Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- Proposition 98 Threatens All Californians—Not Just Renters
- Support Marriage Equality
- Marriage Decision Sets Huge Precedent, But Struggle Far From Over in California
- Sierra Club California: Toward A Sustainable Budget
- A New Strategy to Permanently Halt Light-brown Apple Moth Spraying in California Without Consent
- Education, the California Budget, and Selling Us a Bridge to Nowhere
- Tonight We Celebrate the California Supreme Court Decision for Marriage Equality--Tomorrow We Fight
About Us
The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.
About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.
Sponsors
Books
The California Budget is Up for Grabs
By Robert Cruickshank
That's the impression I am getting after surveying the political and media landscape over the last few days. With the May Revise now two weeks away, the outcome of a long and contentious summer budget process is less clear than ever.
There is a growing recognition among Californians that new revenues are going to be needed to close the deficit if we are to continue having public schools. Health care, transportation, and other government services are all going to be impacted by this budget, of course, but it is education that has become the most high profile part of the budget. If Californians can be convinced to restore the relationship between taxes and services, as David Dayen framed it yesterday, it is going to happen because they will refuse to destroy our schools.
Whether Californians will be convinced - and what the details of a tax proposal will be - are at the core of what is "up for grabs" with the budget.
Friday’s LA Times reports that Arnold has now embraced new taxes, sending his staff to negotiate not with Democrats but with business groups on what form this will take:
“As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to say publicly that he will hold the line against new taxes, his administration is laying the groundwork for a possible tax increase.
“Administration officials are soliciting advice from business groups and other special interests on how to propose billions of dollars in tax hikes that could help close a budget shortfall the governor now says is as large as $20 billion.
“Schwarzenegger's staff is exploring a range of options, including sales taxes on lawyer and accountant services, on high-end services such as golf lessons and personal-trainer sessions, and on takeout coffee and other prepared foods that are not taxed now.
“The administration's goal, participants in the discussions say, is to gather support for new taxes from a broad spectrum of the business lobby, giving the Legislature's Republicans political cover to break their pledges never to vote for them.”
More below, including how Hillary Clinton may be undermining a progressive revenue solution...
Arnold's proposed new revenues are very much like those that Pete Wilson used to close the budget deficit he faced in 1991-92, when newspaper and snack taxes were used to raise the needed revenues.
The problem with this approach is that it is still nibbling around the edges of our structural revenue shortfall. Estimates are that the modernized sales and professional services taxes might raise as much as $9 billion, a figure that seems a bit high. And of course, even that would leave as much as $11 billion in deficit still to close.
The core of our revenue shortfall is a regressive tax system that hits the lower classes harder than the upper classes. California's overall tax burden is 18th among the states, but our property tax rates are at #42. The failure to modernize property tax law, to revise Prop 13 to protect fixed income homeowners while making the wealthy and commercial property owners pay their fair share, is perhaps the major reason why California faces such enormous budget deficits, whereas other states face far smaller shortfalls.
And of course, nowhere does Arnold appear to be acknowledging his colossal error of repealing the restoration of the Vehicle License Fee, which costs our state $6 billion a year. A modernized sales and professional services tax and a pre-1998 VLF would bring as much as $15 billion in revenue, making legislators' jobs this summer far easier.
The devil is in the details of course, especially in what we have to give up to get new revenues. These would be the right wing tax solutions I discussed last week, and the LA Times article refers to them again:
“Before the governor raises taxes, should he go that route, he is expected to demand legislative support for spending restraints that would force the state to create a rainy-day fund with revenue windfalls it receives during good economic times. Business leaders have long pushed for such measures, arguing that they would curb runaway spending and bring some stability to state finances.
“Business leaders are also lobbying the administration to use potential tax hikes as leverage for policy changes unrelated to state spending, such as changing workplace rules to allow employers to dictate when workers can take breaks. Political analysts were not surprised to learn that the governor was considering tax hikes.”
Some continue to argue whether voters will even support new taxes at all. The recent PPIC poll has given ammunition to both sides of the argument, with Bill Cavala arguing it suggests new taxes are unlikely:
“Bad news for California's budget came in from the precincts today. The latest PPIC survey indicates that (1) voters don't want to cut education's budget; and (2) don't want to raise taxes to avoid those cuts. Years of budget flim-flam - led by Governor flim-flam - have convinced voters we can simply 'reorder' priorities and get by....
“With many of the gimmicks used to 'balance' budgets in previous short-fall years no longer available, and with a cash-flow problem that will crest this summer, things look bleak indeed for the new leaders of the Legislature. And they deal with these problems starting with a 'favorable' rating by the public of 22%.”
I am much less pessimistic than Cavala. He seems to be falling back on the failed assumptions that Democrats have used over the last 30 years to evade action on our structural revenue shortfall - blame the voters for not supporting tax fixes. Reading the PPIC numbers I see a very different story - about half of the state believes new taxes are a good idea. Sure, we need 66.7%, but even half is a very good place to be in considering how widespread our state's anti-tax madness has become. Democrats should use this as a starting point, not an excuse for inaction.
Unfortunately these efforts may have been undercut by, of all people, Hillary Clinton. Her embrace of McCain's idiotic gas tax cut - which would save drivers a total of $30 for the whole summer while blowing a $10 billion in the already-stressed federal transportation budget.
By embracing the notion that tax cuts, not investment in public services, are the solution to economic distress, Hillary Clinton has delivered a major victory for the Club for Growth and Howard Jarvis Association and delivered a serious blow to progressive Democrats who are trying to restore the link between taxes and services, between taxes and a high quality of life.
Democrats in both DC and Sacramento need to unite on this matter, and categorically reject the Republican anti-tax framing that has done so much to produce this mess. It doesn't make our job easier here in CA to have one of the Democratic candidates running around agreeing with the right-wingers on taxes.
Robert Cruickshank is a historian, activist, and teacher living in Monterey. He is a contributing editor at Calitics.com and works for the Courage Campaign, in addition to teaching political science at Monterey Peninsula College. Currently he is completing his Ph.D. dissertation in US history, on progressive politics in San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s. A native Californian, he was raised in Orange County and educated at UC Berkeley.
Comments
The author brings into focus just how bad the State's budget crisis is in reality. Insiders even at the end of 2007 were saying the deficit was 14 billion, when the media was putting out only 8 billion. Then steadily increasing the magnitude of the problem, we are now up to 20 billion.
So here we are in an election year, and, heavens forbid, a tax increase? Boy, those representatives up for election this fall, must be really trying to line up alternate employment, when as they expect they will be voted out of office in November. As far as I am concerned, they get what they deserve. The State as been over spending for years and this year there can no longer be a phony cover-up.
Then you have this Author continuing to promote High Speed Rail with its 45 billion dollar price tag. and just as with all High Speed Rail operations everywhere, carrying with it never ending operational deficits, when and if it is ever completed.
Its time the voters awake, and it sure likes 2008 is going to be one of those years.
Joe
Posted by: Joseph Jones at May 4, 2008 04:34 PM
The author brings into focus just how bad the State's budget crisis is in reality. Insiders even at the end of 2007 were saying the deficit was 14 billion, when the media was putting out only 8 billion. Then steadily increasing the magnitude of the problem, we are now up to 20 billion.
So here we are in an election year, and, heavens forbid, a tax increase? Boy, those representatives up for election this fall, must be really trying to line up alternate employment, when as they expect they will be voted out of office in November. As far as I am concerned, they get what they deserve. The State as been over spending for years and this year there can no longer be a phony cover-up.
Then you have this Author continuing to promote High Speed Rail with its 45 billion dollar price tag. and just as with all High Speed Rail operations everywhere, carrying with it never ending operational deficits, when and if it is ever completed.
Its time the voters awake, and it sure likes 2008 is going to be one of those years.
Joe
Posted by: Joseph Jones at May 4, 2008 04:34 PM
What I am about to say requires my disclosure that I am a lifetime progressive Democrat. Presumably, so is Mr. Cruickshank. It is primarily the Democrats that support the high-speed rail, and the Republicans who oppose it. Although I disagree with the Jarvis, Libertarian, anti-tax right wing regarding their fundamental political philosophy, I certainly agree with them about pork-barrel politics and boondoggles.
How can this state even contemplate the most massive infrastructure project in human history; that is, to build a luxury train for the well-to-do, and going where it is not needed, between LA and SF? There are major urban and regional traffic problems and highway gridlock in the population centers of the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin. That’s where comprehensive, multi-modal mass transit systems should be developed. Bond issues should be for solutions to generally recognized problems. Urban and regional traffic is a major one. Intercity travel between our two population centers is not.
Please note that the most important first section of the train will not connect Sacramento or the Tri-valley region to the Bay Area; that is, it will not be a commuter transit system. Nor will it connect San Diego, Los Angeles and the Inland Empire of the East; another area in need of urban mass transit.
It is as if the plans intentionally avoid meeting the immediate transit needs of the commuters of this state, and those are the people suffering gridlock on our disintegrating highways.
Mr. Cruickshank, repeating verbatim the non-credible verbiage of the CHSRA, is an active participant in the high-speed rail promotion effort.
Like most journalists, he does not analyze the seriously flawed blanket statements of the HSR advocates. One would believe that voters, becoming ever more aware of the fiscal crisis in this state, would have the opportunity to weigh the financial consequences of a project of such magnitude. But, Quentin Kopp and company assure the voters that it will require nothing
of the taxpayers and the train will repay, with its profits, all the development costs. Unbelievable!
The train will become a huge gratuitous burden on all us taxpayers, a hole in the ground into which the state will pour limitless amounts of money. Is that worth a tax increase?
Posted by: Martin Engel at May 4, 2008 05:05 PM
Post a comment
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
RSS 