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!

[bobover3]

"End Loans. Grant Scholarships!" Easy! Everyone at the University works for free. But ... what would happen to all those people at the University? Those who want to consume other people's labor for free are the same as those who want spend other people's money - greedy exploiters. I suggest they start with themselves. Let them donate their work free of charge and donate most of their incomes (though how they will get incomes if they're not paid for their work is a mystery) to the government. Only then should they turn to others.

The funny thing is that all these people who want others working for them for free and who want others' money without giving anything back like to think of themselves as generous (because they urge others to be generous to them) and others as selfish (because others don't give them everything they want).

All doctors should offer their services for free. If I saw a doctor and felt like offering him $2 or even $5, I could, but there'd be no bills, no insurance. We could all be healthy - for free! If any doctors objected, it would only be because they are greed-heads, just like those greedy bastards at the University who expect to be paid.

[Losethem]

The funny thing is that all these people who want others working for them for free and who want others' money without giving anything back like to think of themselves as generous (because they urge others to be generous to them) and others as selfish (because others don't give them everything they want).

Gee Bob, this sounds exactly like what your beloved big business and conservatives do.

As for the original question this post posed... California does require a balanced budget. The deficit that is being discussed is for budget year 2013 and that deficit has to be address either through spending cuts or tax increases. California never runs a deficit because it is required to have a balanced budget. When the money runs out they stop spending it. It's as simple as that.

Of course, I doubt Bob believes that liberal California would ever do such a thing.

--LT

[Jesus]

The current constitution of the state of California was adopted in 1879. It required 49 pages of very small type to print it then. There have been attempts to count how many amendments have been made to it since, but many amendments replace earlier sections and record keeping has been sporadic. It is estimated that there have been over 600 amendments in the past 133 years – an average of over four and a half amendments per year.

I once had a copy of the California constitution that had been printed in the 1940s and it was a very thick book. My favorite article (of many very strange ones) was one that has since been removed by further amendment. It stated that surveyors must number lots on streets with the odd numbers on the north or west side and even numbers on the south or east. It established that there would be criminal penalties for doing otherwise.

Here are a few examples of what the California State Constitution has required at various times:

Article 13, Section 8. The Legislature shall by law require each taxpayer in this State to make and deliver to the County Assessor, annually, a statement, under oath, setting forth specifically all the real and personal property owned by such taxpayer, or in his possession, or under his control, at twelve o’clock meridian, on the first Monday of March.

Article 17, Section 2. The holding of large tracts of land, uncultivated and unimproved, by individuals or corporations, is against the public interest, and should be discouraged by all means not inconsistent with the rights of private property.

Article 19, Section 3. No Chinese shall be employed on any State, county, municipal, or other public work, except in punishment for crime.

Article 20, Section 17. Eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s work on all public works.

All amendments to the constitution are added into the existing text through deletion and/or renumbering of the various articles and sections. There is no separate listing of amendments after the original text so they are impossible to count.

The current constitution requires not only a balanced budget, but also that all tax increases (defined very broadly) require a 2/3 majority for passage. This has led to filibustering to prevent any change that would be unwelcome by either party. No tax increases as demanded by the right; no reining in of prison guard or highway patrol salaries (and many other such expenses) as demanded by the left. Smoke and mirrors to pretend that the budget is in balance.

If you don’t like what the state is doing, propose a constitutional amendment. The 600+ that have been adopted are only a small portion of those that have been proposed and voted on.

[A-1]

"End Loans. Grant Scholarships!" Easy! Everyone at the University works for free. But ... what would happen to all those people at the University? Those who want to consume other people's labor for free are the same as those who want spend other people's money - greedy exploiters. I suggest they start with themselves. Let them donate their work free of charge and donate most of their incomes (though how they will get incomes if they're not paid for their work is a mystery) to the government. Only then should they turn to others.

The funny thing is that all these people who want others working for them for free and who want others' money without giving anything back like to think of themselves as generous (because they urge others to be generous to them) and others as selfish (because others don't give them everything they want).

All doctors should offer their services for free. If I saw a doctor and felt like offering him $2 or even $5, I could, but there'd be no bills, no insurance. We could all be healthy - for free! If any doctors objected, it would only be because they are greed-heads, just like those greedy bastards at the University who expect to be paid.

No, you are wrong.

I would give you the CURSING that you so JUSTLY deserve for your obnoxious, condescending, disrespectful statements, but river and Kristoff have tender ears so I will not OUT OF RESPECT FOR THEM!

You deserve NO respect for these asinine remarks that are straight from a case of Grade School - Junior High School angst. I just wish I were there so that I could have witnessed all of the bullying that made you as you are so that I could put things in perspective as well as janekane does.

Now. Back to the subject of WHY college professors and scholars DESERVE an education...

All that they want are the exorbitant salaries, free and paid for private planes, ( you know, like the Gulf Stream g550 or similar...) various perks, GILDED RETIREMENT PLANS and GOLDEN PARACHUTES that the Wall Street fat cats or similar, like Mittleschmertz Romney gets.

You know the kind. The crooked cheats with the MBA degrees that they believe are superior to the PhD. that fuck the country by sending jobs and businesses overseas so that they can increase profits provided by the 15% Capital Gains and dividend taxation. You know the type, don't you? They buy several Cadillacs for their home-bound wives who don't have to work to help their husband.

You DO know what I mean, don't you? Yeah, yes, yes, YOU KNOW...

Hmmmm?

I bet that YOU have even worked for a few of these cheats, haven't you?

Hmmmm?

By the way, as of TODAY I am off of VACATION. NOW, bubba, WATCH OUT!!!

[Riverwind]

Welcome Back A-1. I like your last post, it was right on the money.

As for California, it has painted its self into a box and has no way of ever getting out of it, the only hope it has is to start over. It is a classic example of what is the opposite of the Constitution of the United States, its short, to the point, open ended, allowing change to happen without changing the document, except of course with the exception of being attacked by republicans, they would eliminate the parts they don't like and add new ones that would take it on a path like what California is on.

The best way to change the system is not to change the constitution at all but to live within its perimeters.


River

[A-1]

As for the arguments, I believe that the Federal government demands that all states operate in the black and that no state have a deficit. I may need to research that. I am not sure where it is written.

Otherwise, the states would have to issue bonds and that would be the equivalent to that state printing money.

[Riverwind]

Somewhere in my memory I believe you are correct. Not sure where it is either.

River