Democrats and RINO Republicans Looking to Repeal Proposition 13

By
Mortgage and Lending with Better Homes Realty Granite Bay

Gaines Shows Interest in Supporting Constitutional Convention Ballot Measure

I'm not so worried about the financial problems... they should be able to figure that out... it's called cut the spending. Instead of declaring "financial disaster" and killing the state employee's salaries... use the same stance and cut the "big ticket items"... like education, health & human services, and other piglets suckling at the pig until things get better.

Repealing the California constitution and re-enacting a new constitution is an end-round for 2 major defeats the liberals have had:

Proposition 8 - Banning Gay Marriage in California
Proposition 13 - Locking Property Taxes at 1% of original purchase price of the property

For years, the Libs have been trying to repeal Prop 13, blaming it for all of their financial woes in the state, yet spending has increased 80% in the last decade, and Prop 13 has been there for a long time... we don't have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem.   California spends something like 25 times the average state's budget... and enormously larger than Texas, Florida, or New York, all of which are close in size.

Comments (4)

Mike Saunders
Retired - Athens, GA

Scott - I lived in California when Prop 13 was originally passed. The crooks in Sacramento were extremely vocal and cut necessary services rather than discretionary spending as payback, and had the gall to admit it. On a side note, one of the authors of Prop 13, Paul Gann, I believe, died of AIDS he get from a blood transfusion. There were some very vile comments by several liberal commentators about how he deserved it.

Jan 17, 2010 01:05 AM
Anonymous
Scott Johnson

The vile comments have never ceased... take a look at this one regarding a good friend of mine.. Tom Hudson... he's being crucified in the media for actually standing up for the Republican brand.

http://www.sacbee.com/placer/story/2423531.html

We've been called "Tea Baggers" which I think is a compliment and they always think it is a demonic type of statement.  What's wrong with rejecting the ridiculous tax level that exists?

The latest round of fist-fighting began when a vote was taken at the central committee to not back a certain sitting Republican in the City of Rocklin because the guy was everything except a Republican.  He supported every tax increase as a councilman for 27 years straight (not once did he vote against one), tripled the taxes to city residents and they basically pay about 1.5% of their home values annually above and beyond the 1% limit set by Proposition 13. I live in Granite Bay, which is fine financially (actually is a county area) and we are a "donor" area, rather than a recipient of county funds like Rocklin is.   And we have about a 1.05% tax rate.

They always think they are "getting one over" on the people.. they bump the tax rate up with a bunch of bogus special assessments, infrastructure bonds, mello-roos, etc. and then can't figure out why the home values are always lower than adjacent areas... duh... people (buyers) see that and either calculate it into what they are willing to pay by virtue of the monthly payment, or just buy somewhere else thus increasing home values in other areas (and ultimately the tax base is higher for that reason).

Their days are finally numbered though, the gerrymandering ends later this year.   There was a voter initiative last year that passed to have non-party affiliated people re-lay out the districts and it is going to look like a township type of thing.   Granite Bay is a great example, we are connected by a strip of voter district about as wide as the center line down Highway 50 to an area of similarly minded Republicans in Sacramento County but bypassing (down the middle of Highway 50) 2 or 3 other protected Democrat districts.. so if there were a resident living on a guardrail, they would be counted, but otherwise we were an island attached to a bunch of other Republicans to make sure that there was only one Republican representative, rather than a legitimate race in the 4 districts that make up the city.  So we win by 90% or whatever while being at a huge disadvantage in other areas.

The current districting system is drawn up by the Assembly for their own voter base.  It's absurd.   We got rid of a bunch of them with term limits, so then they made sure that seats were practically impossible to overturn.   Now we have a bunch of warm bodies going through the motions.

The new Speaker of the Assembly is a freshman, his first ever elected position since student government, openly gay, and had just made it to the Assembly 3 months ago and they all call him "Charming" in the media.   The guy is 340 lbs and sweats continuously... (on camera), I wouldn't call BO "charming" ... yet the drive-by SacBee slams Tom for being overweight.

Jan 17, 2010 05:36 AM
#2
Wallace S. Gibson, CPM
Gibson Management Group, Ltd. - Charlottesville, VA
LandlordWhisperer

Ditto Mike * watching a re-run of the Real Housewives of the OC and Tamara laments that they are paying $2,000 per month in real property taxes on their $1m home in the OC.....cutting SPENDING on illegals and legacy costs of government employees should be the START

Jan 18, 2010 09:14 PM
Anonymous
Scott Johnson

Not to weigh in on my own post... but I'm a bit of a political poicy wonk.  My Poli Sci Masters comes out.   There are a lot of myths in California as to where the money goes.

1.) Salaries.  If we count -all- government salaries in California, it's not as much as you would think.   Including K-12 education, colleges, state agency employees, basically everything except law enforcement/ emergency services (which is paid more directly by the counties & cities), the state spends about $12.8 billion annually (out of about $120 Billion +/-), so about 10%.   When we are underwater in the $25B range, picking on the employees doesn't seem to look like its going to work... especially when "education" is something the relatively uneducated voter base in California likes to vote for. 

In addition to the $12.8, there is about another $10B of expenditures that are programmed and not subject to debate.  Such as EDD, special-ed, etc. that the feds dictate we spend.

Incidentally, Cal EPA, which overlaps the federal EPA, is $1B of that by itself and is completely unassisted by the feds.  It is actually 5 times higher than the K-12 + university salary contributions the state makes (which is about $200M).  

*Note - education salaries cost more than that, but revenues come from other areas... this is general fund stuff..   (feds put in a lot, counties, etc., but those are non-discretionary, if it is not used for intended, it is returned and you get zero).

The furlough thing was really only a PR campaign, it saved about $1.3 Billion / year for 2 years, the lion's share of which came out of the Sacramento city economy (which is about 46% state-employees) and collapsed the small businesses here.   Even Applebees, Jack In the Box, car dealerships, etc., went under... so the 'unintended consequences' were probably a loss of overall salestax & income tax revenue by creating a localized depression, that was much more costly than what it saved in terms of the ripple effect through the economy.  Any extension of this problem causes more than it saves.

2.) Voter-initiatives in regard to expenditures.   They make you feel good, and we need a voter-amendment process as it works well (Prop 13 & Prop 8 are good examples of where the will of the people overrides government and orders it to behave in a certain way).   However, a very bad example was the education initiative, which dictates that 47% of the general fund MUST be spent on education.   Ok...  so we perpetually over-spend and cannot prioritize to things that are more important now.

We spend $16,000 / kid in school and I have no idea where it goes.  Neither does anyone else.   Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Texas, and other states with VASTLY superior education systems spend about $4500 / student on average.   The closest loser to California spends about $10,000, and we are first on the list of wasteful spenders.  

Obviously, writing bigger & bigger checks hasn't improved results, but the constitution says they have to... not a good call in this case.   Go around a college campus right now (any of them) and look at the building-booms going on.  It's the only place in the economy where you will see that.  They have nothing else to do with it, so we build more buildings. 

Where does the money go?  Mostly free grants to college students.   Seems like we might be better off to lower the cost, lower the spending, and they wouldn't need the grants.

3.) Big dollars... 

$8Bill in local assistance dollars to municipalities.. (about 1/3 is non-medi-cal health subsidies)

$5Bill+ for judicial budgets.

$1.2Bill for "consumer services" (which really no other state has... this overlaps many federal agencies)

$5Bill for commissions... this are mostly made-up boards of jobs for past legislators mostly.We spend a lot of money "studying" something, and then spend even more ridiculous money to fund a fix for the studied problem.

$7.8Bill highway patrol / transportation budget (separate of salaries I think) - a lot of this would be road construction & maintenance and is probably not a lot of fluff.

$2 Bill housing subsidies

$15 Mill for Lake Tahoe... definitely some graft, had to throw that in.

$1.5Bill for conservation, which obviously doesn't work because we pay more for utilities than anyone else in the country. We ought to build another nuke plant every year with this.

$5Bill on other conservancies... Sierras, etc.. no idea what this is.  State parks possibly.

$542Mill on "Children & Families Commission"... which is actually more than the furloughs saved. Take from people working to pay the people that don't... classic liberalism.

$13B + 25 Billion of Federal Funds... Health & Human Services... (Medi-Cal).   Yes.. we spend $38 Billion on healthcare subsidies.

$9.5Billion Social Services (various safety net programs), more of the take from those that work and give to those that don't.  

$8.0 Billion running prisons & jails.

$49.5 Billion Dept of Education

$50.00Million "State Library"... they must be kidding.

$15 Billion workforce investment... (mostly unemployment benefits I would think)

$40 Million California National Guard... good thing we have defense handled (not a critcism.. just that we have common defense as 1/1000th of the education slush fund).

Interesting... 2011 expenditures will be about $7.00 per $100 of personal income... which is down drastically from other times in history.  It was about 8.02 under Gray Davis, $9.00 in the late 80's, lowest point ever was immediately following World War II, which was about $5.00+/- per $100 of personal income.

Don't listen to RINO's like Meg Whitman... spouting "government spending increased 80% in the last 10 years"...   Hmmm... where... I'm looking at the tables going back to 1950... that is definitely bunk...  "general fund spending" may have gone up, but it's about 10% of the budget... and mostly due to voter-initiatives. The actual changes are $88B to $116B, with at least a 20% growth in population from 2000 to 2010.

My recommendation.... watch the new candidates that pass the "litmus test" of true conservatives... don't vote strictly on the D or the R in the designation, look at who backs the person, and who endorses them.  Anytime you see "endorsed by whatever indian tribe, insurance company, etc." it's a pretty bad sign.

 

Jan 19, 2010 02:59 AM
#4