Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is making hopeful noises about a deal on the budget with the Democrats in the Legislature. He's been meeting with them -- to the exclusion of the Republican leadership -- and said that he and the Dems made "some great progress" on Sunday.
Of course, any deal based on the Democrats' end-run around the two-thirds majority required to raise taxes will put the whole business in court lickety-split. So I hope the governor and the Democratic leaders will excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
Villines, Codgill and the Legislative Republicans have only themselves to blame for being left out. They took themselves out of the picture by signing their "no tax pledge" with Grover Norquist (who has no stake in the financial well-being of our state), and their subsequent refusal to budge or even negotiate in good faith. All they can hope for now is to find some "activist" judge to overturn any compromise reached by the Governor and the Democrats, and plunge the state into economic turmoil. Way to represent one of the poorest parts of the state, guys!
Russ Minick! I am truly sorry to be a wet blanket. But only in a dictatorship must the people take what is handed out to them. And I am convinced that the Declaration of Independence made that abundantly clear. And if that means going to the barricades, than so be it!
Gee Mike(D)why should the Reps have any say in a budget deal.Democratic stupidity got us into this so,in your world, Democratic stupidity should get us out.In case you didn't notice...the state is already in economic turmoil and just maybe all those illegal aliens are a major reason this is the poorest part of the state? Thanks for you and your cohorts efforts to turn this state into a third world toilet... anybody want to buy my house so I can leave?
What is it about, "it’s absolutely broken," that we don’t understand?
It doesn’t do any good to set a broken leg if the person ain’t breathing!
Brian, thanks for that little excursion in illogical thinking. You say that "Democratic studity got us into this," but you don't define what "this" is. If you were paying attention, you would know that the Democrats don't have the ability to impose their will when it comes to the budget. Every budget passed up to now has been a compromise between the legislative parties. But this year, perhaps taking their cue from you, the GOP has refused to compromise. So they took themselves out of the process.
I notice that you are still trying to blame everything on illegal aliens. Didn't you learn anything from your failed attempt to blame the housing crisis on them?
Mike: Personally I feel the Republicans will agree to a temporary tax increase, probably 2 years, in exchange for a strong budget cap so this problem will not occur again. It does no good to resolve this problem if the Dems are going to keep up their spending ways and put us right back again. I also hope they can get some concessions on wages and personally I feel their per diem needs to be reduced if not eliminated so that all parties. employees, legislators, and taxpayers are putting into the pot.
Jim, any spending cap is going to primarily affect school districts, since that is the biggest share of the budget. School districts need some stability, not this continual uncertainty and being yanked around by the State. We need some more fundamental reforms in the state finance system, not just autopilot solutions like hard caps and across-the-board cuts. We complain a lot about the Legislature (usually deservedly), but every time we take a decision out of the Legislature's hands, things tend to get worse, rather than better. Maybe we should just throw out the whole State Constitution and adopt the constitution of some state that works better.
On the State government side, most of the bleeding is in the prison system. I agree that we need a lot of reform there, but that's not going to happen in one whirlwind budget session. It's too bad that, even with all his personal clout, Schwarzenneggar wasn't able or willing to take on the prison guards' union.
One more thought about the "budget cap" proposal, Jim. A fundamental principle of representantive government is that one legislature cannot tie the hands of future legislatures. So any hard spending cap would have to be in the state Constitution (maybe that's what is being proposed). That means we will have to vote on it (when?).
If we're going to go through the trouble and expense of having a special election to vote on a spending cap, I'd much rather have the chance to vote on some more fundamental reforms that would restore some sanity to the process. Maybe start by clearing the slate of some of the "reforms" we enacted in the past that haven't worked out so well.
With all due respect Mike a responsible legislature also would have money set aside in a reserve fund to handle these types of things as should the school district. The problem is that they always want to spend every cent they have. Also the schools have plenty of money. Every year they keep tossing more at it and the problems persist. It will not get better until you can get the parents off of their *** and make them get involved with their kids and their studies like our parents used to do. I have talked to many teachers over the years and this is where they need the help. I also just spoke to 2 staffers in separate legislative offices and it is their belief a budget cap does not need to go before the voters and they are checking on it.
We need to get back to the basics folks. Live within a budget, put money aside for emergencies,
and work with these students and make them realize they are responsible and are expected to do well.
also Mike the budget cap is not meant to penalize the school district, it is meant to rein in a legislature that refuses to live with a budget and handle money and their duties responsibly. If we ran our households like they run the state, we would all be bankrupt which is exactly where we are headed.
Jim, although I agree with setting aside a rainy day fund is a good idea, this can only be done on the State level. School districts and other agencies run by the State are not allowed to keep the money they save for their own rainy day fund. If they don't spend it they lose it. Cost saving measures are not recognized and in fact punished by losing those funds and future funds for those not spent. California needs to revamp the financial rules which in many cases will require changes in the law. By doing that, not only will there be less waste but more accountability by the different agencies, school districts, etc. for the choices they make.
With all due respect Mike a responsible legislature also would have money set aside in a reserve fund to handle these types of things as should the school district.
With regards to the Legislature, that's why we need to make fundamental changes in the system. With term limits, gerrymandered districts and hyperpartisanship in both parties, there is no incentive to compromise with the other party or make provisions for the future. Their careers depend on cozying up to their base to ensure their political survival when they are termed out.
As for school districts, they do have funds set aside for rainy days (in fact, that is mandated by law). That's the only reason many districts have been able to avoid massive layoffs so far this year. As for having plenty of money, I don't know where you get that from. You seem to be arguing both ways - that they have plenty of money, yet they spend too much. Which is it?
We might indeed see better results if the parents were made to get involved with their childrens' education. However, while most school districts do encourage parental involvement, they have no authority to require it.
aks I believe you are wrong on what you said. Although the state can mandate certain things to the school district and in the event of financial problems, as an example, be taken over or supervised by the County Dept of Education, they are not run by the state, they have their own elected body and determine their own budget. Now their may be some conditions on certain funds but remember not all their funding comes from the state and they can have a emergency fund as I just verified with a school board member.
Mike I was not having it both ways. In my opinion they have plenty of money, they need to use it wisely and in doing that it should include a emergency fund. I am also simply stating that parents have to get involved in their kids education and make them realize doing well is not an option, it is expected. I also realize that the schools cannot make the parents get involved but they can certainly encourage the parents to get more involved. The point I am making is that simply throwing more money at is not going to solve the problem.
It one thing - a good thing - to try and save a drowning taxpayer; but once in a while we need to journey upstream and see just who it is that is throwing 'em in! And then do something about it! Seriously, do somethinhg about it!
Jim, most districts do handle their money relatively well for the most part. (Of course, there are inefficiencies as in all organizations.) It makes the news when a district gets in trouble (like Oakland and West Fresno). But school funding and budgeting is a very complex field, and there are a lot of competing pressures on them. When the State makes mid-year budget cuts (like this year), it throws everything out of whack, as school budgets have already been finalized, teachers hired, contracts signed, etc. If the State would just tell them how much money to expect, and stick by it, they wouldn't have nearly as much trouble. But politics in Sacramento causes problems down the line. I don't know what you mean by "throwing money at problems," but reducing the amount of money they get is certainly not going to solve anything.
It seems to me both Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson raised taxes when they faced a budget crisis in California.
If you venture upststream, what you will find is fewer taxpayers paying less tax on diminished incomes, alongside the exponential growth of unemployment and poverty and the desperate need for services. I think Sacramento is having a panic-attack.
taxes are a funny thing. most of us realize that we need to pay them for the benefit of all society. of course, we may disagree how the taxes are spent, and that's unlikely to be settled any time soon.
it a rare politician that says, yes, i will raise taxes. they all seem to say they'll never do it. and many stick by that, even when it's to the detriment of the society.
anyone remember a few years back, when california had a little surplus? our state constitution mandated that if there was a surplus for a certain amount of time that they would cut some selected taxes, such as the vehicle licensing fee. should we enter into a budget shortfall, that fee was supposed to be reinstated, according to law. we cut the vlf, and in time we also budget shortfall. gray davis talked about restoring the vlf, as it should have been. we ousted him. his successor, hasn't been as bold. and we still find ourselves in a mess.
now, obviously the budget woes are not solely tied to the vlf. but, it is one example of how the system was set up to work with the ebb and flow of a state budget. despite the proper plans, the politicians fail to follow through.
Ed.. well put