California's GOP lawmakers should do the budget math

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Whatever happens...the state Republicans are digging themselves a pretty deep grave. We are seeing the repercussions of a party wide implosion.

I don't think so. These guys campaigned on not raising taxes. If they cave they are done. After taxes are finally raised it will be very easy for them to point at Democrats for raising them. Californians do NOT like higher taxes, and trying to reason with us about how the state government would collapse otherwise is not going to make a difference. We also do not like the government so we don't care enough.

I think that's a misnomer. Of course everyone would rather keep more of their money, but as the OP demonstrates, it requires money to keep thing running, like the highway patrol, prisons, courts, schools, etc. The Republicans in this state have fought tooth and nail against any tax increases which is one of the main reasons why CA is now facing a 40 billion dollar deficit...and their answer to everything is simply cut spending. What a simple-minded fiasco.

Its not just Republicans who don't like taxes. I mean, how did Arnold get elected in the first place? It was all about taxes. Yes, the rank in file Democrat is okay with raising taxes- as long as its on somebody else, but try to raise their own taxes- no way, Jose'. I'm not talking about the Hollywood liberals either. Of course they are okay with it, but the mass of this State wants something for nothing- period, and that is the real problem.

Repeal Prop 13.

[dalegg 143]

Whatever happens...the state Republicans are digging themselves a pretty deep grave. We are seeing the repercussions of a party wide implosion.

I don't think so. These guys campaigned on not raising taxes. If they cave they are done. After taxes are finally raised it will be very easy for them to point at Democrats for raising them. Californians do NOT like higher taxes, and trying to reason with us about how the state government would collapse otherwise is not going to make a difference. We also do not like the government so we don't care enough.

I think that's a misnomer. Of course everyone would rather keep more of their money, but as the OP demonstrates, it requires money to keep thing running, like the highway patrol, prisons, courts, schools, etc. The Republicans in this state have fought tooth and nail against any tax increases which is one of the main reasons why CA is now facing a 40 billion dollar deficit...and their answer to everything is simply cut spending. What a simple-minded fiasco.

Its not just Republicans who don't like taxes. I mean, how did Arnold get elected in the first place? It was all about taxes. Yes, the rank in file Democrat is okay with raising taxes- as long as its on somebody else, but try to raise their own taxes- no way, Jose'. I'm not talking about the Hollywood liberals either. Of course they are okay with it, but the mass of this State wants something for nothing- period, and that is the real problem.

Repeal Prop 13.

Go ahead and try.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Whatever happens...the state Republicans are digging themselves a pretty deep grave. We are seeing the repercussions of a party wide implosion.

I don't think so. These guys campaigned on not raising taxes. If they cave they are done. After taxes are finally raised it will be very easy for them to point at Democrats for raising them. Californians do NOT like higher taxes, and trying to reason with us about how the state government would collapse otherwise is not going to make a difference. We also do not like the government so we don't care enough.

I think that's a misnomer. Of course everyone would rather keep more of their money, but as the OP demonstrates, it requires money to keep thing running, like the highway patrol, prisons, courts, schools, etc. The Republicans in this state have fought tooth and nail against any tax increases which is one of the main reasons why CA is now facing a 40 billion dollar deficit...and their answer to everything is simply cut spending. What a simple-minded fiasco.

from self-appointed usage police.

The word you were looking for is "misconception"; a "misnomer" is an inapt nomenclature (such as "cosmic ray").

[DEDixon 39]

Whatever happens...the state Republicans are digging themselves a pretty deep grave. We are seeing the repercussions of a party wide implosion.

I don't think so. These guys campaigned on not raising taxes. If they cave they are done. After taxes are finally raised it will be very easy for them to point at Democrats for raising them. Californians do NOT like higher taxes, and trying to reason with us about how the state government would collapse otherwise is not going to make a difference. We also do not like the government so we don't care enough.

I think that's a misnomer. Of course everyone would rather keep more of their money, but as the OP demonstrates, it requires money to keep thing running, like the highway patrol, prisons, courts, schools, etc. The Republicans in this state have fought tooth and nail against any tax increases which is one of the main reasons why CA is now facing a 40 billion dollar deficit...and their answer to everything is simply cut spending. What a simple-minded fiasco.

Its not just Republicans who don't like taxes. I mean, how did Arnold get elected in the first place? It was all about taxes. Yes, the rank in file Democrat is okay with raising taxes- as long as its on somebody else, but try to raise their own taxes- no way, Jose'. I'm not talking about the Hollywood liberals either. Of course they are okay with it, but the mass of this State wants something for nothing- period, and that is the real problem.

Repeal Prop 13.

Funny, you keep resorting to Prop 13 as if it is the magic nothing else can match.

You are wrong.

Even without Prop 13, they will do what they always do, they will project future revenue into the future and spend every last penny. And, given we know they'd do this, the current crisis would be even worse, because all those property tax projections would be vastly wrong.

I adjusted my property tax down over 1500 last year and I will do it again in 2009 and so will millions of other homeowners. So how oh how oh how would that help us now? Where is the magic in this?

CA's problem is too much spending on lofty revenue projections.... not only lofty, but wishful-thinking projections..... end of story.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Prop 13 limitations have been rendered mute with the creation of Mello-Roos Bonds. Many property owners now pay more for "special district taxes" and "direct-charge user fees" than they do for the one-percent adjusted cost basis property tax (prop 13 rate).

Edited February 17, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Jasman0717 9]

I keep checking all my new sources but those bozos still haven't done anything.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Prop 13 limitations have been rendered mute with the creation of Mello-Roos Bonds. Many property owners now pay more for "special district taxes" and "direct-charge user fees" than they do for the one-percent adjusted cost basis property tax (prop 13 rate).

Prop 13 is directly responsible for why home prices ballooned to the point they did.

....

Prop 13 was an extremist attack on the very practice of state government by a group of far-right activists, with property taxes used as a convenient cover. Those who voted for - and who say they would vote for it again - still seem to believe its primary purpose was to protect homeowners, when its true goal was to destroy public services by starving government of revenue - otherwise why include the 2/3 rule? Why give commercial property the same protection as homeowners? Further, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the level of taxation - especially property taxation - in California. California ranks 38th in property taxes. Somehow homeowners in the 37 states ahead of us haven't been losing their homes to taxes. One consequence of Prop 13 was a shifting of taxation to sales and income taxes - sales taxes are regressive and income taxes can be volatile. Prop 13 is therefore directly responsible for California's regressive and unstable budgeting. No Prop 13, no structural revenue shortfall.

Dan Weintraub argued that Prop 13 didn't devastate government finances. But does he even read his own paper? Peter Schrag pointed out in the California Progress Report last week that Prop 13 did have that devastating impact:

“California's per pupil school spending, which was among the top 10 states in the 1960s, is now among the bottom 10. Proposition 13 alone is not responsible, but along with two major court decisions that preceded it, it helped decouple school funding from the local tax base and thus undercut voter incentives to fund education generously, as it had been in the generation after World War II. Our roads, once a national model, are an embarrassment. ...

“California once had a communitarian ethic. That's been turned into a market ethic. It once did serious planning for the future. For now, that's a nearly forgotten hope.”

Prop 13 helped create a "homeowner aristocracy" - where those who bought their homes before 1976 are given preferential treatment and tax shelters while everyone else has to pay market rates. Some argue that those on fixed incomes deserve protection from rising tax bills, but it is difficult to have sympathy for this when the method of protecting them - Prop 13 - has produced a generation of inequality that leaves most folks under 35 unable to ever own a home in California.

Why should some homeowners get government subsidies and others do not? Why is it that under Prop 13 we protect some homeowners at the expense of future generations? If we are to right the state's finances, provide economic security for all Californians, deal with the energy price and global warming crisis, and have a competitive 21st century economy, we need to reexamine our priorities, and be willing to move past obsolete 1970s faux populism.

Robert Cruickshank is a historian, activist, and teacher living in Monterey. He is a contributing editor at Calitics.com and works for the Courage Campaign, in addition to teaching political science at Monterey Peninsula College. Currently he is completing his Ph.D. dissertation in US history, on progressive politics in San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s. A native Californian, he was raised in Orange County and educated at UC Berkeley.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/06/the_truth_about_1.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here, check this out, and tell me if you still agree with your post.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_TaxBurdenJTF.pdf

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here, check this out, and tell me if you still agree with your post.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_TaxBurdenJTF.pdf

Bill, the piece I posted was about property taxes. And that source is the CBP (CA Budget Project). http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/0804_pp_taxes.pdf

In there you'll find much more concise and detailed reports on taxes in California.

I took a screenshot of one example to show you where California ranks in property tax:

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And your point? California already has an extremely progressive income tax, so your point can't be to tax the rich more. We have one of the highest coporate tax rates, and that is driving employers out of state, to Virginia and the rest of Appalacia. Prop 13 is a red herring, with the creation of Mello-Roos bonds. School bonds get the two-thirds they need to pass 90 percent of the time. So, what are you trying to get at?

Your chart shows property tax as a source of revenue. How about finding a chart that shows total tax burden?

Edited February 17, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And your point? California already has an extremely progressive income tax, so your point can't be to tax the rich more. We have one of the highest coporate tax rates, and that is driving employers out of state, to Virginia and the rest of Appalacia. Prop 13 is a red herring, with the creation of Mello-Roos bonds. School bonds get the two-thirds they need to pass 90 percent of the time. So, what are you trying to get at?

Your chart shows property tax as a source of revenue. How about finding a chart that shows total tax burden?

My point is that the state Republicans have a stranglehold on California's budget crisis, even though they are a minority - because it requires 2/3 majority to raise taxes, they're holding whole state hostage regardless of the facts and figures on taxes. We have 40 billion dollar deficit and the Repubs haven't got an alternative solution but some of them will refuse to support any increase in taxes. They're royally screwing us.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And your point? California already has an extremely progressive income tax, so your point can't be to tax the rich more. We have one of the highest coporate tax rates, and that is driving employers out of state, to Virginia and the rest of Appalacia. Prop 13 is a red herring, with the creation of Mello-Roos bonds. School bonds get the two-thirds they need to pass 90 percent of the time. So, what are you trying to get at?

Your chart shows property tax as a source of revenue. How about finding a chart that shows total tax burden?

My point is that the state Republicans have a stranglehold on California's budget crisis, even though they are a minority - because it requires 2/3 majority to raise taxes, they're holding whole state hostage regardless of the facts and figures on taxes. We have 40 billion dollar deficit and the Repubs haven't got an alternative solution but some of them will refuse to support any increase in taxes. They're royally screwing us.

We also have a Republic Governor who is forced to deal with a Democratic majority in both houses. California's problem is not tax revenue, it is a structural deficit, created by Gray Davis, that still has not been resolved because of the resistance of the Democratic legislaters (and unions) to make those structural changes necessary to streamline California government services and pay structure.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We also have a Republic Governor who is forced to deal with a Democratic majority in both houses. California's problem is not tax revenue, it is a structural deficit, created by Gray Davis, that still has not been resolved because of the resistance of the Democratic legislaters (and unions) to make those structural changes necessary to streamline California government services and pay structure.

Having a mere majority is irrelevant to be able to raise taxes thanks to Prop 13's provision requiring 2/3 majority.

Secondly, if this is just a mere budget problem of spending too much - where's the Republicans plan? They don't have one.

This over simplistic - taxes bad, cut spending good, caveman mentality is washing this state down the sink. What a mess we are in.... at mercy of the minority Republicans....and to blame the deficit on Gray Davis is just silly.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...and for FWIW:

Who doesn't pay taxes in California?

In 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, 520,567 taxpayers reported

incomes of $200,000 or more. However, 1,597 of these households paid no California

personal income tax.8 How did they do it? The largest tax breaks claimed by “no tax”

households include enterprise zone tax credits, miscellaneous deductions, and the R&D

Credit. The number of high-income “no tax” returns more than tripled between 1996 and

2005, rising from 510 to 1,597.

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/0804_pp_taxes.pdf

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Op-Ed: Democrats employing politics of fear

These past couple of days the state Legislature has deliberated through the night. Democrats have tried to scare Republicans into adopting a package of historic tax increases to close what they describe as the imminent threat of a $42 billion deficit. Just as they did during the Gray Davis years, the Democrats are using the politics of fear to gain support for their spend-then-tax plan. As of Tuesday, they had failed to secure the votes necessary to gain passage.

Republicans need to stay united, stay conservative and not buy into the lie that we are in a $42-billion deficit condition. This is a manipulation from the start, designed to hype this as the great crisis of our time and to attempt to force us to vote for the largest series of tax increases in California's history.

This is the same approach employed by the liberal U.S. Congress in the name of "economic stimulus." They rushed into a process, driven by fear that "if we don't act now, the world will come to an end." This process ushered in the largest growth in federal government spending since the New Deal Era. In a matter of weeks they made the pork-barrel spenders of the past look like a bunch of amateurs. Meanwhile, they have compromised the financial future of our grandchildren. Throwing money at a problem solves nothing.

California is already the most overregulated, hostile business climate in the nation. Our economy is struggling. Along with the disastrous implementation of AB 32, the last thing that taxpayers in our economy need is to be further punished by additional taxes. I recognize the realities of California's current budget situation and that we have a very pronounced current-year deficit that we must address. However, I also believe that this is a far cry from the "sky is falling" $42 billion number that has been thrown around recently. The estimated current year shortfall comes in at around $16 billion, or about 16 percent of spending.

But even if we assume a $42 billion problem, increasing taxes is not a solution. To close a gap of that proportion, we can take the current proposal, eliminate the tax increases, and substitute them with alternative revenues. Let's adopt the cuts and revenue changes Democrats have proposed. A mere 8-10 percent reduction in current year spending leaves approximately $8 billion to deal with.

We know we can find revenue enhancements and savings. We should collect the $5 billion in uncontested debt currently owed to the state. We can offer tax amnesty to those out of compliance — the last two times this was done it produced over $3 billion in unanticipated revenue. On any given year, through normal attrition, the state of California realizes a 10 percent reduction in state employees, which would save us $2.3 billion a year. We could cut overhead by simply not filling vacancies.

Additionally, we should roll services back to the Gray Davis years (2001) when the spending spree began; this represents a $29 billion increase since 2001. In rolling back services — adjusting for mandates, costs of living and population increase — we could recoup $10 billion a year. The sum total of rollbacks and revenue enhancements adds up to about $27 billion in savings. Add that to the proposed $15 billion in tax cuts and we are at $42 billion, eliminating the proposed tax increases altogether.

We are in this mess because of the overspending of the last five to 10 years. Republicans must not fall for the proposed tax increases because it not only compromises us on the fundamental issue of taxation, but makes us complicit on the backside of the runaway spending that got us here in the first place.

The Democrats' $42 billion deficit is a manipulation that we do not have to buy into. Let's focus on current-year numbers, current-year shortfall and find a reasonable fix that does not force us to get run over by the tax train. Let's step off the tracks and redefine for ourselves the terms and conditions by which we resolve this challenge in a manner that is consistent with the values of our Republican party.

We must stand fast and do the right thing at all costs. California is at a crossroads and we must guide it with wisdom, principle and courage.

Dan Logue, R-Linda, was elected to the state Assembly in November.

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/bi..._democrats.html

Edited February 18, 2009 by Mister_Bill