State Budget Battle Fizzles (Democratic Girly-Men Throw In The Towel Alert)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 06/15/05 | Evan Halper

[goldstategop]

The Democrats who control the Legislature have abandoned their effort to add billions of dollars in programs to the governor's proposed state budget, and are preparing to vote for a spending plan with no new taxes and no extra money for schools.

Shifting their focus to the coming special election fight, the lawmakers are surrendering to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the major spending issues that have separated the two sides for months. For the first time in years, they are rushing to meet their constitutional deadline for passing a budget today with a viable plan. Democrats fear that holding up the budget — even for what they argue is the noble cause of trying to restore $3 billion that schools say they are owed — would hurt them Nov. 8 and drive voters to approve spending controls the governor helped place on the ballot. They said they would try to secure the money by other means.

They say they will vote in favor of a budget that closely resembles the governor's latest spending plan, issued in May. The strategy shift is an indication of the extent to which the special election, ordered by Schwarzenegger on Monday, already has begun to dominate decision making in the Capitol. ...

Now, Democratic strategists and school groups fear that holding up the budget over that issue — just as the special election campaign gets underway — could backfire, fueling Schwarzenegger's charge that the Legislature is dysfunctional. The governor already is campaigning for the measures he endorsed, which could dilute the Legislature's power.

School groups say passage of the spending cap would be more harmful to them than losing the $3 billion this year. The measure would remove some education spending obligations from state law, potentially costing schools billions more.

[djreece]

I just saw what you wrote in Post 34. I appreciate your change of heart.

[untrained skeptic]

No, I'm willing to bet that no state is free of that burden, but California bears a higher burden than other states such as Ohio where I live.

[A CA Guy]

That post of yours is a crock.

Do you have about a third of all your students getting public education at $7000 a pop being ILLEGALS? I thought not. We have a 12 billion dollar bill from illegals in this state that you can't relate to.

The teacher's UNION are the problem. They are a union into growing their own numbers, pay and influence, they have nothing to do with education at this point IMO.

You want fairness, I have a simple plan.

All government employees, including teachers should be paid "no more" for salary, benefits or pensions than what is found in the private sector.

1.25% is a lot of money, and we have lots of bonds that stupid Californians voted for because people added "for the children" in the measure. But nothing will ever be enough as long as the public has anymore money left.

Most people move every 5 years in this state and most are not in their same homes of the 70s with lower taxes based on lower purchase prices.

Your out of your mind regarding your prop13 view because:
You'd get all the older people kicked out of their homes.
Only 17% of this state could afford the homes they live in right now. That should tell you something.

When a person in the bought their homes for $50,000 the average wage might have been $18,000 a year and they are going to retire with less money in the bank than those earning big bucks later.

In the 80s, the same homes rose to $155,000 on salaries of maybe $35,000 on average.

In the 90s, the same home might have gotten up to $275,000, with people earning an average wage of $45,000.

Now homes are 700k with an average family wage of maybe 60k in the state.

All people with homes in California bought in when they were mostly in their own financial primes and you can't compare the wages of the 70s to the wages of the 00s.

The person with the home in the 70's has a tax bill of around $1000, the 80's $2,000, the 90's $3,500 and in the 00's it's about $7,000.

You can't expect those that bought in with a $18000 a year salary as a family in their prime (now maybe retired) to agree with dropping prop 13 so they could spend most of their SS on property tax. That is stupid and the state should live on a minimum, not be flooded in money for politicians to spend.

[stopem]

I can't argue the point that homeschooling is best. We homeschooled our 4 children for a time, our children are all grown now.

I misunderstood the situation that exists in CA and I have mentioned that in another post.

[Utilizer]

Right, I saw that and appreciate your open-mindedness. Please do not misconstrue anything that I said as a personal attack. It is simply that over the years you have not been the first to comment upon the appalling state that the educational system in California has distorted itself into -and I have personal knowledge of incidents that you simply would not believe were I to burden you with their retelling.

The nice thing about FR is the feedback from so many others that have at least one bit of information that contributes to the dialog, and I am not ashamed to say that I Myself have been taken to task for erroneous comments at one time or another. I never get insulted -barring the most blatant of trolls posting at times- when that happens, because I am not fool enough to think that I know everything. We never stop learning, and if we are fortunate we will continue to do so to our final moments.

Be well, and all the best to you and yours.