Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1653962.html" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/capitola...962.html</a> >>If voters rely solely on ballot arguments when deciding in May whether to pass a constitutional limit on state spending, they will miss the fact that the measure also would extend higher sales, vehicle and income taxes by up to two more years. Legislative leaders so far have successfully omitted the fact that Proposition 1A will essentially trigger up to $14 billion in additional taxes from July 2011 to June 2013. Although Republican legislators submitted ballot arguments against the proposal emphasizing billions of dollars in tax increases, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, chose a Democratic legislator to pen the opposing ballot statement, which ignores the tax hikes. Campaign strategists said this month that the additional taxes are the measure's greatest vulnerability. Under election law, Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, are allowed to pick which legislators write opposing arguments. Steinberg chose Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, while Bass did not designate anyone, according to Nicole Winger, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office.<< I hope that someone will sue and get this in the courts... alas, it might end up costing California MORE money if they have to reprint or send out a "suppmental" pamphlet....
Originally Posted By dshyates All the info NEEDS to be included. You can't make an informed decission without correct information. And those trying to lie by omission need a one way ticket out of the state house.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Darkbeer- the state could have laid off ALL 239,000 employees and STILL come up tens of billions short closing the gap. If not taxes- what else???
Originally Posted By dshyates Darkbeer didn't say anything about the taxes, he just mentioned that it was being left off the info given to voters that is supposed to help them make an informed decision. And yeah, he got all partisan about it. Like his boys didn't leave out a bunch of crap to mislead us to war.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Rebublicans don't like the state tax hike, and they don't like the federal bailout. Just who do they think is going to pay the bill? These debts are real, and unlike the feds, we have to come up with real money to pay for them. It's fine to sit there and chant "no new taxes" but it doesn't move us any closer to solving the actual problems. I wish I had the luxury to be so bound to my ideological nature and beliefs that I could afford to ignore reality like that. But I can't afford it, I have to work and pay taxes. As to the wording of the ballot measures, I'm all for clarity. Hell, I'm for outright bluntness. But this criticism is coming from the party that refused to include TWO wars on their budget for the past seven years. Like we're supposed to take our bookkeeping tips from them.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Darkbeer didn't say anything about the taxes, he just mentioned that it was being left off the info given to voters that is supposed to help them make an informed decision. And yeah, he got all partisan about it. Like his boys didn't leave out a bunch of crap to mislead us to war." He's part of ignorant, knuckle dragging group that thinks these taxes are an outrage and should never have happened. If there are purposeful omissions, that's a bad thing. However, the agenda for his side and the rest of the minority in the California legislature is to vote down these taxes altogether, which would put us right back where we were before the last budget got approved. All of which goes back to my original question- if not raised taxes, and it's plainly moronic to state anyone LIKES the idea of more taxes, what are the alternatives, in light of the facts??? His silence is consistent with the rest of the Republican ideologues here in California. They don't want more taxes (who does?) but they don't have any other idea.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "They don't want more taxes (who does?) but they don't have any other idea." Um, how about less spending?? <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oe-matsusaka17-2008jul17,0,7847266.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/op...66.story</a> "California state government spent $145 billion last fiscal year, $41 billion more than four years ago when Gov. Gray Davis got recalled by voters. With all that new spending -- a whopping 40% increase -- we ought to be in a golden age of government with abundant public services for all. So why does it seem like the quality and quantity of government is not all that different from 2004? How many of us feel like we are getting 40% more public services, 40% better schools, roads, parks and so on?" and "California's statewide sales tax of 7.25% is already the highest in the nation. Income taxes are also high, with the 10.3% rate on the top income bracket the highest in the nation. The highly progressive nature of the state's income tax schedule -- the top 10% of earners supply more than 70% of income tax revenue, according to one estimate -- already results in excessive revenue volatility. It also raises questions about how much redistribution of wealth is fair: Should the top 10% foot the bill for basic services enjoyed by all Californians? Legislators, pundits and interest groups warn of dire consequences if state spending is slowed or cut. But if most Californians haven't detected a significant change from the last $41 billion, including 40% more on schools, will they notice if some of that spending disappears?"
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Um, how about less spending??" On what? After you lay off all the employees? You can cut another $20B through cuts?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< "California state government spent $145 billion last fiscal year, $41 billion more than four years ago when Gov. Gray Davis got recalled by voters. With all that new spending -- a whopping 40% increase -- we ought to be in a golden age of government with abundant public services for all. >>> Interesting. So, recall a Democrat and put in a Republican governor, and spending goes up 40% in 5 years?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I liked Gray Davis. This is what we get in CA for electing an actor to the governor's office.....again.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/03/02/daily22.html" target="_blank">http://www.bizjournals.com/sac...y22.html</a> >>A leading consumer advocate joined the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in a lawsuit filed Monday in Sacramento Superior Court that alleges the ballot label and title and summary for Proposition 1A on the May 19 elections ballot are false and misleading. Proposition 1A seeks to limit future state budget deficits and overspending by increasing the size of the state’s “rainy day fund” and requiring above-average revenues to be deposited in it during good times for use in bad economic times. The lawsuit filed by the taxpayers association, its legislative director, David Wolfe, and Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, claims words like “overspending,” “rainy-day fund” and “reform” are not fair and impartial but written in a way that will influence voters to adopt the proposal. “Prop. 1A wouldn’t do what its supporters claim, and, with these false and misleading descriptions, it will create even more confusion about what it is supposed to do,” Wright said in a press release. “If this measure can’t be passed without a misleading description, then voters should send the authors back to the drawing board to get it right.” One glaring omission to the ballot label, title and summer is the absence of any reference to the extension of tax increases currently tied to approval of the measure, the plaintiffs allege. The lawsuit against Secretary of State Debra Bowen, the State Printer, Legislature and Legislative Analyst seeks to take out some words and add others. Due to the short time frame before the election, the Legislature assumed responsibility for preparing the label, title and summary, a job normally done by the Attorney General.<<
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Proposition 1A seeks to limit future state budget deficits and overspending by increasing the size of the state’s “rainy day fund” and requiring above-average revenues to be deposited in it during good times for use in bad economic times. << Are we to presume that DB opposes this - at least in concept? We may never know ...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Darkbeer- the state could have laid off ALL 239,000 employees and STILL come up tens of billions short closing the gap. If not taxes- what else???" I asked you a direct question Darkbeer- have the guts to directly answer it without some cowardly link that tells us nothing.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I want to apologize to everyone else that reads this thread for the harsh tone in post 13- however, since my wife and I both work for the government in various capacities (she's in H.R. for a large city and very up to date on payroll and budget issues), I'm a bit closer to this than most. Allegations made such as the ones in post 11 are borne out of knee jerk ideology. It goes hand in hand with the mantra of "no new taxes" ad nauseum. Government has to function. 98% of the people in it give their heart and soul to it, sometimes even their lives. Unfortunately, due to a myriad of reasons, California finds itself in a huge hole only taxes can fix. That ignorant obstructionists can do nothing more than keep yelling "no taxes!" without offering a solution or respondng to cold, hard facts such as what I laid out in post 13, only makes the problem worse.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Come on, the issue of this thread is Proposition 1A and what it entails... <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1A" target="_blank">http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in...ition_1A</a>_(May_2009) It is a combination Proposal, and something that would NOT be allowed more than likely if it had to go through the Initiative (signature gathering) process, as they are limited to one specific issue. But Proposition 1A is a combination of a Future spending Cap limit on the state Budget with increased "reserves", AND an extension of taxes... <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1A" target="_blank">http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in...ition_1A</a>_(May_2009) Here is what the California Democrats have tried to NOT mention in Proposition 1A on the official California Ballot Pamphlet. >>The proposed spending cap amendment only applies if voters agree to keep a $16 billion tax increase package in place for four years instead of two. The taxes that would be increased for up to 4 years under Proposition 1A are: A 1-cent-per-dollar increase in the state sales tax. The state's vehicle license fee will nearly double under Proposition 1A. An increase in the state's personal income tax.<< Are there ideas for a "better" budget than what passed, I think yes, but that is for another thread. The discussion was focused on how the California Democrats decided to pick on of their own to write the "opposing" view of Prop 1A, even though the person who wrote the opposition voted FOR the budget, unlike the vast majority of most Republicans. Now, in the news article from Post #11, we have folks suing the Secretary of State and other related folks to have the "increased/extended taxes" and WHICH taxes be mentioned in the Official Guide other than in the fine print that the VAST majority does not read.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>These Props are ALL ABOUT the increased taxes<< SPP, are you talking about the 6 Propositions that the California Legistature based as part of the Budget Compromise, here is a good description of all of them... <a href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2009/db09-008.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/pr...-008.pdf</a> <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2009_ballot_propositions" target="_blank">http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in...ositions</a> Prop 1A, a Spending Cap, plus also $16 BILLION in new taxes, that the democrats are SPECIFICALLY trying to not mention on the Official State Ballot Pamphlete! Prop 1B, Adjustment to school budgets, where Prop (8 is adjusted, and the schools lose some money the next few years, but are promised increased funding in the future... Prop 1C, selling "future" revenue ($5 BILLION) from the Lottery to balance the budget today. No new taxes, but really messes up the budgets in the future, as the money will have to be repaid from future revenue. Prop 1D, Another borrowing Peter to pay Paul measure, this time taking money from the former Prop 10 (Children and Family Act), $608 million permentaly removed from Tobacco Tax money, but no new taxes. Prop 1E, a minor act, but shifting some Mental Health Funds - $227 Million (former Prop 63) to Early Childhood Screening. So far, this one I can agree with.. Prop 1F - Basically a slap on the wrist in preventing raises to the legistature from getting raises in their own salry in Defecit Years. The ONLY one that has to do with NEW Taxes is Prop 1A, the one that the Democrats are trying to have the official wording and arguements (from BOTH sides) to not have ANY mention about the $16 BILLION in new taxes that would be approved, or $8 Billion a year for 2 years. Think about it, a couple of weeks ago, the ENTIRE California Budget shortfall was around $16 Billion. That is a LOT of money, and should be part of the official SUMMARY and part of the Arguements for and against... But The California Legistature, at least the Majority party is "rigging" the system to not have it mentioned! <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget21feb21,0,6427050.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...50.story</a>
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains You know what, I really don't care if they increase taxes IF it means the schools will get the funding they need, and the money is spent properly. If the alternative is more cuts to roads, schools, and the jails I will pay the taxes. I am still interested in seeing how they are planning to increase the taxes on vehicles with the lost money from gas tax and the increase in hybrids... I know there has to be a balance. Nobody wants to pay more taxes, but I doubt they want to see the state bancrupt either.
