So, in this post, you say the senate has the power, BUT, in the OP you complain the Governor vetoed their power? Really? Seems to me, you don't know who is in power, and just want to blame the Dems. Like I said, it takes two to tango. The dems want to spend, and they want to pay. The Repub dont want to spend, because they dont want to pay. The REAL problem, is that both groups are getting their way. The liberals are spending, and the conservatives aren't paying. At least the Dem governor is saying enough, figure out a way to pay for what you spend....
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
California Governor Jerry Brown vetoes Dem. approved budget because it doesn't raise taxes
- Thread starter FreakyLocz14
- Start date
So if you take in the Same amount of money and then spend less of it you can't pay down your debt with what you save? That don't seem right
JimmyRayBob
Android Enthusiast
I'm no economist, but ...
So if you take more money out of the pockets of the people and give it to the government, and that government is going to cut back on spending (which seems to be what needs to happen) .... exactly how is the economy going to grow? How are we going to buy more goods and services (to grow the economy) with less money?
Oh - please don't link a small excel chart to a colorblind person and hope it makes things clear - the chart you linked is essentially useless without more info
I don't have the magic answer on what the "proper" tax rates should be. I do think we need to have rates that maximize revenue - which can mean either raising rates and hoping it doesn't stifle growth or lowering rates and hoping it encourages growth. Obviously NO ONE HAS A DEFINITIVE ANSWER on this. (we could also leave rates alone I guess).
So if you take more money out of the pockets of the people and give it to the government, and that government is going to cut back on spending (which seems to be what needs to happen) .... exactly how is the economy going to grow? How are we going to buy more goods and services (to grow the economy) with less money?
Oh - please don't link a small excel chart to a colorblind person and hope it makes things clear - the chart you linked is essentially useless without more info
I don't have the magic answer on what the "proper" tax rates should be. I do think we need to have rates that maximize revenue - which can mean either raising rates and hoping it doesn't stifle growth or lowering rates and hoping it encourages growth. Obviously NO ONE HAS A DEFINITIVE ANSWER on this. (we could also leave rates alone I guess).
Cutting the spending to match income would not be feasible. Would you consider cutting nearly all of the funding towards eduacation feasible? How about nearly all of the transportation budget? How about healthcare? Law enforcement? Border patrol? To pay down their debt, they need to both, cut spending, AND raise taxes.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
TBF, from everything I've heard, extra taxes does more economic damage then spending cuts.
Clinton raised taxes, and our economy grew. Bush cut taxes, and our economy tanked.....
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
I know, I'm talking in general. The thing is that Bush's economic philosophies were incorrect, and cutting taxes or raising spending wont fix that. Clinton knew how to run an economy.
And what did Clinton do? Raise taxes....
The Governor can only sign and veto laws that are passed by the Legislature. The Legislature has the sole power to submit bills and pass them. They can even override the Governor's veto if they have enough votes to do so.
Bill Clinton didn't have the votes in Congress to do whatever he wanted. He lost Congress to the Republicans in 1994 and it stayed that way until the 2006 elections. The Dem.-controlled Congress raised taxes in 1993 and almost nothing happened. The Republican Congress cut them and we saw a booming economy with a budget surplus.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_successful_clinton_economy.html
Also, has anybody drove along the highway 5 north of Sacramento and seen all of the barren farm land? That's Barbara Boxer's policies in play. They say that California is going to fall into the sea one day. It seems like figuratively, they're right. The irony is it will have been us who did it to ourselves.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Yes and he also did more to encourage innovation which helped grow the economy. He also presided over another property bubble..
By encouraging innovation, did he slash the education budget to nill. Did he slash the transportation budget? Did he slash healthcare spending?
Isthmus
Android Expert
That has nothing to do with the size of the economy or the ability to quantify and identify areas of concern. It has everything to to with an ineffective political system and poor distribution of available resources.
Clinton's budget, Obama's budget, Bush's budget. They are the ones that SIGN it into law. As for Cali's budget, maybe you should right your senate members, and tell them to overide the budget vetoe? I mean, you cry about the governor inforcing his power, yet don't about the senate enforcing theirs. Typical....
Why should I when the Senate actually crossed party lines to get things done while the Governor is trying to raise taxes?
As said by others, the governor vetoed it, because it wasn't balanced. Crossed party lines? And got what THEY wanted. Kinda backs up my arguement that it takes two to tango. Sure, the liberals got what they wanted, by not slashing spending. But, the conservatives got what they wanted too. By not raising taxes. THATS why Cali is in trouble.
Both sides got what they wanted. It was a bipartisan budget that was balanced for this fiscal year. Governor Brown wants the Legislature to raise taxes. The Legislature needs a 2/3 supermajority to do that. While the Republicans are the minority party, they have enough seats to stop tax hikes. So the Democratic majority worked with them to balance the budget without raising taxes. If the Governor truly controls everything like you contend, then how come he needs to get 2/3 of the Legislature to approve of him before taxes are raised?
It wasn't balanced. End of story. THAT iS why it was vetoed, not because it didn't "raise taxes".
We need real spending cuts, not tax hikes. Our taxes are already high enough.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
You cant feasibly cut enough spending to bring the budget to a balanced state. You need both....
You can't balance it one year, obviously. If I had my way, we'd cut taxes as soon as the deficit is gone.
You can't feasibly balance it with cuts alone, EVER.
I wouldn't cut taxes until we get our deficit in order. I would simply leave them at the current level then cut taxes later.