The Case Against the PeopleCalifornia's direct democracy allows the public to act as its own legislature. So we get bills like Proposition 13, which capped property tax rates, strangling the government's expenses as demands for education and social services rose. This resulted, somewhat predictably, in the steady erosion of California's education standards and has exacerbated the impact of the recession because, as Paul Krugman wrote, "limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions."
Even during good years, Gov. Schwarzenegger has said tax increases are politically impossible, partly because Prop 13 also requires a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass any state tax. Combined with initiatives like Prop 98 (which forces the government to spend a certain amount on schools), the citizens of California have been trying to have it both ways -- lower taxes for better services -- for decades. On top of it all, the state is legally required to balance its budget in this deep recession, which is something like being tied in a straitjacket, chained to a bowling ball, dropped in a river and asked to run a marathon.
The Case Against the GovernmentCalifornia wouldn't have this problem (or at least, this big of a problem), writes John Steele Gordan from Commentary, if it hadn't increased its spending by forty percent since 2003. George Will makes the point even clearer:
"If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than the budgets of all but 10 states."Stated simply, don't blame the public for putting California's government in a fiscal straitjacket. Blame California for not tying the arms tighter together.
The Verdict
Surely there is enough blame to go around, but it seems to me (and I'm not alone) that the real fantasy of California politics is the idea that citizens should be given such direct control over their fiscal policy. The government-citizen relationship need not be paternal, but it can still be parental. Government can still act as if it has good ideas that aren't dictated by voters. There's a wonderful quote by John F. Kennedy that goes to the heart of this issue.
I cannot believe that the people of Massachusetts sent me to Washington to serve merely as a seismograph to record the ups and downs of popular opinion. I believe instead that those of us in public office were elected - not because the people believed we would be bound by their every impulse... - but because they had confidence in our judgment...If we are to exercise fully that judgment, sometimes we may be required to lead, inform, correct and on occasion even ignore public opinion in our States.Exactly. California needs seismographs. But not in Sacramento.
And Edmund Burke said it some 230-odd years before THAT.
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
California's problem is the 50% of the non English speaking family's that pay far to little in taxes but use almost every California service such as healthcare and the school system. Till our state can put a stop to putting migrant children through school and providing them with emergency room care we don't stand a chance to balance any budget. You will never hear Democrats talk about the migrant families living off the system. Most migrants send their money south to mexico for their families to have a better living.
When you say "pay far too little," are you saying that legal immigrants are paying fewer taxes than average Californians and using more services? Or are you saying that the state's fiscal crisis is the result of illegal immigration? To the second point, why, then, would California's budget woes be so much greater than other states in the south and south east that experience similar immigration?
"California's problem is the 50% of the non English speaking family's that pay far to little in taxes..."
Real English speakers know it's families not family's and too not to.
Our financial problems in California are a result of the Government spending tax payers dollars on illegal immigrants welfare, health care, prison care, education (even though most could care less) and other social services. And no we under no conditions need more illegal Mexicans to work in the fields or clean yards and home. Their off spring will be much more than enough to take care of those issues. I am a teacher in California and have first hand knowledge that MOST OF THE MEXICANS DO NOT CARE ABOUT EDUCATION. Stop paying for the welfare of criminal illegals, which all are that enter this country illegally. Look at the education and welfare costs of California and then at whom it is going toward and the overwhelming majority is to service Mexicans. Keep in mind because of our outdated policy in our Constitution that any person born in America is a citizen then we are also taking care of illegal children of illegal immigrants who happen to be citizens now because of an illegal act that their parents performed to get into this country.
Where would one of (if not the biggest) of California's industry be without migrant labor? Who mows the grass, cleans the dishes, builds the homes?
the americans that built them in the 1st place! DUH
You ignore an additional point-- a large amount of the spending is also a result of direct democracy. Californians happily approve bond and other spending via referendum even as they vote against taxes to pay for it on anyone except for the very rich and capital gains. And those sources of money dry up in downturns.
The migrant farm workers get cash, thus no taxes, the ones that do pay income tax make minimum wages some work two and three jobs. I had one Mexican that worked for me in the Bay Area he had three social security card all under different names yet he was legal, he worked for me in construction then worked at an outback steak house in the evening. He hurt his back lifting garbage at the outback but claimed it happened at my work. This goes on all the time, they know the system and they use it to their full advantage. Out of 65 employees we had 60 the were Mexican every year they leave work during December and head to Mexico and take their hard earned money with them. They don't spend their money here but they use all the services. No one that works for the state will bring up the issue because it makes them look racist. Robert said it perfectly.
I find it remarkable that whenever a journalist or a politician writes/speaks about California's budget problem Proposition 13 is inevitably mentioned as the root cause. In every instance, these people seem to be blithely ignorant of what the proposition entailed.
We first need to remember that Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, more than 30 years ago. Second, it put a cap on property tax increases in such a way that only those homeowners who stayed in their homes were affected. Anyone who purchased a home AFTER 1978 was hit with amazingly high property taxes (in my neighborhood, the rate is 1.65% of assessed value). Furthermore, Proposition 13 allowed counties to raise property taxes 2% EVERY YEAR. In a state where property values are low, this may seem like a trivial increase, but property isn't cheap anywhere in California--and the rate compounds annually.
The question that needs to be asked, but never is, is this: How many people who owned a home in 1978 are still living in that home? Although I have not been able to find any data on that question, I suspect that the answer is fairly obvious--not very many. Mobility and death have probably reduced the negative effect of Proposition 13 on property-tax revenues to something approaching zero.
So please, take Proposition 13 off the table. It has no bearing on the socioeconomics of California. Nor does the bursting of the housing bubble and the related decline in property values. My house, for example, has lost 30% of its value since 2006, yet when the tax assessor recalculated my liability, my property taxes were reduced by a total of $7. Discussions with friends and neighbors, while certainly not a scientific survey, seem representative: They also have experienced huge declines in the value of their homes, accompanied by insignificant--one might even say insulting--reductions in property taxes.
The result? Californians continue to pay property, sales, and state income taxes that are the highest or second highest in the nation.
How, then, to account for the current mess? The answers are unpalatable. First, the state has experienced a huge influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America over the last 25 years. A recent report indicated that more than 40% of all service-sector jobs are now held by illegal immigrants. Construction jobs that once were held by Americans who typically belonged to a union are now held almost exclusively by non-union illegal immigrants who work for below-standard wages. A large percentage of these workers do not pay income taxes because they are paid under the table, in cash, and the majority do not pay property taxes because they are renters. This shift has resulted in a decrease in state revenues overall. The state's high taxes, therefore, force citizens and legal immigrants to subsidize those who are not paying their fair share.
Second, the state legislature has consistently insisted on funding massive social programs to support the illegal population. For example, state law allows the children of illegal-immigrant parents to attend any California college or university at the resident tuition rate (as opposed to, say, an American citizen from Oregon who wants to attend a California college and is required to pay the non-resident tuition rate). Illegal immigrants also are eligible for a variety of assistance programs, ranging from housing to health care.
The decline in the state's public education system--once recognized as the best in the nation--has been significant, but it is not related directly to funding. Unlike many states, California does not fund education on the basis of local property taxes. Instead, property taxes go to the general fund and are then distributed back to the local school districts on the basis of FTEs (full-time enrollments).
In many districts, the non-English-speaking student population is the majority. Approximately 70% of the students in Los Angeles Unified School District, for example, speak Spanish as their home language, and the collapse of elementary and secondary education correlates positively with the increase in the number of nonnative English speakers in our schools. Proposition 227, passed overwhelmingly in 1998, dismantled bilingual education and ensured that formal efforts to improve the language and literacy skills of these students ended.
If California is ever going to solve the financial crisis, the legislature will have to cut social programs to the bone. It also will have to find ways to ensure that everyone one, not just the well-educated and industrious, pays his or her fair share of taxes. Taking such steps requires leadership. Unfortunately, California politicians universally lack the necessary leadership to do so.
One thing that doesn't come up about prop 13 is that if you sell your house and move within the same county you get to keep your same property tax. I don't know how many property owners in California know this but it is fact. The house I bought in 2005 was $629,000.00 today worth $340,000.00 The state and local governments were looking forward to all those tax dollars and now have empty homes pending foreclosure.
Just because a program had X dollars yesterday does not mean the people will it to have N or N+1 dollars today.
I cringe when politicians mutter how much "this will hurt" now that we have voted down the recent round of propositions. Listen Sacramento, we've given you a pile of money now go to work finding out how to make the most of it. We don't elect you to tell us how much we should be spending.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/Tax_Statistics/AGIC.shtml
It is clear that not just illegal population falling short on taxes. The California Adjusted Gross Income with Accumulated Percentages chart clearly shows that 85% of tax payers are paying 15.8% of all collected taxes. This while a whopping 51K people are paying 38% of all income tax collected. (Total taxes collected 45.7B for 2006)
What we need in the state is more school funding and less grants for Whale Migration Research. In addition, we need less safety nets. People will go homeless and people will eat less, but this will push them to push themselves more, less rely on free handouts.
The property tax of apartment complexes is a factor in rent. I don't see the logic of saying that renters don't pay taxes! (so many people just hate renters, it's amazing.)
Illegals buy things and pay sales taxes. Their income taxes would be very low even if they were legal. They don't collect Social Security, so the fact that they don't pay into the system makes no difference.
They do incur emergency room expenses, but so do many uninsured legal citizens. That's more a function of poverty than legal status.
The state does spend money educating their kids, but that was originally funded out of property taxes, which as I mentioned, they pay indirectly.
The voters of California are clueless, in that they think the state can have its own health care initiatives, own global warming initiatives, its own high speed rail system (which will never break even), and its own stem cell research program. These things cost money and we don't vote enough money to pay for them.
Just as at the national level, we have the feeling we can afford anything.