Assembly Budget Chairwoman Noreen Evans explains her controversial statement that it's "meaningless" to say the state should live within its means. She offers several arguments in her defense. But one of her points is that low-income counties, such as Fresno, Tulare, Kern and Modoc, are subsidized by the state's taxpayers. Living within the state's means would require the low-income counties to pay more for the services that are provided to their residents.
Evans, a Santa Rosa Democrats, explained her position in a commentary in The Sacramento Bee. Click here to read the entire Evans commentary.
Here's how Evans puts it: "Many counties receive state services that cost far more than the taxes they generate. Modoc County, for example, annually consumes per person $1,135 in K-12 education, $658 for Medi-Cal, $113 in state supplemental payments for seniors and the disabled, and $34 in IHSS. But its residents pay only $769 per person in state personal income and sales taxes, the largest two contributors to the general fund, which pays for these services. Taxes from wealthier counties enable Modoc to consume more state services than its own means could provide. Other counties that use more state services than their own means provide include Fresno, Tulare and Kern."
Here's more from Evans:
"Yet at the same time that the governor and legislative Republicans propose eliminating services in the name of "living within our means," they support massive giveaways to special interests. This is what renders the slogan meaningless.
"California is the only state in the nation that does not tax extraction of oil from our lands. Yet when a small tax was proposed to avoid more cuts to education, the governor threatened a veto. Democrats proposed to enforce laws to collect taxes from out-of-state Internet retailers such as Utah-based Overstock. Although this levels the playing field for local businesses, which do pay such taxes, the governor threatened a veto. To avoid throwing nearly a million children off health insurance, Democrats proposed closing recently adopted corporate tax loopholes that cost the state $2.5 billion annually. Again, the governor threatened a veto."
Read the comments after the Sacto Bee article. Those people get it.
Typical liberal thinking. If we don't tax something that other states do tax, she calls it a "giveaway". If the state mandates programs onto counties that can't be paid for by county tax collections, she calls the amount of additional mandated cost a subsidy. If we extend a tax to previously untaxed commerce, she calls it "closing a loophole".
How about this? Nevada has no income tax- let's eliminate the subsidy of the state income tax. If counties can't fund the state-mandated services their residents receive from current county tax receipts, then give the counties the option to opt out of the program or develop programs they can afford.
At the end of the day the fundamental truth of California's financial situation is that there is never enough money to satisfy a liberal legislator. Keep in mind the amount of California's deficit is larger than the entire state budgets of 41 states. These bandits get enough money already. Stick to your guns Arnold!!!
Fran B., Like you, I have come to appreciate the comment section of most news articles on the internet. Some of them are more interesting than the story.
I wonder how much Evans would like to tax all the elementry school children for their compulsory education. Oh..I forgot Obama has already tapped out the next three generations to pay for Barney's and Chris' mortgage collapse.
Unbelievable stuff Evans wrote. Sounds like they're pretty far from reality in Sacramento, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
As someone who usually votes democratic, this budget situation is getting ridiculous. And this is what our representatives have to say about this mess? Holy crap!
"Evans has four primary legislative priorities: fighting for families and children, protecting our environment, reforming our legal system, and advocating for California's wine industry."
"Living within the state's means would require the low-income counties to pay more for the services that are provided to their residents." That statement is not in sync with the implied altruism above. It is my believe that advocating for the wine industry of Napa----; Solano----and Sonoma Counties might be more of her speed. Even the slightest shade of an indictment of poverty is arrogance beyond believe. I also harbor the believe that those women who are really qualified to be elected officials stay clear of it. And those who are seeking to be or are elected should stay clear of it.
P.S.In all fairness, most of my commentary would be invalid if the Santa Rosa Democrat is being politically maligned or being misquoted. I am not in the loop, but I go by the reports only. By rule of thumb, Evans being an attorney, I would assume, would be careful of her words.
I think that most Republicans can't tell the diff between there personal taxes from taxing corporations that don't pay there way. No one wants to tax you we want Corp America to stop tacking and invest in the people that support you.
I find it hard to stomach the fact that I live in the greatest nation ever. I quit high school to join the Army in 1978.We are the richest people in history. And yet we still hurt people . How civilized can we be? I don't know I give up this sucks and it seems like nobody cares.including the Governor and his band of Idiots in Sacramento.
Get rid of NAFTA and cut the tax credit to company that moved out of California to Mexico and you will see we have jobs and money to burn. Stupid policies have to go away. The prison system can save millions if we didn't lock up drug abusers for having a problem. End minimum sentencing and three strikes and start educating and showing a little love and you may be surprised.