Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2010, 08:18 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,317 posts, read 80,639,850 times
Reputation: 57331

Advertisements

Coming from CA and still family there, we have been keeping an eye on this. Here in WA the last election saw the taxpayers stand fast and vote no on all proposals to increase the state revenue. The Governor's proposed budget has huge cuts in just about everything with the 4.6 billion shortage. There are 80 programs being eliminated, not having their budget cuts but totally gone. We won't even have a state presidential primary in 2012, too expensive a tradition (candidates are chosen by caucus)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2010, 08:28 PM
 
Location: California
37,096 posts, read 42,093,887 times
Reputation: 34948
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisjoe View Post
Coming from CA and still family there, we have been keeping an eye on this. Here in WA the last election saw the taxpayers stand fast and vote no on all proposals to increase the state revenue. The Governor's proposed budget has huge cuts in just about everything with the 4.6 billion shortage. There are 80 programs being eliminated, not having their budget cuts but totally gone. We won't even have a state presidential primary in 2012, too expensive a tradition (candidates are chosen by caucus)
That's the way to do it. Programs need to be eliminated altogether and break everyones dependence on the state to provide them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2010, 08:41 PM
 
4,803 posts, read 10,151,925 times
Reputation: 2785
I like that Jerry brown is going to have Californians vote on it. He isn't just going to raise taxes without the voter approval.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2010, 08:50 PM
 
253 posts, read 348,397 times
Reputation: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by BacktoBlue View Post
I like that Jerry brown is going to have Californians vote on it. He isn't just going to raise taxes without the voter approval.

I will wait and see...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2010, 09:04 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,336,728 times
Reputation: 18436
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
Brown, who pledged not to raise taxes without voters' sign-off, would face a daunting mid-March deadline to get his proposals onto a special-election ballot.

California faces a $28 billion budget shortfall - equivalent to nearly a third of the general fund. (I guess he doesn't want to acknowledge the 660 billion we don't have for pensions yet, he's trying to kick that can down the road for another time. This is going to be fun.)

Jerry Brown: Jerry Brown Tells Californians, "Taxes need to be raised, services cut and belts tightened." - ktla.com

A Democrat gets elected and of course you need your taxes raised. Anyone shocked by this?
It doesn't surprise me that taxes must be raised. It doesn't surprise me that Republicans offer worse solutions, empty rhetoric, divisive policies, and a racially insensitive narrative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2010, 09:08 PM
 
5,113 posts, read 5,957,594 times
Reputation: 1748
Quote:
Originally Posted by BacktoBlue View Post
So let me get this straight Meg Whitman would have done better?!?!?!
Notice the article says "if" the people vote to approve tax increases or extensions (and they won't) then Brown will be prepared to cut more. I think Meg would cut much more without going to the people and cut taxes/fees to spur business growth. She probably would have addressed the 800 lb gorilla in the room ... those outrageous state salaries and pensions are unsustainable and must be drastically reduced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2010, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Tijuana Exurbs
4,531 posts, read 12,368,386 times
Reputation: 6273
Yes, that is the big question here, "if" the people approve of the tax increases. If the tax extensions are temporary, for a few years, people might approve them, but if his proposal is for making them permanent, that won't fly. Our state income and sales taxes are now among the highest in the nation. And even with Prop 13, our property taxes are only in the low middle.

The early years of the Gray Davis administration saw a lot of spending increases based on the false assumption that the Dot.Com bubble would last forever to pay for it. There are still substantial amounts of this added spending to be cut, especially salaries and pensions. The state prison guards got a notoriously lucrative deal - 8% yearly pay increases during the 2002 recession when unemployment was rising, inflation was 1%, and the budget was falling into deficit.

To truly balance the budget, Brown will have to have a "Nixon to China" moment and directly take on the Public Employee unions that are a core Democratic constituency. If that doesn't occur, the state will eventually go bankrupt.

Will Brown actually take on the Public Employee unions? No other Democrat in this state would have the spine to attempt it. Brown? Maybe... just maybe. However, to balance the state budget with more spending cuts than the $10 billion being proposed will probably split the state Democratic party. Partisan Democrats may find their party drawn into a fratricidal bloodbath. At the end, it may emerge stronger as a party of responsible budgeting now that being responsible will help a governor of their own party rather than a governor of the opposition, or it may descend into a fiasco of Brobdingnagian proportions that damages them for years.

Last edited by kettlepot; 12-30-2010 at 11:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2010, 11:03 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,391,772 times
Reputation: 29336
Realistically, this is Jerry's last gasp unless he's real intent on a second term. If there was ever a time he could burn some bridges, this is it. He might, just might, do so for purposes of pragmatism, a legacy other than Moonbeam and what's best for California. It's going to be an interesting four years to watch!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2010, 11:28 PM
 
30,876 posts, read 36,850,201 times
Reputation: 34467
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCCCB View Post
Brown, who pledged not to raise taxes without voters' sign-off, would face a daunting mid-March deadline to get his proposals onto a special-election ballot.

California faces a $28 billion budget shortfall - equivalent to nearly a third of the general fund. (I guess he doesn't want to acknowledge the 660 billion we don't have for pensions yet, he's trying to kick that can down the road for another time. This is going to be fun.)

Jerry Brown: Jerry Brown Tells Californians, "Taxes need to be raised, services cut and belts tightened." - ktla.com

A Democrat gets elected and of course you need your taxes raised. Anyone shocked by this?
At this pont, it really is inevitable that some taxes need to be raised...even if the state really gets its act together in terms of being more business friendly, trimming the bloat, cutting pension benefits, etc...

It s*cks...but get ready for more of it at both the state & national level. I'm a Republican, but they, too have kicked the can down the road. There are few Reps. like Chris Christie, Gov. of NJ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2010, 11:33 PM
 
30,876 posts, read 36,850,201 times
Reputation: 34467
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
A few months back, while the insanity of elections was nearing levels of manic-depression that would require sanitarium commitment of every Californian, I posted a thread suggesting that, however unpalatable, there was no way out of special taxes and levies to pump out the state bilges.

There isn't any magic trick. The best the state can do is apply the hurt to discretionary and unhealthy personal expenditures ... yes, sometimes known as a "sin" tax.

Just do it ... get 'er dun.
Sin taxes aren't going to cover it.

I do think we need food and health care reform, though. We need a health care system that does nutritional counseling and support instead of just giving people pills once they get chronic illnesses. That would save a lot of money in the long run.

I also don't think there should be food stamps given out for any kind of junk food. Let people buy that stuff with their own money...although maybe that reform needs to happen at the Federal level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top