Desperation Time in Sacramento
| Wed Dec. 17, 2008 10:51 PM PST
DESPERATION TIME IN SACRAMENTO....California is $40 billion in the hole, give or take a billion or ten, and the only way out is to raise taxes and cut spending. 
But it takes a two-thirds vote to pass a budget or raise taxes in California, and California Republicans flatly refuse to raise taxes in any way, shape, or form. Result: deadlock.
Today, though, Democrats in Sacramento came up with a plan. It turns out that revenue-neutral tax changes only require a majority vote. And user fees only require a majority vote too. So Dems have proposed a two-step tap dance. First, raise a bunch of taxes and eliminate a bunch of fees in a revenue neutral way. Pass it with a majority vote. Then put all the fees back in place under a different name and kick them up a notch. Pass that with a majority vote too. Voila! A tax increase with only a majority vote. Toss in $7 billion in spending cuts (schools, healthcare, etc. — the usual) and we're halfway down the road to fiscal solvency!
It's clever, I'll give them that. And there's nothing to keep them from doing it over and over again, thus raising taxes whenever they want to with only a majority vote. Because of that, and regardless of whatever supporting opinion they managed to wrench from the Legislative Counsel's office, this is so plainly contrary to the spirit of the state constitution that I have a hard time seeing how it will pass judicial muster. But I guess it's worth a try. Any port in a storm.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Submitted by dday (not verified) on Wed Dec. 17, 2008 11:29 PM PST.
Well, Governor Vehicle License Fee is wringing some concessions out of legislative Dems as a condition for signing the package, so we're in a holding pattern. Meanwhile, every infrastructure project in the state has been shut down, and I don't know if a budget fix will even restart them at this point, the problem seems to be that investors won't lend the state money because they fully expect it to go into default.
If it goes to court, if I were the lawyers I would argue that the 2/3 rule itself is unconstitutional and violates the principle of representative democracy as it renders the legislature irrelevant.
Submitted by bjk (not verified) on Thu Dec. 18, 2008 1:58 AM PST.
A few more years of this and California will turn Republican again.
Submitted by Paul Moeller (not verified) on Thu Dec. 18, 2008 4:46 AM PST.
Spirit be damned. Republicans be damned. If it was Reid and Pelosi, they'd be letting Arnold write the bill. Go for it!
I'll certainly support an initiative to remove the 2/3 requirement, but in the meantime, I don't see why the state should be on autopilot because we refuse to use sneaky tactics. If it's legal and only mildly unethical, then let's do it. It's not like we're being like Tom Delay.
Submitted by Mitchell Freedman (not verified) on Thu Dec. 18, 2008 5:49 AM PST.
Since the whole fees vs. taxes distinction is a legal fiction, why is this anything other than acceptable? If, however, the Cal Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional, maybe Californians will finally realize California need the following reforms:
1. 55% rule for passing budget and taxes;
2. Repeal PORTION of Prop 13 to tax business or commercial property at market rates;
3. Amend 3 strikes law so that third strike is a felony that involves rape or murder or robbery, not drug possession or even drug dealing past a certain value of the drugs. Why this? Because the dirty secret in the budget is prison building to house all the felons who are druggies who are going to jail for the rest of their lives. California spends roughly 3.5 times per capita for every inmate that it spends for every public school student.
And while we're at it, increase the income tax on those making more than $200,000 to the 11% it was back when Pete Wilson was governor.
Raising taxes and fees on law abiding citizens while maintian open borders and unlimited immigration just means that more of the middle class will flee California. costs will continue to go up while tax reveneues will continue to fall.
Also, if the economy rebounds, I wager that the higher fees and taxes stay in place. California is a textbook example of the ratchet effect and seems to refuse to face facts.
California is America's richest state yet refuses to raise enough public revenues to finance its public goods and services. California represents what has happened to the rest of the nation; Americans do not want to pay the full cost of their lifestyles. Americans have adopted the Wall St./Enron attitude that someone else can be fooled into paying for their affluence, and California has led the way.
"But it takes a two-thirds vote to pass a budget or raise taxes in California, and California Republicans flatly refuse to raise taxes in any way, shape, or form. Result: deadlock."
Apparently, the thought of cutting spending of any kind eluded Kevin.
Betta the general public wouldn't miss the 40 billion in useless state spending at all. Why don't try it and see if I'm right.
Chico,
You remind me of some managers I have had. They simply could never understand that it was "Quality. Schedule. Budget." Pick two.
For we Electrical Engineers it was V=I*R.
Now some people will hold their breath and stamp their feet and state that there is some way to increase Current without increasing Voltage or decreasing Resistance, we just aren't trying hard enough.
So I ask you - schools, roads, prisons, cut $40 Billion where it won't be noticed. Demands are easy to make. Results are not as easy.
I almost wish you'd throw the bible at us like your GOP partners. The GOP is full of ideologues. Ideology uber alles right?
Chico and Tripp:
If I recall, the initiative process has resulted in substantial limits on discretionary spending. When I left CA, I think the numbers were something like a 14% deficit and only 10% of the budget could actually be altered by the legislature - everything else was mandated. That's the structural problem they are dealing with.
Mmmmmm. We'll see if this actually passes muster. I haven't read the relevant statutes lately, but wouldn't "revenue neutral" tax changes only include other taxes subject to the 2/3 vote? Otherwise, they could just replace the income tax with a "resident fee" that's tied to income.
Seems a little too cute by half. I could see someone taking this to the Cal. Supremes.
mike,
I know. They've boxed themselves in, but they seem to have found a clever way to escape part of the box.
I was trying to make the bigger point that cut cut cut works works works and then it fails and makes things worse.
The same thing is true of more and more and more taxes too, I concede that.
For most people the solution it to try to find a reasonable balance in the middle somewhere. Ideologues are not reasonable people though. They'd ride their ideology horse right off the disaster cliff if they could.
Oh yes, $40B in cuts is soooo simple.
So have at it and do report back. Like Ross Perot we're all ears:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/BudgetSummary/ImagePages/FG-SUM-04.html
I'd sure flee CA if I could but a job keeps me here with little prospect of finding same elsewhere ---- but in 10 years when/if I retire, I'm outta here.
I'm not a native of CA (thank goodness) but have observed in my 25 plus years here that Californians are greedy, narcissistic idiots. We want everything, it doesn't cost anything and I'm not willing to pay for anything that benefits you if I don't get something too.
As a mid 50s single lady with no kids who has provided for my future (been paying into a long term health care account since my 30s), I'd say most of my taxes and fees, etc. go to others and I get almost nothing back directly. BUT SO WHAT? I hope to get a state that runs well with well enough educated neighbors who make civic life interesting.
I'm nervous about the Legislature's move because I don't think it will pass constitutional muster and will be stayed almost immdediately. Did I mention that I never sign initiative petitions, even when I agree with the purpose. If I didn't live here and have to deal with the fallout, I'd say Californians deserve this big time.
Still, I read somewhere yesterday that bailing out the states would cost about 60 million ---- surely a better use of funds than handing it to banks to sit in their vaults.
And finally, why is it sacrosanct to not raise taxes while cutting wages seems to be ok. Both moves take money out of the economy and where is the money to address the needs of tens of thousands of unemployed if people aren't working and paying taxes.
All of this talk about the California constitution, initiatives, prop 13, and the legislature is really a waste of time. It is only a matter of a few years before California is defacto part of Mexico due to the never ending flow of precious human resources north. Better to start studying the laws of Aztlan to see what kind of system you will be living under. Embrace your new southern lords and masters!
Hom Lee may not know that California was named by the Spanish and that it was originally colonized by European Spaniards, which is why its major cities also have Spanish names. Hom Lee probably does not know California and the rest of the SW United States was seized during the war of territorial acquisition in 1848. The problems in California have very little to do with the current Hispanic immigrants, who pay their way, unlike most of Californians, because they are an oppressed minority who cannot pass ballot initiatives that transfer others' wealth to their community.
Chicounsel - The democrats have included $7 bil in cuts as mentioned. The dems and governor are at the table ready to negotiate and the republicans won't come out of their corner unless tax increases are off the table, which makes this whole process next to impossible. They are acting like children.
The Democrats in the Leg need to start playing by Republican rules. Find out what industries/lobbies are the biggest contributors to the Rebublicans, and enact "revenue" neutral tax changes that quintuple the taxes that those businesses pay, while cutting taxes for the middle class. Find out what industries are the biggest employers in the every Leg Republican's district and do the same. Find out what big construction projects they are counting on and zero them out. Find out what public services their constituents especially value, and cut them to zero too. Then make sure everyone knows that "we're very sorry, but the irresponsible Republicans just wouldn't agree to a budget that shared the tax burden fairly."
Percy,
The number of whites in California has been going down for some time. Also, the population growthy is about what the U.S. is expereincing overall. California is not expected to get any more Congressional seats in 2010.
Virtually all of the population growth is due to illegal immigration. The middle class is moving out and being replaced with poor Mexicans. Not exactly a formula for future economic growth.
frh
Submitted by louis vuitton replica (not verified) on Mon Aug. 3, 2009 6:45 PM PDT.
tiffany jewelry
is about what the U.S. is expereincing overall. California is not expected to get any more Congressional seats in 2010.
Virtually all of the population growth is due to illegal immigration
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
