California - Just Republicans Being Republicans...

[Kanastrous]

Something just got passed, this morning...

[The Yosemite Bear]

of course you know that nobody accepts the IOU checks that california tends to issue Teachers everytime there's a budget cut. (no litterially the state issues Teachers Post Dated checks for their salary)

[Kanastrous]

Those IOUs were accepted by banks for some time, the first time the state did this. After some number of weeks or months the banks decided they couldn't afford to do that any more.

Whether they will accept IOUs for any period of time this time around remains to be seen, right?

Anyway, teachers' salaries are funded at the local level, according to what I've read. It's the solvency of individual districts (who apparently have funds they can draw on to avoid issuing IOUs) that counts.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yes, I recall that back when I worked as a firefighter back in 1991-1992, when the state did it the first time. The checks for the early part of the year were accepted, those issued in May and June were not. It's just that they've done it since then. I also recall the logic in eliminating a good deal of the wildland firefighters. They could get convicts to do it cheaper ($1.50/hour), however once one adds in the cost of guards, other security and housing issues, and secure transport issues, the convict crews cost a lot more then the high school college age kids that used to do it for a little more then minimum wage.

[Bilbo]

But it still comes down to the plainly visible fact that Republicans in the legislature would rather see the state burn than have any new revenue come in if it means raising taxes to any degree. Doesn't matter that California is facing the possibility of default or will have to slash state spending to a degree that the quality of life will suffer for it; the Tax Cut Religion's commandments are absolute, and Woe Betide any Republican who turns heretic by even talking to a Democrat.

If that is the case them someone should call them on it. Put forth a bill that matches spending cuts with tax increases. For every dollar earned by new taxes another dollar needs to be earned by cutting spending, both last the same amount and by meeting halfway neither side gets strained too much.

If the GOP refuses such an offer then you know they are being obstinate just to cause trouble. If the Democrats refuse then you know they are not interested in truly fixing the problem either and just want to buy their way to temporary relief.

[Kanastrous]

I'll take what's behind curtain number two, Bilbo.

[Questor]

If that is the case them someone should call them on it. Put forth a bill that matches spending cuts with tax increases. For every dollar earned by new taxes another dollar needs to be earned by cutting spending, both last the same amount and by meeting halfway neither side gets strained too much.

Gee, if you look at the article I posted on the last page, then you will realize that there are actually MORE spending cuts in this bill than tax increases.

If the GOP refuses such an offer then you know they are being obstinate just to cause trouble. If the Democrats refuse then you know they are not interested in truly fixing the problem either and just want to buy their way to temporary relief.

Since the California GOP, as a whole, did just that, what do you have to say now?

[Bilbo]

Since the California GOP, as a whole, did just that, what do you have to say now?

Then I would say that the GOP is being obtuse here. Unless the spending cuts are temporary while the taxe increases are permanent.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

First of all, the cuts are not cuts, they are reductions in planned increases. Republicans wanted actual CUTS.
http://cssrc.us/web/17/publications.asp ... eSupport=1
Second, we don't have a revinue problem, we have a spending problem.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11649004

If spending had been proportional to increases in population, we wouldn't BE in this sick sad sorry state of being.
The Republicans are holding the line on new taxes. Correction WERE holding the line. they caved.

# California's general fund under Schwarzenegger's tenure has grown 34.9 percent — from $76.3 billion in the 2003-04 fiscal year to $102.9 billion in 2007-08.

# But over that same period, population growth and inflation together grew by only 21.5 percent.

# If state spending had grown only at that rate, it would have reached $92.7 billion last year. Instead, Schwarzenegger and the Legislature spent $10.2 billion more.
# The state prison system received the biggest share, about $4.1 billion of it. Corrections spending has increased fivefold since 1994. 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. Meanwhile, former Gov. Gray Davis gave the powerful prison guards union a 30 percent raise from 2003 to 2008, increasing payroll costs.

# Public health spending — mostly Medi-Cal, the state program for the poor — received $2.9 billion above the rate of inflation and population growth. Part of that spike is due to an aging population; part is rising national health care costs. But state lawmakers also expanded Medi-Cal eligibility among children and low-income women a decade ago, increasing caseloads.

# Schwarzenegger's first act as governor, signing an executive order to cut the vehicle license fee by two-thirds, blew a large hole in the state budget. 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.

# Spending on a few other areas, such as higher education, general government, transportation and environment, also grew faster — by about $1 billion each — than inflation and population over the past five years. That was mostly to cover debt payments on bonds that voters approved for parks and highways, along with moves to limit university tuition increases.

# Finally, general fund spending on K-12 schools and social services, like welfare, actually grew less than the rate of inflation and population growth.

Yes yes my kneejerk lefies, it's just the Republicans being dicks, they have no legitimate reasons for what they do.
Not increasing taxes is sooooo unpopular too.
The Republicans were ALL elected on the promise of no new taxes, and no tax increases.

http://www.flashreport.org/commentary0b ... _offsetP=0

But hey they are not keeping a promise, they are just being dicks.

[Patrick Degan]

Yes yes my kneejerk lefies, it's just the Republicans being dicks, they have no legitimate reasons for what they do.
Not increasing taxes is sooooo unpopular too.
The Republicans were ALL elected on the promise of no new taxes, and no tax increases.

http://www.flashreport.org/commentary0b ... _offsetP=0

But hey they are not keeping a promise, they are just being dicks.

Big deal. You can yammer on all you like about how the state got to the pass it ended up at. The plain fact of the matter was this: California was in trouble with its budget and the Republicans in the legislature were putting ideology over necessity. Fuck their promises. If it comes down to either letting the state silde into default or keeping some half-assed political promise, necessity dictates that the promise gets tossed under the bus, not the state.

So yes, they were "keeping a promise". And being complete dicks.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Your arguement is based on the false assumtion that increasing taxes will solve the problem. It won't. If you raise spending faster than your income, it won't work.
The ONLY solution is to lower spending to meet your income.
I notice you glossed over the part about there not being any REAL cuts, and the fact that if god herself paid off all the debt california would STILL be in the same mess, just later.
The line was, (and it was caved in on) california must live within it's means. The idea WAS, (and was caved in on) cut spending, and do not raise taxes. The Democrats refused to do ANY cutting, and wanted to raise taxes. But those ideas have no real merit, it's just the repugnatards being dicks.

Just why was the Democrats refusing to cut ANYTHING not them being dicks, as well as stupid to mathematical reality?
Why is the arguement framed around the assumption that what the repubs wanted was obstructionist selfish stupid, and the Dems wanted was good?
Why is wanting to live withing your means such a bad thing?

Most importantly, why is how we got where we are we are not important? If the reason we got where we are hasn't changed, then where we are is where we will stay, or return to. Sort of like dismissing the direction you are traveling in as not relavant to why you are lost, and how to get to your destination.

[Elfdart]

What's this bullshit about keeping promises? They took an oath to serve the State of California and that trumps whatever they promised Grover Norquist or Sean Hannity or Rush Lardass. If they really do think their promises to right-wing radio and other miscreants come first, they need to resign and go work for them. Fuck these assholes!

[Patrick Degan]

Your arguement is based on the false assumtion that increasing taxes will solve the problem. It won't. If you raise spending faster than your income, it won't work.
The ONLY solution is to lower spending to meet your income.

Which is a nice theory as long as a state can be likened to a nuclear family deciding on whether to pay the bills or the trip to AstroWorld. Unfortunately, that analogy doesn't really scale up so well in the real world. States have obligations they simply can't dump when it becomes inconvenient.

I notice you glossed over the part about there not being any REAL cuts, and the fact that if god herself paid off all the debt california would STILL be in the same mess, just later.
The line was, (and it was caved in on) california must live within it's means.

EVERY state has to balance it's budget. You say nothing particulary relevatory here.

The idea WAS, (and was caved in on) cut spending, and do not raise taxes. The Democrats refused to do ANY cutting, and wanted to raise taxes. But those ideas have no real merit, it's just the repugnatards being dicks. Just why was the Democrats refusing to cut ANYTHING not them being dicks, as well as stupid to mathematical reality?

The Wall Street Journal disagrees with you:

Why is the arguement framed around the assumption that what the repubs wanted was obstructionist selfish stupid, and the Dems wanted was good? Why is wanting to live withing your means such a bad thing?

And which radio blowhard did you get that talking point from?

As for why the argument is framed the way it was, it's based upon observed behaviour and the fact that the state GOP senate caucus ejected their own leader for even daring to talk to the Democrats to try to frame a compromise solution, which is how democratic government is supposed to work.

Most importantly, why is how we got where we are we are not important? If the reason we got where we are hasn't changed, then where we are is where we will stay, or return to. Sort of like dismissing the direction you are traveling in as not relavant to why you are lost, and how to get to your destination.

Arguing over HOW you got in the fix you're in can be done AFTER you've solved the crisis immediately in front of you which is preventing you from doing anything at all.

[Terralthra]

Since the California GOP, as a whole, did just that, what do you have to say now?

Then I would say that the GOP is being obtuse here. Unless the spending cuts are temporary while the taxe increases are permanent.

Laughably, the budget the state Republicans have consistently voted against is the exact opposite: permanent spending cuts, temporary tax increases.

[Nephtys]

Sales taxes are regressive. Property taxes can be for those on fixed incomes trying to stay in the house they paid for 50 years ago, but there are credits that can be granted to account for that while insuring that someone in a $400k McMansion isn't getting a free ride on infrastructure and services paid for with property tax funds.

You clearly don't live in California. In San Diego, literally... EVERY house exceeds half a million, easily. Many houses which are 150k or 200k in other states are over a million down here.

[Glocksman]

Sales taxes are regressive. Property taxes can be for those on fixed incomes trying to stay in the house they paid for 50 years ago, but there are credits that can be granted to account for that while insuring that someone in a $400k McMansion isn't getting a free ride on infrastructure and services paid for with property tax funds.

You clearly don't live in California. In San Diego, literally... EVERY house exceeds half a million, easily. Many houses which are 150k or 200k in other states are over a million down here.

My point isn't about real estate prices, but about insuring that someone in a new subdivision in an expensive home isn't benefiting from a tax cut intended to protect retirees who've owned their home for decades from being driven out of their house because of skyrocketing real estate prices driving their property taxes up while their income to pay said taxes has not increased.

Grandma in a house she paid $28k for 40 years ago should not lose her home because a real estate boom caused her assessed valuation to go up to $550k, despite her only income being a $2000/month pension and social security.

But yeah, $400k here buys you a lot of house in a really good area.
In southern California, not so much.

[Master of Ossus]

California appears to have the sixth-highest corporate taxes among the states, behind Alaska, Massachussetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

What about Iowa (12% at $250,000), Maine (8.93% at $250,000), Minnesota (9.8% Flat), and D.C (9.975% Flat)

Use either the top bracket or the bottom, don't play around.

That is highly misleading since most of those other states hardly have any corporations that are actually incorporated there. CA's laws make it very difficult and expensive for CA corporations to incorporate in Delaware, which is very unusual among states, and CA's laws are even set up so foreign corporations that do significant business here have to pay substantial corporate taxes--a position that's actually been held unconstitutional by most other states and Circuits.

As for cutting the budget, CA has all sorts of hidden taxes that aren't part of the general budget but that still hurt taxpayers. If you look at your utility bills, you'll see all sorts of money that runs to utility-specific things that are uniformly worthless and add no value whatsoever to the state. California Solar Initiative, Low-Income Energy Efficiency, etc. Those programs have achieved nothing but cost billions of dollars every year (Low-Income Energy Efficiency, in particular, has had no impact whatsoever whereas CSI at least can claim that solar installations have gone up thanks to the subsidy).

[MKSheppard]

Gray Davis' Record: $25 billion budget increase over 4 years from $75 billion to $100+ billion; about $6.25 billion increase a year.

Arnold "Fiscal Conservative" Schwarzenegger's record: $40 billion budget increase over five years from $100~ billion to $140 billion; about $8 billion increase a year.

Hey wait.....$40 billion is about what the rough deficit that California is facing now?

BRILLIANCE!

[Samuel]

Gray Davis' Record: $25 billion budget increase over 4 years from $75 billion to $100+ billion; about $6.25 billion increase a year.

Arnold "Fiscal Conservative" Schwarzenegger's record: $40 billion budget increase over five years from $100~ billion to $140 billion; about $8 billion increase a year.

Hey wait.....$40 billion is about what the rough deficit that California is facing now?

BRILLIANCE!

Do you think the spending was entirely discretionary? There was the whole "running out of prison space" problem to start with...