California budget negotiations hit a new snag

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

Well isn't this swell...

State Senate's new GOP leader wants taxes off the table

Newly minted Senate GOP leader Dennis Hollingsworth said today that he opposes balancing the state's books with any new taxes and that he would like to reopen budget talks.

.............

So in other words - screw what the majority want - it's our way or the highway. These just-say-no-to-taxes Republicans are out of their minds. Somebody should dig up Reagan and get him to reign in their stupidity.

Didn't Reagan have a 'spiritual' advisor? Perhaps this person can contact him from beyond the grave?

Not sure if this is one of those urban myths though

Oh yeah! Do you have connections Madame?

[Scott & Lai 12]

However, as an American, wouldn't you like your elected representatives to achieve more?

Guess that depends on what you think your elected representatives are supposed to be doing... believe it or not, we don't all agree on the purpose of government

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

However, as an American, wouldn't you like your elected representatives to achieve more?

Guess that depends on what you think your elected representatives are supposed to be doing... believe it or not, we don't all agree on the purpose of government

All political parties should share the consensus that government serves a purpose. The problem is that some hardliners see no purpose in government at all - and then get into politics to disable government as much as possible.

[Peikko 1,575]

However, as an American, wouldn't you like your elected representatives to achieve more?

Guess that depends on what you think your elected representatives are supposed to be doing... believe it or not, we don't all agree on the purpose of government

No more you should, but there should be at least a consensus that it does in fact have a purpose and one which goes beyond providing employment for politicians.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

However, as an American, wouldn't you like your elected representatives to achieve more?

Guess that depends on what you think your elected representatives are supposed to be doing... believe it or not, we don't all agree on the purpose of government

No more you should, but there should be at least a consensus that it does in fact have a purpose and one which goes beyond providing employment for politicians.

Our founding fathers believed government was at best a necessary evil, and the writers of the Constitution sought to enumerate those powers, and reinforced that idea with the 10th Amendment. Jefferson would have been happy with an agrian lifestyle for the new country, and few, if any, foreign engagements. Sorta paradoxial to his lifestyle, but none the less, that was his vision for the United States.

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

However, as an American, wouldn't you like your elected representatives to achieve more?

Guess that depends on what you think your elected representatives are supposed to be doing... believe it or not, we don't all agree on the purpose of government

No more you should, but there should be at least a consensus that it does in fact have a purpose and one which goes beyond providing employment for politicians.

Our founding fathers believed government was at best a necessary evil, and the writers of the Constitution sought to enumerate those powers, and reinforced that idea with the 10th Amendment. Jefferson would have been happy with an agrian lifestyle for the new country, and few, if any, foreign engagements. Sorta paradoxial to his lifestyle, but none the less, that was his vision for the United States.

Well, we could all wax poetic about what the Founding Fathers would think about our current problems, but I think we can all agree that none of them imagined elected officials deliberately wanting to stop the government from functioning.

[Peikko 1,575]

I find that the most bizarre thing about living in America, the desire of so many to live the life according to the axioms and diktats of the founding fathers. They lived in the 18th Century, where agriculture was the mainstay of production and being a pioneer was not simply watching "Little House on the Prairie" Really, it has to be the most extraordinary idea ever. No wonder the US stresses and strains against itself.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

However, as an American, wouldn't you like your elected representatives to achieve more?

Guess that depends on what you think your elected representatives are supposed to be doing... believe it or not, we don't all agree on the purpose of government

No more you should, but there should be at least a consensus that it does in fact have a purpose and one which goes beyond providing employment for politicians.

Our founding fathers believed government was at best a necessary evil, and the writers of the Constitution sought to enumerate those powers, and reinforced that idea with the 10th Amendment. Jefferson would have been happy with an agrian lifestyle for the new country, and few, if any, foreign engagements. Sorta paradoxial to his lifestyle, but none the less, that was his vision for the United States.

Well, we could all wax poetic about what the Founding Fathers would think about our current problems, but I think we can all agree that none of them imagined elected officials deliberately wanting to stop the government from functioning.

Au contrare, mon ami! That was exactly the formula they were using. Of course we have tweaked things over the years, and movies like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" would lead one to believe that majority rule is tyranny:

Tocqueville and the Tyranny of the Majority:

"...the moral authority of the majority is partly based on the notion that there is more intelligence and wisdom in a number of men united than a single individual, and that the number of legislators is more important that their quality".

"If the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force."

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

However, as an American, wouldn't you like your elected representatives to achieve more?

Guess that depends on what you think your elected representatives are supposed to be doing... believe it or not, we don't all agree on the purpose of government

No more you should, but there should be at least a consensus that it does in fact have a purpose and one which goes beyond providing employment for politicians.

Our founding fathers believed government was at best a necessary evil, and the writers of the Constitution sought to enumerate those powers, and reinforced that idea with the 10th Amendment. Jefferson would have been happy with an agrian lifestyle for the new country, and few, if any, foreign engagements. Sorta paradoxial to his lifestyle, but none the less, that was his vision for the United States.

Well, we could all wax poetic about what the Founding Fathers would think about our current problems, but I think we can all agree that none of them imagined elected officials deliberately wanting to stop the government from functioning.

Au contrare, mon ami! That was exactly the formula they were using. Of course we have tweaked things over the years, and movies like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" would lead one to believe that majority rule is tyranny:

Tocqueville and the Tyranny of the Majority:

"...the moral authority of the majority is partly based on the notion that there is more intelligence and wisdom in a number of men united than a single individual, and that the number of legislators is more important that their quality".

"If the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force."

Bill, Bill, Bill....sigh... When it comes to legislative duties, it has been long accepted that a simple majority is the requirement to pass legislation. So we can back over the history of why California now requires a 2/3 majority to raise taxes, but a simple majority on all other forms of legislation, but I'm hoping your memory hasn't failed you....yet.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill, Bill, Bill....sigh... When it comes to legislative duties, it has been long accepted that a simple majority is the requirement to pass legislation. So we can back over the history of why California now requires a 2/3 majority to raise taxes, but a simple majority on all other forms of legislation, but I'm hoping your memory hasn't failed you....yet.

I am not the one rewriting history to support his agenda. The fact is, that is the way the game is played now: Caliifornia Law, agreed to by Californians. You have to get two thirds of both houses, or two thirds of the voters, to raise taxes. Why do hippies always want to change the rules to suit them, but never admit any rule ever applies to them?

Would you prefer the model other states use, where the Governor has the Line Item Veto? we can argue that.

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

Bill, Bill, Bill....sigh... When it comes to legislative duties, it has been long accepted that a simple majority is the requirement to pass legislation. So we can back over the history of why California now requires a 2/3 majority to raise taxes, but a simple majority on all other forms of legislation, but I'm hoping your memory hasn't failed you....yet.

I am not the one rewriting history to support his agenda. The fact is, that is the way the game is played now: Caliifornia Law, agreed to by Californians. You have to get two thirds of both houses, or two thirds of the voters, to raise taxes. Why do hippies always want to change the rules to suit them, but never admit any rule ever applies to them?

Would you prefer the model other states use, where the Governor has the Line Item Veto? we can argue that.

Ok, so if the principle behind the 2/3 majority required for raising taxes is a larger, all encompassing principle (to prevent 'tyranny of the majority') - why not amend the State's Constitution so that all legislation requires a 2/3 majority?

You realize, we are one Senator's vote away from passing the state budget, and the Republicans in the Senate just replaced their leader because he supported the bipartisan bill with someone else who is now saying 'no' to any tax increase. This is absolutely mind numbing to see such hard headedness. Where's the compromise? Where's the pragmatism that Reagan showed? Or Pete Wilson? I'll tell ya - the state Republicans are voting themselves out of existence....it's just too bad their bringing the whole state down with them.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill, Bill, Bill....sigh... When it comes to legislative duties, it has been long accepted that a simple majority is the requirement to pass legislation. So we can back over the history of why California now requires a 2/3 majority to raise taxes, but a simple majority on all other forms of legislation, but I'm hoping your memory hasn't failed you....yet.

I am not the one rewriting history to support his agenda. The fact is, that is the way the game is played now: Caliifornia Law, agreed to by Californians. You have to get two thirds of both houses, or two thirds of the voters, to raise taxes. Why do hippies always want to change the rules to suit them, but never admit any rule ever applies to them?

Would you prefer the model other states use, where the Governor has the Line Item Veto? we can argue that.

Ok, so if the principle behind the 2/3 majority required for raising taxes is a larger, all encompassing principle (to prevent 'tyranny of the majority') - why not amend the State's Constitution so that all legislation requires a 2/3 majority?

You realize, we are one Senator's vote away from passing the state budget, and the Republicans in the Senate just replaced their leader because he supported the bipartisan bill with someone else who is now saying 'no' to any tax increase. This is absolutely mind numbing to see such hard headedness. Where's the compromise? Where's the pragmatism that Reagan showed? Or Pete Wilson? I'll tell ya - the state Republicans are voting themselves out of existence....it's just too bad their bringing the whole state down with them.

Calm yourself Steve, we are mostly hardened souls here, and spectators on the world stage. If you are so serious about changing things, then go out there and start an initiative! Get enough signatures, and you can put it on the next ballot, but don't complain when fortunes change, and you find yourself on the other side of the debate.

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

Calm yourself Steve, we are mostly hardened souls here, and spectators on the world stage. If you are so serious about changing things, then go out there and start an initiative! Get enough signatures, and you can put it on the next ballot, but don't complain when fortunes change, and you find yourself on the other side of the debate.

I'll say this....if the state Republicans want to have relevance in California government, they need to come to a consensus that dismantling government isn't being Conservative and simply saying 'no' to any tax increase isn't being fiscally responsible. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but things cost money...like having a state with a flourishing economy along with an infrastructure that supports it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Projected Current–Year Deficit of $8 Billion

We have updated our forecast of the 2008–09 General Fund condition to reflect updated revenue and expenditure forecasts based on current economic circumstances. As a result of these updated projections, we estimate that the state faces a 2008–09 year–end deficit of $8.4 billion if no actions are taken. The main factor driving this $10 billion reversal of fortunes is declining revenues, with some increased costs also contributing to the problem.

Deteriorating Economy and Revenues. As described in more detail in Chapter 2, the near–term outlook for the state’s economy has turned extremely negative due to reduced consumer spending, higher unemployment, the near collapse of the financial and credit markets, and other factors. Consequently (as described in Chapter 3), our forecast of all three of the state’s major taxes—the personal income tax, sales and use tax, and corporation tax—are down considerably from the estimates used in the enacted budget. In total, we project these “big three” revenues will fall short of the earlier estimates by more than $8 billion.

Higher Spending in Some Programs. Our updated spending forecast also contains negative factors widening the current–year shortfall. By far, the largest adjustment is higher state spending due to a reduction in the expected property taxes received by school districts—principally caused by the rapid decline in the state’s housing market. Over 2007–08 and 2008–09, we project the state will need to make up about $850 million in reduced property taxes (with an additional $600 million effect in 2009–10). Other major adjustments include higher expected caseloads in a number of health and social services programs, higher firefighting costs, less–than–assumed savings from unallocated reductions, and a shortfall in transportation funds available to redirect to benefit the General Fund. In total, net costs through the current fiscal year are about $1.4 billion higher than assumed with the enactment of the 2008–09 budget

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/fiscal_outlook/...look_112008.pdf

Edited February 19, 2009 by Mister_Bill

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

from Assemblymember Noreen Evans:

It’s put up or shut up time for Republicans. The Democratic budget proposal has been on the table for over a month. It was developed in a public process. It is in writing for all to see. Unfortunately for California, Republicans not only refuse to support our proposal, they refuse to tell us what kind of budget they would support. They are holding the state hostage because they won’t talk dollars and cents. Instead, they are making extremist policy demands which are not supported by the public.

Californians have told us through the initiative process what programs and services they want the Legislature to fund. Voters said we need to protect education funding by passing Proposition 98. Voters said keep bad guys locked up for a long time by passing Proposition 184. Voters said fix our crumbling roads when they passed Proposition 42. Voters said provide health care for kids in passing Proposition 10. Voters said provide after school programs for our children in passing Proposition 49. They demanded protection of local government funding in passing Proposition 1A.

These are not Democratic or Republican values. These are Californian values. The challenge for the Legislature is finding a way to pay for them. Democrats have stood up to the challenge. Republicans are running from it. It’s no wonder they are working so hard to change the subject. Their track record is shameful.”