home

California Into the Abyss

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:54:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is catastrophic, not just for California, but for the entire US economy:

After a frustrating holiday weekend that failed to yield the one vote needed to end California's budget stalemate, the state is poised to begin layoff proceedings Tuesday for 20,000 government workers. In addition to the layoffs, the state also plans to halt all remaining public works projects, potentially putting thousands of construction workers out of jobs.

"We are dealing with a catastrophe of unbelievable proportions," said state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach and chairman of the Senate transportation committee. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg announced late Monday that lawmakers had failed to find the final vote in his chamber as Republicans refused to support tax increases. He called a session for Tuesday and said he would put the tax provisions of the budget proposal up for a vote, even if they would not pass.

This is criminal irresponsibility by California Republicans. This is truly an economic catastrophe.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Resign Sen. Burris >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    California Into the Abyss | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This is what happens (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    when you combine an incumbent protection gerrymander with a 2/3 budget requirement. The Republicans will take down everyone if they can, as they know they're all individually safe.

    This is what happens when state tax (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    revenue decreases and the Governor has financed state government via bonds.

    Parent
    The absence of a 2/3 rule (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:59:57 AM EST
    would allow legislative Democrats to cut a deal with the Governor on a package of service cuts and increased taxes. (Incidentally, this is where the federal government should step in with much more stimulus).

    Parent
    How very true... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by atdleft on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:42:39 AM EST
    And because of the 2/3 rule...

    http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=531E15198D13AF6D61F3047800BC3EDF?diaryId=8094

    The state is being held hostage. Why? A Republican from Monterey County wants to be State Controller.

    Parent

    It is not the job (none / 0) (#33)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:07:36 PM EST
    of the Federal Government to rescue incompetent State Governments.

    It is not the job of the Federal Government to "save" Republicans from the results of their failed ideology.

    It is not the job of the Federal Government to mandate wage cuts for auto workers but to give one hundred times more money to unaccountable financial institution workers.

    It is not the job of the Federal Government to do anything, for anybody. Remember St. Reagan? "Government IS the enemy".

    To paraphrase John Kennedy, "Don't ask what what your country can do for you. Ask what you have done to our country!"

    Parent

    I have to agree with you on this. (none / 0) (#56)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    I would make the Federal money available, but with strings attached - the primary requirement I would make on the part of the California state government would be that they suspend their 2/3rds rule and pass a budget so that the Federal money could be allocated immediately.  Otherwise, all the states in the country can just fail to pass budgets with the expectation that the Feds will bail them out.

    States all over the country changed their drinking age laws for federal highway dollars - I think forcing the states to act properly now to take care of their residents would be a far better use of Federal power than that was.

    Parent

    Realistic suggestions like (none / 0) (#58)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    the GOP becoming totally extinct in California because that is the likely alternative here since it is pretty obvious that the ideologues in that party aren't going to lift a finger to avoid this pending disaster.

    Parent
    It was a somewhat sarcastic (none / 0) (#68)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    comment - I say somewhat because California is just the kind of place where they could change the party's name - keep all the same people - and continue their quest to destroy government - hence I do not agree that it is "impossible" for the Republican Party to become extinct in an effort to re-brand themselves after they've thoroughlly trashed their reputation amongst voters.  I remember the rise of the Libertarian movement there - they were all really Republicans and they appealed to people on both sides who were disaffected by the two party system.  I think it is possible that we could see this third party phenom again as a result of this financial crisis.  But we'll see what happens.

    Parent
    One Can Hope (none / 0) (#69)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:23:24 PM EST
    The party of War criminals.

    The party of FISA criminals.

    The party of Hatch Act criminals.

    The party of Fiscal irresponsibility.

    The party of "Trickle Down" fraud.

    The party of "If the President does it, it's not illegal"

    The party of rendition and torture.

    The party of "Just Say No" to common sense.

    The party of the Gay Old Pedophiles.

    Please get some morals - soon - Please!

    Parent

    If you're going to rant don't smear others (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:13:19 PM EST
    The party of the Gay Old Pedophiles.

    Pedophiles are not gay. Gay does not equal pedophile.

    Parent

    mexboy is right (none / 0) (#106)
    by Spamlet on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:11:49 PM EST
    "gay" does not equal "pedophile," though admittedly some pedophiles are gay

    Parent
    In Parts of the State GOP is Extinct (none / 0) (#108)
    by DaleA on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 08:26:27 PM EST
    I vote in Los Angeles, SFV, and no Republicans below state wide offices appear on the ballot. We have a battle between Democrats and Greens. This is a working class area of older blue collar whites and Hispanics. In Los Angeles county, which has a population greater than that of 42 states, can't recall when last a Republican ran for country office. There are large areas here where extinction has already happened.

    Parent
    Isn't the 2/3 budget vote (none / 0) (#67)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:14:27 PM EST
    a California State Constitutional requirement?

    Parent
    an amendment (none / 0) (#93)
    by boredmpa on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:12:25 PM EST
    would be feasible to pass (only requires 50%), it's getting it on the ballot that's the problem; I just don't see anyone paying to collect the signatures for the proposition.

    Otherwise it can't get on the ballot without (i believe) 2/3s vote from the legislature...which clearly wouldn't happen.

    Parent

    This is what happens when (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    the federal government passes an inadequate stimulus bill.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    That is not this problem.

    Though I agree with you that the stimulus bill is inadequate.

    Parent

    Ok, I was exaggerating (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    in the sense that I don't really think that the inadequacy of the federal stimulus bill is the direct and only cause of what is happening in CA.  Obviously the fact that republicans in CA are willing to destroy people's lives because they are nutjobs and think they are scoring political points is the direct reason.  But, had a sufficient amount of state and local aid been included in the federal stimulus, it would not have been as easy for the CA republicans to do what they are doing.  

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:35:50 AM EST
    That makes no sense.  First the stimulus JUST passed has nothing to do with California's present state (it might in a year from now).  Secondly, don't see how increasing the size of the stimulus would have any effect on California republican state legislators?

    As a side note.  I always hated how California Republicans (think the the aristocratic farmers in central California) can attack entitlements when it is our dollars that go to subsidize their farming.  

    Parent

    It won't take a year for the (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by dk on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:41:46 AM EST
    federal stimulus money to reach the states.  The governor of my state (MA) already has put a plan in place to spend some of the stimulus money practically as soon as the bill is signed into law.

    As for the politics of it, CA republicans would have a harder time making their bogus claims of fiscal responsibility if there was actually some money in the pot.  Now, I agree that wouldn't stop the CA republicans from trying it anyway, and, given the 2/3 support requirement for the budget, the republicans would probably carry the day (and let me repeat that they are nutjobs).  But, it doesn't help that the Obama/Nelson/Collins stimulus bill gave them more ammuniation to go to the public with.

    Parent

    I just don't see how (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    The stimulus plan gave them any ammunition?  It seems like there are 2 arguments that aren't related 1)the stimulus is too small and 2) CA republicans are jerks and only read the Weekly standard.  


    Parent
    Funny, well, not funny but illustrative (none / 0) (#57)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:56:08 PM EST
    A few years ago, in Michigan, extension services to farmers was a suggested cut to help solve a budget crisis.

    Farmers, who enthusiastically supported the 12 prior years of Republican tax cutting, wailed, sobbed and moaned.

    I confess I can't remember the outcome but I LOLed every time I read letters to the editor from farmers complaining about the sugggestion.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#12)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:20:17 AM EST
    a second or a third stimuli would do wonders.  I am awaiting the outlawing of savings accounts, and the seizure of 401ks.

    Parent
    What 401k? (none / 0) (#13)
    by eric on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:26:46 AM EST


    Parent
    What about cops, state workers, teachers, fire (none / 0) (#48)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:45:34 PM EST
    fighters?

    Those are the layoff notices going out without passage of the CA budget, right?

    Parent

    Explain, please (none / 0) (#9)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:10:36 AM EST


    Parent
    Wasn't (none / 0) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:09:10 PM EST
    that counter to his original election campaign?

    That is, didn't he say he would solve the fiscal crisis and ending up "solving" it with bond issues?

    Parent

    No words (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:08:12 AM EST
    Well, maybe a couple.  Don't mess with California.  Texas likes to say it but California likes to mean it.

    Parent
    Too late... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by atdleft on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:37:16 AM EST
    The radical right already has. It looks like our Golden State is on its way to becoming a banana republic.

    Parent
    This all started in California (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by mogal on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:09:16 PM EST
    remember, "Government is the Problem, all we have to do is cut taxes." The Gipper was fiction too.

    Parent
    Also (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:05:21 PM EST
    the home of the "taxpayers revolt" of the late 70s.

    Parent
    I can't knock all taxpayer revolts (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:32:08 PM EST
    I took part in the Colorado revolt.  It is important to understand what the underlying factors are.  In Colorado our property taxes began to go through the roof.  Why?  Developers came in and built huge brand new subdivisions during the housing bubble and influx of tech professionals moving to Colorado for employment.  The developers provided no means for building the schools or providing fire or police protection to these new away from the urban center subdivisions.  The building and providing of all these services suddenly became the job of the those of us who owned older existing homes in the more urban areas and/or established existing taxpayers.  The developers didn't want to kick in because it would cut into their profits, and the existing structure was allowing homeowners/taxpayers to have to shell out everything to fund the new subdivisions being populated by many folks moving in building new homes three times as large as our own homes where and much much grander. It needed to stop, and it eventually did.

    Parent
    Blame local government, not developers (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    Cities or counties could have instituted zoning regulations to limit such growth, or required developers to pay toward the needed improvements. Presumably that's why you had a taxpayer revolt. But you also need to elect local representatives who are not controlled by development money, and are willing to tackle the problem of underfunded growth at its root.

    Parent
    Sure, but it can be difficult to battle (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:28:29 PM EST
    the spin to get to the bottom of what is going on, which was commissioners controlled by developer money.  In the mean time though the only thing taxpayers can do is revolt, and they do.

    Parent
    Taxes in CA are part of the problem (none / 0) (#96)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:46:41 PM EST
    I know several families who left CA because the taxes got too high.  I know others who rarely buy anything in the state, because of the very high sales tax.  They buy everything on line, or when they go out of state.  They can't afford to buy anything in CA.  I know business people who would never consider going to CA because of the taxes on businesses.  I know people who can't afford their property taxes in CA, so they have moved to other states.

    Now this budget will put an additional 12cents tax on every gallon of gas!  how will any working family afford that, on top of the other sky high taxes?  The taxes are killing regular, working, families.  

    I don't know the answer to the CA mess, but taxing working people to death is NOT the answer.  

    Parent

    8th largest economy in the world (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:00:29 AM EST
    is the California state budget, according to a news story I saw.  Which larger one will be next?  

    News reports say Sebelius being boxed in by Repub (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    legislature. Unless the Repubs pass measure permitting gov to use monies for other areas to make payroll (with reimbursement coming with April tax payments income), there will be no money for paychecks for many state employees.

    Repubs want to force her to make cuts (during recession bordering on depression). Repubs see tax cuts as the only thing to do. Period. Screw the people.

    Wonder how she's liking the bipartisan love she's getting?

    Now, her situation is whole legislature is Repub; Ahnold's is that Dems have majority but barely more than one third of Repubs in one body can stymie any agreements, partisan, bipartisan, whatever. She has the possibility that Kansans might vote in enough Dems to govern with her; otherwise, she is messed over, as are the citizens of KS. Ahnold can only pray the gerrymandered areas will revolt against their Repubs.

    FUBAR, coming to a state near you.

    Parent

    If what you are saying is true, then (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    her situation is an example of what not having money earmarked and a use it or lose it clause can do.

    I was all for the idea of giving money to the states, but very much hoping that Congress would be smart enough to put conditiions on the money in anticipation of this kind of political gamesmanship at the state level.  There are good arguments for having Federal money go directly to the people rather than funneling it through the state governments and these fights between legislatures and governors is one of them.

    Parent

    NYC and NYState having huge budget problems. (none / 0) (#46)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    Bloomberg cut the January '09 police cadet class, so 1000 fewer policeman will join the force. They hope to have the next class funded, but problems are huge and mass transit riders are going to pay.

    Paterson has made strong cuts in proposed budgets which will affect healthcare, Medicaid, children's health insurance, education, arts programs. Refused to raise taxes on wealthiest, but says may have to.

    Obama Stimulus Bill should help a bit. Seems Alphonse Damato lobbied hard to get funding for the guy who wants to bring the NJ Nets basketball team to Brooklyn. Not sure where that stands.

    NJ is facing big cuts, which may affect Jon Corzine's reelection this year.

    That's the extent of my knowledge about the states. Oh, except that IL has huge budget shortfall.

    Parent

    Sad and shortsighted cut in NYC: dental care for (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    poor kids. Clinics were convenient; now many to be closed.

    Parent
    this is (none / 0) (#94)
    by boredmpa on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:22:25 PM EST
    pure partisan politics that is about to cause a catastrophe in terms of human and economic impact. It's already hurt our credit rating and is therefore losing us millions of dollars as higher rates and special clauses kick in for all sorts of financial instruments.

    The Republicans are stupid for doing it though, because if there are layoffs, the constitution may be amended to lower the requirement and they will have no power.  Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised to see a union supported signature drive to lower the 2/3 budget requirement.

    Parent

    The Ghost Of Howard Jarvis Giggles In Delight (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by tokin librul on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    Probably you can trace this particlar irruption back to the Enron/Energy scandal in 2000-2001. Enron drove Grey Davis from office and initiated the curent fiscal crisis by tying California to high energy prices...and laughed about it, all the way to the bank, as they say...

    A couple of things to add (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cenobite on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:38:25 AM EST
    During the recall, Schwarzneggar ran on repealing the vehicle license fee, which he called "the car tax." In 2003 that cost the state 3.5 billion and this year more like 6 billion. In republican tradition, he did nothing to replace this revenue.

    His first act as governor was to stop Lt Gov Cruz Bustamonte's fraud lawsuit against the power pirates. To the tune of about 12 billion dollars.


    Parent

    The remaining California GOP holdouts (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by magster on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    should vote en masse for the tax increase to protect the one individual member needed to break the impasse from electoral consequences.

    I'd also like to buy the world a Coke and live in harmony.

    Wasn't the 2/3 rule brought about by a (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    ballot referendum?

    aarrgghh.

    By the way, CA dairy farmers are going out of business, as the price of milk (that they get) is half what it costs to feed the cow. Many diary cows will be slaughtered for beef because they can't afford to feed them.

    Your comment made me think (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    that giving so much responsibility to the government also gave them way too much power over our money. Perhaps the bulk of our recovery needs to start at the community level rather than the federal.


    Parent
    ballot initiatives, though, are sold (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    as empowering the people, where they are really misused, in CA at least, to empower the PTB, or at least those that can afford to bankroll an initiative drive.

    The problem with the micro community versus the larger, or federal, community level would be something like: the road ending at the boundary line of the small community that wants to build one...etc.

    Parent

    Ballot initiatives (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by sj on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:24:32 PM EST
    They're misused in Colorado, too.  Lots of big money comes into the state each election cycle to promote yet another radical right wing initiative aimed at such things as union-busting, or bankrupting government in some way.

    Parent
    Could you explain your reasoning? How did gov't (none / 0) (#29)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    affect costs of dairy farming? I know there are milk price agreements, but what are you talking about? thnx.

    Parent
    No connection intended (none / 0) (#30)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    just an aside about the state of the CA economy...that's all. Apparently feed prices have gone sky high lately.

    Parent
    Is government subsidy of Ethanol (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    part of the reason?

    Parent
    not really. (none / 0) (#43)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    corn prices are in the tank again.

    Parent
    Let me add: (none / 0) (#52)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:50:30 PM EST
    No alfalfa fueled cars yet, are there?

    Besides, corn prices are down and ethanol plants are closing, leaving farmers holding the bag...or the bushel, at least.

    Milk prices have fallen due to the hurting US economy and also a world-wide fall in demand for American milk and cheese. The article also cited the effect of the stronger dollar, and a world-wide reaction to poison Chinese milk on the fall in demand.

    read here

    and here

    Parent

    IIRC, farmers are getting way less for their part (none / 0) (#44)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    in the food chain. Apparently, a slice of pizza is back down to $2.00 recently due to drop in cheese costs. And, for some reason, milk prices have also dropped.

    For awhile, corn was getting very high prices, and that fell off when oil declined.

    Diesel, however, stayed well over $2/gal, and now gas is up again and still going up. BP chairman said it was bcz other expenses have gone up, so even though oil is down to $40/bbl or below (heard $30 last night on discussion of problems for Chavez due to lower oil revenues), gas is now costing more again. Say wha'?

    I'm not sure why dairy is being pinched. Fewer people can afford to buy ice cream?

    But it's not state government affecting CA dairy farmers, right?

    Parent

    State enforces clean air/water (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    standards, with some focus on dairy industry, which has huge runoff pollluting problems.

    Parent
    Thank goodness for that! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:50:01 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm not complaining. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:02:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Brilliant (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    Another great victory for the Republican tax religion.
    Just try the (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    GOP problem solver!

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:29:38 PM EST
    nose hair gets me a bigger tax break than hurting big toe.

    Parent
    Faked concern (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:30:54 AM EST
    Republican's across the country feel that this is their last stand. The votes in Congress and California shows that they're more than willing to bring the house down in order to try and regain power. They have no other platform left. Abortion, gay rights and all the other social issues have gone by the wayside. This is the last weapon left in their arsenal.

    What's really disgusting with this fake concern over fiscal responsibility, is that in the eight years of WH control, and 6 yrs of congressional control they never gave it a thought.

    Plenty of criminal irresponsibility... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:33:14 AM EST
    to go around if you ask me...on the part of Repubs for not taxing enough to cover expenses, and Dems spending too much beyond the receivables.  It's a two-way street.

    If only people would stop commiting (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:49:37 AM EST
    crimes in California.  Please--take you lawlessness to another state already.

    Parent
    Maybe you've got too many crimes... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    on your books out in Cali..."3 strikes" comes to mind as a very expensive one.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    due to lack of funds, CA may release 1000's of prisoners.
    Based on this ruling, it's likely that California's prison population will be reduced by 36,000 to 57,000 inmates.  The Times' Michael Rothfeld has the details:

    If the state is ordered to reduce the prison population, it would likely be able to do so over two or three years, so it would not have to release large numbers of inmates at once. Some methods of cutting the population include limiting new admissions, changing policies so parole violators return to prison less frequently, and giving prisoners more time off of their sentences for good behavior and rehabilitation efforts.

    The judges said these types of measures could save the state more than $900 million a year in prison costs, money that could be used by cities and counties to put those who otherwise would have gone to prison into local jails or treatment programs...



    Parent
    You might not agree but... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:34:15 PM EST
    that to me is a silver lining of budget problems, I just hope they start with the non-violent offenders.

    Hopefully NY follows suit and opens some cages...we're only in slightly worse shape financially.

    Parent

    Oh I knew you'd like it, (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:53:30 PM EST
    that's why I posted it to you.


    Parent
    Then how (none / 0) (#72)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    do you explain profligate spending when the GOP held all the cards.

    Parent
    The Dems.... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    didn't have a 1/3 to stop the frivolous spending of Brand R?  

    Parent
    You're kidding (none / 0) (#77)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:08:42 PM EST
    Dem's never have the power to obstruct anything! Look at the last eight years.

    Parent
    Touche.... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    what does that say about the saps that keep voting for them?

    At least Repubs deliver...deliver disaster, but they deliver:)

    Parent

    Huh? Just how far back into the last century (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:44:48 PM EST
    are you thinking is relevant?
    Except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election (even while the governor's office has gone back and forth between Republicans and Democrats). The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970.


    Parent
    Probably hallucinating (none / 0) (#85)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:04:11 PM EST
    I Wasn't referring to California legislature.  My reference was to Federal.

    Somehow I thought that the talk was shifting to just government spending in general.

    I just gave myself an F for the thread.

    Parent

    Well, you just got yourself an A (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:17:12 PM EST
    for self-effacing humor.

    Nicely done.

    Parent

    sarcastic unamed one (none / 0) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 07:14:06 PM EST
    you're very kind

    Parent
    Criminally Negligent (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:01:36 PM EST
    Republicans.

    Criminally Negligent Republicans.

    Who could ever have imagined THAT? </snark>

    Don't paint this as a republican problem (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:27:06 PM EST
    it is a governance problem.

    Like GM and Chrysler the California operating budget is bloated with Union and financial demands for government employees that are unrealistic.   No one can defend a prison guard making 300,000 dollars a year.  At least noone on Talk Left I would think.

    California has created this problem by coddling and expanding government during a pumped up economy and now 14billion in cuts offset by more money in tax hikes and borrowed money is ludicrous.

    Republicans are smart to point out that the proposed solution is just a band aid and real cuts need to be made.   How bout renegotiating union contracts liek GM and Chrysler ahve done instead of reducing pay increases when the state is broke.

    Glad I live in IN.

    Here are some (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    facts about CA's taxing.

    They tax plenty.   They need to cut the bloated state government.

    They are one of the highest taxing states in the nation and they are the most broke.

    Go figure.   AGain a Republican leader with help from democrats spent money like a drunken sailor in good economic times.   Once agains democrats solution is to tax and borrow their way out of it.

    No sense at all.

    Parent

    THE highest. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    CA state income tax 9.3%, only VT's is higher at 9.5%.

    CA state sales tax 7.25%, highest in the nation.

    Gee willikers, if only the taxes were double we wouldn't be in this mess.

    Parent

    Seriously (none / 0) (#84)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:02:15 PM EST
    I couldn't believe the 40% increase in government spending.

    I mean 40%!!!!!

    To me how are we even arguing for a tax increase.  How can a liberal defend that?

    Plus the tax increase is on ciggarettes, gas and food.  How can a liberal defend that?  Then they want to borrow 14billion with a junk bond rating?

    BTD, defend yourself.

    Parent

    That's a good question (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:18:55 PM EST
    Are we interested in looking any deeper, or are we just going to run around going "OMG! 40%!!!!!" based on a single op-ed?

    This site suggests that the budget was basically flat from 2001 through 2005, then it took a huge leap in 2006 and again in 2007, and it was flat again from 2008-09.

    I think it would be interesting to try and figure out what, specifically, accounted for those two huge spikes in 2006 and 2007.  If we're going to blame it on the usual suspects like public sector unions, we'd have to figure out why we don't see similar increases in other years - when, presumably, unions were in existence as well.

    You're asking a good question but I think we still need to answer it.

    Parent

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 09:29:10 AM EST
    I'm sure some good things had money spent on them but the simple fact reamins obvious, you can't have it all.

    CA taxes more then almost every state and that doesn't include regulatory costs that are passed through buisnesses to taxpayers in the form of high costs for everything.   Move to San Diego or San Fran and tell me that the average person can afford to live there.  

    The governator dropped the ball along with the democratic legistlature.  They raised government spending right along with the economy when they should have been producing a surplus with the rising tide.   Now the tide has gone out and they are left with commitments or "cuts" that aren't feasible.

    A quote in the LA Times piece had the head of the teachers union quoted saying "I'll except cuts".  Problem was for her a "cut" is only a decrease in the amount or percentage of an eventual raise.  

    I get the feeling that across their government this is the attitude that is making it impossible for the CA governmet to reduce their commitments.  

    Simple fact is you can't keep going to the well, the taxpayer, and expect your problems to go away.

    Parent

    Same going on with a Dem gov (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    in Wisconsin -- hiking cigarette tax again to third highest in the nation (but never, never hike beer and booze tax, despite the highest drunk driving rate in the nation) and taxing gas to the max, too, and that's atop a fed requirement for additives that makes it among the highest-priced gas in the country.

    And this with a Dem gov.  But not for long, my bet, with the massive budget cuts to be announced tonight, except for the highway robbery lobby, the road builders, who are protected no matter which party is in power.  But state services and education are going to be slashed to bits.

    How is it different to have a Dem gov?  Be prepared for Wisconsin to go to a Repub gov again -- and for a record-setting decade and a half again.  The experiment of a Dem gov will be over for another generation in Wisconsin.
         

    Parent

    California sales tax is... (none / 0) (#98)
    by mexboy on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 02:06:02 AM EST
    8.25 not 7.25

    Parent
    7.25% is CA's take. (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    The extra 1.0 is LA County's vig. Other counties take more or less.

    Parent
    I'm with the Republicans on this one (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:20:18 PM EST
    I live in California and paying a 24 cent tax on a gallon of gas is ridiculous. It is also insane to raise the vehicle registration fee to hundreds of dollars.

    Everything is already too expensive here and wages don't seem to go up. There are just too many people who would not be able to afford to drive; driving here is a necessity.

    Vehicle license fee is based on the car price (none / 0) (#95)
    by akaEloise on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:31:54 PM EST
    Drive a cheap used car, and the VLF is not a problem.  Mine is about $55 this year, so even if it tripled, I'd be fine with that.    

    Parent
    I don't want to get stuck on the freeway (none / 0) (#97)
    by mexboy on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 01:59:14 AM EST
    My car is not a ridiculously expensive car, but it is not an old car either. I used to have an old car and I never knew when it was going to leave me stranded. You also need a nice car for business.  You can't show up in an old car to a business meeting and pretend you are successful.

    Cars in California are a necessity.  Insurance is already mandatory, so with higher renewal fees, in a few years time I will have paid more than the car is worth in renewal and insurance fees.

    There's plenty of misuse of funds by politicians, let's cut the fat there!

    Parent

    It is criminal (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by azdude on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 07:59:55 AM EST
    that both parties allowed spending to so far outpace the means to actually PAY THE BILLS.

    Well, shootfire, (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    seems the Dem leaders have plenty of cash to buy the votes of the Dem legislators that they need, why shouldn't they do the same to get the Repub votes?
    Sen. Lou Correa, D-Anaheim, was the only Democrat in the Legislature not to voice initial support for the mix of tax increases and budget cuts that are intended to close California's $42 billion budget deficit.

    He campaigned against tax increases in 2006, winning by just 1 percentage point in his Orange County district. He fears that opponents will use a vote for a tax hike against him when he stands for re-election in 2010.

    Correa's vote is crucial because Republicans have said they will not put up more than the minimum number of GOP votes required--three in each house--meaning all Democrats have to vote for the two-year budget fix.

    Correa's support was uncertain until Democratic leaders inserted language into the budget bills that would send millions of dollars to Orange County.



    It is weird to blame only Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by abdiel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    Why should they vote for something they don't agree with?  They want spending cuts instead of tax increases, then they either need to be bought off with pork or the bill needs a compromise to cut spending.

    Parent
    That was tried -then they just demand more cuts (none / 0) (#49)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:48:58 PM EST
    in taxes and programs. They've got the 1/3rd to keep anything from passing. Takes a super-duper majority.

    Parent
    Their wish for spending cuts is (none / 0) (#66)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    coming true if 20,000 state government employees are fired and contruction projects are halted.  There is no reason in the world what they have to vote for the budget bill - they get what they want without doing so.

    Parent
    it's funny that Blago (none / 0) (#50)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    was impeached for doing stuff that goes on every day in congress...

    quite funny in fact...

    Parent

    First Layoffs Should Be... (none / 0) (#36)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    the staffs of the California State legislators.  A drop in the bucket but a very symbolic one.

    Maybe last chance for Repubs to kill New Deal type (none / 0) (#40)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    programs, at all levels of government?

    In CA, they've succeeded in bamboozling the public into voting for ballot measures which have lead to a precipitous decline in the quality and availability of public post-secondary education and also cutting financing for K-12. Sad and awful situation.

    Now, in CA I guess the Repubs see a way to drown state government, at least, in the bathtub.

    WNYC had a segment today about the pushback by the wealthy and big business interests which began in reaction to FDR's New Deal and continued on to enable St. Ronnie to get into office and  culminated in the dismantling of government programs serving the general public's needs (at least comptetence in the management of government programs) under BushBoy. (One hopes they've done their worst....)

    The author felt these forces would work tooth and nail against FDR-type programs from Obama, and, relative to their strength in the 30's, they are much stronger now, have built up "think tanks," have the ear and mouth of the MCM*, and have "grass roots" organizations ready to go. Universal healthcare, unless for profit, will drive them into, well, overdrive.

    The author, however, sees Obama as someone who works within the parameters of free market, free trade which the Repubs have established. She does not see him as an FDR-type Democrat.

    The program will be available as audio later today on WNYC.org.

    Invisible Hands
    The American conservative movement might be in tatters today, but historian Kim Phillips-Fein argues that the Reagan Revolution owes much of its credit to a coterie of business executives who provided financing, organization and fervor the movement from the 1960's on. Her book is called Invisible Hands.

    Contrary to the station's blurb, the author posits these groups began in the 30's and rededicated efforts after the huge Goldwater loss.

    She mentioned Roger(?) Milliken, owner of the fabric mills, who, when one of his mills'employees voted to unionize, just closed the mill rather than deal with a union. Wealthy enough, at the time, to cut off a profit source to support his anti-union principles. Business still privately owned.

    *MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media

    yes it is. (none / 0) (#73)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    This is criminal irresponsibility by California Republicans.

    yet, they'll crow about it, and find a way to blame it on the democrats, and their "tax & spend" ways.

    clearly, massive tax cuts would have avoided this whole mess.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:42:24 PM EST
    Not increasing gov't spending 40% would have avoided this whole mess.

    40%!!!!!

    That's insane.  Now the taxpayer should pay more?

    Insanity.

    Parent

    Gloomy Outlook (none / 0) (#76)
    by melpol on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    Good times will soon be over. Not only will we see long soup lines but there will be medical clinic lines stretching for miles. Having the patience to wait for days to get free service will become a leading virtue. Suicide providers will become top earners.

    Free medical service in California? (none / 0) (#99)
    by mexboy on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 02:10:19 AM EST
    Having the patience to wait for days to get free service will become a leading virtue

    bhwa ha ha

    Parent

    I don't get this: (none / 0) (#103)
    by victor82 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    Democrats control the Assembly, the SEIU, the Teacher's Unions, and you have a liberal Republican Governor.

    And you're suprised that State spending has grown by 40% in the Arnie years?

    You're trying to blame Republicans when we don't control the Assembly?  We don't have the power to move the money.

    Trust me: the voters won't blame the Republicans. They're not as stupid as you think they are.

    Grand Ole Spending Party (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 11:35:20 AM EST
    That 40% sounds in line with BushCo spending. If anything the public will no longer be fooled that the GOP is for smaller government and reining in spending.

    VOters know that Republicans have no standing when it comes to the economy.

    Parent

    The GOP is committing political suicide (none / 0) (#104)
    by JohnRJ08 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    I live in California and believe that we are grotesquely over-taxed. I live in a relatively modest home and still pay more than $7,000/year in property taxes. Between that, sales tax and state tax, it's no wonder that many people and businesses are leaving the state. However, we are in a crisis now and the legislature needs to act responsibly. It needs to prevent the state's economic system from collapsing, because re-building it will cost even more. I'm willing to pay more taxes based on my income, and maybe a consumption tax of some sort, in order to put a tourniquet on the situation, but they need to leave property taxes and gasoline tax alone. Raising those would have a reverse effect on the state's economy. The Republicans in the state legislature that are obstructing a new budget are going to be responsible for the collapse of our entire economy, just as the Republicans in Congress have tried to do over the last month.

    Why not compromise? (none / 0) (#107)
    by bubarooni on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 02:48:07 PM EST
    If Dems would come out and say 'we are gonna do away with x number of state jobs, do away with x number of state programs and cut other spending by x if you give us the tax increases we need to close the remaining gap' you'd probably get that vote you want.

    They seem to be more afraid of their supporters (unions, enviros, etc.) then they are of a state shutdown.

    Everyone of those state job losses would be a personal tragedy for someone and to the people they serve, just as it is when private enterprise has to layoff someone.  Times are tight though and organizations, including government, need to make painful cuts that reflect the reality that money coming in to coffers is less than what it was.

    California is being strangled by a stiffling bureaucracy and the heavy yoke of taxes that are required to support it, not by to little money.  Quit chasing away overburdened taxpayers and businesses and please don't ask the rest of the country to bail you out.  

    California Into the Abyss | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment