Open Microphone Fun : Liberal Style
http://www.sfgate.com//cgi-bin/artic...417EDT0629.DTL
Quote:
(07-22) 14:55 PDT SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) --
Unaware that a live microphone was broadcasting their words around the Capitol, Assembly Democrats meeting behind closed doors debated prolonging California's budget crisis for political gain.
Members of the coalition of liberal Democrats talked about slowing progress on the budget as a means of increasing pressure on Republicans.
A microphone had been left on during the closed meeting Monday, and the conversation was transmitted to about 500 "squawk boxes" that enable staff members, lobbyists and reporters to listen in on legislative meetings.
Some members of the group, including Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, said if the budget crisis were extended, it could improve chances for a ballot initiative that would make it easier for the Democrats to raise taxes by lowering the threshold for passage from two-thirds to 55 percent.
"No one is running" for re-election, she said, according to a transcript made by Republicans. "And maybe you end up better off than you would have, and maybe you don't. But what you do is show people that you can't get to this without a 55 percent vote."
Assembly Republican Leader Dave Cox said that he was disappointed that Democrats would consider using the budget crisis to their political advantage.
Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson, a Democrat, tried to brush aside criticism of the meeting, calling it a "bull session" that didn't have much significance.
"For anyone, Democrat or Republican, to think there is some political advantage in this crisis, I think they are wrong," he said.
Goldberg said her comments were part of a larger discussion about whether it would be better to make deeper cuts this year to give taxpayers a taste of how bad things would be without a tax increase.
"It meant whether or not we do the things this year or next year that let the public understand how serious the situation is," Goldberg said.
(07-22) 14:55 PDT SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) --
Unaware that a live microphone was broadcasting their words around the Capitol, Assembly Democrats meeting behind closed doors debated prolonging California's budget crisis for political gain.
Members of the coalition of liberal Democrats talked about slowing progress on the budget as a means of increasing pressure on Republicans.
A microphone had been left on during the closed meeting Monday, and the conversation was transmitted to about 500 "squawk boxes" that enable staff members, lobbyists and reporters to listen in on legislative meetings.
Some members of the group, including Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, said if the budget crisis were extended, it could improve chances for a ballot initiative that would make it easier for the Democrats to raise taxes by lowering the threshold for passage from two-thirds to 55 percent.
"No one is running" for re-election, she said, according to a transcript made by Republicans. "And maybe you end up better off than you would have, and maybe you don't. But what you do is show people that you can't get to this without a 55 percent vote."
Assembly Republican Leader Dave Cox said that he was disappointed that Democrats would consider using the budget crisis to their political advantage.
Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson, a Democrat, tried to brush aside criticism of the meeting, calling it a "bull session" that didn't have much significance.
"For anyone, Democrat or Republican, to think there is some political advantage in this crisis, I think they are wrong," he said.
Goldberg said her comments were part of a larger discussion about whether it would be better to make deeper cuts this year to give taxpayers a taste of how bad things would be without a tax increase.
"It meant whether or not we do the things this year or next year that let the public understand how serious the situation is," Goldberg said.
Comments
And from a larger perspective what's wrong with discussing strategies to defeat the other party? What's wrong with discussing how ongoing policy disputes can be used to put the opposing party at a disadvantage? Both parties discuss this every day. If you thought that they did not, you are a naïve naïve little bunny.
Originally posted by Chinney
What's wrong with a tax increase, if that is what may be necessary? Are policy-makers forbidden from discussing it as a policy option? Or are tax decreases the only option that can be discussed?
And from a larger perspective what's wrong with discussing strategies to defeat the other party? What's wrong with discussing how ongoing policy disputes can be used to put the opposing party at a disadvantage? Both parties discuss this every day. If you thought that they did not, you are a naïve naïve little bunny.
What' wrong with a tax increase? These numbers. 21, 25, 41.
21% is the amount spending should have risen to cover inflation, population increases, etc. 25% is the amount that tax revenues have actually gone up during Davis' term in office even with the recession. 41% is the increase in spending since his terms began.
California is spending a billion more a month than it takes in. They have already tripled the car registration fee, and are making all manner of rumblings with regard to even more tax increases. Understand that even with the tax increases proposed in the Democratic plan, that California will still be borrowing 10 billion dollars to get through the year.
So that really means that they have to consider cuts as well which the Democrats don't care to do.
The reason this event made news is because Democrats are trying to portray Republicans as obstructing the state budget, likely to increase the chances Davis will be recalled. (I assure you Davis didn't need any help to be recalled) If you portray your one party as obstructionist for political gain, when you are actually doing the obstructing, well it just smells bad.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What' wrong with a tax increase? These numbers. 21, 25, 41.
21% is the amount spending should have risen to cover inflation, population increases, etc. 25% is the amount that tax revenues have actually gone up during Davis' term in office even with the recession. 41% is the increase in spending since his terms began.
California is spending a billion more a month than it takes in. They have already tripled the car registration fee, and are making all manner of rumblings with regard to even more tax increases. Understand that even with the tax increases proposed in the Democratic plan, that California will still be borrowing 10 billion dollars to get through the year.
So that really means that they have to consider cuts as well which the Democrats don't care to do.
[...]
Nick
Perhaps the reason that spending has been on the rise (and taxes have to follow) is that California has had to make up for years of underfunding public services and cutting taxes. I understand that until the mid-to-late seventies, California had some of the best public services among American states, now it has some of the worst. In the meantime, there has been an enormous increase in private wealth within the state (discounted, somewhat, by the current recession).
I am all for capitalism and the private sector, but maybe it is time for some of the richer of California?s inhabitants for forgo that 3rd SUV and spend a bit more of their money on public goods. But what do I know? I am just a Canadian (not gay, in my particular case).
And regarding naïve bunnies, they might have been the ones you were seeing. Good to have you back.
Originally posted by Chinney
Perhaps the reason that spending has been on the rise (and taxes have to follow) is that California has had to make up for years of underfunding public services and cutting taxes. I understand that until the mid-to-late seventies, California had some of the best public services among American states, now it has some of the worst. In the meantime, there has been an enormous increase in private wealth within the state (discounted, somewhat, by the current recession).
I am all for capitalism and the private sector, but maybe it is time for some of the richer of California?s inhabitants for forgo that 3rd SUV and spend a bit more of their money on public goods. But what do I know? I am just a Canadian (not gay, in my particular case).
And regarding naïve bunnies, they might have been the ones you were seeing. Good to have you back.
Maybe it's time for people to keep their money and invest and use it as they see fit. No offense, but it's not up to you or any government official whether someone buys another car or big-screen TV. Maybe its time for goddamn government to learn not to go a spending spree when times are good. I'm not flaming you here, but a tax INCREASE? It's outrageous. Revolutions have started over less than this.
It's not the "underfunding" of anything. It's the OVERSPENDING ad OVERTAXING that's the problem. History as shown that "at the beginning, a small percentage of tax brings in a large amount in revenue. At the end, just the oppostie is true". It's basically the law of diminishing returns. The answer for CA is to cut the billions of wasted dollars. Throwing yet more public money is not the answer. Underfunded? No. Wastefully and incompetently funded.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Maybe it's time for people to keep their money and invest and use it as they see fit. No offense, but it's not up to you or any government official whether someone buys another car or big-screen TV. Maybe its time for goddamn government to learn not to go a spending spree when times are good. I'm not flaming you here, but a tax INCREASE? It's outrageous. Revolutions have started over less than this.
It's not the "underfunding" of anything. It's the OVERSPENDING ad OVERTAXING that's the problem. History as shown that "at the beginning, a small percentage of tax brings in a large amount in revenue. At the end, just the oppostie is true". It's basically the law of diminishing returns. The answer for CA is to cut the billions of wasted dollars. Throwing yet more public money is not the answer. Underfunded? No. Wastefully and incompetently funded.
Speaking of spending sprees...do those "wacky liberals" need to bring out that national budget surplus/loss graph again?
Originally posted by BR
Speaking of spending sprees...do those "wacky liberals" need to bring out that national budget surplus/loss graph again?
Hell yes they do. They need to do some serious cutting of that federal budget too.
Nick
Originally posted by Chinney
Perhaps the reason that spending has been on the rise (and taxes have to follow) is that California has had to make up for years of underfunding public services and cutting taxes. I understand that until the mid-to-late seventies, California had some of the best public services among American states, now it has some of the worst. In the meantime, there has been an enormous increase in private wealth within the state (discounted, somewhat, by the current recession).
I am all for capitalism and the private sector, but maybe it is time for some of the richer of California?s inhabitants for forgo that 3rd SUV and spend a bit more of their money on public goods. But what do I know? I am just a Canadian (not gay, in my particular case).
And regarding naïve bunnies, they might have been the ones you were seeing. Good to have you back.
I would love to know the last time California cut some taxes. People speak about Prop. 13 because that likely was the last time.
California is very liberal. It is like saying New York dramatically changes when they have a Republican governor. It doesn't. All our Republican governors have been social liberal and just barely head the line on spending.
Californians aren't rich per say. They spend disportionately on housing, especially up north because there are so many restrictions on building. A little over 50% of the state is either a state or national park/reserve of some sort. I assure you that what most people would consider a very plain house elsewhere would sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars here. If anything the cars in the driveway are a bit older to afford that gargatuan house payment.
If they hadn't passed prop 13 which ended that supposed utopia you described, old people would be eating dog food in ditches when they tried to pay 6% property taxes on their biannually assessed homes that would be worth $450,000 now that they have been living in them for 30 years.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I would love to know the last time California cut some taxes. People speak about Prop. 13 because that likely was the last time.
Here are some quotes from the California Budget Project - Budget Brief - April 1996. I picked a date from a few years ago advisedly, as I will acknowledge that spending (and the pressure to raise taxes, after many years of cuts) has since increased. That was, and is, my argument: that California has had to play catch-up on public services after many years of falling behind.
Prior to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, California was a high tax state. In 1976-77, California ranked 3rd highest among the states in total state and local tax revenues per $1,000 of personal income. California fell to 24th in 1978-79 as a result of Proposition 13 where it remains today. Moreover, total California state and local taxes per $1,000 of personal income declined 26.5% between 1976-77 and 1991-92. The national average declined 9.7% during the same period. In other words, California's state and local tax burden has dropped two and a half times more than the national average.
[...]
CALIFORNIA HAS ENACTED SIGNIFICANT TAX RELIEF IN THE 1990's
Proponents of additional tax reductions note that a number of states have recently enacted tax cuts, while ignoring the significant tax relief granted by the [California] Legislature, even during the depths of the state's recession. Tax cuts enacted since 1990 cost the General Fund approximately $1.985 billion in 1995-96. This figure does not include the ongoing loss attributable to Proposition 13, unitary reform for corporate taxpayers, repeal of the inheritance tax, business inventory property tax exemptions and other measures.
[...]
CONCLUSION
While California compares favorably to other states with respect to tax burden, the state lags far behind in terms of critical investments in education and infrastructure. California ranked 49th in elementary and secondary school spending as percentage of personal income, 35th in higher education spending, and 49th in highway spending.(7) California is at far greater risk for deficits in public investment ranging from education to infrastructure than from an excessively high tax burden.
So Nick, I guess you are wrong, again.
Originally posted by Chinney
Here are some quotes from the California Budget Project - Budget Brief - April 1996. I picked a date from a few years ago advisedly, as I will acknowledge that spending (and the pressure to raise taxes, after many years of cuts) has since increased. That was, and is, my argument: that California has had to play catch-up on public services after many years of falling behind.
So Nick, I guess you are wrong, again.
Try again yourself...
High roller
rolling, rolling
Here is the same information from 1970..
rolling
and 1977 (before prop 13)
prop 13
Here's another..
Davis should be dumped
Shows 14th here but 2nd in spending, hence the problem.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Try again yourself...
High roller
rolling, rolling
Here is the same information from 1970..
rolling
and 1977 (before prop 13)
prop 13
Here's another..
Davis should be dumped
Shows 14th here but 2nd in spending, hence the problem.
Nick
As I see it, this does not change the fact that California did continue to cut taxes even after, and in addition, to Prop. 13. (Which is what you questioned). They may not have cut as fast or hard as some other states - especially certain neighboring states, but they still cut. The fact of the matter is that many states cut taxes (relative to incomes) in the 1990s, thinking that incomes would continue to rise, and now are paying the price for it. Some also, like California, have recently increased spending in order, in my view, to make up for serious funding shortfalls for certain programs that had arisen over the years. Some states, like California, are proposing to raise taxes to cover these needed programs ? in my view, correct - others are not and are instead intending to cut programs ? in my view, incorrect.
Meanwhile, where California ranks in overall spending and taxes seems to be disputed. The figures seem to vary even within the links you provide, and with the data I cited. Some of the variance is extreme: 2nd in education funding, vs. 49th.
In any case, California cut taxes.
Finally, while I suppose that everyone would like to pay as little taxes as possible, there is nothing wrong with taxes. You have to understand that there are both private and public goods. Some things it makes more sense to purchase publicly, through taxes. Taxes and public spending are not contrary to a notion (SDW ? are you listening?) that people should get to decide how to spend their own money: rather they are a valid way by which people get together spend their money on things it makes sense to purchase together. Contrary to conservative rantings, that does not mean that goods and services purchased through taxes represent waste.
Originally posted by Chinney
As I see it, this does not change the fact that California did continue to cut taxes even after, and in addition, to Prop. 13. (Which is what you questioned). They may not have cut as fast or hard as some other states - especially certain neighboring states, but they still cut. The fact of the matter is that many states cut taxes (relative to incomes) in the 1990s, thinking that incomes would continue to rise, and now are paying the price for it. Some also, like California, have recently increased spending in order, in my view, to make up for serious funding shortfalls for certain programs that had arisen over the years. Some states, like California, are proposing to raise taxes to cover these needed programs ? in my view, correct - others are not and are instead intending to cut programs ? in my view, incorrect.
Meanwhile, where California ranks in overall spending and taxes seems to be disputed. The figures seem to vary even within the links you provide, and with the data I cited. Some of the variance is extreme: 2nd in education funding, vs. 49th.
In any case, California cut taxes.
Finally, while I suppose that everyone would like to pay as little taxes as possible, there is nothing wrong with taxes. You have to understand that there are both private and public goods. Some things it makes more sense to purchase publicly, through taxes. Taxes and public spending are not contrary to a notion (SDW ? are you listening?) that people should get to decide how to spend their own money: rather they are a valid way by which people get together spend their money on things it makes sense to purchase together. Contrary to conservative rantings, that does not mean that goods and services purchased through taxes represent waste.
They have not cut taxes, they have simply shifted taxes.
I have no doubt that there are things that communities should purchase through taxation for the good of the community. The clearest example of agreement on this would likely be infrastructure.
However that is not the way the taxation system is being used either at the state or federal level. Our income is being redistributed instead of invested.
Nick
Another little article that dispells the myth that jobs and people aren't being chased out of California due to taxes and other regulatory burdens.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Bye bye jobs
Another little article that dispells the myth that jobs and people aren't being chased out of California due to taxes and other regulatory burdens.
Nick
I'll toss another log on the fire. More ways for California Democrats to make sure that every company in the state either leaves or goes under.
The Shakedown State
I'll toss another log on the fire. More ways for California Democrats to make sure that every company in the state either leaves or goes under.
Hells bells! if cheney leads the crusade and has secret to the public meetings with the head of those industries then california doesn't have a chance!
Here in California, the liberal hippies running this state are slowy turning it into another
Yes. and the enlightened republicans running the energy companies that worked in collusion (all the while cheney not stepping in) to price fix and gouge you and me on trumpted up energy rates resulting in billions of debt had nothing to do with it.
Nope. As always, the ken and john moronic listeners always know the truth.
Its the liberal <insert noun here>'s fault!
Speaking of spending sprees...do those "wacky liberals" need to bring out that national budget surplus/loss graph again?
Don't make me do it!
Didn't junior say he was going to run american like a business? We should have asked him to be more specific cause with all this debt, true to his word he's running america like all his other businesses.
I for one am sick and gosh darn tired of those borrow and spend republicans.
Katie / Reiner 2004!
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Hells bells! if cheney leads the crusade and has secret to the public meetings with the head of those industries then california doesn't have a chance!
Yes. and the enlightened republicans running the energy companies that worked in collusion (all the while cheney not stepping in) to price fix and gouge you and me on trumpted up energy rates resulting in billions of debt had nothing to do with it.
Nope. As always, the ken and john moronic listeners always know the truth.
Its the liberal <insert noun here>'s fault!
Has it occured to you that the reason these companies could attempt to do what they did is because we wouldn't allow the building of power plants in our own state? At the time of the rolling blackouts, California had not authorized any new generators to be built for over 10 years. Likewise your Cheney claim is pure crap. The blackouts started before Bush was even sworn in.
Nick