California budget deal
By MICHAEL HALEY
October 28th, 2009
September 23rd, 2009
August 31st, 2009
August 20th, 2009
Abel Maldonado in the Senate has just agreed to vote yes on the deal drawn up by the Governor and top legislators. Although no one is reporting exact details yet, from what we are hearing it looks like a bad deal for Californians. Fortunately voters will have a chance to vote on three parts of it in June and could knock the whole thing down.
According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers group, it does not include any meaningful reform, which is the key thing that I am looking for. All the cuts are one time reductions in increases with no structural reform. With this deal it appears that the state is once again kicking the can down the road and we will be back in the same boat of unpayable deficits in no time flat. We are also get unprecedented increases in taxes. No voter should accept this.
Maldonando wanted three things, one of which was to not pay legislators if they are late with a budget. For once I agree with Noreen Evans that this is silly, and of all the possible positive things Maldonado could have gotten this is just a stupid gimmicky thing that will not do anything to solve any problems.
The one thing in this whole mess that I think is positive for Californians is Maldonado's demand that primaries be open. That will be up to the voters as one of the Constitutional amendments, and you can bet that both parties will fight it. However, we should pass it because one of the major problems with the way our legislature is set up now is that both parties extreme wings have taken over. Getting in moderates who can build consensus is nearly impossible with the present system, and keeps us pitted against each other that this budget stalemate clearly demonstrates.
Californians have the highest state income taxes and even before this deal had the highest sales taxes in the country as well. Property taxes are not low either, but have increased dramatically over the years due to the fact that real estate prices have outpaced the general rate of inflation. Surely on that much money they could find a balanced budget.
There is nothing about long term restructuring of the pensions and excessive salaries, nothing about shutting down departments that are extraneous, nothing about reducing structure to permanently reduce costs in this deal. The employee unions, the 800 pound gorilla sitting behind the scenes and orchestrating the whole deal is not even being mentioned in news releases. Notice how nothing is being done to reign in their excesses at all, it is not even being mentioned.
This will not fly with the public, our state government is in a bubble of their own distorted reality and they are about to get a rude awakening.
Michael Haley is president of the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance. He writes on local, state and national issues in his Napablogger blog. He can be reached at napaeagle@hughes.net
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
altered ego wrote on Feb 20, 2009 10:41 AM:
This legislation doesn't just "kick the can down the road" it is bad for the California economy. All economists agree that raising taxes during an economic downturn is detrimental and counterproductive.
Perhaps even worse than the higher taxes is the open primary election. Voters in California overwhelmingly defeated this bad idea the last time it was on the ballot, and I have no doubt they will do the same this time.
I remember when California briefly had open primaries back in the 90's, before the Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional for other political parties to determine a party's candidate.
As a Rebublican, that was the only time I have ever voted Democrat, trying to make sure the worst Democrat was elected in the primary. I distinctly remember thinking that it was a stupid way to run an election.
If approved, I can already see organized campaigns encouraging votes for candidates of political parties other than your own, trying to elect the most extremist candidates possible.
While it would be fun and entertaining, somehow I don't think that it would be in the best interest of the citizens of California.
Like most simple solutions to complex problems, this one does not help. "
Raven wrote on Feb 20, 2009 11:14 AM:
I don't see how this will encourage more moderates...and will either party, and its supporters be happy being excluded from the general election? "
napablogger wrote on Feb 20, 2009 12:54 PM:
In a sense that is what we have now, except none of the Republican votes count. The election is decided in the Democratic primary here now and look at the result. Noreen Evans is a totally left wing candidate, far more liberal than her main opponent Jim Leddy when she first ran.
The opposite will happen in Republican districts elsewhere.
If Daffy Duck had a D after his name and ran in Napa he would win over a competent Republican. That is the problem.
We sure couldn't do any worse than we are now. The legislature is dysfunctional. This deal is going down to defeat because the majority of the voters are moderates, and this turkey of a deal is extremist.
The unions run the Democrats so no cuts to the ones making a lot of money working for the state like safety and prison employees. Instead we cut social services and groups that have no clout.
Tax cutters run Republicans so no matter what they are against taxes.
So we get huge tax cuts and huge cuts to education and poor people. Instead of cutting the salaries of all the state employees making over 120K, cutting huge safety pensions, etc.
If average Californians instead of political ideologues were in the legislature you would see a very different budget deal. "
steph wrote on Feb 20, 2009 3:39 PM:
People who make above-the-table incomes of under $50k pay no California income tax, yet they each are eligible to vote to raise income taxes on people who do pay taxes.
I want to know how that is fair, to have one class of people invested in the economic health and frugality of the state and another class who needn't care except when it comes to benefits like earned income credits or subsidized services which the taxpayers pay for.
And, according to the Oakland Tribune, fully 56% of taxpayers pay NO California state income tax, after credits and deductions.
Maybe this is part of the problem--especially when it comes to bond measure ballot initiatives that mandate state spending, wise or not.
Irritating. "
Raven wrote on Feb 20, 2009 3:58 PM:
do you really think GOP voters will vote for a more moderate democrat as opposed to wanting to vote for any GOP candidate...and it will also basically eliminate any smaller parties from even appearing on the general election ballot...
the dysfunctional part of the budget process is the 2/3 supermajority requirement....it gives inflated power to one or two people to basically decide the entire budget process... "
kevin wrote on Feb 20, 2009 5:31 PM:
Please tell me where I can find these huge tax cuts?
And I wouldn't call the "cuts" huge either. What are they as a percentage of the budget for these groups?
Raven is correct. All voters other than the party that represents the two top vote getters would be disinfranchised. That would depress voter turnout.
Doesn't seem very democratic.
That's probably why the Supreme Court overturned Open Primaries the last time California tried them. "
kevin wrote on Feb 20, 2009 5:35 PM:
2/3 requirement is not the problem. Even with 2/3 supermajority we have the highest taxes in the country.
I hate to think what would happen if the Republicans didn't slow down the Democrats and their tax and spend frenzy just a little... "
Bill wrote on Feb 20, 2009 8:18 PM:
If your party can not attract enough voters perhaps there is something wrong with your party or your political philosophy. Napa County says more about the County Republicans than the stupidity Napa county voters. I have not seen Napa as a hotbed of union activity indeed union influences here is concentrated In a weakly organized service sector. Most union members that live and vote here do so because their unions gained them the opportunity to afford to live here. Again your rabid anti union sentiments rise to the surface. Most union members in the trades are very conservative both socially and economically yet you insist that they control the Democratic Party as ideologues. The real ideologues control the Republican Party in both social and economic philosophy and only expand their reach when they recognize what a foolish corner they have painted themselves into. "
napablogger wrote on Feb 20, 2009 9:20 PM:
napablogger wrote on Feb 20, 2009 9:26 PM:
I do agree with one point, though, an open primary would undermine the whole purpose of a party, to nominate candidates for elections. I guess at this point I am desperate for a better system because in California it ain't working and hasn't for awhile.
Raven, I think third parties could run just as many people as before. This is they way Supervisor elections are held, in the last election Luce--Rodriguez--Martin all ran in a primary and they are all in different parties. No problem. We had near record turn out.
People then vote for the person, not the party. Far better. "
napablogger wrote on Feb 20, 2009 9:35 PM:
And even in that, it varies with the union. I have the most problem with pensions, and with firefighter salaries in the cities, not CDF, which I have pointedly stated on a number of occasions.
I have no problem with teacher pay and think teacher's pensions in some cases are too low. I think the educational administrators should be on Cal Pers not Cal Strs and there are too many of them and many of them make too much.
I could go on but my positions are far more nuanced than you make it sound, and in no case do I hate anyone or even blame the unions for how out of control things have gotten.
In case you haven't noticed, I blame the voters if anyone. People need to wake up and get out of their sleep walking adherence to ideologies and parties.
Note my views on the open primary.
I should add that I really don't blame anyone, but as a point of honesty I put it that way because I don't want to seem like I am avoiding my true views and that is how people generally express themselves.
Better put I hold the voters primarily responsible for the state of our Democracy. It's easy to put it off on the government but they just do what the voters vote for or allow. "
Bill wrote on Feb 20, 2009 10:20 PM:
As fouled up as the present system is it allows for a broad delineation upon which which to start forming an opinion. You appear to wish for a single party one size fits all solution and that smacks of totalitarianism.
Democracy is messy, there is no alternative.
. "
Bill wrote on Feb 20, 2009 10:31 PM:
To change this would be a major restructuring of the entire system along a parliamentary form and that jus' Ain't gonna happen. "
Bill wrote on Feb 20, 2009 10:41 PM:
When you use the noun Union and liberal like a club with out modifiers there is no shade to your meaning. "
freeport56 wrote on Feb 23, 2009 9:28 AM:
Is California destined to become a bedroom community here only to support Sacramentos spending. Our poor state. "
napablogger wrote on Feb 23, 2009 12:37 PM:
These high taxes have to absolutely be temporary. "
freeport56 wrote on Feb 23, 2009 1:01 PM:
You make the assumption that the AG will not word the proposition to skew the voters mind into believing they are voting for a temporary measure, when they could make it perminent.
As for the exodus, it is just not the wealthy. other ethnic groups are leaving as well due to more hospitable environment in the South. Many just fleeing to NV that no state income tax.
At any rate, we will be pushed under the bus much further if SchwarzenRhino takes the stimulous money and then we are bound to new taxes as part of the string....can he just go home now? "
Ruff Limblog wrote on Feb 25, 2009 10:48 AM:
It's low, it's flat and nobody gets deductions... Not the rich, the poor, the hospitals, the banks, the stockbrokers, the welders, not illegal alien workers, and not even bloggers.
It would seem like the perfect thing for a tax fighter such as yourself.
It's even been on a show by Glen Beck!
~Ruff "