If any of you plan to vote in favor of Governor Jerry Brown’s tax increase proposition in November after learning about what is reported below, you seriously need to have your intelligence questioned. The ever-decreasing lack of morals and integrity displayed by our elected leaders in Sacramento has never been made more evident than in the recent report of the intentional absconding of funds meant for scholarships for the children of California’s 9-11 victims.
Following the September 11th attacks, California’s lawmakers directed the Department of Motor Vehicles to create and sell a commemorative “We Will Never Forget” license plate. The proceeds were to be spent on anti-terrorism programs and most importantly, college scholarships for children of California residents who perished in the terrorist attacks. Since the launch of the “California Memorial Scholarship Fund” campaign in 2002, more than $15 million has been raised. Take a guess on how much of the money has been disbursed for the kids’ scholarships?
$20,000 No, I did not omit any zeroes!
Why, you ask? Where is the balance of the money? How can this happen?
Well, for starters, both former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and current Governor Jerry Brown “borrowed” a total of $3 million and used the proceeds as filler in the never-ending state budget deficit. That’s right; “borrowed.” The “loan” has yet to be re-paid; nor should we expect it to be. Millions of dollars more have been spent on state programs that have little or no direct link to anti-terrorism measures, including livestock diseases and workplace safety.
I suppose that was money well-spent to ensure we don’t have any mentally-deranged, explosive-laden cows flying into the capitol in Sacramento. We can sleep better, now.
And you’re going to trust these fraud artists masquerading as Governor, Senators, and Assembly representatives with MORE of your tax money?
If you are, I'd be happy to refer you to a licensed psychologist. Paging Dr. Strangelove...........
For additional details on this story, go to:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/21/4579725/families-say-they-werent-told.html
2. Your math about the 10 percent pay cut shows a complete lack of understanding about the budget numbers. You can probably get maybe 2 billion that way. It's not an approach which would stand up in court - contract law anyone - and so it's cannot be a part of balancing the 2012 budget even it it was doable. 3. Cancelling the bullet train will save nowhere near a billion dollars in interest. At most you're talking a couple of hundred million. Good idea though. 4.I agree completely about E-Verify but it won't save much money because these are low wage jobs that pay little or no state income tax. Again, small savings and a good idea. 5. The pension obligation problem means that the gap is even bigger - do you understand that? Where's that money coming from if taxes aren't raised. The only way to balance the budget is to raise taxes. Otherwise you are correct, the state must eventually go bankrupt. Let's just pay a bit more and avoid that disaster. Do you really advocate California being the Greece of the USA? So, you've made a good start now find another ten billion in cuts because everything you've written is small change or impossible to implement this year.
2. You like the idea of going bankrupt as Greece did. Guess what happens then. Well, in Greece they have raised taxes, just what you think needs to be avoided, and had a deep recession. Same thing happened in NYC in the 70's when it went bankrupt. The courts may reform what they can but such reform will only result, as it always does, in a deep recession and increased taxes to balance the shrinking budget. 3. We agree completely on a number of things, particularly getting the lunatic spending items out of the budget - train to nowhere, over the top environmental laws, too much small business regulation, eliminating guaranteed payout government pensions, etc. We disagree about how to fix these things and about the fact that proposition restrictions are the real culprit here starting with propositions 13, 98 and whatever that "alternative" fuels one was. We can live with higher taxes and can make reforms. We don't need to put California in receivership, cause a major recession and end up with higher taxes to boot which you continue to recommend. Sadly, I suspect you're right, people are not going to raise taxes because they don't understand the lessons of history.
Receivership, however, will however result in higher taxes, not just the repudiation of union contracts and pension obligations. This is what has happened in every case - higher taxes and fewer government jobs. In the case of California, unless there is comprehensive reform, receivership will result in a growing increasingly unfair tax burden because there are straitjacket laws and propositions which limit what any court can impose. A receiver can abrogate contracts but not laws. It's not just organized labor that needs to make concessions, rather the entire farce of trying to have a balanced budget but capping the most stable source of tax revenue - property taxes - is at the heart of the problem along with all the other propositions - train to nowhere, alternative fuel mandates, etc. I'm too old to run for office myself, but I'd love to see a blue ribbon committee provide an objective examination of California's budget - revenue and expense with the legislators bound to pass the recommended reforms regardless of what they turn out to be.