The budget vote comes today in the state Legislature. Happy Valentine's Day.
Big tax increases in the budget plan are the downside for anti-tax legislators, and that puts political pressure on GOP lawmakers to vote "No." Let's look at the taxes:
A 1-cent hike in the state sales tax; a 2.5% surcharge on state income taxes; a 12-cent per gallon increase in gasoline taxes at the pump; an increase in the vehicle license fee from the current 0.65% of the vehicle's value to 1.15%. Those taxes will hurt -- no doubt.
But Republicans also made gains in the budget negotiations. These are some of the improvements, according to Republican leaders in the Legislature:
There's a spending limit, as well as an enhanced "rainy day fund" in the budget. There are incentives for businesses to invest in California and hire out-of-work Californians. There are tax credits for small businesses to hire new workers, and it would clarify laws regarding work schedules so employees have more flexibility to manage their time. (Small businesses wanted these provisions). Two paid holidays for state workers are eliminated and the proposal will end the overtime pay abuses in which government workers use holiday and sick time to receive extra overtime pay, The public employee unions wants Democrats to kill the bill because of those provisions.
Under the proposal, the state will actually spend significantly less money than it did the prior year. This is in real dollars, not some phony reduction in a programmed increase in spending, which is what Democrats call a spending "cut." This is a victory for Republicans wanting to put the brakes on out-of-control state spending.
So if the issue is simply no new taxes, then Republicans will vote "No." If GOP lawmakers believe there's a tradeoff, then some -- not many -- will vote "Yes."
Assuming that all Democrats vote for the budget, three Republicans in the Assembly and three in the Senate must also vote for the budget to achieve the two-thirds needed for passage.
Will three Republicans in each house provide the votes? If they do, how will you react to those votes?
What will happen if the Legislature doesn't pass a budget? The state's economy will get even uglier. That's why the California Chamber of Commerce is urging the Legislature to pass this budget.
Jim, because this blog is the property of a newspaper, I think readers assume at least some research is put into the "facts" presented. I was wondering if you could give me some references to support your statement, "...the proposal will end the overtime pay abuses in which government workers use holiday and sick time to receive extra overtime pay, The public employee unions wants Democrats to kill the bill because of those provisions." I'm curious because it seems unusual to me that state workers would fight for the right to unethical behavior. I know some individuals have actually abused their system in this way; however, I didn't realize ALL government workers were so blatantly immoral as your words infer. In fact, I went to several of the public employee unions web sites and the issue they have been concerned with are for example:
1. Fighting against the threatened 10,000 employee layoffs when contractors would have to be paid significantly more to replace the services these folks perform.
2. They fought the 10% pay cut in the form of furloughs.
3. They have spoken against the spending cap in the budget due to its effects on schools, universities and vital public services.
4. They have argued against the unprecedented power the governor will have to make budget decisions without legislative approval.
5. They have spoken against the reduction of holidays as it doesn't really save money it just removes benefits that were obtained in exchange for concessions in previous contract talks.
6. They are concerned with the hardest hit group of general fund workers, prison employees, because their reduction would not cover the staffing needs of the present inmate levels.
etc.
Since I saw nothing that implied unions were fighting the budget deal so that they had the right to work the system for unethical gain, I'm thinking you were putting your words forth to stir up additional bad blood between the taxpayers and government employees and it had nothing to do with reporting news. I have spoken with employees of several government agencies and none have ever heard of the ability to use holiday and sick time to increase overtime pay. Our agencies are not structured that way. Only one or two are.
So which is it Mr. Boren, are you a news reporter or are you a Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh wannabe? Slanting the news merely to stoke the fire in the bellies of the masses makes be think the later.
My question is why hasen't someone from the left of the political spectrum been on a FB podcast when he already had someone from the right?
Maybe the right has whined and complained about the FB being so liberal (which I disagree) making the FB bend backwards to regain the sceptics from the right.
That a certain branch of State employees have indeed played the overtime connivance game is documented. I can't give you name and address and hour of the day examples because I have no access to those particular state employees' timesheets and payroll. I think you know exactly which state workers we are talking about. Even Capitol Hill thinks twice before bucking them. Kim Tanksley, by now you have proven to this blog that every time someone criticizes any state workers' abuse of the system, you get all shook up and take it personal. Passion and clinical detachment don't mix. Egocentrism also gets into the way of objectivity. Attacking the messenger does not work either. I have not the foggiest idea what the Unions are doing, but abuse is abuse is abuse by any other name.
Wow! Jim Boren a Rush Limbaugh wannabe? And Sean Penn is a moderate and George Soros believes in fair play. Sorry, Jim. I'll never again accuse you of being a liberal.
"A 1-cent hike in the state sales tax; a 2.5% surcharge on state income taxes; a 12-cent per gallon increase in gasoline taxes at the pump; an increase in the vehicle license fee from the current 0.65% of the vehicle's value to 1.15%. Those taxes will hurt -- no doubt." by Jim Boren
It will go beyond hurt. Many of us taxpayers who feed the bottomless pit government, just cannot afford those increases. Paint me poor but proud of being self-sustaining. Put more screws on me and you can paint me proud but destitute. At least my plot on Villa Avenue in Clovis is paid for.
Isabell, reread my post. I acknowledge that some government employees misused their system for gain. I know it is documented. Read the rest. My beef was that Boren reports the right to unethical behavior as a reason the unions are fighting the budget deal. Can you show me where that is true? Of all the well documented reasons the unions have, he comes up with a ludicrous motive that apparently can't be confirmed. Can you honestly tell me Isabell, that you believe the reason the union is against the budget is because employees won't be allowed to rip off the system? Boren flat out states that. I just want him to back it up. I'm surprised you didn't bring it to his attention.
What if I were to say that immigrants fight immigration reform because they will no longer be able to freeload off the system. Isabell, would you like the public to draw conclusions about immigrants based this claim? What if your ability to stay in this country relied on immigration reform? Do you think you would like to see more accurate reporting so that the public have a less slanted view before they made up their minds? It is documented Isabell that immigrants have freeloaded off the system. Illegal immigration and social services are really messing up our budget. Freeloaders all? There are 40,000 hits to this site remember.
I also happen to know that some newspaper columnists have fabricated facts in order to make a story more exciting and widen readership. Because they have done this, newspapers have to carry liability insurance; it is covered through advertising costs and paper sales and I think small businesses can't afford to compete. Reporters don't want the rates reduced because they won't be covered by liability insurance and their readership will fall as will their pay. It is true that reporters have reported fabricated facts; it is documented. Is the rest true? Are reporters sticking it to small business owners for their own gain?
I can find no supporting data to Boren's assertion that the misuse of overtime is a motive for government employee unions to fight the budget. Yet you are assuming because I am a state employee that my pointing out what is obvious about his slanted and unsubstantiated remarks is less valid. Why Isabell? I think he put that in for emotional impact to a struggling public that needs an outlet for their frustration. I also don't think you would have made an issue of it if it hadn't been my name on the blog. Would you have responded the same way if an unknown blogger had mentioned it? By the way government employee unions include federal, state and local governments.
Gregory Turpie. Being liberal or conservative is not a prerequisite for sensationalism. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh both use that tactic to create shock or raise the ire of listeners. They play on emotions to stir up the public. Boren used the same tactic here thus the analogy. His use of this tactic was obvious therefore the label wannabe. At least Rush is good at it, he backs up his spin on reality with sound bites; although sometimes out of context. Frankly he can be a crack up. Hannity, he is just annoying (I think people believe what he says just so he'll shut up.)
Mr Boren, folks don't seem to agree you were playing on emotions, then I stand corrected ... and you have some proof for this claim right? It doesn't matter, this is a blog, got to stir up emotions to keep the readership and the bloggers blogging. Can't have too many "no comment" articles. Is that what they call "transparency" in reporting?
RE: The cheap shots; post February 17, 42 minutes past midnight.
"...I also don't think you would have made an issue of it if it hadn't been my name on the blog. Would you have responded the same way if an unknown blogger had mentioned it?"
As a matter of fact, the immigrant has become America's whipping boy as the Jew was in Nazi Gerrmany. Well, no 40.000 readers have seen me sitting around moaning and groaning about it. Why? Because I am not the center of the universe. And in this spirit I am yielding the last word to you; Kim Tanksley.
You've missed the point. There were no cheap shots to you. The only shot was to Boren and his use of sensationalism; I frankly think he is better than that. I was using analogies based on issues akin to the world of both of you to illustrate that sensationalism does not represent the truth; to put you in the shoes of government employees. I don't like sweeping generalizations, they are misleading and unfair. In the last six months I have made that clear in regards to police officers, presidential candidates, environmental issues, gender issues, lifestyle issues, etc. If that makes me center of the universe then you give my blogs more credence then they deserve. You also illustrate another point. Had someone other than a state employee pointed it out would the backlash have been so strong? No one else is speaking up for government employees on this blog, we’re the bad guys remember? You have done me a disservice by changing the focus of the commentary. It is not likely Boren will answer my question as the ire has been effectively deflected to me. Apparently theatrics is acceptable in news reporting; my mistake. Bon Appetite.