Brown, in cautious budget, urges state to prepare for recession
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
SACRAMENTO Gov. Jerry Brown warned of impending deficits and the need to pull back new spending in his $122.2 billion revised general fund budget released Friday.
Brown said the state will need to cut spending if California voters dont approve a measure probably headed for the November ballot that would extend Proposition 30s personal income tax hikes on the wealthy. But he also said he is not endorsing the initiative because he promised Prop. 30 would be a temporary tax and he is prepared to lead the state without the extra dollars.
Using Aesops fable on the ant and the grasshopper to illustrate the need for planning ahead for tough times, the governor said history shows California will inevitably experience another recession and that the state must not create new programs that it wont be able to afford later.
Like everything else, things dont last forever, Brown said at a Capitol news conference. Right now the surging tide of revenue is beginning to turn as it always does. Thats why its very important and best to be prepared for a time of necessity.
Read more: http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Jerry-Brown-uses-Aesop-s-fable-to-tell-7467298.php?t=a0b257127e1210a92f&cmpid=twitter-premium
C Moon
(12,213 posts)Tax the fucking rich!!!
Some of us are STILL underwater!
Califonz
(465 posts)Back when junior colleges were free and state colleges were almost free!
lancer78
(1,495 posts)was probably not a $110, 000 a year back then.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)The state tax system was contributory but not in as large a way as now. And the other problem is the money that used to go to teaching which now goes to "other things". You cannot maximize both profit and quality.
And Raygun had a hand in it too.
CountAllVotes
(20,868 posts)My family would have lost their home! My father was a WWII vet and bought their house with a CalVet loan and became totally disabled and had there been no Prop. 13, we'd have ended up on the street.
If it weren't for Prop. 13, I'd be on the street. The house I live in was bought 15 years ago and the taxes GO UP EVERY YEAR. Are you aware of this fact?
Do you live in California? I take it you don't.
Only the rich can afford to live here now because everything costs so much that the lower and middle classes are being pushed out of the State and on to the streets!
I suppose you think that disabled Word War II vets deserve to live on the streets after serving in a horrible war that ruined one too many lives, my late father included, because people like you think that Prop. 13 is BAD, very BAD. He was afraid to move because he knew he couldn't make it without Prop. 13.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Our low property taxes make the housing more valuable, people come from all over to buy into our high lifestyle, low-tax property market.
Yes, I was born and raised here, and except for about twelve years in Virginia and New York I have lived and worked and rented and owned here all of my life. Seventy one years next month.
They passed Prop. 13 on the pretext of tax breaks for Grandma, but what they did is tax breaks for corporations, and that is what bankrupted the state, the loss of corporate tax revenue.
They could fix that any time without affecting homeowners at all, they prefer the corporate campaign money, that's the deal here. I'm willing to give Grandma property tax breaks right down to zero as long as we can get the corporations and the CEO's to stop claiming to be Grandma too.
CountAllVotes
(20,868 posts)Where I live there is a house across the street that sold for about $100,000. It was sold for $300,000+ when the man living there died about 10+ years ago.
It is owned by a couple with a kid and they do not keep the place up at all. They could not afford the near $4,000 a year in taxes on it so they refinanced it so now it is worth less and the taxes are now less too.
If prices drop more again, this next crash will wipe out plenty of Californians that are hanging on by their fingernails like these people are doing. They bit off more than they can chew and here there are now with a crummy house worth nothing close to $300,000.
The place I live in in very small. I can barely afford to live here now. Last year it was a new furnace and a new range and range hood cover along with a 700 board foot fence that was falling down and had to be replaced. Add in water damage to the back of the house, etc.. I had no choice but to take out a loan for of this and throw in another $2K for property taxes -- on top of that a giant yikes it is becoming. Luckily I have a neighbor that is a retired logger that loves nothing more that to cut up trees. He decided to remove a huge stump from the front yard being he was sick of looking at it he said whereas I could have cared less and didn't feel like paying someone a couple of grand to be rid of it, so, thank god for neighbors eh? *whew*
As for grandma, well she's dead now. What happens when she is gone? Do the heirs (if any) fight over the house? This just happened not far from here and wow, what a nightmare it was.
Prop. 13 is good for families and the like but yes, I agree, no corporation, etc. should be able to use this for profit only only to pack up and leave when things start going sour.
As for Gov. Brown, I have the utmost respect for him and his actions. I have voted for him a total of six times in my life, not including when he ran for president of the USA years ago. I have a great deal of trust in his actions and I am proud that he, and for that matter many members of the Brown family (all California natives), have served the State of California so well and done so quite attentively over the years.
to Jerry Brown, MY governor!
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I remember when it was not this way. I would happily give up my fake equity to get that back.
Response to bemildred (Reply #15)
CountAllVotes This message was self-deleted by its author.
SharonAnn
(13,772 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)One of my first votes was against that horrible bill.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)never been that high anywhere.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)padfun
(1,786 posts)My experience of several decades of Republican policy is this; Spend like mad except when Dems control, then stop them every step.
Both Reagan and Bush I raised taxes quite a few times. And Bush II was THE biggest spender of all time, a lot of it on the credit card. Our national debt is as much, if not more, Republican doing.
But since we have a Dem president (and Calif governor), lets pretend otherwise.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Dems like to spend it around more. Most Dems are not like Jerry. Jerry wants to get out of debt. He knows the score. A government deep in debt is a hamstrung government.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday threw his support behind an ambitious $2-billion plan to build housing for Californias mentally ill homeless population.
The governor's action comes as cities from Los Angeles to San Francisco, have seen increases in homelessness in recent years, sparked in part by rising rents that have pushed poor people into shantytowns on city sidewalks and canyons.
Under the plan, the state would issue $2 billion in bonds, which would be repaid over 20 to 30 years with money provided under Proposition 63, the millionaires' tax for mental health services that voters approved in 2004.
Proponents said money from the bond, together with federal and local funding, would finance 10,000 to 14,000 new housing units for the state's 116,000 homeless people, an estimated 30% of whom have mental illness.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-brown-plan-to-ease-homelessness-20160513-story.html
reddread
(6,896 posts)Thats literally a ton of money with a completely inadequate target.
I have no reason to believe that money wont be wasted in exactly the same way
so much has under the rubric of Housing First without the principle of
Housing For All.
they enrich the rich, house a handful in a modern solitary prison lifestyle,
and leave the rest for the dogs and the police to take care of.
I wish it were different.
I wish Jerry Brown was a good guy.
I almost wish I didnt know any better.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)will get a better deal out of it too. And maybe we can convince the cops to at least not harass them, if they can't help them.
reddread
(6,896 posts)we signed, this is simply a way of moving money where they think it belongs.
what will most likely happen is a big production over a small facility and hoopla to match.
and then nothing.
the real nothing.
nothing.
for all that money.
it will be a few dozen, a few score indoors with cameras watching them and securing the premises in lockdown.
no companions, living alone. not as bad as it could be, by far. but would you find that worth all the extra $ and
the overwhelming percentage of unserved homeless that cannot set foot on the facility?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It's a waste of time?
reddread
(6,896 posts)undercover of poverty
bemildred
(90,061 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 02:54 AM - Edit history (1)
if that isnt part of the deal, then for those huge numbers of homeless nothing changes.
unless it gets worse, which it most likely will. the number one concern is getting the homeless
out of the sight of people, not housing them.
that is a LOT of money to be utilized and not nearly enough result.
then
they will say they are out of funds, sorry.
if they go that far.
they will really just drop the issue and point at their good works.