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

Skip to comments.

CALIFORNIA: Governor says he would veto any budget end run
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 6/29/9 | Matthew Yi, Wyatt Buchanan

Posted on 06/29/2009 7:30:51 AM PDT by SmithL

In a controversial simple-majority vote Sunday night, the state Assembly approved raising taxes on oil production and tobacco products as part of a Democratic budget proposal that closes most of the $24.3 billion budget shortfall through June 2010.

But the plan met immediate resistance when a spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed that the Republican would veto such an end run around GOP lawmakers. Bills containing new taxes normally require a two-thirds majority to be enacted.

"He will veto any majority-vote budget fix," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. "I think this shows that the Legislature is not yet serious about solving the problem."

But Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County), argued that it's time to get the budget back in balance.

"For the governor or anyone to reject these solutions and to exploit the crisis for political gain or to get unrelated reforms or pet projects would really be the moral equivalent of hijacking an ambulance," she said.

The Senate plans to meet today to vote on the package of bills.

By far the most controversial part of the Democratic proposal was the argument that new taxes can be approved with a simple-majority vote if the Legislature lowers other taxes by the same amount. Democrats tried such maneuvering in December when the state faced a $42 billion shortfall, but the governor vetoed that plan as well.

The current plan would lower the state's 18-cent excise tax on gasoline at the pump and impose new taxes on oil production and tobacco products. That bill was passed Sunday night in a 44-30 vote. A separate bill would impose an 18-cent fee on gasoline and use those funds for local transportation projects, alleviating the state's general fund woes. Such a scenario would raise $2.4 billion for the general fund.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: budget; calbudget; caltaxes; fees; goldenstate; schwarzenegger; yourtaxdollarsatwork
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

1 posted on 06/29/2009 7:30:51 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

These people are fools. Cut all spending down to bare minimum. If they continue to raise taxes, people will continue to move out of the state. Then they will be left with no one to pay taxes. That will really help. Business has had it and won’t put up with it. Pelosi and crowd will further ruin the state.


2 posted on 06/29/2009 7:36:19 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

More taxes on cigarettes.. I dont smoke, however, I think this is wrong.. make the product illegal, thus no sales.. and no taxes...then let them try and raise a fee of about $15.00 dollars on a movie ticket..


3 posted on 06/29/2009 7:37:45 AM PDT by JoanneSD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

More taxes on cigarettes.. I dont smoke, however, I think this is wrong.. make the product illegal, thus no sales.. and no taxes...then let them try and raise a fee of about $15.00 dollars on a movie ticket..


4 posted on 06/29/2009 7:38:35 AM PDT by JoanneSD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"For the governor or anyone to reject these solutions and to exploit the crisis for political gain or to get unrelated reforms or pet projects would really be the moral equivalent of hijacking an ambulance," she said.

Interesting. Of course, the Democrats are the reason the "ambulance" was needed in the first place for the very same reason.

5 posted on 06/29/2009 7:43:10 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"For the governor or anyone to reject these solutions and to exploit the crisis for political gain or to get unrelated reforms or pet projects would really be the moral equivalent of hijacking an ambulance," she said.

Interesting. Of course, the Democrats are the reason the "ambulance" was needed in the first place for the very same reason.

6 posted on 06/29/2009 7:43:56 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2
California is becoming a west coast combo of Detroit and Tijuana.
7 posted on 06/29/2009 7:49:51 AM PDT by Frantzie (Boycott ABC News and their parent company The Walt Disney Company)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The current plan would lower the state's 18-cent excise tax on gasoline at the pump and impose new taxes on oil production and tobacco products. That bill was passed Sunday night in a 44-30 vote. A separate bill would impose an 18-cent fee on gasoline and use those funds for local transportation projects, alleviating the state's general fund woes. Such a scenario would raise $2.4 billion for the general fund.

Freaking Democrats. Always looking out for their wallets while poking around in yours.

8 posted on 06/29/2009 7:50:45 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (ABC-AP-MSNBC-All Obama, All the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
raising taxes on oil production and tobacco products as part of a Democratic budget proposal that closes most of the $24.3 billion budget shortfall through June 2010

I'm struggling with the math as reported in this article.

9 posted on 06/29/2009 7:52:50 AM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Really smart...keep hiring government officials and protecting the seals because that will be the only things left in California.


10 posted on 06/29/2009 7:57:28 AM PDT by mikelets456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Gee...another tax increase on tobacco products. Don’t ya just luv these fresh ideas?


11 posted on 06/29/2009 7:58:52 AM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

The problem is that the remaining rabid liberals will keep voting for her. Eventually, the remaining remnant will just cannibalize each other.


12 posted on 06/29/2009 8:00:00 AM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Covers most of the shortfall with tobacky & oil? Geez, they must be crazy.


13 posted on 06/29/2009 8:01:49 AM PDT by umgud (Look to gov't to solve your everday problems and they'll control your everday life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Covers most of the shortfall with tobacky & oil? Geez, they must be crazy.


14 posted on 06/29/2009 8:02:11 AM PDT by umgud (Look to gov't to solve your everday problems and they'll control your everday life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

It’s the old game - keep on trying again and again until your opponent makes a mistake - they only need to make it once and you win!


15 posted on 06/29/2009 8:02:28 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
What am I missing here? [my emphasis]

By far the most controversial part of the Democratic proposal was the argument that new taxes can be approved with a simple-majority vote if the Legislature lowers other taxes by the same amount.
Such a scenario would raise $2.4 billion for the general fund.

So they lower the tax in one area "by the same amount" yet bring in more money, how does that fit the criteria? They remove an 18% tax in one area and then apply that same amount to a wider base in another area. More blatant in-your-face "we screw you - legally" tactics.

16 posted on 06/29/2009 8:18:22 AM PDT by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
We're paying the price as a state for distribution of the wealth.
In our state a resident (and probably an illegal as well) can get money support for their children, food stamps, housing vouchers, free or near free health care and free paid for baby sitting.

The middle classes in this state can't pay themselves for all of the stuff the state gives away to lower earners.

It can't go on.

$7000 a year for an English speaking and $15,000 for a non English speaking public school education. On top of that they have a 50% failing rate (made up mostly of the vast majority of black and Hispanic males who don't graduate).

Unions are the problems.
Teachers union and all the government (state and federal) employees unions are vastly compensated compared to the private sector.
It's a MONOPOLY with no competition and needs to end.

17 posted on 06/29/2009 8:26:05 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
We're paying the price as a state for distribution of the wealth.
In our state a resident (and probably an illegal as well) can get money support for their children, food stamps, housing vouchers, free or near free health care and free paid for baby sitting.

The middle classes in this state can't pay themselves for all of the stuff the state gives away to lower earners.

It can't go on.

$7000 a year for an English speaking and $15,000 for a non English speaking public school education. On top of that they have a 50% failing rate (made up mostly of the vast majority of black and Hispanic males who don't graduate).

Unions are the problems.
Teachers union and all the government (state and federal) employees unions are vastly compensated compared to the private sector.
It's a MONOPOLY with no competition and needs to end.

18 posted on 06/29/2009 8:27:14 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
What am I missing here? [my emphasis]

By far the most controversial part of the Democratic proposal was the argument that new taxes can be approved with a simple-majority vote if the Legislature lowers other taxes by the same amount.
Such a scenario would raise $2.4 billion for the general fund.

So they lower the tax in one area "by the same amount" yet bring in more money, how does that fit the criteria? They remove an 18% tax in one area and then apply that same amount to a wider base in another area. More blatant in-your-face "we screw you - legally" tactics.

19 posted on 06/29/2009 8:29:18 AM PDT by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

If Arnie truly vetos this end-run, it would be one of the very, very few things he’s done that is smart.


20 posted on 06/29/2009 8:36:36 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

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