Today, the governor held a press conference that reminded me of the phrase “everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.”
As was expected, the governor pointed the finger at the Legislature to explain why we do not have a budget revision in place today. But this criticism, among other things he said, is simply a manipulation of the facts. So, let me set the record straight. Consider these examples:
• The Legislature only had endless hearings and no negotiations – The Conference Committee had public hearings to give the public a say in the public’s budget. And, we have had negotiations. But the governor has consistently used Republican legislators to blow up the agreements we have made.
• The Legislature is protecting special interests – This is true only if one defines special interests to be children, the elderly, the disabled, college students from working families, and state park lovers. Conference Committee protected the people of California from their own governor. That is why we rejected the governor’s proposals to eliminate healthcare for a million children, to eliminate welfare to work programs while unemployment in teeters over 11%, to eliminate CalGrants, and to close 220 state parks.
• The Legislature must look at reforming state pensions, CalWORKS, and in-home care - Here we go again. Remember the multi-million dollar 2005 special election no one but the governor wanted? Every single one of the so-called “reform” initiatives written by the governor were resoundingly rejected by the voters. The governor is bringing them back and doesn’t want public scrutiny of the sweeping policy changes he wants as part of a budget agreement.
• The Legislature must solve the entire budget problem – The Legislature has solved the entire budget problem, including adopting many - but not all - of the governor's own proposals. The Conference Budget provides $23.6 billion in budget solutions that would have resolved our $19.5 billion deficit, including a $4.1 billion reserve. And, the majority vote budget provides $23.5 billion in budget solutions with a $4 billion reserve.
The governor also said that he wants to fully fund education. But the governor’s new budget proposal submitted today would suspend Proposition 98.
While the governor spins the state into chaos, California pays the price. Our fiscal condition continues to deteriorate. A court ruled that the state’s transfer of transit funds is illegal, potentially costing the state up to $3.4 billion. The National Park Service advised California that they would take over several state parks if the governor insists on closing them. And, the governor rejected his administration’s agreement with the federal receiver on state prison health care.
As we move forward, the context of our work is now shaped by three announcements made by the governor today:
• The governor signed an executive order requiring state workers to have three furlough days a month, the equivalent of a 14 percent pay cut;
• The governor called an emergency session under Proposition 58, which means the Legislature has 45 days to act on the budget; and
• The governor will not sign any legislation until the budget is passed.
Despite the governor’s antics, the Assembly passed a package of budget bills today that – with the exception of the first item – is similar to what the governor vetoed yesterday:
• AB x3 7 – Provides the State Controller with flexibility to manage IOUs so that they may be redeemed earlier than October for payment, pending the passage of a state budget revision;
• AB x3 10 – Enacts $7.9 billion in spending reductions; and
• ABx3 19 – Provides $4.4 billion in accelerated revenues and tax compliance measures.
Further information about these bills will be available here.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Setting the Record Straight:
Hi I am just an Average Californian and I want to set the record straight as I see it. This budget crisis is 100% YOUR FAULT. Not you personally, but YOU along with the assembly, the senate and the governor’s office have passed bad budgets year after year after year. YOU make the rules, YOU set the projections. Other state governments get by with a lot less “revenue” than California and are doing quite well. Where would you rather send YOUR child to school; Los Angeles or Omaha?
Here is a thought for you as you raise taxes; I live in a neighborhood with a large illegal population. I have watched and learned from them, on my street there is a man who cuts hair in his garage for $6.00. I have not used his services, but I wonder if he does not bother to get a business license, how much does he pay in taxes? I don’t think much. I can easily save on MY tax burden since he only accepts cash, how will you ever know. I can get vegetables for cash, and other goods. We have quite an underground economy that seems to grow every day.
Also, at my office ether are 6 guys who used to hunt here in California, we spent our money here and our fees paid for a lot of parks and recreation for everybody. We all hunt out of state now with the phony lead ban and the general harassment by the Game and Fish Department. We all would rather spend $1500.00 going to Colorado, Montana or Wyoming than give you $1.00 of unearned “revenue”. There is your record.
Loren, most other states are in trouble too. This is not just a California problem. But our crazy budget laws and a very marginalized Republican party make it impossible to respond to the crisis.
BTW, most of the recent budget problems are created by the voters via the initiative process (I want goodies!) while not being willing to pay for them.
The governor and legislature is then left to clean up the mess.
Find the California Budget Blog at
http://cabudgetblog.blogspot.com/
The Legislature is protecting special interests – This is true only if one defines special interests to be unions and state workers.
"Despite the governor’s antics, the Assembly passed a package of budget bills today that – with the exception of the first item – is similar to what the governor vetoed yesterday"
Why settle for one veto when you can have two-fer eh??
"BTW, most of the recent budget problems are created by the voters via the initiative process"
ORLY?? Which initiative gave the prison guards a 37% pay raise? Which initiative gave the teachers health care that they pay nothing for and gives them dependent coverage whether they need it or not? Which initiative allows state workers to retire at age 50 with 100% of their last year's salary? Which initiative is giving 12B a year to the illegal aliens?
A pox on your lies, sir...
speaking of lies - I'm a state worker and I don't retire at 50 with 100% of my salary! very far from it... Where do you get your info?! I just took a 15% pay cut on top of no raises for years!
Keep passing the same budget bills, and make Ahnuld keep vetoing them and explaining why HE is crippling the state by acting like a 3 year old.
Reenie,
Why don't you threaten to eliminate the garbage board?
Obviously, nobody's garbage will be collected if ex-politicians don't get paid six-figure salaries for going to garbarge board meetings once or twice a month.
The garbage will pile up in the streets and the people will howl for more taxes!
MWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Hey John,
Here are your "lies".... THIS is where I get my info from. Educate yourself:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/how-unions-are-bankrupting-california/
http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/1965212.html
BaddaBoom... BaddaBim.
W.C.
We are WAY past garbage piling up in the streets. PEOPLE ARE DYING!! Did you not hear it on ALL 3 national networks plus CNN and FOX last night?? Californians are falling down in the streets because we have no budget.
Ok... This time I did lie. ;)
"Every single one of the so-called “reform” initiatives written by the governor were resoundingly rejected by the voters. The governor is bringing them back and doesn’t want public scrutiny of the sweeping policy changes he wants as part of a budget agreement."
Why is it you will only listen to the voter when it is convenient for you? The voters more recently said NO MORE TAXES!!!!!! Why have you not addressed that fact? You seem to just brush it aside a hogwash, when in fact that is the will of the California voter base. But I digress. All I'm doing is talking to the rest of the bloggers on this site because. You hane'nt got the guts to respond to any one that posts.
"The Legislature must look at reforming state pensions, CalWORKS, and in-home care - Here we go again. Remember the multi-million dollar 2005 special election no one but the governor wanted? Every single one of the so-called “reform” initiatives written by the governor were resoundingly rejected by the voters. The governor is bringing them back and doesn’t want public scrutiny of the sweeping policy changes he wants as part of a budget agreement."
Hey Noreen.... Know what the fastest growing state program is?? In home health care.
Know how much it costs the tax payers?? 3-5B.
Know how many inspectors there are for this program?? TWO.
Know how many of those were actually hired by the state?? ZERO!!
Know how many of these in-home "workers" are SEIU employees?? ALL OF THEM.
Know how many of these in-home "workers" pay union dues to SEIU? ALL OF THEM.
That connect the dots for you Noreen???
I think I will instruct payroll on Tuesday to withhold state taxes for my employees and instead write (IOU) in the appropriate pay stub locations. In fact, maybe I should just pay my employees their entire wages and they can send in the IOU's?
Can you imagine the gigantic freakout scene in Sacramento if California employers did that? Talk about reform, we'd bring these thieving politico bastards to their knees and get true reform almost overnight.
This is the story that is just now beginning to be told. A lot of the people that Evans, Steinbrg and Karen (Don't be a terrorist and hold your representative accountable) Bass are harming are small, mom and pop businesses.
They will get IOUs starting today. B of A has said they will honor them till July 10.
Of 22 San Diego banks that the city queried, 3 said they would honor them. I guess they will be getting the city's business until our merry band of legislators learns something from Prop 1A.
Signed,
Someone who was NOT confused about what he voted for on May 19.
I think this prtty much sums up the other side's position:
http://chuckdevore.com/blog.asp?artid=80
"I can't make it. Tax evrybody"
Nice.
Cretin,
Drum circle: check
Bad signs: check
Wife beater shirt: check
Tie-dye shirt: check
Assorted third world musical instruments: check
Dragging your kids into the mix: check
Knit cap to enclose disgusting rat infested pot smelling filthy dreads guaranteed to keep you out of a private sector job in the real world and emptying wastebaskets for another 40 years while keeping you always angry and blaming everyone else for your plight look: check
Somebody needs to get a life beyond shock-jock talk radio and commenting on a blog.
Dear Ms. Evans,
Thank you so much for pointing out that the courts have ruled that the state's transfer of transit funds was illegal. It is odd that your committee doesn't take responsibility for that. This was, of course, a plan set forth by the Senate and Assembly budget committees to avoid making the $3 billion in cuts that the Governor asked for. Instead of cuts, you came up with an illegal accounting maneuver that didn't solve the problem. So you can see why fiscally responsible people are loath to trust the similar accounting tricks your most recent bills have relied on. We've seen how this game has played out before.
http://transbayblog.com/2008/02/14/alert-stop-raiding-transit-funds/
With regards to the National Park Service taking over several state parks, what is the problem with that? It sounds like a Federal bailout. They pay for the parks, while Californians can continue to enjoy them. It is a win-win. Chalk up that cost savings and move on.
I notice that Border Field is one of the six parks in question. Ms. Evans, have you ever been to Border Field? I grew up just minutes away in the beautiful city of Imperial Beach, CA. If you aren't familiar with Border Field, it is famous for three things: 1) Bird watching 2) Millions of gallons of toxic raw sewage spilling over from Tijuana, and 3) illegal alien crossings. The park is closed to car traffic 5 days a week, so the primary visitors to the park are Border Patrol agents, Mexican citizens hoping to talk to their family and friends in Tijuana through the fence, and open border advocates looking for a good photo to post on their web sites.
Perhaps you would like to see some photos:
http://good-times.webshots.com/album/556602299AJkmdx?start=24
After decades of inaction by the state and federal governments to fix the sewage problem, the Mayor if Imperial Beach took matters into his own hands. In 1980, Mayor Brian Bilbray used an earth mover to try to dam up the Tijuana river, and divert the sewage back to Mexico. Now THAT's thinking outside the box, even if it did probably violate the Treaty of Hidalgo. You need a free-thinker like that to help solve your budget problems. Since he started his career as a tax consultant, you should look him up. I'm sure he has some fresh ideas for you.
So anyway, one of the six parks is this bog of raw sewage and contaminated beach on the border with Mexico. And I got to thinking...every time California citizens ask the state to deal with the illegal alien problem, you divert the issue and say it is the Federal government's responsibility. Since one of the parks is primarily used by Federal agents and illegal aliens, is it not then perfectly reasonable to LET the Feds take responsibility for it? Again, it is a win-win for the taxpayers of California.
With regards to your snarky comments about special interests. Ms. Evans, you know who the special interests are. They are the SEIU, teachers unions, environmental lobbies, and and similar organizations. Not the children of California. Here's what a poll conducted by David Binder Research conducted in May of this year had to say. It is notable that this survey was paid for by ONE OF THE TEACHER'S UNIONS!!!!
In reponse to this question, “Which qualities do you think apply to the Californa State Legislature,
70% of Californian's agree with this statement: “They are captive of special interests”.
In response to this question “Which of the following best describes your opinion about the special election, 69% agreed with this statement: “It was an example of the Governor and the legislature balancing the budget on the back of average Californians instead of asking their special interest contributors to do their share to help out”.
Ms. Evans, we know who the special interests are. Please don't try to obfuscate the issue.
"Somebody needs to get a life beyond shock-jock talk radio and commenting on a blog."
Personal Attacks For the WIN!
Noreen, my dear, "it's better to keep you mouth closed and be thought of a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." I have no doubt now that you are a master fool.
"Somebody needs to get a life beyond shock-jock talk radio and commenting on a blog."
Don't you mean "terrorist radio"? Or you could just cal it Cal Jazeera.
More Chuck Devore:
31 new taxes that the unions began demanding AFTER Prop 1A failed:
http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog.asp?artid=63
Think that Noreen's hand will stay out of your wallet if she gets the car TAX (again), the oil extractaion TAX, the cigarette TAX, and the GAS tax (again)?
Yea.. me either.
Greyhair,
You have repeatedly used the phrase “marginalized Republican party” in your posts. While it is true that the party may be marginalized, fiscal conservatives remain a significant part of the population of California. Let us not confuse a corrupt political system that denies government representation to conservatives, with a lack of conservative voters. Only 42% of voters in California are registered as Democrats. 52.9% are registered as Republicans or non-partisan. Democrats do not hold a majority among California citizens.
Greyhair, you know as well as I do that gerrymandered voting districts in California is the reason that the Republican party doesn't have greater representation in state government .These carefully drawn district maps are created to give disproportionately large amount of legislative seats and political power to the majority party, which perpetuates the cycle over and over again. The districts are drawn using complex computer models to connect disjoint and unrelated geographical areas with strips of land to connect similar voting blocks.
Even the New York Times, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country, called for reform of the system. On November 7, 2005, it published an article by Jill Stewart called 'Terminator vs. Gerrymander”. It says “Honest observers from the Left and Right have long complained that California's voting district map is a masterwork of cynicism that assures victories for incumbents as well as party hacks seeking open seats. The fix is so complete that in 2004 not one of the 173 state legislative and Congressional seats being contested in California changed party hands. Robert Stern, president of the liberal-leaning Center for Governmental Studios in Los Angles, told me that California's election are “less democratic than the Soviet Politburo”.
A report from the National Civic League called 'Uniting Backers of Gerrymandering Reform and Minority Voting Rights' had this to say on the issue: “The 2001 redistricting already was perhaps the most flagrantly rigged insider's racket in decades. In California, for example, incumbent U.S. House Democrats paid $20,000 apiece to a redistricting consultant to have “designer districts” drawn for them.”
Legal Affairs magazine had this to say about the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in an editorial from 2003 called 'Color Inside the Lines'. “For at least a decade, in courts from coast to coast, the organization had enthusiastically defended racially gerrymandered voting districts shaped like bug splats”.
Greayhair, that doesn't sound like a very democratic system, does it? Is this the way you would choose to have the citizens of California represented? If you are honest, you would say 'no'. So lets not let the party affiliations of our representatives in the legislature dictate the way California moves forward into the future. Let's let the people have their direct input, too.
For those new to gerrymandering, here is a pretty picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CA-38_108_clip.png
I love that little "bridge" from Pomona to Hacienda Heights.
"The Conference Committee had public hearings to give the public a say in the public’s budget. And, we have had negotiations. But the governor has consistently used Republican legislators to blow up the agreements we have made. "
Noreen links to THIS article:
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=y3cdi8kcyex58d&xid=y3adx14djixdl1&done=.y3cdi8kcyfg58d
which says this:
"But the Senate's failure to act on the measures takes away a series of deferred payments and bookkeeping tricks that could have saved the state up to $7 billion"
Were the tax payers at that public hearing REALLY asking for deferred payments and bookkeeping tricks??
"Please... please.. kick the budget can farther down the street."
Due to the character limit I am splitting the following into two posts.
I could spend my time complaining but I am going to be productive and present a smart solution to you Noreen:
First how to solve the income problem:
Ignoring all the poor legislators feelings this will hurt, you enact legislation capping any and all California Government spending at 90% of projected revenue without exception and you forbid any form of non-emergency borrowing money. The remaining 10% of revenue is invested in fixed-interest yielding accounts and can only be called upon in two scenarios:
1. When a California impacting emergency is declared by a state-impartial fully-federal organization
2. When the amount of money held in reserves exceeds the amount allocated for spending in the current fiscal year the difference may be used for any purpose
The reason why most borrowing will be forbidden is because borrowing is inherently risky. The trade-off in borrowing comes from increasing risk leading to a chance for greater success along with a chance for greater failure (risk is essentially an outcome multiplier). This chance for greater failure and the fact that borrowing ultimately leads to Californians paying back other Californians does not well suit a non-profit organization such as this state. Without diving too deep into this subject, without a profit motive, there is no way that borrowing could ever be paid back without raising extra money (taxes) above the base. So borrowing is therefore not allowed except if an emergency is declared by a state-impartial fully-federal organization.
Of course the tax system needs to be addressed in order to provide a clear spending baseline. It needs to be streamlined, simplified, and finalized. I know I will upset a great number of people who were on my side until now but everyone needs to consider this reform seriously. There should only be four taxes ever and that is it:
1. 10% income tax for everyone including businesses
2. 10% sales tax across everything
3. 1% property tax based on current structure
4. Fines for breaking the law
No gas tax above the sales tax, no car registration, no public toll roads, no parking fees, no entry fees for public spaces, etc. The shifting of taxes will work out to an individual paying close to the same amount we currently pay but it will make the system easier for taxpayers to understand, it will make collection of taxes easier, and it will make spotting cheaters easier. Those outcomes are all improvements and the biggest improvement is we taxpayers will always know what to expect. Oh, but there's a catch, no state tax breaks for anyone (with one exception that I will discuss in the following section).
Here is the continuation of my post from July 2, 2009 1:12PM
Now onto spending:
Sadly cuts must be made or efficiencies must be found. You legislators get full control over what to cut - even if it is sad to us (eg. the state parks) it is your prerogative to make that call. Once spending is controlled you enact legislation mandating the impermanence of EVERY state program. This legislation will make three things clear:
1. Absolutely no program can be committed to for greater than five years.
2. In order to extend a program for any additional amount of time (again up to five years), an audit must be performed with findings released prior to the end of the fifth year and the audit must find that the program is worthy and that there is a minimal amount of waste.
3. If the legislature wishes to continue a program that does not pass its audit the funding can only be extended an additional six months at a time with a maximum of two extensions per 15-year period and an audit must be performed after each extension.
What you do with the money you have to spend is up to you. Within your budget you can even decide to implement tax breaks for whatever you want as long as they follow the same guidelines I set forth for any other program. We taxpayers will obviously hope you will spend it wisely but we will at least have the guarantee that you will not abuse your alloted funds.
This is a realistic look at how to solve the problem. I wouldn't even bother writing about this except you can't seem to get right even though you are paid to figure this out forty hours a week. I think that it is sad that I contemplated this for about a day and a half and I can put forward a party-neutral plan for fixing this problem that only a crook would vote against.
Ya. what he said!!!!!
Here are a few simple ideas that should help save money and restore a balanced budget to the state of California:
1. Immediately have the Governor lay off as many of the 235,000 state employees under his control as is reasonably feasible. Consolidate as many positions as possible, and eliminate or consolidate any departments that serve redundant functions.
2. In specific, have the Governor lay off all paid staff directly under his supervision. Further, if the Governor believes he needs to have a paid staff, have such staff be paid for directly from his salary.
3. Immediately have all state legislators lay off all of their paid staff, with their salaries retroactive to January of this year to be voluntarily repaid to the state by each legislator. Given the condition of the state's finances, the least the legislators can do is answer their own phones and email, and not burden the state's taxpayers with these costs. Further, any paid staff working for the legislators in the future should have their salaries paid by the legislators themselves.
4. Immediately have all state legislators and all remaining executive personnel including the Governor voluntarily take a 15% pay cut, retroactive to January 1, 2009. If the remaining state employees are taking such a cut, there is no reason that the legislative and executive branches cannot act in responsible solidarity with them.
5. Immediately have all state legislators and all remaining executive staff including the Governor voluntarily renounce all expense payments and perquisites, effective retroactive to January 1, 2008. (Yes, going back an additional year, given the budgetary crisis the state is facing.) This would include everything from the infamous car allowances to housing allowances to every single kind of reimbursement, including travel. Given that many constituents are losing far more than this, this constructive step is the least the legislators and the governor could do to show some fiscal responsibility in these trying times. If there is an issue about housing costs in Sacramento for the legislators, I would recommend either having them boarded at Cal State Sacramento dormitories or having cots installed in their offices where the assistants used to have their desks. Given that the state legislature will hopefully be changing to part-time with the coming initiative, this shouldn't be a major hardship. Also, the repayment of the expenses should not amount to a large amount unless the legislator in question has been charging large amounts to the state, which would beg the question of why they are doing so during a major recession.
Post continued below...
Here's the rest of the post...
6. Immediately take Jennifer Granholm up on her proposal and transfer as many of California's prison inmates to Michigan, where they can be housed for less money. This both helps with the overcrowding problem and is another budgetary savings.
7. Immediately nationalize all state parks. If the concern is that the Federal Government will take over jurisdiction if the parks are closed, then why not simply have the Federal Government take over the costs and issues? Once again, this would be a budgetary savings, albeit a small one. But it would eliminate this as an issue for future budgetary discussions.
8. Immediately have all state legislators and the Governor agree to a working condition that their salaries, such as they are, will be contingent on passing a balanced and appropriate state budget. In other words, if they fail to do their job, they don't get paid by the taxpayers. Or to be more specific, failure to do their job would mean having to reimburse the taxpayers for their salaries.
9. Immediately lay off any and all paid consultants for the state legislature and the governor, with all such salaries to be repaid to the taxpayers, retroactive to January 1, 2008. The repayment should be done by whichever legislator or executive staff member arranged for the consultant in question. And any future consultants should be paid for directly from the legislator or executive staff member's salary.
10. Immediately cancel any and all state projects that are not deemed to be emergency measures. Lay off any staff involved with these projects, given that the need for their employment would no longer exist. When the state's finances improve in a few years, these can be re-evaluated.
11. Immediately have all legislators and the Governor agree (and all future candidates agree as well) that the state of California will no longer participate in the financing of election campaigns.
12. Immediately cease any and all state funding provided to private corporations, whether that be in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, grants or outright cash payments. Require all such private corporations to repay any such funds received since January 1, 2009, with a reasonable time frame for them to be able to come up with the funds to reimburse the taxpayers.
Now, these proposals will not by themselves solve the fiscal problems the state faces, but they will at least show a good faith effort by the Governor and the legislature to find real solutions and to share the burden with the taxpayers. Obviously, much deeper cuts will be required throughout the state budget, but this will at least tell the taxpayers that the state government understands their accountability and their responsibilities.
FYI---lots of rank and file union members only voice is the ballot box when we vote AGAINST your tax increases. Yes, lots of us voted against the Props! You need to make due with what you've got. We streamline our costs---you need to. Fire those stupid commissioners and start doing the work yourselves. What the heck do you do all day?
Greyhair said...
Loren, most other states are in trouble too.
Yeah, but California is so much better at it! Ani the state government had so much more "revenue" to start with. That might have been a handicap to them.
Mark,
You're right about the gerrymandering. And that will change in 2010. I don't think, however, it will significantly change representation. We'll see. And if reforms creates boundaries that are more sensible, then that's right. Understand that no matter what, district boundaries will always be a subject of struggle.
But what about the initiative process? Arguably most of the budget mess today is the result of unfunded mandates as a result of special interest initiatives passed by voters directly. And note, both liberal AND conservative groups fall into the category of special intersts. I don't like any of them putting their fingers in the government lawmaking pie. Unless it's very very special, it's my policy to vote NO on all propositions.
Salon has an article today that sums up California's mess. Simply put (and as usual, Cali is a bellwether for the rest of the country), voters can't make up their mind between having government services and being willing to pay for them, and yet given the process individual voters are mucking things up. Want to be tough on crime with a rigid three strikes law? Get ready to pay for prisons. Want better education? Get ready to pay for it. When you put such issues to popular vote, of course people say yes to services. But when the "people" lack the skill and expertise of governing, don't be surprised if the funding is not provided for.
Anyone with a education in politics 101 (and this would include special intersts groups from both sides of the isle) know that you can pass propositions promising goodies, and you'll likely lose if you also ask for funding. And that's exactly the condundrum (despite the claims about illegals, unions yada yada yada) we're in. In a very real way, our representatives are simply at the bottom of the hill with the s**t rolling at them.
Along with gerrymandering reform, I wonder how you'd feel about campaign reform? The "special interests" that are such a whipping boy on these pages (i.e. the SEIU) do heavily fund campaigns. But I haven't seen discussion here about other special interests. In my community, liberals go hat in hand to small donors for campaigns to counter the funding from developers and business interests who seemingly have unlimited funds for campaigns. In a time when it takes a cool quarter mil to run a state legislature campaign, special intersts on all sides are a problem.
And why is it so expensive to campaign? Because all those vaunted "voters" you'all want to entrust the state to could generally give a rip, so they have to be bombarded with ads/info to even get them to vote. And even with that in most elections, most don't vote. That's hardly democratic.
So what say ye on constitutional campaign reform where special intersts are either pushed out, or have an equal counter force of public funding? If you all want the SEIU's hands tied, I'm all for it as long as this includes the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups. Unfortunately I'm going to guess that the more radical among these pages would only want "selective" reform that cuts out "liberal" intersts.
I've worked closely on a number of campaigns for liberals. Trust me. In every case the candidates would prefer to not accept funding from any special interest. But the fact is, you take campaign help or you don't even bother to run.
Everyone has pie-in-the-sky solutions. You know, the ifIwereking ideas. Personally, I prefer that we put a boundary line from Yosemite to south of Monterey and divide the state. Is that going to happen? No. But campaign reform and getting rid of the initiative process (which ironically was started by progressives to counter big railroads) would be a good, doable start. And gerrymandering reform .....
"Want to be tough on crime with a rigid three strikes law? Get ready to pay for prisons. Want better education? Get ready to pay for it."
We DO pay for it. It costs us 42K per prisoner per year. FL can do it for 24K.
You have NEVER addressed this issue.
We DO pay for it. Our teachers are the higest paid in the nation. Highest by 25%.
You have NEVER addressed this issue.
We have the higest income taxes in the nation.
You have NEVER addressed this issue.
We have the highest gas taxes in the nation.
You have NEVER addressed this issue.
We have the highest sales taxes in the nation.
You have NEVER addressed this issue.
We have the higest business taxes in the nation.
You have NEVER addressed this issue.
What makes you think we ARE NOT paying?
Here is your vaunted Salon.com article:
"A classic example is the 1994 "three strikes" initiative, which mandated harsh prison sentences for repeat offenders. The bill was cathartic for citizens who wanted to get tough on crime, but it had serious budgetary consequences. As a result of the initiative and other tough crime laws, California's prison population has increased 82 percent over the last 20 years. State institutions now house a mind-boggling 170,000 prisoners. Corrections costs California $13 billion a year -- a fivefold increase since 1994, and more than the state spends on higher education."
Doesn't address the 42K per prisoner cost now does it?
"Former Gov. Gray Davis gave the powerful prison guards union a 30 percent pay raise from 2003 to 2008."
Ah... so it WASNT the voters after all??
"But the most momentous initiative was Prop. 13, which slashed property taxes. By voting for Prop. 13, while not demanding a reduction in public services, Californians were in effect saying they wanted to have it all: low taxes and social services, subsidized public education, infrastructure and the other things provided by government."
False. As pointed out here:
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/034048.html
California does NOT have a revenue problem. It has a SPENDING problem- as has been pointed out time and time again.
Cretin (quite a handle btw),
Just so you know.
I've looked at a few of your "sources". You are definately on the fringe. Hereon, it will be my policy to IGNORE you. I'm sure Ms. Evans has for some time.
Greyhair,
See, those are perfectly reasonable points you made there.
I do not disagree with anything you wrote about the initiative process being broken, and needing campaign reform. While I do believe that giving the citizens some kind of initiative process is an important tool of democracy, we can do it better. For example, any initiative that creates a program that costs money, needs to have a component that generates money ASIDE from just rearranging the general fund. The initiative process has absolutely tied the hands of the government, no doubt about it.
Likewise, campaign reform of some type would be a good thing. I agree that ALL special interests should have their hands tied somewhat. Including unions, oil cartels, tobacco companies, and Indian casinos.
So you will get no argument from me on that point. We'll have to agree to disagree on the 2/3 rule. I thank God every day that we have it.
Yet here we are, with a more urgent problem to solve. And in this instance, given the facts at hand, I personally believe that the solution AT THIS MOMENT IN HISTORY is to cut back on costs and programs. Because whatever problems California has with its bad initiative and campaign practices, it still has an even bigger problem with an addiction to wasteful spending.
Yes, 3 strikes laws have required more prisons. So of course costs go up. But our per-convict price is so much higher than other states, so you have to ask, why? And then we need to fix that. Privatize the prisons, cut staff, reduce benefits, whatever it takes.
32% of all the people on welfare in the US are in California. While the number of people enrolled in welfare has decreased around the country, the number in California has been steadily rising? Why? Whatever it is, we need to fix that. The state cannot, and should not, support 1/3 of the nation's poor.
Similarly with education. Yes, we have the mandated budget under prop 98. But still, with as much as we spend, we have one of the worst systems in the country. Will more money make it better? History says no. The system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. But those kinds of massive changes won't happen until the death grip of the unions is released from the neck of California's children, and that won't happen without the cuts.
Do we know that California has a $140 billion dollar time bomb around it's neck due to pension obligations? Yes. So most importantly of all, we need to change that and change it fast.
So, my stand is that we cut now. Cut hard and deep. Cut until everybody sees that the system needs to be changed. Cut until the state is surviving for the tax base it currently has. And then when the unions have lost tens of thousands of jobs, when parents are enraged because the classes are more crowded, when businesses and the casinos are suffering because of the loss of discretionary income, they can all come together with the people of California and redesign the state from the ground up. But first, we have to live within our means. And THEN figure out what other extra services we REALLY need, and figure out how to afford that. Do we need more parks? Do we need more welfare? Only after we live within our means can we truly see what our priorities should be. We can't start from the position of saying we need everything we have now and just raise taxes.
And then, once we fix the budget, we can work on improving the initiative progress and campaign reform.
"I've looked at a few of your "sources". You are definately on the fringe."
Greyhair,
OFC you will... You hate the facts of the matter.
As for my "sources".. Yes, the SacBee, LATimes, San Diego Union Tribune and Chuck Devore are definitely radical nutcases.
Ooops.. Sorry, your source is the LATimes too.
Post a Comment