California’s Proposition 56, the vote for which comes up March 2, 2004, sounds great initially: Salary consequenses for late budgets, legislature has to stay in session until a budget is passed, a percentage of (any) extra money that the state has is saved instead of spent, etc. All sound great until you get to the part about taxes: If passed this proposition would allow taxes and spending to be raised with only a 55% majority, instead of the current 66% as required by Proposition 13 (Section 3).
I got called last night from my wife’s union (a requirement for working for the county) saying “Can we count on you?” to which I replied “I’ll make up my own mind, thank you.” We’ve also gotten plenty of mailers vilifying the proposition as being supported by big business… but since I don’t have anything against big business in general (may specific businesses), the only thing that bothers me about that is that people are using it as an arguement for the proposition.
Since voters approved Prop 13 and since I’m pretty much a fiscal conservative (and therefore allergic to taxes), why should I ignore the change in majority requirements and change my mind to vote for Prop 56?
Um, because your underfunded schools are dying? A minimum two-thirds majority to approve any revenue increase may be just too big an obstacle to allow for adequate funding, especially with a state budget in terrible shape and new unfunded federal testing mandates.
One issue isn’t enough to make such a sweeping change (and besides, Prop 55, if passed, is at least one leg up for the schools). If we lowered the required vote to allow higher taxes to help fund schools, then what’s to prevent the prevailing party to vote to increase taxes in order to futher the spotted gerbil expansion fund? My point is that a two-thirds majority prevents a minimally prevailing party (Demo or Repub) from increasing taxes without at least some support from the opposing party.
Look, Skott, I’m sure you’ve got it in your head that the government never spends money wisely, but deal with the problems as they present themselves. It’s not just schools- your state is bankrupt. It’s dying, financially. You need to raise taxes to account for this.
Whenever you ask “What’s to stop money from being spent on the spotted gerbil,” the answer is “the same thing that stops money from being spent on better schools, fire departments, police, administration, maintenance of public parks, prisons, etc”
Always glad to be told what I’m thinking. :rolleyes: Regardless of how bad of shape our state is in, regardless whether increased taxes would help all of our SimCity needs, lowering the required vote means greater chance of abuse for power. The proposition requires that a balanced budget be passed on time or else their pay starts getting cut: This is certainly a good incentive to make compromises in order to make the increases in taxes that may be necessary for our state to continue being. The change in required vote seems like an end-around and is the only thing that (so far) is preventing me from voting for this proposition.
Basically, the “your state needs more funds” arguement is disjointed (but not unrelated) to the “why should the minimum vote for increasing taxes be lowered?” question because it does not increase taxes, it does not increase funds, and because it does not do anything directly to help us out of our mess.
Plus, there’s the 15 billion dollar initiave, which pretty much has to be passed, that will be paid by, guess what?, higher (property) taxes.
Skott I also am alergic to taxes and upon initially hearing about this proposition I was decidedly a loud “NO”. But I heard on the radio a couple of days ago that 2/3 of voters needed to pass the budget or raise taxes makes the minority have wayyyy more power than it should (they had a big fangled word for it that meants something like hostage, but I can’t remember what they used). They also said that California is one of only 2 states that require more than 55% of the voters to ratify their budget.
That info has made me rethink my position. I don’t yet know whether my vote will be for or ag’in this measure, but I am more open to the possibility of supporting it than I was.
Hey, if this ballot closes the commercial property loopholes of Prop 13, I’m all for it. I have my absentee ballot in my truck right now, I was going to fill it out today.
I suppose I should read up on this stuff before then . . .
For the school argument, there’s all ready about $40 billion allocated for education (K-12 and public universities combined) out of the $100 billion budget so there doesn’t seem to be a lack of funding. Besides, most of the funding would go to the larger school districts (LAUSD for one) and many school districts would not reap the benefits of any sort of increases, just like what Prop 55 will most likely do.
But yeah, the drop of the percentage required to vote in new taxes will serve to give the state government an easier way to impose taxes without being fiscally responsible.
WITH the passage of the bonds our district will ONLY cut 2 MILLION. If the bonds don’t pass, bye bye librarians, music teachers, some classroom teachers and it’s pay for play in sports(which means the schools with wealthy parents will field teams).
The state HAS been fiscally irresponsible, that’s why we’re in this mess. Which makes more sense; paying for state services with higher taxes, or borrowing for state services and paying off the principle(the actual cost of those services) and interest?
First- I don’t like scams, or the Politicos thinking I am stupid. And that is what all the first part is- a smokescreen to make it easier to raise taxes.
We don’t need to raise taxes- our taxes are now something like 10th highest in the nation.
What’s more fiscally responsible? Cutting spending- down to the level it was when the tax reciepts were this low. Parole all the possession only drug convicts- that saves maybe 50% of the hugely inflated Prison budget (prison GUARDS are making over $100K a year to to huge overtime being racked up- without any real need for said overtime). Look, the tax receipts are not really in the toilet, they are just lower than the “boom years”- well, they massively increased spending to spend that boom $$, so they can just cut it back to where it was- pre-boom. Simple.
The Schools in Ca can use some help- but we have tried throwing money at the problem for a decade, and it ain’t helping. They keep increasing Admin, not teachers. They build scads of new schools with one hand- and on the other tear them down because “they cost too much to run” :rolleyes:
The budget is a mess not because it’s too hard to raise taxes, but because the pols have been unwilling to control spending. Our budget is $100B, and has risen much faster than population growth over the last 5 yrs or so. The politiitians have shown no fiscal restraint, and I can’t think of any reason to give them more leeway in terms of raising taxes. We had to throw our governor out in disgrace a few months ago. Let’s let the new guy try to reign things in, and maybe ( a big MAYBE!) if those folks in Sac can get things under control, we might think about doing this sometime in the future.
If shools need more money (and I’m not convinced they do), the voters can pass initiatives for that purpose. Every time a school bond initiative is on the ballot, it passes. Every single time.
Last I heard, if CA was its own country it would be the fifth largest economy in the world. How does this compare to the budgets of those just above and below them?
My wife works for the schools, and I used to work for a partly-State-run organization.
The annual months-long delay in the budget plays HELL with everyone’s next fiscal year. No one can do any solid forecasting because they have no solid figures from Sacramento. Agenies at all levels end up having to plan overly-conservatively , so when the Godot-like budget finally arrives, almost always with more money than they felt comfortable budgeting for, it’s an invitation to waste. I worry less about the possibility of higher taxes than I do about whether or not they ever get the god-damned budget passed at all.
The 65% majority requirement has got to go, and it’s not the sole barrier to unreasonable changes in the tax rates.
I understand the problems with the comparison. But so, too, do I understand the problem with throwing out a number like 100 billion and expecting it to have weight just because it is “big”.
I actually was trying to emphasice the growth rather than the size. I’m a bit too lazy right now to look up the numbers, but IIRC, the budget was $50B not that many years ago. And one problem with looking up these numbers is that the state web site doesn’t have them (or at least I couldn’t find them when I tried to do so a few months ago).
I am a big NO on this one. (In fact, I’m voting NO on all of them.) The reasons have already been well stated. Taxes are already way too high. The way that they tied the legislator pay think the the 55% thing is a nefarious smokescreen. Fuck them and their drunken sailor spending.
Im definately voting no. There are plenty of things that can be cut/trimmed down before schools, but its always the same game; they cut the things that are the most visible, and say there is no choice. We’re being held for ransom.
Prop 56 is in effect saying ‘Just make it easier for us to do what we want, and we’ll do what we want in record time’. Theres no quid pro quo; we’re giving them something and not getting anything in return that shouldnt allready be happening. Its a goddamn scam and the governors office was just a start as far as Im concerned.