A California Republican

The LA Times has a great interactive game that lets you try your hand at balancing the budget. My only complaint, and this is the complaint with all these types of games, is that it limits you to preset options, and doesn’t let you do anything creative or try partial solutions for some of the items. The game can be found at the following link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl,0,95571.htmlstory

Assembly leader Karen Bass (D) said yesterday that she wants new revenue sources to fill the hole in the budget. The Assembly has also decided to raid that $4.5 billion in savings that California has, and spend that this year as well. Along with some of their cuts, the Assembly is still $4 billion short, maybe a little more depending on whose estimates and figures are used.

Bass says that we should tax oil, alcohol, cigarettes and card rooms to raise some revenue. She has not ruled out other forms of taxes, although she calls them increased revenues. Bass believes that increased revenues will save the “most vulnerable populations” in California.

Who is the most vulnerable? Bass wants to save programs that send low-income and illegal immigrant children to college. She wants to save programs that serve the low-income and illegal immigrants. There are some programs to serve the elderly and disabled that she wants to save as well. So by her standards, the most vulnerable populations in California are the poor, illegal immigrants, elderly and disabled. That is one point of view.

The other is that the most vulnerable population is the middle class. Or those who are responsible with their money and are working hard to support themselves and their family. These are the people who are going to be pushed into bankruptcy when an additional oil tax makes gas prices, and food prices, rise; which makes the families choose between paying the mortgage and paying other bills or going to work. These people are going to be faced with the largest increase in taxes, maybe not in direct personal income tax, but in sales tax, rising prices on necessary items, and the inability to get credit for college educations. The middle class will be hit the worst. These are the people who bought houses they could afford, are now upside down, and don’t qualify for any relief because they purchased within their power initially; instead of dreaming that when the mortgage resets and gets to a level they cannot afford they would simply sell the house and move. The middle class gets hurt the most.

I understand that services to the poor get cut the most; they receive most of the services the state provides. The elderly and disabled don’t all need state services, they can rely on family. This is what family for; helping you. This is one of the functions of a family, and shouldn’t be replaced by the functions of the state, and certainly not by the federal government.

Then there are problems with what Bass wants to raise taxes on. I am all for an alcohol tax. It should be expensive enough that teenagers cannot get a hold of it. If alcohol was very expensive, maybe some people would cut it out of their budget. This would reduce the number of drunk driving accidents, alcohol related health problems, and drunks on the streets. If anyone wants to say that alcohol increases their fun, then they need to look at their lives again, and re-think their definition of fun. Alcohol should be taxed more than it is. Alcohol is a factor in so many police and fire calls, that a portion of the alcohol tax should go to those services. Alcohol is a factor in so many health risks, that a portion of the tax should go to emergency rooms. I think this might be a good thing.

Although there are the same problems with that as there are with the cigarette tax - declining users. Raising the cigarette tax might work for the short run, but in the long run it won’t. Cigarettes have a declining usership, which means that raising the tax only works for a while.

So once again the Assembly is looking at short term solutions. What about the bigger solutions? What about actually balancing expenditures and revenues? What about eliminating programs that don’t do anything? What about consolidating things? What about actually negotiating with the unions on their contracts instead of giving them what they ask for? If the unions don’t like what is being offered, tell them to take a hike and hire new people to do things. What about making a law that would allow someone to function in a job and not be pat of a union? What about allowing prison guards to not be part of a union, or state workers, firefighters, police officers, or teachers? Some people don’t want to be in a union.

What about making a part-time legislature? This would cut back on expenses, and have the added benefit of making sure the legislature gets the work done in the time they have, rather than stretching it out over the year? It would also give the legislature less time to do things like mandate that a dog cannot be tied to an immovable object for more than three hours. When the staff time, and time in committee and on the floor, is calculated versus the benefit of that bill, it is a loser.

So balance the budget, but do it with cuts or sensible revenues. Not with revenues that are going to hurt the very people who pay the revenues and who will be most affected.