Great - now more productive people (i.e. taxpayers) will move out of state along with many businesses.
We'll be in the same mess in June when the regular budget has to be passed.

Yay Marie. We got what you wanted. More Taxes. Whippeee! Way to stick it to us Californians Marie.

KoeJos says:
"Great - now more productive people (i.e. taxpayers) will move out of state along with many businesses"

Leaving those of us who can afford to live in paradise with less traffic and crowds. That's a bad thing?

Daniel Goldberg says:
"Yay Marie. We got what you wanted. More Taxes. Whippeee! Way to stick it to us Californians Marie."

Yes. Marie single handidly raised your taxes. What a woman!

They never should have cut the VLF without any corresponding reductions in expenditures. Typical Repub, Arnold cuts that, then it ends up helping to increase the deficit, so it has to be restored as a "tax", which causes all the Repub apologists to be outraged. Same at Federal level. Bush implements huge corporate tax breaks and tax cuts for the wealthy, then does not reduce spending. We end up with HUGE deficit and all the right-wingers complain when next administration (Demo) has to increase taxes to help get us out of the mess! Marie is right, unless you cut expenditures to somehow get in budgetary balance, you need to increase revenues. It is simple to understand. Repubs are the only ones wacky enough to propose cutting revenues, increase spending, then complain we should do nothing to remedy the resulting deficits! Strickland is also now in Sacto carrying on such nonsense. I wonder what kick-back that Erin Brokavich received off him??

Daniel,

Nobody wanted higher taxes. Nobody wanted the economy to fail miserably, either.

But you are living in your own ideological alternate reality if you think that a deficit this big could be closed through service cuts alone. We needed a compromise and we needed one quickly. Our state infrastructure projects were in jeopardy. We were at risk of losing our federal aid dollars. Layoff notices were issued to 20,000.

Most of the tax hikes Wilson put into place were eventually rolled back. If and when things improve, this could happen again.

Tony and Norquist et al want government be gone. The way to do that it is deprive it of all revenue.

The grand experiment is underway.

The top 10% are paying 70% of the Federal income tax and will get an extra income whack if they live in CA. I think they will head for AZ, AK, and MS.

The bottom 50% pay 3% of all Income tax. The 51% to 90 percentile pay the remaining 27%

"The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Tax

The U.S. tax system is highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners, by household, paid 39 percent of all federal income taxes in 2005, whereas the bottom 50 percent paid a little over 3 percent. Further, 32 percent of all tax returns filed in 2005 were from people who paid no federal income tax at all. "

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-T4-The-Top-10-Percent-of-Income.html

The local lawmakers voted along party lines and generally made a debacle out of the budget mess. Fortunately, a budget has been passed and open primaries will occur.

Daniel Goldberg - did you get contacted yet by the Republican Central Committee? I'm sure there are several angry people that will commiserate with you. However, this Republican and business owner is very happy that a budget was passed. No, I am not happy about the taxes but I was less happy about the borrowing secenario waved around and less happier still with the on-going worthlessness of our Republican lawmakers.

Ms. Teague - you do realize that there's still $11.4 billion in borrowing in this budget right?

That's OK, my wife and I will now be purchasing as many items we can online from companies out of our state, we will be pulling our support to our schools which we have now supported for nearly 11 years by donating items, giving our time, money and expertise to. No more support while we are here, We just took our first step today to move to another state, a state with a much smaller budget than California, but a much better schooling system! So when our new car registration fees come, we wont be paying for 2 cars in California any longer. This state just lost two bred and born Californians who have been responsible and paid our taxes and have offered our services to our schools and the community. Most of these people working at the schools as teachers and administrators supported this Tax increase and I cant even look at them now, its a shame because we all used to be very close. This has really angered and divided our friends and family against the people who supported this Farce of a budget. I assume many will follow in our footsteps across the state and then good luck meeting your revenues then! The majority in California is outraged on all sides! Just my two cents. Or should I say not on my 2 cents! Nice chatting with you Marie, even though I don't agree with your views, at least you allowed us to express our outrage!

yeah that's right because I really mean it this time.

you can check previous posts I predicted the mass exodus of business and working capital in this state over three weeks ago.

Thank you for restating it as a very soon to be consequence of increased taxes.

Also Ms. Teague, because you are so moderate in your beliefs, and you want everyone to work in the center, I was wondering who you thought was to blame for the two years that Tony Strickland wasn't in the Legislature. Was the budget back then still his fault? I just want to know from someone with an obviously unbiased opinion.

Marie,
If no one wanted higher taxes, why did we pass them? They were needed to keep California from "going over the cliff"? Both Maldonado and Steinberg, and I believe even Arnold used that exact phrasing when describing California's budget battles. That is alamrist, and just another example of what I called the democrats "starting fires" just to increase spending to put them out. What cliff, someone tell me what terrible things would have happened if we had to cut the budget without raising taxes? I really want to know, who is going to suffer less under this tremendous tax burden than they would have if the budget was not passed with all of these new taxes.

I can already predict the answer: People on Welfare, and Retirees. Anyone with a job, even "undocumented workers" and Criminals will have to pay the increased sales tax. And the middle class is not safe from this increase either. Everyone pays, no one gains, but the democratic politicians in Sacramento, who can say it was all the republicans fault the state was in debt, and wouldn't raise taxes soon enough, instead of them admitting it was their reckless spending policies that drove us to this "cliff" the liberals have created with their powerful propaganda.

Maldonado comes out and says, "I know this may be the end of my political career." after his betrayal vote. Yeah, idiot, you were getting termed out anyway. Way to disgrace yourself on the way out. I've even heard both the "centrists" supporting his run for state office after his current term, and a move for a recall of his last 3 years. This is the guy who fought against the gas tax, but is now for the car registration tax? Who also went against his word, when he signed a pledge to not raise taxes. I wonder if there is something special in those cigars Arnold shares at his lunch meetings.

I found the following a sobering read...

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence�.

You can read the rest at this page:
www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/putin_warns_us_to_eschew_socia.html

I believe that this speaks for our state as well as the state of our nation and where it is headed.

HAHA - I'm actually a conservative Republican that expects our lawmakers to work for their constitutents.

I've been represented by Tony, the Audra in the Assembly. Tom McCintock and now Tony in the Senate. I've lived in Ventura County since 1978. The county is inconsequential in Sac and in DC. I'm not happy with the status quo and the current districts and closed primaries have perpetuated the misery. Hopefully, there will be some change. It burns me up that my tax money is spent on marginally productive citizens that spend time on the reelection of submarginally productive lawmakers instead of working for the citizens of the county.

And yes, KoeJoes, I know there is some borrowing. Additional borrowing was presented as an alternative to more taxes - I don't think so.

The labor unions won another round at the expense of the residents. How bad would it have been if the State really did lay off 20,000 paper pushers? Today I was down at the Los Angeles Regional Water Control Board. I watched dozens of people doing next to nothing. I asked them if they were busy and the answer was "not in this economy". I wondered why we were still paying them. Isn't government wonderful? Some people actually feel victorious because taxes were raised. How exciting is that? Phony Tony is a disgrace, but the Democrats that pushed this budget are the real crooks this round. How sad for California.

Potentially billions in tax credits for multinational corporations

Spending limit and rainy day fund

Local school districts will have greater control over money

Tax credit for small businesses who create jobs

Tax credit for film industry

No one wins in the long run.

And no one answered my questions.

Hey JMR, don't let the door hit you on the way out of California! Enjoy the weather extremes and boring lifestyle in your new, "lower tax" State! Just remember, you get what you pay for! I have lived in such "lower tax" places, and found that I ended up spending more in gas to drive somewhere fun and relaxing, like by the ocean. There is a reason people pay more to live in California. JMR can go off to his isolated trailer park in the middle of nowhere, with less taxes. Enjoy! I will be ejnoying local hiking and going to the beach, all at no cost.

California has much lower property taxes as a percentage of home value than most states.

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-cap16-2009feb16,0,1062359.column

According to the state budget document, there is the equivalent of 205,000 full-time jobs controlled by the governor. There actually are more workers than that because some are part-time. Do the math based on 16 months, since that's now the time frame of the projected deficit, assuming a balanced-budget package could be implemented by March 1.

You could lay off all those state workers -- rid yourself of their pay and benefits -- and save only $24.4 billion.

The budget deficit is $42 billion.

The budget also helps Californians buy a new home with up to a $10,000 non-refundable tax credit for home purchases.

Rob, that's funny! I will be moving my family to a place where I can go hiking in my backyard, go fishing in the lakes and rivers, go hunting in the woods, play my guitar without neighbors complaining , purchase the guns I want to and live a much nicer life than here in California. The only thing I will miss here? The Pacific Tree Frogs! We helped raise hundreds that matured around our home, they've been going off the past few weeks and sadly, they are not where I'm moving! My wife and I have wanted to purchase property to have a ranch with cattle and horses and we just couldn't do it here, so we are moving to a place where we can. The beach, man you can have it. I haven't surfed here for years and to be honest, I will enjoy having 4 seasons! plus, the work I do is booming there and I work from home as a freelance graphic artist! So I'm not worried about the gas. I drive more here than I will there. Nice try though! Typical of people like you to spew that type of crap!

Rob,

What an elitist thing to say. How nice of you to assume that people in other states live in isolated trailers. Sure makes you sound like you haven't spent much time in other places.

FYI, I have several friends and family that have already moved from here. Here being the only home they had ever known. All have told me that they thought they would be unhappy after moving from their homes only to find that they are happier and able to have a much better quality of life. All too often I hear from those that moved on saying California is overrated.

I know that if I didn't have to pay such high taxes to live here, I would be able to contribute much more to my community. Back in the day, people, communities, & families took care of their own and didn't have to worry about what the state or fed gov was up to.

Another thing about these new increases is that this will hurt the elderly on fixed incomes. My grandma has lived here since the 1930s and she has a hard enough time getting by as it is without any further taxes. Although she is in her 80s, she is in good health and able to live on her own and pay rent without assistance. I wonder how much longer she will be able to do this with the taxes now in place.

The Federal Government is competing for the CA dollar. Tax revenue has tripled since 1965 in constant 2007 dollars. Remember those tax dollars are sucked out of CA and sent to DC.

Chart below - You can see the recession that Reagan and O'Neill fixed, the recession that Clinton and Gingrich fixed, and the 9/11 recession that Bush fixed. And you can see the beginning of the Great D Process (deflationary deleveraging of real estate, bank values, etc).

Federal and CA revenues will whiplash down to the 9/11 levels so CA will NOT have actual cash in about 6 months to cover more than 80% of mandatory school, salary, and welfare/medicaid funding. By October Stimulus I is judged a failure. Stimulus II is passed. Do I loan my money to the Fed that can print fiat currency or to CA that has the power of the ...IOU?

After Stimulus II collapse, the bond market and interest rates jump to 12% (my first mortgage interest rate in 1982), Obama the Learner will throw out Keynesian model (borrowing frozen anyway) and do the final step, cut taxes and lock them in for 3 years. Houses will be at $50 dollars per square foot and will be begin to recover. The President has promised to take my UNFAIR capital gains so I'll just build cash for the post Stimulus D Process sale in late 2010 I hope.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html

Crystal- Do you have any idea what an all-cuts budget would do to the schools? Already with this budget we are looking at teacher layoffs, cancelation of arts, music, P.E. and athletics programs, no equipment purchases, no facilities building, cancellation of bus services, layoffs of counselors, health aides and librarians and no end in sight.

Unless Grandma's bought a new car and is making the big bucks, it will barely affect her.

Yes I have an idea about all of this. I realize now that I have not really introduced myself on this particular blog, however, I did on the one that was posted yesterday.

I have 3 children that attend public schools here. I am a 3rd generation Venturan. My mom attended the same school my children have gone to. This is my home. I have been involved in school PTA for over a decade now. I have also worked in the local library. So, this is very personal to me.

My Grandma will be hit just with the sales tax increase as well as the doubling of the annual registration.

Why is it that when someone disagrees with someone else, it is perceived that they are somehow uneducated?

Americans overall are known to be very charitable people. As I said when I posted last night. I do not want to see school funding cuts. I seriously doubt that anyone in their right mind wants to see school funding cut. I voted for tax increases all throughout the 1990s in the name of better school funding and education. I feel like our money was somehow wasted because every time I go to vote, I stare at the same request for more money.

Also, as I stated yesterday, I am one of those low middle class people who works their butt off to feed 3 mouths at home and I simply could not afford another tax increase.

Can't have it both ways. If you don't want to see school funding cuts, the extra revenue has to come from somewhere.

Educator , Dude you better educate yourself, our system is twisted now, Arts, Music? What a joke it is in our schools today. Coming from me, Im an artist, I play guitar, drums and Piano and my profession is a Graphic Artist with a wide spectrum of work in the arts. Our Arts and music system in the school today is a complete and utter joke! Especially here in Ventura. We had better music programs in the 80's and 90's then we do today and we have increased spending since those days. I know, I was in those music and art programs! You better go educate yourself.

You tell me why the elderly are paying taxes on Social Security and Medical benefits! You tell me this wont affect the elderly?
If they don't have a car payment this wont hurt them? Yes it will, the state decides what the value of your car is! You better go educate yourself.

As for cuts, you think things are bad now, wait until they cant tax or borrow anymore and come back and complain about some of the cuts recommended now! They will cut school funding before they cut any of their pet social programs or Union buddies! That's a fact. The Union made no concessions for this budget, the teachers and administrators made their own during this whole farce! How shameful! I don't agree with a lot of the teachers politics and or beliefs, but I respect that they tried to figure something out at at least one of the schools I have a child in. You know what, those teachers and administrators said the Unions told them NO WAY to their ideas! Talk about sticking it to the teachers! Now what do you have to say about that? You better go educate yourself.

There are other places where state spending is wasted that is NOT in our schools and should be audited at the very least. I hear about it through friends that have worked or who work currently work for the county.

I am curious if there is somewhere in life that says we are guaranteed job security, or any security. The only thing I was ever told growing up was that our country promised life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. Otherwise, I was taught that there were no certainties or guarantees for anything in life.

Since life is not fair and I understand this, I will have to make adjustments to survive. So, it looks like I will be forced to move out of state. That obviously means that my children will no longer be in Ventura schools. And that also means that I will no longer be able to contribute to the schools or the community that I grew up in and love. Based on the prior posts of some, I will not be missed anyway.

Oh well, some of my cousins moved to the big island of Hawaii. In doing so, they have saved money and say it is more family oriented there than here. Just one of the many people I am close to that have moved out of state and never looked back.

After years of watching, studying, and participating in the political system, I see that something is very flawed. The system is failing. Along with many others here, I fear this will continue on and in a matter of months we will only hear that there is not enough money once again.

I asked this question last night but did not get any response. Does anyone know how public education was funded in the late 1800s & into the 1900s? I am asking this out of sheer curiosity.

JMR,
I was trying to stay out of the blogs tonight, but I do take issue with your remark about arts and music in Ventura schools. This school district recently hired arts and music specialists, conducted teacher training in the arts, started a districtwide chorus and other things. Our high schools, especially, have excellent art and music programs.

The Ventura Education Partnership provided arts grants to many schools.

Since No Child Left Behind, arts are taking a back seat nationwide.

But I am sure we will lose some of this with the cuts, which are estimated to be about 16 percent. This district has been very proactive about trying to save jobs, so it will likely fare better.

None of our teachers are getting rich teaching. The anti-education bent in these blogs lately has been really disheartening. But I know these viewpoints do not represent the average person.

Good grief. This is one of our most valued professions.

Marie, take issue. Are you an artist or a musician? Did you take art classes and music classes? Have you been inside of these classes that we have today? Do you remember Home Economics, Cooking, Wood Shop, Metal Shop etc? I was in all of these when I went to school, the ones we have here now are a complete and utter joke. The only thing Ive seen is at Cabrillo and the wood shop there is great! Ive seen them with my own eyes. Do not tell me Im wrong when Ive seen these programs myself and was a part of these programs in the late 80's and in the 90's and they had better programs than we do now! I have one child at Lincoln, One at Cabrillo and One at Foothill Tech. I have friends in the music and art industry that just left Ventura and Buena High a few years ago and they say its a joke!

My best friends mother has been teaching at Rio Mesa High School for almost 20 years and shes like a mother to me, I respect teachers, I understand what they do and she is amazing even if she seems very hard to deal with. I understand their sacrifices, but you just aren't getting to the ultimate point are you Marie. Answer me why our children grades are some of the lowest in the nation. Ask me why over 200 kids at Foothill are doing drugs, having sex and doing some pretty gnarly things on the internet. Tell me why Foothill made a trip to Magic Mountain, needed a bunch of kids to be chaperoned or they couldn't go and when we get there the school administrators and teachers let the kids run off without supervision? I have a lot of issues with how things are being run now. Im not against funding, Im not against teachers, I am against people not being responsible!

Some who voted to hold those accountable on the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT! I see lots of those Democrats who Champion your ways Marie.

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

1. The population has increased mega-fold since we were kids.

2. Thanks to Prop. 13, school funding has been unstable since 1978. From the 2005 Rand Report study on CA schools:

"Passage of Proposition 13 by California voters in 1978 (combined with passage of Proposition 98 in 1988) produced a number of consequences for K–12 education. In particular, since Proposition 13, the K–12 funding has varied with fluctuations in the state economy. School districts now have limited local revenue options and, like the state as a whole, have to deal with extreme fluctuations in revenues, such as those that have occurred in recent years.

California’s decline in per-pupil K–12 funding relative to the U.S. average began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, following passage of Proposition 13. Before that, California’s per-pupil funding had been consistently above the national average. "

So ... JMR, you are complaining that things are not as good as they were when we were kids, yet you don't want to pay any more taxes, which fund our schools.

Yes, there were Dems who voted for NCLB, and there were Dems who voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Neither was a good idea.

Marie, I pay taxes and put my own hard earned money into the schools outside of taxes. I also do other things, like give time, do graphics and buy baskets for fundraisers, how dare you tell me I don't do my part. Ive been doing my part for over 10 years now! We aren't that well off either, but we've been helping any which way we can and you people just spit in our faces.

Population increased, but you told me enrollment dropped. So what is it, we've increase in enrollment now? I thought we decreased, if we decreased we shouldn't need more money we should need less. And if the population is going up, a lot of it is from illegal immigrants, I guarantee that, I see and have tried to tale to some of them myself.

Marie, yes, things are worse now even with more money being spent than ever before. You know why, no responsibility. Stop with your inflation, your flat funding etc. Whats all twisted to suite your needs to spend more. We have been spending more and more every year and the schools do worse than they did with less funding. That is a fact, I have witnessed it myself! I did not have the things my kids have in the classrooms today, but I sure as hell learned a lot more and had better grades than they are. Its a good thing I educate them outside of the system. Did you know we lost 3 of the best teachers we ever had at Lincoln because they refused to work under the current principal?

Sorry, teachers left because of this and last Principal.

Oh my. I'm talking about enrollment since we were kids.

Nobody said you didn't do your part. But I guarantee you without the tax increase you are protesting so mightily, things would've been much worse for our schools.

This really is no longer a productive conversation if you are unwilling to look at the figures I've provided. Thanks for posting.

Marie, by the way, Im a little younger than you or my wife. (almost by a decade) Im 30 so I have a better understanding of the current education system than either of you. I also went to school in much larger districts than Ventura where we had more education, but a ton more kids in the class rooms than we do here. For some reason, I learned more and had harder work than my kids do today. I know because I check on class and homework almost daily. I pick my kids up after school everyday. I help them, read over their work and shake my head a lot of the times. I was in the Los Angeles School District until the 5th grade, but it was private school. I was then in the Bakersfield School District until the 10th grade and back to the LAUSD at Taft High in Woodland Hills. If you want to talk about a horrible experience, try sending your kid to Taft. The work was still more difficult and my teachers were still different than what I see now but we had overpopulation, we are talking 30 sometimes 40 kids in a class. Plain and simple fact, I still learned more in that environment and saw better Art and Music Programs there than I see here. The programs there are now a joke from what friends tell me.

Marie, On the tax issue, you know from my posts it was never about school funding for me. It was about the corrupt Dems and Reps in our legislature allowing special interest to trump a budget and rather than cut those social ideological programs, they chose taxes and school cuts. The Unions never once made concessions. So no, Im not prepared to pay more in taxes, they already kicked my butt with taxes the last 3 years. I might have been better off being on minimum wage! I cannot afford close to $900 in car registration and an added $2000 in taxes between me an my wife per year. We wont be able to help our schools, we will have a hard time even surviving here and thats messed up when me and the wife are considered middle class. Sorry if you dont see it where we come from. Maybe you can afford it, we cannot. We have given all we can as it is and we refuse to be forced to by the government when we do it on our own free will. Id rather donate that money directly to the school PTA funds.

- A Fed Reserve Governor says deflation is the greatest risk we face at the moment
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/19/news/economy/deflation/index.htm

- Dow futures point down another 100 points

- And gold want to crack the $1,000 ceiling

These metrics were completely irrelevant during the Reagan Clinton market boom. Now the GLOBAL market votes NO CONFIDENCE in the Fed, the EU Central Bank, in the President and PM Gordon, and in the banking system. Gold is the official shadow currency.

The CA budget solution takes on more debt. You have a feel good sense of solution. DEFLATION in assets and salaries will provide less cash to pay off your existing debt. That is why the FED is fighting deflation as job one. But the bubble it created has huge leaks. Crystal and JMR's gut instincts are right. The CA cash flow will slide down hill, driven by a deflation of property and salaries. Good news - We will hit a bottom in 1-3 years.

Marie THANK YOU for providing such important updates all too often what happens in Sacramento goes behind closed doors, and for this interesting forum.

The utter hypocrisy of the Republican stickup artists in this budget is beyond belief. For years Republicans have NOT refused to support spending proposals, they just refused to support new taxes. Why wasn't their big fight to stop spending proposals which they obviously had the power (2/3s rule) to prevent? Pure political theater to say "no new taxes"-- that's the easy part-- but nobody wants to eliminate programs that voters need. Republicans, to make their arguments will always point to some waste or other that's some other Republican's important program.

Because of the R's antics, the state's bond rating is now the lowest of any state, costing us billions of dollars. You're going to cut somebody's JOB their LIVELIHOOD in order to pay increased debt service. Disgusting.

JMR its a total fallacy that people leave the state because of higher taxes. See http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/0808_DP_High-IncomeTaxpayers.pdf. The problem is the Republicans protect the extremely wealthy, so tax increases hit middle and working class folks. Tax the rich.

This budget sucks. Schools and services seriously hurt, threats to environmental standards (want to kill the tax base? Pollute.) and labor (just when we need jobs and spending). Huge giveaways to out of state business and out of state investment. But its what we could get after the Republican thugs held up a state of 38 million people. We need to end the 2/3 rule or its Mad Max time.

We've been SCREWED!

Wow Chris - you really don't understand the way laws are passed in California. Only tax increases require the 2/3 vote to pass.
Spending bills only require 50% + 1.
It's too bad you've fallen for the Newspeak of the Democrats where taxes are revenue enhancement, spending is investement, and a smaller increase than was planned for an expenditure in called a cut.
This is what's gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Yes, Chris, it is very frustrating to leave links that nobody reads here. For instance, I left the link to the Consumer Federation website and the LAO website above. There was a proposal to tax oil companies for the oil they extract from the ground. We are the only large oil-producing state not to do this. This would not affect the price of gas, since the market is set globally.

The LAO had many proposals to end special-interest tax credits for corporations. Their analysis showed the tax credits were not particularly useful. Our legislature continually votes for these narrow special interests. Here's a great OpEd I found today:

"From 1993 through 2008, the Legislature reduced general fund revenues by more than $100 billion. Lawmakers enacted tax breaks for oil companies, the horse-racing industry, the Gallo family, fax machines and new pornographic bookstores. Both Democrats and Republicans wrote them. And they were signed into law by Democratic and Republican governors alike."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ross19-2009feb19,0,3825360.story

Oh and let's not forget the bonds "we the people" keep voting in because "they wont increase taxes" - except, we still have to pay the bonds back - with interest.
The recent boondogles that come to mind are state funded stem cell reasearch ($4B) and the "bullet" train from LA to SF($10B).

Yes, every year we pay $2 billion in payments on budget-related debt for the Economic Recovery Bonds approved by voters. Another $2 billion is debt service on the infrastructure bonds approved by voters.

Interesting that ESPN has decided to move TO California for their 10:00pm Sports Center show.

This will bring JOBS TO the state (not away).

Granted it is probably a handful, but it is something.

A dam*ing article about the Golden state. You should expect 80% of your elected officials to be swept away within 5 years. It seemed like a great idea to give them safe districts.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-19-california-hurting_N.htm

News flashes confirmed here. People have been "heading East young man" for the last four years. The Political class, and may I add the fawning feckless press, have run the state into the ground.

But soon the median price in CA will be $180,000. The average single teacher will be able to swing the deal for only 3 times earnings. The hard working young couple, each at $15 per hour, $60k per year, will be able to land a great place for $150-180k per year. This itself will reverse the emigration to a new in-migration to the surviving neighborhoods. This is great for Gen Next. I've never shaken that Reagan optimism.

Prop 13 was a measure that told the government the limit they could tax on property, which only changes when the value of your home is revalued, or sold. Only property tax, and no other tax, and our property tax is still around average in the nation. Though every other tax is now number 1.

Prop 98 was a measure that told the government the least amount they could spend on school funding from each years' budget, and requires an increase every year. That means, annually, even if the schools were amazing, they would receive superfluous increases every year for doing the same job they did the year before. It even stipulates that in times of weak economic growth, that no matter what, the schools get an increase of half of a percent of the general fund. That means next year, funding for schools will have to go up 700 million dollars, regardless of any other insane spending legislation cooked up by then.

These are unrelated in any way other than they are political because: ONE IS LIBERAL, and ONE IS CONSERVATIVE.

Otherwise the only similarity is that they both deal with taxes. Prop 13=great. Prop 98=eventual inefficiency and government waste.

Not that I am against school funding. Far from it. Schools in southern California are deplorable. After grade school, I didn't have a decent teacher until I went to Jr. College at 16, 5 years later. This was in a conservative part of Ventura County that is by far better funded than anything in Ventura City. I later saw amazing amounts of Spending when I attended a University of California (BA in Poli Sci) in the southern California area, where large scale infrastructure construction has been ongoing for the past 7 years that I am aware of. One of those buildings built was an ART building that is oddly shaped, and even has stairways, and hallways that lead to dead ends, and there isn't one square built into the design.

I know for a fact, and I will omit the name of the program, that Arnold spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on Physical Education equipment, and training for teachers in Ventura County (Camarillo-I was there when they received the trianing), And Riverside County (Riverside-I was there when they dropped off the equipment.) at over 500 schools. It was state funded, and did not come out of the school district's budget for that year, and it is my understanding that every school in California is supposed to eventually get this program, or a similar one, within 3 years. To say that school funding for PE programs isn't there just means it isn't your messed up district's turn yet.

This state is planning to spend 70 billion more than it was when Davis was elected. Are any working families with children doing twice as well as they were 10 years ago? Welfare recipients. That is it. Are schools doing twice as well as they were before we expanded the budget twice over? The answer is, obviously, no.

I am most likely the youngest person to post on this blog, and I can tell you horrible stories about the "Blue Ribbon" and "Distinguished" schools in our state that would make your head spin. You think funding is the problem? Yeah, that must be it. Let's just throw money at the problem because again a "fire" has been started to scare a mostly ignorant public of the consequences of their vote. Civic duty was never taught by any of my teachers K-12.

I prefer to blame the kids.(I'm joking)

Katie did a nice dodge, but no one answered my original questions.

Seriously A Train to San Francisco? Where was the beloved democratic state legislature then? Where was any opposition to increased spending in a time of budget and economic uncertainty?

Teddy once talked about "Rugged Individualism". Is this idea really that dead in American Society?

And why is everyone so surprised that the economy is down? It was up before, and it was down before that. Guess what guys, the market still drives the economy in most parts of the world. American liberalism can only extend so far. Did no one take an economics (high school, or college) class that would have told you that economics is cyclical? Where's the funding for that, Marie?

Marie, I directed that at you only because it is, of course, your blog. I know deep down you only want what's best for your state and your city, but you just don't get it.

HAHA - you have asked a lot of questions but I gather the one you are referring to is the increased spending. Well, people keep voting in Props and Bonds that cost money. Legislators needs to make sure they vehemently oppose them - but this doesn't happen because it can cost them votes. Blame your lawmakers - of both parties and blame the voters. I do my part in my votes.

Haha, you often post without critical facts at hand and then in the next breath accuse me of not getting it.

Gov. Schwarzenegger's bipartisan Committee on Education Excellence released a 300-page report a year or so ago on how to improve the state's education system.

It worked two years, backed by foundation-funded research, to come up with ideas to turn the schools around.

There was much consensus among the group, and its members ranged from conservative Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek to ACLU legal director Mark Rosenbaum.

All agreed that more money was needed but must be tied to reforms, including new ideas to train, evaluate and pay teachers and administrators; a new evaluation system that rewards as well as sanctions schools; more extensive data on student performance, and more district control over school management and spending.

With this last budget, we did achieve more local control.

The report recommended an additional $10 billion in funding for schools: $5 billion for poor and English-learning children, $3 billion for additional training and performance-based pay for teachers, and $800 million to expand preschool.

Standard and Poor's did research that low-income kids need 35% more funding; ELL need 20% more. For low-income students, CA provides just 5.5% more, compared to the national average of 17.2.

The committee recommended a somewhat higher per-pupil funding level for districts who serve these students. They want to use targeted funding grants.

But we can't afford to do any of this right now and are instead busy sending pink slips to more than 700 teachers in this county.

Spending on welfare and K-12 education above the rate of inflation and population growth has been flat over the last 10 years. I have said this repeatedly here.

Marie, Ive read the links you've posted but I don't buy the numbers game those publications or organizations claim. I go through the budgets and do the math (By the way, I was an ace in all my mathematics classes) and those numbers do not add up, nor do they add up with inflation added to the mix. They dont add up because they are not telling you that there are less and less tax payers each year and more and more dependent on social incomes from our government. They never seem to hit the nail on the head with it, they only give you partial simulations of the budget, not full simulations like they should so they are skewed in my eyes. That is why I cannot agree with the argument you make on the actual spending and revenue, none of it adds up completely without everything else. It is a very complicated system and I understand it.

On the Schooling, just answer me on one really important question, without avoiding it and without going into having compassion.

What is more important to you?
1. The education of our children and having the proper educational system with good to honest teachers on a salary that keeps with California's expensive living environment?

2. Government Welfare, Health Care and Food stamps for people who are not documented immigrants or people who have been on it for more than 3 years? The Unions who are draining our tax dollars and inflating budgets with pensions and added benefits? There is more but you get the picture I believe.

Which of these 2 is really more important in your eyes?

We cannot have them all and function properly at the same time. We have proven that for over 20 years now. The system is getting worse, not better.

We have our Budget now and teachers are getting pink slips? This state is so screwed its not funny. Why did they cut school funding and not the other FAT items in the budget? This is what I argued with you, they would make school cuts but no cuts to the other big issue items. Its a very sad sight.

The biggest problem this state has right now is that there are not enough tax payers that can keep up with the social spending, the more social spending we have, the less revenue we get. This state has too many dependents than the people who pay taxes can sustain. Its also a very strange thing that many tax payers over the past 10 years - nearly 1.3 million have left the state, even though other articles argue this, our states population is declining and if we are having a spending and revenue issue, it must be partly related (not completely) to hard working tax payers leaving.

Whoa, now after doing more research on the issue of Social Spending, I just was amazed.

California accounted for 22% of the whole nation in welfare recipients in 2002 and although since 2002 every other state has seen declines in welfare recipients by 30% across the country, California is the only state that has increased in the past 7 years by 6%. California now accounts for 30% of all welfare recipients in the Country and California only accounts for 12% of the Nations population. Now that is scary Marie, would you agree with me on that? I thought the number was 25% last week and now it turns out our state is at 30% of the whole Nation.

OK, JMR, you won't believe me.

Here it is from the Los Angeles Times:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/13/local/me-cap13

I've seen these same exact figures recounted in dozens of publications.

I don't believe a political partisan like Lockyer, or a completely leftist leaning LA Times. You keep sourcing such entities as the LA Times and even the NY Times and they are a joke to me because they always twist the facts and they all want these social programs so no, I will not take their word for it. Those numbers are twisted. We do have a revenue problem he is right about that but why exactly and what are they not telling you? Its what they are failing to tell you. We have more and more people collecting benefits than we have tax revenues that can sustain that spending. Why is that? Because more and more people are receiving welfare, more and more people are receiving tax credits when they don't pay taxes. So my math is good, the governments math is misleading. You tell me you actually believe any of what these politicians tell you? I don't believe any of them regardless if there is a D or an R beside them. Did you believe the Stimulus bill didn't have wasteful spending in it? Economists across the country are rejecting these arguments and numbers by California, will you listen to them?

Answer the question I originally asked, which is more important, welfare, unions or our schools and teachers? I only wanted an answer to that. Why can you not answer a lot of the questions Ive asked throughout your blogs. They are all fairly good questions.

Marie, one last thing on the misleading of the numbers also. Social spending in the budget is one thing, what they fail to show on the Revenue end is people who do pay little in taxes or none but receive 3-12 times more than they pay, and I mean thousands in tax returns. That is redistribution which in itself causes a fall in the actual revenue that can go to programs on the actual budget. Maybe you should take some math classes. A friend of mine who will be getting these types of returns will receive 5 times more than he actually paid in taxes this year between state and federal taxes. I explained how he was getting that and it was disappointing in how he felt about it. Tell me how that math is wrong?

OK, you refuse to believe the Los Angeles Times or our state treasurer.

Here is a San Jose Mercury News via the Star. Note very last line in the article.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/feb/09/analysis-details-state-fiscal-spending/

Here is Dan Walters from the Sacramento Bee:

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1176798.html

You still arent answering the quetion of whats more important to you, Our schools and Teachers or Social Spending and Unions.

I will yet again explain what you obviously do not understand in terms easier for you.

TAX REVENUE, ALLOTTED TAX REVENUE, ACTUAL TAX REVENUE TO THE STATE, THE BUDGET

They dont divulge this information about Budget revenue because it is in the Tax code and as I explained, you need to make a simulation of the Revenue of Taxes, Where the taxes are sent, what recipients receive more than they pay and then you can get into the actual Budget Revenue portion of the system. You see we are giving welfare through taxes before the budgets get the revenue. In doing this more people would understand why there are revenue shortfalls, why the actual tax revenue would work but before the state sees that revenue in the budget, Taxes and credits are allotted to those who are receiving more than they paid or did not pay. The Tax system is what is misleading this and the budgets numbers further mislead because this is not laid out to people as a line by line issue. My math is right, if I had the time and more sources about what is going where from the IRS directly back to low payers and non payers I could get you a better version of this. I doubt you would still take it as the problem.

Hey JMR you could cut the Health and Human Services portion of the state budget out and still not take care of the $42 billion deficit.

Do the Math, Im not talking just about cutting services, Im talking about the way the TAX code is now setup to re-distribute tax dollars before the state budget even sees that money. Thats the inherent flaw in this whole debate and why I cannot accept the direct numbers on the budget without the direct numbers from the IRS interlocked and simulated as one. It all is one in the same, but the process is separate which leads to misleading numbers. That is a fact, no an opinion, its a fact. Go research it yourself.

Illegal aliens pay sales taxes and those with phony documentation pay into the Social Security System and never get it back.

No they get it back in welfare, housing assistance, schooling, health care and added costs of having every legal and government document translated so they can vote and get drivers licenses etc. Are you doing the math yet? Which out weighs what, the sales tax and social security, not to mention a lot of these people send money home to Mexico to be spent and not spent here. Dont go into that with me, My stepfather is a naturalized citizen from Mexico, even he knows what the problems are and hes a die hard Democrat. He is an old school Democrat however, different from today's CA politicians. He brought a lot of this stuff to my attention and is part of the reason I started researching it. That argument is also misleading.

Illegal aliens can't vote or get driver's licenses. They can't get welfare legally, are eligible for bare minimum medical only.

Do The Math: If you want to believe that they don't vote and don't get benefits, you keep believing that. I know for a fact that they do. I have friends who are registered to vote that are on Educational Visas, My stepfather knows illegals that are voting, have drivers licenses and get welfare. The restaurant that he used to manage had illegal immigrants working as bus boys and their wives were receiving welfare and received voter registration material in the mail from the Democratic party. They told him that it was the first time they ever voted in election and were all happy about it. Do not believe they aren't getting these rights, they are. They shouldn't, but they are. I have a friend from Venezuela that gets harassed constantly by immigration, but the Mexican workers he works with never get bothered. They even made him leave the country for an hour just to renew his work visa. Our system is flawed and that's the truth, illegals are voting, that is a fact. There was a news special about a few years ago. Ill try and find it, but Google is a Goof now so its harder to find at this moment.

katie,
Just to understand your position, You vote for people that you completely disagree with to punish some of the only people (regardless how you feel about them personally) that stand up for conservative policies?

I think there is a bit more to the story than that. You still didn't tell me who was to blame for the budget, and spending/revenue problems before Sen. Strickland was in public office again?

Marie,
Don't disregard that I do believe you when you say you believe that increased spending is the solution. But that fact is also why I don't think you "get it". I don't blame you because, in a vacuum, you're ideals would be the best for our state. Soviet Russia seemed like a great idea to the factory workers living in Russia. Then we found out socialism is not practical as a way of distributing wealth. Radix Malorum Est Cupiditas. The Liberal agenda is to expand government until it is in control of everything, including our lives. That would work fine if we were all liberals, and had unlimited natural resources.

Our schools should get more funding for metal shop and welding programs, rather than art or music. In China, the most revered art form is calligraphy. Other than that art is not taught at their schools unless you are chosen to go to the people's art school. There they will be assigned tasks to create art for the community. JMR made a good point. There is a budget of 140 billion dollars (let's forget where all of it came from for now). Our democratic legislature would rather cut from school funding instead of increased cuts on social welfare programs. Is that an indication of the weakness of the teachers' union in comparison to the social activists' lobbying capabilities? My guess is that now that we have expanded our welfare system to be proactive and seek out people who may qualify for welfare. We're not just spending on people too lazy or stupid to function in society (No, not all social program recipients are stupid and lazy. It is a broad Generalization that is meant as hyperbole. (Sorry, I had to explain that. Knowing some liberals, I knew that I would have to clarify, or risk being taken out of context. (No, not all liberals would take me out of context, this too is a generalization made for the sake of hyperbole.))) Our tax dollars are actually being paid to go out and find more people to sign up that are too stupid and lazy to apply in the first place. That is sad.

Tell me who would have suffered more, if we would have only cut spending, and not increase every tax, but the gas and property taxes? Now, everyone is going to suffer. Los Angeles County will now be paying a dime on the dollar every time they buy anything. Yes, Ventura County isn't there yet (Thank God, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster to most liberals.) On one side, you may argue that people will go to Ventura county to buy their goods, and that may benefit some of our businesses in the short term, but will hurt the southern California economy in the long run.

As to any accusations, unless you agree that I have valid and empirically provable points, then it is obvious that you don't "get it" in terms of pragmatic government operation. In the end, we may discover everyone is wrong. Or that it didn't really matter because our Empire is sick, and taxing the citizens more will not provide the cure. I have always had the idea that we should plan for the worst and hope for the best, you seem to think that we can plan for the best, hope for the best, and then blame conservatives when the worst comes along.

Go ahead and type your info into the sacramento bee's tax calculator, tell me if you are going to get out of this without suffering from this budget. "FINALLY A BUDGET"? Yea, it's like waiting for a death sentence, then praising the executioner.

This is a link to Francine Busby a Democrat telling people who shouldn't be able to vote that they can and there are people to help them do so.

Oops!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsaoWja2OPs

Here is one I watched, Lou Dobbs from CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On4jctZLlc8

Eight years of disaster under Republican rule has proved your wingnut economic theories wrong on every count. The fact is the Republicans didn't have a viable alternative to get us out of this mess and you can't provide us with one credible statistic to back yourself up besides a story from the guys you have a beer with.

I think both parties have equal blame in this situation. The Democrats do have more interest in Socializing America, but the Republicans helped regardless so they are both screwballs to me!

Im not a partisan, Im a Constitutional Scholar and believe in our Constitution. I believe our country is being enslaved regardless of what party you are in.

The democrats caused a lot of the problems we have today, and you know what? The Republicans aided in that effort with few exceptions. They can both take equal blame in my eyes. I dont care who did more now, they both did it! Im not a partisan. I see things how they really are!

Credible statistics? Are you joking, all Ive seen are a bunch of twisted mathematical explanations that if you look into, or did the problems in a school assignment , you would get an F for the answers they give.

I gave you facts and a way to explain the situation in Lehman's Terms, if you cannot get that, then you need to do more math.

Im not posting links to the LA Times, Im posting plain facts that we all should be learning in school. If you cannot process those mathematical facts then maybe you need more education.

Our government takes in taxes, gives a lot of those back to people who pay little or none and then accepts the remaining for the state budget. If you did the math, the money being given away before hand could cover a lot of the budget problems we have as of now without laying off teachers.

Im a conservative, Im a constitutional voter, I am not a partisan hack who votes party lines. I have voted for Dems, Reps, and Idy's.

This is amazing that I back the teachers and scream no School cuts, No Teacher Cuts, No new taxes, just cut the budget of other expenditures , have given my own money and time to the schools and I get this crap from your side because you really are partisans who want what you want, not the truth that stares you in the face. No matter what you will come up with something. This is coming from a guy who chewed out a McCain campaigner who called for support! I didn't even vote in the primaries!

Im no hack, Im no partisan, Im a Patriot with the Constitution sitting next to me. This is my way, not a Party tag line. I speak from personal experience and values.

Are you speaking about the failed security broker or did you mean layman's terms? So what we guess you're advocating for is for those who file tax returns and get refunds to instead give those to the government to pay for the services they use? So no refunds, huh? That's a whopping tax increase you want for low wage earners. But let's give tax credits to rich people and big corporations instead. Dude you have been listening to KFI too much.

This is JMR, for some reason its not letting me post with my info.

I did mean Layman's terms, sorry. I type so fast sometimes I miss things here and there on a blog.

As for advocating tax cuts on low wage earners? That is a falsehood. Im advocating they get back what they pay and no more. A lot of these people are getting thousands back in taxes and they didn't even pay 1/3 of that. Tell me how that isn't flawed, tell me that isn't a social program in the tax code. It is part of the reason we are having revenue problems in this state. We now have more people not paying taxes, collecting welfare etc than the tax payers here can sustain. I advocate every one paying an equal basis. When did we become a country that we are now not equal. Today if you make more you have to pay a much higher percentage than someone else. That is not equality. Even at the same percentage as a low wage earner, a high wage earner will still pay more. I don't listen to the radio that much. I dont get my information from the radio either.

People get refunds for many reasons. For example if you have dependent children you can use them as a tax credit. This credit has been reduced, so that equals less in refunds for some. This should make you happy then.

Flat taxes favor the rich and would not collect enough to support infrastructure. Iraq has a flat tax. They would allow your guns but maybe not your guitars.

They are called refunds but they cannot "technically" be refunds if they didn't actually pay those funds they are receiving. Technically its "Re-distribution". The language used is pretty much a lie. They should call it what it really is. That is set up like that to confuse people. Like I said earlier, a friend of mine will receive thousands more than he actually paid in taxes from the State and the Fed. Its wrong. This is what I am talking about with the Revenue System and Budget being misleading and flawed. I will be one of those who will be paying more due to the Child Credit. I have 3 kids. I either owe or break even every year and my family is not rich by any means so I will more than likely owe more on the income I have in this state before I move. We are considered middle class but sure have a hard time making it so I'm not some rich guy typing in here.

Amazingly we went into this crisis spending at twice the level of FDR as a % of GDP, 21%. That will spike to 29%. We've never been there before.

quote
"Roosevelt came late to some of the ideas of big public spending to stimulate the economy," said John Halpin, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

The 1930s began with federal outlays representing just 3.4 percent of the nation's economy as measured by the gross domestic product. Roosevelt's efforts to fight the Depression with government spending caused outlays to rise to 10.3 percent of GDP by 1939 and to 12 percent by 1941 on the eve of U.S. involvement in World War II.

By contrast, government spending was 21 percent of GDP last year. Obama's economic recovery policies are expected to bring it up to 30 percent or more.

"The New Deal by today's standards involved a minuscule amount of spending," said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University. He said Obama is more of a "big spender" than was Roosevelt.
unqoute

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNm_3tGRMTQ8VN0NRWnV9Lpgvi0AD96FJOTO0

Isn't it shocking how LITTLE of this context is provided by the MSM??

Note: I first quoted this at seeing the forest dot com.

In reading this thread I see that Katie Teague has defined herself as a "conservative Republican". In browsing through the blogs over the last few months, I can't remember you supporting any local conservative candidates or even conservative ideas/actions. Can you tell me what "conservative" local candidates you do support? Can you give an example of a conservative vote or action that you have recently supported?

I guess I'm just not understanding how people like the Strickland's get branded as "conservatives" yet you haven't had anything but disdain for them.

Stricklands are extremists who juggle campaign finances to enrich their own pockets and hire thugs to work for them. Easy to dislike.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-election13apr13,0,1359282.story

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/dec/31/state-files-misdemeanor-charges-against-aide/

The story says the Strickland's were cleared of wrongdoing and nothing criminal occurred. Besides, I have seen criticisms against them for their votes and positions on issues. That is something else entirely.

Katie Teague's claim that local representatives are "worthless" seems to have little to do with the story's linked above.

I am conservative. I don't recall EVER seeing a local lawmaker at a Pro-Life rally or sponsing significant pro-life legislation. I NEVER got a response for any of my Support the Troops activities (except from Lois Capps). I believe responsible legislators should work to not pass spending bills and bonds - that rarely happens because it costs them votes.

Having no budget for over 100 days and then deciding to treat defecting Republicans as criminals strikes me and most other Republicans as stupid and worthless.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/07/local/me-peate7

Here we have aforementioned Strickland thug Joel Angeles accused of bribing candidates to drop out of races. He is also in deep legal hot water on battery charges as explained in article above.

Where there is smoke there is fire. Not nice folks these Stricklands. Many, many charges of campaign donation violations filed against them.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/19/local/me-23699

And here is an article where Joel Angeles is accused of following Linda Parks around and snapping photos that will be used in attack ads later in her 2002 campaign.

Find us a decent conservative candidate and not extremist, dishonest ideologues and maybe we will vote for them.

Gotta love the 7 year old news articles about accusations that went where exactly?
Is Honest... and Fire... and Too many... the same person?
Strickland said he would not vote to raise taxes. How exactly is that being dishonest when he didn't vote to raise taxes. Does keeping his campaign promise make him an extremist?
I know about Ms Teague's animosity towards the Strickland(s); but what exactly makes Teague more of a conservative or them less convservative?
Is the attendance at a pro-life rally/pro-life legistlation the litmus test?
Maybe you didn't get any response for any of your "Support the Troops" activities, because they don't want to deal with you.
Bonds are voted in by the people - usually sponsored and supported by special interests. The aformentioned bullet train and state sponsored stem-cell research were both voted on by the people.
The current budget bill was a "special" session. We had a budget from last June/July that had a lot of overly unrealistic projections of revenue and the state was running out of money.
This new budget still has borrowing in it and still relies in overly optimistic revenue projections.
And castigating a fellow Repub that voted for new taxes after pledging not to is not treating him like a criminal - just dishonest to his constituents.

the last sentence should be:
just pointing out that he was dishonest to his (Moldenado's) constituents

Got to agree there. Why is treating someone who pledged to his constituents that he wouldn't raise taxes like a liar a bad thing, after his vote was literally the deciding vote on the budget to raise taxes?

Also got to agree here: Ms Teague, don't you think maybe your constant criticism of the republican leadership in your district may have to do with the lack of attendance of your conservative events?

Who is poking the Joel Angeles fire? He has more or less vanished from the face of the Earth since the charges were filed, and isn't active in either Strickland's office. And what the heck does he have to do with the budget?

You want to throw stones at conservatives, and people who support those politicos who stand by their campaign pledges and don't want to raise my taxes, keep to the issues at hand.

My facts are spot on. I don't have to pull news articles or you tube videos. Most of my arguments are common sense in nature. And I never, unlike some people posting on this blog take personal differences and make them my basis for disagreement.

I believe Joel Angeles is Audra's Chief of Staff and is being paid by taxpayers.

As a voter, I believe lawmakers should always listen/respond to their constituency. Numerous people have complained that calls to Strickland office are not returned and they didn't even bother to attending a meeting sponsored by local education officials. This can't be rationalized.

And yes, a true conservative would do something other than lip service about the abortion issue. And a true conservative would actively support the troops.

Tony Strickland made numerous campaign promises to end the partisanship gridlock in Sacremento and he has done nothing. He should be more like Abel - willing to show true leadership in tough times. The vast majority of voters in Ventura County supported no cuts to education and were willing to accept a temporary tax.

Instead of attacking a Republican that expects more out of Republicas, focus on what isn't been done by your representatives. Chest beating and repeating "No New Taxes" isn't enough.

And Joel Angeles is a liability and an embarrasment to the Stricklands and all the other lawmakers he gets involved with - time to say bye-bye to him. He is kind of like Bill Postmus of San Bernadino now.

You need to stop defending the indefensible. Your MO is to attack a Republican that expects the local lawmakers to act like leaders instead of usual status quo.

Joel Angeles is Audra's Chief of Staff and is paid by the taxpayer. He is a liability and an embarrassment to both the Stricklands and any other lawmaker/candidate he touches - much like recently resigned Bill Postmus of San Bernandino.

Tony Strickland made numorous campaign promises to end the partisanship gridlock in Sacramento. He won (barely) by promising he would be an "independent leader". Well, start leading instead of being a major proponent of a coalition of losers. The California GOP needs people like Abel M. right now.

Apparently my computer wasn't locked up afterall!

What Mr. Moldanado did wasn't leadership in my book, it was capitulation.
If the "vast" majority of Ventura voters where willing to accept "temporary taxes", why did they overwhelmingly vote for Strickland over Jackson. The senate race was close because of Santa Barbara not Ventura.
The Republicans had alternative options to solving the budget problem without raising taxes, but the Democrats had their own agenda and because of Mr. Moldanado, that agenda is now the budget and it will cost you and me in real money.
Ms. Teague, the animus you have for the Stricklands is blinding you to the fact that the Democratic majority in our legistlature is the main cause of the overspending. You can reach across the aisle, but if your hand gets slapped what exactly are you supposed to do?
This mid-session budget was a chance for the Republicans to wield the little power they have to get a better deal for us and Moldanado's going back on his promise blew it.
Just watch, revenues will not be as high as this budget forecast and we'll be in it higher and deeper again in June.

Katie,

There is a nice young man named Sean answering phone calls at THE HONORABLE STATE SENTATOR STRICKLAND"S office. I visited one day, just to say hi. I consider Sean, though he's young, and Tony as friends of mine. While I was there chatting, Sean took at least 15 calls in a half hour span each of them calling to make sure that Tony Strickland would not vote to raise taxes. While he didn't get any while I was there, Sean told me he had received "a few" calls from people with an opinion like yours, but he said that there was an overwhelming, "more than 95%", majority of callers that were on the right side, and did not want their taxes raised. These people are called constituents. They are who vote for you when you win. Even if it is by a slim margin thanks to Obama, and the great unions of California, along with some serious mud flinging, paid for by said unions.

You calling a bunch of times doesn't count as "numerous people". Senators are relatively busy people. If you were friendly, you may have gotten a call back. He called me, though I would have been offended if he hadn't. You obviously have personal vendettas against the Stricklands that go beyond politics, because you don't make any sense as a conservative, or a liberal. Your ideas are lukewarm, like bad coffee. You might have been good once, but now you're going in the sink because your not a late, and your not an iced frap. The only thing we agree on is that the sheeple of California keep voting in bond measures and spending bills that are authored by the unions, and that is part of our budget problem. We're both pro life, and guess what so is the senator and his wife the assemblywoman. Look at any time he has had to answer that question, he was even accused of being too pro-life by your favorite candidate. What exactly do you want him to do about those beliefs? He isn't a justice of the supreme court, and he isn't a lobbyist. He was for the proposition that required parental notification in the last election, and he'll never vote for abortions. Does that not represent your pro-life beliefs? Why would you rather have a tax raising, pro-killing babies candidate instead?

I was there on the day The Honorable Senator Strickland was sworn in. I watched Steinberg's address to the Senate. The first thing out of his mouth was that we need to give up partisan politics, and raise taxes, though even then he called them revenue enhancements. No joke. Look at the transcript, if you don't believe me. Then he said that they might even call a session that evening to get started on the budget debate. Now the senator was given an ample 20 minutes before voting for the standing rules of the senate, after being sworn in, where he could have stood on his desk, and screamed to the crowd, "I love democrats." and that would have been a great bipartisan gesture, but a little inappropriate given the circumstances.

Why does bipartisanship always mean that the republicans have to give into demands made by democrats? It never goes the other way. The only time conservative spending cuts get passed in any legislature in this country it is because that legislature has a republican majority.

Our budget is 140,000,000,000$. That is twice what it was before Davis took over. One less zero is a lot of money when you're that big. There was one year, 95-96, since the first session of the legislature in 1970 where there was a majority of Republicans. Not one tax was raised that year. Republicans passed a bill that year, which is one of the things Senator Strickland ran on during his campaign: They passed a bill to streamline the permitting process for businesses, which The Honorable Senator wants to see happen with renewable energy on our coasts. We even tried to shrink some of the government commissions like the garbage board, but were forced to relent, or face intense opposition by the Democrats. Now, do you see the pattern of growth liberals demand of the taxpayer. And why it then shouldn't be the burden of the taxpayer to make up the deficit caused by the liberal spending agenda? And maybe even how your opinion about our state senator, and our budget is a little irrational?

Marie,
You've been oddly quiet, and laconic.

1. Santa Clarita, a portion of Los Angeles County, decided the SD 19 race.

2. Republicans have a spending problem, too. Giving away huge portions of the treasury in the form of special interest tax credits while taking money away from schoolkids is wrong.

results by county:
Jackson Strickland Diederich
DEM REP IND (W/I)
Los Angeles 12,370 16,948 2
Santa Barbara 73,766 58,703 7
Ventura 120,983 132,325 5
District Totals 207,119 207,976 14
Percent 49.8% 50.2% 0.0%
I would say the 11,000 votes in Ventura county were more than the 4,500 votes in LA county.
By your logic, the 15,000 votes in SB county prevented Strickland from winning by a larger margin.

Let me make this a little more readable

results by county:

                Jackson Strickland Diederich

                    DEM      REP    IND (W/I)

Los Angeles      12,370   16,948      2

Santa Barbara    73,766   58,703      7

Ventura         120,983  132,325      5

District Totals 207,119  207,976     14

Percent            49.8%    50.2%   0.0%

I would say the 11,000 votes in Ventura county were more than the 4,500 votes in LA county.

By your logic, the 15,000 votes in SB county prevented Strickland from winning by a larger margin.

get it right,

You make me laugh again. Mathematically, my neighborhood decided the election. Or maybe it was your neighborhood. Seriously though, Santa Barbara county is what kept the race close for Jackson. She got a giant boost in support there with UCSB voters, actually going to the booth for the first time to vote for Obama and anyone else with a D next to their name. Which they did just to spite the Republican party because of Bush, like you all love to do. She got a landslide majority in SB, and Strickland got simple majorities in Santa Clarita and Ventura. If it was only Santa Clarita, and Ventura County, Strickland would have beaten Jackson by a huge margin. Senator Strickland didn't draw those district lines either, so don't give too much credit to those 40k voters. There were more provisional ballots in the other two counties than there were voters in Santa Clarita. Your logic has no foundation, and you're wrong. 800 votes.

Arnold has a spending problem. Maldonado has a spending problem now. Even Bush with his, unfavorable expansion of government, had half the deficit of Obama's proposed spending, and that's with the spending bills passed to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has been the only government spending aside from Vietnam that liberals have been against. Tax credits are not and can not be government spending. Unless you give them to people who haven't ever paid taxes, like the liberals are trying to do. Then it is by definition "re-distribution". But cutting taxes is only demanding less, not spending more. By definition you are wrong, "get it right".

There has never been a cut to school spending in our history. Prop 98 has ensured that, so again, you're incorrect. The only way to "fudge" the numbers, is to say that there is less money per student, than the previous year, but that isn't because less money is going into the system, There is more money every year. Because there are more students, You would have to increase spending even more to keep up, which hasn't been working for the past 30 years, and all of the spending increases end up going to give kids free lunches when their family can afford to feed themselves, and administrative costs. Teachers get better salaries, smaller classes, bigger pensions, and more power to command the liberals because they are able to contribute more to their campaigns. No one wants to take money away from school kids. I don't care what letter they have next to their name.

Why do you think that school funding the only program liberals ever talk about during economic uncertainty when Republicans demand fiscal conservatism? It's because they know if they say that Republicans want to take money away from school kids to give to "special interest groups", which apparently includes any kind of industry, just like the industry you work in, including Hollywood in the form of tax breaks, it will frighten you so much, you won't even ask questions before you go into the booth to vote.

Think about it, when was the last time a local news reporter came on with that dramatic music and sound effects, and said, "welfare to be reformed, liberals accuse conservatives of trying to steal bread from the unemployed single mothers"? It's just not as scary as "Republicans want schools to fail, and government to disappear, and they want to take all the money and give it to evil greedy corporations."

The Sheeple of California are the ones who need to "get it right". You included.

HBJ won combined total of S.B. and V.C. votes. The gerrymandered addition of Santa Clarita gave Strickland the win. Without it, he would not have prevailed. Plus, Fillmore and Santa Paula were taken out of the mix to further gerrymander. Interesting that you ignored my other point about Republican spending.

Copy and Paste:
Arnold has a spending problem. Maldonado has a spending problem now. Even Bush with his, unfavorable expansion of government, had half the deficit of Obama's proposed spending, and that's with the spending bills passed to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has been the only government spending aside from Vietnam that liberals have been against. Tax credits are not and can not be government spending. Unless you give them to people who haven't ever paid taxes, like the liberals are trying to do. Then it is by definition "re-distribution". But cutting taxes is only demanding less, not spending more. By definition you are wrong, "get it right".

Get it right, your wrong and blind. And stop trying to pretend that democrats don't benefit from the gerrymandered district lines as much, if not more so than republicans in this state. Senator Strickland didn't draw those lines, you can't blame him for it. I won't deny that the districts are drawn to keep incumbents in office, as long as you stop playing dumb when it comes down to 800 votes. I don't think HBJ even bothered to campaign there. I wouldn't blame her since there were stories that she couldn't even get enough volunteers for a precinct walk before 1pm on a Saturday in Ventura county 2 weeks before the election. Filmore and Santa Paula would have voted Republican. That's why they are part of the other Republican held seat in the Senate the 17th. His name is Senator George Runner.

Such narrow mindedness, and lack of abstract understanding. You don't even know what's right, who are you to go around telling others?

G.i.r. - every single district in California is gerrymandered and has been for a very long time. We discussed it in HS civics.
watch how it works:
ST won combined total of VC and LA vots. The gerrymandered addition of Santa Barbara made the race closer than it would have been without it. Plus, Fillmore and Santa Paula were taken out of the mix to further gerrymander the 17 district.
Haha did answer your comment about Republican "spending". Tax credits are not spending, unless the amount credited is more than the amount taken. Are you saying that the Repubs have passed tax laws (along with the Dems) that gave back more to these corporations?

That was probably Sean as in Sean Perowski.

I have not contacted the Stricklands for many, many years. I did the Support the Troop rallies shortly after 9/11/2001. No Response from any legislator - other than Lois Capps. We had hundreds of people on the corner of Victoria and Telephone.

I doubt if many constituents bother to call anymore - years of no response does that to a voter.

RE: Pro-Life - there has been no legislation or action either. If our lawmakers were truly pro-life then one or more of them would step up to the plate when the Parental Notification props were being voted on - that never, ever happened. I know the lawyer who helped write both props - Katie Short.

Walk the walk instead of chumming for votes.

And to reiterate - lots of promises were made to get the votes for the 19th Senate District. So start delivering - it is all that I am asking. Everything else is noise.

Old Jack O'Connell (pre McClintock) district always included Santa Barbara County.

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/nov/20/how-gerrymandering-works/

Lowering taxes multinational corporations would have been paying into our treasury is a giveaway. No way around it. A Republican spending plan for the rich.

The 19th district map from 1991 to 2000 was quite a bit different than the current district.
Check this out:
http://www.calvoter.org/voter/maps/1991/sd19.gif and
http://www.calvoter.org/voter/maps/1991/sd18.gif
Ventura City was in the 18th - Fillmore was in the 19th - Santa Paula in the 18th
-
And again, lowering taxes is not spending. Allowing people and businesses to pay less to the government is not a spending plan for the rich.

OK, it's welfare for the rich.

G.i.r. - only if the amount credited is less than what they have to pay in. Are you saying that's the case?
Not having to pay taxes (even zero taxes) is not welfare.
the EIC is federal welfare. the tax break you get for being able to deduct your mortgage interest isn't.

katie,
As far as your support the troops event from 8 years ago. I don't know I wasn't here, and involved in ventura county, and I won't make excuses for anyone who didn't attend, as it seems like something worthwhile. Especially given the timing.

I was there listening to constituents call his office. You can deny that I was there, and you'd be wrong. They were calling, and they were calling a lot. Just because 50 percent of the people agree with you, doesn't mean that the other 50 percent don't exist. Senator Strickland wasn't in office for the last 5 years, so I'm not sure who he was supposed to respond to during that time, but McClintock was there and he lead the fight to reverse the car registration tax, that was just passed again to punish car owners for the liberals' reckless spending in previous years.

As far as walking the walk for the pro-life fight. As much as I would love to see Senator Strickland convince the democratic legislature to further restrict, and eventually outlaw abortion, I have a feeling that's a much harder up hill battle than you are giving him credit for. I'm not sure exactly what your expectations are in one of the most liberal states in the union, and how much any single legislator could accomplish, unless that was the only issue he was elected to pursue. Obviously, we have bigger problems than arguing privacy versus the definition of life at the moment, especially since the Federal Supreme Court has ruled on the issue much to my dismay.

Get it Right,
I understand how Gerrymandering works, I think you have a decent idea of its nature too. What you fail to accept is there are more Democrats in power than Republicans therefore by numbers only the Democrats benefit more from the districts being drawn so ridiculously. Remember when the "REPUBLICAN" Arnold had his special election, and wanted to do exactly what prop 11 is designed to do, but the Democrats paid Judge Wapner to go on TV ad spots convincing the people it was a bad idea because we shouldn't trust judges to do the job. Now we have voted for the same thing, but because HBJ lost by a slim margin, the Democrats think it's a beneficial move to trust the judges, so they can finally get their 2/3's of the legislature. Funny how things change so quickly.

A spending plan for the rich still isn't government spending, no matter how you slice it. The state can't spend something it never receives. At least if I ran the government it wouldn't. Lately, we have been doing more and more of that, and this new budget is still doing more of the same: borrowing. 11 billion dollars. No one, but Hollywood, got any concessions in this budget. There are no big tax cuts for industry. I think the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, just like everyone else. But when you call a sheep a dog, you're going to get called out on it.

Correction: it should be "If the amount credited is greater than what they have to pay in"

HAHa - I don't doubt you were at the office. I've been in the county 28 years - all of them as a Republican. Tired of nothing ever happening - here, Sac and DC.

Don't buy the quickly offered excuse of being a minority candidate is reason enough to not pass legislation. It has been used for years. I expect candidates to work for causes they believe in and not just talk the talk for votes. Why is there no free 4-D sonograms? Parental Notification bills? Educational forums? Participating in walks or rallies?

Redistricting is a start as is open primaries. Neither party wants either one of them so that means it is good for the people.

By the way, I heard that special interests/industries get the biggest tax breaks - and we know both parties try to get their money. Industry Tax Incentives = Spending

Tony Strickland did draw the lines along with Jim Brulte and perhaps Tom McClintock. Common knowledge.

Both parties are equally enamoured with gerrymandering - which is why there hasn't been a change over in Sac for YEARS!!!

I happen to be next to the "Ribbon of Shame" which is a gerrymandered coastal strip.

calling tax breaks spending is just as ridiculous as calling lessened increases in spending as cuts in spending. They just aren't the same thing. Yes, if the government spends money it doesn't have that money to spend again. If it never receives the money, it can't spend it in the first place, so it can't be government spending. Spending is an action, not the lack of taxation. Just like not increasing spending as much as previously planned, is a cut in the increase in spending, but not a cut in spending. Yes, they are related, but no, they are not the same thing. They do not equal each other. They have different meanings.

If I decide next year I can only spend 100 dollars more a month on food, but later realize I only have 50 dollars more to spend, I haven't cut my food budget, I've still increased it by 50 dollars.

If I charge 10 dollars for an item I sell, I will have 10 dollars to spend on myself. If I only ask for 8 dollars, I don't have the 10 dollars to spend, but I still get the 8. I can't go back later and say that I spent 2 dollars every time I sold something because I only asked for 8, instead of 10. If I never get that 2 dollars difference, I can never spend it.

Decreased taxes don't equal Government spending. Even if both cases result in the government having less to spend from.

As far as the minority party argument. I wouldn't buy it either if the legislature was at all moderate, or split at 50/50, but they are facing 25 of the 40 people in the senate. It's not like having to convince one or two moderates to agree with you. You have 25 staunch liberals who have made the opposite promise that our conservative leaders have made. You have to convince 5 of them that they were wrong, their constituents are wrong, and the Supreme Court is wrong.

Free 4-d sonograms? I don't know, why don't we have vouchers for private school? Same reason probably.

I think liberals in conservative districts like the idea of redistricting as much as conservatives in liberal districts, the problem is after the judges get done, the new legislature will just redraw the lines again. I want to see a pledge against that, signed by everyone running next term to go along with my no new taxes pledge. Wouldn't that be a promise they should keep, or would it be okay to go back on that when the democrats are monopolizing the media, and saying without redrawing the districts we'll face the tyranny of the Republican Minority again? Since that was the argument they used to get Maldonado to switch his vote on increasing taxes. Open primaries would be something interesting, and we'll see how many people actually vote for it when it is on the ballot since it requires a constitutional amendment, especially after we see how the districts are redrawn.