If our teachers, in fact, would "support and defend teaching" (which includes upgrades, as needed, asap), then, our candidates/applicants may actually know how to "support and defend the constitution" (jury trials:from our 1st Constitution, Article 18 of the 1776 Declaration of Independence), someday....being a teacher (one whose credentials will withstand any impartial jury's scrutiny....in english....as being an American Teacher REQUIRES)...the first International Crime "inversion" (or Gulag re-Education Camp Attack Strategy), that is, allow teachers (or other professionals) whose credentials won't withstand a jury's scrutiny and produce enemies of the constitution (jury trials), from within....THE REAL PROBLEM(S).....www.JoinUSRecovery.Blogspot.com....DON'T HAVE VALID HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMAS UNTIL THEY CAN PASS (ANY LAB OR JURY)----PLATINUMIZING THE DOLLAR WITH THE NEW "UNIFICATION SCIENCE UPGRADE", TO "U.S. GRADE"....COUNTERFEITS AND NON-UPGRADES TRIPLE THE CRIME AND DEBT EXPANSION RATES (REPROVABLY)...DEMAND IMPLEMENTATIONS/UPGRADES, BEFORE THE 2012 ELECTIONS....ALL ELSE OPPOSES THE CONSTITUTION (ISN'T EARNING THE "SUPPORT AND DEFENSE PAYCHECK" AND TRIPLES THE COST OF GETTING THE GOVERNMENTAL-JOB DONE, AT LEAST)....
Sotto Voce: Brown knew exactly what he was doing - it's how he was re-elected. He got the unoins and then he got union money.
A corrupt bargain - very typical for the Democratic party since it's the most corrupt organization on the planet.
How is it possible that gov't could allow public unions to make political donations or any politicking at all by public unions? Aren;t donations simply a transfer of taxpayer funds to politicians? And isn't there an inherent conflict of interest here?
Why does the law allow this? Why doesn't anyone reform public unions - ok you want to unoinize but stay out of politics - in fact, you or any other organization of gov't workers stay out of politics.
Why haven't we seen anyone suggest this, not even Republicans? Isn't it corruption, the system we have now?
Cut their existing pensions....as well as future ones....
This is absurd....and totally unsustainable. it has to
be equivalent to the public sector. Look at Greece....
as a warning.
The political actions of the teachers unions and the democratic party seem to mirror the actions and perverted logic of a herion addict. even though they know their "solutions" are just another distructive "hit" for the temporary pleasure of an inflated pension check, they risk it all, the students, their jobs and the very future viability of their state for just one more "hit" of tax money. Don't they know that the average Californian has little sympathy with drug, or tax, addicts?
The article perfectly delineates California's self-induced fiscal predicament, brought on by years of malfeasance on the part of public unions and Democrats. A life-long CA resident, I read ballot summaries carefully and reject any proposal that is backed by unions, public or private. I'm driven by a gut-level belief that it's immoral to give the thieves in Sacramento another dime of my money.
It's fitting karma that Governor Brown, who created the voracious union monster in the 70's during his first term by signing the act that allowed state workers to unionize, is now faced with the ultimate result of 40 years of cronyism between his party and public sector unions.
Great Article! Keep them coming.
Need a graphic example of why over-reliance on high-income taxpayers is a bad idea? Here's what happened to California tax revenues between 2007 and 2009.
Incomes for all California's dropped $143 BILLION between 2007 and 2009. Incomes for those earning over $1 MILLION dropped by 50%.
California taxes capital gains exactly like ordinary income (essentially, the "Buffett Rule"). Consequently, California government is addicted to gains on stocks and real estate. The SIMULTANEOUS crash in the stock market and real estate resulted in a 50% drop in incomes and tax revenues between 2007 and 2009 for the over $1 million crowd--a drop of nearly $9.6 BIL in tax revenues.
ZZMike, this chart shows the effect of high tax rates on state-to-state migration. To echo your point, which states lost income (and therefore eventual tax revenue) because residents moved away?
#50 New York ($45 BIL total income lost)
#49 California ($27 BIL total income lost)
#48 Illinois ($20.9 BIL total income lost)
Who gained these residents?
#1 Florida ($70 BIL total income gained)
#2 Arizona ($18.9 BIL total income gained)
#3 Texas ($16.6 BIL total income gained)
NY and CA all have bottom-scraping business tax climates, due in part to high taxation. CA, NY, and IL governments are all dominated by Progressive Democrats. All three have forced unionism.
CA has the nation's #2 and #4 top marginal tax rates. California's 2nd highest rate of 9.3% starts at just $48,000 of Adjusted Gross Income. Despite these high rates and the nation's highest state sales tax rate, Governor Brown and the teachers' unions still want more.
By contracts, FL and TX have NO state income tax. Arizona's state income tax is below the national average.
Likewise, FL, AZ, and TX all high much higher business climate ratings than NY and CA.
FL, AZ, and TX are all "right to work" states, where union membership is an individual decision.
"... remove the property tax exemption for churches:..."
The URL didn't get through:
Follow the last link, ""Property Taxation"
Seamus, here is information on who pays their "fair share" in California, including links to original data sources.
Who Pays Their "Fair Share" in California?
Joe G - and Seamus: "...but what percent of total California taxes paid should the top 5% of the "conservative elites" population have to pay? "
They already pay 40% of the income taxes.
Does California really want to "kill the golden goose"?
Not only that, but the top 5% can easily move elsewhere. That's why Tiger Woods lives in Florida, not California - where he was born and raised.
"... should have to pay at least some taxes"
I think you mean "income taxes". Everybody pays sales taxes, on everything from gasoline to yachts.
What about the basic question: why should anybody pay any taxes? If you answer, to support essential government services, then what services are essential?
I maintain that taxing for "social engineering" is immoral, because it does not "support essential government services".
seamus wrote: "conservative elites will once again expect to live on the largesse of the middle class and avoid paying their share of the cost of living in a civil society."
Really? On which facts do you base this conclusion?
Well, here are some facts, based on actual data directly from the California government and its Franchise Tax Board (FTB).
CHART: California Taxes Collected from 2/3rd Majority and Top 2%
Which group paid over 50% of all California income taxes?
Which group contributed 29% of California's general fund while the other contributed just 3%? Which group paid more than all sales tax revenues?
Which group had an average effective tax rate of 1%. Which had a rate EIGHT TIMES HIGHER?
By the way, this is all before Governor Brown's proposed tax hike on the wealthy, who according to the Governor and the California Teachers Association (CTA), aren't paying their "fair share."
There's a California ballot initiative in the works that would remove the property tax exemption for churches:
Tracking number 12-0012
According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), who are the biggest spenders in California politics? Which of these big spenders has an interest in bigger state spending?
CHART: The 15 Biggest Spenders in California Politics
Well - I don't live in California so I regard their fiscal problems differently than those with a dog in the fight. Yet I scan the fiscal horizon for even the possibility that the rest of the country will have to subsidize the reckless spending of the California legislature. That type of taxation without representation would trigger a whole new type of fight.
Joe G...........Don't know what Seamus thinks, but most people I know do believe that every adult citizen of CA and the US should have to pay some taxes, even as you said it is just a small amount. If you don't have skin in the game, you do not appreciate the benefits you receive.
Seamus: Just curious, but what percent of total California taxes paid should the top 5% of the "conservative elites" population have to pay? Oh, and another question if I may -- do you believe that every adult citizen of CA should have to pay at least some taxes -- even if it's a small amount? And if so, what is this minimum amount?
A natural experiment is in the offing. If tax receipts go down despite an increase in rates, or if they rise by an insignificant amount, that will show that the Laffer curve is real and relevant.
If projected extra revenue materializes, that will show that rates can go quite a bit higher without triggering a Laffer curve situation.
The summary of the Governor's initiatives says that it "allocates" money to K-12 schools and "guarantees" funding for public safety services. So, no guarantee for schools. Billions have already been diverted away from schools as well as deferred. Prop 98 funding has already been raided and lowered.
The PTA/Molly Munger initiative "Our Children, Our Future" send the money directly to school sites in amounts OVER and ABOVE any Prop 98 minimum the governor concocts. That's the initiative I'm voting for.
Just another N.J. moment..
"Certain perennials accompany life in California: the weather will always be fair, the scenery will always be breathtaking, the budget will always be on the brink of outright chaos, and the state’s ..." conservative elites will once again expect to live on the largesse of the middle class and avoid paying their share of the cost of living in a civil society.