Grover Norquist helped Jack Abramoff hide the source of money in some of the convicted Republican lobbyist's schemes. He was also an agent for a foreign government for awhile.

Why local Republicans would sign anything from him is a mystery to me.

I would respect them more if they stayed true to their campaign speeches but ignored the Jack Abramoff connected organization.

Marie,

Not only has the Republican-proposed budget been ridiculed, but the Republicans' own website lists that they intend to study this budget to determine where waste and fraud can be eliminated. $42 billion dollars of waste and fraud--who do they think they're kidding? Oh, I guess the $10 billion they want to slash from education is their example of waste and fraud.

Why didn't the Republicans study the budget last summer, when it was due? What have they been doing these last 7 months?

Once again, the Republicans loaf on the taxpayers' dime. They don't care how many state workers get furloughed or how many days state offices will be closed in the future, as long as they still collect their paychecks. They hate government, but they love getting money from it.

I heard Satan was the one against the Democrats and that he and Medusa were running Sacramento now. Hey let’s do this, cut about 20,000 state workers and call it a day. You say republicans are obstructing the vote? Nope their vote is NO. Now move on the cutting. We should start out with every state paid press secretary. Toss in a few hundred tenured teachers and move on to prison guards. There that is a good start. Did we mention deporting all off the ILLEGAL ALIENS? Now there you go, we are done, no new taxes. You are welcomed.

They have been sleeping like the highest paid and worst teachers in the US of A. The California School System is Fraud and Waste. I know, most of my family is teachers. They laugh at me working for a living. That is the joke. Who works 40 hours a week and earns a living..... Ready for the answer? NOT ME I AM A CALIFORNIA TEACHER. Then we all just laugh. You parasites make me sick.

They should start by cutting the pay of legislators, their staff members, and their office budget. Funny how I never hear our local State Senator asking to cut his own paycheck.

"I know most of my family is teachers."

You've proved it. Our education system is a failure. At least in one case.

Gee Frank, why stop with just that waste and fraud here in CA? Let's cut off all entitlements (Social Security, Medicare) to the elderly as well. Hey, that's 40% of the cost the government. If those folks didn't plan for their own retirement or medical costs--well, to bad.

There you go! Federal deficit eliminated as well. Taxes cut. Yay!

And, of course, back here in CA we can cut MediCAL as well. Those kids should have thought first before being born to poor people. Hey, it's just fraud and waste.

Better yet, we could put those kids to work as farm workers after we deport the illegal aliens. Then they'd have money to pay for their healthcare. Actually, that's a swell idea for the elderly as well. Work to pay! No free lunch.

Deficit gone, taxes lowered, waste and fraud elminated! Yay!

Hey, "Frank-O"...I like your comment, also BDH's and Kara's. What more can I add to this? Not too much.

Marie said most of it, and almost answered her own article. Just seems to me there are too many "know-it-all's" and interferences out there [and most likely always will be] like this tax reform group that are harping on state and federal government to do this or to do that...and then 'The One' promises to do away with certain lobbyists and there are enough hypocrites to go around to last a Century. Well guess what...nothing is going to change until THE PEOPLE start to improve their own situation.

Frank...I suggest you go and be a teacher. You can learn the difference between "is" and "are" and then lay back and enjoy yourself...and get three months off for summer vacation and two weeks or so for Christmas...and all the other ones, too. Try surfing. Skateboarding...or go to the Massage Parlors in Ventura and see how you feel after a good rubdown. You cannot do that on your worker salary, though! If you cannot fight 'em...join 'em!

* John King *

How much does anyone want to bet that Frank is over 65 and eagerly collecting his Social Security and using Medicare while having his lawn cut by some illegal alien?

When a company is struggling, it cuts as many jobs as necessary to survive. The govt must do the same. CA's govt is too big, too bloated, and it must be drastically slashed. Raising taxes is not a solution, in fact it's the worst thing we can do. People know that illegal immigration is largely to blame for our budget problems, and a unionized govt workforce only adds to the problems.

I'm so fed up with Tony Strickland and all of the pseudo saviors of California. There is no way that no new taxes (read our lips) works! It could have worked before these idiots (Dems and Repubs) let this thing go on for 100 days. Now what do you suppose will happen as they let it continue on further? More deficit is more the tax payers have to deal with. PASS THIS LEGISLATION NOW! The legislature ought to be swept away with one giant broom and the Governor with them! America is angry and if Republicans think they're safe by hiding behind some stupid mantras, they need to think about how wide a margin Barack Obama swept Democrats into office. We were sick of George W and we're sick of this too!

CA has revenues of $95B.
CA plans to spend $131B. Crazy.

You want Mississippi to bail you out. The eighth biggest economy in the world cannot spend at twice the rate of your economic growth.

Marie you are not appreciating that the economy, writ large...total planet, is doing a D-process -- a deflationary deleveraging. CA state revenues reflect that. They have crashed and will stay down for 2-4 years.

Your representatives plan to spend $42 billion over your tax base. Your reps 'compromise' and cut spending by $15 billion. Your reps then expect the people to cough up another $27 billion to close the gap.

Noble? Moral? Flexible? No...State of Denial.

Check out John Mauldin's assessment of global weakness. Just type in an email to see the entire article

http://www.2000wave.com/index.asp

"....The critics were quick to pan Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bank bailout plan as being weak on details. Which was true. There wasn't much substance in his speech. But let me offer a contrarian view. Geithner and the team around him may not be entirely tone deaf. They are very smart people and are surely in contact with major Wall Street figures, and would know that the lack of detail would disappoint.
....
"What if the number that the Treasury and the Fed are looking at is a lot more than the remaining $350 billion in the TARP program? As in another $1 trillion more, or even the $1.5 trillion that Roubini says may be out there (and other independent analysts, like David Rosenberg of Merrill, say there may be another $2 trillion in losses). Can you imagine what the market reaction would have been if they had announced that this week? The Dow down 400 points would have seemed like a Sunday walk in the park. Congress would be screaming, and the chances for the stimulus package to pass would have materially diminished."
....
"(Estimate)an ultimate low of 666 on the S&P 500, likely by October if our estimate of the timing for the end of the official downturn is accurate."

That is a 20% drop from today's close of 829. That is not what you will hear from "sell-side" managers who want you to invest in their mutual funds and long-only management programs."

How the gap is bridged:

• $15.1 billion in expenditure reductions.

• $14.4 billion in multi-year General Fund tax increases.

• $11.4 billion in borrowing.

The final budget reserve is $1.276 billion.

...and then I'll shut up. Let's say the beloved by the left Krugman, ardent Bush-basher extraordinaire, is correct. He confirms the D-Process washing over the country. Application to CA? Your debt drunken tax payer has already given blood to support the habit. Nothing left to tax..

quote...
Last week the Federal Reserve released the results of the latest Survey of Consumer Finances, a triennial report on the assets and liabilities of American households. The bottom line is that there has been basically no wealth creation at all since the turn of the millennium: the net worth of the average American household, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was in 2001.

At one level this should come as no surprise. For most of the last decade America was a nation of borrowers and spenders, not savers. The personal savings rate dropped from 9 percent in the 1980s to 5 percent in the 1990s, to just 0.6 percent from 2005 to 2007, and household debt grew much faster than personal income. Why should we have expected our net worth to go up?

Yet until very recently Americans believed they were getting richer, because they received statements saying that their houses and stock portfolios were appreciating in value faster than their debts were increasing. And if the belief of many Americans that they could count on capital gains forever sounds naïve, it’s worth remembering just how many influential voices — notably in right-leaning publications like The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and National Review — promoted that belief, and ridiculed those who worried about low savings and high levels of debt.

Then reality struck, and it turned out that the worriers had been right all along. The surge in asset values had been an illusion — but the surge in debt had been all too real.

So now we’re in trouble — deeper trouble, I think, than most people realize even now. And I’m not just talking about the dwindling band of forecasters who still insist that the economy will snap back any day now.

And as the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out in the 1930s, the things people and companies do when they realize they have too much debt tend to be self-defeating when everyone tries to do them at the same time. Attempts to sell assets and pay off debt deepen the plunge in asset prices, further reducing net worth. Attempts to save more translate into a collapse of consumer demand, deepening the economic slump.

Are policy makers ready to do what it takes to break this vicious circle? In principle, yes. Government officials understand the issue: we need to “contain what is a very damaging and potentially deflationary spiral,� says Lawrence Summers, a top Obama economic adviser.
...unquote

Hey LonghornMama, Obama is a joke as people are quickly realizing. He got lucky because Bush was not popular, and the mainstream media painted Obama as someone to worship. What goes up, must come down. Obama's rise was fast, but he's going to crash really hard. The sad thing though is that his socialist/communist agenda will hurt America for many many years.

Robert Rudolph, you need to take your wingnut drivel over to Little Green Footballs or NRO or Michelle Malkin where you can find more people apparently still drinking the kool-aid and wanting Obama to fail like their Grand Poobah, Limbaugh. Your comments here offer nothing constructive, but then again, they do reflect the hyperbole of our "fabulous", "effective", "super-smart" Republican representatives Tony and Audra Strickland. All Audra can do is spread the "illegal immigrants are the boogeyman" attacks around in her campaign communications. Of course, I wouldn't expect any straight-talk from her with regard to the volatility of CA state revenues with respect to the economy. She and her husband seem to be completely uninformed as to why California faces such deficits, and why things will be very bad going forward. Because of limitations on property tax and other fees that have been done away with (as in the VLF Marie mentioned in her blog entry), this state relies heavily on capital gains taxes. http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/rev_vol/rev_volatility_012005.pdf

Well, guess what? Those are going to be slim to none for tax year '08 because Wall Street banks basically stole a huge chunk of Californians' wealth the last several months. California's economy is even more volatile than that of the rest of the country. Why? I'd love to see someone chime in with some data on underlying reasons because I haven't been able to get any good intel.

I do believe that Marty is right in what he says (excepting the unnecessary slam on Krugman--after all the whole country finally came to its senses and bashed Bush last Nov.)--there's been no wealth creation in the last decade because salaries in the middle class have not kept up with increases in GDP and rising metrics of productivity. Basically the last decade has seen the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper class since the days of the robber barons, made possible by people like former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) and that lovely Republican Congress of 2001-2006. And let's not forget our fearless leader exhorted the masses to go out and shop after 9/11, so there's culpability to go around for our current economic depression.

As an anecdote to your Treasury quote, Marty, I'll offer this little tidbit. I attended a party in DC celebrating the inauguration of President Obama. One woman there worked at the Treasury Dept. She said that employees were somber and stressed beyond belief because our economic reality is much worse than anyone was letting on. Good times!

Kara,

Excellent .pdf document on the CA revenue volatility. The legislature knew these times were coming. And here they sit.

This CA study shows that your revenue grew dramatically in the Reagan/Bush years and did OK but less well in the Clinton/Bush years. What a great heritage from that period.

We are leaving this 1980 to 2006 period marked by cuts in marginal tax rates and capital gains tax rates and INCREASED revenue to the governments. During this period US wealth held by households went from $25 trillion to $56 trillion (per the Fed) and is in the process of dropping back to, I hope, not less than $45 trillion.

Texas had a CA size collapse in the '80s with oil bust and S&L bust. One third of Houston homes set idle. But they did not ramp up taxes to get out of that hole. They spent less.

Why is CA more volitile at the moment? I do not know but CA and I get revenue from one of your oil basins. (So can you, and any cap gains would go to CA treasury). But CA will not do safe clean drilling off the coast. CA passes on the jobs and royalty stream to the CA government.

The banks were utterly stupid but the citizens took the bait. The 26 fat years are behind and the Seven Lean Years are here. Now we rely on the savings from the fat years. Or hunker down.

Capital gains are hosed for several years. See the crash in the big 500 corporate earnings here, toward the bottom:
http://www.2000wave.com/article.asp?id=mwo021309

Personal income is hosed from decrease global trade, exports of computers software, and agriculture. Remember Europe and Asia are harder hit and 40% of our Fortune 500 earnings (the big bad Walmarts) come from oveseas. Yes we sell to the folks overseas, take profits, and send the cap gains to run the CA government. Reduce that by 50%. The European view:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/4560901/Bond-market-calls-Feds-bluff-as-world-falls-apart.html

For this year hold Bank CDs, Treasury bond mutual funds, gold, money market funds under 250K (Vanguard). Pray and innovate.

Once again the minority Republicans are holding the entire State Budget hostage for Political Grandstanding reasons. They feel that we live in a country and state where we are governed by minority rule. Strickland won by less than 900 votes yet feels he has a mandate to ignore 49% of the residents of the district. Since over 66% of his campaign funds came from outside the 19th State Senate District one has to ask who or what does he represent. Lets start a recall of all Republican State Senate and Assembly members.

Our tax burden is already too high--no new taxes. Balance the budget by cutting expenditures, including education. Teachers work 6 hours a day (one of those hours is a prep period-wouldn't we all like a prep period in our jobs) for 180 days - that's 1080 hours. A full time job is 2040 hours.

1st year teachers are paid at least $36,000 ($33 an hour)- most get much more. Many teachers top out at $80,000 ($74 an hour) to $90,000 with the best benefits in the world (look at Fullerton School District salaries).

Don't increase my taxes until you reduce their pay.

Marty,

I appreciate your input. And my parents and I lived through the TX bust. I graduated from TAMU (where oil-financed tuition was cheap, cheap, cheap) and we lived outside of Houston. My parents took a bath when selling their house during relocation in 1988, if memory serves. Big difference though is that my dad was moving because of a big promotion. Nowadays people are leaving because they've been thrown out of work. Big difference in ground conditions.
Oh, and TX has never been too concerned about trashing its environment for the quick buck, so those chickens will be coming home to roost sooner or later.

We have a perfect storm of conditions that has created an absolute wreck and the problem is so multi-faceted I'm sure it's going to take multiple big thinkers to figure it out. This can't be done in three weeks, and everyone expecting Wall Street to rebound instantaneously based on stimulus bill leaks and comments from Geithner are smoking some real good stuff.

America suffers from lack of long-range thinking. Corporations thought it was great to shift from manufacturing to a service economy, but look where that's gotten us. To reiterate some of your points, everyone spent beyond their means (and no one does that better than a Southern Californian), mortgaging themselves to the hilt to drive the Beemer, Lexus, Hummer newer and nicer than the neighbor's. Frugality was for the "uncool", and Greenspan blessed it all. Now we need to hunker down, but we're faced with the paradox of thrift. How ironic is that?!

We can't solve these problems with the same old thinking that got us into them, but drawing a sand in the line is not the answer. That's what the Republicans are doing, both on the state and national level. I'm all for belt-tightening--and your investment ideas are sound--but I'm a bit tired of being told we have no money for local issues when we've been flushing money down the toilet in Iraq for 6 years now, Paulson gave bankers billions with no strings attached and no oversight, and no one dares to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the fat cats even one month early. The trolls need to spare me the lectures on money management from the profligate Republican party.

John,

Are you 100% billable each and every day? Do you take cigarette breaks, coffee breaks, "trash talk the boss at the water cooler" breaks, Twitter breaks? If so, there's your prep time, and you're getting paid for it.

This state doesn't spend enough on education, and it shows. But, of course, all those private-school-loving conservatives want to starve public education even more, because teachers are an easy scapegoat. Heaven forbid we make some Hollywood plastic surgeon spend more to drive his Mazerati down the 405, when we can just balance the budget by cutting arts and music programs in schools.

If you morons deported all the illegals, you wouldn't have any problem. I moved from CA 5 years ago because I could see how the illegals were wrecking it, with help from all you bleeding-heart liberals. Just because the facts don't fit into your la-la multicultural rainbow diversity fantasy land, doesn't make them less true. Sorry suckas! I hope you enjoy all those new taxes- the illegals need your money to use your hospitals and schools and welfare system!

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.

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

John, you obviously don't know many teachers. They start their day at 7 a.m. and spend until at least 4 p.m. in their classrooms every day. Then they go home at night with hours and hours of papers to grade. Many work in year round districts and lots teach summer school. They spend their own money on classroom supplies. Some of the high school teachers in LAUSD have 50 kids in a class. This is truly demanding and very important work.

Phony Tony isn't worth $10,000 per year let alone the $400,000 that he and Audra milk the system for every year. Nevertheless, taxes are already higher than any other State and California government needs to make adjustments. Socialism has gotten a stranglehold on Democracy in California. Tough times require tough action and too many people have gotten too much from government over the years. If this budget passes, nothing will change other than the further deterioration of California; it is just a matter of time.

Watching the video I noticed that Steinberg couldn't bring himself to say the word taxes but instead uses "revenue" over and over again. Maybe if Steinberg said "taxes" he would better feel what many Californians feel. Taxes are already very high and other revenue streams should be pursued. Unfortunately, The Democrats appear to only know taxation.

Most professions have preparation time built into their schedules. For example, police officers are paid for training, which is clearly preparation for their work. Firefighters get paid to make sure all of their equipment is ready at the fire station. Chefs get paid to get the kitchen in order.

Some teachers work longer than others, but most teachers do not work only 6 hours a day. I find the anti-education and hatred of teachers odd when the same people ignore the fact that local public safety workers have had raise after raise in the last few years.

Marie,

What do you think of Sen. Abel Maldonaldo's proposal that lawmakers not be paid if the budget is not passed on time and not be paid until the budget is passed.

Democrats don't like the idea.

Kara,
Very cool path you are on.

Agree it is a perfect storm with many moving parts. But the people in the Ventura phone book and yellow pages are the smart ones that will figure this out. The Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Duke folks are math challenged about loaning $700,000 to folks with $60,000 incomes for a house worth $299K. The guys and gals in the phone book will lead us out of this.

High-end Viking ranges are made in Greenwood, Miss. Japanese and Europeans put car plants across the south. Good business climate. When oil spikes again (cause CA is too cool to drill), transport costs will bring many factories home. The market will help correct this.

President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have complete control of Iraq and Afghanistan policy. Your guy has not made those funds available. Sorry, keep tightening.

The paradox of savings is interesting. When you save money in your bank, it is capitalized...flush with capital when the community saves. To a Keynesian it is a paradox because it cuts out the middle man called the government. You have saved and you feel empowered to spend. The bank lends. The Federal Reserve and Chairman Frank are cut out except for the basic traffic laws of money flow. So the Keynesians like to say paradox of savings because they do things bass-ackwards and don't get paid for recommending savings.

I agree the economy will not rebound quickly from the stimulus. Out of 114 million households, 200 representatives, probably really just a couple of dozen, agreed to borrow $800 billion from the economy and the Chinese, put the IOU on the under '30s, and target some good ideas. The alternative was to immediately signal to 114 million households and 5,000 corporations that they could predict a lower tax drag for 2-3 years and could immediately increase the velocity of money. This sets off an acceleration on the $14 trillion economy. Instead, the CBO signals that taking $800 billion out of other investments will produce a drag in 2011. Tighten your belt. Evidence? The CA Legislative study you cite above documents the highest revenue growth rates to government from '80 to '91.

And it is not fair that Reagan gets all the credit for the robust growth and fixing the 10% unemployment rate. The Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil drove the tax reduction package through the majority Democrat Congress. Bi-Partisan.

John said: Our tax burden is already too high--no new taxes. Balance the budget by cutting expenditures, including education.

Okay, John, let's not add any new taxes but rather restore the old taxes that helped make California a state that everyone wanted to live and work in rather that a state on the brink of insolvency. Start with the Vehicle License tax and bring it back to the level that it stood at for 50 years(!) -- equal to 2% of a car or truck's values. This would raise more than $5 billion a year.

Then we can go back to the way things were under Gov. Reagan. As Occidental professor Peter Dreier noted recently: "Currently, 4.4 percent of the state's personal income is spent on public schools. If that number were increased to the 5.6 percent level in 1972, when Ronald Reagan was governor, the state would take in an additional $22 billion. Although he was a conservative Republican , Reagan actually raised taxes while he was governor. In fact, his tax increase of $1 billion on a $6 billion budget was proportionately the biggest tax increase in California history."

I say let's do things the way the conservatives did under their beloved Reagan. Only, Reagan was a real leader and wasn't beholding to the tobacco and alcohol industries and running scared from the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh and Coulter the way the current Republican state legislators are.

John also said: "Teachers work 6 hours a day (one of those hours is a prep period-wouldn't we all like a prep period in our jobs) for 180 days - that's 1080 hours. A full time job is 2040 hours. 1st year teachers are paid at least $36,000 ($33 an hour)- most get much more. Many teachers top out at $80,000 ($74 an hour) to $90,000 with the best benefits in the world (look at Fullerton School District salaries). Don't increase my taxes until you reduce their pay."

If teaching is such an obviously plum job that is compensated so richly for such little relative labor (not to mention expensive college degrees and credentials), why aren't there hundreds of applications for every public school opening? Why do many districts have to resort to uncredentialed long-term substitutes to fill their openings year after year?

Oh, that's right, it's because most people wouldn't touch teaching in most public schools with a ten-foot pole. It's a difficult job to perform well under any circumstances, made more difficult with changing socio-economic demographics and the decay of the nuclear family combined with a general lack of respect for authority and parents who believe their children can do no wrong. The only thing you will accomplish by lowering teacher salaries is to further dissuade competent applicants from evening thinking about dedicating their work lives to such a difficult job.

And by the way, don't public sector jobs such as teaching continue to operate in the private sector job market, competing for qualified employee candidates along with all the other employers in the economy? It's not like some job genie comes down from the sky and appoints babies at birth to a future lifetime of "feeding at the public trough" and nobody else need bother to apply.

If teaching is such an obvious plum job, then it should be a no-brainer, John, for you to go down to your local district office and fill out the necessary application forms to teach 3rd grade or 11th grade science or whatever else suits your fancy.

What are you waiting for. You could become rich for so little effort!

Kara, you say that my comments offer nothing constructive. Perhaps what you find constructive are those comments with which you agree? I was born in Los Angeles and have lived here for 44 years. I know what's going on. The illegal alien population (including children born to illegals) is draining us. We clothe, feed, house, educate, and provide medical care to them. I've read this costs CA more than $10 billion annually. As for the govt, it's bloated and must be cut back. The avg private sector company offers less than 10 days of paid holidays, but govt offers many more. The avg private sector employee works much harder than the avg govt employee. Most people know this, and this is why most Californians are outraged at the massive tax increases being proposed right now. I'll accept state tax increases that don't exceed the tax cuts from the federal spending package. If I'm going to save $400 per year from the feds, then I'll allow CA to take roughly $400 more from me. But the current tax proposal would take more than $2000 out of my pocket, and it's too much. If this massive tax increase is approved, you'll see more and more decent people leaving CA while the moochers and takers stay.

Great post, Melissa, as usual. Yes, both Reagan and Wilson raised state taxes.

Daniel, I heard from a very reliable source that Maldonado wanted an open primary on the ballot in exchange for a budget vote. Steinberg and Bass rejected this, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Let's talk about the subprime mess, because this is what caused the current financial crisis. Facts:

1977: Jimmy Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Its goal was to eliminate discrimination sometimes found at lending institutions. It was not enforced though.

1995: Bill Clinton beefed up the CRA, and in 1998 began forcing banks/lenders to provide loans to people with low income and/or bad credit.

1995-2005: Barack Obama teamed up with groups like ACORN and threatened lenders to provide risky loans or face punishment from the feds. Fannie/Freddie subsequently purchased these risky loans.

2003-2005: Congressional Republicans and Alan Greenspan warned of problems at Fannie/Freddie, but the Democrats resisted, particularly Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and every black Congress member.

2006: The housing market began to collapse.

2009: Obama, the man who helped create the subprime mess, is now our president.

As for ACORN, it's now marching into banks and forcing them to do loan mods for the very same people it forced banks to provide loans to.

Robert,
Those particular Limbaugh talking points are stale in addition to being contextually irrelevant to the problems we've got in California this very day; they've been circulating through "the internets" since before October. If you are going to try to change the subject you ought to at least break out the fresher TARP talking points.

I'd rather stick to the focus of Marie's post: the problem with Republican state lawmakers who would rather run our state off the cliff for pie-in-the-sky, misbegotten far-right principles (that even the most conservative leading forefathers in our state's history would disown) than educate their constituents about the truth of our situation, i.e. that no-new tax pledges are quaint and completely irresponsible now and that compromise is not only necessary but a mature approach to impending disaster.

The Republicans at the national level have worked themselves into a caricature of irrelevance and are patting themselves on the back for sticking to their guns, all the while bleeding constituents back home and becoming more and more isolated due to a dearth of actual ideas and a plethora of failed policy talking points (check out the recent poll numbers of folks who are dissatisfied with their Republican congressmen and women). The same is happening at the state level, and the only lifeline the Stricklands and their ilk have these days is gerrymandering and the 2/3rds voting requirement to pass the budget or raise taxes. As one of just four states that have that inane requirement, I think their lifeline is getting pretty thin.

This embarrassing fiasco is just what is needed to get a new ballot issue before voters. Call it “The People’s Initiative to Limit Extreme Minority Virtual Veto Power,� in honor of the 31st anniversary of Prop. 13, of course.

I've never listened to Limbaugh, so please don't be presumptuous. It seems we have a significant difference in our values, which means we could argue forever and ever. I believe the Senators who are fighting the massive tax increases are heroes. It's not because I listen to Limbaugh or anyone else, it's because that's what I believe. Call me a rightwinger, or call me something else, but I truly believe that our govt is wasting our tax dollars, and I hope they make drastic spending cuts.

Melissa, I don't know where you got your poll results from. You said, "check out the recent poll numbers of folks who are dissatisfied with their Republican congressmen and women." According to the most recent poll from Rasmussen Reports (RR), support for Democrats is falling. According to RR, 40% said they'd vote for the Dem and 39% for the Rep. Back in September it was 50% Dem and 32% Rep. RR is a credible source, so what polling source are you using?

Many, many obviously correct and intelligent comments here! Interesting read.

I cannot add to this list; it was all said after my first posting, although I had similar response.

My 15-year old son was accompanying me to read some comments and the article, and he said, "Papa...why don't they just have a clean-sweep of everybody and start over with folks who are economists, mathematicians and other experts who can control budgets and expenditures." I said it would be a good thing if it was possible, but under our system in the US, it is not that way, although this mess gets worse with every year that goes on it seems. The whole financial and economical infrastructure is out of control and everybody seems to be the blame for it...from the darned "top down".

Kind of reminds me of the movie "The Time Machine". It's going to be that some of us will revert to the depths of the earth, (Morlocks) using those who remain living on top of the earth (Eloy's) for slaves and food. Looks like it's already happening.

*John King*

Boy, your reference to the TIME MACHINE is ironic. I have been comparing the "good folk" of this planet to those who are myopic and tunnel-visioned for quite some time! The good news is that there are many more good people than the other. The bad news is that assembling everyone together to do something is difficult because people seldom want to get involved in their own lives.

And I love your son's observations. Why don't we recall everyone who has had a hand in this budget impasse. Wait, would that be everyone or just those who voted for it?

Simply stated, we should do what we can to repeal the 2/3 majority vote. what an anathma!!!

Here are the two polls that I was referring to:

"Obama Up, Republicans down in Gallup Poll:
More than two thirds of the American public approve President Obama's handling of efforts to pass an economic stimulus package, while less than a third approve actions by Republicans in Congress, according to a new Gallup Poll.

In a nationwide survey, taken during the first week of February, Gallup asked adults if they approved or disapproved of Obama's efforts on economic stimulus, and those of Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Obama received the highest marks by far, an approval rating more than twice that of President Bush when he left office on January 20.

Sixty-seven percent approved of Obama's efforts, just 25 percent disapproved, with eight percent offering no opinion.

Democrats in Congress scored a 48 percent approval rating, with 42 percent of those surveyed disapproving actions by Congress' majority party. Ten percent voiced no opinion.

The Republicans in Congress garnered an approval rating of just 31 percent, with 58 percent disapproving and 11 percent giving no opinion."http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/161625.asp
-----------
And also this from Research 2000 (2/9 to 2/12)
Favorable opinion of Dem. Party = 56%
Favorable opinion of Rep. Party = 31%
Favorable opinion of Congressional Dems = 39%
FAvorable opinion of Congressional Repubs = 19%

That 19% is not a lot to hang your hat on.

Melissa, I read the "Obama Up, Republicans down in Gallup Poll" blog. Dems in Congress get 48% approval, Reps get 31%. So which source is more reliable, Gallup or Rasmussen Reports (RR)?

I'll presume for a moment that Gallup is a more credible source. But RR clearly indicates that that the trend is in favor of the Republicans:

02/08/09: Dem 40%, Rep 39%
09/07/08: Dem 45%, Rep 37%
09/04/07: Dem 50%, Rep 32%

If RR conducts its surveys the same way week after week, then it's pretty clear that the Congressional Dems are losing support.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot

Marie,

I want to thank you for the service you provide by having conservatives and others vent their frustrations on your blog.

Thanks,

Brian Dennert

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/

My guess is that even if this budget passes, all those caterwauling in these comments for more cuts will be shocked at how much has been cut and how badly services degrade. Be careful what you wish for! Too bad we can't just close the DMV in those districts represented by Republican Senators (oh yeah, thats us!) or in those towns that voted Republican.

You hate government so much, why participate, Strickland? Get a job doing something you believe in!

Proceed with the cuts:

Fire 20,000 state employees
Reduce paid holidays to 10 per year
Reduce paid vacation to:
2 weeks for the first 5 years of employment
3 weeks for 5-10 years
4 weeks for more than 10 years
No longer allow state employees to collectively bargain
Deny benefits to illegal aliens

Let's bring common sense to our government.

Vote Tony Strickland out of office. He is showboating at the expense of all of California. He made the dumbest statement today that with passage of the legislation, we "will be just like Detroit." Please note, our jobless rate is almost dead even with Michigan. Leave Strickland. Try to make Maldonado the HERO. It only takes one. I belong to a percentage of people who will pay the most tax. But I'd rather pay the deficit off at $42b rather than $75b, which is what it's going to be if these legislators don't DO SOMETHING!!!

LonghornMama and some others seem to think it's those pesky Republicans that are causing all the problems. Gee, wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats have all the power, and then everything would be great. Raise taxes? OK. Avoid solving problems? OK. Out-of-control spending? OK. Vote Democrat Vote Democrat Vote Democrat Vote Democrat

The Republican leaders said it was the best budget they could negotiate. That means that the budget passed today, tomorrow, or next week will be the same. The difference is that everyday Republicans don't give in to what they will eventually vote for more jobs are lost and more chaos in the economy is allowed to happen.

The Republican leaders BDH is referring to are Mike Villines and Dave Cogdill. The vast majority of Republicans in the Assembly and Senate obviously disagree with their leaders, so they must negotiate a more palatable compromise. There's so much fat and waste that can be removed, so let's give the minority party an opportunity to inject some common sense into the budget. Everyone is blaming the Republicans for holding things up, but let's not forget that the Dems are just as stubborn because they have refused to accept more spending cuts. Again, we're talking about values. Liberals want fewer spending cuts and higher taxes, Republicans want the opposite. But if you look carefully at the benefits state employees receive and compare those to benefits received in the private sector, it's clear there's more fat that can be trimmed. If we simply accept the massive tax increases, we'll be faced with similar situations again and again. The next budget may ask for a 10% sales tax, another 77% increase in vehicle registration, 25 cents per gallon on gasoline, and so on. Significant changes are needed, and now is a good time to force change.

S&P futures are trading down at 807.40, which means there should be some good long opportunities on the opening bell tomorrow if this weakness continues overnight. :)

I afraid the “budget impasse architect team" cited here is a little light. Labor unions are also on the team by making similar threats to Dems who support spending restraints and budget cuts as well as overtime and meal period reforms which are desperately needed and would allow Reps some wiggle room.

One might want ask what State Senator Lou Correa (D) of Santa Ana thinks of taking a no new tax pledge to get elected.
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/02/11/state-budget-will-lou-correa-vote-for-taxes/13272/

Norquist, etal. threaten Reps while the SEIU and Steinburg threaten Dems.

Short and sweet this time.

Tax increases have never directly resulted in any form of economic salvation. Ever.

Pass a budget, please, but don't raise taxes. And since both Reagan and Wilson raised taxes that means that our taxes should be high enough already!

The difference being that Democrats have agreed to massive cuts in education and social services despite being pressured. The Education Coalition took a "no cuts" stance.

Dems also agreed to tax credits for multinational corporations, not something we can afford now.

Dow Jones futures are down 100 points for tomorrow. Perhaps just noise but..

John Mauldin thinks the best consensus prediction is:
S&P earnings for all 500 companies will be $55 dollars. A recession level Price to Earnings of x12 puts the S&P at 660.

That's about a 20% decrease from here.

Spot price for Gold just jumped from 935 to $950...oops now $955 USD in Hong Kong, 8:00 PM PST. (kitco.com)

Global markets, several hundred thousand traders are pricing in a deflationary dumping of debt (deleveraging).

What is driving it?

-subprimes and European US housing market
-wounded US banks
-wounded European banks
-rapid drop in exports for Asia
-50% sales drop for Detroit last month
-35% sales drop for other automakers
-State governments spending at 3 times the -economic growth rate...outrunning revenue
-Countries of Pakistan,Ukraine,Spain, Turkey,Ireland near default
-Iceland showing the way
-CA uncertainty??

High marginal tax rates correlate with economic growth.

Examples include World War II and the Truman-Eisenhower years, when it was around 90 percent, and the Clinton years, when it was high relative to the preceding and following administrations.

Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth.

Examples include Hoover in 1932, Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940, Bush the Elder in 1991 and Clinton in1993.

Large tax cuts are followed by a boom, a bubble and a crash.

1929, 1987 and 2008 are examples.

Note to Abel, 'pork' is in the eye of the beholder. $800,000 in new office furniture for Comptroller Chaing is pork, but huge destructive tax givaways to multinational corporations (the ones that give to Strickland BTW) are not? Get real.

And thanks, 'Not haha'. Let's finally let some facts get in the way.

Not haha's facts? I suggest you read the blog he copied his post almost verbatim from:
http://www.alternet.org/story/106979/why_the_economy_grows_like_crazy_amid_high_taxes/?page=entire

Since cutting and pasting random blogs seems to qualify as "fact" gathering, I will cut and paste from one of the comments on the blog:

A) Actually, tax receipts have increased every year since the Bush Tax Cuts. The Laffer Curve doesn't claim to promote economic growth. It applies to tax revenues.

B) Your use of your own experience might apply to you, but does not necessarily apply to all. In the face of extraordinarily high taxes, some business owners might invest in business, others might find loopholes, of which there were very, very many in the pre-Reagan high tax era. So really any evidence you give about high tax rates stimulating growth are shoddy at best considering the 70-90% rates were never real tax rates. People dodged around them like Barry Sanders.

C) There was no real economic growth in 30s. It was all funded by the Federal Government. Unemployment was still sky high, and people were still generally miserable. Just because GDP falsely went up, it doesn't mean FDRs had a positive effect on the economy. Also, I don't know how you threw '36 into the mix of "economic growth" we hit another GDP contraction in '37.

D) JFK cut taxes mildly to positive effect.

E) Boom and bust are the naturaly part of an economy. They cannot be, nor have they ever been prevented by high tax rates.

F) The economy tanked after in '92. Then it was so bad after Clinton raised taxes in '93, the Republicans were swept into Congress on promises of cutting taxes.

Clinton then cut taxes. This created a boom, bubble and bust. This happened in spite of the fact that tax rates were higher than they had been in the previous decade.

Not haha,
I was going to leave this alone because I have made my arguments on this blog before.

But if you are trying to directly contradict me, then I must respond.

Correlation does not imply causation. No point arguing that with me, its a fact. Poverty doesn't cause obesity, but poorer people have a higher rate of obesity. The number of firefighters on scene correlates with increased damage, but based on your logic, that means the the firefighters are the ones causing damage. Here are a few more examples of your logic: Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime. With a decrease in the number of pirates we have seen an increase in global warming over the same time period. Therefore, global warming is caused by a lack of pirates.

You just referenced World War II as a tax increase. That is called "war economy", and it was the industrial boom needed to supply the war effort, even before December of '39, when we were supplying the Brits and the French.

The Clinton Years? Seriously, do you live under a rock in a cave on Mars with a radio that only plays NPR? Two bubbles developed during those years. Do the words "Dot Com" bring back any memories? How about "Real Estate"? Virtual economic growth for a short period of time, and increased spending and taxes in times of wealth that developed into crises level state poverty in harsh economic years.

Truman-Eisenhower- THE KOREAN WAR.

"Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth." Where is your data? I'm not talking about names and years (which is spin at best, and ignorance at worst), I want to know your numbers. How much of Bush Sr.'s tax increase went to Social Welfare? Oh, and there was DESERT STORM.

You have no evidence, and your claims are false. If anything you've shown that war causes economic development. Not taxes. Study history before you start making claims about the past. If you don't want to be called on it, then don't contradict me, because I won't put up with people who don't know what they're talking about telling me how I should think. Your argument is a logical fallacy. Do you think if we raise taxes enough we'll end up in a war, and we can make it out of this mess? Large tax cuts have no negative effect on the market only on the government deficit. And that is only because of the unwillingness of the liberals to cut spending, and labeling lessened planned increases in spending as "cuts" in funding to scare the public into thinking you can save them from upcoming doom, and now that we've borrowed and spent ourselves into bankruptcy your answer is to put the tab on the citizen, most of whom have never used Any form of social welfare, and many who pay twice to send their child to private school to save them from the horrible education system in California. Fiscal responsibility isn't a 4 year/8 year cycle, it should be all the time, had we saved some of the money from the supposed "bubble" years, we would have the money to cover the lack of economic growth over the past 8 years. You can try to blame people who have been rightfully elected to represent a constituency that voted for a candidate who promised not to raise taxes, How dare you guys be so intolerant of people who stick to what they campaigned on?

I teach English at an inner city high school and it is by far the most stressful, overwhelming and many times most rewarding job I've ever had but before reading the comments on this blog, I had no idea I had it so good. Good ol' Frank can barely contain himself, teaching is so easy.

So, here's a proposition and I make it on Marie's blog. To all who think teaching is a job that lets one live off the government trough while leaving ample time to enjoy the good life, I say this: teach my kids. I'm not only talking to Frank O., John and Mr. Rudolph; I'm talking to anyone who thinks that our passing periods are free time, that conference periods are an hour of idle relaxation. During such times, I thought I was pretty busy reflecting on my practice, grading an endless number of papers... but little did I know how easy it all was. So, is it fair of me to enjoy hoarding at the government trough? Not at all.

It's your turn, gentlemen.

You teach my kids for a week. You'll be paid my exorbitant salary and it'll come out of my pocket--and it should, right? What I would've gotten in a job you clearly think is just a step removed from welfare, you now receive. I'll even make sure there's a credentialed person in the room who will not say a thing while you are doing the easiest job in the whole wide world--teaching (it's the law--a credentialed person must be in the room at all times).

My real name and real e-mail address are entered with this comment. I am Clay Landon (Mr. Landon to my students). Contact me, we'll set up the week you'll be teaching.

Easiest job in the world, right? Practically a vacation. I'm sure you'll be in touch.

Hi Clay,

Great post. Your email address doesn't appear publicly on this site when you enter it in, but if somebody emails me and volunteers to be "Mr. Landon for a Week" I will pass it on.

Somehow I don't think you'll have any takers.

My volunteer shifts in my children's classrooms have been enough to tell me that you folks really earn your pay!

Thanks for posting.

Do any Republicans here remember the "Ownership Society"?

There's video on Youtube that shows Bush the Lesser pushing this notion year after year at SOU addresses and elsewhere. The "Ownership Society" was sold by again and again by "conservative" pundits right here in pages the Ventura County Star.

It's a myth that the subprime crisis was caused by Democrats, the CRA or any other "Fair Housing" initiative.

BushCheney Inc. lowered interest rates to reckless levels in order to fabricate an illusion of prosperity. Wall Street and the Building industry took the ball and ran with it. Republican politicians and think tank mercenaries sold the idea that everyone should own a home to a gullible public.

The current ReDepression is the direct result of tax cuts, reduced regulation, and Republican support for shameless "get rich quick" schemes.

Here's a well-researched article from the New York Times which tracks the financial crisis and shows how the Bush administration pushed bad lending practices while accepting contributions from the makers of subprime loans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1229853618-X4MjhPFc17dv81USSo%20pIw

Marie,
please email Mr.Landon and let him know that I would be more than happy to teach social studies to his class for a week. I would do it for free too. I think most individual teachers make some great sacrifices, and truly care about their student even when they are faced with some serious difficulties. It is the teachers' union, like all unions that cause an outpouring of misguided hostility. In most cases union members only join because it is expected (required) to collectively seek more benefits and hire pay, as there is strength in numbers. When the union grows too large, and membership is "automatic", you have huge sums of money to lobby with. Teachers will always want more supplies and salary, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is the manner in which they go about getting it. "Strickland wants schools to fail". Anyone who actually believes that is drinking as much of the "kool-aid" as the Rush listening neo-conservatives.

JohnJ,
The regulators who were in charge of Financial oversight were mostly appointed by Clinton, and not dismissed by Bush when he took office, as a reach across the aisle, a pandering gesture.

The chairman of the Board of governors of the Federal Reserve, which is not part of the executive branch, so your argument doesn't make any sense about interest rates.

What are "get rich schemes"? What's the economic definition of a "ReDepression"? What's wrong with wanting to own your own home?

4:22AM PST. Dow Jones futures = -154
Spot gold +2.2%% to $962 in London

CNN assesses:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks are poised to open significantly lower on Tuesday, as investors worry that the new stimulus plan - expected to be signed into law later in the day - won't help breathe new life into the economy.

At 5:25 a.m. ET, the Dow Jones industrial average, S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures were lower with a comparison to fair value, suggesting a dismal start on Wall Street.

If and when the stimulus works, thousands of traders assessing 10,000 companies across US,Asia, EU will see orders move, revenue direction change, positive announcements.

Presently Mr Market does not see that nor how the Stimulus deal MIGHT do that.

OK, here's an idea: Revive Proposition 56.

Prop. 56 called for a 55% vote to pass a state budget and would have penalized the governor and legislature by docking their pay for each day that California's budget was late late. Back in 2004, it went down in flames by something like 34% to 64%---but then again, George Bush also re-elected that year.

That was then, this is now. Like Bush and his horrible second term, I think the ensuing period of time may have helped change many voters' minds about the consequences of voting down this particular idea. It's time to chuck the tyranny of the minority.

Face it, the supermajority for the budget is a whacked out idea that's been tried and proven to be a disaster---much like Bush's second term. The republicans in the state legislature have overreached, just like their counterparts in Congress did. It's time to make them politically irrelevant.

If not, they'll continue to cripple California. It's time to get 56 back before the voters.

Bush did push bad lending practices, but those practices had been put in place by Bill Clinton and were later aggressively pushed by ACORN and Obama. If Bush had had any guts, he would have signed an executive order to put an end to CRA affirmative action. The following clip shows Andrew Cuomo in 1998 describing the details of Clinton's plan to give the CRA teeth. Listen to Cuomo as he constantly admits that the loans to be pushed are RISKY. So yes, Bush didn't do his part to put an end to irresponsible lending, but it was Clinton, Democrats, Obama and ACORN who watered the seeds that were planted by Carter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

The following clip shows Congressional Republicans trying to solve the problems at Fannie/Freddie several years ago, but every single Democrat fought back and claimed there was no problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

After Bill Clinton gave the green light, ACORN forced banks across the nation to make risky loans. After the housing market collapsed, ACORN went to those same banks and tried to force them to do loan mods. See the following clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJpnNVe2d_8

Wow, I take a holiday from posting and the blog explodes. It is great to see new faces and new comments.

Mr. Landon, thank you for your service. I also see heroic efforts in my son's teachers in the Conejo Valley.

RobertRudolph--I consider myself to be open-minded and will change my position when I am persuaded by valid arguments. I find your broad-brush, attacking comments unconstructive because they are unsupported by facts. Take this gem: "The avg private sector employee works much harder than the avg govt employee." Where is your study to back up a statement like that? Actually, when I do a simple search on the Google, I find exactly the opposite of what you claim. Here's the link:
http://arp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/1/36

Unfortunately, the paper is pay-to-read, but the abstract is clear on the author's findings: govt employees work harder, and that increased effort may be based on different value sets than private sector workers. I think we've seen the value sets of certain private sector employees (Wall Street bankers and certain peanut company owners, for example) put into practice, and the results are not pretty.

Here's a comparison of public vs. private that finds that private-sector employees play hooky just as much as public-sector.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2008/09/02/whos-lazier-bureaucrats-or-you

The article is lean on specifics, so it's hard to draw any firm conclusions, but it seems pretty clear that your claim holds no water.

I'll even give you some anecdotal evidence as a sweetener. I've worked for years at a consulting firm based on the east coast that serves many government agencies. Yes, my company offered two or so less paid holidays than the fed govt did, but that was because my company is for-profit--you can't bill the government for work if your employees are on holiday. The EPA and FDA managers and scientists I dealt with all worked 12+-hour days and weekends. And when Bush starved them over the last 8 years to pay for his war they did it with less money, less support staff, and less resources. I was paid more than the government employees with which I interacted every day, even those with the same education and years of experience that I have. I won't bore the readers with the long list of other perks I got that govt employees were not offered.

In summary, I find that people work for the government for many reasons, but the majority do it out of a sense of service and a desire to contribute to the overall good of our country. They want to make a difference, and they believe they can. Ironically, they're willing to accept a lower pay grade, no stock options, no bonuses, and few perks in trade.

Amusing to watch these GOP apologists try to blame Clinton, Carter and a president who has only been in office a month for the last 8 years of irresponsible national Republican rule. Move on. Your guy and his "heckuva job Brownie" appointees screwed up every single thing they touched.

So now we're faced with a mess which has caused widespread financial failures, massive job layoffs and is now causing our state to make tough decisions, too.

Yes, the state Democrats need to work on reforms. But a minority element spurred on by extremists is causing state workers to be laid off and nearly $400 million in state dollars to be lost by halting construction projects.

These minority Republicans multiplied the problems by refusing to deal with reality in budget after budget. Now they are more worried about their own political hides than doing the right thing.

No wonder the GOP is a party in decline.

Kara, the article you provided is not proof that public employees work harder than those in the private sector. The article you provided is five years old, data from 1989 was used, and there was no measure of output or productivity.

I'm not saying that ALL govt employees are lazy, or that ALL private sector employees work their butts off. But the private sector is driven by competition, and this results in a more demanding workday for the average employee. I am right on this, and see no reason to dig up evidence to prove my point.

8 years of disaster,

You need to wake up and look at the facts. I'm not blaming Obama for what he's done since becoming president. I'm criticizing him for what he did long before he was even voted into the Senate. Bush and the GOP were far from perfect, but you have to consider what they were handed and give credit where credit is due. The stock market bubble collapsed less than one year before Bush took office, he inherited a recession, and then had to deal with the 9/11 attacks the same year. He had a very difficult job. Could he have done a better job? Perhaps, but could anyone from the Dem party have done a better job? I doubt it.

As for CA's problems, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame the Republicans for that too. But take off your leftist hat for a moment and think about this. You have a choice between firing 20,000 workers or forcing tens of millions of people in the private sector to suffer from extreme taxation. It's a no-brainer, so start pruning now.

Marty,

Interesting you bring up Speaker O'Neill.
One thing Pres. Reagan was good at was compromise. He understood how things worked in Washington--I want this, what do I have to give you in order to get it? That's how things got done. While I hate Reagan's economic and social policies, he did know the art of the deal, and he conducted politics with a smile (well, when he was lucid, that is, in his first term). Those days are gone, both on the fed and state level.

Republicans are punished for being moderate (Collins and Snowe are attacked for voting for the stimulus, and moderate Republicans get attacked in CA by Strickland and his cabal). Compromise is a dirty word, and Republicans only talk about wanting bipartisanship when they don't have control of the House or Senate. Funny, seems to me that Democrats relinquished a lot in both the stimulus bill and the state budget bill and still got slapped for the effort.

Robert,

"I'm not saying that ALL govt employees are lazy, or that ALL private sector employees work their butts off. But the private sector is driven by competition, and this results in a more demanding workday for the average employee. I am right on this, and see no reason to dig up evidence to prove my point."

Well, one thing you definitely are Robert, is arrogant. Frankly, a five year old paper with research trumps your opinion any day. And again, your unwillingness to provide anything other than your bloviations proves my earlier point, which is that your comments are unconstructive.
Your posts will no doubt find a more receptive audience at RedState, LGF, or with Michelle Malkin.

Kara,

The Democrats in Congress gave us a so-called stimulus package that is junk, and the Republicans tried to make it better. The Democrats in CA are doing the same thing. You can claim that the Republicans are playing partisan politics, but I'm glad they're not willing to accept the garbage that the Dems are proposing. Do the math on the federal spending package and on the proposed CA budget. None of it makes sense. Obama wants to give the avg American $400, but we're going to spend a trillion dollars for this. And the Dems in CA want to make 99% of working adults pay dearly just so that 20,000 jobs can be saved. It's all nonsense.

8 years,

Bush is as much responsible as Carter for the problem we're in now. As soon as everyone stops pointing fingers, and actually fix the problem, if that's even possible now, then we will all be happy as much we are upset now.

You don't cause an economic crisis in 8 years, no matter how hard you try. The same problem with California applies nationally, unfortunately. Our spending is more than our tax revenue. That means we need to spend less, and figure out how to be more efficient. Would you walk into your bosses office and ask for a raise because the price of your dodger tickets went up? Or would you ask a church for charity because you can't afford that new BMW? The fact is: as one of the most wealthy nations in the world, we feel compelled to take care of those who are without living in our country regardless of their nationality, or particular situation. Now that we are poor, we need to give up on "eating out" for however long it takes to get back to Zero at least, then we should still not over spend until there is enough money in the treasury(savings account) to make up for 30 bad economic quarters. The government may have better credit than the citizen, but they still have to pay interest.

Kara, John,
Some teachers are lazy, horrible human beings, just like some cops are, and some politicians, and some zoo keepers, and some high school students. Some are dedicated, and sacrificing, like some cops...etc. There is no rule that defines how hard a person actually works. Theoretically, capitalism causes an increase in efficiency rather than an increase in hours worked, or "how hard" you work. I'm sure both of you have heard the phrase, "work smarter, not harder" That's capitalism. Of course, so is "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'".

Ha ha,

People are people are people. You're going to have good and bad in everything. I certainly understand that. I don't think efficiency is the issue here, because workers in the private sector and public both are doing the jobs of multiple workers due to cuts. You can't tell me govt workers surf the web on company time any more than private employees do. And yes, there are ways to determine how hard people actually work and how effective they are. One metric for a legislator is how much legislation they get passed during a term, and how that legislation will impact their constituents. Audra Strickland's own website does not have one bill that she introduced or got passed in the Assembly for 2007 or 2008. Also, she does not list any news or photos of herself in the community. Is she not here? By the Assemblywoman's own admission, she is ineffective. There's an example of a free-loading government worker, but the voters of this district apparently wanted that, because they re-elected her. Same thing with her husband. That's why so many of the comments from the Republicans in Ventura County are so obviously hypocritical. Welfare moms are leeches, but the Stricklands are honorable, hard-working people. What a laugh!

I object to scapegoating any particular work group because of political expediency. One party wants to blame the country's ills on undocumented workers, but I don't see a long line of these party members looking for jobs picking strawberries and avocados. Nor do I see them arguing for higher prices for produce in order to sustain a living wage for US citizens, or fighting Big Ag, which continually lobbies to keep its low-paid non-US-citizen workers. Again, more hypocrisy.

I'm all for the state cutting programs, and I'm all for eliminating fraud and waste. Who wants to go first? Someone please tell me where the huge amounts of waste are in the CA budget, because the Republican caucus doesn't specify them on its website. Steinberg couldn't get a budget last night, and the Gov. is stopping all public works projects. Hope I'm not driving on one of those bridges and roads in LA that needs earthquake-proofing. Niello, if he votes with the Dems, will pay the price when he runs for the Senate, because elephants have long memories, right? The pink slips Gov. Bodybuilder is holding will get passed out real soon. When Audra and Tony are willing to furlough themselves, I'll become a believer.

Kara,
I liked the Reagan policies that:
-Increased CA tax revenues 7% a yr.
-Unemployment from 10% to 5%.
-stock market 1,000 to 3,000, 200%.
- flummoxed the USSR.
- In the spirit of compromise, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

As Melissa pointed out earlier in this thread, Reagan signed off on a $1 billion tax increase on a $6 billion annual budget, which was, percentage wise, the biggest tax increase in CA history.

Wilson came in during the beginning of a recession. He ended up with a $14 billion deficit. In 1991 he proposed a budget with $7.3 billion in new taxes and $7 billion in spending cuts. It helped and I believe most of those taxes were rolled back.

Then came the dot com boom and a lot of tax credits were doled out and the VLF was cut. The dot coms went bust and when Davis tried to pull the built-in trigger to raise the VLF, he was sent packing.

The first thing Schwarzenegger did was cut it and, as I wrote above, it's a $6 billion annual spending program because local governments must be reimbursed for their portion of the VLF. He also promised to quit the borrowing and of course that didn't work out, either.

Right now, if we closed the deficit through spending cuts alone, state government would grind to a halt. It's just not doable. But I understand if you don't want to take my word for it. Here's a great article that explains it better than I do. Someone else also left this link. Read it.

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

Marty,

I had in mind his myopic adherence to trickle-down economics, which failed miserably, and his refusal to apply any public health dollars to stopping the spread of HIV, which contributed strongly to the loss of a whole generation of men and women in this country.

Marie,

I agree with you. CA needs to reinstate the VLF, and they need to increase gas taxes. This country pays ridiculously low gas prices compared to the rest of the developed nations and we pay the price in streets and highways that need to be repaired much more often and in increased mortality and morbidity due to pollutants.

Come on Kara, CA tax revenue grew at 7% per year in the Reagan years, and 5% per year under Clinton....both pretty good...in the data you cite. Reagan doubled revenues to the Federal government to $1 trillion USD. To say he myopically relied on trickle down is to repeat what you have been taught.

What was CA's reputation under Reagan? Would you like to compare the press from his era with today's image as a Democratic paradise under 64% Democratic rule?

Marty,

I was too young to vote when Reagan was Prez. Sad to say I wasn't interested in politics then. I couldn't tell you what CA's reputation was under Reagan, and I'm not a CA native. I do know that I'm one of the few in this county who don't worship at the altar of Reagan. To me, the long-lasting negatives he and his VP foisted on this country due to Iran-Contra far outweigh any good he may have done and I give Gorbachev the vast majority of the credit for the wall being torn down. That's anathema to most Californians, and all Republicans, I know, but there it is.

Kara,

OK, fairly stated. I do find your sense of proportion....curious. The damage done by Iran-Contra accrued more to Reagan himself than to the country. Meanwhile Reagan,Thatcher and John Paul stood down the USSR. Poland, E Germany,Chec. Republic, Hungary, Yugoslavia,etc benefited. The human toll from Iran Contra amounted to several stomach ulcers. I love Ron the Prez. I was proud to serve under him and live in England while Lady Thatcher was man-handling the British Parliament and whipping them into shape. It was great. When the media attempted to bully and cajole her into lowering anti-inflation high interest policies she said, "To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning!" Eruption of cheers and whoops! She led from the front.

Now more importantly for CA, will one Republican be for turning? For the sake of CA and for the sake of not leading US deeper into a hole I hope that "These Senators will NOT for turning."

Note GM will:
"...cut 47,000 jobs out of a total of 244,000 around the world by the end of the year. About 20,000 of the job losses will come in the United States, as well as five more plant closings beyond those previously announced.

Based on its filing, G.M. appears to be in danger of running out of money by the end of March without another infusion from the Treasury Department. The dire forecast was included in G.M.’s broad restructuring plan, delivered as part of the terms of the government’s loan package to the ailing automaker." NY Times

20% job reduction. 49% sales reduction last month.

So governments have to think in terms of 20% reduction in expenditures.

I can't believe that the Governator wouldn't just take his little GOP compatriots down to the woodshed and paddle their fat behinds until they stop procrastinating and do their job!

How can you measure an assembly person's efficiency based on the amount of legislation passed when they are facing darn near 2/3rds of the legislature?

Reagan also used to have a Las Vegas Act where he dance and sang with a monkey on stage. Should we apply that here as well?

The only tax anyone should touch is sales tax. Even illegals and criminals pay sales tax. Hurting Big Business will only hurt the economy further. And if Steinberg was serious about saving the state from failure, and not just grandstanding (even though he only proposed new revenues, instead of "taxes"), he would have locked the senate in until they passed some form of the budget. It is in the standing rules of the senate, and is under his authority to do so, but what does he say? "We need to do this, so go home and come back at 11." It's all total BS. The dems know they are holding all the cards, and they want to make the republicans look like the doombringers of california.

Let's face it sometimes, you have to hit rock bottom before you can pick yourself up again. A clean sweep of the legislature would be interesting, but just as efficient as rounding up illegals and deporting them all.

As far as Arnold taking anyone to the woodshed, he is more likely to end up in a hot tub rubbing oil on his business buddies. Moderates are like the wind, sometimes they go the way you want, and other times, they knock you down.

You may think this is off topic. But governments are losing their ability to control the money supply or at least to maintain its value.

"Gold hits record against euro on fear of Zimbabwean-style response to bank crisis."

Think of the Telegraph as a cross between WaPo and the Wall St Journal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4682554/Gold-hits-record-against-euro-on-fear-of-Zimbabwean-style-response-to-bank-crisis.html

Economic chaos in Europe is leading to a trend more lasting than dot.com or housing boom. Presented as a public service.

Ill just say it again in this thread and maybe everyone who thinks passing this is a good idea.

We cannot live passed our means, if we did we would be homeless and hungry!
We cannot run up credit cards without being held accountable for being late on our payments, we cannot get away with not paying our taxes. Our state and federal Governments are living beyond their means, they are spending too much money and we need to hold them accountable for that. The spending that has been going on in this state is ridiculous and that strictly lays in the hands of our Democrat controlled congress and senate. Arnold is helping them screw this state as well and other republicans are to blame for pandering to look like good guys only to screw us even more.

I am all for keeping school funding, Fire Fighters and Police paid, but the other programs on the books that are bankrupting this state need to be cut. Adding taxes is just going to come back and bite us again in the future with even more taxes. Who remembers the Ventura Sales tax that was supposed to expire and go back to 6.25%??? It never happened as it was supposed to. What happened to the California law that states you may only collect food stamps or welfare for a certain amount of time? They don't follow it.
What happens when budgets are coming up and they need to justify receiving the same amount the year prior? They bloat it by purchasing things they dont need to justify the next years budget.
This kind of government abuse is why we are in this mess to begin with not to mention the social programs that are enslaving some and allowing others to sit and do nothing. Just imagine a welfare recipient losing the right to vote because the government is paying your bills? Do you think the Democrats would continue to win?

Information on some of these new Tax increases and fees since you are not talking about whats really going down Marie.

Sales tax will go up another 1 percentage point, which really means a 14% increase when the math is done CORRECTLY and not shown as a Percentage Point.

Car registration will double and triple in some cases. I just paid $200 for a piece of paper, a sticker and for someone to hit a button on a computer to update my registration in the database. So I will be looking at paying $400-$450 this year if they pass this. Not to mention paying taxes for oil changes, for tires, for service and on and on. Owning a car now is almost as expensive as renting an apartment.

Gasoline will be taxed another 12-15cents per gallon. We already pay the highest gas tax in the country. Its why our gas is more expensive than anywhere else in the country. We currently pay 62cents-90cents per gallon just in taxes and fees already, and when those gas prices get higher, the taxes get higher at the pump. This is part of the reason California is hurting also, the gas prices went down and so did the tax revenue because it is set as a percentage. They were drunk off of the extra revenue while we were all dying at the pump!

Our income tax that we pay each year will be given a new tax in the form of an end of the Year fee. First it was an Income Tax fee of 2.5%, now its 5%. So even after paying your income taxes to the state, they are going to come at you at tax time with a state fee of 5% of those taxes paid.

Child Rebates/"tax write offs" will be dropped from $300 down to $100 per child. This considerably affects people like me who pay a good amount in taxes but doesn't get anything back. So Ill probably owe after this.

I will have to dig more into this but the above stuff is whats coming if this is passed. Who knows what else is inside of there. I know this, they will cut school funding before their social spending such as welfare and things like that.

This budget if passed is not going to only hurt our economy and business, poor and middle class people are going to suffer the most. My wife and I were considered upper middle class and we can barely afford to live here as it is. I'm now looking to move to another state and cant wait to get out of here now. This budget thing has been the last nail in us staying in this coffin. Its going to deeply cut the money we spend on our 3 kids and you should know Marie, raising children is not cheap!

On the Voting for welfare recipients before I get flamed for it. I see it as a conflict of interest since they will 95% of the time vote for who will keep that system in place. Its almost like a bribe to me. If a corporation does it, you guys flip out on the left when you dont like the corporation. It is in essence bribery! Im all for helping someone get on their feet, thats what it was meant for in the first place, the problem is, people are making a living off of it and some just cant get ahead because it essentially keeps them poor! It has become political slavery to many.

JMR, quickly, because it is late: I am not crazy about this particular budget. I see good ideas offered up by the Legislative Analyst being ignored. But they've had plenty of time to negotiate and we are now wasting multi-millions by delaying the decision.

There is no possible way to balance this budget without some revenue increase of some kind.

Late word is that Cogdill has been voted out as leader.

Marie, this is exactly what Im talking about, just because its a serious issue doesnt mean you make it a worse and more serious issue by ramming it through, kind of like the HR1 the fed gov just past, its a joke.

My point about the Dems not conceding certain things is a plain fact, we could fix this budget by following laws and cutting social spending without taxing, without cutting school funds. They could increase revenue by cutting taxes for businesses and start reaping the rewards of more employees paying taxes. The democrats do not want to do this because it could cost them elections due to the majority of those recipients voting for them. It is a political hot topic and they've even admitted they would lose if they didnt support those programs. What Im telling you is you are really on the wrong side of the issue with this. If we damage our economy any more than they already have, we arent going to have the revenue we need. Im already trying to move out of California now because of this kind of stuff. It is really starting to hurt my family! I blame both parties for these problems, but the Democrats keep shoving this spending down our throats and continue to make increases every single year, it has to stop. Hell, they could repeal some of the outrageous gun laws on the books and increase fee and tax revenues!

How can you trust these people and actually go along with these plans the way they are set out? They have already proven themselves to care for nothing but their political future. They are playing games with this budget and feeding all of us lies and you believe them.They are ruining the future of our children, and never mind being schooled properly, most of our kids will live under much worse conditions than we do and that's not what being a parent is about. I will never support the increases and burdens on the people who pay those politicians salaries. I am finally proud of some of the republicans now, they are doing the right thing here no matter how its twisted, they are right. Its been a long time since I could say that about most Republicans also. Responsibility trumps irresponsibility and thats a fact.

WSJ Feb 18. Business rushes to CA ...NOT

quote
But the plan is still far short of the radical tax and spending surgery the state needs. It's loaded with short-term gimmicks -- such as $5 billion of borrowing from future lottery receipts and nearly $10 billion in one-time federal stimulus cash. Even proponents concede the plan doesn't balance spending and revenues 18 months from now.
[Review & Outlook]

The tax increases will continue to chase even more productive people out of the state. For at least two years, the sales tax would rise by one percentage point to 8.25% and the income tax by 0.3% to a top marginal rate of 10.56%. These will both be the highest statewide rates in the nation (see chart).

Do these taxes hurt business? Ask Hollywood. Film makers are threatening to flee to avoid the state's high costs, so to keep them in Southern California the deal offers $500 million in tax breaks for producers. Rich liberals like Rob Reiner, who love higher taxes on other people, get a sweetheart tax break and everyone else pays more.

Mr. Schwarzenegger is finally getting a constitutional state spending cap that will be on the ballot in the next election, but even that is flawed. This cap would limit spending hikes in any year to a rolling average of the percentage increase of the past 10 years. Nice idea, except that if Californians vote yes, the higher income and sales taxes automatically kick in for three more years. So to get a modicum of spending restraint, the voters have to agree to tax themselves by $25 billion more for three additional years. Californians can be forgiven if they say "no deal."

The tragedy of this gamesmanship is that the political class still won't address the root cause of its financial problems, which is that the state is becoming less economically competitive. California businesses and high-income families already pay a surtax for locating inside the state. The new budget deal raises that tax toll higher still.

It's no surprise that most CEOs we talk to, many of whom live in California, say they'd be foolish to build another plant in the state. California's budget crisis is the inevitable result of runaway liberal governance, and the state's voters will keep paying for it until they reduce their tax burden and adopt more radical spending controls.
unquote

Governments should always have margin, have a rainy day fund. This is not a shock but more like a 24 month rolling blackout, country to country, stopping the flow of funds and commerce.

WSJ Feb 18th, quote
Fears of a full-blown economic crash in Eastern Europe shook the region's currencies and the share prices of Western banks doing big business there, helping to spur a new shock to financial confidence around the globe.

Some market analysts warned of a regional economic collapse on the scale of the Asian crisis in the late 1990s, as a report by the Moody's ratings agency warned it may downgrade banks active in Eastern Europe.
unquote

Ha ha,

I think you may have misunderstood my earlier response to your post. I don't think efficiency is the issue here, and I do believe there are ways to determine how HARD a person is working and how EFFECTIVE he/she is. My understanding is that a legislator's job is to pass law--Audra and Tony Strickland were elected to pass laws that benefit their constituents. Therefore, a reasonable person could look at the laws that each has passed (or at the least introduced and shepherded out of committee) and use that information to determine whether or not these two are actually doing their jobs. Audra passed legislation in her first term as Assemblywoman.....granted, most of it was pedestrian like getting highway signs for museums and stuff like that, but she was at least trying. Last two years, nothing of significance that I could find. And I fail to understand your "2/3 of the Assembly is against her" comment. How so? The Dems don't have a full 2/3 majority, and you only need a simple majority for non-budgetary bills. Further, Audra should have been more confident in her last session in the leg as she already had two years under her belt. I've seen the woman debate....like her husband, she's comfortable in front of large crowds passing off a bunch of hot air as hard-hitting accomplishments. So self-confidence is not the issue.....perhaps she's just not up to the job?

Marty, I have to admit economics is my short suit--so I can't engage you in a good debate about the benefits of Keynesian vs. supply-side economics, although I do think Galbraith's idea of market power was right on and can be seen most obviously in the recent pull-back of Starbucks coffee shops. I do not argue that the demise of USSR's military prowess in the 80s was a good thing for all those states that later gained their independence (although things aren't that peachy in many of them). I just think that the "tear down the wall" speech was pure political theater. I am unconvinced that Reagan had much to do with the back-room machinations, although he did certainly keep up the heavy military funding that contributed to driving the Soviet economy into the ground. My understanding of the Iran-Contra debacle is that the drug cartels were given free rein in Southern CA and other places, aided by the CIA. I would think that a Californian would be particularly sensitive to the negative effects of that throughout the state's society and economy. Further, the effect of GHWB's pardons of all the criminals in his and Reagan's Cabinet who aided and abetted that effort enabled the criminality of Bush 43's two administrations, and let the people know that Presidents and their advisors were above the law.

About your comment early this morning re the film industry. Your position is interesting to me. Do you think tax breaks for all industries are justified? What do you think of the recent reports that show that Michigan, which is courting the film industry heavily, will get back only 30 cents in revenue for every $1 of tax breaks it gives to the industry to do business there? Do you find this a workable economic model, and if so, how?

Also, can you explain the surtax that high-income families pay for locating inside the state? Do you mean the high property taxes they pay when they buy a house, or is there some other tax I'm unaware of, and what do you define as high-income? Thanks for reading.

Kara,

I think a flat predictable tax rate for corporations will incline them to reinvest and grow their business. They already face a Federal tax rate of 33 to 38%. Then CA layers on another percentage. Hollywood lobbyist told the Legislature, "If you increase our tax rate, we will go where we can make money." Otherwise, why in this greatest of CA fiscal crisis, would the legislature give a tax break to Hollywood? This is very odd because I think many in HWood are happy to lobby for high taxes to save the children. BTW my quote was from the Wall St Journal.

So I do think you should encourage business to stay and grow. You could be correct that the Michigan deal will not be a tax money maker for them.

The CA budget compromise calls for an increase to the CA 10% income tax. I understand, someone correct me, that there will be temporary 5% whack for the upper income in addition to an increase on the CA 10% tax. It is very frustrating that the so called MSM journalist almost never layout a simple bullet list of the impacts.

A $200,000 a year pediatrician pays 33% federal on income over $164,000. In CA they pay another 10% on those last dollars. In TX they do not. States like TX make it up in property tax but you have some control of lifestyle.

So in a sense, I know if I am a doc and I go to CA I will pay 33% plus 10% plus 1% increase in this deal (plus 5% surtax?), on the margin or on dollars over $164K.

My marginal rate will be 44-49%. In Texas it will be 33%.

BTW if you are a solo practitioner pediatrician you will pay the
43% Fed and state income tax

PLUS

7% social security
7% self employed social security that a corporation normally pays for the employer

That extra 14% is paid on income up to about $95,000 dollars.

So I don't consider a $200K self employed high income in CA.

Marty,

Thanks for explaining your point.
As a sole-source consultant, I've had years of double SS payments, so I understand the pain.

Here's a site that allows people to calculate what the increase in taxes and fees would be under the proposed budget: http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1627728.html.
It says there will be a 5% income tax surcharge, and the changes will last a minimum two years, with income taxes reduced if we get what is expected from the stimulus bill. We'll see.

Your economic analysis suggests that TX is the best place to live from an economic standpoint. Clearly its lack of state income tax is a big draw for many (and, IMO, it has much better Mexican food and BBQ than California).

The ouster of Cogdill and the selection of Hollingsworth depresses me. I see no willingness to negotiate--only heels dug in the sand. Everyone up there is like a monkey, making sure they've got a good grip on their branch (whatever govt job they're eyeing) before they let go of this one (their current legislative gig). Nobody is willing to do the right thing; it's as if they're playing a game of Monopoly on Fantasy Island.

I wonder if we're about to enter our own "Lost Decade".

Marty,

I don't know, these tax breaks for multi-national corporations (why do Intel and Genentech need tax breaks?) don't really strike me as a good deal for CA taxpayers. It seems to me that all the residents are being asked to give more and more, and the companies benefit with a nicer-looking accounting ledger. Where is the data that show these incentives translate into more jobs?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget-taxbreaks14-2009feb14,0,1807568.story

Since a big chunk of the tax breaks will be permanent, it seems to me that the Republicans are trying to force a sweetheart deal for big business using our desperate straits as leverage. Companies locate where the talent pool is, and they use any excuse they can to go where labor is cheaper and where they don't have to pay benefits. Of course, when the state keeps making higher education harder and harder for its residents, then we'll definitely see companies leaving.

Kara,

I'd say look at the Reagan Bush Clinton years where we had restrained taxes and pretty good job growth.

After JFK cut taxes, there was good job growth.

After FDR kept Hoover's high taxes in place and spent a lot, unemployment dropped from 20% to 15% and back up to 20% in 1938. Not comforting. FDR gets credit for not performing. Put it like this. If Obama goes into 2012 with 12% unemployment, can you spell Bobby J?

Are you assuming that higher taxes and spreading the wealth will increase jobs? Say corporate taxes are 33% now. Isn't 43% better? So isn't 95% tax rate best?

Kara,
Your effectiveness as a legislator should not be measured solely by the amount of bills passed. Your job as a representative, is to represent their constituents. That means opposing legislation as much as introducing legislation. Are you suggesting either Strickland propose spending bills right now? Would that make them more effective? If their districts oppose the proposed budget it is their job to vote no. That's what I don't understand about some of you folk who suggest it is the republican hold outs, that are causing our economic problems in California. How can sticking to their idealogical beliefs be malicious, when the democrats do it, it is the "morally" right thing to do.

And again an example of a moderate conservative being quoted out of context. You claim I said 2/3's of the legislature. You can reference above, but the quote was, "darn near 2/3rds of the legislature". Obviously 4 votes from 2/3's qualifies as darn near, and since you only need a majority, having such a large margin between the two parties makes it that much more difficult, especially when democratic legislators want to limit the republicans ability to pass legislation to make them seem less "effective" and get their party elected in the next cycle, for republican legislators to get anything passed. When people critically think about these things, and still come to conclusions that involve the Stricklands being "leeches" just as bad as any union, are either illogical, or insane.

But it makes sense, when it is the liberal ideal to constantly be expanding government and increasing spending, to accuse the republicans of being ineffective when they aren't passing spending bills. I know Sen. Strickland is leading the fight against new taxes in the state, and he has my full support, and the support of many(I dare say a majority of) constituents. Assemblywoman Strickland would like to be passing some legislation protecting the elderly and giving them easier access to public facilities, and new other similar programs, and she is fighting against taxes in the assembly, but she is also bogged down by the budget problem that has been growing for the past 20 years. Have you ever heard the term, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Liberals haven't. Whenever we had a budget surplus instead of saving it, they decided we needed to expand government social programs, and pork projects. Now, we've borrowed as much as we could, and I think we're taxed at the highest rate possible to prevent the economy from collapsing all together due to our lack of economic competitiveness in regards to our goal to grow industry. If we don't cut the budget more, we're going to find ourselves worse off than if government has to lay off 30k employees.

Anyone here do that crazy fox stuff?.
I am from Egypt and learning to write in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Find great deals on flights to the us and beyond."

With respect :), Sanford.