California Special Election May 19 (Sacramento, Oakland: construction, taxation, housing)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by 4beanie

Here's an example of how hard the state is trying to budget. This was in the Sacramento Bee and reprinted by our local paper on the editorial page. "The current Chancellor at UC Davis, Larry Vanderhoef, earns a base salary of $315,000 a year. The just-named new chancellor, Linda Katehi, will earn a great deal more, $400,000. She also will get a $100,000 relocation allowance, moving costs, a car allowance of almost $9,000 a year and free housing."
Is it just me or is this excessive? And I guess they are wanting to raise student fees 10% All this in a bad economy. All the more reason to vote NO

Welcome to California, owned and operated by public employees unions.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by 4beanie

Is it just me or is this excessive? And I guess they are wanting to raise student fees 10% All this in a bad economy. All the more reason to vote NO

Half a million for her first year? I guess it depends on whether you're giving it or getting it.

California voters are getting it okay? It's just that it hurts when we try to sit down.

[Lovehound]

It will be a relief when Tuesday comes and gone, and a few days of bitching, and then we can tie a ribbon on this topic. Or better yet, put a bullet in its head.

Stick a fork in it. It's done!!!!!!!!!

[esmith143]

Conservatives always moan about government waste and paying too much in taxes and always complain that we have to spend less.

When asked what exactly they would want to cut, they point to insignificant things like salaries of a few outliers in Sacramento. Which, if eliminated altogether, would reduce the budget by 0.001%.

Let me try this way.

There's NO room for any significant reductions in our budget. We could save a few million here and a few million there but we're 10+ billion short and that kind of hole cannot be closed by a few salary reductions and by closing some minor projects.

Our Governor is Republican and even he acknowledges after looking at numbers that we can't get out of this by cutting spending any more than we already did.

Two of our major spending categories are K-12 and prison systems.

Our K-12 is underfunded compared to the rest of the country. Our prison system is overcrowded and underfunded compared to the rest of the country.

Compared to other states, our state spending per capita is AVERAGE TO LOW.

Compared to other states, our effective property tax (something like 0.5%, thanks to prop 13) is LOW.

We have to repeal prop 13.

The state is in a very bad position financially and the only way to close the hole in the budget is to raise taxes.

We have to vote YES on all propositions on May 19 or all hell will break loose.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by esmith143

When asked what exactly they would want to cut, they point to insignificant things like salaries of a few outliers in Sacramento. Which, if eliminated altogether, would reduce the budget by 0.001%.

Let's just cut everything by 50%.

Originally Posted by esmith143

We have to vote YES on all propositions on May 19 or all hell will break loose.

We have to vote NO on all propositions or our taxes will be so high that we won't be able to afford living here, unless of course we work for the government.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by esmith143

There's NO room for any significant reductions in our budget.

Of course there is, reduce the salary and benefits of every state worker. Lay off state workers, in particular teachers by increasing class size by 2~3.

Originally Posted by esmith143

We have to repeal prop 13.

I'm all for repealing prop 13 so long as income taxes are reduced. Switch to a Texas style tax system.

Originally Posted by esmith143

The state is in a very bad position financially and the only way to close the hole in the budget is to raise taxes.

No, its not. The budget gap can be filled by reducing spending.

Originally Posted by esmith143

We have to vote YES on all propositions on May 19 or all hell will break loose.

Good. That is the only way things will get fixed in the state.


Anyhow, raising income taxes does not necessarily increase tax revenue. There is a maximum you can increase taxes before the revenue will actually drop rather than increase as the result of an income tax increase. California's income tax is so high that its unlikely that increases in it will result in much more revenue. Anyhow, in this sense Prop 1A or any future tax increases will not solve a thing, the effective solution is a reduction in spending. Its rather amazing that so many people believe that you can tax your way out of a budget problem, despite the fact that there are well demonstrated reasons why this often does not work. It would be one thing if California currently had low taxes, but going into this crisis it was one of the highest taxed states!

Think about it. The current threat of increase taxes gives a rather big incentive for small businesses and individuals to leave the state.

[happ]

Originally Posted by esmith143

Conservatives always moan about government waste and paying too much in taxes and always complain that we have to spend less.

When asked what exactly they would want to cut, they point to insignificant things like salaries of a few outliers in Sacramento. Which, if eliminated altogether, would reduce the budget by 0.001%.

Let me try this way.

There's NO room for any significant reductions in our budget. We could save a few million here and a few million there but we're 10+ billion short and that kind of hole cannot be closed by a few salary reductions and by closing some minor projects.

Our Governor is Republican and even he acknowledges after looking at numbers that we can't get out of this by cutting spending any more than we already did.

Two of our major spending categories are K-12 and prison systems.

Our K-12 is underfunded compared to the rest of the country. Our prison system is overcrowded and underfunded compared to the rest of the country.

Compared to other states, our state spending per capita is AVERAGE TO LOW.

Compared to other states, our effective property tax (something like 0.5%, thanks to prop 13) is LOW.

We have to repeal prop 13.

The state is in a very bad position financially and the only way to close the hole in the budget is to raise taxes.

We have to vote YES on all propositions on May 19 or all hell will break loose.

I agree. As a home-owner, of-course, the repeal of Prop 13 will mean higher taxes but if it means helping California then I will do my duty. I am voting YES on the governor's propositions because I know to do nothing will only make things worse. I don't, however, think the propositions will pass because it seems all spectrum of the political parties are urging NO Even the socialists\ Green party is asking members to vote no. California is going through a particularly hard time since the "housing crisis" & most other states are also in serious fiscal trouble.

Those that suggest cutting services are immature & irresponsible & why the Republican party is "dead on arrival" in California [nobody listens to them or votes for them - total losers

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by happ

I agree. As a home-owner, of-course, the repeal of Prop 13 will mean higher taxes but if it means helping California then I will do my duty. I am voting YES on the governor's propositions because I know to do nothing will only make things worse. I don't, however, think the propositions will pass because it seems all spectrum of the political parties are urging NO Even the socialists\ Green party is asking members to vote no. California is going through a particularly hard time since the "housing crisis" & most other states are also in serious fiscal trouble.

Those that suggest cutting services are immature & irresponsible & why the Republican party is "dead on arrival" in California [nobody listens to them or votes for them - total losers

Surely you jest. Is it even remotely possible for you to make any kind of statement that doesn't blame the Republican Party for every historical ill from the hordes of locusts in Egypt to the black plague in Europe?

Socialists and Greens beware. You're next.

A little balance and a modicum of intelligence would be refreshing.

Obviously I ask too much!

[happ]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Surely you jest. Is it even remotely possible for you to make any kind of statement that doesn't blame the Republican Party for every historical ill from the hordes of locusts in Egypt to the black plague in Europe?

Socialists and Greens beware. You're next.

A little balance and a modicum of intelligence would be refreshing.

Obviously I ask too much!

In case you didn't know the "Swine Flu" was started when a well-known Republican kissed a pig on the snout thinking it was his wife. Also the fires that recently ravaged Santa Barbara was because some Republicans decided to barbecue some pork sausages in their portable hibachi while sightseeing on a windy hilltop. Republicans were responsible for Schwarzenegger broken leg when he was skiing in Idaho last year; apparently they were listening to some country-western tunes on their Ipods and started doing the "Texas Two-Step" in front of the governor causing him to veer sharply & hitting a tree. A Republican didn't realize he had fire ants in his pants when he crossed into California from his pilgrimage to Bob Jones University; thus causing millions of dollars damage to state agriculture. There are unfortunately many more stories of how Republicans are walking\ talking jinxes who bring bad luck to California. If you like, I can tell you more but you might not want to upset your stomach before bedtime, Curmudgeon

[user_id]

Originally Posted by happ

Those that suggest cutting services are immature & irresponsible & why the Republican party is "dead on arrival" in California [nobody listens to them or votes for them - total losers

You don't seem to get it, cutting services may be the only option. Raising taxes at this point may actually reduce tax revenue!

They can raise it to 20%, 30%, 40%, etc and it will still not increase tax revenue.