DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... How can it be legal for Politicians to blackmail voters?

link

Budget tweaks could help Gov. Jerry Brown make his case for tax hikes
kyamamura@sacbee.com

PUBLISHED TUESDAY, JUN. 26, 2012


Two days before California lawmakers were scheduled to vote on a new state budget, details emerged Monday on new provisions that could help Gov. Jerry Brown's tax initiative at the polls.

One of the biggest surprises was language propelling all bond measures and constitutional amendments to the top of the ballot, likely ensuring that Brown's tax hike on sales and upper-income earners will take the favorable lead spot on a November ballot chock full of voter questions.

Senate Bill 1039 declares that bonds and constitutional amendments, including initiatives, should receive top billing "because of the profound and lasting impact these measures can have on our state." Brown's initiative contains a permanent shift of certain duties to counties, but its most prominent component – the tax hike – is temporary in nature.

Mark Hedlund, spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, called the majority-vote change a "clarification" of the law's intent.

But as recently as November 2010, California's statewide ballot listed initiative constitutional amendments like Brown's behind other ballot measures, in the order they qualified. The governor's initiative was the ninth proposal to qualify for November. It could move to first if lawmakers delay the state's water bond as expected.

"It's like changing the rules of the game in the seventh inning," said Nathan Ballard, spokesman for a rival income tax initiative by attorney Molly Munger that would appear lower on the ballot because it is not a constitutional amendment and was among the last to qualify.

Two new education "trigger" provisions could provide Brown a more powerful argument as he asks voters to raise the sales tax by a quarter-cent on the dollar and hike income taxes starting with single filers earning $250,000.

A new education budget bill includes a deeper "trigger" cut in the K-12 school year should voters reject Brown's tax measure. In May, Brown said that if his tax fails, districts could cut 15 days combined over the next two school years, such as eight days one year and seven days the next.

Assembly Bill 1476 now says districts can cut 15 days in each of the next two years for a combined total of 30. H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Brown's Department of Finance, said the governor sought the harsher trigger consequence because districts reported "that if something of this magnitude comes down, they wanted the ability to go to that level in each of those years."

Brown and lawmakers also added language designed to freeze in-state tuition at California State University and University of California campuses this upcoming year – if voters pass the tax hike. CSU has already approved a 9 percent tuition increase, while UC has said it may pursue a 6 percent jump.

Under the plan, California would provide each university system an additional $125 million in 2013-14 as long as it freezes tuition this year. Brown could make the case to middle-class voters that approving the tax hike would ensure tuition stays level, while rejecting it would result in an increase.

The education budget bill also gives $50 million more to California Community Colleges for programs rather than retiring debt if voters approve the taxes. The California Federation of Teachers, which represents community college instructors, had lobbied for that money in recent weeks.

While the largest state worker union, Service Employees International Union Local 1000, tentatively accepted a deal Saturday to take 12 unpaid leave days over the next year, Brown has yet to reach agreements with state scientists, engineers, attorneys and some law enforcement officers.

A new bill restores language to the budget that would allow saving money through furloughing state workers, potentially giving the governor more leverage to negotiate with unions that have not yet struck deals.

"Put simply, the governor has been clear that we are going to achieve savings equivalent to a 5 percent reduction in pay," Palmer said. "While we don't have agreements with all of the bargaining units, we need the tools to achieve the savings that the budget reflects."

The biggest dispute in a Senate budget committee hearing Monday came over the elimination of Healthy Families, which provides low-cost health care to 880,000 children in working poor households. The budget agreement shifts them to Medi-Cal, which serves families below the federal poverty line.

Five dozen health care and children's organizations signed a letter Monday opposing the shift because they said it would cut short a successful program and put additional burdens on Medi-Cal, where access has been limited by low reimbursements to medical providers.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the committee chairman, said he was convinced there were enough protections ensuring children would maintain quality care.

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, questioned why the state was moving ahead so quickly to eliminate Healthy Families, given relatively little savings. And Sen. Bill Emmerson, R–Hemet, suggested that Republicans would not vote for a tax on managed care plans if Healthy Families is eliminated, a potential loss of $183 million.

Assembly Bill 1494 does not contain language allowing Kaiser Permanente to bypass counties in order to keep its 200,000 Healthy Families patients after a draft proposal sparked opposition from other health care interests last week. But the Department of Health Care Services is still working on a deal to ensure those patients do not lose their Kaiser coverage, department spokesman Norman Williams said.
------------

Quote:

---

Brown and lawmakers also added language designed to freeze in-state tuition at California State University and University of California campuses this upcoming year – if voters pass the tax hike.

---

Yeah, it's a bit shady.

I think college is expensive enough, honestly. Why not have university presidents, board members, and other members of the bureaucracy cut their bonuses by 20%? I'd imagine that would curb rising tuition costs.

This sort of thing is egregious, and unfortunately it's been happening for a long time, in all levels of government.

The most prominent example that comes to mind is when Reagan threatened to withhold highway funding if states didn't raise the drinking age.

When you get down to it, it's pretty much illegal, but that's never stopped anyone.

Quote:

---

I honestly can't think of a more glaring example of 'If you don't, I won't...' or 'if you don't, I will...'

---

They did the same thing with the seatbelt law 10 years ago.

so, does that mean the general response to this article says they don't want the state to limit additional spending if they cannot procure additional income?

That expenditures should not consider revenues?

That revenues should be asked for without a target of revenue application?

I don't understand what the problem with this is. People complain about "why am I being taxed?" and this bill says "this tax money will partially go towards controlling the costs of higher education" and people are angry about this?

Blackmail is only one step below lying.. and they've been lying to us for, forever.

How is a budget proposal blackmail?

To me, this reaction stinks of "My ideology is that taxes are bad. This tax proposes paying for things I'm uncomfortable disapproving of. I cannot resolve my distaste for taxes with my feeling that college is too expensive. I am unwilling to acknowledge that public education is partially paid for by taxes since it would indicate my viewpoint is not 100% correct at all times."

Hell, we get blackmailed all the time in Youngstown and Mahoning County.

Don't pass this tax and we'll cut police and firemen, close libraries and public parks ..... and so on. God forbid that we would reopen labor contracts, cut administrative staff and/or hours, or other lower priority personnel or services.

It really is blackmail. However, in Youngstown, we still keep pulling the "D" lever election after election after election after election.

Well ..... we never even try the other party in Youngstown. Satan would win against God Almighty if Satan ran as a Democrat. I believe that there have been 2 Republicans elected from the area in my lifetime. (one Mayor and one Congressman)

From 1964 to present, we have had 1 Republican Mayor, (Jack Hunter) and that was in the 1970s. We've had 1 Republican Congressman (Lyle Williams) and he was out in 1981. He was actually working on stuff for the area, but he was beat by Jim Traficant way back.

Anyway ..... I don't get why a depressed area would just blindly elect the same Party over and over and over again. On a national basis voters tend to "throw the bums out" every once in a while ..... but not here. We just continue re-electing the same bums and wonder why things don't change.

We held primaries around here today, there was only a republican ballot. No dems, no independents. We tend to lean a little right in these parts.

Quote:

---

College has kind of become the new high school, except now it costs $80,000 to $100,000 to go through 4 years, with a 7.5% fixed interest rate on loans.

---

That is what they want you to think.


The reality is a college education is way less then what it was. You almost have to go on to a specialized degree for it to pay.


My feelings have changed over the last 5-10 years. If I had young kids about to embark on a career choice, I would steer them first to a community college and earn a certificate that allows you to earn a living...as fewer and fewer seek technical jobs, the pay is going up. Somebody has to survey that road project or housing plot.


Then, go for a 4 year degree if you feel the need. It's about learning something to make a good living. While one kid goes to school, amassing $80,000 or more of debt learning to do nothing other than have a sheepskin, the other kid lugged bricks, learned to build a wall, amassed no debt and actually made some money, and now has a job as a bricklayer. Not sexy by any means, and for most won't lead to great riches, but in the end provides a solid income if you are willing to work and seek the work.


We talk about education, but this country is fat and diabetic because we don't drill PE in to kids in school anymore, and we don't have skilled tradesmen because we dumped technical schools. Somewhere along the way we adopted for the female way of thinking of sitting still and reading rather then the male way of going out and doing things.


Just saying.....not many girls are placed on mind altering drugs to modify their behavior. A HIGH PERCENTAGE of boys are. They just don't fit the current model of education.

I agree with you about a college education. That's why I'm saying it's the new high school. Everyone seems to go to college now so a college education has little value to justify getting buried alive in debt.

Hell, I know Tons of people who graduated from law school that aren't making anywhere near what they expected to make out of law school.

Quote:

---

Are we really resorting to sexist comments now?

---

I just say what I see and feel. If the comments are seen as out of the mold and taken as sexist, racist, or anything else, no malice was intended, but it is what it is.

Quote:

---

I'd say it's because of cheap and easy to produce food, actually. Along with those in power not trying to do anything about the growing obesity epidemic.

---

No doubt there are lot's of reasons. Kids today sit around playing video games or sit at a computer screen updating their facebook page. We were out playing ball of some sort or climbing trees.

All I am saying is taking PE out of schools was a big mistake. I know the emphasis has been on math and science and i agree, we do need to keep hammering that, but not everybody is going to need to use that later in life, but everybody needs a degree of physical fitness. Plus, it helps many of these "problem" boys run off some steam. Don't drug them. Let them run around and be active. It's what males have been doing since the dawn of time.

I agree. It wasn't that long ago when I was young and running around outside. When we got bored of playing traditional sports, we invented our own. We played with kids we didn't even like just so we had enough people, we ragged on the one or two kids who wanted to quit early so we could finish the game. Didn't realize it at the time, but it helped us learn to work with people we weren't particularly fond of to get things done. Also got us accustomed to sticking with something even if we didn't want to anymore.

Kids these days don't have social skills or work ethics, and damned if they aren't a bunch of crybabies if they don't get their way.

Throw em outside and give them a ball and a hose to drink out of, imo.

Quote:

---

Anyway ..... I don't get why a depressed area would just blindly elect the same Party over and over and over again. On a national basis voters tend to "throw the bums out" every once in a while ..... but not here. We just continue re-electing the same bums and wonder why things don't change.

---

I'll never understand why we worry about party anyway.. with few exceptions, they are the same.. we elect them, they cheat us, we either keep them cause we like being cheated or we throw them out for someone else that cheats us.

As for throwing the bums out, I think that's what you saw in 2008. I think, check that, I know, that people were tired of Bush (right or wrong)

I think the biggest things that stopped McCain from winning was his ties to Bush, his choice of VP candidate, his suspending his campaign to go fix the economy in Sept of 08 and then admitting the economy isn't his strong suit.

But mostly, his ties to Bush and lack of ability to seperate himself from him effectively.

So in essence, they threw the bums out. in 2010, we saw the same thing in reverse.

I don't have a clue what to expect this time around.

Romney is building a pretty strong war chest. He could end up outspending Obama. something that McCain had a problem with.

I used to vote party line (republican) all the time.. but I learned that each party has bums. trying to sort them out is the challenge.