Posted on 01/27/2009 11:55:59 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO — Liberal activists are worried that Democratic legislators are considering a deal to institute permanent curbs on government spending in order to win Republican support for tax increases as the Legislature seeks solutions to a $42 billion deficit facing the state over the next 18 months.
They are imploring Democrats to rethink any deal that they say will effectively cripple government, leaving future generations unable to respond to the more complex needs of a growing state with Draconian cuts required at every level of government.
"I'm very concerned from the conversations I've had that Democrats may agree to something like this," said Lenny Goldberg, executive director at the California Tax Reform Association. "There's no hope for the future if we do this. This would mean that if there's a huge need that we can't even anticipate right now, we won't be able to meet it. If they do this, they better do it with the notion that we'll put together a campaign and fight like hell to defeat this on the ballot."
That could be a problem. Any change in the way the state spends money would have to go before the people in a vote on a constitutional amendment. But Republicans are insisting that a spending cap be vote-proof: if a spending cap is defeated at the polls, any agreed-upon tax increase would be rescinded, possibly with rebates for taxes collected.
Democrats have for years resisted calls for spending caps, treating them as little more than the ultimate dream of one of the foremost conservatives of the country, Grover Norquist, who once spoke of shrinking government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
It would be the ultimate coup for Republicans, particularly at a time when government spending, at least on the national level, has been come to be seen as the only way out of the national economic crisis.
Even taxpayer groups that typically are profusely opposed to tax increases say they would embrace a budget package that includes spending limits.
"It'll have the effect of stabilizing the budget situation year to year by making sure that money isn't overspent," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "Everything that would be a restraint on spending would be anathema to those who want to spend as much as they want."
Lawmakers have refused to divulge details of their negotiations over what a spending cap would look like, but Republicans have dusted off a constitutional amendment from last year, ACA 19, as a blueprint for what they would like.
In that bill, sponsored by Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines, R-Fresno, government spending would be allowed to grow by about 5 percent from the previous year, based on inflation and population growth.
Any revenues collected above that 5 percent would be placed in a budget stabilization fund, to be used in years when revenues are low. Other extra revenue would be used to pay off debt and returned to taxpayers.
"I don't know why Republicans took so long to get around to this," said Tony Quinn, co-editor for the California Target Book and former GOP legislative staff member. "We've been chasing our own tails for 10 years, where the level of spending annually exceeds revenues. I don't think Democrats can resist this. The public's going to say let's cap spending."
A Democratic analysis of Villines' bill predicted that school funding would take an ever increasing share of the general fund budget, thus crowding out spending for other areas such as higher education, the environment, health care and transportation.
Spending limits would "lead to dramatic cuts to every area of the budget, an inability to invest in education and infrastructure, and economic uncertainty," the analysis said.
If that were to happen, lawmakers probably would be compelled to suspend the Proposition 98 guarantee to ease cuts on other services, effectively eliminating the guaranteed funding for schools. Some Democrats say they won't allow that to happen; that the only spending cap they'll agree to is one that has enough flexibility to respond to fiscal emergencies.
"If they're talking about limiting our contributions to education — that's a line in the sand for some of us," said Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, D-Oakland, who serves on the Assembly budget committee. "If they're talking about a spending cap that's not flexible enough to deal with an economic crisis, it's unrealistic. So, how would it be written?"
The growing elderly population would be at greatest risk with a spending cap, said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project.
"The fastest growing part of our population are the old and very old," Ross said. "And they're disproportionate users of services — those services with costs that going up much faster than inflation."
Health care costs, which include nursing home care and prescriptions for medication, have risen at a far greater rate than 5 percent and are expected to continue to grow in the future as the baby boomer generation heads into its retirement years, Ross said.
Any spending limitation agreement, she said, "is implicitly saying we're going to do dramatic cuts" on services the state provides to the elderly.
"This would be extraordinarily shortsighted and would severely limit California's ability to have a reasonable quality of life or to meet the demands of a growing, aging and diverse population," Ross said. "We would be essentially trading the future for getting through this budget crisis. I don't think that's a wise trade."
The California Budget Project produced a study showing that if a spending cap had been enacted in 1995, the state's general fund spending would have been $31 billion less than this year's $102 billion budget.
How dare you say this! ... Off to the re-education camp with you!
Curbs on government spending? Who would think of such a thing! I thought that in California, government money was like electricity; it’s magically created at no cost and in infinite quantities somewhere else! Why have limits?
Start scaring the elderly typical rats trick, how about cutting back on welfare,illegal immigration,politicians raises etc first.
I hope the Repubs in CA stay tough on this. Do not back down. The state is broke.
The GOP should use CA as a poster child for what is wrong but GOP Party RINOs love RINO Arnuld Schickelgruber.
They would just vote to end the spending cap later.
All of it is BS.
Kalifornia?
Spending limits?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Oh they might come up with something that might sound like it.
But in the end. SPEND SPEND SPEND SPEND SPEND!
and hey, bring in some more illegal aliens to help us out with that!
Any change in the way the state spends money would have to go before the people in a vote on a constitutional amendment. But Republicans are insisting that a spending cap be vote-proof: if a spending cap is defeated at the polls, any agreed-upon tax increase would be rescinded, possibly with rebates for taxes collected.
That California Democrats worked on legislation to permit members of the Communist Party teach in California public schools WITH the intention of swaying students to Communism over the American constitutional system of government AND even permit the advocacy of the overthrow of our form of government shows all you need to know about California Democrats.
With a declining population of business and the more intelligent Americans, the tax base will never reach the huge spending spree the RATS have been on. The only recourse is to raise, I mean huge raises, in taxes and will take years to recover if ever. California is a ghost State and not worth saving when you look what this welfare State it has become.
“”is implicitly saying we’re going to do dramatic cuts” on services the state provides to the elderly.”
Every one of them should be eliminated NOW!
BTW, i’m 71.
I don’t buy this. Crocodile tears.
This “look, the left is scared of the spending caps” is all part of a kabuki dance. By acting like they’re scared NOW, they get the tax hikes they crave AND get to say “it was a compromise! we really are scared of those bad, nasty spending caps,”
but,
the caps will be override-able by a 2/3 vote. And they’ll get it; all they need is one or two GOP traitor per chamber of the legislature.
Cut the spending. Stop increasing taxes.
The California Budget Project produced a study showing that if a spending cap had been enacted in 1995, the state's general fund spending would have been $31 billion less than this year's $102 billion budget.
Strangling California’s budget - A proposed ‘hard’ cap on spending is misguided.
LA Times | 1/27/09 | Jean Ross
Posted on 01/27/2009 10:11:58 AM PST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172791/posts
California prepares to stop paying bills ( Feb. checks replaced with IOUs)
worldnetdaily.com | January 26, 2009 | Drew Zahn
Posted on 01/27/2009 6:17:13 AM PST by kellynla
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172601/posts
Calif. governor wants to tax golf, auto repairs (RINOld alert!)
townhall.com/AP News | January 27, 2009 | staff
Posted on 01/27/2009 5:33:55 AM PST by kellynla
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172567/posts
Calif. governor wants to tax golf, auto repairs
AP on Yahoo | 1/26/09 | Steve Lawrence - ap
Posted on 01/26/2009 12:55:12 PM PST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172156/posts
CA: Property tax revenue plummets with home values (’Prop. 13 is evil’ piece)
SFGate.com | 1/25/09 | Carolyn Said
Posted on 01/25/2009 10:59:35 AM PST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2171448/posts
CA: Republicans considering the unthinkable: taxes (in exchange for a spending cap)
Contra Costa Times | 1/22/09 | Steve Harmon
Posted on 01/22/2009 9:19:31 AM PST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2169588/posts
CA: Voters may be asked to end state budget impasse
SFGate.com | 1/19/09 | John Wildermuth
Posted on 01/19/2009 8:59:13 AM PST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2167418/posts
California Controller To Suspend Tax Refunds, Welfare Checks, Student Grants
LA Times | January 17, 2009
Posted on 01/17/2009 11:47:57 AM PST by Steelfish
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2166513/posts
California withholds tax refunds
CNN | January 16, 2009 | CNN
Posted on 01/16/2009 1:49:12 PM PST by Zeddicus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2166000/posts
Calif. tax refunds to be delayed starting Feb. 1
AP | 1-16-09 | Staff
Posted on 01/16/2009 1:03:54 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165981/posts
CA: How did we get here? (latest budget quagmire
- Multiple choices/answers and insight offered)
Capitol Weekly | 1/15/09 | Anthony York
Posted on 01/15/2009 9:23:23 AM PST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165122/posts
Jeez, It’s so simple even a caveman can figure it out.
Don’t spend more than you make, PERIOD. STOP SPENDING MONEY THAT ISN’T THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That would have been much better....31 billion would generate a lot of jobs.
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.