Gropenator to terminate California's safety net

[n2doc]

Schwarzenegger to unveil his latest budget proposal
May 14, 2010 | 6:30 am
Deep cuts in state services -- even the elimination of some landmark programs -- are expected to be the foundation of the plan Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger presents Friday afternoon for closing the state’s multibillion-dollar budget gap.

The budget proposal will contain no tax increases, according to Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear.

Administration officials have declined to provide details of the programs the governor will suggest scaling back or abolishing, but McLear said the spending plan would include “absolutely terrible cuts.”

Programs the governor has signaled would be targeted include in-home healthcare for the elderly and disabled, welfare and other social services. Reductions for public schools are expected to be included as well.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/schwarzenegger-to-unveil-his-latest-budget-proposal.html

California faces an estimated $18.6-billion shortfall, which amounts to roughly 20% of its general fund spending. Without raising taxes, balancing the budget would require cutbacks equivalent to releasing every prisoner in the state, closing state prisons and cutting off all funding for the University of California and California State University systems.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. And how do Californians feel about this? Relieved not to have higher taxes? (I heard they have

pretty high taxes already.) Or concerned or upset over the loss of the safety net? Any polls out there?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. My dear GreenPartyVoter...

I can only speak for myself, but I am plenty upset with this. The Republicans absolutely refuse to raise taxes at all, on anything, and their stubbornness is wreaking havoc on the state.

I do believe that my views are in line with most progressives here.

:mad:

[DBoon]

11. damn right!

We are the only major oil producing state without and oil severance tax (yes Alaska and Texas have these taxes). Republicans blocked efforts to establish this tax, which would have brought in billions per year.

Republicans also forced through tax cuts for large corporation headquartered in CA, effectively giving a huge bonus to the like of Intel.

The requirement for a 2/3 majority for budgets give a small hard core group of anti-tax republicans effective veto over the state budget.

Yes, personal income and sales taxes are high. Keep in mind that as compared to current values, property taxes are insanely low, especially if you have owned your property for any length of time. Taxes are fixed at purchase prices (plus a nominal 2% increase per year). I'm sure some large corporate landowners really love this.

[greencharlie]

13. California is overtaxed and desparately mismanaged.

And the tax increases hit the lower and middle class. My 2006 car registration went from 280 dollars in 2008 to 600 dollars in 2009.

Middle class Californians are leaving the state in droves for states with low taxes. Big increases in sales taxes in 2009, and if you make over 47,000 per year... you pay 9.3% in STATE income tax...

Sometimes makes me think that the big corporations here are getting some sweetheart deal to stay...

[mike_c]

23. Prop 13 is one of those sweetheart deals they're getting....

It protects corporate property from reasonable taxation and gives them minority coverage in the legislature on taxation matters.

[spin]

34. Florida has no income tax and charges $70.35 to register my car ...

What exactly to you get for all those taxes and fees?

[Jazzgirl]

46. Texas is very similar.

I pay about $65 a year for my tags.

[mike_c]

3. a deep sense of foreboding at this point....

We fought many of his previous budget proposals-- closing state parks, minimum wage for state workers, cutting education and social services, for example. Won some, lost some. We're just waiting to see what this newest set of proposals brings.

Der Arnold has a habit of trying to use economic shock tactics to get his agenda done, so any first proposal has to be viewed at least partly as just talking points.

[slackmaster]

6. More disappointed than ever in our legislature, which is responsible for the budget

They've had their thumbs up their asses for decades. They're putting out all kinds of nonsensical legislation almost every day and not addressing the core problem, which is spending more money than they take in NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY TAKE IN!

Here's a sampling of the meaningless, worthless crap that the Senate has passing off as official state business for the last few weeks:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/scr_87_bill_20100311_introduced.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/scr_88_bill_20100315_introduced.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/scr_89_bill_20100407_amended_sen_v98.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/scr_91_bill_20100322_introduced.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/scr_96_bill_20100405_introduced.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/scr_100_bill_20100412_introduced.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/scr_103_bill_20100503_amended_asm_v98.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/scr_109_bill_20100510_introduced.html

A seat on the state Senate or Assembly should be a part-time job. These people are getting paid fabulous salaries TO DO NOTHING!

[Frances]

8. I think you are wrong to blame the legislature

The blame lies squarely with the voters in CA.

The voters in CA approved a proposition that requires a 2/3 majority to pass a budget. That means it only takes 1/3 of the legislature to block fair taxes on the super wealthy and the corporations.

The voters in CA also approved term limits for legislators, which makes it harder for the assembly to have institutional memory.

Blaming the legislature is just what the greedy Republicans want you to do. It takes the spotlight off their greed and rapaciousness.

[slackmaster]

9. The problem with voters in CA is that we keep electing the same dipshit legislators

Proposition 13 was a normal, understandable, rational reaction to a legislature that can't control its spending.

[Frances]

10. You may think it's normal for 1/3 of a legislature

to control what the legislature does.

I don't.

[slackmaster]

20. If a child is misusing a toy, it's normal for a parent to take it away or insist that it be used...

...under adult supervision.

[Johonny]

28. I think you and the short sighted California voters are the child

in this scenario. Everyone thinks the state has tons of "over spending" and bloated budget. Yet no governor or state legislature elected has ever been able to find this mysterious money. It's almost like you and the voters fall for the same Republican budget monster every time. Yet when in power can never find this bloat to cut. Instead they cut our social services that we actually need to have a productive society. Oh well I guess that's ok if you got yours... I've live to long to fall for the overspending bloated budget Conservative talking point.

[Donnachaidh]

42. that leads back to the question

WHERE is the adult supervision in California?

You have the highest population of wealthy residents in the lower 48 - yet your state is damn close to being DOWN the drain, fiscally. With the amount of wealth in your state, this should never have happened.

Yet, you folks vote for an ACTOR with NO experience running anything other than groping actresses and grunting in front of a camera. Of all the states that need to demand a recall -- yet nothing comes of it.

Californians should be rushing to Sacramento with pitchforks in hand, and trucks driving behind with rails, tar and feathers. For multiple bad actors.

WTF? What is it going to take to get working people in California to tell the gruntinator to get OUT?

It seems as if the wealthy want to run people out of their playground. And they are succeeding...

[mike_c]

16. prop 13 was a gift to corporate land owners and the rich....

Meant to protect long-time home-owners from rising property values that taxed them out of ownership when they hit fixed incomes in their old age, Prop 13 added insane restrictions on revenue collection by including corporate and business land owners. It hamstrung the legislature by imposing the 2/3 rule.

Prop 13 might have been a response to a legitimate problem, but it was certainly not a rational response. It solved one problem and created a monster that is destroying California.

While we can wax poetic about the Prop 13 that might have only done good things, the Prop 13 we actually have is an abomination.

[Frances]

36. Our legislators

are term limited

To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves. We let our greed allow us to be manipulated by the "big mules" (corporations and Meg Whitman types) so that the "big mules" don't pay their fair share of the costs to run the economy of this highly populated state.

[slackmaster]

37. Yes, but that created another problem - the Heir Apparent system

Hand-picked successors to termed-out legislators move up from city councils or county boards of supervisors into the Assembly and Senate.

The termed out Assembly and Senate members move up to Congress, or into lucrative commission positions.

The state has been systematically gerrymandered into a bunch of "safe" Democratic and Republican districts, so partisan politicians can entrench themselves in their respective ideological corners.

A newcomer or third-party candidate who isn't backed by an incumbent stands no chance under the current system.

[Frances]

40. Bottom line:

Why don't you want to put the blame on the 1/3 minority control of the legislature?

If you and clones of you controlled 2/3 of the legislature (assuming that you want the corporations and superrich to pay their fair share) and the REpubs controlled the other 1/3 of the legislature, NO changes would be made to the budget.

It's the system that allows minority control that causes the problems. Any state can find 1/3 of the legislators who will do the bidding of the corporations and super rich.

[slackmaster]

49. The only thing the 1/3 minority has any leverage over is tax increases

There is plenty of other legislative business that the Democratic majority controls, like declaring a highway overpass in Fresno to be the "Prematurely Partially Bald High School Sociology Teachers' Memorial Bridge".

[Johonny]

14. Our taxes are so high the owner of the Dodgers paid no taxes

We need to start taxing the R I C H and Corporations again. Same as everywhere else.

[slackmaster]

21. And NOBODY in the legislature is making any move to tax the rich more

Not even the Democrats.

[Johonny]

26. they can't

We the people set up the law such that the legislature needs a super majority to pass such a thing. It only takes a minority of anti-tax hacks to basically hold up every attempt to reform our tax laws. That is why the only things they can change are things like "fees". They also created harsh term limits that make all our legislature short timers instead of having any career minded legislatures that will actually experience the consequences of their terrible moves at the polls. The fault of the states crappy tax system is certainly partly to blame on the voters themselves.

[Hannah Bell]

38. california has the highest concentration of billionaires in the world.

[lunatica]

48. I'm a Californian who works in UC Berkeley

Believe me we're getting cut to the bare bone here. We already have furlough days which makes our meager earnings even less. And now we have to cut more. When you mess with higher education you're messing with the brains of the future. Without higher education you get the tea party.

[tom_paine]

4. The Shock Doctrine at work.

[gratuitous]

5. Well, you can't expect the Spellings and the Kardashians to pay more!

You heartless bastards! Think of the incredibly well-off and privileged for just one moment, can't you?

On the other hand, I can see why raising taxes is off the table. It can't be done in California as the laws are currently constituted, because any tax increase has to pass by a supermajority vote, the very antithesis of the American system of majority rules. So a dedicated handful of anti-tax yahoos can effectively stop any proposal to raise taxes.

[leveymg]

12. I don't understand why Prop. 13 can't just be overturned by another majority vote Prop?

No, think of the necessities the poor rich girls in those families might have to do without:

Like matching his-n-hers mansions (Spellings):



And Kim Kardashian might have to choose between giving up her NASCAR team, her boat, or another boob job.



What are you/ Some kind of monster?

[greencharlie]

17. incorrect assumptions...

for example...

in Texas you can buy a nice 5+3, 3000sf new house for 250,000 and you'll pay approx 3.0% in property taxes per year depending on county. That's 7500 per year in property taxes.

Now in California... in most areas that nice house will run at least 600,000... and at 1% tax rate that's 6000 per year in property taxes.

[leveymg]

18. Are you serious?

Are you saying wealthy Californians shouldn't pay more property taxes, or arguing they should all move to Crawford?

[mike_c]

22. the DUer is demonstating why even rational people will vote against repealing Prop 13....

The spin will be utter selfishness-- "why should I vote for higher taxes on my property?" It's crazy.

[leveymg]

25. Shrug. How defeatist. Glad I don't live there, anymore.

[greencharlie]

27. but...

it's not the wealthy who get hit hardest...

I know LOTS of families who have a combined income of 100,000 here. Husband's a cop and wife's a teacher. After taxes... daycare, etc... they're BROKE. It's not like living in Kansas. Bumping their property tax from 6000 a year to 12,000 a year is like taking 500 dollars a month out of their budget.

How about repealing Prop 13 on properties valued over 1 million dollars? That might be better...

[leveymg]

29. Yes! Progressive tax structure. That's exactly the approach.

In fact, I'd go a few steps further, and make a further distinction based on primary residences and incomes.

[greencharlie]

33. well then, if they could do that, I'd be in favor of it. nt

[mike_c]

31. but the effect of not taxing the wealthy and business property owners...

...hits everyone even harder. That's the problem. Everyone trying to protect their small-time middle and working class benefits gives cover to the wealthy and to corporate land owners to keep us all scrapping along the edge of financial ruin. That's the toxic beauty of Prop 13. It invests the working class in maintaining corporate and wealthy tax benefits.

[mike_c]

19. it COULD be, if anyone could ever get it on the ballot...

...or get it passed. It's impossible to put that genie back into the bottle with votes, I'm afraid. Corporations-- and the republican party-- would spend billions to oppose repeal at the ballot. Everyone who voted to repeal would be voting to tax themselves and their grandmothers into homelessness. That's the spin, and it would be so relentless that no one would escape it. The Jarvis Foundation-- the very embodiment of selfishness and tea-baggery-- would bring the state down before it would allow rational budgetary government.

[Frances]

7. California is like my native Alabama

in that CA has a very high sales tax, which is a regressive tax.

Our property tax is similar to what I paid when I lived in Maryland (the CA house and the MD house cost close to the same amount of money, but the MD house was MUCH nicer).

The income tax here seems less to me than what I paid in Maryland (there was a county income tax added to the state income tax in Maryland; in CA there's just a state income tax).

And since Meg Whitman has been able to afford to give $59 million of her own money to her governor's campaign, I assume the super wealthy don't pay exorbitant taxes. Her opponent in the Repub primary (Poisner) has also dumped millions of his own money into the campaign. It would be interesting to see what percent of their income is taxed in CA as compared to the ordinary person.

[geardaddy]

15. He's taking his cue from Timmy the Tool, it seems

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2010/02/15/15951/pawlenty_budget_cuts_offer_few_surprises_but_lots_of_pain

[kctim]

24. Should put a 90% tax

on him and all his multi-millionaire friends. Especially the movie "stars" and atheletes.

[spin]

30. If that was done, what would prevent him from moving to Florida?

no state income tax here.

[kctim]

43. Work?

[spin]

44. Plenty of celebrities, actors, singers and athletes live in Florida ..

Here's a list:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_celebrities_that_live_in_florida

Of course, the BP oil volcano might change that. Beachfront property will just be nasty.

[AngryAmish]

32. Athletes don't live in Cali

Taxes too high. AZ if they are west coasters, or FLA if east coaster.

[Hannah Bell]

39. california has the highest concentration of billionaires in the *world*.

bullshit that athletes don't live there.

http://www.kidzworld.com/article/5542-athlete-celebrity-homes

[spin]

45. The smart ones don't. (n/t)

[Onceuponalife]

41. LOL

Thousands of athletes live here in California.

[freebrew]

35. Too bad..

that the gropenator decided not to pursue Enron for that $35Billion, eh?

[woo me with science]

47. I don't understand how eliminating some of these programs

could possibly be perceived as saving money.

Home healthcare for the elderly is the most cost-effective approach available. It is either that, pay for more expensive full care and housing, or....put them in the streets?

Sheesh.