|
Statement by CARB board member Lies and cover ups tarnish California Air Resources Board Strange encounter ends in arrest PG&E smartmeters WILL be tested Suspcious guy at my door last night Adoption day "magical" Closing courts wrong approach Wars never end for veterans Pet adoption day in Tehachapi Nov. 21 Indian casino OK with me August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
Budget mess is party of our own making
California’s never-ending “fiscal crisis” is starting to remind me of the weather — everyone complains about it but nobody ever does anything to change it. Budget debate has ground to a halt in Sacramento AH-gain. Dems don’t want to cut and Repubs don’t want any new taxes. Bleh! Can’t they at least come up with some new excuses for not doing their jobs? Actually, um, I think we (the voters) might be part of the problem. I looked over some past propositions and when you add them up, they leave very little negotiating room when it comes to producing statewide budget. Prop. 98, passed in 1988, requires the state to maintain a minimum funding level for kindergarten through 12th grade that adds up to about 40 percent or higher of the general fund. That’s a big swipe right there. Then there are restrictions on the rate government can increase appropriations, brought on by Prop. 4, passed in 1979. And there certain no-nos for where government can get new money. Consider Proposition 163, which not only repealed the snack tax in 1992 but prohibited the state from ever reinstating a tax on candy, cookies, chips and other junk food. When the state does find a way to wheedle more money out of taxpayers, it’s quickly locked away into specific programs, such as when Proposition 10, passed in 1998, created a 50-cent per pack cigarette tax. Or when Prop 63, passed in 2004, created a surcharge on income taxes for those making $1 million or more. Both have generated millions but in the case of Prop. 10, that money is exclusively used for childhood development programs and Prop 63 money is for mental health. And these are just a few of the proposisions directly budget related restrictions. So the voters have told the Legislature: DON’T cut any vital services such as medical care and education but at the same time, you can’t touch up to half the money coming in; don’t even think about new taxes on certain things and just forget about that other money streaming in for special programs. Wow, we sound, well, like state regulators setting the poor Legislature up for failure. “The general answer is, yes, it (proposition process) is a constraint to the budget process,” said Fred Silva, fiscal advisor for a government reform group called California Forward. Silva was also a top fiscal advisor in the Senate for years, was with the Constitution Revision Commission and with the Public Policy Institute, so he knows he way around the state budget. “But I don’t want to overstate the notion that the reason we have such gridlock is because of the initiative process,” he told me. For instance, some propositions have language in them that would allow them to be suspended if the Legislature so chooses. Prop 98 has that language. He said the initiative process in California, which he called a parallel power to the Legislature, acts as a release valve for those issues too thorny for our representatives, such as property taxes, auto insurance, mental health funding and more. Ahh, I said, so the proposition problem (as I characterized it) is because our legislators are lazy? Yes and no, Silva said. “Most of the big measures are on the ballot because they’re constitutional amendments, or bond measures, which both require voter approval,” he said. “So it’s been a mixed bag.” While Silva and California Forward aren’t ready to dump the initiative process, Silva did tell me of some reform ideas floating around, such as creating some kind of intermediary commission to give more scrutiny to initiatives or making sure any initiatives that mandate new programs come with their own funding mechanisms, such as Prop. 10 and Prop. 63 did. OK, so how much sympathy should I squeeze out for legislators now locked down in the Capitol trying to hammer out a budget? Not that much, said California Forward Executive Director Jim Mayer (a former Californian reporter, by the way.) “Lawmakers like to say they have no discretion,” he said. “But this is all a human construct, we created it and we can change it. Over time, everything can be put on the table.” That’s exactly what the bipartisan California Forward intends to do with legislation aimed at reforming the budget process. Launched in March 2008, the group has been meeting with legislators as well as business and community members up and down the state to come up with a viable plan to keep this from happening again. “We’re not a think tank,” Mayer told me. “We look at other people’s reports and say, ‘OK what are we going to do about it?’” Finally, maybe there’ll be a break in the weather. Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com 34 comments from 14 users
1
posted by
tkozy
on Feb 17, 2009 at 07:00 PM
You forgot to mention the 4 billion dollar per year Vehicle tax reduction that Arnold made 6 years ago. 24 billion would have come in handy today. posted by
witterpitters
on Feb 17, 2009 at 07:08 PM
and the billions spent on illegals and their kids, medical, education, food stamps, welfare......oh and do you really think TK that they even register their cars? have a license, have insurance??? most of the wrecks & hit & runs are people with no license, no insurance and no registration! how many cars get impounded for none of the above??? posted by
tkozy
on Feb 17, 2009 at 07:24 PM
Wit, your defeatism is quit depressing. Illegal immigration is not the problem. The problem is criminal employers. But then you already knew that. Most of all. California has much greater problems than just illegal employment. For instance. One of the major problems with Workers compensation isn't employee fraud. But rather employer fraud. But then you already knew that. The 4 billion dollar Vehicle tax loss was a huge hit to the state revenues. But then you already knew that.
posted by
witterpitters
on Feb 17, 2009 at 07:31 PM
Well then I guess the colleges are criminal as well as they allow illegals to register for classes and apply for financial aid even though they don't have a social. Students who are here legally barely have a chance in hell to get assistance if there is any left. Yes TK it is very depressing and it is a fact.
But then you already knew that. posted by
jermox
on Feb 17, 2009 at 07:57 PM
To apply for financial aid through the university you need to apply for FASFA. To apply for FASFA you (and your parents if you are under 24) need to file taxes. You cannot receive financial aid from a university without doing this. If you receive financial aid without a social, you must of received it from a scholarship not directly funded by the university. posted by
witterpitters
on Feb 17, 2009 at 08:20 PM
JERMOX: guess again. The J.C. gives the student a 9999 number and then helps them get a 'social' then has them apply for financial aid - and they get it. No the parents do not have to file taxes - most are on welfare or some subsidy. Hopefully the universities are different, but I have read articles about colleges (2 & 4 yr) giving "illegals" AKA "undocumented" students socials and not charging them out of state tuition when all other students from out of state get charged out of state tuition. A couple of years ago there were a couple of state where the students were protesting that fact. I believe others called them "racist". College administrators, presidents & chancellors can waive whatever they want. When it means another warm body in a seat in a classroom = more state student money. The sad part is financial aid can be spent on ANYTHING the student wants and does not have to be repaid and most of those students do not finish. IMO wasted money. There should be specific criteria as to what the money can be spent on and it should be considered a 'loan' until the student finishes then it can be waived - student doesn't finish or flunks out, they repay the money. posted by
teachercate65
on Feb 17, 2009 at 08:29 PM
Which form of financial aid are you talking about? THere are LOTS of them out there and if certain requirements are met they don't have to be repaid. There are grants too that are lumped into the financial aid boat as well. Witters - are you using the outdated term of Junior College? I believe within the state of California, they are termed Community Colleges. posted by
tkozy
on Feb 17, 2009 at 08:35 PM
Wit,
The 9999 number applies to any student that doesn't have a SS #, legal or illegal. But as SS # is eventually required. You are right that if those illegals recieve aid. It is a crime. But if they are in the U.S. legally I don't seee your point.
You are wrong about the amount of aid available, Of course this year may be differant. Financial Aid
posted by
witterpitters
on Feb 17, 2009 at 08:50 PM
Teacher: I'm from way back in the 60's when we called it Jr. College - sorry. I worked at BC for 16 years. The financial aid these students is the kind that does not have to be repaid and can be spent for anything; car, rent, food, partying, etc. saw it first hand. Yes there are grants and loans but these students don't usually apply for those. I'm saying any financial aid should be designated for school and if the student doesn't finish it should be paid back. Although I was told (by financial aid director) that since it is federal money the school can't put "rules" on it. It's a hand out and they just have to hope the student does the right thing athough I saw many misuse the help then ask for more. Yes there were those who did the right thing with it, but there were many many more who did not. TK: each year there is only a specific dollar amount available - kind of first come first served senerio, that is why there is a deadline date for paper submission and so all can be processed. There were students who turned in their papers at the last minute and lost out as the money ran out. There are work study and student jobs as well - however for those who speak little or no English they seldom utilize that. Almost the first 2 years they spend in ESL classes and academic development classes and those credits basically count for nothing - none of them are transferable. At one point I was told that the answer I gave someone calling - that they needed a SS# - was wrong. I was to tell them to come to the college and someone would 'help them out with that' issue. I was also told they could apply for and in all probability get financial aid. Many times M.E.cH.A. assisted them. Your tax dollars at work. posted by
mattloch
on Feb 17, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Prop 13 anyone? posted by
Shwaine
on Feb 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Actually, the "999" numbers apply to all students as a campus level ID. About halfway through grad school, I got my very own 999 number because a law was passed that schools could no longer use the SSN as an identifier. Since all the systems were designed for a 9 digit ID and 999 (plus 000) are not valid starters for SSNs, most schools chose to use those for the new, non-SSN campus IDs. posted by
ApolloDawn
on Feb 18, 2009 at 12:00 AM
"Prop 13 anyone?" That's a good point. Property tax is the most anti-nature tax in existence. Repeal it. posted by
tkozy
on Feb 18, 2009 at 12:32 AM
posted by
ApolloDawn
on Feb 18, 2009 at 07:37 AM
posted by
witterpitters
on Feb 18, 2009 at 07:48 AM
SHWAINE: ALL students now do have an ID# instead of a SS# as is now required by law. Even the employees of the colleges have an ID# instead of SS#. However, when someone shows up and has no number of any kind, the 999-99-9999 # is what they give them until they can get them a "real" number. I don't know how they do it (or why) but they do. IMO that is not right as it is allowing people who came here illegally (or are 'anchor' babies because mom jumped the boarder at the last push) to receive benefits that even legal immigrants can't or don't get. posted by
tkozy
on Feb 18, 2009 at 08:13 AM
Wit, Outside of fraud. Any person here illegally. Can not get a SS number. And they can be deported. That is the definition of illegal. As far as the anchor baby concept. I agree it should be changed. But that is the law as of now. But this all goes back to the fact the illegals are here because of criminal employers. If it wasn't for criminal employers providing jobs without health insurance to illegals. the illegals would not be here in the first place. As far as Mexicans coming to America for care. The reverse is true also. Many Americans are going to Mexico for care. It has become a trend along the border as of the past few years.
posted by
randomfactor
on Feb 18, 2009 at 08:13 AM
Those citing Prop 13 as a cause are dead-on. The state never really recovered from that. Of course, Ah-nold sabotaged the state further with his very first action. posted by
witterpitters
on Feb 18, 2009 at 08:25 AM
posted by
witterpitters
on Feb 18, 2009 at 08:26 AM
posted by
Jburger
on Feb 18, 2009 at 08:30 AM
The ironic thing about the car tax — Schwarzenegger is now supporting a budget plan that returns the car tax to something close to its original level. posted by
randomfactor
on Feb 18, 2009 at 08:31 AM
posted by
randomfactor
on Feb 18, 2009 at 09:00 AM
posted by
AudreyB
on Feb 18, 2009 at 09:05 AM
That gun should be pointed at his own foot because a self inflicted wound is what's is going to happen to the Republicans in Sacramento if State workers start getting laid off. Stupid conservatives. Tee hee BTW Property taxes before Prop 13 were out of control. Think hard before you wish for 13 to be repealed. posted by
TSM
on Feb 18, 2009 at 09:42 AM
posted by
randomfactor
on Feb 18, 2009 at 09:46 AM
BTW Property taxes before Prop 13 were out of control. Think hard before you wish for 13 to be repealed. Prop 13 provided property tax relief for businesses at the expense of citizens. That's what it was for. posted by
tkozy
on Feb 18, 2009 at 09:53 AM
Audrey, Yes they were. That's why I would only support a change for non primary residences. Prop 13 isn't playing into the revenue losses today. It only affected the past revenues that could have been used for a rainy day fund. Property values are dropping like a rock. No fault of prop 13. Just the reality of speculation and price manipulation. posted by
noholdsbarred
on Feb 19, 2009 at 04:56 PM
TSM: I left 13 out of the mix because it has sooo many unintended consequences that it deserves its own column/story/newspaper section/book/encyclopedia. Property taxes were out of control and people were being taxed out of their homes before 13. True. But there were numerous other measures before 13 that might have addressed that issue with a scalpel instead of the sledge hammar that 13 turned out to be. The other props I mentioned, were smaller, more specific hand cuffs on the budget process. I think we're going to start seeing a lot of reform efforts this year to undo some of the the foibles of the past. Already two initiatives are being looked at by the AG that would reduce the 2/3 majority to pass a budget to 55 percent and, of course Maldonado got his open primary bill on the ballot. June should be interesting! posted by
NancyII
on Feb 21, 2009 at 01:56 PM
Correction Tk, Mexicans are coming here for the FREE benefits. Americans are going there (with money) because 1. It's more affordble (entists) and 2. they can get drugs not available in the US. posted by
tkozy
on Feb 21, 2009 at 04:08 PM
Nancy, posted by
NancyII
on Feb 21, 2009 at 04:31 PM
What amazes me is your ability to change everything I say to argue with me. I said they come here for the free benefits..medical care is only one of them When have you ever seen me say anything good about people who hire illegals? I think they should be prosecuuted right along with all the politicians who seem to think it's ok for their nannies and gardeners to be illegals. Just because I didn't say that on this blog doesn't mean I find no fault with them. I was one who raised holy hell about the Home Depot fiasco. posted by
tkozy
on Feb 21, 2009 at 04:42 PM
Nancy, If you think working for a criminal employer is a free benefit. You are poorly informed. Illegals do not come here for the free benefits. They come here to work. and when the criminal employer fails to provide them steady employment. They do get some welfare benefits. But it isn't exactly dollar bills growing from trees. Without the criminal employer. There would be no illegals to receive benefits. Your argument concerning illegals receiving Free benefits. Has no standing posted by
witterpitters
on Feb 21, 2009 at 04:46 PM
I heard a blurb that Hershey Co. in PA is shutting down and moving its operations to.......................................drum roll......................Mexico. hundreds now out of work in the USA.
posted by
NancyII
on Feb 21, 2009 at 04:51 PM
OK Tk, ya got me. I shouldn't have used the word "free"...just "benefits." They make money and send it back to their homeland. People from here spend money in their homeland. Are you going to argue with that? Witters..not only ae we sending money to Mexico through illelgals and trade, we're sending money via business. posted by
sagefever
on Feb 21, 2009 at 05:22 PM
From the Hershey closing we lost 300 jobs. Now if their chocolate just got better, I'd be a happy camper. BTW~ if you can buy some Girl Scout cookies,they need sales.
1
Advertisement |