[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Looking At New Revenues To Balance the Budget

by: Robert Cruickshank

Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 06:15:37 AM PDT


Note: I will be hosting the morning show on KRXA 540 AM from 8-10 to discuss this and other topics in California politics

In the aftermath of last week's delivery of layoff notices to 26,000 teachers and news that the budget is already $8 billion in the hole it makes sense to continue to look at serious revenue solutions to close a 30-year shortfall. Unless, of course, you are a Republican:

Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines of Clovis (Fresno County), one of three Assembly Republicans who voted for taxes in the latest budget package, said taxes to close additional budget shortfalls can't be on the table.

Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murietta (Riverside County), who became the Senate minority leader last month after a coup during the marathon budget session, said passing any more taxes or fees "would add insult to injury to California taxpayers."

It seems highly unlikely that Republicans will support new taxes without a major public movement to demand that they do so. And if Californians understand that new revenues are the only way to protect schools and health care services from even more crippling cuts then they might be willing to make those demands.

As reported by the SF Chronicle several Democratic legislators have proposed various measures to raise revenues, most of which are very sensible:

AB87 (Davis)/SB531 (DeSaulnier): Fees for shoppers who use plastic bags.

AB89 (Torlakson)/SB600 (Padilla): Increases the cigarette tax.

AB390 (Ammiano): $50-an-ounce tax on marijuana, which would be legalized for recreational use.

AB462 (Price): 1 percent income tax for individuals who earn more than $1 million a year, to fund public schools and universities.

AB656 (Torrico): Oil severance tax to help fund the state's community colleges and universities.

AB1019 (Beall)/SB558 (DeSaulnier): Tax or fee on alcohol.

AB1082 (Torrico): Sales tax on pornography.

AB1342 (Evans): Cities and counties would be allowed to raise income taxes and vehicle license fees.

SB96 (Ducheny): Increases the income tax rate on the state's wealthiest residents while lowering the rate for some middle-class taxpayers.

California remains one of the few oil-producing states that does not tax companies for taking that oil out of the ground, and Torrico's bill would change that. Ducheny and Price are on the right track with their tax-the-rich proposals, probably the best way to quickly raise a significant amount of money to help close the budget gap. Tom Ammiano's marijuana proposal is interesting and deserves serious consideration.

Of particular importance is Noreen Evans's bill to give local governments more of their own tax power. Republicans, who generally loathe democracy when it comes to government finances, do not want to give Los Angeles and San Francisco the power to raise their own taxes in such a broad way, even though many cities (like New York) possess that power and even though it could help ease the state's own financial burdens by letting localities make up some of the difference. This is a bill that definitely ought to pass.

I also think Democrats would be wise to get behind efforts to tax the wealthy. That dovetails nicely with President Obama's own federal tax proposals, and is probably one of the revenue answers that Californians can rally behind at this time. Doing so would help expose Republican obstruction for what it is - a naked defense of wealth and power. And if Democrats are to be serious about building a long-term movement to break anti-tax politics in this state, higher taxes on the rich are a necessary starting point.

Darrell Steinberg, after the brutal February budget battle, doesn't seem inclined to make that fight:

"Frankly, our focus ought to shift to tax reform," he said. "That means seriously addressing the volatility in our tax system. That means realigning the relationship between state government, local government and school districts. Whoever is providing the service ought to be able to raise revenue."

Last month's passage of the $12.5 billion tax package as part of the budget "was an exception to the rule because of the magnitude of the problem," Steinberg said.

I think he ought to be more supportive of exploring the wealth taxes, but he is clearly indicating support for the kind of ideas Noreen Evans is talking about - giving local governments the power to help fix their own problems. If a local school district wants to impose an income tax to support schools, why not let them do so?

That's a question we ought to force Republicans to answer publicly and often.

Robert Cruickshank :: Looking At New Revenues To Balance the Budget
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
revenues (4.00 / 1)
Democrats need to prepare for initiatives in the fall, modifying the 2/3rds vote. In the meantime, the majority rule revenue package should be resurrected.

How about un-doing the corporate (4.00 / 1)
tax cut giveaway that was included in the budget approved just last month?  That's over $1 billion/year that we could save right there.  It's money that does absolutely zero for the state (no actual investment in the state is required), and it wouldn't be a tax increase - just not implementing an unwise transfer of government funds into the pockets of out of state businesses.

In general, I think we win if we put the real choices in front of Californians -- additional revenues and maintain most services, or do nothing and have draconian cuts (all while giving away billions to undeserving out of state businesses).  

By the way, just because the Democrats in the legislature agreed to the propositions that Arnold forced on them (obviously, they softened them as much as they Arnold and his Republican extremists would allow, but still), this doesn't mean that they can't come out and try to defeat them, right?  Does term limits have something to do with why Dem legislators aren't as upset at the longterm impact that 1A would have on us as we are?  I don't envy their job, but remaking the state government more in the Republicans' image is not a solution - even temporarily.

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here


I'm out of it (0.00 / 0)
I think I missed some stuff happening, could anyone help me understand what's going on here?

1. In the article you link here, it says:

Less than a month after the Legislature approved more than $12 billion in tax increases to help bridge a $41 billion budget deficit

...they did? How'd they get around the 2/3 requirement?

2. In this article Digby linked this weekend, it tangentially says:

Tune in to conservative talk radio in California, and... they are chattering away in hopes of igniting a taxpayers' revolt to kill his budget measures on the May 19 ballot.

What ballot measures? What May 19 ballot? I thought that was just for CA-32?


Why should the Republicans offer tax increases? (2.00 / 1)
The basic premise of this article is flawed in that the Republicans want to shrink the size of this $135 billion dollar budget.

Why would Republicans offer or support further tax hikes to enable a state government that's too big, too expensive and too costly?

What makes things all the more difficult is that the Democrats have no one to blame. Arnold governs like a Democrat and the Republicans are in fact, irrevelant.

If the Democrats at least offer new sin taxes that were broad based and for the general fund, some Republicans might go along.

But as long as Democrats are controlled by the teacher union lobby, state government will continue to grow out of control because there is no return on the 40% investment of state dollars annually in public education.

Have graduation rates increased?

What about the dropout rate?

SAT test scores?

Are teachers willing to learn and speak Spanish?

Are they willing to extend the school year or reform the tenure process?

What reforms are they willing to consider?

The answer is none.

Never.


Yeah, Arnold governs like a Democrat in Kansas, maybe. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Sebelius was actually pretty progressive on education spending AFAIK (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Also, fuck you. (0.00 / 0)
You have no idea how hard it is to teach without sufficient funding. None. So don't go lecturing the teacher unions about how they should have superpowers and work 80 hours a week just because you don't want to pay your fair share.

[ Parent ]
That reply pretty much sums up (0.00 / 0)
the lack of respect I have for the teaching profession and teachers in general.

If you disagree with them, they can't have a tangible discussion based on the facts.

No one knows what it is to teach. You would think they were on suicide missions!

It is the power of the teacher unions that has the budget in the shape that it's in. $30 billion dollars later and they still don't have enough.

What is enough?

$100 billion?

How about $500 billion?


[ Parent ]
What an expert writer (0.00 / 0)
"too big, too expensive and too costly"

Too big, too big and too big.


[ Parent ]
AB 390 (0.00 / 0)
In case anyone doubts the financially restorative powers of marijuana, just look to our neighbors in the northern part of the state.
According to an MSNBC article, a Mendocino County-commissioned study revealed marijuana sales accounted for two-thirds of the county's economy.
Call it the audacity of dope. Assemblyman Ammiano is definitely onto something

Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox