An update on the CA budget: our first veto

[Craig234]

This is of narrow interest, but several people make comments on the CA budget (I think some are less than nice if I recall), so here's an update what's going on.

Short history, of course our Republicans are a disaster. While they're only just over a third of the legislature, our law requires 2/3 to pass a budget (one of just 3 states), and the Republicans hold that power like the federal Senate Republicans hold the filibuster - it's like giving requiring that a 4 year old child approve the family budget. Lot of deadlock.

(All tax increases require a 2/3 vote in both houses as of our Proposition 13, a Republican-sponsored initiative that slashed commercial and residential property taxes ever since).

But last year, the public passed a bill that the legislators don't get paid if they don't pass a budget on time, which was this week.

Now, Governor Brown prepared a responsible budget with a lot of cuts and some tax increases. Republicans would have none of it.

So, he asked the legislature to let the public vote on it - if the pass it great, if not he had a backup budget with all drastic spending cuts. Republicans refused again.

So, the legislature, facing the deadline, finally passed its own budget. It's full of a lot of crap - the item that bothered me especially was a lot of selling off state buildings and then leasing them back from the purchaser. Raises short term cash, terrible idea longer term, lousy policy. It had a lot of 'one-time' things and 'accounting tricks'.

Now, the news is, they sent it to Governor Brown - and he vetoed it, challenging both parties. He called it a lousy budget as it is and demanded they do better.

What's especially newsworthy is that it's the first time in California's history a governor has vetoed the budget.

The state officials are figuring out whether the legislators lose their pay if they passed a budget and it was vetoed.

That's where things stand - I'm glad he vetoed it, we'll see if they back off the bad things to pass a better budget - or let the people vote on the Brown plan.

 

[Bateluer]

Wanted to find out what was in the budget, California needs to make very serious cuts in spending to close their massive budget gap.

Here's the summary directly from the CA Governor's site.
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0617-state-budget-20110617,0,3173253.story

"It continues big deficits for years to come and adds billions of dollars of new debt," the governor wrote in his veto message.

He blamed Republicans for the Legislature's failure to forge a plan acceptable to him. Nevertheless, he said, he would not sign the Democrats' package because it "contains legally questionable maneuvers, costly borrowing and unrealistic savings."

Democratic lawmakers had knowingly flirted with the possibility of a veto by stuffing their plan with the very things that Brown promised he would never sign, such as higher taxes without voter approval and accounting sleight-of-hand.

So, from this, one political party deliberately doomed the bill to fail by intentionally filling it with things they knew would antagonize the other party and push the governor to veto it. Sounds just as dirty as the 'legally questionable maneuvers, etc' in the budget.

 

[wuliheron]

So, from this, one political party deliberately doomed the bill to fail by intentionally filling it with things they knew would antagonize the other party and push the governor to veto it. Sounds just as dirty as the 'legally questionable maneuvers, etc' in the budget.

They're just haggling. You don't really think they expected it to pass?

 

[Bateluer]

They're just haggling. You don't really think they expected it to pass?

Obviously not. They filled it with items they knew would prevent it from being passed. As I said in my first post.

 

[novasatori]

the item that bothered me especially was a lot of selling off state buildings and then leasing them back from the purchaser.

:biggrin:

I would expect no less from politicians and government. They will be out of a job in a couple years anyways, so who gives a shit about long term budget. Its not like that was what partially caused these budget problems in the first place.

 

[nick1985]

lol Craig is blaming CA financial woes soley on Republicans.

lol

 

[Doppel]

lol Craig is blaming CA financial woes soley on Republicans.

lol

this

 

[olds]

...our law requires 2/3 to pass a budget ....

 

[nick1985]

The sad thing is, Craig vehemently believes its the Republican minority that has railroaded California's budget over the years.

He lives in some sort of fucked up alternate-reality

 

[olds]

The sad thing is, Craig vehemently believes its the Republican minority that has railroaded California's budget over the years.

He lives in some sort of fucked up alternate-reality

I just found it comical that his opening statement is wrong. So I didn't read the rest of what he typed.

 

[nick1985]

I just found it comical that his opening statement is wrong. So I didn't read the rest of what he typed.

95% of what is said about liberals is wro...


lol :awe:

 

[EagleKeeper]

His first real paragraph makes him sound like a little kid in the candy store. Holding his breath until he gets what he wants.

The Republicans are in the Legislature for a purpose. The people want checks on the Dems so they do not completely destroy the state budget. The same reason for the 2/3 rule. Prevent a tyranical majority from overwhelming the minority.

/edit
Apparently the CA voters are now as crazy as the Dems.
They removed the 2/3 rule last fall.
Now they get what they deseve on their budget.

The liberals here have no justification to blame the Repbublicans for the CA budget woes; they will have done it to themselves.

 

[Anarchist420]

To me, it sounds like the Republicans in CA don't want a balanced budget. If they aren't willing to cut the necessary amount of spending, then they're just as much to blame as the Democrats. Wasn't the last governor a Republican who increased spending through the roof and got CA where it's at now?

That said, I've never really thought Jerry Brown belongs in either party.

 

[PeshakJang]

Jesus Christ... Craig's just getting donkey-punched lately as a liar.

Save234

 

[senseamp]

Cali republicans are like the national party, all obstruction, no responsibility.

 

[Greenman]

What craig left out is that Prop 13 and the 2/3 requirement for tax increases were ballot initiatives. They were voted in by the people of CA because property taxes were insane and government spending was out of control.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Cali republicans are like the national party, all obstruction, no responsibility.

From the information above; it is the Dems that are in the driver seats and the Republican brake lines have been cut.
So when CA goes over the cliff; how are the Republicans to blame.

Or will they be blamed because the Dems refuse to accept that it was their responsibility.

This seems to be typical; blame the Republicans when the Dems can not get anything done and if something is done and it fails; blame the Repubs becuase it failed.

Both at the CA and Federal level;the Dems areshowing great promise in handling money matters.
Both are ready to default on their obligations (AGAIN)

 

[Craig234]

I need to make a correction. The 2/3 issue has long been an issue. I knew we'd passed a change last November changing that - I posted here repeatedly advocating for the measure and then glad it had passed - but decided to double check what had happened, found references to the 2/3 requirement being in effect, and re-wrote the section I'd written saying it was a majority, to show the 2/3 was still the case (to my surprise).

Rather, the 2/3 requirement still in place, and affecting the budget, is the one for any tax increase. That requires 2 Republicans in each house to pass.

It was my mistake not remembering this more clearly and recognizing that the info I'd seen must have been outdated.

Sorry for the mistake.

So, the story changes to say that the Democrats passed this 'hacked up' budget, requiring only a majority because it has no tax increases, without a single Republican vote, that the Governor vetoed.

This is a reason I'd supported that bill - it let the Democrats pass a budget despite the Republicans' providing zero votes - but in this case I don't like the budget they chose.

There are three basic options: One is the Democrats' preferred plan, with tax extensions, needing a 2/3 vote. Republicans refused to vote for that. That left the 'drastic cuts' plan, or the 'hacked up' budget plan. Democrats picked the latter.

So, the Republicans are still the key to whether the option the Governor and Democrats want passes with its 2/3 requirement; it appears Brown wants to pass the drastic cuts budget in the meantime

Four Republicans have been in talks with the governor, supporting the tax increases go to the voters (they also condemned the budget that passed).

Here's a link with a news story on the issue.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/06/15/senate-passes-budget-bills-without-gop/

 

[MotF Bane]

Hey Craig, try spending cuts, instead of just hiding behind "oh, people who vote against taxes are evil!"

 

[Craig234]

From the information above; it is the Dems that are in the driver seats and the Republican brake lines have been cut.
So when CA goes over the cliff; how are the Republicans to blame.

Or will they be blamed because the Dems refuse to accept that it was their responsibility.

This seems to be typical; blame the Republicans when the Dems can not get anything done and if something is done and it fails; blame the Repubs becuase it failed.

Both at the CA and Federal level;the Dems areshowing great promise in handling money matters.
Both are ready to default on their obligations (AGAIN)

What you completely leave out is the fact that the Dems cannot pass any tax increases without Republican votes. Guess who took a childish 'no new taxes' pledge, and has actively pursued recall campaigns against any members who don't follow it, no matter how justified the increase?

So, thanks to the vote last November, Dems ARE in the driver's seat as far as passing a budget - without any tax increases in it. That's a pretty crippling restriction.

The budget options it leaves are ugly - 'slashes' or 'hacks'. The governor has supported only the budget needing Republican votes or the 'slash' budget. He vetoed the 'hacks'.

So, Republicans are *entirely* to blame for the budget with a mix of cuts and tax extensions not passing, contrary to your post.

Democrats are *entirely* responsible for whatever budget they do pass that has no tax increases.

Your trying to attack Dems on 'money matters' is just pathetic. Let's talk about the last 25, 50, 75 years on the two parties and money matters. You would not do well.

 

[Craig234]

What craig left out is that Prop 13 and the 2/3 requirement for tax increases were ballot initiatives. They were voted in by the people of CA because property taxes were insane and government spending was out of control.

Um, it was listed:

(All tax increases require a 2/3 vote in both houses as of our Proposition 13, a Republican-sponsored initiative that slashed commercial and residential property taxes ever since).

What happened is that residential property taxes WERE too high, in a housing boom. Many elderly people especially, seeing their home values shoot up in value they'd bought cheap, saw their taxes become unaffordable. They had to sell their homes. The public was very upset about the situation.

The problem was, some more radical right-wing types saw the opportunity to use the issue.

They pushed an initiative to use the issue. They didn't put up a ballot initiative to lower residential property rates. The put up an initiative that did that - basically guaranteeing its passage - and used that to also bundle in freezing commercial real estate taxes, which are very different because those properties can remain in hands for generations, changing hands under the same corporation owning them - basically, it *gutted* the key tax for the state, ending the 'Golden State' era to a large degree - basically transferring wealth by forcing massive spending cuts for the public and slashing taxes for commercial property owners. That was just fine for the radical right pushing so shift money to the wealthy. Not so much for the public that lost a ton of spending for it.

Recognizing the natural response would be for the state to raise other taxes to pay for the spending for the public, they also bundled in the new 2/3 requirement for any tax increase.

(As I've read it, only 8 other states require a super-majority for any new tax - some 3/5 (which would need no Republican votes in CA), some 2/3. Close to ten other states have more limited requirements, such as a super-majority for specific taxes like on corporations, or in odd-numbered years).

Government spending wasn't "out of control", at least the public didn't seem to think so; rather it was "out of control" by the definition of the radical right which always says it is.

It was "out of control" when the revenue was slashed so it couldn't be paid for.

We should have passed relief for residential property owners - and perhaps even more reasonable relief for commercial property tax owners. We didn't need the big tax *increases* that came about from the real estate value increases. But instead of those fixes, we got a radical right plan that was a disaster for the state.

Funny enough, Schwarzeneggar's financial advisor was Warren Buffet:

Warren Buffett suggested that Proposition 13 be repealed or changed as a method of balancing the state's budget.

Arnold declined. But there has been one fix, because of the harm to schools (which went from 'top in the nation' pre-Prop 13 to 48th in many rankings):

On November 7, 2000, voters in the state approved Proposition 39, which lowered proposition 13's super-majority for local school bond passage from the original 2/3 super-majority, to a 55 percent super-majority.

The state has also passed a measure requiring a certain percent of the budget go to education, but that doesn't really address the tax issue.

So, your claim that property taxes 'were insane' is partly correct - but that doesn't make prop 13 good.

One other effect of it was to create huge inequity between long-time homeowners and new purchasers, so that one person could be paying several times as much property as his neighbor in a similar house.

 

[a777pilot]

LOL! Who cares what the fruits and nuts of California do or don't do?

 

[ProfJohn]

California already ranks 8th in the nation in taxes per capita.

How much higher do you want them to go?

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/12/most-taxed-states-lifestyle-income-tax-burden.html

 

[Craig234]

To me, it sounds like the Republicans in CA don't want a balanced budget. If they aren't willing to cut the necessary amount of spending, then they're just as much to blame as the Democrats. Wasn't the last governor a Republican who increased spending through the roof and got CA where it's at now?

That said, I've never really thought Jerry Brown belongs in either party.

I haven't seen the Republicans' position, but I presume they'd support the 'drastic cut' budget - so I don't blame them for blocking that.

What they deserve blame for is for blocking the governor's preferred budget that has a mix of large spending cuts and some tax extensions. Further, for not letting voters vote on it.

But if the four Republicans in talks on letting voters vote on it do so, and they're reportedly under great pressure and threat from fellow Republicans, that might happen.

In that case, those 4 would deserve a lot of credit for 'doing the right thing', but the rest of their party would not for opposing it and whatever they do like pushing recalls.

 

[Jaskalas]

lol Craig is blaming CA financial woes soley on Republicans.

lol

Duh.

This has been going on for ages. Dems require spending and taxing. Republicans only require spending and filibusterer taxing. Dems think the budget gap is based solely on a lack of additional taxing.

Republicans need to finish fleeing the state, and let the Dems have their taxes.