| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2009/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52590 Activity:high |
2/16 California is truly f'd for sure this time. Can we find another pair
of stupid radio DJs to start a drive to recall Arnold?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17cali.html?_r=3&hp
\_ It will only help if we get a governor with a spine, and get rid of
the incompetent legislature.
\_ How do you expect that we will get a decent ledge? With the 2/3rd
requirement to pass a budget and ridiculous gerrymandering
\_ How do you expect that we will get a decent ledge? With the
2/3rd requirement to pass a budget and ridiculous gerrymandering
creating permanent seats for wackos and wingnuts on both sides
of the debate, we essentially have tyranny of the nutty
minorities. I don't see how you fix California without having
a constitutional convention, and I can't see how that would
ever happen.
\_ We can amend the constitution with an initiative. In the past
the super-majority to pass a budget issue was put in front
of the voters and they voted it down, they might be more
receptive after this year.
\_ I actually like the super-majority rule. Why don't they
cut more spending? They talk about the budget as if
it's set in stone and there's no way to solve it except
raising taxes.
\_ What is the rationale for tyranny of the minority for
simple rule changes?
\_ Example of simple rule change?
\_ Redistricting is the only thing that will fix the legislature
problem IMO.
\_ I thought a proposition to redistrict passed in the
last election?
\_ Redistricting plus removal of the 2/3rds rule plus removal
of the set-asides. California's troubles are a layer cake.
\_ Oh hell no. The 2/3 requirement for RAISING taxes needs
to remain. In fact, it should be 2/3 for raising total
expenditures.
\_ Ah, I see. You're actually a wingnut.
\_ No, we got into this mess because as fast as
revenue went up, we spent even more, vastly
outpacing inflation + population growth.
\_ Where are you getting your figures?
\_ http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx
Spending in 97-98 = 52.8B, 07-08 = 102B
Spending based on pop + infl:
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/summers_20090126.shtml
\_ What is the figure of population +
inflation? The reason article is playing
games with averages that make it very
difficult to tell how honest he is
being. This article is more balanced imo:
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3020153
\_ GDP is going to grow a bit faster
than population + inflation.
\_ Why do you think its the governator's fault when the budget has been
hung up in the legislature all this time?
\_ The governor has vetoed a compromise, and the Republicans
refused to override his veto.
\_ Really, the problem is not so much legislative incompetence
as legislative inexperience. The problem is term limits,
which ensures that no one in the legislature has the experience
or the relationships to work through a budget impasse like
this one. -tom
\_ The budget has doubled in 10 years, and rose faster under
Arnie than under Davis. The Governor has line-item veto. He
could fix this problem if he wanted to, but instead worked on
budgets that papered over problems for years.
\_ line-item veto only works when there is something to veto.
The budget is still stuck in legislature....
\_ Shouldn't budget numbers be looked at as a constant % of
GDP rather than absolute dollar value? Some folks like to
bitch that spending has gone up 82% since 1998, but so
has GDP. Looking at things in terms of relative share
is important.
\_ Do we have to spend every freaking dollar? If GDP
went up 82% then what if we increased spending 60%?
Would that be wrong?
\_ It would be wrong if the state does not have enough
money to provide the services it should. For
example, per-student funding to UC has dropped
40% since 1990. So yes, if the state gets more
money, it needs to spend it to begin to restore
services which have been cut in previous hard
budget times. -tom
\_ Our tax burden is still among the highest in the
nation (#6 I think). We should be able to confine
ourselves to such a budget without putting
the state in danger of insolvency like the
Democrats + Arnie are doing by refusing to make
any meaningful cuts.
\_ We are no where near #6.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005
http://tinyurl.com/9mv2z (Money Magazine)
\_ this isn't 2005 (although even taking that
data I think my post still stands to reason)
\_ What, taking the data that California
is actually in the middle of the pack
in terms of state and local tax rates?
And of course, California's average
income is higher, which pushes the
tax burden higher. And doing things
in California costs more (land and
salary), so we need more state money
per capita to provide the same
services. Do you have anything other
than ideological ranting? -tom
\_ It's not middle of the pack.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf
Average income being higher does
not push the tax burden higher,
are you on crack? Tax burden is
a function of tax rates.
A rich state should actually get
away with less, because govt's
costs do not scale linearly
with income. A car in CA still
costs the same as a car in OK,
basically. Land is not a recurring
cost, in general.
Also, for tax burden, it is much
worse for CA when you look at the
burden on those who actually pay
the tax. CA's income tax is very
progressive and we have a large
population of low-income freeloaders.
\_ Are you really this stupid? Among
other things, a car in CA pays
20% more for gas. Property is
absolutely a recurring cost, and
I noticed you completely ignored
the question of salary. -tom
\_ You are a complete idiot. The
car itself costs the same.
Land itself is not a recurring
cost either.
I said "costs do not scale
linearly" not that there are
no higher costs. Higher
income trumps those costs.
\_ Let me put it this way;
how much more do you think
it costs to do business in
California, compared to,
say, Kansas City? Are you
really trying to make the
assertion that California
business operators spend
about the same as Kansas
City business operators?
-tom
\_ We need to deport IMMIGRANTS
\_ Nope, like I said, he's another
wingnut. Part of the problem.
\_ We have the highest income, sales, and
gas tax in the nation.
\_ Where do you get your BS from?
Tennessee has 9.25% sales tax.
NY has the highest gasoline tax.
CA has very low property taxes,
as I am sure you know.
\_ Low in terms of % of value,
but not in absolute terms.
We pay about the same property
tax as everywhere else and
a high income tax to boot.
\_ Paying the same dollar
amount on a mansion in
Malibu and on a shack in
Wyoming is not "paying
about the same property
tax." You're a moron. -tom
\_ A mansion in Malibu
pays a lot more tax
than a shack in Wyoming.
Stupid argument. Reality
is that California is
#26 in local property tax
collections per capita
and #20 per household.
http://tinyurl.com/aopmde
\_ And top-3 in property
value. -tom
\_ So? That doesn't
mean we should be
top-3 in taxes paid.
I know your dream
is to be #1 in this
particular category,
but some of us think
paying average taxes
is just fine and
that the State
should be able to
survive with that
given that income
taxes are also high.
I don't use any
more services here
in CA at my $650K
house than I do at
my $150K house in
another state. In
fact, that house is
bigger but the tax
bill is much less.
Cost of living is
less there, too, but
not *that* much less.
You just love to pay
taxes. I'm happy at
#20 for property
tax. Feel free to
mail in more on my
behalf when your
next bill is due.
\_ Services cost
more to provide
in California,
due to higher
land, labor,
fuel and food
costs; therefore,
the state needs
more money to
provide the
same services
as cheaper
states. That's
why our state
services are
massively
underfunded. -tom
\_ Do you think
services cost
8x more,
because that's
the difference
in property
tax I pay even
though the
cost of living
is only 40%
less and the
other house is
2x the size. I
assure you
that the fire
and police
work just as
well and that
the schools
are better
than in most
of CA. Our
services are
not
underfunded.
We allocate
money
incorrectly
and, sad
to say, the
illegal
immigrants
are sucking
the State's
coffers dry
by using
services they
do not pay for.
do not pay
for.
\_ You have
no content.
Goodbye.
-tom
\_ Loser.
I give
you a
real
example
of
property
tax
disparity
dispar-
ity
and you
can't
handle
the
truth.
\_ I agree with you that Arnie has been very
fiscally irresponsible but at this point the
GOP is being reckless. Aren't they just as much
to blame for pushing the state towards fiscal
insolvency?
\_ No, because they aren't the ones who added
the spending. The Dems and Arnie busted
the budget repeatedly even during the times
of bubble-inflated tax revenues.
\_ They had their share in busting budgets,
if nothing else, they could have shut the
state down during the boom years. Now
they are just appearing as immature
obstructionists.
\_ I agree. If conservatives hadn't decided to push for
three-strikes and put all those extra people in
prison, we wouldn't be in this mess. We warned you
at the time that it going to get too expensive.
\_ Don't forget the "car tax" cut!
\_ Or Prop 87, when California tried to put
royalties on oil production (like almost every
other state does, when oil or mineral
resources are extracted) and was opposed by
the GOP, combined with Big Oil. |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17cali.html?_r=3&hp com California, Almost Broke, Nears Brink David McNew/Getty Images California's budget woes have forced the cancellation of thousands of infrastructure projects, like this new bridge in Glendale. California -- its deficits ballooning, its lawmakers intransigent and its governor apparently bereft of allies or influence -- appears headed off the fiscal rails. Enlarge This Image Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press Darrell Steinberg, left, the State Senate president pro tempore, conferring Monday with his Democratic colleagues. Enlarge This Image Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press Republican senators reconvened Monday after negotiations over the weekend ended in the rejection of a budget deal. Since the fall, when lawmakers began trying to attack the gaps in the $143 billion budget that their earlier plan had not addressed, the state has fallen into deeper financial straits, with more bad news coming daily from Sacramento. The state, nearly out of cash, has laid off scores of workers and put hundreds more on unpaid furloughs. It has stopped paying counties and issuing income tax refunds and halted thousands of infrastructure projects. Twenty-thousand layoff notices will go out on Tuesday morning, Matt David, the communications director for Gov. "In the absence of a budget we need to realize this savings and the process takes six months," Mr David said. After negotiating nonstop from Saturday afternoon until late Sunday night on a series of budget bills that would have closed a projected $41 billion deficit, state lawmakers failed to get enough votes to close the deal and adjourned. They returned to the Capitol on Monday morning and labored into the evening but still failed to reach a deal. They planned to reconvene at 10 am Tuesday to go at it again. California has also lost access to much of the credit markets, nearly unheard of among state municipal bond issuers. Standard & Poor's downgraded the state's bond rating to the lowest in the nation. California's woes will almost certainly leave a jagged fiscal scar on the nation's most populous state, an outgrowth of the financial triptych of above-average unemployment, high foreclosure rates and plummeting tax revenues, and the state's unusual budgeting practices. "No other state is in the kind of crisis that California is in," said Iris J Lav, the deputy director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group in Washington. The roots of California's inability to address its budget woes are statutory and political. The state, unlike most others, requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature to pass budgets and tax increases. And its process for creating voter initiatives hamstrings the budget process by directing money for some programs while depriving others of cash. In a Legislature dominated by Democrats, some of whom lean far to the left, leaders have been unable to gather enough support from Republican lawmakers, who tend on average to be more conservative than the majority of California's Republican voters and have unequivocally opposed all tax increases. Gray Davis, whom he drummed from office in a 2003 recall that stemmed from the state's fiscal problems at the time. The governor has failed to muster votes among lawmakers in his own party, whom he often opposes on ideological grounds, resulting in more scorn from Democrats. Furthermore, Republican leaders in the Senate and the Assembly who have agreed to get on board with a plan have been unable to persuade a few key lawmakers to join them. The package needs at least three Republican votes in each house, to join with the 51 Democrats in the Assembly and the 24 Democrats in the Senate. For months Republicans have vowed not to raise taxes, which in California means no increase in either the sales, gas or personal income tax. "It is a dramatic time," said Darrell Steinberg, the State Senate's president pro tempore. It is really quite a system where the fate of the state rests upon the shoulders of a couple of members of a minority party. In the meantime, drivers are met with "closed" signs at Department of Motor Vehicles offices two days a month, environmental programs are left unattended, piles of dirt mark where highway lanes are to be built to ease the state's infamous traffic congestion, school systems mull layoffs and counties prepare to sue the state for nonpayment of bills. The Senate Republican leader, Dave Cogdill, said he thought he had all the votes needed to get the deal done in each house. But on Sunday, two Republican senators -- Dave Cox, who was originally thought to be the last vote needed, and Abel Maldonado, whom Mr Schwarzenegger had been able to woo into voting against his party in the past -- said they would reject the plan. Democrats, who had already given into Republicans' long-held dreams of large tax cuts for small businesses and for some of the entertainment industry and a proposed $10,000 tax break for first-time home buyers, balked at Mr Maldonado's request that the Legislature tuck a bill into the package that would allow voters to cross party lines in primaries. "I think with an open primary, we would have good government that would do the people's work," Mr Maldonado said. Sunday evening ended in frustration and exhaustion for lawmakers, who returned to work on Monday facing the state's uncertain future. "My boss will continue to work toward a responsible budget solution," said Mr Cogdill's spokeswoman, Sabrina Lockhart. "There are real risks and real consequences for not passing a budget." |
| www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx Legislative Analyst's Office Legislative Analyst's Office Search Sitemap Recurring Publications Budget Overview Perspectives and Issues Analysis of the Budget May Revision Overview Budget Major Features Supplemental Language State Spending Plan Fiscal Outlook Recommended Legislation Cal Facts Handouts and Presentations All Recurring By Year Historical Data * State of California Expenditures, 1984-85 to 2009-10 (Updated January 2009) Excel Pivot Table 20mb, or Source Data (.ZIP File) 24mb * State of California Revenues, 1950-01 to 2009-10 (Updated January 2009) Excel Spreadsheet, 490kb * State of California Personnel-Years, 1982-83 to 2006-07 (Updated January, 2008) Excel Format, 11mb, or Compressed .ZIP File, 250kb Useful Budgetary Links * Summary Schedules from the Governor's Budget (Prepared by the Department of Finance) |
| www.reason.org/commentaries/summers_20090126.shtml Adam Summers California is facing a historic budget crisis and has only itself to blame. State lawmakers have been on a spending binge for years and voters have added to the problems by approving massive bond measures and multi-billion-dollar boondoggles like high-speed rail that they cannot afford. The state's projected budget deficit is expected to balloon to $42 billion over the next 18 months. It has now eclipsed the enormous deficit the state experienced under then-Gov. Gray Davis, a feat of fiscal mismanagement which in large part led to Davis being recalled. Arnold Schwarzenegger described the enormous deficit as a "rock upon our chest," and announced that the state "faces insolvency within weeks." To make matters worse, Standard & Poor's recently cut California's general obligation bond credit rating-tying the state with Louisiana for the worst credit rating in the nation-and placed it on a negative credit watch for another potential downgrade. This means it will be expensive if and when the state borrows more money to pay its bills. In truth, California never really recovered from the last economic downturn. The state was riding high during the late 1990s, projecting record revenues as far as the eye could see, and spending every penny of them-and then some. Then the "dot-com" bubble burst and the state was caught off-guard and unprepared. By fiscal year 2003-04, officials were projecting a deficit of between $26 billion and $35 billion over 18 months. Some slick accounting moves and relatively minor measures pared the deficit somewhat, and a $15 billion "economic recovery bond" (Proposition 57) was passed by the voters in March 2004. The passage of the bond was a radical departure from typical government financing practices. General obligation bonds are usually reserved for large infrastructure projects that will benefit those that have to pay them off for years down the road. In this case the bonds were saddling future generations with debt to pay for today's day-to-day expenses. It's like using your credit card to buy groceries and pay your rent. Not surprisingly, less than five years after the passage of the $15 billion bond, California found itself facing another $15 billion deficit, which has since grown to $42 billion. With much fanfare, and after a record delay of nearly three months, the state budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year was signed by Gov. Despite the fact that it was clear by then that the economy was getting even worse, the budget deficit was largely ignored. Policymakers just papered over the problems, kicking the can down the road for another year - again. In just the last 10 years state spending has nearly doubled, increasing approximately 92 percent. A good rule of thumb in government budgeting is that the rate of spending increases should not exceed the rate of population growth, plus inflation. California's last three governors have not fared so well by this metric. Wilson managed best, holding average annual General Fund spending increases to 488 percent, compared to population plus inflation growth of an average of 372 percent a year. Davis, spending rose an average of 673 percent a year versus population plus inflation growth of 483 percent. Schwarzenegger-even considering that spending in the current fiscal year was basically held flat-increasing 675 percent a year, compared with population plus inflation growth of 498 percent a year. Over the entire 18-year period, state spending grew at an average annual rate of 591 percent, while population plus inflation grew only 438 percent a year, on average. California can't blame its huge deficit on the recession, tax revenues, the stock market or any other excuse lawmakers might come up with. The Golden State has pushed tough fiscal decisions down the road, used accounting gimmicks to shift and hide deficits, and relied upon borrowing and bonds to pay the bills and finance projects. Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers won't fix the underlying budget problems until they admit the state has a spending addiction. Adam B Summers is a policy analyst with the Reason Foundation. |
| www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3020153 US Patent & Trademark Office Issues a Preliminary Report Rejecting Majority of Claims of a Second Patent Asserted Against Aruba Networks by Motorola (Source: San Jose Mercury News) tracking SAN JOSE, Calif. But lost in the day-to-day drama over IOUs, furloughs and huge deficits is a basic question many Californians might be asking: Where has all our money gone? A San Jose Mercury News analysis of state spending since Republican Gov. Yet the programs that received most of that money are priorities that Californians broadly support or have demanded at the ballot box: tougher prison sentences for criminals, health care for uninsured children and an aging population, and a cut in the "car tax" that they pay every year to register their vehicles. The problem, according to a report last week from the state auditor, is that Republican and Democratic politicians in the state capital of Sacramento have shirked their responsibility for the past decade, papering over shortfalls that started after the dot-com bubble popped in 2001. Like homeowners paying off one credit card with another, they used accounting gimmicks and more debt, rather than raising taxes or cutting spending, to balance the books. "We got what we wanted and we've never figured out how to pay for it. And then we had this recession, and that made everything worse," said Stephen Levy, director of the Palo Alto-based Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy. "Everybody's got somebody to blame, but in the end these are services people wanted," Levy added. "Look at the screaming when you close a swimming pool, let alone try to cut education." The Mercury News analyzed state spending, line-by-line, from 2003 to 2008. "I wish it hadn't grown that much," said Mike Genest, Schwarzenegger's state finance director, "but in some sense, it was inevitable. Had we stuck with a very austere budget, we would have been in better shape. "But that would have meant real, permanent reductions in service levels, like schools and health care and prison guard pay, and that would have required herculean effort from the Legislature. Top Democrats cite voter initiatives as big drivers in the state's spending _ like the 1994 "Three Strikes" measure that increased the prison population, or like Proposition 98, the 1988 measure guaranteeing at least 40 percent of the general fund for education. Add to that, they say, some major lawsuits the state lost, including a federal case requiring more spending to upgrade prison health care at about $1 billion a year so far. "If you factor out voter initiatives and court suits, the remaining part of state government grew at or less than inflation and population growth," said John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who served as Assembly budget committee chairman from 2004 to 2008. At $13 billion last year, it now exceeds spending on higher education. Tough laws and voter-approved ballot measures have increased the prison population 82 percent over the past 20 years. Gray Davis gave the powerful prison guard's union a 30 percent raise between 2003 and 2008, increasing payroll costs. But state lawmakers also expanded Medi-Cal eligibility among children and low-income women a decade ago, increasing case loads. It saved the average motorist about $200 a year but would have devastated the cities and counties that had been receiving the money. So Schwarzenegger agreed to repay them every year with state funds. That promise now costs the state $6 billion a year, or $2 billion more than the rate of inflation and population growth since early 2003. That was mostly to cover debt payments on bonds that voters approved for parks and highways, along with moves to limit university tuition increases. Some budget observers say spending more than inflation and population growth is OK, particularly if the economy grows faster. It's what voters wanted, and some programs grow faster than the rate of inflation," said Jean Ross, executive director of the non-profit California Budget Project. "Like Reagan said, giving money to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association. Coupal noted that even though California's revenues have fallen dramatically this year, the state general fund still brings in about $90 billion in annual taxes. That's nearly 20 percent more than it received five years ago _ and only about 12 percent less than the peak last year before the economy tanked. "Most businesses and families could take 10 to 12 percent out of their budget. One of the state's most famous tax-cut crusaders, US Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay, said the problem is that California's bureaucracy has grown too large and powerful. Salaries are too high, it's too difficult to fire state workers, and the entire system needs an overhaul, he said, including outsourcing to private firms everything from non-violent inmates to highway engineering. "We've got to put our wardens back in charge of prisons, and principals back in charge of teachers, and introduce competitive pressures back into those systems," McClintock said. But Laird, the Democratic former budget chairman, said it isn't that easy to reduce the size of government. "You can call teachers 'bureaucracy,' but in fact they are teachers," said Laird. Fixing California's broken budget system will require a wide range of reforms, many experts say, from making it tougher to qualify ballot measures to spending caps to reexamining the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes. In the meantime, legislative leaders say a budget deal could come as soon as this week. It is nearly certain to include big spending cuts and higher taxes. "Our society is moving in the direction of, 'I want more from government but I don't want to pay for it,' " said Genest. "Right now we have leaders making hard choices out of necessity, and we need to continue that." |
| money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005 -> money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/ More tax rankings: Income, sales, property NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- There are countless reasons why you choose to live where you live. The climate, the schools and the job opportunities are just a few. The Tax Foundation, a policy research group, estimated the average taxpayer's total state and local tax burden for 2005 in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. That burden reflects what residents pay in state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes and fuel taxes, among others. States below are ranked from least to most tax friendly. top The state/local tax burden reflects what a state and its local governments collect as a percentage of per capita income. Of course, if you live in the Garden State your personal tax burden may be higher or lower. Much will depend, as it would in any state, on whether you own your home, where in the state you live, how much you make and the source of your income. Business Leader Council Live Quotes automatically refresh, but individual equities are delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges. Market indexes are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. |
| tinyurl.com/9mv2z -> money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/ More tax rankings: Income, sales, property NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -- There are countless reasons why you choose to live where you live. The climate, the schools and the job opportunities are just a few. The Tax Foundation, a policy research group, estimated the average taxpayer's total state and local tax burden for 2005 in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. That burden reflects what residents pay in state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes and fuel taxes, among others. States below are ranked from least to most tax friendly. top The state/local tax burden reflects what a state and its local governments collect as a percentage of per capita income. Of course, if you live in the Garden State your personal tax burden may be higher or lower. Much will depend, as it would in any state, on whether you own your home, where in the state you live, how much you make and the source of your income. Business Leader Council Live Quotes automatically refresh, but individual equities are delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges. Market indexes are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. |
| tinyurl.com/aopmde -> www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/243.html August 25, 2008 Local Property Tax Collections Per Capita and Per Household, Fiscal Year 2006 Note: To zoom in, print, select text or search the following document, please use the grey toolbar below. KB * Local Property Tax Collections Per Capita and Per Household, Fiscal Year 2006 , PDF, 50 KB * Printer Friendly * Send to a Friend 2009 Tax Foundation. All Rights Reserved. |