Todays Republicans are NOTHING like Ronald Reagan was. Ronald Reagan COMPRIMISED with Democrats when he was governor and a budget was needed.

Steve, you're no Ronald Reagan.

jw, where do I start. Californians have been compromising for years. And its left us with the highest tax rate in the nation. So clearly we should have the best services money can buy, right? No dice. We've got a third of the kids failing high school, hospitals going bankrupt, and a net loss of US citizens over the last year, despite a population increase. Thats what 40% more tax revenue has been spent on. What will the next 40% increase "compromise" get us, jw? When anyone in the state pulling down 45k or more is in the top tax bracket, something has gone wrong. Its time to hold the line. We can run this state with a 100 billion dollars just fine.

Justin: You're no Ronald Reagan. People earning 45k ARE NOT in the top tax bracket. You have to earn over 1 MILLION a year to be there.

Rioght wing nuts just keep getiing dumber and dumber all the time.

It is now day 57 without a budget and Republicans STILL REFUSE to specify precisely line by kine where 15 billion can be cut from the budget so that tax increases can be avoided.

I hope the legislature adopts a budget soon that matches the State's revenues against State expenditures. The talk of the State "borrowing" from the cities of California makes about as much sense as the Federal government "borrowing" from states. Besides, cities in California have already had to make significant budget cuts because of declining revenues. Most of those cuts were made in non-public safety areas. If the State legislature votes to "borrow" property taxes that are intended for the services cities provide, then cities will very likely have to cut public safety - police and fire - services.

My view is to not compromise on tax increases. Once you do, you will reward the tax-increasers with success and you will only get more tax increases in the future.

If you compromise, you agree that the state CANNOT control their spending. Do you understand that our credit rating for bonds is dead last of the 50 states? We pay huge interest fees to borrow money to pay our state's bills because our Sacramento state legislature refuses to STOP SPENDING.

The spenders in the state legislature need to reduce spenders. Start by demanding your state legislators reduce their own salaries. Can't we cut their salaries to 1990 levels?

Think about it folks. The budget deficit is only going to get worse. The state legislators spent every dime that came in and revenue has to decline more with decreased gasoline sales taxes and plummeting real estate taxes.

Our legislature is afraid to cut spending, or at least the Democrats are afraid to cut spending, in my opinion.

Do not compromise! Do not be fooled by the rhetoric that taxes have to be raised. Everyone needs to tighten their belt in a recession. You do. I do. Why should state legislators be given a free pass in refusing to cut back spending?

No compromise! No tax increases! Do what normal folk have to do to survive: Stop borrowing; Pay off debts; Sell assets; Lay off workers, and Take pay cuts.

No one is bailing us out when we can't pay the bills. When you can't pay your bills, you can't demand more money from your employer and expect to get it, so why are we allowing the state to extort more money from the taxpayer?

Why should the state get a pass and jack up our taxes? Don't bail out the state. Make the legislators earn their money.

Have you seen a legislator's retirement package? How would you like to earn a sweet retirement package without ever having to be responsible for misspending the working folk's tax money?

If you feel you want to pay more taxes, send in your money voluntarily. But some of us are raising families and money spent by us to raise our family is much better spent than giving it to state legislators who have proven they CANNOT manage the state budget!

As part of comprimise you get agreements to control spending in the future. That's what Ronald Reagan did back in 1967 as a condition of agreeing to a temporary tax increase. It put California on sound footing for almost 20 years.

Democrats offered to agree to future spending controls in return for temporary tax increases but Republicans didn't take them up on the offer.

WHEN are Republicans going to come up with precisely what 15 billion can be cut to avoid tax increases. The dishonest weasals have refused to for the last 57 days.

jw, Steve isn't Ronald Reagan. I'm not Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan isn't Ronald Reagan. Let him go, man. Republicans are offering to come half way with temporary tax increases, in exchange for cuts. The Gov has proposed across the board cuts, save for public safety, among other things. Dems promptly trotted out the human shields, claiming a 2% cut would mean a Gang take-over, thousands of teachers laid off, and old people withering away in bankrupt hospitals, cats and dogs living together, etc. JW, I may be a dishonest weasle, but if I asked you to cut back your personal spending by 2%, would you throw away your refrigerator to save on groceries and electricity, and burn your car to save on gas and insurance? No. That would be 'draconian'. You would more likely find some third teir expenses to do away with before tossing your tv out on the front lawn and going all Swiss Family Robinson on us. I may be a right wing nut who gets dumber and dumber, but is it just way outside the scope of reason that the legislature find some administrative cost savings, and set some spending priorities? Is that just completely insane and beyond their capabilities? I know, jw. I must be some sort of lunatic conservative idiot to expect that. Ronald Reagan I'm not.