Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What a bunch of hooey. We're in this budget mess because the economy tanked and revenues dropped. It isn't rocket science. Further, it's exacerbated by the constraints of Prop 13. If we pass the Props, we're only in a lot of trouble. If we don't pass the Props, we're screwed beyond what anyone around now has seen before.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer From the main Union that represents the Orange County, CA Government Employees... Today, the Governor released his May Revision to his proposed 2009-10 state budget. Although the 2009-10 fiscal year budget was signed by the Governor on February 20, 2009, the revision recognizes that the continued degradation of the state revenues and the pending cash borrowing needs will require swift and immediate action. The May Revision included two versions that project two scenarios—one in which all the measures on the May 19th ballot are successful and one in which all of the measures fail—as the success of the provisions is expected to generate $5.8 billion difference in the State's fiscal position in 2009-10 fiscal year. If the ballot measures pass the proposed budget would include $86.3 billion in available General Fund revenues, $84 billion in expenditures, and a reserve of $1.1 billion. Solutions if the ballot measures pass The $15.4 billion shortfall is closed with the following rough estimate of solutions: $6 billion in Revenue Anticipation Warrants (RAW); $3 billion in cuts to education in both K-12 and community colleges. $1 billion in reductions to Higher Education. $1 billion in one-time savings from the sale a portion of the State Compensation Insurance Fund book of business to a private entity. $1.8 billion in major cuts to health and human services including: $750 million in Medi-Cal reductions. These reductions are achieved through rate reductions, benefit changes and a change to the long-term care program that would negotiated with the federal government; Reduction of Developmental Services by an additional $234 million; Cuts to IHSS services and IHSS provider pay; Elimination of "SSI-like" benefits for elderly and disabled legal immigrants and limiting access to medical care to needy legal immigrants – all of whom have played by the immigration rules; and Reduction of the SSI-SSP grant level to the minimum level allowed by the federal government; and Adoption of various CalWORKS reductions. $100 million from the lease oil or gas extraction at the Tranquillion Ridge area off the Santa Barbara coast. $610 million in tax accelerations. $1 billion (approximately) in other solutions. If the ballot measures fail the proposed budget would include $88.6 billion in available General Fund revenues, $85.5 billion in expenditures, and a reserve of $2 billion. Additional solutions needed if measures fail If the ballot measures fail, the Governor would add the following solutions: $2.3 billion in additional reductions to Proposition 98 $200 million in additional cuts to Higher Education. Suspension of Proposition 1A for local governments, a $2 billion savings. $282 million from corrections by reducing some crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and commuting the sentences of certain undocumented immigrants. $1.7 billion from adoption of a 10 percent Personal Income Tax withholding increase. Makes additional reductions of approximately $864 million in major cuts to health and human services including: Eliminating funding for Proposition 36; Reducing foster care rates; Additional reductions of $300 million to the In Home Supportive Services program services; $100 million in reductions to various public health programs; $108 million in reductions to Healthy Family program by reducing eligibility to 200% of the federal poverty level; and $178 million in other additional reductions and fund shifts that will impact health and human services programs. Adds an ERI fee to pay for CalFIRE costs for a savings of $76 million. Reduce the RAW borrowing by $500 million. Borrowing from Local Governments Proposal If Propositions Fail: Borrow $1.982 billion from local governments through the suspension of Proposition 1A (of 2004). Suspension, which requires legislation, allows the state to divert to schools up to 8 percent of property tax revenues of cities, counties and special districts to counties and special districts. Repayment with interest must be made within three years. The May Revision also proposes legislation to authorize a joint powers authority to facilitate local government borrowing against the state's repayment promise. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Additional Proposals If Propositions Fail: · Reduces $182.1 million related to targeted reductions in the state prison population by proposing approval of, as appropriate, applications for commutation of sentences submitted by undocumented immigrants in our prison system and having them immediately deported by Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Targeted commutations would provide necessary savings during this unprecedented fiscal crisis. Currently there are approximately 19,000 undocumented immigrants in our prison system. · Reduces $99.9 million as a result of changing sentencing options for low-level offenders by eliminating the current sentencing options for specified crimes that may be treated either as felonies or misdemeanors, making them punishable by a jail term rather than state prison. This is proposal will prioritize the incarceration and rehabilitation of the most serious offenders. It is estimated, as a result of this proposal, approximately 38,000 prison inmates would be released early and/or shifted to local jails for incarceration. Transportation – Spillover funds Key Proposals: Proposes to use $336 million in projected "spillover" revenues to fund transit bond debt service costs that would otherwise have been paid for with General Funds. Spillover revenues occur when revenue derived from sales taxes on gasoline is proportionately higher in relationship to revenue derived from all taxable sales (generally reflecting higher gas prices). Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Key Proposals: Proposes to reduce health care expenditures for state employee health coverage by an estimated $132.2 million, beginning in January 2010, by contracting for lower cost health care coverage either through CalPERS or directly from an insurer. · This change could conflict with existing collective bargaining contracts. Savings estimates are very difficult to project. Proposes to reduce the state's Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) unfunded liability by 38 percent over the next 30 years by requiring that new employee’s work for 25 years or more before becoming eligible for lifetime health benefits (vesting). · This proposal will not provide savings for at least 25 years, as it only applies to new employees. Open Space (Williamson Act) Subventions Key Proposals: Eliminates state subventions to local governments (primarily counties) under the Williamson Act Program for a General Fund savings of $34.7 million. Under this longstanding program, the state backfills a portion of the revenue lost by local governments when they enter into contracts with land owners to limit property tax assessments for lands that are maintained as open space or agriculture lands. Also discussed under the Resources heading. State Employees Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will direct his administration to send 5,000 layoff notices to state workers Friday, according to governor's budget plan. He plans to eliminate 5,000 workers by the end of June. The workers will be among the 20,000 state workers who received layoff warnings earlier this year. Mike Genest, Director of the Department of Finance, said during the press conference that general fund employees will bear the brunt of the layoffs since laying-off special fund employees would result in no general fund savings. The governor was considering, and mentioned the possibility of an additional furlough day, however, it is not included in the governor’s first attempt at dealing with this deficit. So at this point, there will be no additional mandatory furlough day…..at least not yet. Department of Social Services Key Proposals: Resurrects reduction proposals for CalWORKs, the program serving families whose incomes are not adequate to meet their basic needs, for a General Fund savings of $156.7 million. This proposal, which would become effective October 1, 2009, would: (1) modify the Safety Net program by continuing benefits for families beyond their 60‑month time limit only if they meet federal work participation requirements, (2) provide cash aid for families receiving child-only benefits in a manner consistent with other CalWORKs families, (3) institute a face-to-face self-sufficiency review every six months with a county worker for CalWORKs families who are not meeting work requirements, and (4) reduce the CalWORKs maximum aid payment standard by an additional six percent. In the February 2009 Special Session, the CalWORKs grants were reduced by 4 percent, effective July 1, 2009, under the assumption that federal funds would not be received at a $10 billion level. In a high cost county, starting July 1, the monthly grant for a family of three would be reduced from $723 to $694. An additional six percent grant cut would take the grant down by $42 to $652. The monthly grant level was $694 twenty years ago in 1989. Reinserts the proposal to reduce Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) grants to the minimum federally allowed levels for individuals and couples, for a General Fund savings of $248.5 million. In the February 2009 Special Session, the SSI/SSP grant were reduced by 2.3 percent, or $20 for individuals and $35 for couples per month, effective July 1, 2009, under the assumption that federal funds would not be received at a $10 billion level. This proposal would further reduce grants to the minimum allowed effective September 1, 2009, reducing the maximum grant for an aged/disabled individual from $850 to $830 per month and the maximum grant for aged/disabled couples from $1,489 to $1,407 per month. Resurrects the proposal to limit In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Domestic and Related Services to those most functionally impaired for a General Fund savings of $40.8 million. This proposal has been rejected in past budget iterations to preserve these services for aged, blind, and disabled persons who are unable to remain safely in their homes without such assistance. Further limits the IHSS Share-of-Cost Buyout to the most functionally impaired for a General Fund savings of $38.2 million. In the February 2009 Special Session, this proposal was adopted, under the assumption that federal funds would not be received at a $10 billion level, to take effect July 1, 2009 on prospective cases only. This proposal, which would become effective October 1, 2009, would target the state buyout program, which reduces the costs IHSS recipients whose Medi-Cal share of cost is higher than their IHSS share of cost must incur before receiving subsidized services to persons with the most severe needs. Further limits state participation in IHSS wages for a General Fund savings of $114.1 million. In the February 2009 Special Session, state participation in wages was reduced from $12.10 to $10.10, combining wages and benefits, per hour effective July 1, 2009, under the assumption that federal funds would not be received at a $10 billion level. This proposal, which would become effective October 1, 2009, would further reduce state participation in the wages to the state minimum wage of $8.00 per hour, plus $0.60, per hour for health benefits, or $8.60, the proposal previously submitted by the Administration. Proposes to significantly increase the prevention and detection of fraud within the IHSS program, resulting in General Fund savings of $15.8 million. The Administration states that this proposal will ensure that scarce resources are being used to serve eligible people and to pay for actual services rendered rather than misdirected. Eliminates the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) and the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) effective October 1, 2009 for a combined General Fund savings of $120.2 million. The CAPI allows approximately 12,000 aged, blind, and disabled legal immigrants, who would be eligible for the SSI/SSP program but for their immigration status, to receive cash assistance. The CFAP provides benefits to more than 22,000 low-income legal non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 65, who meet all the eligibility requirements for the federal Food Stamp program but have resided in the United States for less than five years. Claims savings of $31 million for the federally-subsidized Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program if all cases are ultimately eligible for federal support. The recently enacted federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act makes federal funding available for certain guardianship agreements that provide children who would otherwise be in the foster care system with a permanent and stable living arrangement with a relative family member. The Administration wrote to federal Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius on May 13, 2009 requesting that federal guidance on this legislation be amended to allow California’s 16,000 existing guardianship agreements in the Kinship-Guardianship Agreement Payment (KinGAP) program to also be eligible for federal funding. Additional Proposals If Propositions Fail: Proposes a General Fund reduction of $301.5 million for IHSS Cost Containment. Specifically, effective October 1, 2009, individuals who require minimal physical assistance from another person to perform an activity would no longer receive domestic and related services, and individuals needing only supervision from another person to perform an activity would no longer be eligible for IHSS services. Proposes a General Fund reduction of $13.9 million to reduce Group Home, Foster Family Agency, and Specialized Care and Clothing Allowance Rates by ten percent. Proposes a General Fund reduction of ten percent or $70 million to the allocation to counties for Child Welfare Services. Under this proposal, counties would be forced to prioritize remaining funds to protect the health and safety of children and their families, and appropriately address federal outcome requirements. Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Proposals If Propositions Fail: Resurrects a proposal to reduce rates by 10 percent for all Drug Medi‑Cal treatment modalities for a General Fund savings of $8.8 million. This program funds substance abuse treatment services for Medi‑Cal eligible individuals. Eliminates all funding, $108 million General Fund, for Substance Abuse Treatment and Crime Prevention. As enacted, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA), also known as Prop. 36, guaranteed state funding for only the first 5 years, 2001 through 2006. This proposal eliminates $108 million General Fund for SACPA ($90 million) and the Substance Abuse Offender Treatment Program ($18 million). Department of Developmental Disabilities Proposes a $224 million General Fund unallocated reduction for the Developmental Services budget. The Regional Centers (RC) are already required to identify program changes to achieve $100 million in General Fund savings pursuant to the early 2009 Budget Act. The Department of Developmental Services has worked with stakeholders to develop proposed changes to RC services to achieve required savings. The Administration states that this collaborative process should continue to achieve the new savings target. Department of Public Health Additional Proposals If Propositions Fail: Cuts HIV Education and Prevention grants to local jurisdictions, for a savings of $24.6 million. Cuts maternal, child, and adolescent health grants to local health jurisdictions, for a savings of $10 million. Suspends the Children's Dental Disease Prevention Program that provides dental services to 300,000 low-income school children annually, for a savings of $2.9 million. Shifts $60 million in Prop 99 funds to Medi-Cal. These funds currently support county health programs, clinics, Breast Cancer Early Detection, Asthma, Major Risk Medical Insurance Program and Access for Infants and Mothers programs. Cuts funding for domestic violence shelters, for a savings of $20.5 million. Reorganization, Consolidation and Capitalizing on State Assets The Governor's May Revision proposes to reorganize, consolidate, and eliminate a number of Departments, Boards, and Commissions. Many of these proposals carry out policies first initiated in the California Performance Review conducted in Governor's Schwarzenegger's second year in office. The Administration also proposes to "capitalize state assets" through the leasing, selling, and refinancing of state-owned property to maximize cash benefits. Reorganizations and Consolidations: · Consolidates and reorganizes functions from twelve different entities into a single Department of Energy. · Consolidates and realigns recycling and cleanup, spill prevention and pollution prevention programs, and eliminates the Integrated Waste Management Board. · Consolidates the Department of Corporations, Department of Financial Institutions, Department of Real Estate, and Department of Real Estate Appraisers. · Consolidates the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), the Board of Equalization (BOE), and Employment Development Department (EDD). · Eliminates the Department of Boating and Waterways and transfers its functions to the Department of Parks and Recreation. · Consolidates the Postsecondary Education Commission and the Student Aid Commission. · Eliminates the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and transfers its duties to the Department of Public Health. · Eliminates the Department of Community Services and Development and transfer its functions to the Department of Social Services and to the proposed new Department of Energy. · Eliminates the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission as a state department and realign its functions to a regional entity. · Eliminates the Bureau of Naturopathic Medicine. · Eliminates the Telephone Medical Advice Services Bureau. · Consolidates the Board of Geologists and Geophysicists with the State Mining and Geology Board. · Consolidates the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau under the Board of Accountancy. · Creates a new Board of Mental Health and consolidates the duties of the Board of Behavioral Sciences, the Board of Psychology, the Board of Vocational Nurses and Psychiatric Technicians into a new Board of Mental Health. · Consolidates the Hearing Aid Dispensers Bureau under the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Bureau. · Consolidates the nursing oversight functions of the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians with the Board of Registered Nursing. · Eliminates the Court Reporters Board. · Eliminates the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee and transfers its functions to the Bureau of Automotive Repair. Eliminates the Landscape Architects Technical Committee and transfers its licensing duties to the Architects Board. Many of these Board and Bureaus are professional boards and bureaus made up of professionals in those particular fields. They are funded through special funds raised primarily through fees on the professionals, and used to regulate and maintain the integrity of their own profession. Capitalizing State Assets: The Administration proposes to pursue legislation and administrative action to maximize the amount of money the state raises from state-owned property. They propose to accomplish this through long-term leasing of unused properties, selling of high-value property, refinancing of state-owned buildings, and accelerated selling of surplus property.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Required reading for anyone who actually cares about getting educated about this stuff: <a href="http://www.cbp.org/" target="_blank">http://www.cbp.org/</a> A good "big picture" presentation of what's going on: <a href="http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/090505_uncharted_waters_May_update.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/0...date.pdf</a> Page 15 asks and answers, "Why did things get so bad so fast?"
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Wasteful" spending (And I put wasteful in quotation marks because what is wasteful to one person might be necessary to another) is a problem, but only one part of the problem. Our tax system contributes to the crisis. "Tax policies and economic trends contribute to the state’s budget problems: – Corporate income taxes have declined over time as a share of General Fund revenues and as a share of corporate profits. If corporations had paid the same share of their profits in taxes in 2006 as they did in 1981, corporate tax collections would have been $8.4 billion higher. – The yield of the state’s sales tax has declined over time, reflecting the shift in economic activity from goods to services and the rise of Internet and mail-order sales that escape taxation. If taxable purchases accounted for the same share of personal income in 2007-08 as they did in 1966-67, the state would have collected an additional $16.4 billion in sales tax revenues. – The phase-out of the federal estate tax will cost the state over $1.1 billion in 2009-10. Current law reinstates the tax in 2011; however, most experts believe that the state portion of the tax will not be restored." Page 29 of the link I posted has a graph that shows that the share of corporate income paid in taxes has fallen by half. Also, prop 13, blah blah blah. Repeal it already!
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Something else to consider. General fund spending has increased 381% since 1980. Okay, fine. However, corrections spending has increased 1,491% since 1980. We gotta lock up those non-violent drug offenders! That'll learn 'em. Also, have fun taking in page 70 here: <a href="http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/090505_uncharted_waters_May_update.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/0...date.pdf</a> Fun stuff!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Could we just have links, please? This is a lot of space to waste.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Post #22 came from an e-mail sent to the Orange County Government Union employees, and not available at a "link". It also had a lot of valuable, detailed information in regards to what will be cut if the Props pass on Tuesday, and what will be cut if they don't pass (Of course, Prop 1F has no real bearing on the budget no matter if it passes or fails).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124259847829628121.html#mod=djemEditorialPage" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...rialPage</a> >>Californians head to the polls Tuesday to decide the fate of six ballot initiatives, all of which are ostensibly designed to combat the Golden State's budget crisis. If the polls are right, all but one of these measures will crash and burn -- and by wide margins. A reckoning for liberal tax and spend governance may finally be arriving. We have some sympathy for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was elected to fix this mess six years ago. His original mistake was to accept a token bipartisan fix when he was most popular, and once the unions crushed his reform initiatives in 2005 he had little leverage over the Democrats who run the legislature. So he's now decided to settle for the lowest common denominator reform that both parties can agree to, which isn't nearly enough considering the magnitude of the state's fiscal and economic problems. By far the most consequential initiative is Proposition 1A, which is favored by most of the Sacramento political class. Prop 1A creates a rainy day fund of up to 12.5% of the budget and imposes a new annual spending cap. It would divert 3% of revenues during economic boom years into the rainy day fund that can only be spent during recessions. Mr. Schwarzenegger is correct that this is a sensible reform, because for 40 years the state has endured revenue booms and busts. Alas, the cap is far weaker than the Gann Amendment that passed with 74% of the vote in 1979, as the sister initiative to Proposition 13, and helped usher in a decade of budget surpluses. The Gann Amendment -- until public unions neutered it in the early 1990s -- imposed a ceiling on spending at the level of population growth plus inflation; when revenues exceeded that limit, the money was returned to taxpayers. By contrast, Prop 1A allows revenues and thus spending to grow each year at the average rate of growth of tax receipts over the previous decade, or at the rate of population growth plus inflation, whichever is greater. Revenues above that amount are pushed into the reserve fund to be spent at a later date. This gives incentives to legislators to raise taxes whenever possible, because the spending cap rises along with revenues. Prop 1A also allows the legislature to raid the rainy day fund to pay for "capital outlay purposes" -- roads, bridges, schools and even pork projects. Even to get this minimal spending cap, voters must also approve a two-year $16 billion extension of this year's tax hikes. The 0.25% income-tax surcharge (to 10.55%) and the near doubling of the car tax would be extended through 2013, and the one percentage point sales tax hike (to 9%) would be extended through 2012. Even worse is Prop 1B, which would divert $9.3 billion from the rainy day fund to the education spenders in Sacramento and thus exempt half the general fund budget from any belt tightening. This would refortify the teachers unions, which have spent $2.7 million to pass the measure and are the very group most responsible for California's fiscal mess. Teacher pay and benefits are already 35% above the national average. Then there are the gimmick Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E, which would raid trust funds and use any surpluses to pay current general fund bills. The preposterous 1C would raise $5 billion today by securitizing future lottery revenues. That would add more than $350 million of new debt payments annually for at least the next 20 years. What's next, selling the silverware in the Governor's mansion? Given all of this trickery, it is no wonder polls show Props 1A-E are likely to lose. The only initiative ahead in the polls, Prop 1F, would block pay raises for lawmakers if they fail to balance the budget. One recent poll found that 72% of Californians agreed that "if the measures on the special election ballot are defeated, it would send a message to the governor and the legislature that voters are tired of more government spending and higher taxes." That's a good message to send. California politicians have operated for years as if the purpose of government is not to provide reliable public services at low cost, but to feed public employee unions. Sacramento also needs to rethink its highly progressive antigrowth tax code, where the tax rates are the highest outside of New York City. The Golden State now ranks worst or second worst on most ratings of state business climate. This drives away entrepreneurs and high-income taxpayers, which in turn leads to lower revenues. If the voters do reject these false fixes, there will be wails of despair in Sacramento. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who never saw a spending or tax increase she didn't like, says "California, frankly, is going to be in a world of hurt." Mr. Schwarzenegger says he will be forced to release 30,000 criminals from jail, and to lay off teachers, troopers and firefighters. Look for the state to ask Washington for another bailout "stimulus." But voter rejection may be precisely the jolt of reality that California needs to inspire real reform. Start with a new Gann Amendment to cap total spending, and add a flat-rate income and sales tax of 5% or 6%, which is roughly the national average and will stop driving business from the state. A flat tax would help to stabilize revenues over time, avoiding boom and bust. Drilling for oil offshore would also bring in billions of dollars of revenues. This kind of reform will only come from Golden State voters who aren't yet on the public dole or the public payrolls. Howard Jarvis led such a charge 30 years ago. It needs to happen again for California to break out of its tax and spend death spiral.<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Shall someone now post an editorial favoring the initiatives with no thoughts of their own? It would be as helpful.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting News Story from the Front Page of today's Orange County Register. <a href="http://headlines.ocregister.com/articles/measures-27017-voters-state.html" target="_blank">http://headlines.ocregister.co...ate.html</a> >>SACRAMENTODo you want to lose an arm – or an arm and a leg? That's basically the question voters face when they head to the polls Tuesday to decide the fate of six budget-balancing measures. If voters reject all or most of the propositions on Tuesday, the state faces a $21.3 billion deficit, which would virtually ensure dramatic cuts to education, social services and public safety. But even if the measures are approved, California still will be saddled with a $15.4 billion deficit, and many of those very same cuts will be made anyway. “There's nobody happy, excited (about this election),” said Adam Probolsky, a Republican pollster with offices in Sacramento and Orange County. “No one has certainty in this election right now.” The measures, Propositions 1A through 1F, were part of a deal brokered by the Legislature and governor in February to solve the state's $42 billion deficit. The measures were supposed to be the final piece of the solution. But since then, the economy has continued to plummet, dragging sales- and income-tax revenue further down with it. What were once the last parts of the solution are now just stopgaps to disaster. Meanwhile, Californians have grown frustrated with the economy and the state's response to it. Angry taxpayers came out in force at April 15 Tax Day Tea Parties, mocking the Legislature and governor for their plans to raise taxes. Polling shows most voters oppose all but one of the measures on the ballot, Proposition 1F.<< Much more at the link...
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 DouglasDubh <I'm curious, how did things get this bad?> If the income tax of a state is too progressive and too weighted towards high earners, they will have problems in a recession. Top income earners generally see their incomes fall faster than average during a recession.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Shall someone now post an editorial favoring the initiatives with no thoughts of their own? It would be as helpful.> Interesting. Conservative posters seem to be criticized when they link to evidence supporting their opinions and when they don't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Interesting. Conservative posters seem to be criticized when they link to evidence supporting their opinions and when they don't.> No. If a liberal consistently posted nothing but cut and pasted editorials, I'd have the same reaction. Also, an opinion piece doesn't count as "evidence" per se. Sometimes an opinion piece will contain some, sometimes it will contain none, sometimes it will contain some and draw the wrong conclusions about it. But my point was that there was nothing FROM the poster in the thread. If a poster fails to put contribute his/her OWN thoughts on the matter, what's the point? Poster A can post editorials from the WSJ, poster B can post editorials from the Nation. And we have dueling editorials. Yay. Other conservatives have criticized Darkbeer for the drive-by style, so you can drop the persecution complex.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Conservative posters seem to be criticized when they link to evidence supporting their opinions and when they don't.<< Links to opeds aren't evidence, but I guess it's better than nothing. Which, since you brought it up again, is what you offered after suggesting Arlen Specter denigrated someone's religion. Of course, you could have just retracted the statement and moved on, or thanked heaven the thread was closed, but you seem stuck in Reliving Your Most Embarrassing WE Moment. Interesting, indeed.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Prop 13, people. Prop 13 needs to be go and/or be revamped.
