Posted on 07/25/2005 9:55:19 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Legislators and the governor celebrated the passage of the 2005-06 state budget that some call a victory for taxpayers - no new taxes, no new borrowing, and the largest single annual increase for the education budget. It is also argued by some that this budget is moving the state's finances towards structural balance.
Such wishful thinking! This budget not only ignores the structural deficit, but it unfortunately paves the way for future tax increases that will become necessary to finance future spending.
Let's begin with the budget's proposed spending plan. As shown in the accompanying chart the enacted budget contains $90 billion of general fund expenditures by various state agencies. This is an increase of about $8 billion from an estimated expenditure level of $81.7 in the 2004-05 fiscal year - an increase of 10.2 percent. Ironically, the adopted spending plan of $90 billion is $12.4 billion higher than former Gov. Gray Davis' 2003-04 budget - an increase of 16 percent over two years.
Of course, there are some one-time expenditures in this budget that will not be incurred in subsequent years. These include the repayment of $1.2 billion of Vehicle License Fee Offset programs that local governments lost between July and October of 2003. But even after adjusting for all one-time spending items, the enacted expenditure plan shows a substantial increase compared to the previous fiscal year. In fact, since the 1997-98 fiscal year, total general fund expenditure has increased at an annual average compounded rate of 6.9 percent - an increase of about 70 percent over eight years.
This rate of spending increase is sharply higher than the 40 percent combined growth rate in inflation and population in the state over the same period.
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Reminds me of that old liberal song "Blowing in the wind".
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see, the answer my friend is blowing in the wind..."
I'm glad you mentioned water systems. City and county owned systems like Hetch Hetchy, which is owned by the City and County of San Francisco would not change ownership. Water resources under federal control would not change. Water under state control would be controlled by the state it originates in. Sale of state fresh water would be within existing federal guidelines. Electricity generated by dams would be controlled by the state it is generated in, and sale of that electricity would follow federal laws. These two resources, water and electricity would help assure the economic stability of the larger state as they can be sold to the smaller state at market value without federal intervention.
The highways and waterways are another important issue. The larger state would be positioned to implement fair commercial fees on all highways under its jurisdiction, including Interstate Highways. The larger state would also be positioned to increase port activities along the coast that have been under utilized to date. The San Francisco Bay and its waterways would be governed under federal law as the waters are shared by both states.
Only the larger state would be poised to attract substantial new manufacturing and business as land use in the smaller state is already maximized. Persistent current state issues, from redistricting of legislative districts, voter registration, the issuing of driver's licenses, Worker's Compensation, schools, and unionized government workforces can be addressed with a state Constitutional Convention. The new state would be best suited to balance the concerns between rural and urban areas. Approximately 4.5 million voters reside in the more populated counties of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego, with the remaining 4.3 million voters residing in the less populated, more rural counties. The larger state would have a decidedly stron conservative Congressional delegation to augment a conservative state government.
Another facet that needs mentioning is borders. It must be noted that Imperial County is very liberal, but sparsely populated. This county would be included with the larger state to assure control along the border with Mexico. Another county, Santa Barbara is slightly liberal leaning. It is included with the larger state because it has jurisdiction over some Channel Islands areas, and the oil and gas reserves in those offshore areas can best be managed by the larger state. It must be noted here that Governor Schwarzenegger is working diligently on limiting offshore oil and gas production.
As you noted, the smaller state would have JPL, AMES and Caltech, but the larger state would have Edwards Air Force Base, Lemoore Naval Air Base, Camp Pendleton, and the San Diego Naval Base, home of the Southern Pacific Fleet.
I hope I supplied adequate sources to some of the information you were looking for. I purposely provided links to information so anyone reading this could see the numbers were not the product of my hopes, or imagination.
As for a four mile move, I believe it will be financially beneficial to you. I honestly believe the larger state will have substantially lower taxes then the small state.
Section. 3.Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
But on the plus side, we could go back to drilling for oil off of Santa Barbara county.
I don't know about the legality of CA splitting into two states, but when I was growing up, it was just one of those things that you know. Texas could split into five states and Calif. into two. Just a fact ?????????
I will have to check further with the sources within the California Republican Assembly that provided this information. As a former CRA member, I have great trust in the information the CRA leadership has provided to me. You may have the ability to actually discuss this locally as the CRA is very strong in Orange County where you reside. The actual document is titled "Act for the admission of California into the Union", but I am unable to find it on the Internet for the sake of reference.
It may also be beneficial to note California voters had once approved the splitting of the state into two states. Assemblyman Andres Pico from Los Angeles, introduced a bill in 1859 to divide California into two states at the Tehachapi mountain range. The Pico bill passed both the Assembly and the State Senate and was signed by Governor John Weller. After a public vote in the south in which southerners voted to divide the state, Governor Weller informed the U.S. House of Representatives that the state had authorized the division. A bill was then introduced before the House, but it never came to a vote. The Civil War had begun.
As for the Constitution, Article IV:
Section. 3.
Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Article IV; Section 1 of California Constitution states:
The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.
The citizens of California have, by this provision, the right to the initiative process that circumvents the state legislature. Additionally, such a initiative splitting the state would give rise to candidates wanting to split the state, further assuring the split is consensual.
I'd also like to juice things up a bit by quoting a statement from an extremely prestigious document, The Declaration of Independence.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I earnestly believe the time has come to dissolve the political bonds which have connected the State of California as a single state.
I honestly understand your desire to keep control of the shorelines of Santa Cruz and San Mateo. Some portions of the eight counties might opt to join the larger state, but this would have to be submitted to the voters of those individual counties for approval. I know there are some conservative pockets of voters within the eight counties. It is hoped the conservative pockets can forge the necessary alliances to break their bonds with those counties and join the larger state, but this would be a county, not state matter.
It should be noted that between your "Taiwan" and "China", the "Taiwan" region is far and away the more liberal of the two, and would likely never want a part of a state where issues of marriage, abortion and union influences will be addressed by a more conservative state.
I'll throw my hat in the ring for this idea.
I've though for years that the old North/South split was wrongheaded because it would leave each new state diseased with the same cancer that precipitaetd the move to split in the first place.
No, an East/West split -- excising the cancerous counties from the rest of the state and forcing them to inherit their consequences -- makes the most sense of all.
Amen. Because Tom currently is running "only" for LT. Gov., it's my hope that Arnold will get re-elected, that Tom will get elected, and that, shortly afterwards, Arnold will retire to private life, proudly putting Tom in the governor's seat. Arnold is probably a little better than Davis (esp. in appointing more non-leftist judges and such), but Tom SURELY will be better.
Section. 3.Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
So, we have 3 parts of the clause:
1. States can be added
2. You can't make a new State out of part of an existing State
3. You can't make a new State out of parts or the whole of two or more States
And we have 1 exclusion:
1. "Something" is allowed if you get State Legislature & Congress to agree to it. (But what is that "something"?)
The three parts of the clause are separated by semi-colons, not commas. The exclusionary language appears in the section of the clause pertaining to "combining" two or more States to make a new one. It doesn't apply to the first two parts of the clause (in fact it doesn't make any sense at all when applied to the first part).
Based on my interpretation, we're tilting at windmills trying to get this through.
I would, however, expect the Democrats to filibuster such a bill in the Senate so that it never gets to a vote.
The only way to do it in the short run is through the initiative process; the RATs will only laugh at that since they control the corrupt state judiciary. It only takes one commie judge (and there are many in the state) to overturn an otherwise constitutionally legal ballot measure. I think the only cure for California is a massive quake or a jump over the cliff into bankruptcy. The politicians seem bent on the latter.
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.