With Shortfall Mounting, California Budget Deal Is Stymied, Again
Democrats railroaded through a budget package, but Schwarzenegger said he would veto it
SAN FRANCISCO—Another chapter in the months-long partisan battle in California over how to address the state's growing $40 billion budget shortfall ended in controversy yesterday when Democrats railroaded an $18 billion budget package through the state legislature—skirting a state law that requires a two-thirds vote to increase taxes—only to have Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announce he would veto it.
Democratic leaders claimed their Republican colleagues, who have refused to agree to a tax increase during a recession, had left them no choice but to exploit a loophole in state law that allows the adoption of new taxes by a bare majority as long as the taxes are "revenue neutral."
With large majorities in both of houses of the legislature, Democrats introduced a complex set of bills that took advantage of this loophole by first eliminating some existing taxes and then offsetting the "loss of revenue" with new levies and "fees" on gas, income, and sales.
Accused of performing an end run around state law, Democrats fiercely defended their budget package, claiming Republicans had dragged out budget negotiations for months with their refusal to compromise. Democrats described the plan as the best way to save jobs and end California's economic death spiral, which has seen the state's budget fall $40 million further out of balance every day. "This is the only viable option before the people of California to make a dent in this deficit," Darrell Steinberg, the state's Senate majority leader, said at a news conference detailing the plan earlier this week.
Schwarzenegger, who has called the legislature into special session twice in the last month only to see budget negotiations stall, nevertheless refused to sign the bills. "I cannot sign this," Schwarzenegger said at a news conference immediately after the legislation passed. He criticized Democrats and Republicans alike, saying, "The whole country is looking at this state right now and saying this legislature is dysfunctional."
The Democrats' now defunct package would have created $9.3 billion in new revenue—raising the question of how it could be viewed as "revenue neutral"—while also cutting billions from education, state employee compensation, and other programs. The package would have closed just under half of the $40 billion budget shortfall the state is facing over the next 18 months.
Republicans, who refused to support any of the 13 bills in the package, accused Democrats of deliberately violating state law by circumventing the two-thirds vote requirement.
"What's going on here is historic, and . . . it's a step that I believe and my colleagues believe is illegal," Dave Cogdill, the Senate Republican leader, said on the Senate floor during the debate.
"Once this approach is adopted, there will be tax after tax after tax. It will be an endless stream," said George Runner, a Republican state senator. "It's outrageous."
Earlier this week, Cogdill and other Republican leaders proposed a $22 billion budget package without any tax increases that included $10 billion in cuts to K-12 education. Democrats considered the cuts unacceptable.
It is unclear exactly what the legal ramifications of the Democrats' budget plan might have been without Schwarzenegger's veto. After the measures passed, several taxpayer groups threatened to sue. But Senator Steinberg said on the Senate floor yesterday that the Office of Legislative Counsel, the public agency that provides legal services to the legislature, considered the budgetary end-run legal.
For the time being, anyway, the two sides will be forced back to the negotiating table—the same place they have been for months. Yesterday's hefty tax increases, which included a ¾ cent sales tax hike and 2.5 percent income tax increase, along with a new "fee" of an additional 13 cents per gallon of gas, are not likely to pass muster with any Republicans. Cogdill predicted the tax increases would add up to about $1,000 for a family making $60,000 a year. "California voters, taxpayers, Merry Christmas!" Cogdill said sarcastically on the Senate floor. "We certainly hope you've gotten your Christmas shopping out of the way."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Базы данных потенциальных kлиeнтoв для Вашего Би3неса
Здрaвcтвyйте, yвaжаемые админиcтрация и посетитeли прeкрacного cайта www.usnews.com
ocoбeнно привeтствyeм поcетитeлей pаЗдела этот
Вoт такoе у наc к Вам прeдложeние:
сoберeм для Вас пo ceти интернeт бaзy данных потенциaльных клиeнтoв
для Вaшего Бизнecа (названиe, род деятeльности, тeлeфoн, факc, e-mаil,www)
Бoлee пoдрoбнo Вы мoжeтe yзнать
пo телефонy +79IЗ3913837
California's budget deal stymied again...
I live in the province of Ontario, Canada. More properly, it should be called "OnTAXio" because of all the socialism that has crept in up here and economically wrecked the place.
I wish we had had a "Proposition 13" back in the late 1970's when California was smart enough to pass it!
As your President Reagan so wisely said; "Well, if you give the rascals the money, they'll spend it!". Governments are the same everywhere! Deny them the funds as you have and they'll not SPEND you into bankruptcy! For the DIFFERENCE in the tax rates that WE have to pay up here and YOU pay down there, the Canadian state effectively owns both "my" cottage and Bentley motorcar with which I could get there! However, my services are no better than yours, we just have more bureaucrats. You see, it's the difference between YOUR "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" and OUR "Peace, Order and good [for which read: too much] Government".
It's a shame that we've (all) allowed this 'culture of dependency' on the state to corrupt the system. Ask yourself: Who is the government if it is not us? Whose money is the government's if not ours? "Public servants" are supposed to work for us through the government. Tell the government to cut their wages or 'take a hike' as Reagan did so successfully with the Air Traffic Controllers in 1981. Then, they might realize that they can no longer hold the public to ransom! Good luck to those civil servants getting jobs elsewhere in these trying times. Most of this coddling of and featherbedding in, public-sector unions is the fault of the 'bleeding hearts' and the Democrats who depend on them for votes. Remember always, that Democrats raise taxes and spend 'your' money to buy 'their' votes and Republicans dislike government, high taxes and work to hold the fort against the tax-and-spend Dems. I wish we had more "Republicans' up here in the frozen north instead of socialist and other form of leeches. We have sky-high taxes, lower productivity, little defence and (literally) crumbling infrastructure. And don't let the left-wing Democrats tell you about how superior the Canadian health-care system is to yours either! Again, ask yourself this; Why do so many Canadians go to the US for health-care services and operations? Or, let me put it another way: How many Americans do you know that go to Canada to obtain health-care? Think about it; you at least have freedom of choice in your health-care providers, we do not - ours is the state!!!
So write to your State legislator (likely, a Democrat) and tell him or, her to get with the program and swing the axe on services and civil servants that the State of California (for which read: you the taxpayer) can NO LONGER AFFORD. After all, their coming after you for MORE taxes in times like these is the equivalent of your going to your boss and asking for a raise because YOU spent too much money! Not likely!
Tell your legislator to have the State live WITHIN its means - as YOU have to!
Is there a compromise here?
Why do the Republicans want to cut funding to education? Do they want to make California students the dumbest in the nation? Or is there something more sinister here, like they want to keep working class kids the proles of 1984?
If they would cease their attacks on education, perhaps they would be able to get a compromise...
advertisement









