| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2008/7/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50526 Activity:moderate |
7/9 Now we know what the definition of "rich" is: $150K/yr/household
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1069753.html
\_ Only $150K, why you poor poor thing.
\_ The GOP has no function in CA, except as obstructionists.
\_ You mean like all those Republican unions that got all of
the Governator's propositions defeated in the 2005 special
election?
\_ I notice you still can't pick one thing that the GOP
has accomplished in California in the last 30 years.
\_ That's because the California State Legislature
has had a Democratic majority for the past 30 years. So
the inability to get anything done is somehow the
minority party's fault? Try again, dumb troll.
\_ In other words, their only function is as
obstructionists.
\_ Sure maybe in the CA Legislature, but the you
must have missed my comment 9 lines above yours.
Oh wait, you're a troll. So you're deliberately
ignoring presented facts.
\_ Somehow the Republicans in Congress get things done
even though they are in the minority and they control
the Executive. Why can't the GOP in CA? Is it because
the Executive. Why can't the GOP in CA?
\_ You do realize that US Congress has a completely
different legislative process than the state of
California, right? Oh wait, you're a troll.
Is it because
they hold onto a tired and inflexible ideology which
rejects the possibility of compromise? Also, there
rejects the possibility of compromise?
\_ You're nothing but a political homer if you think
California Republicans are the only ones with
an inflexible ideology.
Also, there
have been many GOP "victories" at the initiative level.
Why not trumpet those? The extension of Prop 13 tax
breaks to the decendents of the original home purchaser
must count as a great victory in the general Conservative
agenda of advancing inherited wealth over earned wealth.
breaks to the descendants of the original home purchaser
must count as a great victory in the general
Conservative agenda of advancing inherited wealth over
earned wealth.
\_ Prop 13 is older than 30 years old.
How about "Three Strikes and You Are Out"?
earned wealth. How about "Three Strikes and You Are Out"?
Surely, breaking the back of the State budget with
earned wealth. How about "Three Strikes and You Are
Out"? Surely, breaking the back of the State budget with
overflowing prisons and severely cutting back public
post-secondary education must count as one of the
greatest victories of American Conservatism in the 21st
century. The GOP has always hated great public
institutions like the University of California, and it
looks like you will finally get your long desired goal
of destroying it, or at least severly weakening it. How
about Prop 187? Surely eliminating schooling for the
about Prop 187? Eliminating all schooling for the
children of the poorest must rank as a great victory
in the Class War against The Poor! Isn't it every
Conservatives secret desire to have a house full of
poor, dumb, uneducated servants, too hopeless to be
anything but docile? Eliminating any chance of becoming
literate is surely a huge step in the right direction.
Oh, that's right, the courts shot that one donw. C'mon
Oh, that's right, the courts shot that one down. C'mon
fly your flag high, you have lots to be proud of!
\_ So pretty much the California GOP has the courts
against them now too. So, what have CA Dems
accomplished with the deck stacked so heavily in
their favor?
\_ Were you foaming at the mouth when you wrote this
rant?
\_ Yes, because obviously anyone who disagrees with
the GOP is rabid.
\_ That is the most off the rails rant I've read
in months. That has nothing to do with the
target. -!pp
\_ Still waiting for some "successes" from the
CA GOP. Don't the things I listed count
as initiatives they are proud of?
\_ Actually, if you read it it is $321K. The $150K number is just
for a child dependent exemption worth $200.
\- well there are a few way to approach "rich" ... say the
"top 5%, 2%, 1%" in the country/state/"area" and then there is
"doesnt have any money worries" ... can buy any car they want
"within reason", can vacation anywhere they want, no worries
about healthcare expenses, or college tuition for kids, has all
the house they "need". i think we operate in the latter context ...
but if you are "richer" than 98% of "everybody", can you really
say you arent "rich"? rather than picking a wealth/income level,
how would you define "rich"? the "relative income" approach or
the "opportunity" approach or something else? |
| 7/8 |
|
| www.sacbee.com/111/story/1069753.html E-Mail | | | Democrats on Tuesday proposed billions in tax increases on businesses and high earners to help bridge California's budget shortfall. The proposed hikes include rolling back the dependent child income tax credit expanded in the 1990s, creating two higher income tax brackets for the state's biggest earners and increasing corporate taxes. The long-awaited list of revenue proposals faces near certain defeat, however, as Republican lawmakers have repeatedly said they are unified in their opposition to any tax increases. Approving a budget and increasing taxes requires a two-thirds vote, which means GOP support is mandatory. Advertisement "I guarantee you it will be a troubled and very challenged proposal on the Assembly floor," said Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, a member of the two-house budget conference committee that finished its work over Republican opposition Tuesday. "After we're done (rejecting the tax increases), we can all go back to square one to figure out how we get a supermajority vote on this budget." The entire budget proposed by the governor is $144 billion, including bond and special funds. Lawmakers missed a June 15 constitutional deadline for passing a balanced spending plan for the fiscal year that began July 1 In earlier drafts of the budget, majority Democrats presented plans that called for as much as $11 billion in added revenue. Democrats have proposed before - a 2005 move failed to receive a single GOP vote - the creation of 10 percent and 11 percent tax brackets for high earners. The plan unveiled Tuesday would impose a 10 percent rate on the portion of couples' incomes above $321,000 a year and an 11 percent rate on the portion of income above $642,000. And the plan would restore the franchise tax rate for businesses from 88 percent to 93 percent, raising $470 million. Reducing the dependent income tax exemption would bring the state about $215 million in the fiscal year that started July 1 Lawmakers and then-Gov. Pete Wilson expanded the child dependent exemption in 1997 and 1998 when the state's budget picture was brighter and tax relief was a necessary political piece to approve the spending plan. The Senate's proposal would apply only to households with adjusted gross income more than $150,000 a year. It would lower the current allowable exemption for each child from $294 to $94 - the same amount currently allowed for a personal exemption. Democrats rejected a more ambitious plan advanced by Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill who called for the dependent credit to be rolled back for all families, regardless of annual income. One proposal affecting a broader range of taxpayers would eliminate the annual inflation indexing of state income tax brackets this year. A single filer with a taxable income of $50,000 a year would pay $34 more. Niello and other Republicans said the tax proposals would drive businesses out of the state and hurt families already reeling from a flagging economy. Democrats countered that schools and health care programs will suffer without higher taxes. "It's not possible to get anywhere near to current year (education) funding without (new) revenues," said Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny, D-San Diego, chair of the budget conference committee. "These really are just rolling back the tax cuts that have been made since 1997," Ducheny said. "These restore some of these in as modest a way as possible." State Controller John Chiang and Treasurer Bill Lockyer have warned several times that the state would face a cash shortage next month unless lawmakers can come to an agreement. A protracted budget fight, they warn, would force the state to borrow billions in an unfriendly lending atmosphere. The move would jeopardize the state's credit rating, which is already among the nation's worst. Already, the state cannot pay some programs for school districts, community colleges, local governments, vendors and salaries and per diem of state elected officials and their appointed staff. California lawmakers will now be the last of their colleagues in the 46 states with a fiscal year beginning July 1 to pass an annual spending plan. The Golden State earned the same title last year when the budget standoff dragged on for 52 days. Despite a sour economy, only a handful of states missed their July 1 deadlines. On Tuesday, North Carolina's Legislature shipped off a compromise budget bill to Gov. About the writer: * Call Judy Lin, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1115. Buzz: The Sacramento Bee Unique content, exceptional value. |