Posted on 11/21/2008 10:44:57 AM PST by Chet 99
California Veterinarians Ask Governor to Not Tax Veterinary Services
State Veterinary Association says taxing pet and food animal health care could result in increased pet abandonment, euthanasia and public health concerns
Last update: 6:14 p.m. EST Nov. 14, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Nov 14, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) today announced a statewide campaign by veterinarians and consumers opposing Governor Schwarzenegger's proposed tax on veterinary services.
The current proposal to tax veterinary medical care is contained in the administration's "Governor's Budget: Special Session 2008-09" document. The proposal recommends that on February 1, 2009, the sales and use tax be broadened to include services, such as "appliance and furniture repair, vehicle repair, golf, and veterinarian services."
"Subjecting complicated veterinary medical procedures and treatments to taxation would be the same as taxing health care for children in California," said William Grant, II, DVM, president of the CVMA. "What will happen to the sick or injured pets of people already struggling with potential home foreclosures and job losses? How much more heartbreak is it fair to ask of our fellow citizens?"
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Who here voted for this clown over McClintock? Step forward and admit it so you can receive your public flogging.
Ping
He could tax every pet in the state and it wouldn't even cover a day's disability payments for the illegals.
What freakin’ next? The lying bastard that ran on a platform of stopping EXCESSIVE TAXATION AND SPENDING - has done a perfect liberal flip-flop -— keeps spending, keeps taxing as California continues to degrade into just another liberal dung-heap with businesses and individuals moving away at increasing rates.
The only population growth is due to illegal aliens. Which we are also taxed for to the tune of well over $10 BILLION PER YEAR in support costs.
Hey Arnold — get rid of the illegals and increase available revenue by over $10 BILLION PER YEAR!!! Without taxing dogs and cats?
GRAY DAVIS MUST BE TURNING IN HIS POLITICAL GRAVE!!!
Yesterday they were talking about tripling the car tax AGAIN, now a whole NEW TAX!!!
I don't know about all of you, but I'm laughing so hard I can hardly catch my breath!!!
This is worse executive "deer in the headlights" leadership than Mayor David Denkins and Barak Obama combined!!!
Just cut some state salaries, Arnoiled, you idiot!!! (Oh, and stop listening to that dunce, Pete Wilson!!!)
Democrat Assembly and Senate? No problem. Union control? No problem. Immigrant/gay/environmental activists? No problem.
Please try to think clearly, McClintock would have done NOTHING.
The CA Governor has the line-item veto. Deukmejian did a fantastic job of governing through the line item veto pen. Ahnold cannot say not to new spending so that’s why he wants to raise taxes on everything.
they better be healthy. by the time Congress is done with bailouts, we’ll be needing to eat our dogs.
Arnold, cut spending, you moron, quite being a lapdog for the unions.
I was buying a tag for my dog when I was a kid, many, many years ago, what’s the problem.
You Arnie haters are living in a dream world and I hate what has become of my state, but there's nothing anyone can do to save it.
The Left has won and they'll destroy what little remains of the Republican party in California.
You have been nominated for the idiot post of the week, for refusing to accept an improvement under a conservative governing by veto as opposed to having Republicans take the blame for the continuing melt-down. It would be better because fewer productive taxpayers would have left the state under his administration.
Arnold borrowed the money for a restructuring and then blew it with the budgets he submitted with huge and unjustified spending increases. His budgets increased State spending 40%. If you don't think it would have been less under McClintock you are smoking something.
Well, he wouldn't have proposed borrowing $15 billion in bonds to fund general spending. And he wouldn't have thrown billions into solar roof subsidies, carbon trading schemes, and hydrogen highways. Nor would he have increased educational spending far beyond the legislated formulas. Nor would he have imposed even more onerous environmental regulation on businesses. Nor would he have pushed 1/2 billion in nanny-state spending for after-school babysitting or another 6 billion in embryonic stem-cell research. Nor would he have pushed for another $40+ billion in bonds for so-called "infrastructure" projects that included such non-priorities as new bike lanes.
If that is what you mean by "nothing," you're right.
What I know Tom would have done is fight against irresponsible borrowing and spending (as Arnold proposed and signed) and would have wielded the veto pen liberally, a process Arnold has used only to a miniscule degree.
You are buying into the "California is ungovernable" myth. Get some backbone and put down that white flag!
What's wrong with that? Aren't bonds just free money?
Thanks for playing, "I Have No Clue".
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.