Tax money helps Schwarzenegger undermine Angelides

Mercury News ^ | July 1, 2006 | LAURA KURTZMAN

[FairOpinion]

A boon in tax receipts has allowed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to lavish money on schools without raising taxes, undermining challenger Phil Angelides' central campaign premise that the state needs more revenue to fund education.

The $131.4 billion budget Schwarzenegger signed Friday gives an extra $5.1 billion to education next year, which may be enough to bring California close to the national average for education spending, according to an early estimate by the Legislative Analyst's office.

Although it is likely to be temporary, the $7.5 billion tax windfall that enabled the governor's largesse has come just in time for the November election. And it could not be worse news for Angelides, who wants to raise taxes on corporations and the rich to provide more money for education.

The Democratic state treasurer has built his campaign around Schwarzenegger's failure to repay schools the money they temporarily gave up in 2004 to help close huge state budget deficits.

But with all the new money now available for education, the governor can say he has lived up to his part of the deal. To underscore the point, Schwarzenegger has begun repeating the phrase, "promises made, promises kept" at campaign appearances. He glosses over the fact that he repaid schools a year late and only after education groups attacked him.

"The rationale for a tax increase is by and large gone, at least in the eyes of the voters," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist at the University of Southern California. "The governor has become a friend of education."

[FairOpinion]

Arnold took away Angelides' issue.

Otherwise Angelides could have used the lack of additional education funding against Arnold.

[Amerigomag]

Although the $7.5 billion tax windfall is likely to be temporary,

NSRD

Not only is it temporary but a large percentage of it is likely to the subject of an ordered refund when the litigation is resolved.

[goldstategop]

Ignorant voters in California don't know 50% of the state's budget goes to education. Its never been under-funded. A better question would be, what are we getting for all this money lavished on our schools? Throwing money at it isn't the solution to underperforming schools. There's a need for higher standards and equipping students with the skills they need to make it the world. That means dropping the liberal mush from courses that used to recruit future Democratic Party voters. Its about time - for our children's sake, that our schools began to be accountable for their performance.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

[jocko12]

Another 5.1 billon wasted.Let the PORK roll.

[FairOpinion]

Arnold's reform prop. 76 would have released the choke hold of the previously passed Prop. 98, that requires that ridiculous funding levels for schools. It's very unfortunate it was defeated, with the help of the misguided conservatives voting against it.

And wait until you see the initiatives for the November ballot, where they are trying to raise real estate taxes, "for the children".

13 initiatives face California voters in November

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1659037/posts

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Smoke and mirrors

[calcowgirl]

Arnold's reform prop. 76 would have released the choke hold of the previously passed Prop. 98, that requires that ridiculous funding levels for schools.

Not true.

"The key is not to crank government spending down," said Tom Campbell, Schwarzenegger's former finance director, who left the post to campaign for the initiative. "It's just to spend no more than we have."
San Diego Union-Tribune, October 21, 2005

But Campbell said he has looked forward starting in 2006, which is when the measure would take effect, and doesn't believe that the cap would have an impact on state spending until 2013. "That's because we start with three good years of revenue behind us," he said. "It completely depends on what year you start."
San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2005

"Prop. 76 smoothes out education funding, so that in the low-revenue years, more money will go to education. That's not in doubt... During high revenue years, the Legislature can choose to add more to education..."
North County Times, October 22, 2005

It's very unfortunate it was defeated, with the help of the misguided conservatives voting against it.

Since there are ZERO facts published by the Secretary of State's office on votes by political party, let alone leaning within a party, your conclusion is baseless and represents only another feeble attempt to trash conservatives.

[FairOpinion]

"It's just to spend no more than we have."


===

Do you disagree with this?

[calcowgirl]

If state revenue surges 30% do you think they should spend it all?

[FairOpinion]

Your selective quoting gives an erroneous impression.

I recommend that those who read your post, actually go and read the article, and see for themselves.



http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/10/23/special_reports/perspective/20_21_5410_22_05.txt


Because we haven't been living within our means, we've spent more than we had for each of the last six years, we've tapped out our state credit card, raided funds intended for schools and roads, and we bump along with the worst bond rating of the 50 states, costing us hundreds of millions of dollars in extra interest every year. The tired, defeatist answer is, just raise taxes. But we've spent more than we received in taxes every one of the last six years. Why do we expect the Legislature wouldn't do so again?

There is a better way. Prop. 76 requires that state expenditures grow more smoothly. Rather than allowing a one-time spike in revenues to add to permanent spending formulas, Prop. 76 specifies that the state can only increase its spending over the previous year by a percentage equal to the previous three years' revenue growth. We're still paying for having put our spending into high gear based on one-time money at the end of the 1990's. This will stop that. If a year is exceptionally high in state revenue, the extra will go into a reserve, to be available for use when a year of exceptionally low revenue occurs.


Prop. 76 walls off the special funds that have routinely been raided when the state was spending more than it had. The sales tax we pay on gasoline, for instance, was intended for road building and maintenance; instead it's been regularly raided for the state's general fund. That would stop.

When the state's revenues began to go south, we should have stepped in; instead, we let the deficit worsen throughout the fiscal year. Prop. 76 requires an honest call on what the state's revenues and expenditures actually are, made at least every quarter. If we're off by a significant amount, the Legislature gets 45 days to fix it (by tax increases if it wants, or by spending cuts). If they fail, then the governor must act.

[SauronOfMordor]

A better question would be, what are we getting for all this money lavished on our schools? Throwing money at it isn't the solution to underperforming schools. There's a need for higher standards and equipping students with the skills they need to make it the world. That means dropping the liberal mush from courses that used to recruit future Democratic Party voters. Its about time - for our children's sake, that our schools began to be accountable for their performance.

There are a number of things that could help our schools. Unfortunately, most of them would make the unions scream

1. Eliminate any need for an Ed degree to teach high school if the candidate has taught college courses for two years. There is no reason why a grad student who teaches college freshmen can't teach high-school seniors and juniors
2. Get more retired military to teach. Military officers and NCOs spend much of their time teaching young enlisted men. More use should be made of this resource.
3. Reduce the salary spread between entry-level teachers and experienced teachers. Teachers make good money, but only after you have seniority, which reduces the attraction of the profession to college kids
4. Have a minimum cutoff SAT in order to be a teacher, and to hell with what it does to racial quotas

[SauronOfMordor]

And the one thing that would balance the education budget: turn over every illegal immigrant student to the INS for deportation

[Amerigomag]

This article can't be offered as a serious rebuttal?

Quote: Why do we expect the Legislature wouldn't do so again?
Fact: Schwarzenegger is proposing the imbalances. Not the legislature.

Quote: The tired, defeatist answer is, just raise taxes.
Fact: That's exactly how Schwarzenegger has done it. By raising taxes. At a faster rate than Gray Davis. To the highest per capita level in the state's history.

Quote; If a year is exceptionally high in state revenue, the extra will go into a reserve,
Fact: This is an exceptional year and Schwarzenegger proposed putting almost all of the money into routine budget items, not a reserve.

Quote: There is a better way. Prop. 76 requires that state expenditures grow more smoothly.
Fact: Prop 76 contained no such provision. Prop 76 placed no restraints on total government spending.

And those are just the really glaring inconsistancies in the Austrian's version of protected politcal speach. Try the message again when the adults go to bed and the kids are playing with the family computer.

[monkeyshine]

You are correct. It is a flaw in our national dialogue, and in our mass-consumption MSM. No news is aired in proper context. All news is read as if it has almost no historical background, and rarely with an overview perspective.

For mass consumption, it's easier to talk about how many dollars are spent, rather thn how those dollars are spent. The citizens have a big role in changing the way our politicians talk about the issues - but that can only occur when the citizens react positively to people who have vision and understanding.

[FairOpinion]

"Fact: That's exactly how Schwarzenegger has done it. By raising taxes. At a faster rate than Gray Davis. To the highest per capita level in the state's history."

===

This is absolutely NOT a fact, in fact it's FALSE, as are most of your BASELESS ASSERTIONS, that you claim to be facts.

[calcowgirl]

Because we haven't been living within our means, we've spent more than we had for each of the last six years, we've tapped out our state credit card, raided funds intended for schools and roads...

And again this year, this administration is spending billions more than it takes in (as proposed by the Governor, not the legislature). And instead of building a real reserve, they continue to spend. Any reserve will be eaten up by the pending union employee negotiations. And they still haven't paid back all the Prop 42 raided funds, choosing to instead to pander to the left and lavish it on the inefficient education system.

Prop 76 was about one thing: BORROWING MORE MONEY.
It did nothing to cap spending, as Tom Campbell himself admits.

[Amerigomag]

This is absolutely FALSE

A glaring example. Perhaps one of the most abusive.

Soon after taking office the Schwarzenegger administration proposed and raised the taxes on UC students by almost 30%. That tax increase is still in effect.

Another example that effects almost everyone and represents an even more alarming rate of increase.

In my area, under Schwarzenegger, combined state taxes on a gallon of gasoline have risen from an average of about 32¢/gal when the Austrian took office to almost 46¢/gal today. That's roughly a 45% increase in tax rate.

Last but not least. Prop 57.

Not because it particularly affects me but because it will affect my children. That bonding will soon cost my children Millions, each year just to service the interest on that debt let alone pay off the principal. There is no way to quantify the rate of increase because the tax didn't exist before Scvhwarzenegger proposed it.

We've been over this before FO. The same deceptions always elicit the same facts. Feigned outrage, will not change them. A bad lier will always be exposed. With the exception of Pete Wilson, Schwarzenegger is one of the largest taxers in the state's history.

[FairOpinion]

"Soon after taking office the Schwarzenegger administration proposed and raised the taxes on UC students by almost 30%. That tax increase is still in effect."


===

Typical LIBERAL-speak, calling TUITION , when students pay for something valuable they receive, "taxes".

NO wonder you are such fan of Angelides, who wants to reduce tuition, and have the TAXPAYERS pay the tuition of students -- typicaL SOCIALIST ATTITUDE.

TAX Peter so you can handout money to Paul.

Your socialist slip is showing.

Do you consider people paying for GROCERIES they buy "taxes". Do you think the government should TAX people to take money away from them, then hand out "free" groceries?

I think universities are "free" in China and Cuba. Is that your model?

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

What you said. I have been a writer for 15 years and I can't teach English because I don't have (or want) that silly certificate. It's a racket that's been going on for almost forty years now!