Why does california need to deficet spend??

[sduyck_2000]

In Oregon our constitution requires our budget balance every year no deficits allowed by law

Our politicians whine and complain about it but life goes on and we do ok

It gives politicians the backbone to do the right thing

why cant California do the same as California citizens are all moving to oregon


http://news.yahoo.com/california-fac...--finance.html





SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's budget deficit has swelled to a projected $16 billion — much larger than had been predicted just months ago — and will force severe cuts to schools and public safety if voters fail to approve tax increases in November, Gov. Jerry Brown said Saturday.

The Democratic governor said the shortfall grew from $9.2 billion in January in part because tax collections have not come in as high as expected and the economy isn't growing as fast as hoped for. The deficit has also risen because lawsuits and federal requirements have blocked billions of dollars in state cuts.

"This means we will have to go much farther and make cuts far greater than I asked for at the beginning of the year," Brown said in an online video. "But we can't fill this hole with cuts alone without doing severe damage to our schools. That's why I'm bypassing the gridlock and asking you, the people of California, to approve a plan that avoids cuts to schools and public safety."

Brown did not release details of the newly calculated deficit Saturday, but he is expected to lay out a revised spending plan Monday. The new plan for the fiscal year that starts July 1 hinges in large part on voters approving higher taxes.

The governor has said those tax increases are needed to help pull the state out of a crippling decade shaped by the collapse of the housing market and recession. Without them, he warned, public schools and colleges, and public safety, will suffer deeper cuts.

"What I'm proposing is not a panacea, but it goes a long way toward cleaning up the state's budget mess," Brown said.

Democrats, who control the Legislature, have resisted Brown's proposed cuts so far this year. Republican lawmakers criticized the majority party for building in overly optimistic tax revenues.

"Today's news underscores how we must rein in spending and let our economy grow by leaving overburdened taxpayers alone," said Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway in a statement.

The governor pursued a ballot initiative because Republican lawmakers would not provide the votes needed to reach the two-thirds legislative majority required to raise taxes.

Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, acknowledged that lawmakers have "limited and difficult choices left to solve the deficit." Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he wasn't surprised by the deficit spike given that state tax revenue have fallen $3.5 billion below projections in the current year.

"We will deal with it," Steinberg said Saturday. "And we know that more cuts are inevitable but we will do our very, very best to save more than we lose, especially for those in need."

Under Brown's tax plan, California would temporarily raise the state's sales tax by a quarter-cent and increase the income tax on people who make $250,000 or more. Brown is projecting his tax initiative would raise as much as $9 billion, but a review by the nonpartisan analyst's office estimates revenue of $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2012-13.

[hazbalz]

Sduyck, I'm not from California so am not certain but I think California does require a balanced budget. That's why they go through this process every year. My understanding is that it takes a 2/3 majority in the legislature to increase taxes so the only recourse during an economic slowdown is to cut spending or have a ballot initiative asking the voters to increase taxes. This stems from the 1970's anti-tax initiative known as Proposition 13.

[sduyck_2000]

i doubt very much California is mandated to balance the budget as they owe 16 billion

Oregon does not owe 50 cents

[nonuts]

Sduyck, for lot's of reasons, but it boils down to a legislature that has been a gridlocked partisan bickering house for four decades is the biggest reason. Take a good look at CA, for this is the direction the US will be going with the partisan political games like we saw a summer ago with the federal budget crisis, much more to come. We've adopted several balanced budget measures, but it has to get there before the law applies.

As to every Californian moving to Oregon, I hardly think so. California's population has increased by 5 MILLION since 2000. It is now almost 38 MILLION. Oregon has only 4 MILLION people as of 2011, so less that the total increase in population in California in the past decade. Oregon had 3.5 Million people in 2000, so an increase in the past 10 years of 500,000. So, I don't think it's at all possible every Californian is moving to Oregon, in fact, there's not very many of them at all. Even if ALL 500,000 people that Oregon took on in the past 10 years had come from CA, which I am sure they didn't (some Oregonians make babies, right?) it wouldn't account for much.

Do you see lot's of California plates on cars in Oregon? Sure, with 35 Million registered cars in the State of California, you're going to see a them with some frequency. Would if be better for Oregon if these people took their travel dollars elsewhere? Let's us know and we'll see what we can do.

[Riverwind]

Sduyck, for lot's of reasons, but it boils down to a legislature that has been a gridlocked partisan bickering house for four decades is the biggest reason. Take a good look at CA, for this is the direction the US will be going with the partisan political games like we saw a summer ago with the federal budget crisis, much more to come. We've adopted several balanced budget measures, but it has to get there before the law applies.

As to every Californian moving to Oregon, I hardly think so. California's population has increased by 5 MILLION since 2000. It is now almost 38 MILLION. Oregon has only 4 MILLION people as of 2011, so less that the total increase in population in California in the past decade. Oregon had 3.5 Million people in 2000, so an increase in the past 10 years of 500,000. So, I don't think it's at all possible every Californian is moving to Oregon, in fact, there's not very many of them at all. Even if ALL 500,000 people that Oregon took on in the past 10 years had come from CA, which I am sure they didn't (some Oregonians make babies, right?) it wouldn't account for much.

Do you see lot's of California plates on cars in Oregon? Sure, with 35 Million registered cars in the State of California, you're going to see a them with some frequency. Would if be better for Oregon if these people took their travel dollars elsewhere? Let's us know and we'll see what we can do.

You beat me to it, thinks.

When anybody says EVERYBODY IS I automatically know they have no clue what they are talking about.


River

[hazbalz]

i doubt very much California is mandated to balance the budget as they owe 16 billion
Oregon does not owe 50 cents

Proposition 58, passed in March 2004 with 71% of the vote, mandates that California have a balanced budget. What's going on now with the $16b. deficit is that the state economists are projecting less revenue than they anticipated due to the slow recovery. The choices to plug the hole are budget cuts, increase taxes or a combination of both. The only way to increase taxes is with a 2/3 majority of the legislature or by ballot initiative. That is what Brown is trying to do.

Nonuts, legislative gridlock is fairly easy when a 2/3 majority is needed to pass anything. What the state needs is a new constitution.

[Dave]

Proposition 58, passed in March 2004 with 71% of the vote, mandates that California have a balanced budget. What's going on now with the $16b. deficit is that the state economists are projecting less revenue than they anticipated due to the slow recovery. The choices to plug the hole are budget cuts, increase taxes or a combination of both. The only way to increase taxes is with a 2/3 majority of the legislature or by ballot initiative. That is what Brown is trying to do.

Nonuts, legislative gridlock is fairly easy when a 2/3 majority is needed to pass anything. What the state needs is a new constitution.

You see, that 2004 law preserved gridlock and prevents any tax increase thanks to requiring a "super-majority" vote FOR it. A minority of voters can prevent any budget or tax from passing. So the 2004 law is "minority rule" ... which sucks

California therefore is required to balance this year's budget with 30 or 40 year's ago receipts. That's not possible.
Could any of you live on what you made 30 or 40 years ago when you weren't married or had a family?

A self-inflicted wound creating minority rule.

[moi621]

Governor Jerry Brown is going over the heads of his legislatures
to the people with his own initiative.

I remember when the University of California and California State College and University system were quality and inexpensive. The most inexpensive of any State supported higher education. Now they are "expensive". A sad state of affairs to deny the promise of a higher education to those who cannot afford it. A California broken promise.

Moi
End Loans. Grant Scholarships!