Steinberg Ready to "Pull the Plug"

Who to blame.... (3.00 / 1)

Brian...

Didn't you know last year that this crisis was inevitable?  So why didn't Senator Steinberg and his like-minded colleagues plan ahead?  

And if the Republicans proposed reducing all social welfare programs to the federal minimums to balance the budget, would you think the Democrats would consider it?  

Prop 25 virtually made Republican legislators irrelevant, so how can you blame them for exercising their little remaining political power?  In Wisconsin, didn't all Democrats in the state senate attempt to leverage their political power to forestall anti-public employee union legislation?

Whether a political move is good or bad shouldn't depend upon the identity of the party attempting the maneuver.

---

by: Dogged @ Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 22:53:57 PM UTC

Who to blame.... (0.00 / 0)

Brian...

Didn't you know last year that this crisis was inevitable?  So why didn't Senator Steinberg and his like-minded colleagues plan ahead?  

And if the Republicans proposed reducing all social welfare programs to the federal minimums to balance the budget, would you think the Democrats would consider it?  

Prop 25 virtually made Republican legislators irrelevant, so how can you blame them for exercising their little remaining political power?  In Wisconsin, didn't all Democrats in the state senate attempt to leverage their political power to forestall anti-public employee union legislation?

Whether a political move is good or bad shouldn't depend upon the identity of the party attempting the maneuver.

---

by: Dogged @ Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 22:55:07 PM UTC

Content (4.00 / 1)

"They are content to watch the teacher layoffs and the elderly lose assistance.  It is all one big piece of white noise to them."

I don't understand how this can be a surprise to you.  The Republicans have said all along they will cut spending to education and cut social programs to the minimum.  Democrats can stomp their feet all they want and yell it is not fair but the Republicans are getting exactly what they want; cuts.  They don't need to do anything to achieve the next round of cuts either.  

Everyone here is kidding themselves if they think there are more revenues on the way.  The polls don't support it, the Republicans will not support even putting them on the ballot, and it is unlikely, in the next 5 years, that we will see revenues at a level to support the current 2011 spending allocation even before the next round of cuts.  We live in a different world now.  

In the words of Gavin Newsom, there are more cuts coming "Whether you like it or not."

This is great.  Pass the popcorn.

---

by: Diego_LaPuente @ Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 23:07:24 PM UTC

I hope (0.00 / 0)

People realize, Governor Brown has tried His best, It's just Republicans obeying their blood oath to Fuhrer Norquist and not the oath they took on a Bible to serve the interests of the State of California & Its People, I'm surprised they don't have a salute... As they won't compromise, If Democrats ever get 2/3rds or more in the Legislature, I say use It and end the damned farce, Yet put something in place so that taxes can't be easily raised or lowered by very much to satisfy most people without a ballot measure with one hell of a good reason to do so with. As 2/3rds should only be used to override a veto from the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor If the Governor is not able to for some reason, As 2/3rds for anything else is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

---

by: SuperJoker @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 02:05:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Surprised? Hardly (4.00 / 2)

I've been saying since the day that Gov. Brown released his plan that I didn't think he would get the Republican votes necessary and that they should have a backup plan.  

I'm glad you enjoy watching people die, as the elderly lose assistance, and people are pushed onto the streets.  Gee, I'm sure that is really entertaining.  Why don't you come stroll the homeless communities in any of our major cities, and see how fun that is.

Get a life.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 13:21:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ballot measures (5.00 / 2)

I'll repeat an idea I suggested in another thread - if we're going to have ballot measures to fight over this November, why not go for the whole enchilada - put raising taxes on the rich and corporations on the ballot. So what if it takes 2/3 majority. Let's put up a fight and get the issue(s) out there and see where it goes. It seems like a good time for such measures. And if not now, when? The author of the above post seems to think there are going to be a lot of ugly measures without any kind of thought to a counter offensive. Are we rolling over already?

---

by: dmurray @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 02:46:00 AM UTC

That (5.00 / 2)

And an oil severance tax on any oil pumped out of the ground anywhere within California's legal jurisdiction, Which should also include offshore too, Just to be complete of course, As We don't want any wiggle room in the measure.

---

by: SuperJoker @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 03:05:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Commercial Property (4.75 / 4)

Go back to two tax rolls for residential and commercial property.  Close the loophole that allows them to change owners without triggering a reassessment.

---

by: LillithMc @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 15:33:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That (0.00 / 0)

Means that the change in ownership of the Corporation would have to be listed as a change of ownership, Which I think It is not currently.

---

by: SuperJoker @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 17:18:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Nature of Public Corporations (0.00 / 0)

Are that every time a share is traded, the ownership changes ever so slightly...

Of course, I suspect it has previously been litigated, but if not, it might be a loophole to exploit.

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 03:32:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd (4.00 / 1)

Also get rid of term limits as It has made Government weaker, Not better, The only ones term limits are better for are the Corporations(Big Oil and yes Special Interests like Koch Industries & Grover Norquist(Who may as well be allied with AlQueda and not the people of California who voted for them)). Republican Legislators have taken an an oath of office which comes before anyone else and that goes double for Special Interest Groups who aren't voters, Of course Republicans in the Legislature have taken an oath to Grover Norquist as well and are giving lip service to California. Since Republicans have taken a conflicting oath to Special Interests and are acting in their behalf after receiving campaign contributions, Then those Legislators may as well be beholden(bribed) to them and not to California or to the US, So I question whether their obeying their oath that they swore upon entering office. As they can not swear an oath to a person as that is an oath of fealty and an oath of office at the same time as that is a conflict of interest, As in who are they really loyal to?

Also there should be a measure to severely limit Corporate monetary donations to political campaigns(And make It so that Corporate donations can't be funneled through employees too), As Corporations aren't on the voter rolls as voters, Which requires a US Birth Certificate or other Legal Document verifying US Citizenship, and Corporations aren't born, Their man made creations, Like the Frankenstein Monster of fiction...

---

by: SuperJoker @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 18:44:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Put it on the ballot now. (4.50 / 2)

They should put it on the ballot with a majority vote.  If there are legal challenges, so be it.  I think the courts would tend to let the vote proceed and then the courts would tend to accept the vote.

---

by: annie @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 03:47:33 AM UTC

On what basis do you think the courts would go that way? (0.00 / 0)

I've read or heard nothing to that effect.

---

by: duder @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 16:21:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's just have it out in November (5.00 / 1)

I don't think there is much chance of a special June election now.  The Republicans wanted to run out the clock and I think they just did it.  

So we are going to have some ugly cuts right now and in November, voters can decide if this is what they want for the state or do they want higher taxes.  Perhaps with a little experience with what the cuts really mean, we might see a better acceptance for taxes and we might be in a better situation then.

I'm not sure we have much choice right now.  

---

by: smoker1 @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 05:57:46 AM UTC

Yep (0.00 / 0)

I think You might be right.

---

by: SuperJoker @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 06:33:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

past time for direct action - Michael Moore... (5.00 / 1)

where are you? Some funny, attention getting street theater that makes Steinberg's point in an up-beat way.

Nurses followed Arnie all over the state and made their point. Why don't nurses and teachers and parents call out the Rs to make the point? LET the VOTERS DECIDE!

Where are the phone  banks to mobilize Dem voters in the districts of the "leaning" Rs to get them to call their legislators? What's up with this flat footed approach? We need nimble, energetic counter   measures.

---

by: fhcec @ Sat Mar 26, 2011 at 07:02:14 AM UTC

Because Nurses and Teachers (0.00 / 0)

Are public employees and, like it or not, really in disfavor  on the public stage.

---

by: duder @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 16:23:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the public > republicans and conservatives (0.00 / 0)

by a huge margin, in this state. the GOP has been trying in vain to demonize them for decades, but whenever an anti-union initiative comes up for a vote, it gets shut down pretty quick.

given a choice between republican politicians and nurses and teachers, the public in CA will choose nurses and teachers every time. you guys are a superminority for a reason, the voting public in this state does not buy your line, and hasn't for some time.

---

by: wu ming @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 20:23:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

My sister in law is a Nurse and My Younger Niece has gone back to school to become one, Of course both are Republicans, Go figure.

---

by: SuperJoker @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 20:41:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Roots of the problem (0.00 / 0)

I blame the courts for letting the 2/3 requirement stand.  It is clearly anti-democratic to give a "no" vote twice the weight of a "yes" vote for raising taxes (or any other single thing).  It should be reserved for basic changes in procedure, like amending the constitution, yet we allow those initiatives to pass with a simple majority.

Why not an initiative that says you can't elect a Democrat unless they get 2/3 of the votes?  I'm sure it's occurred to the Rethugs but they just can't figure out a way to sell it.

---

by: Sofia @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 04:07:17 AM UTC

A few observations (0.00 / 0)

He who supports the expansion of state power is a traitor to mankind.

H.L. Mencken

Look skeptically of the attributions in internet discussion fora

Anaximenes of Miletus

The use of the singular "they" is a mark of a deficient education

OnionLabel

---

by: OnionLabel @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 18:14:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

apologies for the troll-feeding, folks, but (0.00 / 0)

1. allowing majority votes on revenue does not equate expansion of state power. it's standard practice in nearly every democratic state (including the vast majority of american state govts) in the world, across most of modern history. unless you're arguing that majority opinion is "an enemy of mankind," defining mankind as the affluent superminority that doesn't want to pay its fair share.

2. i fail to see how this is in response to the preceding comment.

3. "the rethugs" are plural, not singular. hence "they."

---

by: wu ming @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 20:32:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What the hell is a "singular they," smarty pants? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Huntington Beach Vern @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 13:43:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed to a point (0.00 / 0)

They is plural last I looked, But It can also be Singular too, They said English is complicated...

---

by: SuperJoker @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 17:53:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He also comes across great in this piece (0.00 / 0)

From the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/...

I think it's a very even handed article on tax rates.

---

by: duder @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 16:19:37 PM UTC

Except property taxes weren't mentioned at all (4.00 / 1)

While they suggested putting additional taxes on the poor and middle class in the form of sales taxes, they didn't mention property taxes and the problem of Prop 13.

Having the poor and middle class pay more isn't the solution.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 18:06:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The more they try to tax the poor (5.00 / 1)

The more will slip through "their" fingers.

---

by: SuperJoker @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 18:15:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Property Taxes (0.00 / 0)

Why mention them?

There's zero point zero chance of repealing that law, despite California Crackups good sense and the overwhelming need to.

---

by: duder @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 04:10:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]