First to blink and back down on the game of chicken was the ethically challenged Senate Democrat Leader Don Perata. He announced that he would NOT demand a Senate vote on Tuesday on a non existent budget.
That was followed by the announcement by the Guv''s press people that he would NOT sign an Executive Order to cut 22,000 workers and pare back pay to Federal minimum wage for janitors and doctors alike. Now he says he will sign the order on Thursday. Of course, since pay is done by the State Controllers office, the EO has no legal value, but is a nice statement of intent.
Perata was 100% correct. Arnold was only 50% right.
Arnold was right in not killing a tree to sign an Executive Order that can not be enforced, just as his "the end of all deficits" ballot measure Prop. 58 can not be enforced.
He is wrong in not laying off the 22,000 temporary and retired personnel still working for the State government. This also means he is NOT mandating a hard freeze on hiring--which means from July 1 to July 31 the State will gain 1700 NEW employees! From August 1 to August 31 we get another 1700 NEW State employees.
Through all this only the unions and special interests care. In fact, the Guv announced a grant of $37 million to education at the end of last week--not bad for folks who lied about firing 20,000 teachers.
Then you had the BIG lie from the ethically challenged Don Perata. Remember last week Perata announced that he would not take a dime from bond measures to cover the deficit he caused.
Now we know that his version of the budget "borrows" from 43 Trust Funds run by the State. He is using the Trust Funds as slush funds to cover his out of control spending habits. This man needs help. If indicted, maybe he will use diminished capacity as his defense?
Still, it is 28 days without a balanced budget. Dems still want taxes and Reps still want fiscal responsibility. The Perata vote is off, though he still plans on taking money from trust Funds. the Guv, so far, has backed down on cutting wages and jobs.
In the real world the Dodgers are still not consistent, the Lakers are looking good for the new season, roads are packed, prices are high and Sacramento is still operating like a Third World nation. Real people don't pay attention, they are living their lives.
Gawd dang Steve, can you ever address a non-Repub without a demeaning adjective? The repeatability is boring, and detracts from any actual intellectual argument you might make. Instead it contributes to the partisan deadlock that serves no one, and fixes nothing. "ethically challenged Don Perata", it's getting to be like saying "spaghetti and meatballs" or "Tate-LaBianca". Give it a break.
Arnie was not "right" to sign on un-enforceable order, he was dumb to suggest it, or a grandstander at best.
I don't honestly know about laying off temp workers, but can a temp actually be "layed off"? Seems like you just stop using them right? And I'm a Union guy..even I get that.
New hires? I'll go with you there, freezing new hires whether actually "new" or replacement is extremely reasonable under these circumstances.
Hmm.... and "Through all this only the unions and special interests care". By this...would you include purchasers of 60+ foot yachts and personal executive jets? C'mon Stevarino...what about that? No special interests there??
As far as any borrowing from bond measures, I don't know much about that but it is very clear the dysfunctional state of affairs leads to "creative" and "whacky" ideas. This one may be dumb too, but dumb times often, in a vacuum of clear logic and negotiation, lead to dumb or bad ideas, I'll grant you that.
Maybe BOTH sides buckling down to do some real work would be better than "litmus test" rank and file stances that penalize members of either party for taking more moderate positions.
By the way, many, if not most of us are moderate, hence the declining status of the Repubs as currently ruled by Party hardliners.
Frankly Steve, the idea here, for paid "legislators" is to work through the problem, not exacerbate it.
1. Perata has been under FBI investigation for 44 months for numerous potential charges. He claims he won't use bond money to cover his deficit, but forgets to note he wants to take money from 43 Trust Funds. To me that shows he is ethically challenged and folks need to be reminded.
2. I agree Arnold was not right to even consider signing an unenforceable law.
3. The Guv made clear that he was "laying off" the temp workers. He noted that as soon as the budget is passed they would be rehired. To me that is a layoff, not a firing or termination.
4. Glad we agree on the hiring freeze--I would make it a two year freeze, not a couple of months.
5. As for the yachts--the people you hurt are NOT the yacht owners--it is the workers who lose their jobs because fewer yachts are bought. The Democrats prefer to harm the workers.
6. You are right, the legislators need to buckle down. But that does not mean taking more money from the people of California. When a budget grows by 44% in five years that, to me, is proof, that they have taken too much money from us--I want some of it back.
1. Perata has been under FBI investigation for 44 months for numerous potential charges. He claims he won't use bond money to cover his deficit, but forgets to note he wants to take money from 43 Trust Funds. To me that shows he is ethically challenged and folks need to be reminded.
2. I agree Arnold was not right to even consider signing an unenforceable law.
3. The Guv made clear that he was "laying off" the temp workers. He noted that as soon as the budget is passed they would be rehired. To me that is a layoff, not a firing or termination.
4. Glad we agree on the hiring freeze--I would make it a two year freeze, not a couple of months.
5. As for the yachts--the people you hurt are NOT the yacht owners--it is the workers who lose their jobs because fewer yachts are bought. The Democrats prefer to harm the workers.
6. You are right, the legislators need to buckle down. But that does not mean taking more money from the people of California. When a budget grows by 44% in five years that, to me, is proof, that they have taken too much money from us--I want some of it back.
Steve, thanks for the thoughts...but really, the concept of "laying off" temporary workers really highlights the tendency off government to hire what amount to "permatemps".
"Permatemps" are people hired to classifications that ostensibly are technically classified as short term, but functionally permanent or near permanent employees.
Saying that you will "lay them off" really points to the big lie that these are temps. Temps by the nature of their employment do not have "job rights", whether you like that concept or not.
Temps don't get "layed off" they simply don't get called in to work. To restore them to a previous post, en mass, seems to imply that they are in fact regular workers.
My suspicion, and you might like this, is this fiction allows management to make claims of "downsizing" the government workforce, when in fact they have not, and instead become exploiters of labor.
Please Steve...people hurt when yachts are not bought?? You've got to be kidding! What are we talking about? Swabbies? Messboys? What a stretch that is!! I'll tell who does NOT get hurt by sales taxes on yachts (unlike the blue collar guy who buys a bass-boat), its the yacht owner who can easily pay those taxes, just uses a loophole courtesy of the Republican Party.
As JP Morgan famously said (paraphrased perhaps) "If you have to ask how much it costs, you should not own it."
Yoy miss the point.
Yes, those that work on a yacht will not have jobs.
But you also have salesmen who don't sell. Mechanics who prepare the boat for sale that don't have yachts to work on, lose their jobs. The janitors and gophers at the boat places, have less or no work.
People who sell insurance and gadgets for yachts do not have work.
Plus, with the multiplier effect, those that benefits from the wages of the above, lose their jobs
In the 1990's or 1980's we did this on a Federal level and thousands lost their jobs.
But let us say that you are right, just those that work on boats do not have jobs. Are you willing to throw those people over board so Perata and gang have more money to waste? That is your arguement.
Ok Steve...
Ok...so Republicans are for full employment opportunities for..."go-phers". What a stretch!
Are you seriously trying to say that mult-millionaires won't buy yachts...because of sales tax? WOW! Guy wants to buy a 200 foot yacht, but OH!! Sales Tax! Can't afford that now! Lay off all the deckhands!
You gotta be kidding really.
The issue is not that janitors or swabbies will get laid off (heck Steve, they are probably undocumented anyway!)....the issue is that the RICH pay taxes on purchases the same as the construction carpenter who buys an 18 foot bass boat to fish at Casitas every other weekend or so. Both treated equally.
Let's see, recently Casitas talked about severe restrictions on boats on this reserviour. All those bass boats not going in would mean major impacts on guys that sell bait, ice, gas, tackle. Sounds like job loss. We read about it for weeks in the Star...remember?
Ok...do guys like this buy bass boats in say, Oregon, keep them there for a couple of months and THEN bring them into California sales tax free?
I'd guess not.
Frankly Stephen, that IS the point.
Special stuff and privilege for the rich (who can afford sales tax) while the common guy pays the those same taxes without loopholes courtesy of the California Republican Party.
Over-taxing the rich is penalizing people for being successful and it totally frosts me. This is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. People with money invest it in the economy by creating or expanding businesses that create jobs and economic opportunity. They take risks with their money by their investment decisions and, therefore, should get certain tax breaks to encourage investments.
When will you liberals get it?
Mongo:
I get it about "overtaxing" rich people. We can all sympathize with the burden of being rich.
My point is been, ok, why the yacht tax loophole, Mr Franks says it will put deckhands our of work, which is a pretty loopy explanation for it.
When folks talk about "rich people" investing in the economy you make it sound like the only investement capital comes from rich individuals. That totally blows off other sources like banks, insurance companies, retirement funds, general folks 401k plans etc.
Sure, rich individuals can, and often are a part, maybe even signifcant, but by far they are not the ONLY part.
Stop acting like they were..
Tom:
Please do not misquote me.
Yes deckhands will lose their jobs, or the potential for a job. That means something to them, if not you.
But, salespeople will lose jobs, those who service the yachts will lose job their jobs, all the vendors will sell less to fewer yachts.
Then due to the multiplier effect, Economics 1, the money not earned by these people will not go to grocery stores, movies, paying of other bills.
We ALL lose, not just the deckhands. This is a unified economy. If one sector is hit, all sectors are hit. So the taking of money from the rich, or stopping the sales of a few expensive yachts affects all of us.
Steve,
I guess then the crux of your point is that by not closing the "yacht tax" loophole, expensive yachts won't get purchased..leading to this ripple effect in the economy. Fair enough.
But do you really believe that the rich who would buy large yachts, mega-yachts even care that much about sales tax that they would NOT buy a such a yacht? If it mattered, you don't think they'd just buy a smaller one?
I don't think so, but their tax accountants probably care a lot, that is what THEY are paid for!
Seriously I did not intend to misquote you, and I don't think that I did substantially given the banter in such a discussion, but if even the appearence is there, and I leave it to you to decide that, then, Mr. Frank I sincerely apologize for that.
We joust with words here it seems, but my intention is to be, if in opposition, at least an honorable, if irritating, opposition.
Added taxes and higher costs ALWAYS cause lower use of a product, less purchases and lower employment.
Raise taxes and kill jobs. This puppy doesn't even pretend to have a neutralizer to cut the negative effect of higher taxes. This is pure greed by Democrats.
Will be interesting to see if the Dems approve the Guv's sales tax increase because it will directly harm the poor and middle class--but it is a tax increase that they want so badly.
Would you agree to a sales tax increase as well as an increase on taxes for yachts?