Posted on 05/24/2009 5:33:38 AM PDT by reaganaut1
...
Like other states, California is suffering from a collapse in tax revenues brought on by the recession. Unlike other states, it suffers from severely dysfunctional politics, including gridlock-inducing budget procedures and a deeply anti-tax strain that plays itself out in endless voter referenda, dating back to the Proposition 13 property tax cap from the 1970s. As a result, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared recently that more tax increases are politically impossible. Yet, his proposed spending cuts are also unappealing, if not impossible, including slashing education and health care funds and releasing prison inmates early.
What the Obama administration should make clear is that a bias for spending cuts — and against tax increases — is the wrong approach for California and other states. Both spending cuts and tax increases are harmful in a downturn, because they reduce already weak consumer demand. But most states are required by law to balance their budgets, so when deficits emerge, they are forced to do one or the other, or both.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, raising taxes may be better than spending cuts because tax increases, especially if they are focused on wealthy taxpayers, have less of a negative impact on consumption. Spending cuts hit consumption hard, depriving the economy of money that would otherwise be spent quickly. They also have the disadvantage — so evident in the cuts proposed by Mr. Schwarzenegger — of falling heavily on the needy.
If California cannot or will not solve its problems and emergency federal aid is deemed necessary, the administration must attach strings — perhaps by limiting the ways the money can be spent. An onerous quid pro quo would send a message to other states that bailouts are not worth the hassle — that there are no pain-free ways out of this downturn.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Citizens must tell their senators and congressmen that they oppose a bailout of California, which would inevitably spread to other states, and which would be conditioned on states not cutting spending, as the NYT advocates.
taxing high income ppl have less on consumer demand? Rubbish
Lefties are under the illusion that high income people keep all the money locked up somewhere and not using it or investing it into the economy. Most ppl don’t have cash laying around. They’re either in stockmarket, assets or in bank where the bank use to invest in projects
AIG was ‘too big to fail’.
California has ‘too many democrat voters and contributors to fail’.
No bailout.... Make those legislative clowns in Sacramento step up to the plate and cut spending. Send that blow-hard Arnold packing.
The folks in Sacramento have already had enough money and they blew it on feel good, woosie-minded schemes.
Ah, caught between the rock and hard place of running out of the ability to spend other people’s money yet still being quite short of utopia. . .
If only those fool idiot voters understood that they were only a tax increase or two (or ten or twenty) away from paradise.
What’s a socialist to do?
Well, there you have it. Just tax the wealthy. I wonder why no political party has thought of that before now?
Trouble with that assumption is that CAs liberals don't care - only themselves....
....50% of California households are non-English speaking...these consume a tremendous amount of social services...California can not be saved.
The high income tax payers are leaving California by the droves. Pretty soon, the only people left will be people who pay no taxes.
Is anyone shocked that the NYT advocated spending more of the taxpayers money to bailout California? Spending and taxing are the pillars of the Democratic Socialist Party and liberalism in general. Bailouts for everyone!
They get it wrong the first line.
They are suffering from a collapse due to overspending.
Their whole basis for opinion is wrong from the start.
Both spending cuts and tax increases are harmful in a downturn, because they reduce already weak consumer demand.
Government spending does NOT stimulate the economy. Most of it goes for bureaucrats' salaries, bureaucrats who do nothing but SLOW the economy in their typical day's work. If government spending stimulates the economy (and by extending the same logic the opposite way, slows the economy), why don't we regulate economic growth with government spending instead of changing the Fed rate?
Contrary to conventional wisdom, raising taxes may be better than spending cuts because tax increases
At least the NYT, after almost 30 years, recognizes the Laffer curve.
especially if they are focused on wealthy taxpayers, have less of a negative impact on consumption.
Look how quickly they veered off into the mud and weeds. Wealthy taxpayers are the ones with the disposable income in hard times. Take more away from them, and you get less consumption during those same hard times. The NYT and all Marxists somehow think that the word "rich" exempts people from ordinary economic considerations, that they are completely and irrevocably exempt from the principle of scarcity. God what idiots.
Spending cuts hit consumption hard, depriving the economy of money that would otherwise be spent quickly.
For the eleventy hundredth time, discredited above. However, since they made it as a bald statement, I'll demand they tell me how. I plan to have it on my headstone "I'm still waiting for your explanation, NYT".
They also have the disadvantage — so evident in the cuts proposed by Mr. Schwarzenegger — of falling heavily on the needy.
NOT if you're just eliminating unneeded bureaucrats' positions. I'm sure there's probably only a handful of those in CA, but anything's got to help. YES, I'm being sarcastic. One of our fellow FReepers posted the list of CA agencies on this forum a few days ago. It was so long I almost got a headache reading through it. Many of them were redundant (surprise, surprise).
What? The voters have spoken. Obama can pound sand.
If the voters deny new taxes, then their elected reps must find a way to do so or resign.
Obama, contrary to the NYT wet dreams, is not Hitler - He cannot impose taxes.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, raising taxes may be better than spending cuts because tax increases, especially if they are focused on wealthy taxpayers, have less of a negative impact on consumption.
I was going to write outright delusional, but it occurs to me that this is actually an outright lie
The historical facts to the contrary are overwhelming. - this is simply part of their agenda for change
Bailout today. Tax and spend tomorrow. Bailout the next day. Tax and spend the day after. Soon the goose is dead. It’s called killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Many people are unable to learn.
So being against tax increases counts as “severely dysfunctional politics”....who knew??
What is the emergency? That the imbeciles in the California Legislature can't balance the budget, and are addicted to living beyond their means? Why should I be concerned in the slightest?
This, to my mind, does not include a failure of one state to behave responsibly in its financial affairs. For the Federal government to penalize the other states for California's own serial irresponsibility would not only be unwise from a financial standpoint, but would violate the rights of their citizens. It would also establish a precedent likely in time to rend the bonds between the states, leading to disenfranchisement and much, much worse.
If the New York Times would like to bail out California, I would suggest it do so itself, rather than promoting increased taxation as a solution for profligacy. Ignoring for a moment that such taxation would prove ruinous to the state's prospects for future growth, the Times is itself nearly bankrupt, so perhaps they ought not be giving advice prior to getting their own house in order.
“tax increases, especially if they are focused on wealthy taxpayers, have less of a negative impact on consumption.”
and of course,wealthy people won’t simply change locations which they can afford to do much easier than others.Oh no,they must have piles of gold hidden in their basement that can’t be moved.
certainly nothing more or less than one expects from that rag.
of course the spending cuts they refer to are handouts. the real fear at the slimes is it may lead to reverse migration.
Not only do I oppose a California bailout, I oppose a NYT bailout too.
California's tax revenues haven't declined because of the recession . . . they've declined because their most productive citizens are moving out of the state.
Kali should limit all officals and state employees salarys to 50,000/yr. They’d save a bundle, tell those that don’t like it to meve to Ore. or Mass., thet’d love to have em.
“...endless voter referenda...” Yeah. Those damned voters. Who the hell do they think they are, huh??!!
“For the Federal government to penalize the other states for California’s own serial irresponsibility would not only be unwise from a financial standpoint, but would violate the rights of their citizens.”
Sure, but the same can be said of taxing small banks (via FDIC contributions) to pay for the sins of mega-banks, of taxing non-union workers to pay for the sins of UAW and of taxing all of us to pay for the sins of Congress, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Reserve Board. The precedent for bailing out CA has already been established. Indeed, for a government destined to spend trillions bailing out a dizzying array of claimants, it would seem churlish to withhold the $15 billion or so needed by CA. Moreover, the very prospective of having the ability to impose quid pro quos (read: exercise political power) in exchange for such assistance already certainly enhances its appeal in the eyes of people such as Rahm Emanuel and BHO.
This editorial is in the true liberal tradition of the NYT. What a bunch of BS.
Bailing out CA. this year will not solve the problem. The state will have to come back next year for even more money. This is not a long term solution to the problem. The problem is: 1) illegals and the services they receive and 2) the big salaries, benefits and pensions the public employees receive. In addition wealthier white people,who pay taxes, are fleeing the state and they are being replaced by poor minorities that pay little or no taxes. Thus the tax base dwindles but costs of services for its residents go up.
There is a huge difference between bailing out private and quasi-public entities on one hand, and states on the other. One is merely bad practice and poor economics, the other borders on tearing up the Constitution.
It would be very interesting to see how the socialists will respond to that, having practically no tax base left. My only prayer is that the taxpayers moving to other states don’t bring their lefty social policies with them which propel higher taxation.
I think perhaps some of them do know, it’s just that it fits right in with their marxist agenda to make everyone “equal”—equally poor and under the boot of government.
No wonder this was an unsigned editorial piece, the ole grey whore shows she was smoking dope when she should have been studying economics!!!
Well, these are the same kinds of people who support penalising those who save and stay out of debt in order to subsidise those who didn’t. All their sympathy is for those who wouldn’t live within their means, at the expense of those who did, who are now expected to take losses for those who didn’t. yet another way to make everyone equally poor.
Fits right in with the screed the Sacramento Bee “accidentally” published online, which they pulled when the kitchen got too hot (outraged comments from their readers). They were aghast that the voters believed they have a say in their government, they called them, essentially, too stupid to have a voice. They believe that the voters should let their overlords in government act in their interests, apparently because they’re so much smarter. That would be the same politicians who got California in this mess, even with all their supposed access to the facts which the peons don’t have. Like the wizards in Congress who voted on a “stimulus” package which none of them had read.
And yet California is either the highest taxed state or tied with Connecticut for that number one spot.
How is that possible with "gridlock-inducing budget procedures and a deeply anti-tax strain"?
The facts would seem to point out that there is almost no taxing restraint in California.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.