Replies

You are wrong on the triple tax. The lower rate was backfilled up to its full amount by the State. It was there way of refunding surplus. The car owner saw the cut, but the full amount was paid to the counties by the State. When the budget surplus ceased, the backfill ceased and the tax reverted to its full amount on the bill sent to the car owner. Revenue to cities and counties did not change.

As of the new fiscal year, the legislature deffered payment of the VLF to the cities and counties until October. It said it would pay the amount it "borrowed" back in 2006. Some counties borrowed based on this promise. (Our county knew better.) We cut the Sheriff's budget by 17% instead. (A portion of that was due to loss of rural crime monies.)

After Gov. S. reduced the VLF back to 1/3 without obtaining continuance of the backfill, we saw a substantial reduction in revenue. (The VLF is 25% of the General Fund and was cut to 1/3. That would require a cumulative overall budget cut in excess of 30% to match reduced revenue.

"You are wrong on the triple tax."

Yes, as a result of deliberately trying to forget the mess since leaving office in 1999, I am wrong in not realizing or remembering the embarrassing "back-filling" the state has done to make counties and cities and districts a DEPENDENCY CLASS of the big, centralized government, far removed from the attention of the people!!!

Forester is correct to bring up the ERAF garbage from the early 90's that the stupid Steve Peace dreamed up and Pete Wilson signed! Prop 98 with the lying Jack Lemmon ad campaign set that all up with the teachers unions demanding the fixed 40% of each budget being forced with a constitutional amendment to the schools!!!

I am NOT wrong about the fact that local governments are being whip-sawed by the state's deliberate attempt(s) to circumvent Prop 13 by consolidating as much money, and thus power and control into Sacramento, making CA government overly "top-heavy" and thus, unstable and the state practically ungovernable!!!

Darrell Steinberg is especially dangerous in his recent and soon to be revived proposals re:"The Fiscalization of Land Use" involving "The Regionalization of Sales Taxes" to stop "Urban Sprawl" and install "Smart Growth!"

This is what I'm deathly afraid that Arnold will get sucked into with all his Greenie-Weenie EnvironMental "Advisors!" Around these parts, "Regionalism" only means shifting the remaining revenues, and thus control, to the metro-sexual areas and away from neighboring rural-sexual areas!!!

Watch for Steinberg to be heavily quoted in the BEE and another attempt by him to make a big push for "The Fiscalization of SMART GROWTH" which is a desperately dumb, Liberal concept!!!