so the longer this goes on, the more annoyed i become at the elected officials in sacramento, specifically the ones on the red team. they're all really acting like kids. the state budget is ready to be passed, but the legislature is sitting there twiddling their thumbs while the red team decides who will be the brave one to step up and vote yes on it to give it the 2/3 majority. all we need is one vote and the budget will be passed. keep in mind that this is not the 2009-2010 fiscal year budget, this is the budget for 2008-2009, aka the fiscal year we are already 2/3 of the way through. the excuse is that the bill contains tax increases and they want reelection so don't want to increase taxes for fear of losing.
let me point one thing out to the red team now. up to 20,000 state workers may lose their job without the budget. (speaking of state workers losing jobs, the legislature should be the first ones working without pay until the budget is passed.) but that's the tip of the iceberg. the state provides a lot of services, but they contract a lot of them too. and they are currently not paying their contractors cash, just giving them an IOU. not sure about you, but when i pay my bills, i can't just send in an IOU. the contractors can't pay their workers with IOUs. they can't pay their bills with IOUs. and especially with the perfect rating given california credit and the wonderful lending environment now, companies will soon not be able to operate = company goes bankrupt and now they're all out of a job too.
not sure what world is in sacramento, but in the real world, the mere fact that there's inflation means that taxes must be increased at some time. without the budget, people aren't getting their tax refunds. and if people lose their jobs, i don't think they'll care how low the tax rate is since last i checked multiplication by zero was a whopping zero. that's right, there are no taxes on no income! novel concept, i know. but anyway, why don't just one of the republicans step off the moral and ideological high ground for five minutes to pass the budget. if i were a constituent, i really wouldn't vote red again knowing that i had to lose my job because they were afraid of raising my taxes a little. i'd rather be taxed a little than not paid at all. anyway, that's it. no wait, that's not it. why don't you guys start on next year's budget now too while you're at it so you can at least pass it before 2010 shows up.
california budget stalemate
By snoopyloopy - Posted on February 17th, 2009
Tagged: Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Budget
• california
• democrats
• economy
• legislature
• politics
• Republicans
• tax increases
• Effective government
The Red Team is fullfilling their Constitutional obligations exactly the way the voters of California intended when they passed a ballot initiative which required a SUPER MAJORITY to raise taxes. The whole point was to make it extremely difficult to raise taxes.
Given the Constitution, it is every bit as incumbant on the Blue Team to change the budget so that the Red Team can sign it without compromising their principles as it is for the Red Team to sacrifice their principles and their promises to the people they represent by signing a budget that they disagree with. There are a very large number of people who voted for these Red Representatives who want them to stick to their guns.
California has raised spending an an obscene rate far in excess of the rate of inflation and the rate of population growth over the past several years. There would not be a budget problem now if the Blue Team had not been utterly irresponsible.
The people of California are already amoung the most heavily taxed people in the country. The Red Team has a very valid point that what is needed is not even heavier taxation but some spending discipline. California needs to live within its means.
The Blue Team needs to make the compromises that will allow the Red Team to sign onto the budget.
Limiting taxes is a good thing. Alowing a small minority in a legislative body to hold an entire state hostage, however, is not. There is a reason that most States do not require a super-majority for budget bills, and California is now serving as a shining example of why that is.
The simple fact is that the Democrats HAVE offered compromises...quite a few of them, in fact. In essence, the most recent Democrat-sponsored bill met the Republican's half-way on their demands, offering half of the budget shortfall as new taxes, and half as a reduction of State services. This is the what the Republican caucaus demanded the LAST time that they refused to pass this budget. It is the Republican Minority that is refusing to budge even one inch on any point that has paralyzed the State's budget process.
Heck, even the leader of the Republican Caucus in the Senate was removed last night from his position because just because he suggested a compromise position...
It take a lot of gall (and hypocrisy) to demand compromise when you're on the side that refuses to give anyting to the other side. The sad thing is that this deadlock really doesn't have anything to do with economic philosophy. The REAL reason the Republicans are refusing to budge is that they want to include a redistricting plan in the bill that would give them an advantage in future elections. They hope that redistricting will make them more competitive in State elections.
This is partisan politics at its worse, and I expect that any good will that the Republican hold-outs might garner for "resisting new taxes" will be wiped away when the citizens of California realize that they'll be getting I.O.U.'s instead of tax refunds, and the garbage piles stack up higher than houses since there's no money to pay for even the most basic of public services.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The simple fact is that the Democrats HAVE offered compromises...quite a few of them, in fact. In essence, the most recent Democrat-sponsored bill met the Republican's half-way on their demands,
It looked roughly more like 1/3 spending cuts, 1/3 new taxes and 1/3 new debt. More debt of course means more taxes in the future. It is still a budget which leaves the state spending well beyond its means.
The REAL reason the Republicans are refusing to budge is that they want to include a redistricting plan in the bill that would give them an advantage in future elections. They hope that redistricting will make them more competitive in State elections.
I don't know if this assertion is true, but from my long-distance perspective, California is totally disfunctional and a lot of the problem is the current districting which all but guarantees that every seat in the State legislature is either a safe Democrat or a safe Republican seat. This means that there is no competition which means that the representatives don't need to be responsive to the will of the people. They can do whatever they want without any fear that sombody from the other party would unseat them in the next election. That is what led to the over-spending which is central to the current fiscal mess. I have not read the Republican redistricting plan but just about anything that re-introduced some competition into the political process would serve the people of California pretty well. Competition is of course a two-way street and if Californias are sufficiently angry at Republicans they can show them the door. If California Democrats are certain that they are serving the people well, I can't imagine why they would be opposed to a plan that would allow them to compete for seats currently held by Republicans.
Maybe if California actually had a legislature that was responsive to the people there would not need to be so much direct democracy through the initiative process that results in these types of unintended consequences.
It looked roughly more like 1/3 spending cuts, 1/3 new taxes and 1/3 new debt. More debt of course means more taxes in the future. It is still a budget which leaves the state spending well beyond its means.
Nevertheless, that ratio represents a significant compromise from pervious versions that were being kicked around. AND, this was the compromised the the Republicans asked for. It isn't the Democrats who are refusing to work together and compromise, which is what you implied, above.
California is totally disfunctional and a lot of the problem is the current districting which all but guarantees that every seat in the State legislature is either a safe Democrat or a safe Republican seat. This means that there is no competition which means that the representatives don't need to be responsive to the will of the people.
Just for argument's sake, lets say that I agree with your evaluation of the dysfuctional nature of California's legislature (and for the most part, I do). But, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PASSING THE BUDGET? This is a pure example of politicians playing games with people lives in order to further their personal grabs for power. If you want better competition for seats in California, I would say that is a GOOD thing. However, being willing to see literally tens of thousands of people unnecesarily put out of work, virtually all public works and services stopped, and leaving the entire State government paralyzed without funding just so you can win a few more seats in the Congress is the WORST kind of politics imaginable. Its pure partisanship, and I think that the Republicans are cutting their own throats. Ultimately, they will either have to cave in order to prevent the financial disaster (making them look weak), or they can stick to their guns and be blamed (and rightfully so) for puting partisanship ahead of the basic welfare of the citizens of the State.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PASSING THE BUDGET?
Somebody once made a comparison between passing legislation and making sausage. They are both ugly processes that you would prefer not to watch.
You are absolutely correct that it is partisan politics. With the budget process being one of the few places where Republicans are given any say because of the super majority requirement, it is not surprising that they use the leverage they have to get what they want. It may well bite them in the butt. The California Republican Party has been terribly inept and I would not be surprised it they screwed up again.
Democrats have institutionalized the 1/3rd Republican and 2/3rds Democrat spit in the legislature by gerrymandering the districts into safe seats. They like this arrangement and have no intention of changing it. The only chance that this disfunctional system which is destroying California will change is if Republicans force it to change. Or maybe the people of California will engage in yet more direct Democracy.
It is very interesting to watch. I hope some other states are learning some valuable lessons on how not to structure or run a government. My main concern is that it is going to take another series of really harsh winters to get all the Californians that inevitably move here to pick up their crap and their liberal ideas and leave.
...and I am VERY glad that I don't live in California. But I do have to point out that this...
Democrats have institutionalized the 1/3rd Republican and 2/3rds Democrat spit in the legislature by gerrymandering the districts into safe seats.
...is an inaccurate statement. California's gerrymandered election districts were drawn as they are as the result of a bi-partisan agreement, following the 2000 Census. The Republicans were already on the ropes in the State, and agreed to the deal in order to protect their shrinking minority.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Complete with an agreement that there would be a change to the re-districting process and that a ballot initiative would givie Californians the opportunity to choose an open primary process where the two highest vote getters from the primary, regardless of party, would face off in the general election.
I think that this was a positive outcome that offers hope for a crappy system. I think it was worth the pain.
I spent about an hour reading the forums on the SacBee web site which was interesting. I read about 30 pages of comments and Californians seem to be pretty ticked off at their legislature in general and while there was partisanship in the comments going both directions I think the anger was directed about equally at all of them.
The overwhelming thrust of the comments was:
a) why can't a State with about the highest tax burden in the country and one of the wealthiest populations to tax operate a functional government.
b) In the past 10 years the population has grown from about 32 million to 38 million (about 20%) and the inflation rate has been 2 or 3% per year (assuming 3% it works out to about 34% growth over 10 years) yet the budget has grown from about $70 million to $140 million (100%).
In general, Californians did not seem very complimentary of their legislature.
yes, i know california has quite a nice high tax rate already because i'm subject to it. but given the choice of a little higher taxes and consequently having a job, getting my tax refund, and getting state services or no new taxes and then getting an IOU for my refund, losing my job, and more state services cut, i'll take the taxes please. we can always renegotiate them again later. i work for a hospital. the hospital accepts medi-cal patients and the state picks up the cost. guess when the last time the state paid was? (answer: september = 5 months ago.) and i know we're far from the only example. at this rate, contractors will either cease to exist or quit offering services w/o payment first (or both).