I have no problem with paying more taxes. But I am 100% sure that it will not solve the deficit problem. The pressure groups will force the government to spend the extra income in new programs. What do you think?
Posted by Lynn, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on May 12, 2012 at 5:48 pm
More alarmist talk from Moonbeam.
If the average school class size goes back up to what it was 30 years ago, the world will not fall apart (it didn't then!). If we don't get high speed rail, is that a disaster? If public employee unions are outlawed, as both both FDR and Reagan implored, that is a huge win for most of us. If we don't fund public libraries, but use the Internet, instead, so what? And... so much more in the same sense.
The one thing that will avoid a serious look at how our state does business, is to give it more money via taxes. A one word warning: Greece. Just say NO!!!
Posted by common sense, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 13, 2012 at 7:09 am
Governor Brown proposed the $9 billion in tax increases to cover the $9 billion in the state budget deficit, to avoid cuts in education & public safety. Now new projections say the state budget deficit is $16 billion - so where are the addtional $7 billion in spending cuts going to come from?
Governor Brown continues to fund High Speed Rail, which means he places a higher priority on a fast train than education. He continues to fund various "green" initiatives, again at the cost education.
Where are our state legislatures, Joe Simitian & Rich Gordon? Supporting the cuts to education by prioritizing the funding of high speed rail and these various green initiatives ahead of the cuts to education.
I won't vote for either Joe or Rich, who act like they don't need to represent their districts, and act more like princes in monarchy.
Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 13, 2012 at 7:54 am
Could we ask for 'foreign aid' from Mexico to help support their citizens flooding into California and draining our prison system, schools, welfare, and social services? And I presume the Weekly will delete this idea as 'offensive'.
Posted by Lynn, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on May 13, 2012 at 10:17 am
It would be interesting to hear from Stephen Levy on this subject. I just read some of his previous posts. He is a tax and spender Democrat, no doubt. Has he had enough, yet? Where does he think the $16B will come from?
Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Great if the northward immigration flood is diminishing. But there are millions of illegals in California, Texas, the Carolinas,and other states already here and having children.. Remember that years ago Congress declared that anyone BORN child of immigrant parents from any country), is automatically an American citizen. Also the Latinos have larger families - so I've read.The state health insurance Medicaid is strained to the limit. Get the statistics for hospitals in Southern California!! especially Obstetric Departments. So are schools which are getting bad scores because of the necessity to provide classrooms where there are multiple languages spoken- Arabic, Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese,Indian, Tagalog, and others along with English. And now the State is considering given worker permits to illegal immigrants. (See today's Mercury News).
I plotted the top 5 budget items and along with population. The top budget items are Education, Other spending, Healthcare, Protection (police,etc.) and Welfare. Some interesting results:
- CA population in the past 10 years has slowest growth relative to any line item expenditure. So, something else is going up other than inflation. Note that inflation in the past 10 years in U.S. has been very low.
- Cost of education has steadily gone up far above the rate of population growth. So, this thing about not spending on Education does not seem right.
- Same results for 'Other spending' category. OK, someone is spending money higher per capita every year. Mr/s Representative, can you explain that!
- Everyone talks about the cost of health care going up. We know that. But so does the cost of Education and 'Other spending' going up roughly @ the same rate. How come no one is talking about cost of Education?
- Something happened in 2007 about Welfare spending. It kept going up for about 4 years (faster than the rate of any other expenditure). It has stabilized in the past two years. We have become very generous in the past six years.
- We only an across the board cut of less than 4% to regain a balance budget.
- I think, the bottom line is that there is still a lot of opportunities to cut the expenditure in all categories. I don't think anyone will be harmed, our children (those who want) will get educated (preferably in a single language), and the crime rate will not go up. I don't have problem taxing the rich, but that is NOT going to solve our problem by itself.
Posted by Ronnie's farm, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on May 13, 2012 at 6:46 pm
After a post that links to facts "Net migration from Mexico to the United States HAS STOPPED and may have even REVERSED" (my emphasis)
someone can't accept it and posts "great IF the northward immigration flood is DIMINISHING"
The one I like even better is the slam on 'evil congress': "Remember that years ago Congress declared that anyone BORN child of immigrant parents from any country), is automatically an American citizen."
You remember the Constitution and something called a "natural-born citizen"?
Since 1868: "Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Posted by Ronnie's farm, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on May 14, 2012 at 10:37 am
Sharon skips the money line, as always. From the article:
"Climbing oil production in the U.S. is upending American demand for Canadian hydrocarbons. That has spooked Ottawa, suddenly worried about finding buyers for its own growing crude exports, almost all of which now flows... < to China >"
Drill baby drill and our higher domestic oil production means we import less, so Canada sells elsewhere.
Sharon's interpretation: "it's the fools in Sac-town, it's their 'fault'"
Drill baby drill doesn't work. Domestic oil production is at it's highest in years. It hasn't lowered oil prices as promised. Now Sharon is blaming CA politicians for Canada selling it's oil to China.