About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Choose Your Battles

You don't have to read very far along in this blog to see that I consider myself a "taxpayer advocate", bash waste and excessive spending by government, and generally support limiting government.

However, I disagree with people who think it is a big deal and somehow wrong that Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, new to that position, is going to spend over $700,000 in taxpayer money to renovate his wing of the county's Hall of Administration.

The building is ancient, and it has to be expensive to renovate a fifth of a floor.

Los Angeles County has something like 100,000 employees, an annual budget of over $23 billion, and about 10.5 million residents. There are only five Supervisors comprising the County's Board of Supervisors, who hold some judicial powers and virtually all of the legislative, executive and executive appointment/firing powers. I say "virtually all" because there was a much-publicized upgrade of the Chief Administrative Officer position to a Chief Executive Officer (there is no county mayor) a couple of years back, and supposedly this CEO has some power in hiring and firing the non-elected executives (Coroner, Fire Chief, Director of Public Health, Director of Public Works, etc.). But the Board hires and fires the CEO, so really, they retain the ultimate power.

Each Supervisor, such as Ridley-Thomas, represents over TWO MILLION people. That’s over twice as many people represented by each Congressperson. It is more people than represented by 30 of our 100 Senators – and remember that those each one of those 30 Senators share representation with one of the other 30.

Not only is there a full-time staff in these offices, but the offices are visited by the public as well as international dignitaries.

So, it makes sense for them to be nice, modern offices. If - and that's a big if - the money actually goes to renovating the offices in a way that make them better for the public and the employees, and isn't part of some sort of shenanigans, I'm hard-pressed to criticize it.

By the way, notice I have not bashed Speaker of the House Pelosi for her flower bill
.

I would hope that neither Ridley-Thomas nor Pelosi would criticize a conservative lawmaker who did the same things they did.

These expenditures are tiny compared to the waste that goes on all of the time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gigantic Deficits

We should be ashamed for allowing it to get this bad. We need to stand up to Obama and the Democrats on this. We can't excuse Bush or Congressional Republicans, either. Deficit spending to fight wars and plagues and to respond to natural disasters is one thing, but we should not have allowed all of the federal spending that we have. We need to place fiscal responsibility ahead of promises of goodies.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prop 13 Is Not The Problem

More than ever, California’s Prop 13 is being attacked by politicians, Big Labor, and news media types.

Fortunately, Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, is doing what he can to speak up against these attacks.  He recently published "Prop. 13: Will It Be the Victim of Its Own Success?"
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.

The state government workforce has grown significantly faster than state population.  The state budget has grown faster than inflation and population.  The spending has been too high for too long.

He goes on to write that Prop 13 has actually been the government's friend.
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.
So while Big Government promoters bemoan Prop 13 for not allowing them to boost property taxes faster, the fact is that Prop 13 has actually helped keep tax money coming in.
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.
The increased spending advocates constantly bemoan that there is a 2/3rds requirement to raise taxes.  Yet, this has hardly prevented "necessary" tax increases, or even the huge tax increase worked out earlier this year.  Los Angeles County voters recently agreed to a half-cent sales tax increase, bringing the countywide sales tax to 9.75% as of today, with some cities as high as 10.75%.  Certain cities have recently been able to pass parcel taxes for their schools.

We have a high statewide rates for our sales tax, gas tax, personal income tax, and business tax.  We have utility taxes.  We have various sin taxes.  We have a lottery.

Yes, our property tax rates are moderate in comparison to other states, but the taxes are based on property values, and property values tend to be higher in California, so the tax revenue is still high.

We have enough taxes.  We have high enough taxes.  Even San Francisco rejected the recent attempt to extend recent tax increases for two more years.

Our problem is spending.  California resisted the welfare reform of the 1990s, and now has a widely disproportionate percentage of the welfare cases nationally.  We have millions of unskilled, poor, dependent illegal aliens and their children in our schools in our justice and correctional systems, using our infrastructure and utilities.  We have a ridiculous higher education system funded by taxes, consisting of ubiquitous community colleges, state universities, and many University of California sites.  We have taught the poor, the elderly, the sick, the pregnant, children, and students of all ages to be dependent on state programs.  We pay too much per prisoner in comparison to other states.  We have the highest paid teachers in the nation.

We need to cut waste, cut fraud, stop guaranteeing unreasonable benefit and retirement packages for government employees, stop doing things that should be left up to the private sector, and stop encouraging the dependent to come here from other states and countries to become de facto wards of our government.


Unfortunately, Big Labor - especially government employee unions - have the legislature on a leash, and can spend scores of millions of dollars on media campaigns.  Big Labor gets its funding from compulsory membership and compulsory dues, meaning workers need to jump through hoops to (supposedly) keep their money from being used as part of the political machinery perpetuating a system that is geared towards increasing the number of dues payers (government employees) and increasing the dues they pay via pay increases.

I would very much prefer California to be split, with the portion in which I reside becoming a "right to work" state, with Prop 13 and the 2/3rds requirement intact, a part-time unicameral legislature, and a restriction on any new bonds that bonds will only be used to fund major public works projects.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Misreporting by LA Times on TEA Parties

The rapidly declining Los Angeles Times demonstrates today one of the reasons why it is in so much trouble.  At least online, their main coverage of the TEA Parties, an article by Michael Finnegan and Janet Hook, is headlined this way:
Republicans Stage 'Tea Party' Protests Against Obama
Thousands of demonstrators in Southern California and elsewhere in the nation demand lower taxes and less government spending. But some GOP pollsters warn that the tactic could backfire.
And this is how the story begins:
Republicans sought to ignite a popular revolt against President Obama on Wednesday by staging "tea party" protests across the nation to demand lower taxes and less government spending -- but the tactic carried risk for the party.
Especially in California, the parties were mostly about more government spending, more debt, and higher taxes, either already implemented or that will be implemented as a result of the boost in spending.  Sure, there were some Republicans involved and same of the people were focusing on Obama, but these events were NONPARTISAN and NOT Obama protests.  The people who organized and participated are TAXPAYERS, some of them Democrats, some of them independents, some of them members of other parties other than the GOP, and they are upset with government in general, not just Obama.

The whole piece is a mess, especially with that lead-in.

You can read reactions here to an anti-TEA Party commentary that ran in the paper.  There were about a thousand.

Why is it so hard to believe that "ordinary" people are actually and legitimately upset and taking action?  Some people do understand that even if taxes are not raised directly on their income, they can still be hurt.  Some people do understand that too much debt is not good for future generations.  Some people do understand that they might someday be designated as “rich” and the target of direct taxes.

Anti-military-action and pro-shamnesty demonstrations, no matter how small or how much organizing was conducted by large, established groups, are taken seriously and with respect by the MSM.  Why not TEA Parties?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Have an Idea For California’s Budget

In more news of the obvious, falling corporate profits means less tax revenue in California, the Los Angeles Times headline reports over an article by staff writer Evan Halper.
California's budget problems deepened today as the state reported that tax receipts plummeted nearly $1 billion last month due to plunging corporate profits.

The news comes as the state moves closer to the July 1 deadline for lawmakers to close California's budget gap, which had earlier been estimated at $16.5 billion. There is little agreement in the Capitol about how to go about doing that.

Democrats have been calling for multibillion-dollar tax increases. Republicans have signed pledges vowing never to vote for new revenue, demanding instead that the budget be balanced with steep spending cuts.
The Dems aren’t just calling for tax increases – they are calling for new taxes.  All sorts of new taxes.

So I’ve come up with my own.  Since falling corporate profits mean less tax revenue for California, thus forcing legislators to make budget decisions they’d rather not, and scaring children enough they go on picket lines to protest “cuts” (usually reductions in planned spending increases), we should encourage corporations not to engage in such behavior (falling profits).  Let’s implement a “Corporate Profit Decrease Tax” as a way of filling in the gap and, at the same time, discouraging corporations from paying less in taxes due to lower profits.

Hey, it makes about as much sense as most of the new taxes and increases the California Dems are proposing.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »