Taxpayers Should Not Pay Extortionists (Just Vote NO on Phony Spending Cap Prop. 1A Alert)

Flash Report ^ | 2/23/2009 | Jon Coupal

[goldstategop]

The pictures told the story. They were laughing, back slapping and sharing high fives all around. It could have been Butch Cassidy and the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang celebrating a successful train robbery. Only these were malefactors of another sort. They were members of the Legislature expressing their joy immediately after agreeing to make California taxpayers the most overburdened in the nation for at least the next two years.

Lawmakers and the governor, who was equally eager to get his hands on the new tax revenue, sought to make the bitter medicine taste better by promising the new taxes were temporary -- only two years, they say -- and by making a peace offering of a spending cap that would force state government to be on its best behavior. If taxpayers are wary of California lawmakers bearing gifts, they have every reason to be. This spending limit is a limit in name only because it will automatically go up as taxes are increased by the Legislature.

At one time, California had a strong spending limit. In 1979, the late Paul Gann, cosponsor of Proposition 13, put a meaningful spending limit on the ballot, which was approved by 75 percent of voters. The Gann formula annually adjusted upward the state's ability to spend based on the growth in population and inflation. If revenues exceeded the spending cap, the law required that they be refunded to taxpayers, and in 1987, tax rebate checks were actually sent out.

However, most members of the Legislature and their special interest allies chafed under the spending restrictions and, in 1990, language that knocked out the cap was placed in Proposition 111, a gas tax increase for transportation. When voters approved the tax with the expectation that it would eliminate freeway congestion, unknown to many, the Gann Limit was destroyed.

Since 1990, Sacramento has spent freely and without conscience. If this so-called budget reform measure is approved by voters at the May 19th special election, spending by state government will continue virtually unabated. But it gets worse. If Proposition 1A passes, it will do additional damage to taxpayers by extending the new higher taxes for an additional two years.

The situation is reminiscent of the movie "Ruthless People" in which, seeking to get even with a ruthless businessman played by Danny DeVito, kidnappers hold his wife for ransom. Turns out he doesn't care. He’s been trying to get rid of his wife anyway.

In this case, lawmakers are holding the fake budget reform for a $20 billion ransom. But like DeVito, taxpayers should be delighted to let them keep it.

There is something worse than no budget reform. It is a phony budget reform that must be purchased at an astronomical price. This deal is so bad, they should be paying us to take it.

[goldstategop]

Proposition 1A is a phony spending cap measure. Basically, your taxes will go up if voters adopt it - for two more years. JUST VOTE NO!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[calcowgirl]

The so-called “spending cap” was written by Roger Niello, one of the six legislators to vote for the tax increases.

It makes a mockery of sensible fiscal actions, deriving a “cap” from a “10 year rolling trend” in revenue and allows them to ignore it whenever they see fit.

Just another one of Arnie’s bogus “reforms.”

[tubebender]

I pray that the money thugs that fund these campaigns are down at the Mission looking for a bowl of soup...

[goldstategop]

If it sounds familiar, it should. Its similar to a previous phony spending cap soundly rejected by California voters in the 2005 special election. If its so good for taxpayers, why do they have to pay MORE taxes to get it?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Amerigomag]

Prop 1A is in the mold of Prop 76. A singularly deceitful piece of proposed legislation.

Conservatives and Republicans joined liberals and Democrats at the polls on November 8, 2005 to defeat the Austrian's sham. We can do it again!

[goldstategop]

Not only does it use a rolling average, the spending limit is increased whenever the politicians decide to increase taxes! In other words, voters will be asked to consent to having their taxes raised not just for an additional two years but as often as the State Legislature wants to increase them and the so called spending limit would be ratcheted upwards to accommodate them. This is so bad they should paying taxpayers to take it! It doesn't limit the growth of government - in fact it does the exact opposite! Its a cruel joke on Californians.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Yep. Its Proposition 76's son held hostage to a huge ransom. You want a spending cap? PAY MORE! The state GOP should be ashamed of itself in telling Californians this was the best it could get from the Democrats. Not quite!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[arthurus]

Depopulation for California? The Golden State transmutes into the Leaden State?

[Amerigomag]

It's the little things:

You've got to ask yourself why use a linear regression to determine a 10 year revenue trend and why establish a base line using 10 year old tax rates and then apply an undefined adjustment for pursuant changes in tax code.

This proposal is ABSOLUTE smoke and mirrors. It allows for almost complete manipulation of data to determine a spending cap.

If you think that's flexible, check out the list of beneficiaries if there is unanticipated revenue.

1) Rainy Day Fund
2) Onetime Projects - unspecified
3) Retire Bonds
4) Refund Taxpayers
5) Defray Unfunded Retirement Liabilities.

[concentric circles]

We have to wail on this until it’s defeated. It’s time for backlash. I wish someone with money would get behind an initiative that would put the legislature in a strangle hold. I still like the idea of a part time legislature that meets every two years. And a return to the Gann Limit.

[Publius6961]

The governator had the b***s yesterday to compare the ongoing fiscal crisis in California to a natural disaster like an earthquake!

Excuse me?

If he really believes that, he needs to go get a brain transplant; or resign; or both!.

First order of business... recall Schwartzwhat's his name.

Second order of business... make sure the "Republicans" who allowed this abortion to pass are never re-elected ever again. To any office.

Third order of business... Start a few taxpayer initiatives:

1. Make future raises for legislators and their expense accounts subject to voter approval.

2. Make future failure to pass a budget on time subject to permanent forfeiture of pay for non-performance.
If there is no penalty attached we can expect incompetence forever.

3. Make all budget items subject to actual state income. No exceptions. All major divisions to take proportional cuts.

4. Make simply proposing deficit spending, particularly selling bonds to pay for current spending a criminal act subject to mandatory jail terms. we can call it "Save our Future Generations Act."

If I missed anything, please feel free to add as necessary.

[heleny]

At one time, California had a strong spending limit. In 1979, the late Paul Gann, cosponsor of Proposition 13, put a meaningful spending limit on the ballot, which was approved by 75 percent of voters. The Gann formula annually adjusted upward the state's ability to spend based on the growth in population and inflation. If revenues exceeded the spending cap, the law required that they be refunded to taxpayers, and in 1987, tax rebate checks were actually sent out.

I wonder whether it would still pass if it were on the ballot now.

[goldstategop]

I dunno. You can bet the unions will spend millions to defeat any spending cap. This phony one doesn't have a prayer of passage.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[heleny]

the unions will spend millions to defeat any spending cap

Except this phony cap isn't really a cap -- since spending can increase beyond the "cap" if they simply tax us more.

According to John and Ken today, the California teachers' unions strongly opposed the 2005 failed spending cap but have been silent on this one.

In combination with a potential weakening of the 2/3rds vote requirement for new taxes, this cap does absolutely nothing except keep our taxes higher for 2 more years. Perhaps the unions will try to pass this one.