Late last week, four legislative Republicans were quoted in two major newspapers with quotes, indicating in varying degrees that they were open to voting for tax increases as part of a solution to California’s overspending-created fiscal crisis.
Let me make this very clear – there is NO POINT AND NO “DEAL” WHERE IT MAKES ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER TO RAISE TAXES ON CALIFORNIANS. The San Diego Union Tribune has an excellent editorial today driving home this point. It is an objective reality that Californians are amongst the most taxed citizens in the entire country.
State Senator Abel Maldonado, and Assemblymen Mike Duvall, Roger Niello, and Anthony Adams were all quoted thusly:
**There is more – click the link**
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am
For those who don’t remember George H.W. Bush, he was elected with the famous phrase, “Read my lips. No new taxes.”
Then, in a spirit of cooperation with the Democrats, he agreed to a tax increase and that was it for him.
The bureaucracy is telling us that reducing education funding will result in canceling the third grade. Reducing prison costs will result in crime everywhere. Reducing transportation funding will cause bridges to collapse.
We need to push back and demostrate how cuts in the bureaucracy will save money and not effect critical services. We cannot just depend on the bureaucracy to do the right thing.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am
George H W Bush was beat over the head with his “flip flop” on taxes in the 92 pres campaign. This was done by the same Dems he was trying to please in 1990. The Dems will never be our friends they will set you up and chop you off at the knees and watch you bleed to death. Just ask Arnie.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am
You should add Assemblyman Blakeslee to the growing list of “took the pledge” but will no longer honor it Republicans.
the ATINO’s (Against Taxes in Name Only?)
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am
There you go again, Jon. Off the rails to the far right. BTW, who are John and Ken that we should listen to them (are they conventional gas bags who thrive on creating controversy to gain attention?)? The state is in serious condition, due to Democrat overspending and so far I don’t see any “conservative” commentator (including you, Jon) making any constructive suggestions. Other than “cut spending” that is. But never what to cut or by how much. On the school ground we used to say “put up or shut up” and personally I think that’s good advice for John and Ken and other pundits of the far right wing until they have something constructive to say.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Well, Mr. Bob Evans, I don’t hear any constructive suggestions coming from your recent post either. So to use your own words, either “put up” or “shut up.”
And just to show you I have a constructive suggestion. Its pretty much what I’ve said all along and that is—raise taxes on those making over $100,000 a year but have a plan to keep those jobs in California and only raise the car tax (its a tax, not a fee) gradually, plus have a flexible spending cap tied to inflation and population. Also, no more free rides for illegal immigrants (i.e. health care or education). If they want such things, they would have to be a citizen of the U.S. and learn to speak English. But what is a no-no is tweaking Prop 13. That would be political suicide.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am
We need to force the liberals to accept our political philosophy, namely that we will not agree to any higher taxes. Instead, they want to make us accept their view–spend and tax. Just say no–no new taxes.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Hiring freeze and Payroll cuts for all state employees, if they are making less then $50,000 -3%; $50-75,000 -4%; $75-100,000 -5%; $100-150,000 -7% and $150,000+ -10%. If they have a problem with that they are welcome to enter the private sector. Of course the private sector has been taking these drastic measures already why shouldn’t the state do this as well? Why should state employees be immune to cost cutting?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:00 am
OK Darrrell, here is my suggestion: prioritize state services and, starting with the most needed service, fully find it; fully fund the next most needed service; fully fund the next most needed service and so on down the list until the state runs out of revenue. All other services on the list are not funded.