Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Just curious....it looks like they are dying in the polls. <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d620bb50-4df7-46b8-87f6-8489e436e2ff" target="_blank">http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...e436e2ff</a> I wonder what's really going to happen after they go down in defeat.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I not even going to vote, this time." Then you have no right to complain, none at all. "I wonder what's really going to happen after they go down in defeat." I'm still undecided on some of them. But if they don't pass, no matter what the "no new taxes" people keep belching up, California will be in a world of hurt. At the local level my wife has been given a preview of possible scenarios and I've seen some at the county and state levels. Absent the legislature quickly pushing something through, Schwarzenegger has not been kidding about the type of cuts we'll see. DMVs for example, open 3-4 days a week, tens of thousands of prisoners cut loose, school classes the size of a small theater are the least of upcoming problems.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***tens of thousands of prisoners cut loose*** I assume that California doesn't have the same problem as most states, having tons of non-violent drug offenders locked up? Too bad if so. Because for most states, releasing tens of thousands of prisoners would be a GOOD thing (make room for the REAL criminals, right?).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer First off, don't go for the scare tactic about School Size, Proposition 98 assures that a large percentage of the State Budget goes to Public Education. So unless the Teachers keep getting large raises and more benefits, there is plenty of money for schools. Will class size go up a small percentage. Yes, in the current economy, tax revenue is down. As for the DMV, good, trying to get folks to use the Internet and/or the mail to handle most of the transactions needed is a smart solution for everyone, saves the Taxpayers money, the alternative options are available 24/7, which allows anyone to take care of things at their own convenience. Also, allowing places like AAA to handle some transactions removes the need for as many government offices. Here is an interesting editorial from today's Wall Street Journal... <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124227027965718333.html#mod=djemEditorialPage" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...rialPage</a> (Selected Paragraphs only, go read the entire editorial at the link). >>And in California, unions spent more than $50 million in 2005 to defeat a series of ballot proposals that would have capped growth in the state's budget. Now the state's teachers union is putting its clout behind a ballot initiative, to be voted on next week, that would restore more than $9 billion in educational spending cut from the state's budget. The results of such efforts are evident in the rich rewards that public-sector employees now enjoy. A study in 2005 by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public-sector worker earned 46% more in salary and benefits than comparable private-sector workers. The gap has only continued to grow. For example, state and local worker pay and benefits rose 3.1% in the last year, compared to 1.9% in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). But the real power of the public sector is showing through in this economic crisis. Some five million private-sector workers have lost their jobs in the last year alone, and their unemployment rate is above 9% according to the BLS. By contrast, public-sector employment has grown in virtually every month of the recession, and the jobless rate for government workers is a mere 2.8%. For anyone who thinks such low unemployment numbers are good news, remember that the bulging public sector must be paid for with revenues that most governments don't currently have. This is one reason for a spate of state and local tax increases, such as $5 billion in tax increases New York state passed in April, and $12 billion in tax increases California's legislature agreed to in February that will only become law if voters pass a series of ballot initiatives next week. The next lesson we are likely to learn is that voter revolts against new taxes are no longer effective because of the might that these public- sector groups now wield. The tax-cut uprising of the late 1970s began in California with Proposition 13 capping property taxes. It then spread to more than a dozen states before it became a national movement that helped elect Ronald Reagan. The next tax revolt, during the recession of the early 1990s, helped sink officials like New Jersey Gov. James Florio and produced ballot propositions in places like Colorado that capped spending or made tax increases more difficult. Now powerful and savvy, public unions have moved effectively to quash antitax movements. In New Jersey, public unions derailed a taxpayer revolt in 2005 by using their legislative clout to water down a bill that would have created a state constitutional convention to enact property-tax reform. Meanwhile, under pressure from unions, state legislatures in places like Florida have been tightening rules and requirements for passing voter initiatives and referenda -- blunting a favorite tool of antitax groups.<< Personally, I am voting NO on 1A through 1E, but Yes on 1F. Yes, 1F really has no effect, but it is a "feel good" prop.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And here is an interesting "Disney" twist on the California Props... <a href="http://ocresort.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/12/disney-donates-big-money-to-california-propositions/8845/" target="_blank">http://ocresort.freedombloggin...ns/8845/</a> >>Mickey Mouse and company are rolling with the fat cats this year in the wonderful world of California politics, campaign-finance reports show. The Walt Disney Company has tossed $250,000 into an effort to pass a series of propositions that state leaders hope will balance the budget. Those propositions would strengthen the state’s reserve fund, change the way the state runs its lottery – and extend some tax increases for another year or two. Polls suggest that voters oppose most of the propositions. But Disney put its money behind them, in a single lump-sum donation last week to a campaign committee called Budget Reform Now. Separately, Disney Worldwide Services kicked in another $2,500 to a group called “Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Dream Team.” The purpose of the governor’s dream team, at least for this election: to push for the passage of the ballot propositions. A Disney spokeswoman did not respond Monday to a request for comment. But there is this: Schwarzenegger initially talked about extending the sales tax to cover tickets to sporting events and amusement parks. It’s not entirely clear how that would have worked and who would have paid; the idea never made it to the ballot. And if the propositions do pass, the money they raise might give state lawmakers a little budgetary breathing room – enough to keep the idea of new amusement-park taxes at bay. Disney is not the only entertainment colossus to see the wisdom of the ballot propositions sometime after Schwarzenegger backed away from taxing its tickets. A number of sports teams have gotten behind the pro-propositions effort as well. Those include the Los Angeles Lakers, the Los Angeles Clippers, the San Francisco Giants and the San Jose Sharks – all of which donated $25,000 to Budget Reform Now. Not on the donor list: The Angels or the Ducks. To read more about the sports teams that donated money... <a href="http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/11/sports-teams-give-big-bucks-for-prop-1a/16251/" target="_blank">http://totalbuzz.freedombloggi...a/16251/</a> <<
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>First off, don't go for the scare tactic about School Size, Proposition 98 assures that a large percentage of the State Budget goes to Public Education.<<< The minimum is 40%, before the cuts it was something like 40.6% (don't quote me exactly). Seems they can only cut about 0.6%. I don't see a huge deal with a little bit of a class size increase, they are talking about going from 20 to 24 in lower grades and 34 to 36 in upper grades. Yeah, it's a bump, but I think manageable. The bigger problem is the amount of money put into resource education for kids in CA, some of whom barely speak English. I've said this before, but I am a sub, and once worked subbing for resource at $20/hour so ONE kid could get resource help. I'm not against resource, but I think the kids should be grouped so there isn't such a cost for individuals. Meanwhile, our GATE program is being cut, along with band. Also, a lot of free and reduced lunches are given in CA, and I mean A LOT! We have a large population of minorities who make low incomes. I'm not against this either, but these prices could go up a bit, and so could the minimum salary which they allow for free lunches. At my daughter's old school, where 50% of the kids came from English as a second language homes, they free and reduced lunch program was given to 70% of the kids. The biggest problems in CA are these, people DON'T pay their taxes, or cheat on their taxes (enough to where if everyone paid their taxes who DON'T ALREADY in CA, it would pay the salary of every California high school teacher), and the teacher's union.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As a government employee, as well as my wife, we're been privy to the various proposed budgets, and the school reductions are not hype. Only a fool would not take it seriously. Prop 98 means nothing in some scenarios.
Originally Posted By velo so true, SPP. At a certain point, I feel that CA schools are/will be offering very little to our kids, other than teaching them how to pass the all-important STAR test. The full result of the continuing cuts in education will not be completely felt for another 5 years or so. My older kids, who will be graduating in the next 2-3 years, have managed to eke out some extra/exploratory classes (now being cut) and we've moved our youngest to a charter school that still has a bit of freedom in what/how they teach. But, as all these career/interest programs are cut, we will be left a large percentage of kids who have the barest possible education and we'll still wonder why we don't match up with other countries...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Despite what the "no new taxes" puppets will tell everyone, here's a realistic look at what's going to happen if the Props don't pass: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap14-2009may14,0,3341182,full.column" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...l.column</a>
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>At a certain point, I feel that CA schools are/will be offering very little to our kids, other than teaching them how to pass the all-important STAR test.<<< SO TRUE! My kids have tested in the past week and really have done little else except play. Remember this part in Harry Potter: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ_LRZmVoxw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...LRZmVoxw</a>
Originally Posted By DyGDisney ^^^^This is exactly how I feel my kids' school is run. Doesn't help they are in program improvement....(they do have great teachers though, who manage to sneak in some extra learning).
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf The California public education system is a mess. My wife's a teacher so I hear how bug of a mess it really is on a daily basis. On a per pupil basis, we are already one of the lowest funded states. Yes, a big portion of the state budget goes toward education, but it is not reaching the teachers and students. I say we all band together and decide to vote OUT every incumbent California legislator every election until they fix the problems. That's the only real power we have. Screw the propositions.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Screw the propositions." You're not doing your wife any favors with that approach.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Yes, a big portion of the state budget goes toward education, but it is not reaching the teachers and students." The money is going to overpaid administrators who oust good teachers like Jaime Escalante out of the public schools. Read about the real story behind Stand and Deliver. All that feel-good crap that happened in the movie could keep happening in California. That said, California has the best public universities in the nation. The community colleges aren't bad either and make for a great low-cost stepping stone to a four-year school.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Yes, a big portion of the state budget goes toward education, but it is not reaching the teachers and students." The money is going to overpaid administrators who oust good teachers like Jaime Escalante out of the public schools. Read about the real story behind Stand and Deliver. All that feel-good crap that happened in the movie could keep happening in California. That said, California has the best public universities in the nation. The community colleges aren't bad either and make for a great low-cost stepping stone to a four-year school.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a Press Release... Trailing in the polls, new ad filled with misleading doomsday scenarios to support failed measure Fact Check for Yes on 1A-1B Television Commercial Released May 4, 2009 With polls showing voters strongly opposed to Prop. 1A and just two weeks until Election Day, Prop. 1A supporters began running another ad designed to scare voters into locking a risky and flawed constitutional amendment into law. The fact is, costly special elections and gimmicks have to end and we need to send the Governor and the Legislature back to do the job they were elected to do instead of passing Prop 1A which does absolutely nothing to help our immediate budget crisis. Under Prop 1A’s flawed rainy day fund, even if California’s budget house is on fire, we could still be forced to take water from the fire hydrant to fill up the swimming pool. Yes on 1A-1B Commercial Transcript: Sacramento’s budget mess has already forced departments to lay off firefighters and paramedics, and it could get even worse. Without Props 1A and 1B we have $16 billion in new cuts coming, could lose another 24,000 firefighters and police, and you know who that hurts, the people who depend on us. Were voting yes on 1A and 1B to prevent further cuts to public safety, control spending, and get California back on track. Claim #1: Prop 1A is part of a package Fact: Prop 1A is a separate and distinct measure from the other measures on the ballot, so it should be evaluated on its own merits. While Prop 1A would have no impact on our budget this year or next year, it is a permanent amendment to our constitution that will not do what its supporters say it will do. Claim #2: Sacramento’s budget mess has already forced departments to lay off firefighters and paramedics, and it could get even worse. Fact: Sacramento’s budget mess was created by the same politicians who wrote Prop 1A, placed it on the ballot, and raised the special interest contributions that paid for this ad (find special interest dollars behind 1A at <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/1829632.html" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/politics...632.html</a>). Fact: The budget mess will get worse, regardless of whether Prop 1A passes. The Legislative Analysts Office wrote that California will face an $8 billion budget deficit, even if all of the propositions pass. That number will only grow, with April revenues from the income tax and corporate tax falling far below estimates [Legislative Analysts Office, The Fiscal Outlook Under the February Budget Package, 3/13/09] Fact: California wasn’t supposed to have budget messes again after voters passed Propositions 57 and 58 in 2004. Drafted by Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders, they promised the measures would require that spending not exceed revenues. Voters took them at their word and passed Props 57 & 58, but our budget crisis only deepened. [Argument in Favor of Proposition 58, March 2004 Voter Pamphlet; California Secretary of State] Claim #3: Without Props 1A and 1B we have $16 billion in new cuts coming, and could lose another 24,000 firefighters and police. Fact: This statement is intended to mislead voters into thinking Prop 1A will help prevent cuts in this year’s budget. Prop 1A will not prevent $16 billion in cuts this year to firefighters, police or anyone else. The reference is to $16 billion in temporary tax increases that will begin taking effect two years from now. Fact: Prop 1A will increase cuts to firefighters and police by transferring money out of the general fund every year to a rainy day account, with billions of dollars being siphoned from the rainy day fund to a supplemental account for politicians to spend on new borrowing and pet construction projects (see, it’s very complicated). The Yes on 1A website claims that if Prop 1A had been in effect the last ten years, $33.5 billion would have been diverted from the general fund to pay for one time expenses. That’s $33.5 billion cut out of the budget over those years that could have cost 50,000 firefighters and police their jobs. [Yes on 1A website] Claim #4: Were voting yes on 1A and 1B to prevent further cuts to public safety, control spending, and get California back on track. Fact: This statement also is misleading. We know that even if all the measures pass, California will face more than an $8 billion budget deficit, subjecting many areas of the budget to cuts. And Prop 1A would limit the ability of the state to restore funding when the economy picks back up. Fact: Proposition 1A is so complex and confusing, even its chief architects disagree about what the measure would do: Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines (4/17/09 letter to the Republican Party Executive Committee): Proposition 1A ties the hands of legislative liberals, and it forces our budget into a fixed formula and a hard spending cap. That means, for the first time in decades, that liberals will have to make tough spending choices and cut their pet projects. Versus Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (4/10/09 letter to California Democratic Party members): This [Prop 1A] is NOT a spending cap, but rather a mechanism to force savings in good years to protect funding for services when our economy sours. Fact: Promising that Prop 1A will prevent further cuts, control spending, and get California back on track is, like the false promises Governor Schwarzenegger made to convince voters to pass Prop 58 in 2004, a promise that will not be kept. The non-partisan Legislative Analysts Office says Prop 1As effects are difficult to assess and cannot be accurately predicted. [San Diego Union Tribune, March 22, 2009] Fact: Prop 1A would limit the ability to restore adequate funding to programs and services already hurt by budget cuts. By basing the new cap on a level of revenues that is insufficient to pay for the current level of programs and services, Proposition 1A would limit the state’s ability to restore reductions made during the current downturn out of existing revenues. [California Budget Project, What Would Proposition 1A Mean for California’s Future, March 2009]
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE54E69220090515?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article...ticsNews</a> California seems in some serious trouble. I'm curious, how did things get this bad?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>California seems in some serious trouble. I'm curious, how did things get this bad?<< Pretty simple, spending gone crazy... Here is the history of the State Budget... <a href="http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/budgethistory.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/b...tory.pdf</a> So the budget has basically doubled in the last 10 years. <a href="http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_budget" target="_blank">http://sunshinereview.org/inde...e_budget</a> >>California's state spending has ballooned in the last decade at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation and rate of population growth in the state. According to Tom Campbell, California's finance director in 2004-2005, if the 1999-2000 budget of former California governor Gray Davis had been increased over the next decade by a factor representing the inflation rate and California's population growth in that time, California would now be experiencing a budget surplus, rather than a deficit even with the recent revenue decline due to the state's economic recession. Instead, California has had a 50% spending increase over the past five years. Over the past 10 years state spending from state sources has more than doubled in nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation), and during the current governor's tenure state spending from state sources has risen almost 40 percent,<<
