The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Chris_ on February 16, 2009, 08:53:37 PM
-
From Sacramento -- The math seems pretty simple. But apparently it's too rigorous for many Republican politicians.
To avoid raising taxes and still balance the books in Sacramento, you'd have to virtually shut down state government.
...
The basics: The state has a projected $41-billion deficit through June 30, 2010. It's almost out of cash. Bills are not getting paid. Tax refunds aren't being mailed. Construction work is stopped. Bonds can't be sold.
...
read the rest at L.A. Slimes (http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-cap16-2009feb16,0,1062359.column)
My LTTE response (who knows if it will get published?)
Mr. Skelton's math is typical of "liberal math." No matter what, nothing can be cut. And to prove it, he establishes a straw man of a few areas intstead of looking at California's expenditures in their totality.
At one time the State was flush with money. Rather than apply the surplus at that time to direct projects (roads, bridges, etc.,), our legislature, with the complicity of the Governor at the time, created social programs that run forever.
The formula to a Balanced Budget is quite simple:
The first thing to do is roll back every non-federally funded program enacted since the State was in the black. If a program has matching funds and the State is on the hook for more than the match -- toss it.
The second thing to do is eliminate every single California program that is identical to a Federal program but does not have the restriction of being a citizen. Every single shadow program (there are, for example, many medical programs) should be immediately dropped.
Next, go to court and enforce Proposition 187.
Finally, decrease taxes, especially on "the rich." Your boogeyman, "the rich" (let's assume the top 10% of income are the "evil rich"), pays 65-70% of all taxes. Chasing the evil rich out of the State will end up with reduced "revenue."
The budget can be balanced if you follow these simple (but politically bold) ideas.
But I know you won't do this, so here is an object lesson for you and your like.
I am leaving California (after living here my entire life).
I won't stay where I am not wanted and my contribution is not appreciated, but is derided. And, as one of those top 10%-ers, you are losing quite a bit of revenue (to Texas, if you want to know).
But wait! There's more! I have no children, so I put no strain on the school system. I put 3,000 miles a year on my car so I put little strain on the physical infrastructure.
From my rough calculation, it will take 20 median incomes to make up for my loss (due to the "progressive" tax policies). But if you add to the fact that each additional income-earner puts more strain on the infrastructure, nether I nor (I assume) Mr. Skelton have the math skills to find the break-even point.
If I can vote with my feet, so can and will many others. Revenue will go DOWN and then what will you do, Mr. Skelton? Raise taxes again and then stampede what few major businesses that hung on this cycle?
Liberal math -- it isn't for the reality-based.
-
Score!
-
CA could legalize pot; oh, wait, they already done that or they could reverse the stupidity of the liberals and Arnuld promoting offshore drilling for oil and gas.
-
Score!
Your opinion means a lot to me. Thanks
-
Your opinion means a lot to me. Thanks
What you posted about voting with your feet...
There is a reason why so many companies are choosing to "off shore" as much of their operatios as they can, or moving their headquarters to non-US locations.
Predatory federal taxes probably play a large portion of such decisions.
The US is losing billions or even trillions of dollars each year because of it.