To all you geniuses who think You can easily balance the budget.... (Los Angeles: sales, how much)

[nicmey]

To all you geniuses who think you can balance the budget without seriously damaging basic necessities and destroying the state's businesses... I ask you to give it a try and post your brilliant combination of tax increases and budget cuts.

Here is a link to the LA Times budget calculator.
It lists the potential tax increases and budget items that are on the table.
State budget balancer - Los Angeles Times

I couldn't do it without damaging education, impacting basic living necessities, hurting businesses, raising taxes, or mortgaging the future.

Please list your ideal resulting solution.

[DMenscha]

Thanks for the link. I managed 8 Billion in cuts and 16 Billion in new taxes. I must be a genius! <cough>

[wburg]

Originally Posted by DMenscha

Thanks for the link. I managed 8 Billion in cuts and 16 Billion in new taxes. I must be a genius! <cough>

Or a Democrat...their current plan calls for something like that ($10 billion in cuts, $11 billion in new taxes, $3 billion deficit.) But it's apparently not good enough for the governor, he wants all 24 billion of the difference in cuts, no matter what.

I took the test and got similar numerical results. You don't get good government for a bargain-basement price, and if people think their government isn't any good now, they may gain some appreciation when they realize that smaller government means longer waits at everything from EDD to DMV, slower responses from government agencies due to lack of staff, and more misery for most Californians. For the pro-misery crowd, who would be lost without DAGNAB BIG GUMMIT to complain about, that's just fine. Personally I don't see the appeal.

[llowllevellowll]

I stay out of the part of the forum on the budget because I know it isn't easy. But, I did find the link really neat and fun.

I balanced the budget with 11.636 billion in cuts and 12.405 billion in new taxes, leaving a surplus of 40 million dollars. I thought it was important to cut as much as we spent in new taxes. If Arnold wants all 24 million in cuts, and the democrats want more taxation than cuts, I suppose that leaves me somewhere in the middle, but more democratic in my balanced budget? Anyway, it was difficult.


Tax Increases:

- Increased income tax from 9.3% to 10% on those making $300,000 per year; Increased those making $600,000 per year to 11% (5 billion)

- Broadened the sales tax (1.1 billion)

- Increased existing alcohol tax .05 per drink (585 mil)

- Increased ciggarrette tax $1.50 per pack (1.2 billion)

- Raised the corporate income tax from 8.4% to 9.3% (470 mil)

- Require 3% tax withholding from independent contractors (2 billion)

- Borrow 8% of property revenue from cities to be paid within 3 years (2 billion)

Budget cuts:

- Added a third and fourth furlough day for government workers (900 mil)

- Cut K-14 funding under Prop 98 to K-12 and community colleges (5.3 billion)

- Deport 19,000 illegal immigrants housed in California prisons (180 million)

- Release criminals without violent histories one-year early (120 million)

- Reduce time for parole violations (95 million)

- Reduce health benefits for state workers (130 million)

- Eliminate 33 government boards deemed redundant (50 million)

- Eliminate Welfare grants under CalWorks (1.3 billion)

- Transfer funds in Juvinile Justice and Transportation (1 billion)

- Cut legislature's budget in half (120 million)

[bayarea-girl]

I must be a genius because I balanced the budget and have a surplus. How can I publish my results? There are other items that should have been up for debate for cuts but didn't make the list. Good post!

[bayarea-girl]

wburgh, more bodies does not necessarily equal better services. It might equate to more incompetency. Government is big business and the quicker people realize this the better off we will be. Some services shouldn't be ran by government and I believe we would get better results and at a cheaper rates. When government gets involved politics gets involved (the hiring of their friends/family, protecting their interest, new agendas/their agendas that end up costing us) and that means money, money, money out of our pockets (tax payer/citizen).

[bayarea-girl]

wburgh, more bodies does not necessarily equal better services. It might equate to more incompetency. Government is big business and the quicker people realize this the better off we will be. Some services shouldn't be ran by government and I believe we would get better results and at a cheaper rates. When government gets involved politics gets involved (the hiring of their friends/family, protecting their interest, new agendas/their agendas that end up costing us) and that means money, money, money out of our pockets (tax payer/citizen).

[EscapeCalifornia]

According to that site, cutting K-12 down by one week per year saves $5.3B. Go for it. When I went into college, I was surprised that we were covering the same amount of material in a 16 week semester as we had in a 9 month year in high school and yet college didn't feel rushed. That was when I realized how much time we wasted in high school with busy work, endless review, or other nonsense. And these were AP classes too! I'm not saying 3rd graders should work at the same pace as high schoolers, but I'm certain they could cut the school year back quite a bit without harming anyone's education if the fluff was taking out of the year.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by bayarea-girl

wburgh, more bodies does not necessarily equal better services. It might equate to more incompetency. Government is big business and the quicker people realize this the better off we will be. Some services shouldn't be ran by government and I believe we would get better results and at a cheaper rates. When government gets involved politics gets involved (the hiring of their friends/family, protecting their interest, new agendas/their agendas that end up costing us) and that means money, money, money out of our pockets (tax payer/citizen).

Not sure if you are familiar with how the state hires, but it is a very complex process involving third-party review of applications, eligibility for job categories by testing, ranking and job eligibility based on those test results, and further tests and board interviews for jobs. It is very, very difficult to hire buddies and family members, precisely because there are complex bureaucracies set up to prevent it and ensure fair and consistent hiring practices. However, ensuring fair and consistent hiring is also far more expensive than just having no oversight. Generally, you have to pick either efficiency or comprehensive fairness. The most efficient systems aren't that fair, the fairest systems aren't always the most cost-effective.

Politics take place in ANY organization, public or private. Heck, there were workplace politics back when I was working fast food in high school, and they exist in the private sector all the way up to the corporate boardroom. Most of why the private sector can do things for cheaper rates (wheny they can) is because they don't have to deal with the scrutiny that the public sector receives, since that scrutiny and accountability costs money. The public sector SHOULD be subject to that scrutiny--it is, after all, our money, and the public has a right to know how it is being spent. But privatization of government services makes that scrutiny much more difficult, and can often end up costing MORE than the public sector, especially if the contractor puts profits above service delivery.

[Snort]

I've done it! We now also own large parts of Canada too! We're big on oil and nuclear power and we're getting Canadians to do all the hard work. God, ain't life good!