Thread: California braces for brutal budget cuts

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

The majority of the voters in CA are democrats. They voted the propositions down NOT because they disagree with the governator, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE COUNTING ON A FEDERAL BAILOUT TO KEEP ALL THEIR WELFARE CRAP GOING.

Why is it that no matter what the people of California do to try to make improvements

some people always find it necessary to attack them?

Schwarzenegger: No gimmicks to fix budget deficit

By JUDY LIN, The Associated Press
11:22 a.m. May 21, 2009

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday that he and lawmakers will try to quickly solve the state's $21.3 billion deficit without taxes, gimmicks or much borrowing.

The Republican governor told reporters after a prayer breakfast in the capital that voters sent state leaders a clear message during Tuesday's special election: Live within your means.

Schwarzenegger said he took that as a sign voters want more cuts to state programs. He also has proposed selling state assets such as San Quentin State Prison, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and CalExpo, the state fairgrounds in Sacramento.

"All of us have to do the same what ordinary people do out there," Schwarzenegger told reporters, referring to the effects of the global recession. "The reality is the world out there is one-third less in value. And so as soon as everyone can adjust to that, I think everyone is going to be fine."

Schwarzenegger met with legislative leaders for the first time Wednesday to hear their thoughts about his latest budget proposal, which includes a mix of cuts and borrowing.

He said the recession has hit California's economy so hard that the level of state revenue today is the same as it was a decade ago.

Voters this week resoundingly rejected a slate of measures that included higher taxes, funding shifts and borrowing against the assumed value of future state lottery revenues. Two-thirds of those who cast ballots rejected each of the five budget-related measures.

"I think the voters were loud and clear. They said, 'Don't come to us, and solve the problem yourself,'" Schwarzenegger said.

The governor and lawmakers placed the measures on the ballot in February as part of a deal to close a $42 billion budget deficit through June 2010. That deal included $15 billion in spending cuts, $11 billion in borrowing and more than $12 billion in temporary increases to the sales, income and vehicle taxes.

But falling tax revenue and overly optimistic projections about how much money the tax increases would generate caused the state to fall back into a deficit within weeks.

Even if voters had approved the measures on Tuesday's ballot, Schwarzenegger and lawmakers would have faced a $15.4 billion deficit in the fiscal year that begins in July. The gap is now $6 billion larger, according to projections by the governor's office.

On Thursday, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said continuing weakness in the economy could deflate tax revenue even further, pushing the total deficit to $24 billion in the coming fiscal year.

Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor endorsed the governor's proposals, released last week, to sell state assets, reorganize government boards and change retiree health benefits for future state employees.

Taylor recommended cutting state employee salaries by another 4.6 percent for some immediate savings. Schwarzenegger has ordered the state to reduce general fund payroll by 10 percent.

Taylor's report warned that the governor's proposal relies too heavily on one-time solutions, such as borrowing from local governments and using federal stimulus money. Rather than take out IOUs to get through the year as Schwarzenegger has proposed, the legislative analyst recommended borrowing from funds dedicated to transportation projects.

"The state cannot continue current levels of service in all state programs," the report stated.

Voters approved just one ballot measure in Tuesday's election, Proposition 1F, which will prohibit lawmakers from receiving pay raises during deficit years. It was placed on the ballot to meet a demand by Republican state Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria, who made it a condition for securing his vote for the February budget deal.

Maldonado has said he would like to run for statewide office in 2010.
On Wednesday, the citizen commission that determines the pay for lawmakers and other state elected officials cut those salaries by 18 percent, although the action will have no immediate effect. The salary reductions will take place between December 2010 and the end of 2012, meaning lawmakers and officeholders will finish their terms without ever seeing a smaller paycheck.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/ ... dex=103253

RELATED

Schwarzenegger says he got voters' message 'loud and clear'

Californians told Sacramento: 'Go all out and make those cuts and live within your means.'

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-156803.html

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

The majority of the voters in CA are democrats. They voted the propositions down NOT because they disagree with the governator, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE COUNTING ON A FEDERAL BAILOUT TO KEEP ALL THEIR WELFARE CRAP GOING.

HERE IS THE REAL REASON THAT VOTERS VOTED THE WAY THEY DID.

California faces its day of fiscal reckoning

By JULIET WILLIAMS, The Associated Press
3:25 p.m. May 22, 2009

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The day of reckoning that California has been warned about for years has arrived. The longest recession in generations and the defeat this week of a package of budget-balancing ballot measures are expected to lead to state spending cuts so deep and so painful that they could rewrite the social contract between California and its citizens. They could also force a fundamental rethinking of the proper role of government in the Golden State.

"The voters are getting what they asked for, but I'm not sure at the end of the day they're going to like what they asked for," said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, which represents the hard-hit construction industry. "I think we've crossed a threshold in many ways."

California is looking at a budget deficit projected at more than $24 billion when the new fiscal year starts in July. That is more than one-quarter of the state's general fund.

This week, voters said they no longer want the Legislature to balance budgets with higher taxes, complicated transfer schemes or borrowing that pushes California's financial problems off into the distant future. In light of that, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it clear he intends to close the gap almost entirely through drastic spending cuts.
The governor's cutbacks could include ending the state's main welfare program for the poor, eliminating health coverage for about 1.5 million poor children, halting cash grants for about 77,000 college students, shortening the school year by seven days, laying off thousands of state workers and teachers, slashing money for state parks and releasing thousands of prisoners before their sentences are finished.

"I understand that these cuts are very painful and they affect real lives," Schwarzenegger said. "This is the harsh reality and the reality that we face. Sacramento is not Washington – we cannot print our own money. We can only spend what we have."

He also has advocated selling state assets to raise cash, including the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and San Quentin State Prison.

The Democrats who control the Legislature do not want major spending cuts, but so far they don't have a plan for closing the deficit. And if their solution is higher taxes and more borrowing, they will probably not have enough Republican votes to get the two-thirds approval needed for passage.

The crisis is a sort of political comeuppance for Schwarzenegger, who took over a state with a projected $16 billion gap in 2003 and promised to end California's "crazy deficit spending."

The gap has two primary causes: The state has been living beyond its means for years by spending generously on all sorts of programs that the voters, the politicians and the special interests wanted. And the recession has hammered California's economy.

Personal income declined this year for the first time since 1938 and unemployment is 11 percent, one of the highest rates in the nation. Nearly $13 billion in tax increases and $15 billion in cuts enacted earlier this year, as well as billions in federal stimulus money, have not been enough to make up for the drop-off in revenue.

"This is the year everything has fallen apart," said outgoing Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines, a Republican from the Central Valley. "We don't have an alternative. We're literally at the day of reckoning and have to cut it all out."

The drastic cuts that appear to lie ahead will, by accident, accomplish the stark reduction in state government that many Republicans have long advocated.

"We should have been limiting the growth of government for years," Villines said.

The crisis also has prompted talk of a complete overhaul of the way California government operates.

A group of business leaders and good-government groups has begun the process of calling for a convention to rewrite the California Constitution.
A separate commission is expected to release a proposal to rework the state's tax structure, which is vulnerable to booms and busts in California's economy because it relies heavily on high-income earners. The state also has few limits on what state government can spend and a small rainy day fund that can easily be raided by the politicians.

Former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, a Democrat who has joined a group seeking to change the state's budget system, said too many services that used to be performed by local governments have been taken over by the state because of a landmark 1978 ballot measure that drastically limited property tax revenue. Hertzberg said the programs, and the money, need to be sent back to counties and cities.

"The real problem of California is that we need to bring government closer to the people, so that the role of the state is much narrower. We need to focus on big-picture stuff," he said.

In the near term, the huge cuts that are about to hit will probably affect nearly every one of the state's 38 million residents. Schwarzenegger's latest budget proposal, for example, would eliminate health care coverage for more than 2 million people, about 1.5 million of them children, said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California.

"It would place their families in financial jeopardy for any ailment, injury," he said. "A child won't be able to see a dentist if they have a toothache or see a doctor if they don't have the ability to see the blackboard at school."

The state also faces a related problem: Every year, California borrows money on the bond market to cover its day-to-day expenses and pays it back when tax receipts flow in. But the tight credit market and questions about California's ability to repay its obligations could make borrowing difficult or extremely expensive this fall.

Schwarzenegger and some Democratic lawmakers have asked the Obama administration for a federal loan guarantee – or what some are calling a bailout. The move would be virtually unprecedented and would require the approval of a reluctant Congress.
–––
Associated Press Writers Judy Lin, Tom Verdin and Samantha Young contributed to this report.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/ ... dex=104035

Some political experts say facing financial ruin might bring about some much-needed reforms. Already calls for a constitutional convention, which could rework the state's unworkable budget process, are growing louder. Stay tuned.

5 things you need to know about: the CA. state budget

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/ ... ?uniontrib

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-902047.html#902047

The hacking of government began quickly, by the hand of a little-known state panel that sets elected state officials' pay. Citing a need for shared sacrifice, the group decided to reduce those salaries by 18% starting next year



Why is this pay cut going into effect NEXT year?

When they laid off state employees and school teachers by the thousands, did those people get a grace period of "next year"?

When state employees had pay cut, did they wait until "next year" to do it?

Did they wait until "next year" before they issued IOUs to those expecting tax refunds and businesses owed money for their contracts with CA?

How about American citizens who faced cuts and elimination in vital services they need? I didn't see them waiting until "next year" to do that.

Why wait until next year before the politicians who caused this mess take their financial beating?

Originally Posted by Arizonablues

Are there any specific ballot initiatives for NOVEMBER to disenfranchise the illegal aliens from TAXPAYER money? Or will they just be cutting back on TAXPAYERS.

Can they spell Mexifornia?

JUNE 2010

CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT
(Birthright Citizenship)
Sponsored by Taxpayer Revolution

The Initiative’s Laws Will:

REQUIRE issuance of the official "CALIFORNIA BIRTH CERTIFICATE" for births to ONLY citizens and legal permanent residents. Birth to Foreign Parent document issued to all others.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-141769-cal ... ection+act
--------------------------------------------------

CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN FOR BALANCED BUDGET

SACRAMENTO, CA (KGO) -- State Republican lawmakers unveiled a package of 20 bills, aimed at saving money and balancing the state budget by targeting illegal aliens.

Assembly Republicans want to chip away at the state deficit by checking the immigration status of those getting state-funded social benefits and jobs. They especially want to crackdown on those who have committed crimes.

"California is on a financial life raft that is sinking, but at the same time, we continue to pull on more and more people on board," said Assemblyman Jim Silva (R) of Huntington Beach.

Many of the proposals concentrate on criminal activity because in 2006 - 2007, it cost the state roughly $850,000,000 million dollars to incarcerate more than 17,000 illegal immigrants.

Among the proposals:

- Adding ten years to prison sentences for felonies if the illegal had been
previously deported.

- Checking the immigration status of DUI offenders

- Requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with INS

- Denying bail for gang-related or violent crimes

- And reporting dangerous juveniles to Immigration and Customs

Enforcement for deportation.

"To the extent we have criminal activity in our state, we should address it very, very vigorously" said state Senior Gil Cedillo (D) of Los Angeles, Vice-Chairman of the Latino Caucus.

"I think the law enforcement agencies in my city should be focused on crime and violence, which is starting to creep up," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Assemblyman John Benoit(R) of Bermuda Dunes is a law enforcement veteran-turned politician, who says it's time cops are part of the solution.
"I have been involved in stopping, finding, and in some cases, deporting people here illegally. I think the rule of law is the reason the United States stands out among nations," said Assemblyman Benoit.

The federal government is supposed to help pay for jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes, but California got reimbursed only $100,000,000 dollars last year, less than 13 percent of the actual costs.

http://abclocal.go.com:80/kgo/story?sec ... id=6042094

CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN FOR BALANCED BUDGET

YIPPEE! Best news I have had all day! And if the rest of the states would follow suit, we wouldn't be having to loan money from nations that hate us.

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

The majority of the voters in CA are democrats. They voted the propositions down NOT because they disagree with the governator, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE COUNTING ON A FEDERAL BAILOUT TO KEEP ALL THEIR WELFARE CRAP GOING.

This is not true!!! We want the bs to stop. Even if we voted yes on all of these, they would still make the cuts like they always do. We are saying ENOUGH ALREADY.

We dont want to be bailed out because this would just enable our legislators to continue with the same old crap. We dont want them to be enabled....WE WANT THIS BS TO STOP. We want the illegals out.

If we get a bailout, then our legislators can afford to let the illegals stay. We dont want that.

redpony wrote:

We dont want to be bailed out because this would just enable our legislators to continue with the same old crap. We dont want them to be enabled....WE WANT THIS BS TO STOP. We want the illegals out.

If we get a bailout, then our legislators can afford to let the illegals stay. We dont want that.

You comments should make sense to everyone. IMO, you've got the right attitude!

STOP THE ILLEGAL ALIEN ENABLERS!!!!