yeeeah! prop 1a-1e are all failing. 1f will probably pass... and i can live with that.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/allprops.htm

The state is need of money. Just because these propositions didn't pass doesn't mean that there won't be something else. And frankly, if the free spending legislature doesn't pull their heads out of their asses, they're going to drive the state deeper into the ground.

While I only glanced at the brief explanations, what is so absolutely terrible about Propositions 1A to 1E, especially in, what I assume, dire state budget times? I don't live in California so I can't really tell what's going on there.

lets start with this:

the state is largely in this mess because of our legislators blatantly wasteful spending. in the last 6 years instead of getting a hold on and reigning in state spending, it has increased from about 100 billion to 140 billion. now that the state has dug itself into a hole they are going "oops... guess we will just ask the taxpayer for more monies... haha!"

well here is the breakdown of at least 1-a

1-a set up a "rainy day" fund, which we already have, just in a different incarnation. what they were trying not to let people know about is that it would raise taxes in 2011-2012 to the tune of 12 billion dollars.
they also claim it would install a spending cap. buuut heres the problem, the spending limit would be tied directly to availability of tax revenue. as long as they are willing to raise taxes to cover it they can spend as much as they want... and they have already shown they are willing to raise taxes... yeah no thanks.

all this is on top of the huge tax hikes they already levied on us this year.

This thread will be three pages long by 10:30am.

What huge tax hikes? The temporary increase in sales tax? It's not enough. Spending is an issue, yes, but the state still needs to generate more revenue even with budget cuts. When money has to be cut from education, public safety and other necessary programs, there is a bigger issue at hand.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was at the annual California easter egg hunt with all of his staff. Unfortunately, Arnold didn't find any easter eggs at all and was looking very sad! His secretary asks him "Mr. Schwarzenegger, do you still love easter?" and he replies "Ah still luv eastah baby".

lolololol recession.

The way out of a recession isn't raising taxes.

Also. Schools don't need to spend twenty thousand dollars per year per student. They need to stop funding that other ****, yes. But they also need to take a hard look at where the money to the schools is going.

The right way out of a recession is to set off a small nuclear device inside Fort Knox!

Arnold funded my pants.

yes the "temporary" ones that even if they had been extended still would not have given us enough revenue. and not just sales tax: sales, car registration, income, AND a 200 dollar per child cut to the child tax credit! the ones that when they were scheduled to expire would almost certainly be made permanent because the state will have become reliant on them.
"oh right, i know we said the taxes were 'temporary' but it turns out we still need them... for the children!!!"
thats about how that conversation would go!

having said that i think it is ridiculous and damn near unconscionable that the first place they go for cuts is education and public safety. that should be one of the last places to see severe cuts.

aside from the fact that the state is asking the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their ever expanding carcass the problem is that none of these propositions would have fixed the problem. they, at best would have provided a temporary bandage on a gaping wound, stopping the bleeding just enough so that legislators would be able to say "see!? problem solved! now, lets start spending!"

Luckily our current administration is intent on making the entire country like California. It works so well for them, what a utopia. No violence, the environment is pristine, no one is poor, and everyone is happy.

Maybe by 2010 they'll realize you can't spend your way into a utopia. I'm glad my parents moved.

Just legalize it and suck in all the $ from taxes you make and spend a little bit of the extra cash on your munchies.

this is sounding better and better.

FAIL.

Except this is only partially due to the recessions. California has been having the same issue with it's budget for 6 years, even when the economy was good. And still the legislature keeps wanted to spend more.

And to further the issue, some programs that should be cut can't be cut. The funding is locked in.

This isn't just a recession time issue and it needs to be solved. Even when hte economy is better, the state needs to generate more revenue.

this is the only point i disagree with you on. spending needs to be cut FIRST. period. if funding is locked in it needs to be changed. if they need to change laws, then change laws. and if the current legislature is not willing to do what it takes to change that, then they need to be recalled.

but you dont even wear them!

I lol'd

California was the envy of the nation until Prop 13, and since then it's gone downhill, culminating in this.

You can't have it both ways, Cali! Either good government services and taxes, or no services and no taxes.

The democratic controlled legislature will never agree to spending caps, ever. Look, I agree that it's out of control, but as long as the idiot voters keep voting the same free spending politicians into office, nothing is going to change.

I think it's funny when people think Democrats are responsible for big spending... Arizona's state legislature is dominated by Republicans, and the only state with a worse budget crisis than us is California.

Vin has got it right. It's not democrats. It's everyone. MOSTLY democrats, and certainly there are more republicans who have the right idea than democrats, but both parties are doing it wrong. It's like they're in a contest for who can spend the most money to create the biggest government, just for different and opposing reasons.

This is all caused because if the economy doesn't grow by 3.5% each year it is viewed as some sort of massive failure.

Which all stems from the fact that most idiots out there don't understand the exponential function. Exponential economic growth is obviously unsustainable. So what do we do? We increase the money supply in hopes that there will then be enough money to marginally cover outsanding debt just enough so that the ponzi sch- er, economy—doesn't topple completely. All so that we can prop up that 3.5% growth that we so deliriously cherish.

Doesn't change the fact that it's the Democrats in California that are spending more money than they have and that the Republicans oppose all the spending. I'm not making any generalizations. I'm referring to California specifically.

I would have thought you guys would at least be for 1E

yeah i understand that but i am not just going to sit idly by and happily open my wallet every time the state runs low on money simply because they refuse to keep themselves in check.



oh please! you act like the only options are all or nothing.
well here is a short list of government agencies that i think should be considered for cuts before they start cutting funding for things like education, public safety and such.


9650 Health & Dental Benefits for Annuitants
1,340,091,000 $ anually

8550 Horse Racing Board
11,833,000

8660 Public Utilities Commission
1,364,724,000

8380 Department of Personnel Administration
106,590,000

8885 Commission on State Mandates
146,626,000

2665 High-Speed Rail Authority
125,180,000

2100 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
58,323,000

3760 State Coastal Conservancy
125,975,000

3480 Department of Conservation
1,321,519,000

0540 Resources, Secy
87,578,000

3790 Department of Parks & Recreation
842,374,000

0100 Legislature
244,057,000

0860 State Board of Equalization
456,485,000

0390 Judges' Retirement System Contributions
427,808,000

Listing stuff and saying cut money from here doesn't work.

yeah, im not expecting any legislators to go "oooooh.... now i see!" and make cuts wherever I suggest. i am simply saying that if they are going to fall back on cutting essentials when there is a lot of cutting that could be done elsewhere then if i have anything to do with it they will not get another penny in new taxes.

...granted in reality there is little i can actually do in that regard.

There's definitely a lot that can (and probably should) be cut, but the problem is that in a recession, cutting spending is just as bad as raising taxes, if not worse.

California's budget problems are not going to be fixed during the recession. There's no way around that. But by cutting spending, California can recover quickly when the economy turns around. Yes it will people, don't listen to the media. Unfortunately it will be short lived. As soon as the Democrats in the state legislature see green, blank checks will be written and we'll be in this mess.

The second part of the problem is the people of California themselves...be right back...dinner. *elevator music plays* Ah much better. Where was I. Ah yes. The problem isn't just CA legislature. The problem is California's people too. Election after election people vote in large spending bonds so long as it has the words: children, homeless, and minorities in them. So perhaps tax increases are deserved. People want to save the children, pony up the dough. No? Shut the **** up then.

Wait, you mean we have to pay for those bond measures later? Nobody told me that!

California = Suckifornia.

i have to admit, i am having trouble understanding how cuts to the high speed rail authority are worse than raising taxes in a recession.

also admittedly, borrowing and spending bonds are a big problem, which is why i always vote no on them.

Spending generally makes the economy move, and movement is good for a recession. The question is is that money is being used to create jobs, or is it just being wasted?

i agree. however, spending beyond what you are able to pay for in decent economic times and THEN trying to maintain that spending level during a recession through raising taxes is probably not so good.

He hoped I'd change my ways.

In some cases, bond measures are better because the money in the bonds can only be used for what is stated in the bond, unlike money in the gneral fund, which can be used for anything.