Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/columns/weintraub/story/13533697p-14374290c.html" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/content/ politics/columns/weintraub/story/13533697p-14374290c.html</a> >>Daniel Weintraub: If Proposition 76 fails, a tax hike could be next Almost lost amid all the hurricane news last week was an important admission from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that could loom larger as the year draws to a close. The Republican governor, who pledged as a candidate to balance the budget without raising taxes, conceded that he might have to reconsider that position if voters reject Proposition 76, his budget reform measure. Schwarzenegger made the concession in an interview with me on Sacramento radio station KTKZ. Since he has said many times that Proposition 76 is crucial to his plan for balancing the budget, I wondered what he would do if it failed, and asked him to explain. "I think we have to understand," the governor answered, "there's only two ways to balance a budget. There's only two ways to go. One is that we live within our means and that we only spend what we have, which is the way we should go, the responsible way. The other one is the way, the direction they \ are going right now, which is to spend more and more money, and what they want to do is drive us into a corner so that they can raise taxes." Schwarzenegger promised as a candidate in 2003 to balance the budget without raising taxes. He has reduced the gap between spending and revenues from about $10 billion when he took office to closer to $6 billion today. And he has proposed cuts that would have reduced the gap further had they not been rejected by lawmakers. Now he is telling voters he needs their help to finish the job. He needs the tools Proposition 76 provides if he is going to fulfill the pledge he made before he was elected. By defeating Proposition 76, if that is what they do, the voters would be saying they don't like his plans for balancing the budget and want him to move in a different direction. At that point, all of the options would have to be on the table, including a tax increase. That's not a threat. It's a fact.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley Oooh, the big Right Wing scare tactic. There is, of course, no basis in fact. Just scare everyone.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Amazing, you have a mainstream newspaper reporter (the Sacramento Bee) saying it has a basis in fact....
Originally Posted By cmpaley Funny how the Sacramento Bee becomes a mainstream newspaper when it is used to spread right-wing Schwarzenegger propaganda but is a left wing commie-rag when an article that is not complimentary of him comes out.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/112903631595462.html" target="_blank">http://www.vvdailypress.com/20 05/112903631595462.html</a> >>Local city officials said Monday they were in favor of Prop. 76 because it could be good for municipal government. Apply Valley Mayor Scott Nassif called the measure a "protection of local funds." "If the state has to live within their means they are less likely to manipulate local funding and take local funding away," he said. "We all have to live within our means." Last week the Victorville City Council adopted a decision to support Prop. 76 and presented it at the League conference. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^Actually, the California League of Cities (the entire state) passed a measure in support of Proposition 76, I just placed a few selected quotes, the article did state this.
Originally Posted By cmpaley And anyone who has been paying attention to the way the vote was forced through, and barely passed by, the League would understand that the move was done through strong-arm tactics of Republican operatives working for the Schwarzenegger Regime.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "At that point, all of the options would have to be on the table, including a tax increase. That's not a threat. It's a fact." Big deal. What all of us have been naively trying to avoid is a tax increase, both on the state and federal levels. It's inevitable. Simply put, the price of everything has gone up. People want services, they gotta pay. To try and operate at levels from years gone by is just not practical.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Wait.. if the prices on things go up, then taxes go up, as many taxes such as the sales tax, and property tax go up at the same time. And while income taxes have some inflation adjustments, the amount collected on these taxes go up too. While should government get a higher increase than everything else??? Basically Proposition 76 spreads out the amount of increase inbudget spending by looking back3 years, so the goverment doesn't add a much of new programs in a year that is a cash "boom". It also gives the Governor a line-item veto in case of budget shortfalls. He can't add any items, but wil be the person who will make the decision of where to cut if there are income shortfalls. One of the big problems during the Governor Davis period was that the governement just plain over spended, and our budget surplus became a major deficit.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >> Basically Proposition 76 spreads out the amount of increase inbudget spending by looking back3 years, so the goverment doesn't add a much of new programs in a year that is a cash "boom".<< True. >>It also gives the Governor a line-item veto in case of budget shortfalls.<< False. The Governor already HAS a line-item veto as part of the budget process. This is not merely a "line-item veto." This proposal gives the Governor dictatorial power to cut any program he decides he doesn't like. It also uses number provided by his own Department of Finance to determine whether or not a Fiscal Emergency can be declared. The Governor can order the Director of Finance to overestimate revenue by a mere 1.5% and the Governor will have absolute and unchecked authority to eliminate any program he chooses, to not pay state employees, to abrogate contracts, to not pay on contracts for services and goods already received, etc. >>He can't add any items, but wil be the person who will make the decision of where to cut if there are income shortfalls.<< We shouldn't vest any one man with this kind of power.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Wait.. if the prices on things go up, then taxes go up, as many taxes such as the sales tax, and property tax go up at the same time. And while income taxes have some inflation adjustments, the amount collected on these taxes go up too. While should government get a higher increase than everything else???" Because it isn't as simple as you describe.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer What Propostion 76 will do... >>Control Spending. Balance the Budget. End Deficits. Stop Higher Taxes. The Problem: A Budget System in Desperate Need of Reform California doesn’t have a revenue problem -- it has a spending problem. Our Legislature is addicted to spending taxpayers’ money. Proposition 76 will control spending to end state deficits and balance the state budget without raising taxes. At the same time, it will stabilize education funding to make sure our public schools are getting the money they need. We are facing an ongoing budget crisis because the Legislature can't seem to say no to the special interests who dump millions of dollars into their campaigns. Between 1998 and 2004, the Legislature increased overall spending by 44 percent – from $75 billion to $108 billion – even though the state did not have enough money to pay for all that new spending. The Solution: Force the State to Live Within its Means Proposition 76 will force the Legislature to live by the same basic rule California families live by: Don’t spend more money than you bring in. Proposition 76 will force politicians to stop autopilot spending and set clear funding priorities each year based on what’s best for the state. Proposition 76 puts into place, for the first time, a firewall to block the state from raiding funds dedicated for local health and social service programs. The measure has no effect on dedicated funding for local public safety programs. It will place reasonable, responsible limits on state budget growth by limiting year-to-year budget increases to the average growth in revenue for the past 3 fiscal years. This will prevent legislators from creating costly new programs during economic booms that demand ongoing spending when revenues drop. Proposition 76 requires the state to use extra revenue from peak years to build “rainy day funds†to prepare for inevitable future economic downturns. When revenue shortfalls occur, it will allow the state to spend reserves to maintain essential state services. It also allows the governor to make mid-year cuts when the state faces a fiscal crisis, which will help to fix budget problems in the middle of the year before things get out of hand. << >>"We need this governor to aggressively tackle the worst of California's multiple dysfunctions. At the top of the list is the terminal disconnect between spending, revenues and the state's most serious needs ...the (Live Within Our Means Act) is the best game in town." Sacramento Bee, Editorial April 13, 2005 "To know that California must have a balanced budget is important to investors- making the passage of the Live Within Our Means Act in just five months is an immediate, predictable reform that will quickly help California's economy by giving employers the stability they need to bring jobs to our state." California Chamber of Commerce Special Election Announcement June 13, 2005 "The state's major issue is still to balance our budget and eliminate the ongoing deficit." Oakland Tribune, Editorial April 18, 2005 "California faces a budget crisis that needs to be resolved this year. The governor's reforms...can go a long way toward establishing and maintaining fiscal responsibility in the state." Contra Costa Times, Editorial April 3, 2005 "Let's not kid ourselves...We still have a structural budget problem of billions of dollars." Assembly Speaker Fabian Núnez, D-Los Angeles San Diego Union-Tribune April 5, 2005 "Soon California voters will have the ability to choose whether they want our state to raise taxes in order to balance our budget or if the voters want to force our elected officials to live within our means. Our broken system created the most disastrous fiscal crisis California has ever seen. The cost of allowing that broken system to remain in place is far greater than the cost of a special election. Delaying reform until next June could cost taxpayers billions in taxes and more debt." Joel Fox, President of the Small Business Action Committee Special Election Announcement June 13, 2005 "Californians also know, in general terms, that we have a budget crisis. While they are aware that we are spending more dollars than we are taking in, what they probably don't know is that state government has grown twice as fast as inflation and population in recent years." Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Los Angeles Daily News May 20, 2005 "It's not the hard spending cap that some fiscal watchdogs would prefer, but it beats California's runaway spending and record deficits by a mile. Future politicians wouldn't be able to avoid tough political choices by racking up debt, which was the problem that got California into its deficit disasters under Gray Davis." Long Beach Press Telegram, Editorial May 24, 2005 "While balancing our state budget and putting an end to auto-pilot spending, this initiative will protect critical local government and public safety funds." Michael Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor June 10, 2005
Originally Posted By cmpaley NOTE: The unattributed part of DB's post was from Schwarzenegger's propaganda site.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Fromm the Voters Guide (Pro arguement on Prop 76) >>California’s budget system is broken. We have record deficits, unbalanced budgets and out-of-control spending. The politicians can’t say “no†to more spending. Since 1999-2000, the state has increased spending by twice as much as it has increased its revenue. “California faces a budget crisis that needs to be resolved this year. The Governor’s reforms…can go a long way toward establishing and maintaining fiscal responsibility in the state.†Contra Costa Times, April 3, 2005 Budget experts project next year’s budget deficit at $6 billion and annual deficits after that of $4-$5 billion. At that pace, the State will accumulate $22 to $26 billion in deficits over the next five fiscal years. The choice is simple: Pass Prop. 76 or face higher taxes such as the car tax, income tax, sales tax and even property taxes. PROP. 76 IS THE BI-PARTISAN SOLUTION THAT FORCES THE STATE TO LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS: Limits spending to the average rate of tax growth of the past three years, so we don’t overspend in good times followed by huge deficits in bad times. Establishes “checks and balances†to encourage the Governor and Legislature to work together. When tax revenue slows, the Legislature can cut wasteful spending to balance the budget. If the Legislature doesn’t act, the Governor can then cut wasteful spending, while protecting funding for education, public safety and roads. Stabilizes K-14 education spending. By cutting wasteful spending and balancing the budget, we’ll have more funds to spend on what the state needs, without raising taxes. Stops the auto-pilot spending binge and holds the politicians accountable. Guarantees that taxes dedicated for highways and roads are spent on those projects and never again raided to balance the budget. Unfortunately, Opponents of Prop. 76 Don’t Want Reform: They think deficits and gridlock are just fine in Sacramento. They will stop at nothing to defeat Prop. 76 and have spent millions for television ads to confuse voters. They use scare tactics, inaccurate statements and outright deceit, like their claims that it will cut funds for law enforcement. It’s not true. “Prop. 76 requires repayment of previously borrowed funds so we can build new roads and repair existing roads and it doesn’t reduce dedicated tax spending on local law enforcement.†Alan Autry, Mayor of Fresno “YES†on Prop. 76: Balance our budget without raising taxes. Promote bi-partisan cooperation between the Legislature and the Governor. Eliminate wasteful spending and provide more money for roads, health care, law enforcement and other important programs without raising taxes. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley DB's prior post is from a portion of the Voter's Guide that is NOT checked or verified by any independent source. It consists ONLY of the argument FOR the Republican Power-Grab Initiative and doesn't give the full truth of what the proposition would do or is about.
Originally Posted By seanyoda I'm all for the state living within it's means, but 76 goes a bit too far in giving power to the governor should a "budget emergency" occur. To quote the non-partisan legislative analyst's report... <<The measure grants the Governor new powers to (1) declare a fiscal emergency based on his or her administration’s fiscal estimates, and (2) unilaterally reduce spending when an agreement cannot be reached on how to address the emergency. Specifically, the measure permits the Governor to issue a proclamation of a fiscal emergency when his or her administration finds either of the following two conditions: * General Fund revenues have fallen by at least 1.5 percent below the administration’s estimates. * The balance of the state’s reserve fund will decline by more than one-half between the beginning and the end of the fiscal year. Once the emergency is declared by the Governor, the Legislature would be called into special session and then have 45 days (30 days in the case of a late budget) to enact legislation which addresses the shortfall. If such legislation is not enacted, the measure grants the Governor new powers to reduce state spending (with three exceptions)—at his or her discretion—to eliminate the shortfall. The Legislature could not override these reductions.>> What incentive does the party holding the governors office have to agree to a solution when they can wait either 30 or 45 days and get the cuts they want?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer The Governor does not have to agree with the Legislature plan, if they get it done in time, and cut enough spending to bring the spending back in line, then the Governor would not get to do anything.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is more on the issue... <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9725340/" target="_blank">http://msnbc.msn.com/id/972534 0/</a> >>If approved, Prop. 76 would require a quarterly statement from the finance director, just as a public company issues quarterly reports. If spending is found to exceed revenue by 1.5 percent or more -- about $1.4 billion on today's budget -- the Legislature would have 45 days to rebalance the books. If the Legislature fails to do so, then the governor would have 10 days to impose his own cuts. The Legislature could challenge the governor's decision, but if it restores one fund, it must cut another by an equal amount. If state revenues exceed expectations, the surplus goes into reserve funds for schools, tax relief, specified construction projects and debt repayment. Spending each year is limited to the past year's budget plus the average growth over the past three years. The idea here is to avoid the wild swings in revenue and spending like the one that occurred in 2001 when capital gains revenue -- much of it from Silicon Valley stock options -- evanesced like a late-morning fog, leaving the state billions of dollars short. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>The Governor does not have to agree with the Legislature plan, if they get it done in time, and cut enough spending to bring the spending back in line, then the Governor would not get to do anything.<< Are you sure? The legislative process is that the Legislature proposes and the Governor disposes. I'm sure that if the Legislature decided to eliminate benefits that go to corporations and save services to the people, Schwarzenegger would veto it and go ahead with his cutting services to the people while saving the corporate graft.
