I thought hard core Repubs were AGAINST a nanny govt deciding what the voters should or shouldn't want. Isn't Strickland's refusal to allow the voters to make their own decision a bit off message...or has Tony's loyalty to his big $$ contributors trumped his constituent's desires once again?

Here are some points/questions I'd like to see addressed:

1) Since "letting the voters decide" is so important, where were the people who are now critical of Strickland when he proposed SCA 29 which would have given CA voters the chance to decide on Obamacare for themselves? Democratic legislators sure didn't seem to eager to let the voters decide in that instance. Also, do those people now support Strickland's current proposal SCA 10 which would allow voters to decide on a spending cap?

2) If recent history is any guide, the voters are not at all eager to implement higher taxes. In fact, less than two years ago (when the same "sky is falling/teachers will get fired" rhetoric was being tossed around) we were offered proposition 1A which would have increased taxes around $16 billion for a two year period and it was voted down by a 2 to 1 margin. Now, we are being asked to increase those SAME taxes for FIVE years. Does anyone really believe that voters are going to be eager to tax themselves twice as much as was asked less than two years ago when it was defeated 2 to 1? Remember, the legislature passed a $10 billion on their own and our deficit is now $7 billion more than it was then.

3) The last seven times CA voters were asked to increase taxes, the measures failed. If the tax increases are so critically important to public safety and education, why would Governor Brown gamble on the voters acceptance in an election? Why not seek to extend the tax increase without voter approval?

4) If the tax measure did reach the ballot, and was voted down (as is likely) are Democrats willing to say that the majority of Californians obviously do not care about public safety and education? Or, could it be that they believe state government needs reform and increased efficiency before we pony up more of our income?

5) Since it is clear that Republicans will agree to the tax extension being placed on the ballot if an option to lower taxes is also placed on the same ballot, why the opposition to that idea? A) Most people I talk to who support the extension of taxes don't believe that any "sane" person would vote for tax cuts at a time like this so there's no reason they should fear that option being offered and B) Even if people DID choose that lower tax option (were it offered) wouldn't that mean that this was the will of the people in a democratic process and our voices were being heard? I thought this was the point.

6) Statistics on the Governor's website shows that since 2008, approximately 14,000 state jobs have been created. Since teachers are evidently losing their jobs, where are these new positions being created? Can you think of any place that they are more necessary, allowing you to agree with the additional positions instead of keeping teachers employed?

I've got more but that's a start.

(1) I supported and still support a referendum on both but only if the voters are made fully aware of the effects and consequences.

(2) What ever's happened up to now is water under the bridge and a majority of voters seem to think that water's now tainted and they now want to review the State's tax situation.

(3) No sense leading a dysfunctional legislature to water if it won't drink. CA's politicos can't or won't solve our tax/budget/revenue/spending problems. It's time for the voters to step in.

(4) A false assumption. I don't think the voters realize what's caused CA's fiscal problems and this vote isn't an attempt to address the underlying problems...only to prevent further harm to the people of CA. Despite the cries about waste and inefficiency, Sacramento's been unable to either find much waste nor inefficiency. We all know it's there but not to the tune of billions of dollars. And to use that cry as a scare tactic to bamboozle the voters into harming the most defenseless groups in some panic to eliminate a red herring is the height of political cynicism.

(5) I don't believe that's clear at all. But to keep Repubs happy (A) Make lower taxes a separate ballot issue and (B) Yes. If they insisted on lower taxes, they should get them.

(6) I'm not familiar with any such statistics but teachers jobs are not part of the category normally referred to as state jobs, so I'm not clear as to your question. Without having seen it, I suspect what the site refers to is the number of jobs created through State spending, which may include all sorts of temporary, sub-contract, part time & vendor-paid jobs.

Now here's a few questions of my own...

(1) Every state in the Union charges an oil extraction fee...except CA. Alaska charges 24% and at that rate CA would see a revenue of almost $6B, at $100/bl. Why won't GOP lawmakers allow a vote to proceed through the legislature that would charge an oil extraction fee?

(2) Why would Tony Strickland and other GOP lawmakers sue the former governor to put an end to the suits against El Paso Energy, Enron, Houston Power and others who had tampered with natgas supplies back in 1999-2001 (admitted by the defendants in court)? That tampering cost the State's consumers almost $18B.

(3) Why would Tony Strickland accept $900,000 from the maker of tax software, to lead the effort to prevent the State from offering its taxpayers free tax preparation software? Surely that would have LOWERED every taxpayers costs, while Strickland's efforts would have added an extra $40 to the annual cost of doing one's taxes. Isn't THAT sort of a tax that benefits the private sector?

(4) Of the $22B Dems have already cut from the State's budget during the past eight years, (A) how much of that has gone to lowering the tax burdens of CA's middle class and how much has gone to the wealthiest individuals and firms? And (B) why have GOP lawmakers kept adding to the State's budget costs over that same pewriod, through deals that benefit out-of-state businesses and NYC bond brokers, to the tune of about $6.5B each year?

(5) GOP lawmakers have had their way for almost ten years when it comes to cutting the State budget but the tax burden on most CA's hasn't changed. In fact, the cost of living, when you add in increased govt service fees, higher tuitions, lost tax credits and deductions appears to have increased far more than any alleged savings due to these budget cuts. Why is that?

Twice voters were asked to elect Tony Strickland as Controller and twice they said no. Looks like it is time to ask voters to recall Tony Strickland! RECALL!!!!!!!!!!!

Recall? Really? Because he doesn't want hardworking Californians to keep sending their money to a state that squanders it? How about we start electing more people who think like Senator Strickland so we can get out of this mess. Liberals have had control of this state since I can remember and they obviously are not fixing the problem. They keep coming back to us, the taxpayers, for more money. We have so many entitlements, wasteful spending, etc. Rein in the spending and give-a-ways. Stop electing people that want to give their friends cushy, six-figure jobs after they are termed out. Stop electing people that want to give illegal immigrants free college tuition when our own kids can't afford to go to college. Senator Strickland should not be recalled, he should be thanked.

Biggest give-away: $22B in tax cuts to the richest individuals and businesses.

Biggest entitlement: FREE oil, to the tune of $6B that CA middle class taxpayers have to make up to pay for the loss of revenue from oil extraction.

Biggest Budget Buster: Strickland & Co's giveaway of $5+B in annual vehicle registration fees, in a cynical effort to get out the vote for Schwarzenoggin's election..a move that started CA on ten years of building a steady deficit building.

Let's face it...the only thing the Strickland's of the world are good at are bankrupting their states so as to enrich their campaign donors.

What Strickland's actually doing: campaigning full throttle for mass layoffs of K-12 teachers and for hundreds of thousands of college students to lose access to what they need to get a good education.

That's what will happen if the current taxes we are paying aren't extended for a few years until the economy recovers.

He's made it pretty clear in the past he also despises social services. (Those elderly and disabled receiving the SSI/SSP are below the poverty level)

Tony Strickland cares more about the pledge he made to Grover Norquist, a guy who lives 2,000 miles away and a pal of Wall Street crook Jack Abramoff. Tony doesn't give a damn about students, parents or the state's future as a research leader. He doesn't care about the elderly, sick or disabled.

Two–thirds of State General Fund salary costs (excluding universities) are for corrections and rehabilitation employees. Who helped Tony Strickland in his State Senate campaign, paying for thousands of dollars of negative mailers? Why it was the prison guards union!

Tony, you really need to get smarter about this stuff. If you agree to let the people vote, you can bargain for those caps and other things you want like the five GOP legislators who haven't signed your ridiculous pledge. If the voters turn down the extensions, you still get what you want.

You have no solutions, only rhetoric and have never been able to survive on your own off the taxpayer's dime. You are a poor excuse for a legislator and a hypocrite.

So what is the process to begin a Recall of Strickland? Strickland is a fraud, he claims the people already voted down the extensions once, so that should be it, yet he ran twice for Controller and lost both times, if he believed his own BS he would not have run again after the voters rejected him the first time. Strickland needs to be kicked out of office, he needs to get a real job for once in his life, he has lived off of the taxpayer since birth!

"Of the $22B Dems have already cut from the State's budget during the past eight years..."

This is incorrect, state spending has only increased over the last 8 years, to almost $100 Billion last year. There have been zero cuts to California's budget, only growth. And Brown hasn't signed the bills with this year's cuts yet.

there are several components of budget & spending. General Fund, Special Fund, Bond Fund and then Federal Fund (federal revenue sharing & stimulus monies, among others). As of today, the projected GF budget is about $85B. That's down from 2008, when it was about $102B. About $22B have been cut from the GF but tax cuts and SF & BF additions have virtually negated those cuts. I believe SF additions have gone up about $7B and BF additions have added another $6B. FFs have been erratic and have dropped considerably since their peak in 2009, further dislocating revenues. Spending combines GF, SF & BF with about $80B in FFs.

Local boy must get his facts from Faux News. The budget is exactly as GS says it is. Now lets get that recall of Strickland going!

Source: http://lao.ca.gov/sections/econ_fiscal/Historical_Expenditures_Pivot.xls

General Fund Expenditures: 2002 (8 years ago): 76 Billion
General Fund Expenditures: 2008: 102 Billion

Even with a reduction to $83 billion in 2011 (yet to be approved by Governor Brown) the net change over 8 years is an increase of 7 Billion (10% increase), or almost a Billion a year increase... no decrease in funding.

Local Boy wasn't wrong. He was talking about spending which DID go up considerably due to increases in federal monies being sent to CA, up until two years ago. Special Fund & Bond Fund budgets can't be cut, which leaves all the cutting for the general Fund...which also contains several items that MUST be funded by state constitution. That leaves a small segment of the GF that takes the brunt of all cuts: health, education and emergency services.

If the GOP would like to allow the oil extraction vote to take place, end all corporate tax breaks initiated during the past 10 years, return the VRF to 100%, then CA would have no budget problem.

All Brown & the Dems need to do is pass a bill tying any new tax breaks for the richest 5% of CA individuals and businesses to the state's unemployment rate.

Once it becomes law, the Repubs would lose most of their purpose and a large chunk of their money support.

I'd also support a second, similar bill regarding roll backs of regulations. And if the GOP still refuses to play ball, I'd take the language to the voters, to make it part of the State constitution.

Jimbo! If you're out there, maybe you can start moving something like this in the Assembly.

Come on GS, the only purpose of the Ca GOP is to serve Grover Norquist and the tobacco companies that own him. Tony Strickland owes Joe Camel, not the voters in his district.

But what good can Norquist or Stickland do for BigTobacco if new tax beaks and easing of regulations are off limits until unemployment is reduced dramatically (which is the same thing as having a budget that can help create new jobs & jump start the economy)? There'd be no reason fro Altria to spend any money on Strickland and much more to spend it helping the state get moving once again.

GS big tobacco wrote the No Tax Pledge and then gave it to Norquist, that way they would have cover to oppose tobacco taxes, that is why big tobacco funds the local GOP central committees and those Reps that don't sign the pledge don't get the tobacco money that is laundered through the central committees.

Celebrity Sighting: sitting across from Tony The Tiger right now, at Corner bakery in Simi. He's with a couple of younger, aide-looking guys and deep in discussion, so I won't intrude.

Those aren't aides, they are bagmen!