State Controller John Chiang says he will begin issuing IOUs to pay the state's bills if legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can't reach an agreement to balance the state budget by Tuesday, the last day of the fiscal year.
This comes after the Legislature voted down a Democratic-sponsored budget bill on Wednesday. It needed Republican votes to reach the two-thirds majority required for passage.
The state faces a $24.3 billion budget gap, and Democrats and Republicans refuse to find common ground. This is an old tired story in California. It seems that lawmakers would rather the state collapse than reach a compomise.
This is one more reason The Bee's editorial board thinks the Legislature should be governing from the middle of the political spectrum, and not from the fringes. Click here to read today's editorial on this issue.
They should load them on a cargo plane and drop them all off in Iraq in the middle of the hot desert and see if they can compromise. Again until they get hit in the wallet it wont be a priority for them.
Crisis is the life blood of the d-party. The state can issue IOUs, then what are they...a state that will issue IOUs. I will definitely be taking the next election day off, it is surely going to make for great political entertainment. The middle of the spectrum is deep in the d-party assembly and senate rosters. It is apparent who needs to stop drinking the kool-aid.
Let them start issuing IOUs. If John Chiang thinks that this threat is causing Californians to quiver in their boots, he better think again. The only ones who should be concerned about the issuance of IOUs are the elected members of the legislature, who seem to have not gotten the message that they need to pass a budget within the amount of current tax revenues- and not one penny more.
Over the last several years the state legislature has not been able to pass the budget on time and when it does finally pass it is filled with unrealistic estimates and accounting trickery to make it appear balanced. There appear to be no more "politically expedient" options, so they are going to have to reverse many of the dumb budget decisions they've made in the past. If not, I think they will finally have angered enough people that a seismic shift in the legislature may come. I eagerly await its arrival.
The state needs to get its act together for the good of all the citizens of this great state. Let's have some compromise and some statesmanship. They can do it if their special interests on the left and the right lay off them.
There's no compromise. Compromise is what got us into this mess - Republicans enabling governmente growth beyond revenues - Democrats with no purpose in life other than to spend money.
It's line in the sand time. No compromse with Democrat spending schemes ever again.
Well distilled assessment of the problem and its solution by Michael Der Manouel Jr.
The notion of "bipartisanship" intrigues me, to my mind any act that benefits both parties equally is just cause for such a description. Bills I see passed and then signed by the governor are nothing but self serving deals that most taxpayers suffer under.
Another over-used term I hear from bureaucratics and their environmental bosses is "stakeholder." Beyond exploiting a niche for good economic purpose like agriculture which benefits most, real stakeholders are nonexistent, it is time we recognize that fact. If it was the the taxpayer who was foremost on the minds of politicians in Sacramento we would not be in this predicament. We are waiting for our representives to wake up, and put us first. The burden of taxation and regulation must produce a palpable benefit, a positive growth of freedom for all real stakeholders, not a removal of long held practices and traditions.
We are big boys and girls who are happy to report when that expectation is not realized. Upon hearing such a report, abandon the idea that generated it and take measures to reduce the negative impact of such stupid acts. Don't cut another deal with an an unobtainable future promise and expect us to accept it without a fight, those days are gone.
" be ambivolent to more government control..."
That's not my comprehension of Mike D.'s post. Communicating in a blog via e-mail has its problems. I believe that dialogue should be face to face. We could say that blogging has the inherent danger of becoming monologues that are send out for others to read. Blogging is a good way to be able to express opinions to the world typed on a keyboard and a couple of clicks; but it also has the inherent danger of misunderstandings, leading to aggression and hurt feelings respectively. If I had to profile (to me stranger) Mike D. I would say that he represents the views of progressive politics, and he believes in an orderly run state. Such as...We the People make the laws, and the state must carry them out. I personally detected no ambivalence about anything , but clear cut opinions. I am echoing those who believe that city mayors should be allowed to do the job delegated to them....what else are they for? As for watching cage fighting....they would have to take me there in handcuffs and chains, but I too would neither support or oppose such events to take place (if they are legal.)