulled as a result of the state receiving at least $10 billion. These changes are effective for the taxable years 2009 and 2010. Alternative Minimum Tax will increase to 7.25 percent, or 7.125 percent if the federal trigger is pulled.

[ContinentalOp]

144. That's descriing changes that have already taken place.

"The sales tax increase is temporary and will sunset June 30, 2012 if voters approve the proposed Budget Stabilization constitutional amendment on the May 19 Special Election ballot. If voters reject the amendment, the rate increase will expire one year sooner, June 30, 2011." Same is true for the income tax and vehicle license fee increases AFAIK. They're in place now and will expire in 2011. If 1a had passed, they would be in place until 2012. Prop 1a would not have increased revenue one single cent this year.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

145. Did you even read my post?

What about income tax? What part of "cutting taxes reduces tax revenue" do you not understand?

[ContinentalOp]

150. Yes, I read it. The income tax increase is in effect already as well.

The site you linked to was just worded strangely.

"The California sales tax went up 1 percent last Wednesday ...Other tax increases include a 0.5 percent increase in fees to license vehicles, which will also expire in 2011. A 0.25 percent increase in the personal income tax will affect the 2009 and 2010 tax years, and another reduces the dependent care credit that parents and caregivers can get from the state by $300."
http://theaggie.org/article/3450

The way I understand prop 1a, it simply extended these existing tax increased for an additional year. So it would have had no effect on this year's budget.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

152. I didn't link to that site. Luminous Animal linked to that site.

And if you can't figure out that extending tax increases generates more revenue (which can be borrowed against to alleviate the current crisis) then I really don't know how to help you figure this stuff out.

[Luminous Animal]

157. If the legislature thinks it is wise

to extend the tax increases, they can do it in house. There was no need to include an extension of tax increases already approved by legislative action through the 2010-2011 tax year with a constitutional amendment. The legislatures included the Norquistian constitutional amendment because it is far easier to revise or amend the constitution through popular vote than legislatively.

[Luminous Animal]

155. Deleted.

[Luminous Animal]

156. From the voter's handbook.

Analysis by the legislative analyst
"Tax Increases Extended
If Proposition 1A passes, the tax increases
included in the February 2009 budget package
would be extended for one or two additional years.
(The extensions of the tax increases are included
in a part of a law that will only go into effect if
Proposition 1A passes.) The SUT increase of 1 cent
would be extended for one year through 2011–12.
The VLF tax increase would be extended for
two years through 2012–13. The PIT-related tax
increases would also be extended for two more years,
through the 2012 tax year."

The Personal Income Tax (PIT) has already increased. The changes referenced above were contingent on receiving 10 billion from the feds.

To recap, the legislators already enacted a tax increase. If the feds give us money, the increase will be less for the taxable years 2009 and 2010. In either case the increase will expire in 2010. Voting yes on 1A would extend this increase through the 2012 tax year.

[lolly]

78. OK--for 2 years

the tax would have stayed in place--AND to get that deal, we had to agree to spending caps that would be just as draconian as what we're facing now--and they would have been mandatory. For good.

[Luminous Animal]

104. The sales tax increase WILL stay in place for 2 years.

The sales tax increase already in place will not expire until June 30th, 2011. Prop 1A would have extended that increase for an additional year WHILE allowing Norquistian draconian spending caps.

[rhett o rick]

53. Who's Paul? Good post. nm

[lonestarnot]

56. CA wised up on who to vote out on the next go around yet?

[slackmaster]

82. That should start happening in 2012 when Prop. 11 redistricting reform kicks in

I can't wait for it.

[dana_b]

92. doubtful - there are a lot of selfish people here. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

61. Thank you.

And everyone who has such a short memory that they forgot how much we were robbed by Enron. That wasn't very long ago.

[ContinentalOp]

70. Yep, $30 billion

That would have helped a little with our current deficit huh?

[Starry Messenger]

73. Just a tad.

I can't believe the things I read here some days. I had no idea people here hated their own states so much that they are willing to crow over the failure of one of the biggest--when we go down, they are going down with us. Who will be laughing then?

[truedelphi]

97. It's said that every household is paying about $ 60 a month STILL

To make up for the Enron robbery.

[Speck Tater]

62. Here's the truth about who's fault it is...

It's nobody's fault. The economy is crashing, and it has a long was down to go before it hits bottom. A lot of people are going to suffer, and if systemic collapse disrupts critical things like just-in-time food delivery to the supermarkets, a lot of people are going to go hungry, and some may starve. People ARE going to die for lack of adequate health care. If not in California, then in Darfur for sure.

It breaks my heart to think of all the suffering that is happening and the even worse suffering that will happen if the economy continues on its present course. It's a terrible thing, and nobody wants to see it happen. The thing about California is that it is on the leading edge of feeling the effects of the ongoing collapse of the world economy. Californians, and California government is no more or less at fault that the citizens and governments of any other state or country. The wheels are coming off the wagon, and ALL the passengers are going to sail off the cliff, and EVERYBODY is going to look for a scape goat, for someone to blame. Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Union members will blame the corporations and non-members will blame the unions. Many will blame the voters of California themselves and say they had it coming.

None of these scapegoating claims is true. The crisis is so big and so systemic that it is impossible to place the blame on any one person or group because the blame itself is systemic. Each and every one of us shares our own 1/billionth part of the blame for doing our part to support an unsustainable form of consumerism, for doing our part to inflate personal debt, for doing our part to reduce savings rates to negative, for doing our part to consume non-renewable resources, for doing our part by voting our own personal self-interest ahead of the well being of the community (let alone the planet) as a whole, and as Americans for taking ten times our fair share of the world's energy and resources, all the while telling ourselves it is our inalienable right to do so.

We are headed for very hard times. Economic collapse, increasing climate disasters, probably more wars over scare resources, and possibly (although we all hope not) the extinction of the human race by their own hands. Yes its terrible that services are being cut in California. But that is just a gentle preview of much worse things to come. Casting about for someone to blame is not productive, and won't bring us any closer to a solution. And for the record, if anything saves us from utter ruin, it will NOT be politics or politicians.

[Deja Q]

84. Well, now that you've so eloquently and delicately posed the problems, what's your solution?

You can remind me when I forget to postulate a solution in my posts too; it's only fair.

[Speck Tater]

85. Frankly, I'm not smart enough to have figured out a solution.

Maybe this is one of those storms we will just have to weather the best way we can.

[XemaSab]

71. Wow, I just posted virtually the same thread without seeing this one

:thumbsup:

[Overseas]

72. K&R!! Exactly why I voted those props down !

We need to overturn the rule that requires 2/3 of our state legislators to approve any tax increases.

We have some Republicans who have pledged to their party that they will never vote for any tax increases, and the 2/3 rule gives those dogmatic jerks too much power.

[roamer65]

83. Dragonlady should shut her f'ing mouth.

She rode Moscone's corpse all the way, didn't she?

[Odin2005]

86. The CA legislature abandoned it's responsibilities. The propagandized mob rules California.

Mobs manipulated by special interests groups who put these oppositions to a vote and spew propaganda to the sheep.

If this BS spreads to the rest of the country we will have become Rome in the last century of the Republic, powerful private interests wiping up the mob and spewing platitudes about Populism and the "will of the people" to get what they want. Our republic will be doomed.

Let's hope our Tiberius Gracchus in the White House doesn't end up assassinated.

[ProgressIn2008]

88. He's doing a-okay with Secret Service and far better health care than the peasants.

But then again, he's not a pleb reformer, either.

[malletgirl02]

134. Great Post

I agree. This budget crisis and Prop 8 represents the dark side of direct democracy.

[truedelphi]

95. I am glad to hear someone say this. I kept hoping that ONE of the handful of

Props would concern lowering the friggin' prison guards salaries to what school teachers get paid, and transferring that money to the school system.

As it was, I stayed home. Like you say, it was all about Peter being robbed to pay Paul (Or vice versa)

[BlooInBloo]

100. Did any Cali votes implement tax cuts? I notice that's absent from your self-righteousness.

[Luminous Animal]

102. In this last round? No. What is your point?

[BlooInBloo]

103. Is Cali's bankruptcy due only to "this last round"?

[Luminous Animal]

106. I believe that the last time we voted on a tax decrease

was 30 years ago.

[BlooInBloo]

108. Er...

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/after-voters-reject-rescue-plan-calif

"Otherwise, on a bright, clear morning in the capital, the most certain thing was the dark and angry mood of the voters. They had overwhelmingly rejected a package of ballot measures intended to produce about $6 billion through the middle of next year with taxes, borrowing and other means; limit future government spending; and bolster the state's rainy day fund."

[BlooInBloo]

109. And....

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/once_again_cali_2.html

"Weintraub then goes on to detail the education, health care, prisons and transportation spending that makes up that growth. But nowhere in his column would you see the following:

• Tom McClintock and Arnold Schwarzenegger's $6 billion VLF cut
• Another $6 billion in tax cuts made to the state budget after 1993
• And of course, the start of the state's budget problem: Prop 13.

In other words, Weintraub makes it sound like the state is in a budget crisis because it is overspending, instead of because it is undertaxing. This is especially important when we consider what the state has been spending on - education, health care, and transportation - the very things California needs to remain competitive in a globalized 21st century economy. "

[BlooInBloo]

113. And...

http://www.itup.org/Reports/Budget/Thoughts%20on%20California%20Budget.pdf

"California’s budget crisis with a $16 billion deficit, as projected by the Legislative
Analyst’s Office, is extra-ordinarily large.1 It cannot be solved with new revenues alone,
or with budget cuts only.2 Before discussing solutions, it is worth reflecting on genesis.
The budget deficit is a result of a recession, wildly gyrating tax revenues, the state’s
structural budget deficit and the increased need for public spending in recessions. It is
unclear as yet whether we are entering a severe long term recession or a short and mild
one; while the forecasters think it will be short and mild, they may be wrong, as the
financial markets’ turmoil is a very serious threat.3 California tax revenues gyrate more
widely than most states in part due to our reliance on progressive income taxes, which
tank when declines in the stock market and housing market produce large losses as
opposed to large capital gains.4 California has a structural budget deficit as well; this is
due to large tax cuts, substantial growth in spending and improvements in programs for
schools and health care and large reduction in the state’s vehicle license fees, enacted
when revenues were good.5"


(footnote 5: )

"5 For example, the state phased out and eliminated the estate and gift tax for a revenue loss of $1 billion
annually and reduced vehicle license fees for a revenue loss of over $1.5 billion annually. See Schedule 3 at
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/REV/1249563.html The state expanded eligibility for health
care to children from 100% of the Federal Poverty Level to 250% of FPL now covering over 900,000
children annually at a projected cost of $400 million in state General Fund costs and $800 million in
Federal matching funds in 2008-09."




EDIT: Unintended smiley.

[BlooInBloo]

114. And...

http://www.google.com/search?q=california+%22tax+cuts%22+budget+crisis+history&hl=en&safe=off&sa=G&tbs=tl:1&tbo=1&ei=45ohSra5N5qytAOEwJyiBA&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11

Lotsa tax cuts much more recently than "30 years, I believe".

[BlooInBloo]

118. And...

http://www.bailard.com/pdf/CA%20muni%20market%20piece_2003.pdf

"9 For the period from 1994 to 2001, cumulative state tax cuts totaled $37.7 billion."

Again, much more recent than 30 years.

[Luminous Animal]

124. You are pointing to gifts to corporations

in the guise of tax cuts doled out by our politicians. When it comes to services, Californians have voted in tax increases the majority of the time.

[Luminous Animal]

121. You asked me about Cali votes

which I took to mean California voters. If you mean tax cuts originating from our Governor's office and the legislature, you should have been clearer. Oh, and thank for linking to our Governor's republican propaganda.

[BlooInBloo]

122. (a) Don't blame me for what Insure the Uninsured Project links to...

And (b) Cali votes for its representatives just like every other state. Electorates deserve what, and who, electorates vote for.

[Luminous Animal]

119. California voters did not vote on VLF.

It was a decrease by fiat.

[Luminous Animal]

117. Susie Madrak is wrong.

And so is the propaganda-laden article from the LA Times to which she links. We already have a tax increase that will not expire until June 30th, 2011. Two years from now. Prop 1A would have extended the sales tax until June 12, 2012 and the vehicle license tax until June 30th, 2013. The rest of the props were merely shifting money from one necessary service to another and borrowing money from estimated future lottery earnings.

[pnwmom]

120. You are wrong about Prop 1A. It would have RETAINED a recent tax increase --

without it, tax income will be reduced. And it would have set up a rainy day fund so that one year's surplus funds could help pay for another year's shortfall.

[Luminous Animal]

126. What are you talking about?

How can I be clearer. You are now and will be paying increased sales tax and vehicle license tax until June 30th, 2011 unless the legislature rolls it back. This is an undisputed fact.

California already has a rainy day fund. This was a republican scheme to permanently reduce the tax base in both boon times and bust times.

Nearly every single progressive org and union came out against 1A because of the havoc wreaked by these spending cap schemes in other states.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/05/a_look_at_spend.html

[WillowTree]

123. She wasn't saying she want's California to suffer.

What kind of stupidity would that be?

Her point was more along the lines of "You got what you voted for", using the global "you", of course.

[Parker CA]

143. Out of the 22 oil producing states in this country, CA is the only one who will not tax companies

who pull oil from the ground. I think that would be one way to raise some extra revenue and come to even standing with the other 21 states who seem to find value in such a concept.

Also, the alcohol tax hasn't been touched since I believe the mid-seventies. This could benefit from some focus and increases as well. FWIW, I'm in the wine business, and I'd happily pay extra on wines and other alcohol if it meant generating some much, much needed cash for this state.

Either option is a greater solution to me than the planned closure of over 200 state parks, among other proposals on the table.

We need some new ideas up there in Sacto.

[Initech]

146. Feinstein is a perfect argument for term limits in the senate.

[Ozymanithrax]

147. They failed and nothing was solved...

Now, the government will continue gutting the school system. They will close down parks. They will release more prisoners from prisons. (Not necessarily a bad thing) Our infrastructure will continue to disintegrate.

What we need is to change the budget system so a small minority holds a gun to the heads of everyone in the state. We need to repeal prop 13. Hell, we need a Constitutional Convention.

The props were a lousy solution, but they were a solution. Now, we do have Grover Norquist's wet dream in California. The conservatives are shrinking California government till they can drown it in the bathtub.

The majority of Californians like Government programs but hate to pay for it.

[Wednesdays]

151. K&R

:kick:

[Bandit]

153. Except California did vote in Ahnold and remove Davis

I doubt you can justify that as not having any effect on California's financial situation..You dance with the one that brung ya..

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

158. Davis was removed in part because of problems very similar to the current problems.

This stuff has been going on for decades, and has very little to do with who is occupying the position of Governor.

[Luminous Animal]

159. Indeed. And Americans voted for Bush twice.

I have more empathy for my fellow Americans currently suffering from Bush destruction of the U.S. economy. I feel no schadenfreude from the suffering of Bush voters as you seemingly do for Californians who voted for Arnold.

[Raine]

162. Davis was crooked and inept

I voted against the recall but I can understand why some wanted him recalled. I shed no tears for him.

[sendero]

160. California..

... like the rest of the nation, but perhaps moreso, is merely getting the government it deserves. It voted for these aholes, it voted for and against these propositions, its people clearly are playing the "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree" game and it's just about GAME OVER.

What's about to go down in CA will be going down in plenty of other states, and it's not going to be pretty anywhere.

[Luminous Animal]

163. I don't recall voting for anyone in the minority Republican party.

Nor have most Californians given that our state senate and assembly are overwhelmingly Democratic. These Republicans, who took the Norquist pledge of "no taxes" have held up the budget process year after year after year. On local issue, that is, those issues not subject to the whims of the state Republican party, voters have proved willing to raise taxes on themselves more often than not.

FYI, in December of 2008, Democrats in the state legislature submitted a budget to Arnold that included $18 billion of creative revenue raising that would side-step the 2/3rds rule. Arnold vetoed it, of course and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass responded:

“The governor’s haste is a waste of $18 billion in solutions that could have helped with our cash crisis and our budget deficit. The governor claims he wants to negotiate but then says things must be exactly as he wants. That is astonishing given the crisis we face. We are now waiting anxiously to see what the next step will be from a governor who has consistently been unable to produce even a single vote for a single budget solution.”

My bolded emphasis illustrates that Arnold and the Republicans were never looking for a solution. Their goal is now and has been to destroy California's social safety net.

[BlooInBloo]

164. It's too bad you're not the only voter in CA, then. Possibly your time would be better spent...

Convincing the electorate of your state to vote more responsibly, than bitching at the rest of us who note the fact that they haven't.

[Luminous Animal]

167. The majority of citizens in my state are voting more responsibly.

Our legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic. We are being held hostage by the minority. I'm currently working on calling for a Constitutional Convention with the aim of restructuring our dysfunctional government.

http://www.repaircalifornia.org/about_california_convention.php

[sendero]

168. Well, when they do it..

.... maybe people will get off their asses and vote.