California....will work for food.
California is broke!
This is a nice little article that gets into how California is flat busted this year and still hasn't gotten to the $
20 billion+ they are likely to be in the hole next year.
Just for some perspective, in California the budget must be passed by July 1, and in order to pass it you need supermajorities in both houses. (67%)
This has caused huge problems in the past because until they pass the budget the state can't spend the money.
One year the budget process dragged on for so long I was actually paid with one of these state IOU's called a warrant. It felt pretty strange to walk into your bank to deposit an IOU from the state of California.
I personally agree that they are going to turn the screws on Californians and hike taxes which will drive even MORE jobs out of state. (Never seems to drive people out though)
While I hate this process I don't blame Davis for it. I am very glad we must have a balanced budget yearly. I hope the Republicans give a little on tax hikes and I hope he gives some on spending and I hope none of his debt gets carried over.
I wish it were that way at the federal level too.
Nick
This is a nice little article that gets into how California is flat busted this year and still hasn't gotten to the $
20 billion+ they are likely to be in the hole next year.
Just for some perspective, in California the budget must be passed by July 1, and in order to pass it you need supermajorities in both houses. (67%)
This has caused huge problems in the past because until they pass the budget the state can't spend the money.
One year the budget process dragged on for so long I was actually paid with one of these state IOU's called a warrant. It felt pretty strange to walk into your bank to deposit an IOU from the state of California.
I personally agree that they are going to turn the screws on Californians and hike taxes which will drive even MORE jobs out of state. (Never seems to drive people out though)
While I hate this process I don't blame Davis for it. I am very glad we must have a balanced budget yearly. I hope the Republicans give a little on tax hikes and I hope he gives some on spending and I hope none of his debt gets carried over.
I wish it were that way at the federal level too.
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Holy crap we agree. Although I have nothing further to contribute, I thought this rare occurence was worth noting.
I felt the same way, but didn't want to derail the thread.
I've been thinking recently about balanced budget amendments and I'm interested in seeing how this works out in the long run.
The solution must, absolutely must be in spending cuts. Now before you open up the "but SDW, will you cut the homeless shelter or center for Grandmas with no arms or tastebuds"? can of worms, let us be clear: There are plenty of programs they could cut or reduce. California is a perfect excampe of the edict "In the beginning, there is a large amount of revenue from a small percentage of taxation, in the end, just the opposite is true".
Tax rates are appoaching revolutionary levels. I mean that literally. Looked at what they just found with New York's MTA. They hid money to make it look like they had a deficit so they could raise fares. It is only a matter of time before there is some serious "political cleaning" going on by the voters. One article I read said that support for Davis's RECALL was over 50%. State legislatures went on a binge in the 1990's and now they say "Gee, I guess we'll just have to raise taxes". Never mind that when taxes are cut substantially, revenue goes UP.
My wife's care for example cost $80 to register last year. It is a 1994 Honda Accord and registration costs are partially determined by what the vehicle cost.
So it would cost her $240 (really me since I am the only one working) to register it next year.
I wonder what it will cost all those nice folks with NEW cars.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
While I understand some of the state's Republicans feel a tax hike may be required, I still oppose it. California has.....wait for it....OUTRAGEOUS taxes as it is.
The solution must, absolutely must be in spending cuts. Now before you open up the "but SDW, will you cut the homeless shelter or center for Grandmas with no arms or tastebuds"? can of worms, let us be clear: There are plenty of programs they could cut or reduce. California is a perfect excampe of the edict "In the beginning, there is a large amount of revenue from a small percentage of taxation, in the end, just the opposite is true".
Tax rates are appoaching revolutionary levels. I mean that literally. Looked at what they just found with New York's MTA. They hid money to make it look like they had a deficit so they could raise fares. It is only a matter of time before there is some serious "political cleaning" going on by the voters. One article I read said that support for Davis's RECALL was over 50%. State legislatures went on a binge in the 1990's and now they say "Gee, I guess we'll just have to raise taxes". Never mind that when taxes are cut substantially, revenue goes UP.
How about an example in the state of California since this is kind of the state we are talking about?
Anyway, cuts have been made. 450 million has been cut from the Los Angeles Unified School District over the last two years and more cuts are coming. Hooray for having our priorities straight.
Originally posted by SDW2001
While I understand some of the state's Republicans feel a tax hike may be required, I still oppose it. California has.....wait for it....OUTRAGEOUS taxes as it is.
The solution must, absolutely must be in spending cuts. Now before you open up the "but SDW, will you cut the homeless shelter or center for Grandmas with no arms or tastebuds"? can of worms, let us be clear: There are plenty of programs they could cut or reduce. California is a perfect excampe of the edict "In the beginning, there is a large amount of revenue from a small percentage of taxation, in the end, just the opposite is true".
Tax rates are appoaching revolutionary levels. I mean that literally. Looked at what they just found with New York's MTA. They hid money to make it look like they had a deficit so they could raise fares. It is only a matter of time before there is some serious "political cleaning" going on by the voters. One article I read said that support for Davis's RECALL was over 50%. State legislatures went on a binge in the 1990's and now they say "Gee, I guess we'll just have to raise taxes". Never mind that when taxes are cut substantially, revenue goes UP.
I have no doubt that there will be some cuts, and not nearly as many as there should be. However for now it is best to just let the Democrats rack up the pain and wait for the revolution. As you mentioned Davis has support levels so bad he could almost be recalled. There is talk of Condelizza Rice and Ar'nald running for governor.
I'm tired of Repubs having to take all the blame when there is a mess to clean up. Let the Democrats work their way out from under this mess. It might actually give some Republicans a chance in elections in 2004.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I have no doubt that there will be some cuts, and not nearly as many as there should be. However for now it is best to just let the Democrats rack up the pain and wait for the revolution. As you mentioned Davis has support levels so bad he could almost be recalled. There is talk of Condelizza Rice and Ar'nald running for governor.
I'm tired of Repubs having to take all the blame when there is a mess to clean up. Let the Democrats work their way out from under this mess. It might actually give some Republicans a chance in elections in 2004.
Nick
And here is where our paths diverge. You want to see the Democrats suffer so your football team...errr...political party can win an election. I just want the problem solved and to set aside this stupid game of political positioning. I want progress. You just want to perpetuate the problems inherent in the system.
Many peoples' energy bills went up in excess of 1000%, sometimes as much as 1800%, and we were sold an "energy crisis", which had no basis in reality, to support this outrageous con.
I am no fan of excessive government regulation, but the disastrous 1996 energy deregulation in California was nothing more than a criminals' charter.
Nobody ever complains about laws aimed against shoplifters and petty thieves....but its politically incorrect to have a go at corporate gangsters.
Interestingly, the only places in California which weren't hit by the the rolling blackouts, outages and wildly soaring energy bills were the (few) cities still with MUNICIPALLY OWNED utilities, such as Los Angeles.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...12&s=wasserman
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=81&row=1
http://www.energyfoundation.org/california/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/155922.shtml
http://www.enrongate.com/news/index....th=7&year=2002
http://www.platts.com/features/uswas...elatednl.shtml
Originally posted by BR
And here is where our paths diverge. You want to see the Democrats suffer so your football team...errr...political party can win an election. I just want the problem solved and to set aside this stupid game of political positioning. I want progress. You just want to perpetuate the problems inherent in the system.
It's not just politics. The point is there will be some pain and gain associated with the clean up of this mess.
I find it amazing that people here aren't screaming that Davis wants old people dead and tossed in the streets, the sort of nonsense that gets tossed about with Republicans. Where is the DNC ad showing Davis pushing old people off a cliff? Where are the haughty San Franciscans declaring that Davis will want to declare ketchup a vegetable? Where are the groups declaring that we will have numerous women raped and killed by criminals getting out of prisons early and also children becoming criminals because of cuts to afterschool programs? Do I sense a little double standard here?
I do want progress, but some Republicans want principle over progress. All I was saying is that with good candidates coming down the pipe, we don't have to kill ourselve politically over a no tax increase issue. It would be just like when the government was shut down at the federal level. It didn't solve the problem. It killed the Republicans politically and they took all the pain associated with the process.
I was just saying to SD2001 that the Dems have enough rope to hang themselves with, let them hang themselves. If you think that this degree of cuts and tax increases is going to make anyone happy with an incumbent, you are simply wrong. The fact that the Democrats control both houses and the entire executive branch means they happen to be the incumbents.
I don't necessarily want to see the Democrats suffer, but when you have to find 35 billion dollars, some folks are definately not going to be happy. All I am saying is why should the Repubilcans put a target on their own backs by demanding it be done all through cuts? I do believe it could be done through cuts without too much pain but what would Republicans gain from it? Absolutely no good will. Meanwhile they have some very likeable and good candidates lining up to run for governor. Why not just put off the bigger battle to when it should be fought which is during an election. That is when ideas are contested and decided about.
So, relax BR...breath in and out... in and out.... you are getting sleepy... you are handing me your wallet....I'm spending your tax refund...
Nick
450 million has been cut from the Los Angeles Unified School District over the last two years and more cuts are coming. Hooray for having our priorities straight.
just a question here, are those cuts actual cuts or not? i know in MN everyone complains about their budgets being cut, but every time (until this year) that has just meant that they get less of an increase than they wanted. so the budget is still going up, they're getting more money, it's just not as much as they asked for. then that gets called a "cut".
drives me nuts. it makes it hard to know who's telling the truth, because people can just redefine words to fit their cause, and then you can't trust anyone.
i'd love to see every state required to publish a "plain english" spending plan. where everyone's money is going, no tricks, no games. nice two page flyer that goes out to everyone with pie charts and bar graphs.
then let people sit down and rage about money and spending, and where it should be going. as it is now, there are so many shuffle games being played with tax dollars it's almost impossible to figure out where stuff is going, and how it's being used.
Originally posted by trumptman
My wife's care for example cost $80 to register last year. It is a 1994 Honda Accord and registration costs are partially determined by what the vehicle cost.
Americans complaining about taxes are just too funny. I remember my mom paid anywhere between 2000 and 2500 dollars to register her new Mercedes eight years ago. (granted, it's a bigun E280, but still).
Originally posted by alcimedes
just a question here, are those cuts actual cuts or not? i know in MN everyone complains about their budgets being cut, but every time (until this year) that has just meant that they get less of an increase than they wanted. so the budget is still going up, they're getting more money, it's just not as much as they asked for. then that gets called a "cut".
drives me nuts. it makes it hard to know who's telling the truth, because people can just redefine words to fit their cause, and then you can't trust anyone.
i'd love to see every state required to publish a "plain english" spending plan. where everyone's money is going, no tricks, no games. nice two page flyer that goes out to everyone with pie charts and bar graphs.
then let people sit down and rage about money and spending, and where it should be going. as it is now, there are so many shuffle games being played with tax dollars it's almost impossible to figure out where stuff is going, and how it's being used.
Actual cuts. They have 450 million less in their budget this year than they did two years ago. I'm happy about some of the changes though...much of the extra funds that are sent to schools with poor surrounding populations are being cut. I don't believe you are entitled to a better education with better equipment and better books and higher paid teachers because you are poor.
Originally posted by BR
Actual cuts. They have 450 million less in their budget this year than they did two years ago. I'm happy about some of the changes though...much of the extra funds that are sent to schools with poor surrounding populations are being cut. I don't believe you are entitled to a better education with better equipment and better books and higher paid teachers because you are poor.
I assure you that having worked in LAUSD for 5 years, the pay schedule is the same regardless of what school you worked at. There is no "combat pay." However those schools do get more money in terms of Title 1, 7 and other programs. Although they still will because although they have changed the names, those are federal funds.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I assure you that having worked in LAUSD for 5 years, the pay schedule is the same regardless of what school you worked at. There is no "combat pay." However those schools do get more money in terms of Title 1, 7 and other programs. Although they still will because although they have changed the names, those are federal funds.
Nick
There are additional state funds that go to these schools as well. Cuts will take place there. Of course, what I really would like to see cut (and nearly eliminated) is special ed.
The money has been mismanaged, and as always, the tax payers will foot the bill.
Originally posted by serrano
I'm personally paying up the ass in tuition fees thanks to education budget cuts. Thanks Davis, thanks UC Regents.
The money has been mismanaged, and as always, the tax payers will foot the bill.
Davis isn't responsible for the current budget situation. To believe that is ludicrous.
Originally posted by BR
I don't believe you are entitled to a better education with better equipment and better books and higher paid teachers because you are poor.
I don't think anyone does.
[list=1][*]The teachers are not higher paid.[*]How do you propose to compensate for differences in property tax?[/list=1]
There is, however, a form of 'Combat Pay' for administrators. Funds are directed at the schools that need it. Schools in poor areas suffer from a multitude of problems that need the extra cash, few deal with quality of education. Free lunch programs are an example that come to mind...
Originally posted by serrano
I don't think anyone does.
[list=1][*]The teachers are not higher paid.[*]How do you propose to compensate for differences in property tax?[/list=1]
There is, however, a form of 'Combat Pay' for administrators. Funds are directed at the schools that need it. Schools in poor areas suffer from a multitude of problems that need the extra cash, few deal with quality of education. Free lunch programs are an example that come to mind...
Money received per student should not differ from school to school (above and beyond getting facilities up to code, et cetera).
Differences in property tax are immaterial in this discussion. Schools in poor neighborhoods simply should not get more money than those in rich neighborhoods. Frankly, it's the middle class that is hurt the most by this. While most of these poor schools have the latest and greatest technologically speaking, middle class neighborhood schools are begging for hand me down pentium IIs from businesses.
I hit a wall there about six months ago and it just no longer held any appeal for me.