Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Budgets are passed with a 2/3'rds vote, which are Veto proof.<< False. Ever hear of the "Blue Pencil?" It's the Governor's Line Item Veto and it's an authority he has when it comes to the budget (which, by the way, is something he could use RIGHT NOW!).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Actually, the Blue Pencil can only be used to remove expenses, since the "Fiscal Emergency" bill would only require cuts in spending, if the Legislature passes the bill with the required 45 days, there is NOTHING the Governor can do, since the bill should not contain any type of new (or increased) spending.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Answer me this: Why is this written in a way that allows the Governor to set up, in advance, whether or not a fiscal emergency" will be declared? Don't know what I mean? It's simple (and I saw this before I read the "pro and con" argument in the booklet). The Governor merely has to direct the Director of Finance to overestimate revenue by a mere 1.5% or more. Once that's done, the Governor must declare a "fiscal emergency." Knowing the Legislature, they won't make the necessary cuts in time. This proposition doesn't allow for any tax increases to be used to close a deficit under any circumstances whatsoever, so it will fall to the Governor who, if it's a Republican, will most likely choose to abrogate employee contracts, eliminate pensions, health benefits, and cut employee pay by draconian amounts (which is one of the goals...to make collective bargaining a moot point), abrogate service contracts with the private sector, cut services to working people. This governor would probably abrogate the employee contracts and cut services to working people (things that affect human persons) but GOD FORBID that he ask corporations and businesses to contribute ANYTHING whatsoever to ensuring that the state remain solvent. Prop 76 isn't about "Living Within Your Means." In real life, if a person has more outgo than income, they actually do have the option of getting more money by taking a second job or getting one that pays more. This proposition eliminates the state using the tool of increasing taxes as a way of increasing the means...which, again, it the true goal of this initiative.
Originally Posted By Deogges Mom <<This proposition eliminates the state using the tool of increasing taxes as a way of increasing the means...which, again, it the true goal of this initiative.>> Exactly, I for one would like to keep my hard earned dollars, not contribute to the state's excessive spending. If taxes are not raised, I have more income to spend, thus I pay more sales tax and the state gets more money.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Other than the RW propaganda that is on the radio and in the newspaper, can you demonstrate "excessive state spending?"
Originally Posted By Darkbeer STATEMENT OF CALIFORNIA ECONOMISTS IN OPPOSITION TO TAX INCREASES February 24, 2003 The massive California budget deficit is the direct result of excessive spending by our state government: State spending increased 37 percent over only two years because of a revenue windfall from taxes on incomes and capital gains. New taxes will not solve our budget problem because the Legislature and Governor always face powerful pressures to preserve and expand spending programs, and new revenues from higher taxes would reduce the immediate need for fiscal discipline. This political pressure for higher spending means also that any new taxes imposed "temporarily" would be likely to prove permanent, so that even ostensibly temporary tax increases would increase uncertainty and impose other adverse economic effects. In short: Just as every California family must live within its means, so must California government learn to do so as well. The California budget crisis can be solved only through spending restraint and the implementation of policies yielding enhanced economic growth and a larger tax base. In the short term, spending must be disciplined; tax increases are inappropriate because they would facilitate greater government spending at the expense of private spending, that is, at the expense of the economy in the aggregate. Over the longer term, spending discipline must be maintained; tax increases would induce individuals, businesses, employment, and investment opportunities to locate elsewhere. Instead, the long-term tax burden must be reduced, state-owned assets that could be used more productively in the private sector must be sold, and many regulations that increase the costs of creating and operating businesses and that reduce employment opportunities and wages must be reformed or eliminated. Signatories: James C.W. Ahiakpor, California State University, Hayward William R. Allen, University of California, Los Angeles Charles W. Baird, California State University, Hayward Richard A. Bilas, California State University, Bakersfield (Emeritus) Don Booth, Chapman University Thomas E. Borcherding, Claremont Graduate University Henry N. Butle, Chapman University Darin G. Clay University of Southern California John Cogan Hoover Institution, Stanford University Henry Demmert, Santa Clara University Milton Friedman, Hoover Institution, Stanford University (Nobel Laureate) Joe Fuhrig, Golden Gate University Gary Galles, Pepperdine University Peter Gordon, University of Southern California Dale M. Heien, University of California, Davis John M. Heineke, Santa Clara University David R. Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, San Jose State University Mark Jackson, San Jose State University Daniel Klein, Santa Clara University Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge Arthur Laffer, Laffer Associates Clay LaForce, University of California, Los Angeles (Emeritus Dean, Anderson School of Management) Tibor R. Machan, Chapman University Michael L. Marlow, Calif. Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo John G. Matsusaka, University of Southern California Lawrence J. McQuillan, Pacific Research Institute Tom Means, San Jose State University Robert J. Michaels, California State University, Fullerton Lydia D. Ortega, San Jose State University Aris Protopapadakis, University of Southern California Alan C. Shapiro, University of Southern California Stephen Shmanske, California State University, Hayward George P. Shultz, Hoover Institution, Stanford University (former Secretary of State) Edward Stringham, San Jose State University Shirley Svorny, California State University, Northridge Paul J. Zak, Claremont Graduate University Benjamin Zycher, Pacific Research Institute
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://cpr.ca.gov/updates/pressdetail.php?id=354" target="_blank">http://cpr.ca.gov/updates/pres sdetail.php?id=354</a> >>When California legislators return to their jobs next month and start whining about how hard it is to balance the state budget, just point them to the "2004 California Piglet Book." The new edition, released this week, identifies "$12.9 billion in wasteful, unnecessary and duplicative spending" in the state budget of $103 billion. Maybe that's why the subtitle is, "The Book Sacramento Doesn't Want You to Read." The book was compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, a group that advocates efficient government, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Organization, an anti-tax group. It's modeled on CAGW's "2004 Pig Book," which found $22.9 billion in pork projects in the federal budget. This is the second annual book for California. If all this waste were cut out of a state budget that still has an $8 billion yearly structural deficit, the state actually might run a surplus and could start paying down the $15 billion debt from the Proposition 57 state recovery bond passed by voters last March. Here are some of the major pork projects that could be eliminated, which the report culled from various news sources. Except as noted, the quotations are from the report, which can be consulted for sources. It's online: www.cagw.org "(S)ince the 1950s, California has experienced a tripling of population, while the California state government has increased fivefold during that same time period." Private sector workers earn 25 percent less, on average, than state government workers. "The Energy Commission reported in July 2003 that the state vehicle fleet uses about 46 million gallons of gasoline and 9 million gallons of diesel fuel a year," but can't say how they got those figures. No one knows how much is used, let alone wasted — a worse scandal this year with even higher fuel prices. "The state may now have to find $210 million more in the next two years to cover the expenses from state prison guards' pay raises." "The California parole system is in fact a $1 billion failure. ... According to the New York Times, (a study) found that '67 percent of those sent to prison on California were parolees being returned for violating a condition of their release, almost double the national average of 35 percent.'" Changing union rules to allow more privatization in public schools could save $300 million a year. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the "California State Library counts 29 separate programs that spend $5.6 billion to train almost 7 million Californians. ... But by the state's own count, less than 10 percent of those enrolled in six of the biggest programs ever complete that program and then go on to work part- or full-time in the year after training." <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley Okay, again, NOT using Right Wing sources, and I consider Schwarzenegger's CPR a Right Wing source, demonstrate "excess state spending." The Right Wing loves to blame working people for all the problems. Has anyone noticed that? Is there a deficit in the State Budget? Damned State Employees (who haven't gotten a raise in several years -- effectively CUTTING their pay) are solely to blame. Employer having to deal with requirements (such as timely payment of wages and the like) on paying their employees? It's the requirements, not the employer that are to blame. Employee gets hurt at work? Blame the employee so we don't have to pay the doctor bills; never mind the employee was never trained him like Cal-OSHA requires. A woman employee is sexually harassed? Well, it's her fault, she should dress like that. This is the mindset that we are dealing with. Blame the little guy.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://cpr.ca.gov/updates/pressdetail.php?id=350" target="_blank">http://cpr.ca.gov/updates/pres sdetail.php?id=350</a> >>The comments came as the Jarvis group and the Washington, D.C.-based Citizens Against Government Waste released the 2004 California Piglet Book showcasing billions of dollars of pork, or government waste. The report doesn't break any new ground; it rehashes old news stories and state audit findings about misspending. But Coupal said the study should place more pressure on legislators to ferret out government waste. Common sense and good management practices are issues "legislators have to be reminded of frequently," said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, standing at a news conference next to someone dressed in a pink pig outfit who oinked and rubbed his belly. Schwarzenegger ordered a massive review of state government operations this year, and a subsequent report prepared for the governor estimates that the state could save $32 billion over five years by eliminating boards and commissions, merging state agencies, privatizing some work and cutting 12,000 employees from the state payroll. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=244" target="_blank">http://republican.sen.ca.gov/w eb/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=244</a> >>Thank you for the opportunity to address your commission on the future of tax policy in California. I would like to focus on two general themes - one is the natural limitations that operate upon any system of taxation, and the other is a few general principles that I believe would produce great improvements to the state's overall structure of finance. Let me begin with the natural limitations that act upon our tax system. I know that there is a great deal of pressure on this commission to raise revenues to deal with the state's budget deficit. But it is important to recognize that raising tax rates is quite a separate thing from raising tax revenues - one does not necessarily follow from the other. California found that out the hard way when it attempted to increase tax revenues by raising tax rates in 1991. The increases in tax rates that year, principally an 18 percent increase in the sales tax and a 15 percent increase in upper brackets of the income tax, were supposed to produce a net of $7 billion of new revenues. But they didn't. In fact, total general fund revenues dropped by $1 billion after the tax increases were instituted. We didn't take in $7 billion more - we took in $1 billion less. We lost another $1 billion the next year.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley I'm surprised that you went to the Jarvis association (which opposes the very concept of public service) and McClintock (who never met a public servant he didn't hate) for support...NOT!
Originally Posted By seanyoda Ahh, nobody answered my question... 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? Let's take a theoretical look into the future. Suppose redistricting passes and the Republicans take a majority in the legislature, but not enough for 2/3rds of the seats. Meanwhile, suppose a Democrat wins the governor's race. Finally, suppose a "fiscal emergency" is declared. What incentive would the Democrats have to agree with the Republicans to a set of cuts? And even right now, a line item veto can be over-ridden. However, should the governor make cuts during a fiscal emergency, "The Legislature could not override these reductions" I would be in favor of this measure if it had automatic cuts (a'la what would happen if a budget was not passed in a timely manner) because that would force both parties to negotiate.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>And even right now, a line item veto can be over-ridden. However, should the governor make cuts during a fiscal emergency, "The Legislature could not override these reductions"<< Excuse me, based on this comment in an earlier news article, the Legislature can "shift" the cut to somewhere else, but if the amount of revenue is for example, $1 billion short, then $1 billion in cuts are required. <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. <<
Originally Posted By seanyoda Well, I'm just quoting the legislative analyst's report. It says straight in black and white "The Legislature could not override these reductions." Now, maybe that means allocations could be shifted, but that's not what I infer. But, even if the legislature could shift the governor's budget cuts, this still gives no incentive for the members of the political party holding the governor's office to negotiate.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>But, even if the legislature could shift the governor's budget cuts, this still gives no incentive for the members of the political party holding the governor's office to negotiate.<< Well, I'm sure that the Republicans don't care as long as they're the party to which the Governor belongs...but once a Democrat regains the office, you can expect more hell to break loose. Republicans cannot tolerate any dissent whatsoever.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.joinarnold.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=itJUJ9MTIuE&b=1033349&ct=1521223" target="_blank">http://www.joinarnold.com/site /apps/nl/content2.asp?c=itJUJ9MTIuE&b=1033349&ct=1521223</a> >>Dear Tom Campbell, I just saw an ad which said Prop 76 "Destroys our system of checks and balances" Sounds like a lie to me. If it is I think you better point out it is a lie. Sincerely yours, Lynn _______________________________________ To Lynn: I've almost despaired of hearing something truthful from the other side! The ads are outrageous. It's as bad as I've ever seen. California is one of only 14 states that has NO obligation to fix a fiscal crisis in the middle of the year. As a result, we don't. Problems that could be kept small, become large. When the dot-com money started to go away, we should have intervened. It was obvious what was happening. Instead, we let it slide for an entire year, and what started as a small deficiency became a huge one. Under Prop. 76, California would achieve an approach close to the middle of the 36 states that mandate a fix to a fiscal imbalance mid-year. The imbalance has to be serious--no hair-trigger. The Legislature gets first crack at fixing it: for 45 days. If they fail, then the Governor must fix it, within 10 days. Even then, if the Governor cuts something the Legislature wants to restore, they can do so; but the fiscal crisis would remain unless they cut something else of the same value, or raised taxes or fees to make up the difference. It's a modest, middle-tier approach. Six states don't mess around with a mid-year budget imbalance. (Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska). They compel the Governor, alone, to fix it, by cuts, right away, no matter how small. And they have top bond ratings. California, by contrast, has the worst bond rating, of all 50 states. We pay almost 300 million dollars more in interest every year because of that. That's 300 million that could go to so many other uses in our state. Thanks, Tom<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/abox/article_727119.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocre gister/opinion/abox/article_727119.php</a> >>Proposition 76: State Spending and School Funding Limits.Another crucial aspect of the governor's agenda, this modest measure falls short of the needed hard spending cap, but it does provide useful tools to end the overspending sprees engaged in by the previous governor. Prop. 76 limits growth in state government to the average revenue growth in the past three years, thus protecting against the tendency to spend onetime revenue windfalls on permanent programs. It loosens the absurd school-spending requirement that is crowding out other forms of spending, lets the governor unilaterally slash spending during a fiscal crisis, carries on the old year's budget until a new one is approved, and provides more flexibility than the current system, which is hobbled by autopilot spending increases. The unions hate it, of course, because it would slow the spending train. That's a good-enough reason to support it. Vote YES on Prop. 76. <<
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>It loosens the absurd school-spending requirement that is crowding out other forms of spending,<< Not sure about this...but it's not a poison pill. >>lets the governor unilaterally slash spending during a fiscal crisis,<< This is the poison pill. Under the law, the Governor can CREATE the crisis by ordering the Director of Finance (an appointee that serves at the pleasure of the Governor) to overestimate revenues by a miniscule amount. >>carries on the old year's budget until a new one is approved,<< This is a good idea. >>and provides more flexibility than the current system, which is hobbled by autopilot spending increases.<< This is also fine. >>The unions hate it, of course, because it would slow the spending train.<< This is an absolute lie. The unions hate it because it makes collective bargaining in good faith impossible. Schwarzenegger isn't bargaining in good faith with State employee unions NOW. With a weapon like this to use against employees, he has even less incentive to do so. The Governor can create a fake fiscal emergency by overestimating revenue and abrogate labor contracts at will. That is why unions oppose it.
