California Dreaming.

Manic Moran

Dreaming about the good old days, when the State had money.

The State is pretty much haemorraging money. It will run out by February. They're talking about a $41bn budget shortfall in the next 18 months.

As you can imagine, this has caused much gnashing of teeth and angst. So they've been trying to come up with a new budget. They've been trying for months. Arnie's pretty much cancelled their Christmas holidays with yet another emergency session. In the meantime, he's furloughing State employees with a day or two unpaid off per month.

The general opinion seems to be as follows: Most Democrats: Raise taxes to make up the difference. Most Republicans: Raise taxes? Are you crazy? The Governator (and a small few others): Raise taxes a bit, and cut spending a bit.

The most recent bill, however, takes the biscuit. In order to raise taxes, you need a 2/3 majority in California. (We don't like to get taxed, so it's never easy to do it!). They just aren't getting that in the legislature right now. However, it only takes a simple majority to impose fees. So, the legislature's answer was to impose fees on things including petrol and cars. Upshot is it would add about $1000 in expenses to the average $50K-a-year household. It passed, and got sent to the Governator's desk amidst much furore and preparations to take the case to court as basically being a bunch of taxes passed without the 2/3 requirement, regardless of what label they chose to slap on the 'vehicle tax renewal processing fee.'

Governator looked at it and said "Where are the cuts?" Bless his little Austrian heart, he vetoed it.

Now, I think this is a simple concept. If you get a pay cut at work due to business being poor, you can either start cutting back on your spending, or go back to your boss and demand a raise. Now, I know, cutting back is hard. You have all those things which you think are 'essential' and can't live without (even though you survived quite well without them two years ago before you got the job). But as your bank balance gets to zero, you suddenly find things which aren't as essential after all.

But these guys all have their pet projects which are of critical importance and must get funded! We're cash cows to them, it seems. Some Californians are having a hard enough time trying to get by, and they want to further reduce the amount of money we have available to spend? The UK cut taxes last month to make life easier on its population. Cut the damned expenses! Simple concept. Why can't they understand this?

NTM

CtrlSource

Manic Moran wrote: »

The general opinion seems to be as follows: Most Democrats: Raise taxes to make up the difference. Most Republicans: Raise taxes? Are you crazy? The Governator (and a small few others): Raise taxes a bit, and cut spending a bit.

Seems to be the most sensible course of action at the moment. Spending should be cut a tad more than a bit though

Pocono Joe

How’s it going on California’s Proposition 71, which was voted on in 2004... that state initiative to fund embryonic stem cell research that would eventually cost Californians $6 billion--$3 billion in bonds and $3 billion in interest payments for 10 years?

CtrlSource

Pocono Joe wrote: »

How’s it going on California’s Proposition 71, which was voted on in 2004... that state initiative to fund embryonic stem cell research that would eventually cost Californians $6 billion--$3 billion in bonds and $3 billion in interest payments for 10 years?

i don't know the answer to that. But taking what i believe to be the implication of the above, do you think cancer research should be slashed too?

Health spending on provision of services and research should be maintained at index linked levels at least.

Our government made the mistake of decimating the health budget in the 80's and we're still recovering from the effects of those cutbacks

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Governator looked at it and said "Where are the cuts?" Bless his little Austrian heart, he vetoed it.

Well, where was his veto while the state deficit was heading in the direction of $41 billion? It didn't happen overnight! I was in favour of Arnie over Davis during the recall, thinking that his fiscally conservative, socially responsible middle of the road platform made sense. I thought that Arnie listened to Warren Buffet, who has been historically against increasing debt, be it corporate or government? And don't give me that Democrats "spend, spend, spend" mantra that Republicans always tout, because during the first 6 years of GW Bush at the national level, the Republicans controlled both houses of the US Congress and the Executive, and they did exactly that..."spend, spend, spend," or the US would not have almost doubled its federal deficit from about $5.6 trillion (when Clinton left) now approaching $11 trillion when GW leaves 20 January 2009. Neither party has been fiscally responsible, especially when they had one-party rule, as with the Democratic dominated Cal legislature, or the Republican dominated first 6 years of GW Bush at the national level.




**JWM: You're just biased in favour of Arnie, cause he was a fellow tanker and likes to ride around and blow up things!**

Pocono Joe

CtrlSource wrote: »

... do you think cancer research should be slashed too?

If it helps to cause the economic collapse of our state or union; if it was totally experimental where other less ethically problematic alternatives showed more promise; then I would think it should receive cuts or be eliminated. And it’s done pretty good so far… I’m in remission, and nobody was killed in the process.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Well, where was his veto while the state deficit was heading in the direction of $41 billion? It didn't happen overnight!

You're right, it didn't. But he's been trying to get the legislature to come together for a workable budget for far more than the last week. He's been trying to get the budget sorted since the early summer, and all the time, the money's still going out. The Governator's the one who's getting lauded by the Legislative Analyst's Office for coming up with sensible proposals.

And don't give me that Democrats "spend, spend, spend" mantra that Republicans always tout,

But as you point out, that is exactly what the Democrats in the California legislature have done. He knew the State was spending too much as soon as he took office, and tried to get reductions in place. Since the legislature weren't co-operating, he tried going around them in 2005 by putting propositions on the ballot. Prop 76 would have put in spending limits and would have granted him the authority to cut spending. We, the voters, denied him this. One of the big problems we have in California as Californians is that we want everything, but don't want to pay for it. I think the population is finally beginning to figure out that this doesn't work.

**JWM: You're just biased in favour of Arnie, cause he was a fellow tanker and likes to ride around and blow up things!**

A sign of taste and class if there ever was one.


NTM