There's No Budget? How Can That Be?
Well once again, California has failed to pass a budget plan on time. But wait, how can this be? Didn't Ahnold tell us that passing Prop 61 would solve this problem? Oh, that's right - no one actually read Prop 61. You see, it did not require a balanced budget. All Prop 61 said was that the Governor should propose one. It did not say he had to propose one, nor did it say the state government had to enact one.
The hold up this year is that the Democrats are squabbling over $1B for social programs that the state cannot afford. Even worse, though, is that they are doing this simply to improve their prospects of defeating Ahnold in November.
One consequence of electing a Democrat in November will be an immediate increase in income taxes, which the 'Dems want to do now. However, historically in this state, there has never been a time in California when increased income taxes resulted in increased revenue. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. Every single time taxes increased, revenue decreased. This is an indisputable fact. Increasing income taxes will not solve California's budget deficit.
There is a tax whose increase would mitigate the problem - Proposition 13. The problem is that this is the one tax which Democrats will never touch. Prop 13 is what allows Warren Buffet to live in a multi-million dollar home and pay an annual property tax only slightly higher than what I pay in monthly rent. Passed around 1979, Prop 13 prevents reassessment of property tax until a home is sold, regardless of improvements or housing price increases. The truly ironic thing is that Prop 13 helps more wealthy owners of expensive houses than it does minorities according to Mr. Buffet. Yet the 'Dems insist this is a progressive tax policy to help the "historically disadvantaged." It is really very simple - repeal Prop 13 and we will instantly have more money at the local level to fund the services whose costs are now borne by the state.
The government goes out of its way to tell people to be careful of going into debt. It pays for programs to help people get back on track and avoid bankruptcy. Clearly the government understands in principle that debt is bad. So why is it that once they cease to be individuals and start to be a legislature that they forget the basic rule which they constantly tell the rest of us: live within your means? Is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do?"
It's not rocket science. Government cannot accurately predict what tax revenue will be, but they can control their voracious appetite for spending. It's high time that we adopt both zero-based budgeting and spending plans based on actual, collected revenues, not projected ones.
Neither Ahnold nor the state Democrats understands the problem. They are too busy picking fights with each other. We need to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. We need to stop focusing on who is red and who is blue and start focusing on who has a plan which will actually work. Tom McClintock was the only candidate in the recall who had a balanced budget proposal. We missed an opportunity to solve California's problems simply because he is a 'Pub.
The hold up this year is that the Democrats are squabbling over $1B for social programs that the state cannot afford. Even worse, though, is that they are doing this simply to improve their prospects of defeating Ahnold in November.
One consequence of electing a Democrat in November will be an immediate increase in income taxes, which the 'Dems want to do now. However, historically in this state, there has never been a time in California when increased income taxes resulted in increased revenue. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. Every single time taxes increased, revenue decreased. This is an indisputable fact. Increasing income taxes will not solve California's budget deficit.
There is a tax whose increase would mitigate the problem - Proposition 13. The problem is that this is the one tax which Democrats will never touch. Prop 13 is what allows Warren Buffet to live in a multi-million dollar home and pay an annual property tax only slightly higher than what I pay in monthly rent. Passed around 1979, Prop 13 prevents reassessment of property tax until a home is sold, regardless of improvements or housing price increases. The truly ironic thing is that Prop 13 helps more wealthy owners of expensive houses than it does minorities according to Mr. Buffet. Yet the 'Dems insist this is a progressive tax policy to help the "historically disadvantaged." It is really very simple - repeal Prop 13 and we will instantly have more money at the local level to fund the services whose costs are now borne by the state.
The government goes out of its way to tell people to be careful of going into debt. It pays for programs to help people get back on track and avoid bankruptcy. Clearly the government understands in principle that debt is bad. So why is it that once they cease to be individuals and start to be a legislature that they forget the basic rule which they constantly tell the rest of us: live within your means? Is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do?"
It's not rocket science. Government cannot accurately predict what tax revenue will be, but they can control their voracious appetite for spending. It's high time that we adopt both zero-based budgeting and spending plans based on actual, collected revenues, not projected ones.
Neither Ahnold nor the state Democrats understands the problem. They are too busy picking fights with each other. We need to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. We need to stop focusing on who is red and who is blue and start focusing on who has a plan which will actually work. Tom McClintock was the only candidate in the recall who had a balanced budget proposal. We missed an opportunity to solve California's problems simply because he is a 'Pub.
posted by exsubdriver at 8:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home