California Budget follows party lines

Plan caters to GOP, but many still aren't onboard

James Rufus Koren, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
Posted: 01/16/2011 07:02:20 AM PST

Gov. Jerry Brown's budget proposal includes many kinds of cuts and reforms Republicans have long requested, but local Republican lawmakers have given the proposal a lukewarm reception.

At the same time, despite including the same kind of deep cuts to social services Democrats fought when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor, Democrats say they generally see the plan as realistic.

Several Republicans called Brown's plan "a good starting point," but they say it doesn't make enough cuts and relies on solutions that might not materialize.
"Gov. Brown has folded into this budget plan some of the ideas we've brought up over the last few years," said Sen. Bob Huff, R-Walnut, who represents the Chino area and was named Wednesday as vice-chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Among those ideas are tightening eligibility guidelines for the state's in-home care program - something Huff said he wanted to see in the plan - as well as cutting welfare payments and making families eligible for welfare for a shorter period of time.

But Huff also said Brown's plan is "a budget that has bailing wire holding it together." He echoed a report from the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, saying the budget includes many "risky assumptions."

The biggest of those risky assumptions, said Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, is that voters will approve extended tax increases. Brown's budget assumes that the state will hold a June special election to ask voters to approve an extension of tax rates that were hiked in 2009. [Fat bloody chance! - Ed. Note]

"Unfortunately, the governor's proposal is not a complete plan because it assumes voters will support major tax increases, but doesn't provide solutions if they reject them," Dutton said. "If voters say `no' to the tax hikes, as Republicans expect, it means a $10 billion budget hole come June."

Indeed, many Republicans say there's no chance voters will approve extending the increases to income, sales and car taxes.

"I think any kind of tax proposal that goes out to the people is dead-on-arrival," said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Claremont. "They're going to shoot it down two to one. It's a waste of taxpayer money to even hold that election."

Donnelly said it's now up to the Legislature "to drill down into the details and come up with the rest of the cuts."

Democrats, meanwhile, aren't sure what additional cuts Republicans want.
"I heard some of the comments that there aren't enough cuts," said Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Montclair. "I don't know what they're looking at."

McLeod said she wants to study the impact of some of the specific cuts Brown proposes, but overall, she said "probably most of (the proposal) is realistic."
While Democrats have generally fought the kind of program cuts Brown has proposed - cuts to welfare, services for seniors and health-care programs for the poor - they seem happy at least that cuts make up only about half of Brown's plan to close the budget deficit.

"He has many bold suggestions; some of these are not to my liking," said Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter, D-Rialto. "What I do like is that it is a balanced proposal: about 50 percent of the budget addresses cuts and savings, an additional 50 percent presents revenue solutions."

Republicans, though, take issue with that breakdown. Huff said Brown's proposal isn't half this and half that.

Some of the proposals marked as savings in the plan, Huff said, come at the expense of local jurisdictions or special state funds. Put another way, he said the budget in some cases doesn't call for spending less - rather, it calls for using a different bank account.

For instance, the budget assumes using $1.7 billion from local redevelopment agencies to pay for health-care programs and trial courts. It also calls for saving $600 million by forcing county jails to take in more prisoners.

"It's not the half-and-half thing we've talked about," Huff said. "Really, he's looking at an $8 billion or $9 billion cut. ... We're talking about $14 billion or so in new revenue."

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_17113149#ixzz1BMFUHIkq

Comment:

The only thing Governor Clown is doing right is cutting welfare payments, making it tougher to get on welfare, and shortening the duration of eligibility. It will force the leeches to at least try and find work. Oops, I just said an obscene word. Work, that is. To some people that IS an obscenity.

Anyone know why welfare parents don't get scared by horror movies? Because the only thing that scares them is the thought of getting up early and going to work!

Cutting services for the elderly is definitely the WRONG thing to do. What kind of message does that send? It's telling the elderly that after a lifetime of hard work, they're getting the shaft. They take out of the system, and no longer pay into it. Since they're useless to the government, and indeed a burden, they get the heave ho. Absolutely disgraceful.

As to the disabled, if they were capable of working, most of them would. I know several people on disablity. They'd love nothing more than to go back to work. Many of them became disabled in work related accidents. The man two doors down from me was a roofer. He fell off a two-story house and broke his back (not his spinal cord). After two years, he can walk with a walker, but he'll never be off disability. He, and others like him are NOT leeches. They deserve better than to have their services cut.

Here are some things we need to cut:

1. Expense accounts for politicians and appointees. No more shenannigens. If you need to have a meeting, then meet in your offices, and not in a fancy restaurant. Not only do they charge the meal to the taxpayers, but they bring their spouses along, and charge their meals to us as well.

2. When politicians need to travel on business, the taxpayers will pick up THEIR expenses, but not those of their spouses and children. They can either pay for their families themselves, or leave them at home.

3. Take away their state owned cars. I don't get reimbursed for expenses travelling to and from work. Do you? Do you know anybody who does, other than Judeo-Capitalist bigshots? Why should we foot the bill for gas and wear and tear on their cars? Let them pay their own commuting expenses like everyone else.

4. Crack down on employee theft. A stapler here, a ream of computer paper there, all adds up, and WE THE PEOPLE pay the cost.

5. How many of us have seen the street/highway department drag out a project for what seems like forever? In reality, sometimes they're doing exactly that. And it's not just them. It's most government agencies. If they think they may come in UNDER budget, they perform useless jobs to use up the surplus. If they come in under budget, they're afraid Sacramento may cut their budget for the next year, so they'll do whatever they have to do to come in at or over budget, but never under. THIS KIND OF CRAP MUST STOP! If your department is budgeted say $10 million a year, and you use only $9 million, then you don't need the full ten and your budget should be cut. If you need that extra one mil next year, then we'll worry about that later. OK, that may not be thinking ahead, but it's better than wasting $1 million. There is such a thing as an emergency appropriation. Apply for it if you think you need it. If you're denied, then maybe you don't really need it.

6. Shut down the useless committees. Governments love committees. We have committees that think of ways to beautify state rest stops. They don't actually do any beautifying, they just think of things that others could do. We have the Rob Reiner committee. They look into possible early childhood development programs. They don't actually do anything for our children, they just think of things that others could do. There are literally hundreds of such committees that literally do nothing. The governor appoints someone to head the committee, and pays him a six-figure salary with an expense account. The committee head appoints his friends and relatives to serve on the committee and pays them fat salaries with expense accounts at taxpayer expense, and they only work a few hours a month. What a bonanza - for them. They get the cows, we get the manure.

Most importantly:

Cut off any and all services to illegal aliens. This includes schools, hospitals, food stamps, and Section 8 housing (government pays their rent). There's no if's and's or but's about it. They're not supposed to be here at all, QED, they are entitled to NOTHING except a free ride back to Mexico (or wherever it was they did come from).

If the government followed these seven simple suggestions, just imagine how much we'd save every year! If they did, there would be no need to cut essential services to the elderly and the disabled. But our filthy, rotten, corrupt system will never go for it. For our politicians and big shot appointees, I'm talking about killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Most of them feel they've earned the right to all the freebies and they'll never give them up willingly. That's why they must be forced.

ALL FORMS OF WASTE MUST END NOW!

This whole system stinks like rotten meat, and it's not all the fault of the politicians and Judeo-Capitalists. It's the people's fault for letting it happen. We have to get away from the Democans and Republicrats.

For God's sake people, smarten up. If you won't give National Socialism a chance, then at least choose another third party. Send those fat-assed elephants and idiotic donkeys a message by not voting for either of them. As Chairman Suhayda once said, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil."

Remember, the object of an election is for us to choose the best leaders. It's not a contest to see if we can guess the winner. If you're not getting my meaning, what I'm saying is that when we vote, we're not supposed to vote for the candidate we feel has the best chance of winning. We're supposed to pick who we feel is the best for the job.

Also, if your candidate wins, you're not a winner. If your candidate loses, you're not a loser. It's an election, not a bloody football game! Grow up.

Comrades, I hope I didn't offend any of you. I know most of you already know the truth about our system. The last three paragraphs are specifically directed at John and Jane Average voter.

Again, to quote Chairman Suhayda, "For White Worker Power!"