Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Carry_Okie; calcowgirl
Are you sure this is correct? I haven't read it yet.

It isn't.

Under certain circumstances, this bill authorizes reductions in state expenditures but does not withdraw the mandates that require these expenditures.

The result is the ability of the state to reduce revenues to counties while not relieving the counties of the legal responsibility to continue these programs at their increased expense. A circumstance that will. without relief from the legislature or the courts, force local governments (counties) to raise local taxes to cover the shortfalls in state reimbursement.

Most of the proposed reductions in state spending in the past two years are similar in theme, allowing the state to reduce spending by shifting the burden to local governments. This gimmick has allowed the executive to claim that there is no proposed "increase in taxes" when, in fact, taxes are increasing faster than historical rates, usually in form of "local taxes" or "fee increases".

19 posted on 09/23/2005 9:52:33 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Amerigomag
Most of the proposed reductions in state spending in the past two years are similar in theme, allowing the state to reduce spending by shifting the burden to local governments.

Devils, details, and all that.

21 posted on 09/23/2005 10:32:25 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson