Dave Johnson, Speak Out California.
Did the results of the special election on the budget propositions really show that the public is against taxes and government, as the Republicans claim? Recent polling looked at the reasons the propositions failed. Polls are a useful way to understand what people really thing because they take a scientific sample, actually asking the voters what they think, instead of just repeating something that Republicans just say. Let’s see what the voters give as their reasons for opposing the propositions. From the polling:
- 74% of voters polled thought the election was just a gimmick, not an actual fix for California’s budget problems.
- 70% of the voters polled said the legislature is a captive of special interests (possibly because people are learning that the “budget deal” that they came up with in the middle of this emergency included a huge tax cut for large, multi-state corporations.)
- In a budget battle dominated by Republican demands for spending cuts instead of asking the rich and corporations to pay their fair share only 19% of voters polled said that Californians are being asked to share the pain equally.
- And to drive that point home, only 29% of voters polled said that the budget should be balanced only with spending cuts. According to the polling “even among ‘No’ voters, less than half (46%) say the government should rely entirely on spending cuts with no tax increases.”
In summary, voters resented that the legislature is held captive by the 2/3 rule, and want them to address that instead of coming up with short-term gimmicks to get through another year while making things even worse later.
Additionally, and completely contrary to anti-tax and anti-government claims, the polling showed “broad support for new revenue streams.” According to the polling report, the public supports:
- Increasing taxes on alcoholic beverages (75% support)
- Increasing taxes on tobacco (74% support)
- Imposing an oil extraction tax on oil companies just like every other oil producing state (73% support)
- Closing the loophole that allows corporations to avoid reassessment of the value of new property they purchase (63% support)
- Increasing the top bracket of the state income tax from nine point three percent to 10 percent for families with taxable income over $272,000 a year and to eleven percent for families with taxable incomes over $544,000 a year (63% support)
- Prohibiting corporations from using tax credits to offset more than fifty percent of the taxes they owe (59% support)
The corporate right has to spin last week’s special election as an anti-tax vote. What else can they do? But, as usual, their spin goes completely the other way from the facts.
Let’s put them to the test. The corporate right claims that this election showed that the public is solidly against government and taxes. If they really believe that, how about reinstating majority rule in California, instead of requiring a 2/3 vote to pass budgets and taxes?
Since they claim that the public is solidly against taxes, will they also support a straight up-or-down vote on taxes? Of course not. The public is not with them and they know it. This is just a ruse to continue destroying our great state and our democratic process.
Click Through to Speak Out California.
I see no reason to increase taxes on the rich. They obviously worked hard to get where they are, otherwise they would be in the same whole as those of us who aren’t considered rich. Not to mention, a lot of them are the reason a lot of us have a steady stream of work. So before we start wanting to raise taxes on people who can afford to move out of state and take their business, and those jobs, with them, lets start looking at the restrictions our state has on certain items that damage our ability to collect MORE tax revenue.
I do support legalizing marijuana, not because I do it, 23 and have never touched it, but because all the crap they put out there about the drug isn’t true. Never met a pot-head i don’t like. On the contrary, pot-heads are pretty funny. The violent side of pot is at the source, with the people that have millions of dollars to lose if they get caught producing or selling the drug. Plus, sales tax generated by the amount of food purchased when pot is legalized will go through the roof. And this isn’t even what i wanted to talk about, just happened to have a burst of thought on it.
Really i wanted to say that by lifting gun restrictions, as in what the average LAW ABIDING citizen can buy, we could be raking in the dough. How you ask? Well if you look at the states that aren’t california, ehm texas for example, they have a balanced budget, high property taxes yes, but they also sell guns like crazed texans… think they make money there? Criminals buy guns illegally from OTHER CRIMINALS, who don’t pay taxes. Leaving the average gun enthusiast who cant buy the guns the criminals buy, up a creek without an M60, or fully tested FNP45 for that matter.
And last thing I’ll interject into this LONG comment. You could also do well to lift the smog year from 1976, to a 25 year restriction. When the average Joe can’t register his 1985 bronco because it wont pass smog, and he has to spend major money to get it fixed, or buy a car that will pass smog, it increases the amount of money he ISN’T spending elsewhere. As well, a car that is 25 years or older, is probably pretty cheap to buy, insure, and without smog laws restricting them to certain parts and labor, keep running. Which means in the long run, Mr. Joe is spending his money elsewhere, or upgrading his beloved 85′ Bronco, or Camaro for you bowties out there, with his favorite parts which he probably had to pay sales tax on.
And no, i don’t have an 85 bronco, i have a 66′ Mustang, which when done, i wont have to smog :D.
And yes, i love guns, cars, and work. Stop restricting my hobbies please.
“I see no reason to increase taxes on the rich. They obviously worked hard to get where they are”
Paris Hilton.