So, seriously, when will California finally break??? (New $2B bond axed).....

[RedChief]

This. Tyranny of the Minority. California's Constitution is set up in such a way as to have the cake and eat it too. If, and it appears to be the case, the Voters have over extended their ability to Pay for what they want, the best way to Know is to have Taxes Raised to meet the Demands they are making. Without that side of the Equation, they keep adding more Cost blissfully unaware of the Cost of what they Demand. Think of it as simple Supply/Demand, except without and concept of what the Supply is.

The idea behind it isn't completely bad, as it was to limit the Government's ability to add Cost. However, if the Government is not the Driver of increased Cost, it fucks everything up because the Driver(the Voter) is never asked to bear the Cost. That's not Fiscal Conservatism, it is simple Fiscal Fail.

You really need to look up why Prop13 was passed in the first place. In the 1970's, property taxes were rising so fast that people who lived in their house for 30-40 years were being kicked out due to the increased property taxes.

As to today, the problem is not that the revenue hasn't been increased, its that spending has skyrocketed for the past 10 years. Republicans can be blamed for this, but nt for blocking tax increases. After the 2001 census the Reps in the legislature opted to agree to a redistricting plan that consigned them to a permanent minority. What we ended up with is Democrat districts in LA where a legislature is elected with under 100k votes while republicans are in districts where they need 200k+ votes to be competitve. Note that the population of the districts are within 2% (hello illegal aliens).

Lets also add in the entire issue with baseline budgeting so state departments have a incentive to spend all their budget so they get an increase the next year.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You really need to look up why Prop13 was passed in the first place. In the 1970's, property taxes were rising so fast that people who lived in their house for 30-40 years were being kicked out due to the increased property taxes.

As to today, the problem is not that the revenue hasn't been increased, its that spending has skyrocketed for the past 10 years. Republicans can be blamed for this, but nt for blocking tax increases. After the 2001 census the Reps in the legislature opted to agree to a redistricting plan that consigned them to a permanent minority. What we ended up with is Democrat districts in LA where a legislature is elected with under 100k votes while republicans are in districts where they need 200k+ votes to be competitve. Note that the population of the districts are within 2% (hello illegal aliens).

Lets also add in the entire issue with baseline budgeting so state departments have a incentive to spend all their budget so they get an increase the next year.

I agree but let me further add...

The entire prop 13 issue (just like the fed tax issue brought up earlier) is a diversion and a scam by the left to gain access to more tax revenue to squander away and tax the crap out of the middle class in the state. Sorry until CA's government can demonstrate that it can work and function properly within the constraints of a budget without fudging the numbers and stealing from Paul to pay Peter I along with every other home owner who has worked their ass off to buy and own their own home will not let the states legislator even dream of giving politicians the ability to increase property taxes.

Literally giving access and the ability to increase property taxes to politicians would be akin to having your credit card info posted in your online forum signature and not expecting online criminals to run up the bill because its "FREE MONEY".

 

[Greenman]

Have I mentioned you continue posting dishonest idiocy lately? Oh ya, a couple minutes ago in my last post to another of your posts in another thread.

You don't mention the big problems at all from Republicans here, from their Prop 13 cutting off of taxes to balance the budget to the 1/3 of Republican in the Legislature having a veto over ANY new tax and pledging to pass zero. I think dishonest idiocy fits the post you made quite well. As for the topic you do mention, California like other blue states does indeed pay more in federal taxes while getting less in return compared to red states, in part because the constitution had the Senate very unbalanced to favor low-population states which tend to be Republican, with each Californian getting 1/50 the representation of some Repubs.

Prop 13 wasn't passed by republicans alone, it was a ballot measure that passed because property values were going through the roof, and the state was spending like a drunken sailor. A whole bunch of democrats checked the "yes" box as well.

 

[Greenman]

Way too many deadbeats and not enough producers. People like my mom for example, a retired UCI professor, getting $140K per year from calpers and she probably has 30-40 years left god willing. There are millions like her from cops to prison guards to teachers. Unsustainable.

By definition if you take out more than you contribute you are a liability - deadbeats are another whole subset of liabilities who contribute absolutely nothing but take from the system - school children, state retirees and prisoners for example - issues California will need to address to fiscal responsibility since they make up the most spending.

Thats actually the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Pensions are killing California, but it's never talked about. You work for twenty years, and get paid for life. I know a young fellow who works for the fire department, he started at 25, at 45 he retires at 100% pay and benefits for life. Unless of course the city he works for goes broke, and it will, then he's screwed.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Prop 13 wasn't passed by republicans alone, it was a ballot measure that passed because property values were going through the roof, and the state was spending like a drunken sailor. A whole bunch of democrats checked the "yes" box as well.

Shhhhh....that's the dirty little dem secret they don't want you to talk about while they lay down the guilt trip.

 

[Brigandier]

Thats actually the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Pensions are killing California, but it's never talked about. You work for twenty years, and get paid for life. I know a young fellow who works for the fire department, he started at 25, at 45 he retires at 100% pay and benefits for life. Unless of course the city he works for goes broke, and it will, then he's screwed.

100 percent pay is a little silly, considering the US Military only pays 1/2 base pay after 20 years.

These explosives debts will be dealt with sooner or later, hopefully the fat cats work on an expedited schedule.

 

[bfdd]

I love California.

 

[Craig234]

Prop 13 wasn't passed by republicans alone, it was a ballot measure that passed because property values were going through the roof, and the state was spending like a drunken sailor. A whole bunch of democrats checked the "yes" box as well.

As has been said many times, there was a problem, and Prop 13 did SOME good and a lot of bad.

No one has said Prop 13 was ALL bad. The poibt you ignore is it had very bad things in it.

THat's classic for bad things to get passed - put them in compelling bill. Indeed after Prop 13 as I recall the rules were changed to limit initiatives to one thing to prevent that.

Some right wingers thought slashed taxes for commercial real estate they couldn't normally get passed had an opportunity, IMO, with the redsidential property tax issue to get bundled and passed, and they did.

And while they're at it, predicting the backlash and need for taxes, add in a crippling change for the vote needed to pass new taxes to 2/3 knowing that's all but impossible.

Voters weren't voting to let commercial properties that can be under the owner for decades get hugely reduced taxes. They weren't voting for the disabling of the legislature to tax to pay the bills IMO.

THey had a problem with residential property taxes and passed the thing the right put i front of them, a bill funded to get on the ballot by right-wing millionares who had a lot to gain.

 

[Patranus]

LOL - A judge just ruled that the state has to pay back pay to workers who were given mandatory days off.

What is ironic is that those workers will soon be taking every day off without pay.

 

[StageLeft]

LOL - A judge just ruled that the state has to pay back pay to workers who were given mandatory days off.

What is ironic is that those workers will soon be taking every day off without pay.

Pyrrhic.

The pensions in CA are truly ridickulous.

 

[Mursilis]

Thats actually the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Pensions are killing California, but it's never talked about. You work for twenty years, and get paid for life. I know a young fellow who works for the fire department, he started at 25, at 45 he retires at 100% pay and benefits for life. Unless of course the city he works for goes broke, and it will, then he's screwed.

If that's true, that's just amazing. Wow. No wonder they're headed off a financial cliff. Not even the Federal Gov't is THAT generous. But again, thanks to Cali for serving as a cautionary tale for the rest of us.

 

[Greenman]

As has been said many times, there was a problem, and Prop 13 did SOME good and a lot of bad.

No one has said Prop 13 was ALL bad. The poibt you ignore is it had very bad things in it.

THat's classic for bad things to get passed - put them in compelling bill. Indeed after Prop 13 as I recall the rules were changed to limit initiatives to one thing to prevent that.

Some right wingers thought slashed taxes for commercial real estate they couldn't normally get passed had an opportunity, IMO, with the redsidential property tax issue to get bundled and passed, and they did.

And while they're at it, predicting the backlash and need for taxes, add in a crippling change for the vote needed to pass new taxes to 2/3 knowing that's all but impossible.

Voters weren't voting to let commercial properties that can be under the owner for decades get hugely reduced taxes. They weren't voting for the disabling of the legislature to tax to pay the bills IMO.

THey had a problem with residential property taxes and passed the thing the right put i front of them, a bill funded to get on the ballot by right-wing millionares who had a lot to gain.

I disagree Craig, all of that is exactly what was voted for, and it was all necessary. This state is run by foolish wasters, business is actively driven away, illegals get everything free, unions get anything they ask for, and the middle class is expected to pay for it all.

 

[BoberFett]

I love California.

California is a wonderful state. The only problem is all the Californians.

 

[JeepinEd]

People like Craig234 keep bitching about the 2/3 needed to raise taxes. I would say, rather than changing that to 50%, our legislature should need a 2/3 majority in order to increase spending.

 

[Hacp]

If Nebraska can get a break on healthcare, maybe California can get a break on transfer payments to the red states. This reminds me of New York City's crisis in the 70s when folks were wagging their fingers at NYC, ignoring that NYC residents paid out far more in state and federal taxes than they got back in state and federal services, subsidizing the finger waggers.

You are correct. The answer to the budget problems is less taxes. Welcome to the club .

 

[marincounty]

You are correct. The answer to the budget problems is less taxes. Welcome to the club .

Sure it is. That's worked really well the past 8 years for the federal govt. Oh wait...

 

[Craig234]

People like Craig234 keep bitching about the 2/3 needed to raise taxes. I would say, rather than changing that to 50%, our legislature should need a 2/3 majority in order to increase spending.

Let's make it 100% required to spend or tax.

Or let's just get rid of the power to spend or tax at all. Who needs representative government?

 

[Craig234]

I disagree Craig, all of that is exactly what was voted for, and it was all necessary. This state is run by foolish wasters, business is actively driven away, illegals get everything free, unions get anything they ask for, and the middle class is expected to pay for it all.

No, it wasn't, but thanks for parroting ideology.

 

[Hacp]

Sure it is. That's worked really well the past 8 years for the federal govt. Oh wait...

Ok I was wrong. less taxes and less spending. Lets fire all those lazy state union workers and hire cheaper and more motivated people. We're at 10% unemployment. I'm sure a large percentage of that 10% is willing to work for 20k with no benefits.

Heck, we can probably fire the workers and rehire them for less.

 

[Craig234]

LOL - A judge just ruled that the state has to pay back pay to workers who were given mandatory days off.

What is ironic is that those workers will soon be taking every day off without pay.

Yes, the judge should ignore the law and pass what you think is good policy instead. If you are right on policy, they should make it the law. The judge's role isn't to do that.

 

[MotF Bane]

No, it wasn't, but thanks for parroting ideology.

Funny, but parroting ideology is exactly what you do here continuously.

Yes, the judge should ignore the law and pass what you think is good policy instead. If you are right on policy, they should make it the law. The judge's role isn't to do that.

This part is worth quoting and keeping around.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Have I mentioned you continue posting dishonest idiocy lately? Oh ya, a couple minutes ago in my last post to another of your posts in another thread.

You don't mention the big problems at all from Republicans here, from their Prop 13 cutting off of taxes to balance the budget to the 1/3 of Republican in the Legislature having a veto over ANY new tax and pledging to pass zero. I think dishonest idiocy fits the post you made quite well. As for the topic you do mention, California like other blue states does indeed pay more in federal taxes while getting less in return compared to red states, in part because the constitution had the Senate very unbalanced to favor low-population states which tend to be Republican, with each Californian getting 1/50 the representation of some Repubs.

There were no Republicans back when the constitution was developed.

The Senate was designed to provide EQUAL value to each state.

The House was designed/intended to be proportional representation.

And it has worked fairly well. The EQUAL Senate keeps a counterbalance to the proportional House.

 

[StageLeft]

Unfortunately the judge may have been doing his job properly in which case the law he went by does need correction.

 

[Craig234]

There were no Republicans back when the constitution was developed.

The Senate was designed to provide EQUAL value to each state.

Who said anything about Republicans? Republicans have nothing to do with the disproportionate representation for the low-population states, whatever their party.

There was no California when the constitution was founded, either, with 40 million people getting the same representation as under a million in other states.

The House was designed/intended to be proportional representation.

And it has worked fairly well. The EQUAL Senate keeps a counterbalance to the proportional House.

That's like saying 'men and women each get one vote for the House, but women get 10 votes for each Senator and men one vote, as a balance to the gender equality in the House'.

You don't NEED to balance equality with inequality.

Who says big areas of dirt with a few people are deserving of 'balance' of political power with states with more people? One voter, one vote makes sense. One voter, 50 times the weight of another voter doesn't.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Who said anything about Republicans? Republicans have nothing to do with the disproportionate representation for the low-population states, whatever their party.

There was no California when the constitution was founded, either, with 40 million people getting the same representation as under a million in other states.



That's like saying 'men and women each get one vote for the House, but women get 10 votes for each Senator and men one vote, as a balance to the gender equality in the House'.

You don't NEED to balance equality with inequality.

Who says big areas of dirt with a few people are deserving of 'balance' of political power with states with more people? One voter, one vote makes sense. One voter, 50 times the weight of another voter doesn't.

you brought up the issue of republicans. do we really have to quote you to prove it? just look a post or two above?

the house provides proportional representation - allowing states with large populations (eg, california) to have proper representation.

in order to prevent the large states from walking all over the small states (because with proportional representation, that would be easy to do), the senate allows each state to have an equal say.

not that i intended for this to be a history and/or civics lesson.. but i hope you get the idea now, craig