We hate to say we told you so because this development really isn't good for the state. But the state budget that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders agreed to last month is already falling apart. It was built on faulty assumptions, and now it's clear that revenue projections will never meet their targets.
We discuss this in today's main editorial in The Bee. Click here to read it.
The Legislature and governor have three options: Cut spending, raise revenue or do a combination of both. The Democrats won't reduce spending and the Republicans won't raise taxes. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is in the middle. The solution last time was to borrow money and concoct a budget that was balanced on paper and not in reality.
My Sunday column explained how local governments -- Fresno and Clovis -- have dealt with the reality of the tough economic times and state leaders have ignored the problem. Click here to read that column.
They will never get it in the black until they cut all their perks, prioritize and spend only what we have. Just like the people that are struggling for food and housing but still have cable and cell phones. CHOP CHOP
Jay-K...Are you accepting public assistance for anything? Are all programs losers? Chop all or some? We have two trains running in opposite directions(revenue and spending)that will only be farther apart next year as the effects of the national economic problems settle in. As much as I dislike tax increases we will have to raise revenue from somewhere while cutting/freezing spending or we'll be chasing the wind.You seem to think your opinion is important... so give it.
It is not a matter of not knowing how. It is a matter of not being willing to. Both Republicans and Democrats find sticking to their platforms more important than doing what needs to be done. I submit in fact that the people in California are just as guilty. Local governments, special interests, unions, non-profits, etc. want cuts as long as it doesn’t affect them. Every difficult decision is met with outrage. Cuts need to be made. They need to be made in such a way that everyone sacrifices and shares the burden. Jackie coined the problem well. When I was a kid my parents decided to pursue college educations for the good of the family. We all sacrificed. We lived in a two room apartment, got one pair of shoes a year, Mom made our clothes from remnants and the last ten days of every month we ate beans, broth and vegetables from our own garden. To this day I can no longer stomach the taste of beans. For five years we sacrificed and the result was a lifetime of benefit. California needs to sacrifice. The sooner we start the sooner we will be out of it and back on track. There is always a way. People will make do. We need to return to the basics and strengthen our foundation before we just wash away so to speak. This is true of the State as well as individuals and families.
Yes Brian my opinion is just as important as yours. I don't expect that everyone will agree with my opinion and that is ok cause I respect theirs as well. The key word there is Respect. I do not receive public aid of any kind and if I did I would not have this computer or internet service. My post was referring to cuts at the State level and all the perks they receive like cars, credit cards, gas cards etc as those things are all in our state budget and should be cut before important programs. They will have to generate revenue somehow most likely with tax hikes and I have no problem with that as long as it goes for necessary things. I have lived check to check not being sure if there would be enough to carry us through but I didn't spend what I didn't have either. It is called a budget.
I go along (in alphabetical order) with Jackie Krage and Kim Tanksley. When
a tree becomes top-heavy one lightens the top and not chop at the roots that
keep the tree alive.
All too many of elected and appointed government officials believe that a two
to eight year stint is a lifetime gravy train. And in a way it is. Their pensions
alone multiply on us tax payers faster than the speed in the free fall. Not
to speak of other lifetime benefits for them.
Where in the private sector can one get a pension for a handful of years worked. Many working people are lucky if they ever get a pension at all. But in a democratic form of government we get the kind of government we allow. And that's the damn truth.
Jay-K...Good for you.It's just the first question I have for people regarding the budget.Those cuts you speak of with the perks would be symbolic at best in balancing the budget...It doesn't mean I disagree with going after them.Some things are mandated but portions of the budget are not. What would you cut and what would you keep.What are you willing to give up?How about closing parks or an increase in vehicle registration fee? I've named two ...now it's somebody elses turn.
I don't thin we need to close parks but we do need to ytilize prisoners to keep them and our highways clean. They should be working for their keep. A one cent tax hike to start and registration fee increase. I would love to look at the budget and see where cuts could be made. The Ca Lottery was supposed to help eduscation tremendously but I don't see that happening so where is that money going cause I know people are playing it. I do not believe cuts should be made on senior programs and just think there is a huge volunteer base out here that should be utilized for many services.
I like a lot of the ideas presented so far (cuts and fee/tax increases), except for closing parks.
What about my proposal to abolish the two-house Legislature and replace it with a single house? The unicameral system is working well in Nebraska. For starters, you'd only need one set of legislative staffers.
Now that would be revolutionary. Here's a link to my recent column on the issue:
http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/boren/story/896785.html
I am for the one house one party system and just think that is the only way to get things accomplished. Its teamwork and rivals arent on the same team. Red and blue needs to blend alreadythen we can be purple.
Presently, I am ambivalent about uni-cameral vs. bi-cameral legislature. I would
have to research the impact on "Checks and Balances."
But I most vigorously would oppose a "one party system" though it would save a lot
of money doing away with elections. It is my presumption that Jackie Krage did not
mean to suggest that.
Yes I would love to have a one party system so that things could get done instead of bickering back and forth over every little thing. Both parties are guilty of it. It just makes it too difficult to get things accomplished.
Which party? Republican! Democrat? George Lincoln Rockwell's?
How would that one party get into the Capitol in Sacramento. Walk in? Sit Down and start ruling? What about the United States Constitution? What about the Federal Government's Supremacy Claus?
I think a one party system would not be very practical in a republic.
If the post had been meant to get our attention? It has!
I think it should be called the Common Sense party but do not know how we could know for sure that they had any. They should be fired just like in any other job if they don't get the job done.
It may shock you that I am for a flat tax too. The same for all across the board.
Advocating flat tax is here one blogger's trip, but it is not shocking. But back
to the one party system.
16 and 1/2 million allied soldiers of 14 countries, 1/2 million of them American soldiers have been killed to fight a one party system, tantamount to totalitarianism.
That does not include the dead resistance and partisans, nor the millions of civilians that have been killed during World War II. We who have been there, would rather not look upon it with facetiousness when it comes to freedom, to democratic form of government. May it be bi-cameral or uni-cameral. But which of them must be determined by free elections.
To elect the candidates from just one party (not likely) still would not be a one party system.
Should there be a suggestion to lighten up...forget it!
Re: Changing the California legislature to a one party system.
It is so discouraging to be be made short thrift of for doing proper research
and posting correct information. Either people refuse to deal in reality or
they can't abide with the fact that their data was erroneous.
"The Supremacy Clause is a part of Article 7 of the United States Constitution. The clause explicitly states that the laws of the national government of the United States are the supreme law of the country, ranking above the laws of any member state.
Text of the Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Retrieved from "http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause"