Home › News › Local News
Governor backs 1¢ rise in sales tax
Download this story as a podcast!
Rich Pedroncelli / AP "I stepped up to the plate," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said about supporting an increase in the state sales tax.
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsSACRAMENTO — Departing from his long-held resistance to tax increases, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday proposed a compromise state budget that would include a temporary, 1-cent increase in the state sales tax.
Sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel would be exempted from the increase.
Schwarzenegger, who has privately discussed the idea with legislative leaders in recent weeks, made public his proposal in the hope that it will help bring Democratic and Republican lawmakers "out of their ideological corner."
"Sometimes you've got to make a decision that you hate, but it's the only way to show that you can be the grown-up," Schwarzenegger said. "I stepped up to the plate."
The budget stalemate has now entered its eighth week, and if agreement is not reached in a matter of days — some say Sunday, some say the middle of next week — it will be impossible to place any component of a budget deal that requires a constitutional amendment before the voters in November.
Party-line reactions
The proposal drew a cautiously favorable response from Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles. "I appreciate that the governor now believes that we need more revenues, and we'll keep working with him," she said.
Republican leaders Mike Villines in the Assembly and Dave Cogdill in the Senate assailed the governor's proposal. Cogdill called it "disheartening" and said it was discouraging to see the governor "walk away" from Republican principles.
"Increasing taxes on hard-working Californians, whether temporary or permanent, is not only unnecessary, it is irresponsible," Villines said.
The relationship between Villines and Schwarzenegger has become increasingly strained this week. On Monday, the governor called a Los Angeles radio program to assert his views immediately after Villines had criticized him on the program. On Tuesday, Villines walked out of a budget meeting with Schwarzenegger and other legislative leaders and told reporters the governor was more of a hindrance than a help in the negotiations.
Borrowing is criticized
In his news conference Wednesday, Schwarzenegger criticized both Democrats and Republicans for their failure to compromise, but he reserved some of his sharpest criticism for Republican proposals to balance this year's budget by borrowing from special funds set aside for transportation and local government.
"This budget does not borrow or steal money from local governments, nor from transportation," Schwarzenegger said. "By borrowing that means that next year we will have the same problem. We will be in the same crisis, and we will then have to raise taxes next year."
After Villines issued a statement saying Schwarzenegger's proposal "will still leave a $7 billion hole next year," the governor's press secretary, Aaron McLear, dispatched an e-mail to reporters describing Villines' statement as "100 percent inaccurate."
More cuts in compromise
Schwarzenegger said lawmakers must decide to compromise for the good of the state. "The people send us to Sacramento to fix problems and not just to get stuck in our ideology and become party servants, but to become public servants."
Schwarzenegger's proposed compromise includes $2 billion in additional spending reductions on top of the $9.3 billion in reductions included in the plan approved by legislative Democrats. Slightly more than half of those additional reductions would be in school spending.
The tax increase, which would kick in Sept. 1 if a budget is adopted quickly, would generate an estimated $4 billion in the current fiscal year. Combined with assorted other actions — notably, a change in the tax treatment of business losses that would yield $1 billion now but would allow businesses to maximize the tax benefit of their losses in future years — the new revenue would allow the state to close a $15.2 billion shortfall and end the year with a $1.4 billion budget reserve.
Schwarzenegger said he hopes his embrace of a tax increase will motivate Democrats to agree to the other key element of his compromise — budget reforms. Those reforms include the creation of a rainy-day fund that would capture excess revenues in good economic years and the establishment of midyear budget-cutting authority that would allow the governor to make some unilateral spending reductions in years in which the state is headed toward a shortfall.
Reforms rejected in past
Schwarzenegger proposed such reforms in 2004, when they were shot down by lawmakers, and again in 2005, when they were shot down by voters in a special election.
"This could be a good trade-off," he said.
In addition, Schwarzenegger maintains his May proposal to modify the lottery and sell the rights to increase future revenues. That arrangement, he projects, would generate $5 billion in each of the next two years, with the money being deposited into the proposed rainy day fund.
The lottery modifications and the creation of the rainy day fund would require constitutional amendments that would have to be approved by voters.
Under the proposal, the basic statewide sales tax of 7.25 percent (it's higher in some counties, but not Ventura County) would increase to 8.25 percent for three years. After that, it would permanently be reduced to 7 percent, which is below its current level.
The California Retailers Association, whose members sell more than $100 billion in taxable goods annually, announced its support for the compromise. Association President Bill Dombrowski called the temporary increase followed by a reduction "a net tax cut that will be good for California's economy."
Posted by handyhood on August 21, 2008 at 3:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK folks, who didn't see this coming? Temporary tax? Never heard of one! Might as well get use to it because it is here to stay. The "temporary tax" will turn into a forever tax because all those fine folks in Sacramento will find some stupid reason to spend more of our hard earned money. It won't "fix" the deficit, (although a one penny increase would really be a LOT of money) because it's never enough for our State officials. Arnie you sold out!
Posted by luv2sail on August 21, 2008 at 4:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A 1.4 billion dollar surplus, that will last long. We'll be in the same boat until people start taking some responsibility, voting these life long incumbents out and getting people in there that can run the Government like a business. This is what we make, this is what we can spend, no more, no less.
Posted by JeannetteMedrano on August 21, 2008 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Under the proposal, the basic statewide sales tax of 7.25 percent (it's higher in some counties, but not Ventura County) would increase to 8.25 percent for three years. After that, it would permanently be reduced to 7 percent, which is below its current level."
If and when this tax increase takes effect, it is here to stay. I don't believe after three years it would go below our current tax level, EVER! I live in Ridgecrest, and our city council is fighting for the tax not to be raised here. My family and I were doing some back to school shopping in Palmdale, the tax there is 8.25%. Let me tell you it does make a difference.
Posted by dcsfancy on August 21, 2008 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
we already pay the highest sells tax of all the states. They need to cut the fat not tax us again.
Posted by live_for_purpose on August 21, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not a 1% sales tax increase! It is a 13.8% sales tax increase. To figure a percent increase, you divide the amount of the change by the original amount and then multiply by 100. So, 1 divided by 7.25 is .138 (rounded to the nearest thousandth), which means 13.8%.
So they can call it a 1% increase, but relative to what it currently is, it is really a 13.8% increase.
On a $20,000 new car, it means your sales tax will go from $1450 to $1650.
To have a "1%" increase for 3 years and then a "0.25%" decrease for years following that, means that it would take 12 years at the reduced rate to break even. So, you don't break even until 15 years after this would start. This is assuming that your spending is level every year and ignores the fact that your pay the increase up front and get the decrease later on.
How many new cars do you think a car dealer will sell in the last several months before the rate would go from 8.25% to 7%? Knowing that they'll save hundreds of dollars by waiting a while, probably not a whole lot.
And the malls in southern Oregon will love it (no sales tax in Oregon).
And a sales tax is very regressive--everybody pays it no matter how poor or unable to pay it.
Posted by lrgvanman on August 21, 2008 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hopefully, like Pete Wilson's "Earthquake Tax", this will regenerate a surplus but maybe this time we won't tolerate misspending and the likes. That small amount is worthy and won't hurt that much with the result being worthy if only properly administered.
Posted by 6bucks on August 21, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sheesh, is one cent really going to kill anyone?
Posted by worldfxr on August 21, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All governments are broken. This would include Federal, State, Counties, Cities, & Special Districts. Too many people in postions of authority that fundamentally have no business being there. That would include elected positions. Governments have to be able to adjust to economic conditions just as any other business would. Most spend money with one bad decision after another. Until we root out incapable management and deal with an overwhelming social drain by illegal immigration. We are doomed.
Posted by keepin_it_real on August 21, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so sick of this. Now they want us to pay for the governments misuse of out hard earned money. A half cent raise will not be enough, then they will want more. This will never end and will not be reversed. What goes up, does not go down. Look at the gas prices, here we are all excited that gas is not below $4.00?? Whoop de freakin doo, it still is way too high. If they approve this tax, they will just have more money to blow !!!!
We all are going thru hard times and we don't need this. Trim the fat Arnold, you know there is plenty of it. Instead of hitting the average american worker as you recently did, what about the riffing the jobs that aren't needed, plenty of those for sure.
Do we get to vote on this?????
I think they need a group of honest citizens to audit them every quarter to see exactly how the money is being spent. Because there are not honest people running our government. If found that any money is misused, take it away. Just like a parent punishing their child.
So there you go....
Posted by RebelGal on August 21, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Today on the highway I saw my nieghbor's gardener in a 50,000 dollar truck with his six kids with a weekender trailer. I don't know their situation, maybe they are wealthy and the father just really likes to cut grass......
welfare anyone? End all this needless welfare, if you can't afford this state then leave. I can barely afford it and as soon as I graduate that is what I am moving. It seems logical to me. Don't rely on the state to pay your way, it makes it more expensive for the rest of us.
Posted by camarillomomma on August 21, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This may be a little off the subject, but everyone needs to check out this website http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
and if you have time I really encourage you all to watch the trailers, or you can rent the dvd!
IF YOU THINK THIS IS SOMETHING, YOU'RE IN FOR A SHOCK!
I know I was..Makes you think about a lot the government is having us do that is unconstitutional!!!!
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I still say tax away from the prisoners, take away their salt, pepper, sugar, etc., they don't need those extras that cost hundreds of thousands a year.
Stop spending money on life saving healthcare for prisoners on death row and serving life sentences, we are only extending our responsibility to pay for them. Give them cheap pain meds and let them go out quietly.
Increase fines for those who break the laws, drunk drivers, speeding tickets, taggers...significantly increase those fines and we will rack up some serious cash as well as making people think twice about breaking the law!
My two cents...
Good morning, All! :)
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
*Take away*, not tax away...going back for STRONGER coffee!
Posted by dgreene on August 21, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh great, more taxes. That's just what I need, I'm barely getting by now. Why don't the legislators cut their salaries by 5000 dollars each and put it into the budget? Can't they afford it?
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebelgirl, so with your comment, I can only assume that you are paying for your tuition in full with no grants or scholarships? Because, if you can't afford it yourself...
Seriously, I get the point you are trying to make and yes, the welfare system is broken, but it is better than it was. I personally think they need to impose stricter limits on welfare and only pay for up to two kids maybe. This would get alot of people back into the work force. I don't know alot about welfare, but I thought they had a time limit on it now...like 5 years?
Posted by kenk9 on August 21, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Line by line budget.
line 1 -25%
line 2 -25%
sounds easy to me.
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JM, if that is the case, then I really think a limit of two is more than fair. If you can't already afford two kids, no need to be bringing more into this world that you can't afford to take care of properly...not fair to the tax payers and not fair to the kids.
Posted by opns on August 21, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RebelGal - When do you graduate, we'll be counting the days. Many taxpayers have already put into state taxes and need the funds to to get back to school and bring up skills - due to unfortunate circumstances.
hotwildflower - Ditto on your first comment
and also downsize death row. Whats the hang up with death row anyway?
(darn it, i wanted to keep away from the posting today, and then this article.)(i need to go to commenting anonnymous - this is addicting)
Posted by svwl on August 21, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm all for more sales taxes. Maybe it will keep everybody from buying so much crap.
Posted by get_to_work on August 21, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
it's not that much, will it really make a difference in your life? AND it's not just illegals who take advantage of the system, there are many legals who take advantage as well.
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by svwl on August 21, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm all for more sales taxes. Maybe it will keep everybody from buying so much crap.
Brilliant! And more jobs will be lost! (eye roll!!)
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
opns, I think if they are on death row and are proven guilty with DNA where it can't be argued, then take care of business.
If they are on death row and still have their appeals and could be proven innocent, then hold off. Don't want to execute an innocent person, but shouldn't be spending the money on those there isn't a shadow of a doubt. Does that make sense? I know they were convicted, but some cases have been overturned and innocent people have been released from death row.
Posted by calgirlinky on August 21, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I work in social services, and yes, every time you have another child, the rules change yet again, and you end up being able to stay on the "roles" longer. That's not a state thing, it's a federal thing. It makes me sick.
Posted by svwl on August 21, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hotwildflower, an increase in sales taxes could lead to the elimination of retail jobs if people shop less, that is true. However it will also allow more jobs for state employees to be held onto because of the increase in taxes. Someone wins, someone loses. I would rather have more public servants helping people instead of more Wal-Mart cashiers selling bagel cutters.
Posted by logicalone2 on August 21, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You can see it in his eyes. He never saw a tax he didn't like!!!
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Svwl, You can look at is as win some lose some, I'd rather have a win/win! Keep taxes low, keep people shopping, keep the lower end jobs and make cuts elsewhere such as at the prisons and bring in more money from people breaking the law and increase public servant jobs.
I am all for more police, fire, teachers etc., but there is far too much waste that should be cut before we start taking from the public...this should be a last resort.
Posted by opns on August 21, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well i'm sure there's plenty on deathrow. Right - (without the benefit of the doubt), i've always thought so, still, what's the delay with them?
Posted by svwl on August 21, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that we need to cut frivolous spending and I agree that prisons are one place we can look. I'm just not sold on the idea that we need to "keep people shopping." This is a tangent, but for what end? Rabid consumerism is an unsustainable practice that has led to a lot of the problems in our society.
Posted by Rocket81 on August 21, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The government collects plenty of money. The elected officials just like to spend money. Just for example schools get so much allocated each year. If they do not spend their monies, they get some cut the following year. So what they do is spend every penny, hoping to get an increase in money the next year. Which since they are schools, they get. The system is such a joke.
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You're right, JW...the sky is falling because there are republicans on this earth!
This is a stalemate, neither side is saying where cuts should be made. If republicans suggest removing extras from anywhere, democrats will cry that it's inhumane, that people are being targeted, etc. The ACLU will throw a fit if we try to take sugar away from inmates...
Posted by svwl on August 21, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw's right! Politicians continue to get elected by just saying they will cut taxes. American's in general have a mechanism inside that tells them, "More taxes-Bad, Less taxes-Good. No taxes make me happy."
And they vote for the politician blindly without waiting around for the politician to explain exactly what will be cut from the budget when the taxes are lowered. Then the politician gets in office and proposes to cut things that HE thinks are unnecessary.
For example, Arnold flies his personal jet to Sacramento, so he doesn't see a need to invest in public transportation, so that gets cut. And he can afford to send his children to whichever private college they desire, so public universities get cut.
We need to think beyond our knee-jerk response that all increased taxes are bad if we are ever to become a true first-world country that respects all of its citizen's needs.
Posted by NowHearThis on August 21, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is what the dumb arces get who voted for Arnold because of his movie fame. You know who you are. If you had voted for McClintock like I did, then this budget mess would have been a distant memory. That's because Tom would have vetoed every frivolous spending bill that came before him.
Posted by NowHearThis on August 21, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quit spending on illegal aliens. Throw them out of our schools, hospitals and welfare roles. Cut all spending for every department by 10 percent and the budget will be balanced very soon. No, the LIBS in Sacto will continue to overspend, because it's not THEIR money. Thank God for the 2/3 vote need to get a budget passed.
JW1000: "Yet Republicans still FAIL to specify exactly what needs to be cut!"
Everywhere, every department, division in the state, except law enforcement and fire protection.
Even in prisons: make the inmates eat stale ham sandwiches three times a day.
Businesses are leaving the state in droves and you can thank the LIBS and the Maria Shriver Democrat Arnold for that!
Posted by NowHearThis on August 21, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, throw out the liberal activist judges who would rule ham sandwiches unconstitutional.
Posted by sue805 on August 21, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought we tossed out Grey Davis because he said we needed to RAISE Taxes to pay off debt?? And Arnold said he could get loans to help us out of predicament . Now it has returned to haunt us all. Cut the damn spending. I worked for the State and I remember quite well my boss telling me I HAD To work 40 hour weeks to keep spending all the budget we had so we could get more next year. Use it or lose it attitude in prevalent in most State , County jobs. I often had NOTHING to work on. Felt like a was stealing from us all. So sad.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NowHearThis:
Your comments are not well thought out bud. What will happen to the state if we did what you said? Please, specify what would happen. Otherwise, your comment was irresponsible.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hotwildflower:
We agree again!!!! WOW.
CA is not a silo that is not affected by the economic problems of the entire country. A lot of our problems are due to the same issues, rising unemployment, stagnant wages, housing/credit issues, oil price fluctuations and our $ not being worth squat to the rest of the world.
I think it's more of a reflection of the Governator's abilities to run the state. I mean, he could take a bazooka to the budget, but really, how would that help?
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK...I just read the article again....how does the person writing the article equate $0.01 to 1% They are QUITE different. Is it $0.01 or 1%? 1% is in fact 14% increase, $0.01 is not much at all, all things considered.
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I told you you'd be surprised how much we agree on! I'm not the ranting lunatic you thought...well, I may be a little..., but that's my charm! haha
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do they mean $0.01 more for every dollar spent? They should provide an example of how the increase will impact a typical purchase.
I think I need some coffee.
Posted by NowHearThis on August 21, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Babyzdaddy, it's obvious you cannot comprehend a simple statement. How hard is it to understand a 10 percent cut in every department/division in state government, (except police/fire)?
But, I understand you from your gang-bang moniker.
Posted by BeaHappi on August 21, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In addition to hotwildflower's great suggestions for cutting back on government spending...
I think that any woman of child-bearing age, who is receiving government assistance, should have to provide proof of birth control prior to receiving a dime. So every month they have to go and get a shot and the records submitted for payment.
If you can afford to take care of your family without assistance, have as many kids as you'd like. But if we're helping pay the bill, no more breeding until the government money stops.
Hey, the 1 cent tax isn't going to kill me and I probably won't adjust my shopping habits all that much. It just seems ridiculous to increase taxes when there is so much fat to be cut.
Why oh why can't there be a citizen's review board that helps with these things? If Arnie would only read our posts...we'd save him and our state so much time and money.
Posted by BeaHappi on August 21, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a .01 CENT increase, not 1%.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NowHearThis:
You didn't understand what I was asking. Please describe how the state will function with a 10% cut across the board, except for police and fire. For example, let's cut an additional 10% from education. What caliber of students will we be producing after that cut...please enlighten us "oh grand wise one".
By the way, since when is BabyzDaddy (a description of my standing in my daughter (nicknamed: "Baby")'s life. You're not very bright.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with BeaHappi (I think that's a first too).
Unfortunately, under NowHearThis's ingenious idea, there would be 10% less nurses to help administer the birth control and there would be 10% less social service employees to keep track of that program, somehow I don't think that translates into 10% less children being born to "not financially capable" Mothers.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Was thinking faster than I was typing:
CORRECTION: "By the way, since when is BabyzDaddy (a description of my standing in my daughter (nicknamed: "Baby")'s life."
By the way, since when is BabyzDaddy a gang-bang moniker? Considering that the name is a description of my standing in my daughter (nicknamed: "Baby")'s life.
Posted by mikeb6804 on August 21, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not much to add here. I'm totally disgusted. We can get rid of Arnold thanks to term limits. We need them for the rest of those worthless state legislators as well.
NJ jw --- can you ever make a worthwhile comment?
Your inputs should be the first ones flushed. Give me a line item budget. I'll guarantee you, I can make the cuts.
Posted by commonsense on August 21, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lock them in a room until they fix the problem. No food, no pay, no water, no bathrooms. The problem lies in part with the voters who didnt fix these "safe" seats in the last redistricting. As a result we have legislators who are so extreme on each side, nothing gets done. Cut the programs to match your income, if people complain about the cuts give them the option to pay more in taxes; if they say no, then the programs werent that important a priority anyway.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Commonsense:
So only those that pay the taxes can use the services if needed?
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't always assume someone's moniker actually reflects them...otherwise you might be lead to belive I am hot & wild...of which I am neither...nor a flower!
Posted by BeaHappi on August 21, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01...you've never agreed with me before? I'm crushed! :~)
Okay (not)hot(not)wild(not)flower...point taken!
Although I am generally optimistic so I guess my moniker pretty much stands for me!
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on August 21, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I will say this again,
California spends 9 BILLION a year on services for illegal aliens, yet ARNOLD will make everyone pay more money to support this wasteful spending. We are paying enough.
NO NEW SALES TAXES
VOTE NO ON THIS INSULTING TAX INCREASE.
Posted by BeaHappi on August 21, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey friends...instead of just posting here, you should also take the time to share your feedback with our governer.
Here's the link: http://gov.ca.gov/interact
I just sent him an email with some suggestions and feedback...it just takes a moment.
It would be nice to think that he'd get the information from our little posting world here but since that's unlikely, we need to take our opinions to him.
Do it!
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey VC Sexplorer...please site your source that substantiates the $9 billion...I'm curious to see how you arrived at the headcount used in the calculation.
Beahappi:
Thanks for the link!!!
Posted by guy133 on August 21, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One cent sales tax per year? per day? per purchase?
I hate when they call it a one cent increase. It's not a one cent increase. It's an increase of one PERcent. And it's not increasing the sales tax BY one percent, either.
Posted by hotwildflower on August 21, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, BabyZdaddy, there is a book called "Outrage" by Dick Morris where he outlines the cost of illegals on the country.
Just an FYI for stats...not antagonizing here...
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on August 21, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It was a study done by the Federation on Immigration Reform:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/...
By the way I was told that we are not going to vote on the new tax. The dictators are forcing this on us, like it or not.
It will take affect as early as September.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dick Morris? AKA: Popeye the Sailor? AKA: the Toe S*cking Fetish Freak?
Ok.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
40% of the children counted in the $7.7B that make up your $9B figure are LEGAL citizens. Law is the law right? Ok's ok to not acknowledge the law when it's in your position's favor? Those 40% make up $4.5B of your $9B. That lowers your number to $4.5B. I wonder what else in this report used biased figures to calculate the total. And they call themselves "FAIR"? Nice.
If your argument is that all children from illegal immigrants should not be considered legal citizens, then you need to look around the country at all the other races that have come over illegally since the Mayflower and count all those decendants as well. Using that line of thinking, you HAVE TO go back as far as possible which would place a lot more people in that same bucket. Otherwise, it's biased to say, 'well, we're only talkling about "these people".'
Posted by whatever on August 21, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Arnold is a closet Democrat so why is anyone shocked by any tax increase? That is what a Dem stands for. Raise taxes.
Posted by whatever on August 21, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01 Said
Dick Morris? AKA: Popeye the Sailor? AKA: the Toe S*cking Fetish Freak? There goes the left, can't say anything without name calling. The truth hurts doesn't it? You guys run scared of actual facts.
Why you are so afraid of the truth is quite funny.
Posted by ebrockway on August 21, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sue,
You hit one of the biggest problems. The Use it or Lose It concept in government. Agencies are penalized for saving money by having their budgets cut the next fiscal year, so with that in mind they spend like crazy at the end of the year so they don't face less money in the future.
There needs to be incentive to save in government, not incentive to spend.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WHATEVER: The TRUTH is that the last time the Right called B/S on a tax plan was Clinton's plan that ended up with a surplus. How much surplus do we have with Bush's tax plan/iniative over the last 8 years?
Also, how can you pay your bills without generating revenue? Please, tell us WHATEVER?
You say cut spending, but cutting spending will NOT generate additional revenues. Taxes generate revenues. Can you not understand that?
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 21, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WHATEVER: Please PROVE that those "names" I called him are unjustified. Those are facts as well that have been documented about his inappropriate relationship with an escort.
Posted by lawson_wayne on August 21, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Buy on the internet lower prices, no sales tax & many sites offer free shipping. Cutting off the money is the only way to get their attention.
Vote against all incumbents, they created the spending problem.
Posted by whatever on August 21, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
babydaddy you sound like your an angry person. Did somebody step in your cheerio's?
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on August 21, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BabyzDaddy_01,
Let’s put it this way. If was 2 Billion, 4 Billion, or 9 Billion it is all a waste of money and it robs the real American Taxpayers.
I know what you will say next. The illegals pay taxes. What percentage of illegals report their income? I see a lot working for cash only.
I know, if you care so much then let’s just tax the illegal’s to pay for the illegal’s and all illegal friendly people like you. Heck they pay taxes right? Where the love in the Mexican community?
Posted by r.gyurkovitz on August 21, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As much as I would love to pin this all on the governor and legislature, I think it's important to note the role an idiot populace has played.
Every time you vote on a ballot proposition which says that funding for a program is beyond the reach of lawmakers you make this type of crisis inevitable.
Furthermore, employees in law enforcement and fire protection shouldn't be sacrosanct. Just like other state employees, they call it a "pay cut" when they don't get their mandatory pay increases.
Ryan
Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 21, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As for the prisons...first off if you treat them as animals they will act like them. Riots etc. Then we will need more guards to guard them. If you think they eat good you have never ate prison food. Prop.66 Which the Gov. lied about.....is not in use as planned. The arrest was to be a serious felony. Not for someone walking out of the store with a .50 pack of donuts he assumed his friend had paid for. Now we have to pay his prison stay.
Did we get free breakfast before school back in the 60's, 70,s or 80's??????????NOOOOOOOOO
Why now? They already get food stamps and now free breakfast on us !!!!!!!! Arnold is nothing but a liar but I knew it would take time for people to see this.
Posted by Scapegoat on August 21, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crybabies! Why do you keep sending the same tax and spenders to Sacramento?
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on August 21, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AnnaWhaat,
I do agree that Arnold is a liar!!
Also one more general comment to everyone.
L.A sales tax is currently 8.85%, it will be 9.85% after this increase.
I think that will be the highest in the country.
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on August 21, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scapegoat,
I'm not crying. I am a registered Independent and agree with you.
Posted by pfg93003 on August 21, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You all forget that after you pay sales tax you are taxed a second time on that money by the state's income tax. Cali is so broken politcally, we have no conservatives. In the 60's sales tax was 3% and was raised because of a budget shortfall then it was 6% until the 90's and we all fell for the increase for public safety. All the money on the last increase was never spent on any public safety. No equipment for the firefighters, some guys just had shovels. Don't fall for this one either. I say we rebuild Sacto and start with cutting spending and all the un-needed programs. The gov't of California is too big and self serving.
Posted by Scapegoat on August 21, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen pfg93003 Ground Up rebuild, nothing short will work.
Posted by dr_l_ron_bumquist on August 21, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My turn.
Mr. Davis wanted to rescind the discount in Vehicle Registration. Remember the discount was enacted in the 90's because the economy was good?
Arnold and his backers ran with that (no increase in Vehicle Registration) and Davis was recalled. At least Davis was honest.
Davis was placed against the wall because he wanted to keep the lights on. Remember the blackouts? Davis asked for help from the (federal) FERC but was denied by the Bush administration. The markets were being gamed by friends of Bush and Enron and Davis kept the lights on by using 16 billion in State surplus to pay for electricity in a crooked market.
Damn, that 16 billion would of come in handy now.
Now, Arnold has leveraged our state to the hilt (at the expenses of YOUR grandchildren) and still needs to do this sales tax bid.
I cannot imagine what this board would look like if Mr. Gray Davis would of suggested a penny increase in sales taxes.
Just my couple of pennies to rub together.
Posted by UCSBguy on August 22, 2008 at 12:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
staronline, that's your answer right? Recall. Then if you didn't like the guy who took over because of your stupid recall, you'd recall him too. Do you know how much money we need to spend in order to do this recall you're talking about?
get_to_work: you live in a house and your fellow roommates are eating all of your food, but they're paying some of it back. But you noticed there are other people in the house, who doesn't even live in the house yet, they're eating your food! which one do you take care of first?
I say fix that first and see where it takes us.
Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on August 22, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whatever:
I'm not angry at all, my CAPS are for accentuating the use of certain words (not shouting). I don't know any other way to have those words stand out on this thread.
Also, you STILL did not answer the question: "how can you pay your bills without generating revenue?"
Actually, anyone that'd care to answer that question would be good. Cutting your spending is not the only solution here, no matter what it is. Sure there are certain programs that people can live without, but the real problem is the revenue being raised by the state government. Where does everyone think the states revenue comes from? Taxes people, taxes!
Is it any surprise why DUBYA and R's run on "no taxes or lower taxes" and always seem to find a way to get us far into the RED? Two things at work, lower taxes, lowers revenues, increase debt to make up for that revenue lost from lowering taxes and YES increase in spending (hey wait, but Dubya said no increase in spending either...guess he lied to you didn't he?) Surprise-surprise.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.