One always presumes a fair amount of communal thought in a state, even one this large. But apart from a shared disdain for the governor and the Legislature, there is hardly anything communal anymore in California politics.

"There are dozens of different Californias -- hundreds, demographically -- and every single one of those Californias thinks the rest of them are wrong about everything," said Dan Schnur, head of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, whose College of Letters, Arts and Sciences co-sponsored the poll with The Times.

Californians should not mistake a widely shared dislike of our political situation with shared agreement on what constitutes the common good.

Under the proposal, the income tax would be flattened from the current half-dozen rates to just two - a 2.75% levy on income up to $56,000 for a married couple, and 6.5% for taxable income exceeding that threshold. Critics have attacked the proposal as a giveaway to the rich, with millionaires on average paying $109,000 less.

To offset the reduction in income tax, the commission called for a revolutionary new tax for business and consumers.

The current retail sales and corporation taxes would be eliminated, replaced by a broader business tax that would tap practically every type of free enterprise, including service sector firms like lawyers and business consultants currently not hit by the sales tax.

Maze leads the group Downsize California Now that is preparing a ballot initiative for a two-state solution. According to their plans, 13 counties on the coast, ranging from Los Angeles to Marin, just north of San Francisco, would be split off and be named Coastal California, West California or whatever they please. The remaining 45 counties, including Orange County, would become the "real" California.

The movement was formed at the end of last year, when angry farmers in Central Valley rallied against Proposition 2, a ballot measure banning the tight confinement of farm animals. Originally called "Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries," the non-profit group has grown into a broader platform for those who cherish limited government. They hope to see the two-state initiative on the ballot by November 2010.

Convincing Californians to vote for the division of their state will be a difficult task, though. A poll by the Field Research Corporation earlier this year found that 82 percent of registered voters opposed the idea of splitting California into an eastern and western state. Also, such a plan would require approval by the U.S. Congress.

Since California became a state in 1850, there have been about 220 documented attempts to divide it, says Kevin Starr, a professor at USC and author of a multi-volume series on the history of California. "And none of them have gotten anywhere."

Rob Pierson oversees the petition drive at the headquarters of Downsize California Now in Fresno. After a successful secession, he explains, both states would hold a constitutional convention. The ideal California would feature a single-house legislature that would be in session only three months a year. Income taxes would be abolished and a balanced and an on-time budget would become mandatory.

While Californians are still feeling the sting of income and sales tax hikes signed into law earlier this year, now comes news that state tax authorities plan to take a little more from their pockets.

For only the second time in 30 years, the tax board is lowering the point where each tax bracket begins, bumping many people into a higher category. At the same time, officials are cutting back some deductions. Everyone will pay more, even people whose bracket or income doesn't change.

The bipartisan reform group California Forward has proposed a modest, reasonable and doable set of significant changes in how state and local governments operate.

There's no denying the problems: gridlock, perpetually late budgets, chronic deficits, IOUs, Sacramento raids on local coffers...

But these are some steps recommended unanimously by the California Forward's Leadership Council after 18 months of mulling:

Lower the Herculean hurdle for legislative passage of a state budget from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority. But retain the two-thirds requirement for tax increases.

For fiscal conservatives and anyone with common sense, require that unexpected spikes in tax revenue be spent only for one-time purposes, not to enhance programs in perpetuity.

Require the sponsor of any new spending proposal, whether in the Legislature or at the ballot box, to identify the funding source.

Budget for two years, rather than one, and regularly monitor the spending plan to watch for red ink.

Set clear goals for each program. If they're not met, change or chuck the program.

Prohibit the Legislature from raising taxes on a majority vote and calling them "fees."

Provide local governments with more control over their own fates by barring the state from raiding property taxes and other revenue.

Permit cities, counties and school districts to unite in some common endeavor, such as gang suppression, and pay for it with a tax increase passed by a simple majority of voters. Now it would require a two-thirds vote.

Relax term limits while reducing the overall time a person could spend in the Legislature.

Relatively few businesses, once they're formed, pick up and move across state lines. Over the last several years, the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California has done exhaustive research trying to measure precisely how many jobs California has lost because of such moves, while also measuring the offsetting number we have gained from businesses moving into the state. The conclusion? The impact is tiny. The researchers found that the average annual job loss was only .06% of California's total employment. Just to be clear, that's not 6%; it's six one-hundredths of 1%.

"A small group of extremists can hold the government hostage,"

"I've always believed that term limits are a function of demagoguery."

"Proposition 13 has been a sacred cow. But you know, it's time to look at Proposition 13."

The district is allowed to raise taxes under little-known legal protections for bond holders. In essence, if revenues from property taxes can't cover installment payments for bond debt, L.A. Unified can raise tax rates, even if they rise above past projections.

The current rate is about $123 per $100,000 of assessed value. That's actually lower than the original projections, but the good news ends there.

Officials wouldn't reveal estimates for next year but, when pressed, said they expected rates above $200 by 2012. In an interview, L.A. schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines mentioned a rate of $207, though he didn't specify the year.

For a home worth the current Los Angeles County median assessed value of $325,300, the difference, using Cortines' figure, would be about $275. For a $700,000 home, the rise would probably exceed $550, for a total bond tax bill of about $1,450.

Under the $20.1-billion construction program, 80 new schools have been built, with 51 more on the way, and thousands of others have been repaired and modernized.

The increasing tax rates could also spell trouble for L.A. Unified's nascent effort to put a different kind of property tax before voters. A parcel tax could be used to pay for ongoing expenses, such as teacher salaries, but it must be approved by a two-thirds margin.

For future construction projects, officials have time to figure out alternative funding sources, said Guy Mehula, chief facilities executive. The options include arranging for builders or banks to front the money. The district would repay them with interest.

A year ago, officials used a rosy forecast to justify Measure Q, the school system's fifth bond issue since 1997. An analysis projected that property assessments would grow an average of 6% a year. Experts characterized that as conservative.
...
The district's analysis failed to adequately consider the possibility of a real estate downturn, even though fewer than 20 years have passed since the prior downturn and history suggests that changes in home values are cyclical.

Dear California,

It's over. I just can't let you take advantage of me like this anymore. You have wasted so much of my money, and I can no longer afford to support your irresponsible behaviors. Now I've found a new home far away, where I feel others share my sense of responsibility. I'm leaving you, California, and I'm taking my hard-earned tax dollars with me.

You just don't get it, do you? The more you take away from people, the more those who actually pay taxes (like me) will leave you. The more you give away, the more people will expect a handout. Well, it's still a free country, and I'm outta here.

Instead, it's our elected leaders who have chosen to balance the budget on the backs of our state workers, the young, the elderly and the poor.

We will not tax oil companies for oil extraction like other states do.

We will not tax the likes of Warren Buffett, who are willing and able to pay more to a society that has lent to their prosperity.

Inspired by the courageous actions of our governor and our legislators, my wife and I decided that we too had to make the same kind of "tough choices" to balance our budget. We've decided not to feed the children.

Let's get the facts straight. Despite the cap instituted by Proposition 13, property taxes have increased dramatically in California. According to Board of Equalization data, property tax revenue has increased 800% since the measure passed in 1978 -- from $5.6 billion a year to $50 billion. Compare that with general fund revenue -- made up largely of sales, income and corporate taxes -- which has increased 500% over the same period.

In order to "solve" California's massive budget crisis, the tax-and-spend lobby and left-leaning academics are again suggesting that we revise Proposition 13, which changed the state's tax structure in 1978 by lowering property tax rates and limiting annual increases.

Ironically, these new efforts to change the highly popular initiative are based, not on the argument that Proposition 13 has failed California, but on the grounds that Proposition 13 is working precisely as intended.

California's budget problem is a result of unrestrained overspending coupled with unstable sources of revenue.

While income tax and sales tax revenue are way down by double digit percentages, property tax revenues have simply flattened out, notwithstanding dramatic drops in market value. True, some counties will see slightly larger drops in revenue than others, but some counties will actually see increases in property tax revenue. There are few places in all of America which can make that claim.

Here is the real irony. Our sales tax and income tax system has evolved over many years in ways dictated by our political elite and smartest policy advisors. Thus, the volatility that we now complain about has been brought to us by people who are oh so much smarter than the rest of us. Proposition 13, on the other hand, was sponsored by two relatively simple men, Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, who were seeking, first and foremost, just to protect homeowners.