TW: Perhaps you have followed the California mess. It is actually an on-going saga that brought down one governor, Gray Davis Democrat, and threatens to bring down the Governator and maybe the entire state. The fiscal morass in that state harks back to the late 70's and the infamous Proposition 13 movement which was a key trigger for the overall tax cutting mentality that helped Republicans adhere power nationally for thirty years.
One of the resulting changes in CA made it very difficult to raise taxes with 67% majorities necessary to implement tax changes. CA is obviously very Democratic but the Republicans have hung onto about 34% of the state senates seats and those 34% are very hard core anti tax ideologues. 34% of the representatives with theocratic adherence to an ideology rule the state. I suspect years from now when folks are dissecting the carcass of our economy vintage 2007-2011, they will ponder why ideologues were permitted to ruin our nation.
The state faces default on its debt if it does not close its current fiscal deficit. This problem is not entirely the fault of the Republicans, no doubt like many (most) states public spending has been excessive but recall these relatively stringent tax processes have been in place for decades, CA is not a state that went out during the "boom" years and initiated massive new public expenditures.
The proposed compromise is a mix of spending cuts and taxes. Obviously a left wing bill...not "bi-partisan enough". The Republicans want 100% spending cuts, but as the piece points out to do so solely with spending cuts is not particularly viable.
From LA Times:
"The math seems pretty simple. But apparently it's too rigorous for many Republican politicians.To avoid raising taxes and still balance the books in Sacramento, you'd have to virtually shut down state government. Some politicians are in denial. Some are demagoguing. Some are just ducking. Scared. The scared are rather pathetic...they cower before conservative bloggers, radio talk entertainers and activists of a declining party.It's Republican dogma in the Capitol that to vote for a tax increase is "career-ending." Even if true -- and there's evidence both ways -- so what?
Scared is a symptom of term limits, when legislators aren't around long enough to gather political self-confidence and standing; of gerrymandering that bunches like-minded voters into single districts to protect seats for a party and punishes bipartisanship
...Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the four legislative leaders finally agreed last week on a package of $15.1 billion in spending reductions, $14.4 billion in tax increases and $11.4 billion in borrowing.That's close to what Californians want -- a mix. A statewide survey last month by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found that 56% of voters favor both spending cuts and tax increases to solve what 82% of the electorate considers "a big problem.
"The problem for GOP politicians, however, is that 52% of Republicans favor eradicating the red ink "mostly through spending cuts.
"But the numbers don't add up. The Legislature's two Republican leaders -- Assemblyman Mike Villines of Clovis and Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto -- came to that realization in December as they dug through the budget books. They also knew that even if it were possible to avoid tax hikes, their GOP colleagues didn't have the stomach for the kinds of slashing that would be needed in school, healthcare and prison programs.
"The only alternative now," Villines said Saturday, "is to literally go insolvent and over the cliff. And many of us believe that is irresponsible and giving up our constitutional responsibilities."Ardent anti-taxers say the governor and Legislature should simply whack the "bloated" bureaucracy by 10%. Even 20% if need be. Lay off and cut pay. Pare benefits too. After all, private companies are doing it.
Well, you could fire every state worker under the governor's control and the savings wouldn't come close to balancing the budget.
...According to the state budget document, there is the equivalent of 205,000 full-time jobs controlled by the governor...You could lay off all those state workers -- rid yourself of their pay and benefits -- and save only $24.4 billion...Meanwhile, you would have dumped 160,000 convicted felons onto the streets because all the prisons were closed after the guards and wardens were fired. There'd be no Highway Patrol because all the officers were canned. State parks would be closed because there were no fee-collectors or rangers...
...You could cut off all state money to higher education -- the two university systems and the community colleges. That would save the remaining $16 billion...you could eliminate virtually all state money for healthcare and social services -- grants for the aged, blind and disabled, assistance for the homebound, medical care for the poor, mental health treatment, welfare. . . . No exceptions.Of course, you'd then be turning away tons of money from Washington, which shares the costs. And you would be violating some federal laws. But there, it's done. You've avoided a tax increase. What a state!..."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aApDmrqhLZtk&refer=politics
No comments:
Post a Comment