www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1073758/posts
Post Reply Private Reply To 4 View Replies To: SierraWasp Roger that! ROFL 9 posted on 02/07/2004 10:37:06 PM PST by calcowgirl No on Propositions 55, 56, 57, 58 Post Reply Private Reply To 8 View Replies To: Veggie Todd If this passes, were more screwed than we are already. As radio talk show host Al Rantel said, if this passes then its Katy bar the door with no spending limit in sight. Californians: Click on image for more info 10 posted on 02/07/2004 10:41:03 PM PST by hotpotato Post Reply Private Reply To 7 View Replies To: calcowgirl So, do they now need a supermajority to pass any budget or only a budget that raises taxes? And if this is true, how did California find themselves in the budget mess theyve been in? Are they claiming that its because people werent paying enough taxes while businesses fled in droves and property values shot through the roof?
Seventeen years of late budgets, the nations worst credit rating, cuts to schools and health care. Yes on 56 makes legislators work without pay until they pass a budget. Yes on 56 makes legislators work without pay until they pass a budget. Dominant images: Both advertisements feature mock legislators mingling around their desks in a wood-paneled room that is not the actual chambers of the state Assembly or Senate. In one ad legislators simply amble about talking with one another. In another, they engage in a food fight, throwing objects and paper at one another. Analysis: This advertisement aims to build support for the Proposition 56 ballot measure that will allow state lawmakers to pass a state budget with a 55 percent majority instead of a two-thirds majority. California voters adopted the two-thirds rule in 1933 for budgets that rose five percent or more above the previous budget. In 1962, voters made the supermajority the rule for state budgets every year. Only two other states, Rhode Island and Arkansas, have similar requirements. Proposition 56 will also allow lawmakers to raise state taxes with a significantly easier 55 percent vote instead of the currently required two-thirds majority. California is among 11 states with supermajority requirements to raise state taxes. The ad correctly states that the ballot measure would make lawmakers work without pay until they pass a budget. When lawmakers miss the June 15 deadline for a budget, the new rules of Proposition 56 would force them to stay in session, losing $411 a day until it passes. The governor would lose $479 a day after July 1 if it wasnt signed. The television ad also states correctly that the Legislature has missed its June 15 budget deadline every year since 1986 and that Californian has the worst credit rating of 50 states. Three rating agencies, Moodys, Fitch and Standard and Poors, have downgraded Californias credit rating to just above junk bond status. Its also correct the Legislature has trimmed spending for California schools and health care. The advertisement promises that passing Proposition 56 would end partisan gridlock over the budget. Currently, a Democratic majority in both houses of the Legislature must attract a handful of Republican votes to pass a budget with a two-thirds majority. When Republicans withhold their support the process stalls and Democrat negotiate with individual Republicans for support, often agreeing to special requests that have included an end to sales taxes on tractors and special grants for rural police departments. With a 55 percent majority, Democrats could currently pass a budget outright in the Senate and Assembly, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to sign it for it to take effect.
His petition was prompted by a Nevada Supreme Court decision on a similar issue but different constitutional construct. School funding and the impact of a delayed budget on school children is often a chief contention for proponents favoring a reduced vote threshold for the budget. However, the two-thirds vote requirement does not apply to appropriations funding education. The California Constitution specifically exempts school spending from the two-thirds vote threshold. Article IV, Section 12d provides: Appropriations from the General Fund of the State, except appropriations for the public schools, are void unless passed in each house by a roll call vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring. An education budget currently can be passed with a simple majority vote. Fiscal Impact: According to the Legislative Analyst, there would be varying state fiscal impacts from lowering the legislative vote requirement for spending and tax increases related to the budget - including potentially significant increases in state tax revenues and spending in some years. Cal-Tax believes the measure will result in substantially larger budgets and massive tax increases. Despite a $42 billion increase in the car tax, a $107 billion bond to payoff the last three years of deficits, and countless fee increases, the state is still projected to have an $8 billion to $10 billion deficit for 2004-2005. The Legislature has proposed tax-and-fee increases totaling more than $65 billion just this year. If this measure is approved, and these bills are placed in a budget bill, they could easily pass with a 55 vote. Do we want to make it easier for the Legislature to raise these taxes, especially at a time when fraud, waste and excessive spending are rampant in this state? In its analysis of how 50 states spend, tax, and balance their budgets, USA Today ranked California rock bottom as the worst-performing state. Despite the recession, state spending over the last decade has mushroomed. The Legislative Analyst predicts that even without additional spending programs, the current year budget will produce a budget deficit of $8 billion to $10 billion next year and each year thereafter for years to come. Given that such a mushroom in spending occurred even with a 2/3s vote, we would expect it to only be exacerbated if the vote requirement is reduced from a 2/3s vote to mere 55. Caltax believes the existing 2/3 vote requirement to raise taxes is a critically important safeguard for California taxpayers. Given the current composition of the state Legislature a majority of the same party in both houses, would this important bi-partisan debate occur if the two-thirds voting threshold is eliminated? Would lowering the voting threshold make legislators more fiscally responsible or run counter to this goal? Is this initiative good for economic stimulus or would making it easier to raise taxes discourage prospective businesses from moving to this state or existing businesses from remaining or expanding here?
Is it fair to allow increases in taxes by a mere 55 vote when such tax levies are not subject to referendum by the people? Other non-referable measures like urgency bills require a 2/3s vote. What about other budget-related voting requirements, such as suspending Proposition 98 funding guaranteeing schools a portion of GF revenues, which still requires a two-thirds legislative vote? Other Provisions in the Measure: These are the provisions proponents are highlighting to gain voter support. While attractive selling points, they will not have anywhere near the far-reaching implications for taxpayers as will removing the 2/3 vote requirement to raise taxes. Requires legislators and the governor to forfeit salary, per diem or expense allowances for each day that the Legislature fails to pass a budget beyond the June 15 constitutional deadline, and prohibits retroactive pay once the budget is signed. The Legislature must remain in session and may not pass any other bills except Governor-declared emergency bills until the budget and related bills are approved; Allocates 25 of excess revenues those remaining from General Fund GF revenues exceeding expenditures to the a Reserve Fund. However, if the Reserve Fund is 5 or more than the prior years GF expenditures, the deposit of revenues for the current fiscal year is voided. Appropriations from the Reserve Fund may only be made in deficit years or for Governor-declared emergencies, and may not be used to increase expenditures; Allows legislators who...
|
http://csua.com/feed/