Apparently Schwarzernegger has ordered that all state employees be payed minimum wage for the next month, apart from those who are exempt from minimum wage laws such as doctors, who will be payed nothing. Apparently, this is because a budget has not been passed.
How has this come about? Is this a symptom of California’s precarious economic situation, or something separate? How can the state government not be able to pass a budget and still remain in power? Surely any rational form of government must recognize that passing a budget in a timely manner is of fundamental importance?
Voters in California made their own bed and now they are uncomfortable sleeping in it. I have no sympathy.
While I am liberal Californians went too far in trying to run government from the ballot box. Their referendum system has hog-tied state government so thoroughly there is little they can do on their own to correct things. They are bound by law to meet certain payments and have little wiggle room to hammer out a workable budget.
California is a case study in why you do not want a true democracy (one where everyone has a say/vote in everything as opposed to voting for a few people who make those decisions).
The core of the problem is that it has been written into the state constitution that any tax increase requires a 2/3 majority in the assembly, and the Republican party (although not Arnold, to be fair) has come to be controlled by anti-tax dogmatists. Although Democrats have long held a clear majority in the assembly, it is not 2/3. This means that no tax increases can be passed, no matter how necessary. On the other hand, Democrats, as the majority, are understandably reluctant to have spending cuts to programs that they think are important forced on them by the party that does not represent the majority of voters in the state.
In a way, it is the same problem that has delayed and eviscerated health care reform (amongst other things) in the U.S. senate. Constitutional structures were established at a time when the American political parties were not too far apart ideologically, and when party discipline was weak, with lots of horsetrading and crossing of party lines during votes being the norm. Now, that the Republican party has moved far to the right (and the Democrats somewhat to the left), and the Republicans, in particular, have hugely increased their levels of party discipline, these constitutional structures, such as requirements for 2/3 majorities (formalized in the California constitution, relatively informal filibuster rules in the U.S. Senate) are now a serious impediment to good government.
I know that the state was giving out IOU’s for more than a month last year before a budget deal was finally reached, but I’m not aware that it ever happened before that. Are you sure it’s a repeated thing? (You may be right. I haven’t paid much attention to California politics since I left the state in '04.)
Based on what I’ve seen, I agree, more or less, with both njtt and Whack-a-Mole. It’s a combination of laws and budgetary rules specific to California and a population that won’t accept tax increases or spending cuts. For instance, a couple years ago despite knowing that the budget crisis was growing, Californians still voted to spend three billion dollars on a high-speed rail system that will probably never get built. Massive bond issues for everything from education to police are constantly being passed, as if people don’t understand that bonds have to be paid back with interest someday.
So how’s it going to play out? I can’t say. Last year they “solved” the budget crisis through a variety of accounting tricks–shifting the official date on which certain transactions were made into the next year, for instance–and by grabbing money from local governments. But that will only work once. This year it looks like they’re well and truly screwed.
CA state employee here, though not one that’ll be affected by the minimum wage thank goodness.
Yep, it has everything to do with the 2/3 majority required for a tax increase. Howard Jarvis (ptooie) and company pushed that one through on the grounds that it would keep taxes low.
I really wish CA would just divide into three states already. Roughly South-of-Bakersfield, Bakersfield-through-Sacramento, and Sacramento-and-North. That would translate into two blue states and one red, and the red places like Orange County would be drowned out by the blue in the blue parts.
It’ll never happen - mostly cause of water rights - but really, the interests of the three parts of the state are so widely divergent that they should not be governed under the same umbrella.
California is in the Top 10 in terms of tax burden - so don’t whine to me about how we are under taxed. It is true that our taxes are harder to track thanks to Prop 13 shifting more of the tax burden onto sales and income taxes, but we are still taxed plenty.
We are faced with ballot-box spending, ballot-box restrictions and controls on spending, an overly large prison system, and extremely well paid public servants in some sectors. We have Police, Firefighters and Teachers making over $100k annually - with excellent pensions as well. This does not sit well with voters who have taken pay cuts or lost their jobs.
A state Constitutional convention would be a great start to clean up how we budget, so that we could then get the spending under control. As I recall, something like less than 25% of the annual budget can truly be adjusted - the rest is in a forced allocation scheme of some sort.
Personally, I’m all about being paid for my efforts. On principle alone, I would not work in exchange for an IOU/voucher/whatever. Are people like me rare or does California have problems keeping employees through tough times?
Not a great time to quit a job. Add in that if you quit you lose your pension, you might not get back in, and you won’t find a job in your field necessarily.
ETA - and California’s unemployment rate is closer to 12.5%
That’s an excellent idea, especially because, as is the case naturally, the red part of the state, in the Central Valley, gets more in services than it pays in taxes. Cut them off and the rest of the state can restore services and/or cut taxes.
No. I’ve been employed since 1975 or so, often holding more than one job. Even through college I always worked. But I never worked for free, and on principle alone would walk. Guess mine is a minority view.
And one of the big problems is that Arnold, though a Republican, has absolutely no clout with his party, since from Hollywood he came and to Hollywood he will return. Though we like to rant about career politicians, career politicians can call in the favors to get things done. If he had come up through the ranks, he probably would have been able to get at least a few votes to get the budget passed in a reasonable time.
This would be working for deferred compensation (it is an IOU), not for free. So if you quit, you are gambling that you can find another job with a complete compensation and benefits package that is superior to your state job, even with the risk of IOUs every year when the State can’t get it act together.
But with Prop 13 our tax system is very sensitive to changes in the economic climate. When a recession hits the revenue goes away just when it is most needed. A more stable system, with higher property taxes and lower income and sales taxes, would lead to fewer problems. Remember, because all school money goes to the state, they could lay off just about everyone and still not fix the deficit. Neither local police, firefighters or teachers are state employees.
Another problem in the tax system is inequity. I bought my house 14 years ago, and my tax bill has gone up very little since, though my salary has nearly doubled. The people starting out with a new home may well pay more than me with less income and less house. And let’s not forget commercial property, which also falls under Prop 13. Companies never become senior citizens.
No major arguement with you here - I just react to the implication from some anti-prop 13 people that we are undertaxed.
Prop 13 SHOULD have had the annual value of the house increase base on the CPI (or equivalent index). That would have kept it in line with inflation, instead of the limitation that our property taxes are under now. This would have worked for commercial property as well.
I do still agree with the premise of not cranking up the taxes just because your property has become desirable.
