California's GOP lawmakers should do the budget math

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

ooooo000000ooooooo them evil republicans!

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

ooooo000000ooooooo them evil republicans!

Not all of 'em...just the ones who are either too scared to support tax increases or too stubborn.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

ooooo000000ooooooo them evil republicans!

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

The Service Employee International Union (SEIU) California State Council is releasing our new poll today showing 65 percent of California Republican voters say GOP Legislators should work with Democrats to achieve a practical compromise to produce a balanced budget - including revenue increases. Just 29 percent of those surveyed agree GOP Legislators should resist any tax increase even if it means gridlock.

http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6545

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

ooooo000000ooooooo them evil republicans!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11723155

SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration began the process of laying off thousands of state workers on Tuesday, but there's a big loophole.

Those who belong to the state's largest employee union, which represents 95,000 state workers, have a better chance at staying employed than other state employees.

That's because a new tentative bargaining agreement protects members of the Service Employees International Union Local, 1000. The agreement was struck over the weekend between the Schwarzenegger administration and union leaders.

"They may get a job that's different than the one they have now, but they will still have jobs as opposed to some people who get these notices," said Lynelle Jolley, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Personnel Administration.

State agencies will send layoff notices to 20,000 of their least senior employees in a move to trim 10 percent of the government payroll. Some 10,000 workers ultimately could be let go in a process that takes about six months, although some of those workers could apply for jobs elsewhere in state government.

Neither Jolley nor SEUI president Yvonne Walker could say how many of the 20,000 workers receiving notices would be SEIU members. The SEIU represents about 40 percent of all state employees. The union agreement requires the Schwarzenegger administration to give SEUI members preferences for job reassignments, according to a copy of the layoff notice to be sent to 20,000 state workers.

If a job is available, union employees would be offered another position within 50 miles of their home and one that pays within 10 percent of their old position. SEIU employees could be laid off if a specific program or facility were shut down, however.

SEIU's nine bargaining units represent clerks, analysts, technicians, cooks, registered nurses and others.

Walker said the agreement was a victory that provides security for SEIU's members in tough economic times.

"This is just another way to give people certainty in this time of utter uncertainty," she said Tuesday.

The agreement still must be approved by union members, the Legislature and signed by the governor.

It also would cut the number of days SEIU workers are furloughed to one a month, half the amount ordered by Schwarzenegger.

Union members would give up Lincoln's Birthday and Columbus Day as paid holidays under the contract but in return would receive two floating holidays. The administration agreed to the arrangement because it would cut the state's overtime costs.

Schwarzenegger ordered the layoff notices sent after the Legislature failed over the holiday weekend to pass a plan to fix California's $42 billion deficit. He had deferred issuing the order last week when he was hopeful of a budget resolution.

The notice states the layoffs are among the measures "needed to preserve the state's cash." "Even when a budget is passed, and even with the mandatory furlough, elimination of programs, offices or other reductions in workforce, and layoffs will be required," the notice states.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Mister_Bill

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

Ronald Reagan, pushed through a $1 billion tax increase in 1967 to preserve the California Dream - still the largest tax increase, by percentage, in state history. It did not ruin the economy. In 1991 Pete Wilson, another Republican governor, pushed through a $7.3 billion tax increase. California didn't collapse - instead we embarked upon ten years of sustained economic growth.

....

So you have to ask yourself - what happened to the Republican Party?

[DEDixon 39]

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.

The framers of the California Budget process developed the 2/3 majority rule for a specific reason: to ensure that major issues crucial to the state’s long term survival like the budget plan has to be so well supported that at least 2/3 of the state’s representatives will vote for it.

Now this is not just a support of the Republicans, it works in the reverse as well. If the state was represented by roughly 60% Republicans who recommended the closure of major services that are allocated in the state budget, a group of prudent Democrats who didn’t hold a majority could ensure the survival of those programs because of the 2/3 rule. The 2/3 rule doesn’t create gridlock in the budget process, it ensures the rights of the minority, something I thought Californians valued.

Is there a Democrat out there who wouldn't hold on to the 2/3 rule like dear life itself if the Republicans had a 60% majority?

Lastly, the Republicans are not holding the state hostage, they are representing their constituents. Many of those who vote for Republicans do so primarily for their stance on taxes so in times such as these, they count on their elected officials even more so. In times like these Republican voters are especially happy they voted Republican.

Edited February 18, 2009 by DEDixon

[DEDixon 39]

Ronald Reagan, pushed through a $1 billion tax increase in 1967 to preserve the California Dream - still the largest tax increase, by percentage, in state history. It did not ruin the economy. In 1991 Pete Wilson, another Republican governor, pushed through a $7.3 billion tax increase. California didn't collapse - instead we embarked upon ten years of sustained economic growth.

....

So you have to ask yourself - what happened to the Republican Party?

I'm not sure what was going on in 1967, but in 1991 there was a recession so my guess is that Pete did what the current Republicans will most likely do. The question is, the 7.3 billion, was it initially 14 billion and the Republicans negotiated a lower increase and more cuts?

Again, Republicans are there to push the envelop for their constituents, not roll over for the Democrats.

Answer to your question: Nothing.

[dalegg 143]

Lastly, the Republicans are not holding the state hostage, they are representing their constituents. Many of those who vote for Republicans do so primarily for their stance on taxes so in times such as these, they count on their elected officials even more so. In times like these Republican voters are especially happy they voted Republican.

Absolutely. Voters in their districts elected them to act like Republicans, not like Democrats. What would be the point of holding elections if the guys you vote for just act exactly like the guys you voted against?

Democrats nationally need to remember something. Yes, Obama won. But guess what? So did the current Republicans. Over 45% of the nation did NOT vote Democrat in the last election. We could have, but we didn't, which means we want there to be a different opinion than just the majority, and we expect that opinion to be heard.

California's current problem is not due to a bad restriction that keeps the Government from adding taxes whenever they feel like it. Its because we are getting more and more bottom heavy as far as wage earners go. All these additional low income earners aren't contributing enough tax into the sytem to make up for the expenses they take out of it, thus a continuing growing budget deficit.

Since you know any amount of taxes on this growing low income work force isn't going to amount to squat, what you are really saying to the rest of us is hey, you need to step up and pay these other guys' share so these other guys can continue to have services they can't pay for, and suprisingly, we aren't too thrilled about it.

[thepizzadude 26]

I for one am so sick of hearing these STATES cry and whine about their budget problems, how they can't pick up the garbage they have to layoff workers...WHAT THE HECK DID THEY DO WITH ALL THE TAXES THEY COLLECT...

Kansas says can't send tax refund checks out...Well, thats messed up I own a business and I deduct the $$ from my employees and send it to state....WHAT DID THEY DO WITH IT!!!

Our elected officials on all levels are showing themselves more and more to be nothing more than incompetent, moronic individuals interspered with a bunch of thieves...its really sickening to admit I live in America these days.

I could rant for a week about how broken our society is but I don't wanna bore you all with it...

[NickD 203]

What, you people are being suckered into this republican/democrat blame game when both are screwing the hell out of us! Since I am too lazy to pitch my tax records for the last 30 years, can go back to learn exactly how badly we are being screwed. Like the rate increases of property taxes have increased by over a factor of ten while during the same time period, minimum wage has only doubled. Now that is a crime.

Had very nice schools that taught our kids, recall when a teacher quit with over a thousand applicants for that job. Good clean highways for a nickel a gallon gas tax, today, can't even clear the snow with over 50 cents a gallon. And we even had a rotten welfare program where we were paying single moms to come to our state to have babies, getting more and more money for each baby they had. And suddenly out of the clear blue sky, we have a 6 billion budget deficit. That is a thousand buck short fall for every man, women, and child in the state when we are already being robbed blind.

Tried to watch our governor explain this last night, my senses told me he was lying through his teeth and sure in the hell wouldn't buy a used car from him. He calls himself a democrat, the republican he replaced was just as bad. Least Arnold is a trained actor, can appear more convincing, but still lying.

A whole bunch of new taxes were added in the last 30 years and still looking for more, but exactly what are we getting for our money, besides being screwed blue. That is my question. Got the bad feeling that organized crime and crept into our government.

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

The framers of the California Budget process developed the 2/3 majority rule for a specific reason: to ensure that major issues crucial to the state's long term survival like the budget plan has to be so well supported that at least 2/3 of the state's representatives will vote for it.

Now this is not just a support of the Republicans, it works in the reverse as well. If the state was represented by roughly 60% Republicans who recommended the closure of major services that are allocated in the state budget, a group of prudent Democrats who didn't hold a majority could ensure the survival of those programs because of the 2/3 rule. The 2/3 rule doesn't create gridlock in the budget process, it ensures the rights of the minority, something I thought Californians valued.

Is there a Democrat out there who wouldn't hold on to the 2/3 rule like dear life itself if the Republicans had a 60% majority?

Lastly, the Republicans are not holding the state hostage, they are representing their constituents. Many of those who vote for Republicans do so primarily for their stance on taxes so in times such as these, they count on their elected officials even more so. In times like these Republican voters are especially happy they voted Republican.

The 2/3 requirement only applies to any legislated tax increase thanks to Prop 13, which made it a requirement for both houses. Right now, the budget is being held up by one vote in the Senate - one vote. If that isn't holding the whole state in hostage, I don't know what is. The state Republicans have no clear alternative - what they hold for dear life on is an absolute rejection of any tax increase, which is incredibly simplistic. That's not looking out for their constituents. They have become so extreme with their anti-tax rhetoric and their disdain for government, that any legislative move they make, they fear will cast them as pro-tax or pro-government. It's completely asinine.

And if you don't believe me....read about Ronald Reagan when he was governor...

The tipoff that Gov. Ronald Reagan had a streak of pragmatism in him came soon after his inaugural speech on Jan. 2, 1967, in which he promised to "squeeze, cut and trim" the cost of state government to close a significant budget gap. Two days later, however, he told aides that all the cutting and trimming in the world might not suffice. A tax increase could be necessary, Reagan said, and, if so, he didn't want to wait "until everyone forgets that we did not cause the problem -- we only inherited it."

Reagan's comment reflected a practical side that would serve him well throughout his political careers in Sacramento and later in Washington.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,7811600.story

.....

Wow....imagine that. The saint of modern Republicans being pragmatic about raising taxes. Was it political suicide for him? Nope. He went on to become the 40th President of the U.S.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wow....imagine that. The saint of modern Republicans being pragmatic about raising taxes. Was it political suicide for him? Nope. He went on to become the 40th President of the U.S.

And the hippies hated every moment!

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

Wow....imagine that. The saint of modern Republicans being pragmatic about raising taxes. Was it political suicide for him? Nope. He went on to become the 40th President of the U.S.

And the hippies hated every moment!

Let's focus on the current issue, Bill - the California budget. So given these facts about Reagan, why aren't the state Republicans willing to go along with their Republican Governor now and vote for this budget?

I'll give you my answer - because the state Republican Party has lost it's common sense. They've traded fiscal responsibility for meaning, just say 'no' to new taxes. They've decided that all government spending is wasteful spending and they'll be damned if they're going to let the majority push forward their heavily compromised budget plan, but won't come up with an alternative. Hopefully the sorry saps who elected these Republicans into office thinking they were getting someone who cares about them will realize these politicians are willing to shut down the entire government before they'll vote for a tax increase. Sad and pathetic.