Teabaggers in heaven
Cliff
"ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009."
[
Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in
taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which
“generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle
Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon
Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most
taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:
[
Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries
domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter
the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.
No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it
to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested
overseas.
]
Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate
welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it
threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that
big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion
annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government
Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States
corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”
]
cop welfare
anorton
(snip)
> How much? Well,
> Jeffers says so far he's not at liberty to disclose that information.
> "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."
(snip)
>The financial results listed in the 10-k "is an accurate
> reflection of what it is, but not what you thought it was," says
> Jeffers.
>
Well, that cleared up that misunderstanding didn't it???
Cliff
wrote:
Dan is very observant <G>.
--
Cliff
Larry Caldwell
@att.net (D Murphy) says...
> Are you serious?
>
> Over half my income went to taxes last year. I'll have to sell my house
> in order to pay more. But nobody will buy it, for here in leftopia, the
> only thing higher than the unemployment rate is the forclosure rate.
So, like a good TEA partier, you are going to line up to protest the big
tax cut you got last year? It sounds like you made a stupid house
purchase, and want to blame everyone else for your dumb mistake.
F. George McDuffee
<snip>
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:20:38 -0700, sittingduck
<du...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
>>> Over half my income went to taxes last year. I'll have to sell my house
>>> in order to pay more. But nobody will buy it, for here in leftopia, the
>>> only thing higher than the unemployment rate is the forclosure rate.
>>
>> So, like a good TEA partier, you are going to line up to protest the big
>> tax cut you got last year? It sounds like you made a stupid house
>> purchase, and want to blame everyone else for your dumb mistake.
>
>Lucky for the teabaggers, they don't much care about facts.
<snip>
===========
It is not just a question of how much you pay in taxes,
either absolute or as a percentate of income. What you get
in return, over time and at different stages of life, also
enters into the equation.
Even with the bursting of the real estate bubble and massive
numbers of foreclosures, many jurisdictions are [attempting
to] increase real estate assessments, property taxes, and
other fees such as trash collection, even as these
governmental units cut services and wages. Much of the
increase has been in the form of state and local debt, which
are in one sense simply future taxes spent now, in spite of
state constitutional provisions explicitly prohibiting
deficit financing. California is the poster child, although
Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are not far behind.
The end result is the average gainfully employed
contributing taxpayer is now paying more taxes [and will pay
considerably more taxes as the bonds become due], is getting
less and less infrastructure and services, and is starting
to realize they have been played for a sucker.
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Shall not be infringed
> In article <Xns9D641E0F2E84Fdmurf154att...@130.133.4.11>, dmurf154
Ummm, he said that he is still in his house, which by now means that
he made a conservative purchase. Idiot.
Larry Caldwell
9b4a95...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, hot-ham-and-
che...@hotmail.com (Shall not be infringed) says...
He said over half his income went to taxes last year, which means he
earned well over half a million. Rule of thumb is that you can afford a
house that costs 3x your annual income, so he should have paid $1.5
million for a house. Since he is having trouble making payments, he is
probably more into the $2 million zone. If he makes less than $500k, he
had no business buying that much house. Unless he makes substantially
more than $500k, most of his tax dollars to to property taxes, which are
exclusively a local issue. You may recall that property taxes are
deductible on your federal income tax, so ironically, any property taxes
he pays are tax free.
If he is in solid equity position with only a $1 million mortgage at 5%,
he has a $50,000 a year mortgage interest deduction, and pays $10,000 a
month in property taxes. He pays no income tax on the first $170,000 of
his income. Assume that he is self-employed, and 100% of his income is
subject to the 15.3% self-employment tax. For a worst case scenario,
assume he has no other adjustments to his gross income. He could make
$500,000 and his effective federal tax rate including the 15.3% self-
employment tax, would be 32.64%. His actual effective income tax rate
would be 17.34%. Those of us whose math skills extend past counting on
our fingers learn to take advantage of tax free and tax sheltered
investments, tax credits, and other means of reducing our tax burden.
With only minimal planning, he could easily make over $600,000 a year
and not pay any more in taxes, with the attendant reduction in effective
tax rate.
I have trouble sympathizing with someone who makes 10x the national
median income and complains about being broke.
Shall not be infringed
> In article <5ec862a8-14b9-4dd3-b874-
> 9b4a95f95...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, hot-ham-and-
I'm not a thief, so I don't look at things that way.
And so you're telling me that there are only income taxes. I did not
know that.
Larry Caldwell
ask...@followup.news (Larry Caldwell) says...
> He could make
> $500,000 and his effective federal tax rate including the 15.3% self-
> employment tax, would be 32.64%.
Oops. I forgot that he doesn't pay SE tax for income over $109,000.
His effective federal tax rate for $500,000 income is no more than
26.74%.
Larry Caldwell
@k36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com (Shall
not be infringed) says...
> I'm not a thief, so I don't look at things that way.
Nah, you are not a thief, you are a leech.
> And so you're telling me that there are only income taxes. I did not
> know that.
That's your federal taxes. I forgot that his income over $109,000 is
exempt from self-employment tax, so his worst case effective federal tax
rate is only about 26%. Call it $133,000 in federal taxes, and $120,000
in property taxes, which adds up to well over 50% of his income, but
that is just because he made a stupid choice in buying more house than
he could afford in the highest property tax area in the whole country.
I pay $1300 a year in property taxes on property worth half a million,
and nothing for a mortgage because I bought a house I could afford on a
15 year mortgage and and paid it off 5 years early.
If you want to get ahead, quit pissing your money away on interest
payments that buy you nothing. Most people sell themselves into debt
slavery and spend their entire lives there. When you pay taxes, you get
a country in return. When you pay interest, you get nothing. Wake up.
Gunner Asch
<ask...@followup.news> wrote:
>> > So, like a good TEA partier, you are going to line up to protest the big
>> > tax cut you got last year? It sounds like you made a stupid house
>> > purchase, and want to blame everyone else for your dumb mistake.
>>
>> Ummm, he said that he is still in his house, which by now means that
>> he made a conservative purchase. Idiot.
>
>He said over half his income went to taxes last year, which means he
>earned well over half a million.
If ONLY your house was considered. But its not.
You keep forgetting state and local taxes which have gone UP to replace
the missing tax segment that used to come to the states from the Federal
government.
I paid nearly as much..about 6% less in Sales Taxes, and Fees, as I made
last year.
Gasoline taxes, business taxes, city, local and state taxes were the
majority of them.
I own a machine shop service company that services machinery in machine
shops all over So. Cal.
I drive 60,000 miles per year. Ever figure out what that comes out to
in gasoline taxes alone? My rig gets 19 miles per gallon...Ill leave it
up to you to tell me how many thousands of dollars Ive paid each year in
state and federal fuel taxes. The list of my "expenses" that go to
Government is a long long one.
While Federal taxes went down..the other taxes and Fees went way the
fuck up. Hell..California vehicle registration (already one of the
hightest in the nation) in many cases...doubled. My 1989 Ford E-350, 1
ton van costs me $350 a year..just in Registration fees. Add the
manditory $100 smog...
Gunner
Gunner Asch
wrote:
> My 1989 Ford E-350, 1
>ton van costs me $350 a year..just in Registration fees. Add the
>manditory $100 smog...
>
>Gunner
And it should be noted..that van is 21 yrs old.....21 yrs old.
Gunner
Shall not be infringed
> In article <842fb1a0-7b56-45ad-b8b0-b3762015e884
> not be infringed) says...
>
> > I'm not a thief, so I don't look at things that way.
>
> Nah, you are not a thief, you are a leech.
Huh? I pay my bills and probably a lot of other people's, too.
And for the first time in my adult life, I quit contributing to
charity.
0bama will give everyone what they need, so I'm not going to worry
about it.
> > And so you're telling me that there are only income taxes. I did not
> > know that.
>
> That's your federal taxes. I forgot that his income over $109,000 is
> exempt from self-employment tax, so his worst case effective federal tax
> rate is only about 26%. Call it $133,000 in federal taxes, and $120,000
> in property taxes, which adds up to well over 50% of his income, but
> that is just because he made a stupid choice in buying more house than
> he could afford in the highest property tax area in the whole country.
And he's still in it. He just doesn't want 0bama to take even more.
Makes sense to me.
> I pay $1300 a year in property taxes on property worth half a million,
> and nothing for a mortgage because I bought a house I could afford on a
> 15 year mortgage and and paid it off 5 years early.
You're special.
> If you want to get ahead, quit pissing your money away on interest
> payments that buy you nothing. Most people sell themselves into debt
> slavery and spend their entire lives there. When you pay taxes, you get
> a country in return. When you pay interest, you get nothing. Wake up.
I pay taxes and see my country being pissed away. I don't like it.
F. George McDuffee
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:54:53 -0700, Gunner Asch
<gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
===========
Both amc and rcm have been assured that state and local
governmental fees are inconsequential. Now don't you feel
better....
The problem is that PPP and/or marginal utility of one
dollar more or less depends greatly on your level of income.
A doubling or more of vehicle license/inspection fees, trash
collection fees, residential real estate taxes, etc. is
indeed minor if you are a high income individual as these
are a small percent of your income to start with, but may
well make the difference between eating and not eating for
several days at the end of the month for the low or fixed
income family. A major contributing factor is that there
are no low income elected officials in government, and thus
no sense of what they are imposing on everyone.
A shift to a progressive residential real estate tax
structure may help, with minimal rates on entry level homes
and *MUCH* higher rates on oversized estates. Same thing on
vehicle taxes and fees, particularly where the vehicle is
required for business. The general rationale for a
progressive tax structure is that the rich should feel the
tax/fee bite at least as much as much as the low income
individual.
Larry Caldwell
gunne...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
> You keep forgetting state and local taxes which have gone UP to replace
> the missing tax segment that used to come to the states from the Federal
> government.
I thought you Californians had a taxpayer revolt a few years back, which
is why your state is going broke.
> I paid nearly as much..about 6% less in Sales Taxes, and Fees, as I made
> last year.
I'm not sure what you just said? Did you say your business earned a 6%
profit last year? If that's the case, you paid for a lot of things
besides taxes and fees. After all, when you pay gasoline tax, you are
also buying the gasoline.
> Gasoline taxes, business taxes, city, local and state taxes were the
> majority of them.
>
> I own a machine shop service company that services machinery in machine
> shops all over So. Cal.
>
> I drive 60,000 miles per year. Ever figure out what that comes out to
> in gasoline taxes alone? My rig gets 19 miles per gallon...Ill leave it
> up to you to tell me how many thousands of dollars Ive paid each year in
> state and federal fuel taxes. The list of my "expenses" that go to
> Government is a long long one.
You probably paid around $40,000 to run your van last year. That's
average fuel and maintenance for a 1-ton chassis.
Gasoline is part of what you sell. Everything you paid for gasoline is
a business expense, as were tires, oil changes, maintenance and vehicle
registration. I have a buddy who is a garbage hauler who paid over
$350,000 for fuel last year, in addition to his PUC permits, disposal
fees, business fees, insurance, and the employer half of his employees'
SS and Medicare. His trucks cost $750,000 each. It's a cost of doing
business. I don't know what his profit margin is, probably about there
same as your 6%, but he does OK. A few years ago he hired Lyle Lovett
and his Large Band to play in the city park for free.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In article <dh99t51hfdptkukpj...@4ax.com>,
> gunne...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
>
>> You keep forgetting state and local taxes which have gone UP to replace
>> the missing tax segment that used to come to the states from the
>> Federal government.
>
> I thought you Californians had a taxpayer revolt a few years back, which
> is why your state is going broke.
No, Proposition 13 did not cause California to go broke. Gross income
barely changed after Proposition 13. Excessive spending caused
California to go broke.
And the fat lady hasn't sang yet. The California budget/income/
joblessness is not going to improve for quite a while.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dante's 9th Circle: http://tinyurl.com/573eq
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. George McDuffee
<ask...@followup.news> wrote:
<snip>
>I thought you Californians had a taxpayer revolt a few years back, which
>is why your state is going broke.
============
I'm in Kansas, not California, however....
There were indeed several taxpayer revolts in California,
some of which "stuck," and some of which were evaded as soon
as they started working.
One of the most lasting was prop-13 in 1978, the freeze on
residential taxes largely to prevent fixed income retirees
from being driven from their homes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29
It soon developed that it was a simple matter to increase
the other taxes and fees to maintain profligate state and
local government spending.
This lead directly to the Gann amendment in 1979, which was
operational only from 1980-1991. This amendment froze the
state *TAX* expenditures at the 1979 rates, adjusted for
changes in the state population and inflation. This worked
well until it was evaded/circumvented by ballot initiatives
in 1988 and 1990. Another problem was that no limits were
placed on spending non-tax revenue [e.g. fees] which soared.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2871
It should be noted that if the Gann amendment were still
operational, even without fee limits, California would not
have a governmental deficit and would be in budget surplus.
I have posted before the historical record indicates in the
U.S., for every additional $1.00 received in either fees or
taxes, governmental expenditures increase between $1.10 and
$1.25, thus increasing governmental revenue with no other
changes [enforced Draconian spending caps/limits] is a
no-win situation.
Strabo
This is a good time to nip globalism in the bud.
The only way to make sure the central government stays within
its budget is to remove the option of printing debt money -
eliminate the Federal Reserve and tie the dollar to gold.
This would end the IMF, the World Bank, the practice of governing
by policy instead of law, and nation-building.
The First World would be forced to follow suit as the
military-industrial-surveillance complex dried up
and wars and agitprop dramatically decreased.
Gunner Asch
<ask...@followup.news> wrote:
>In article <dh99t51hfdptkukpj...@4ax.com>,
>gunne...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
>
>> You keep forgetting state and local taxes which have gone UP to replace
>> the missing tax segment that used to come to the states from the Federal
>> government.
>
>I thought you Californians had a taxpayer revolt a few years back, which
>is why your state is going broke.
>
You blew it on that second word..."thought". Something you are seldom
wont to do.
We had Prop 13 (google is your friend)
On the other hand..we have 7 million illegal aliens living here, sucking
up the taxpayer funds, we have an out of control state Unionized
government, we have the highest paid prison guards and their lifetime
benefits, and we have lots and lots of Leftwing promises to pay for.
Prop 13 simply put a cork in the bunghole of the taxpayer barrel. The
other stuff..simply cut the other side of the barrel completely away.
Thanks Leftwinger, for your continuing support to the death of a once
very nice state.
Gunner
Larry Caldwell
gunne...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
> Thanks Leftwinger, for your continuing support to the death of a once
> very nice state.
You can't blame me for what you Californians did to your state. As long
as all 37 million of you stay there, I am happy. You could always move
to Texas, I suppose.
And you need to pull your head out of your right wing asshole and
realize that dumping shit on everyone else isn't going to solve your
problems. You right wingers don't realize you are just like the left
wingers; you sit around blaming everyone else for your problems. Grow a
pair. If you don't like your life, change it.
- A message from the INDEPENDENT majority
Gunner Asch
<ask...@followup.news> wrote:
>In article <retat5hrkf11m0dio...@4ax.com>,
>gunne...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
>
>> Thanks Leftwinger, for your continuing support to the death of a once
>> very nice state.
>
>You can't blame me for what you Californians did to your state. As long
>as all 37 million of you stay there, I am happy. You could always move
>to Texas, I suppose.
Heads up fuckwit...its what the LEFTWING did to the state. Conservatives
control most of the counties, but the Leftwing cites have all the
population..so they control the state.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
(little has changed since 2004)
So fuck you very much, you leftwing spaz.
Its your party, your fuckups and your voting block.
Shrug..but in 2 yrs..you will all be dead, so the state might..might
recover.
Gunner
rangerssuck
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:48:21 -0700, Larry Caldwell
>
> <ask...@followup.news> wrote:
> >gunnera...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
>
> >> Thanks Leftwinger, for your continuing support to the death of a once
> >> very nice state.
>
> >You can't blame me for what you Californians did to your state. As long
> >as all 37 million of you stay there, I am happy. You could always move
> >to Texas, I suppose.
>
> Heads up fuckwit...its what the LEFTWING did to the state. Conservatives
> control most of the counties, but the Leftwing cites have all the
> population..so they control the state.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
>
> (little has changed since 2004)
>
> So fuck you very much, you leftwing spaz.
>
> Its your party, your fuckups and your voting block.
>
> Shrug..but in 2 yrs..you will all be dead, so the state might..might
> recover.
>
> Gunner
Sure. Jerry Brown made you run up three quarters of a million dollars
in medical debt, which you refuse to pay for. And then you have the
gall to complain about the evil illegal aliens using up the state's
resources. You're a real piece of work.
Larry Caldwell
gunne...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
> Its your party, your fuckups and your voting block.
Let's see if I can get through to you.
I DON'T HAVE A PARTY!!! I refuse to participate in your school yard
politics where everyone has to pick a side.
I DON'T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA!!! I don't vote there, and could really give
a shit what your problems are. My state is moderately managed and in no
danger of going broke. In the general election last November, we
actually passed a modest tax increase, because we aren't a bunch of
deadbeat right wing whiners and lunatic liberals.
MY VOTING BLOCK CONTROLS ELECTIONS!!! Independent voters vote for the
candidates who appear most qualified for a position, and only care about
their ideology when it appears excessively stupid. If you hadn't
abandoned your capacity for independent thought, you would do the same.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GET YOUR STUPID ASS IN GEAR AND CHANGE YOUR
LIFE!!! Move someplace where you like the politics better. Try Idaho.
You can also change your business model so you make more money and pay
less taxes. Lots of people do that. Whining about it isn't going to
get you anywhere. Grow up.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<range...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 27, 6:06 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:48:21 -0700, Larry Caldwell
>>
>> <ask...@followup.news> wrote:
>> >In article <retat5hrkf11m0diolt9fbdi86vqipl...@4ax.com>,
>> >gunnera...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
>>
>> >> Thanks Leftwinger, for your continuing support to the death of a once
>> >> very nice state.
>>
>> >You can't blame me for what you Californians did to your state. As long
>> >as all 37 million of you stay there, I am happy. You could always move
>> >to Texas, I suppose.
>>
>> Heads up fuckwit...its what the LEFTWING did to the state. Conservatives
>> control most of the counties, but the Leftwing cites have all the
>> population..so they control the state.
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
>>
>> (little has changed since 2004)
>>
>> So fuck you very much, you leftwing spaz.
>>
>> Its your party, your fuckups and your voting block.
>>
>> Shrug..but in 2 yrs..you will all be dead, so the state might..might
>> recover.
>>
>> Gunner
>
>Sure. Jerry Brown made you run up three quarters of a million dollars
>in medical debt, which you refuse to pay for.
Gummer said that it's about $300k for him, plus $4million! for his
wife, an unstated amount for his kid's medical problems which go back
about 3 decades, permanent disability for his kid and undoubtedly
their kids. None of them show any sign of ever being self-sufficient,
so the total of their leeching is guaranteed to increase.
> And then you have the
>gall to complain about the evil illegal aliens using up the state's
>resources. You're a real piece of work.
... who doesn't work, and probably never will.
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
Ha ha. Gummer's made a 3 decade career of not paying taxes.
http://tinyurl.com/pf22ny He lives a subsistence lifestyle and he
hates it, so he whines and scapegoats.
> Lots of people do that. Whining about it isn't going to
>get you anywhere. Grow up.
Too late. His life is fu*cked and he knows it. All he has left to
cling to is his hypocritical bitching.
Wayne
Gunner Asch
<ask...@followup.news> wrote:
>In article <lhddt5hajkscg0t41...@4ax.com>,
>gunne...@gmail.com (Gunner Asch) says...
>
>> Its your party, your fuckups and your voting block.
>
>Let's see if I can get through to you.
>
>I DON'T HAVE A PARTY!!! I refuse to participate in your school yard
>politics where everyone has to pick a side.
Larry..you are a Leftwinger, no matter your denial.
And that ....is that.
Gunner
John R. Carroll
California's problem is spending? That's a myth
Michael Hiltzik
May 28, 2009
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik28-2009may28,0,5001566,full.column
A reader writes:
"California's problem is mainly on the spending side. If we stuck to a
budget increase of inflation plus population growth over the last 10 years,
we would probably be in fairly decent shape."
Sounds right, doesn't it? The same perfectly reasonable supposition was
expressed in scores of e-mails I received following last week's budget
ballot debacle.
Indeed, the idea that California's budget has been out of control as
measured against inflation and population growth is a deeply cherished
talking point in the debate over the state's fiscal deficit.
Unfortunately, it turns out to be yet another infectious myth. The truth is
that over the last 10 years, California's spending has tracked population
growth and price increases almost to the penny.
This finding comes from the nonpartisan legislative analyst's office, which
subjects the state budget to more careful scrutiny than almost anyone else
in Sacramento.
Analyzing the 2008-09 budget bill last year, the legislative analyst
determined that since 1998-99, spending in the general fund and state
special funds -- the latter comes from special levies like gasoline and
tobacco taxes -- had risen to $128.8 billion from $72.6 billion, or 77%.
During this time frame, which embraced two booms (dot-com and housing) and
two busts (ditto), the state's population grew about 30% to about 38
million, and inflation charged ahead by 50%. The budget's growth, the
legislative analyst found, exceeded these factors by only an average of 0.2%
a year.
My calculations show that the combined growth factors would have allowed the
budget to grow even more. But for the purpose of argument, let's use the
legislative analyst's more conservative number. That punctures the notion
that the state has been on a drunken spending spree out of proportion to
these common multipliers.
A couple of caveats are in order. These budget figures don't include
federally backed spending. Gov. Schwarzenegger's '08-09 budget included $56
billion in federal funds, mostly for health and social services programs
such as Medi-Cal.
Nor do they include spending of bond proceeds or the various borrowing scams
the governor and Legislature implemented, such as dipping into local
government coffers.
The inflation factor, further, isn't the consumer price index, which rose
about 35% over the period, but a separate federal index of state and local
purchases. This makes sense because the state buys relatively less of what's
measured by the CPI, like bread and hamburger meat, and relatively more of
what's measured by the government index, like healthcare, heavy equipment
and educated workers.
That said, it's worth examining where the state does spend money, and why.
To dispense with a common bugaboo, yes, the state spends plenty on illegal
immigrants. How much is impossible to specify because no one knows how many
live in the state or what services they use.
My colleague George Skelton recently estimated this cost, net of the federal
government's skinflint contribution, at some $5 billion a year. As he
observed, undocumented workers contribute plenty in taxes, too.
I would further add that we employ these people to tend our farms and
gardens, build our homes and help raise our children.
In any event, far more blame for the deficit belongs to California voters.
Year in, year out, they enact spending mandates at the polls, often without
endowing a revenue source.
"Budget management really is in the hands of the voters," says Assembly
Budget Committee Chairwoman Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), who recently posted
a video online cogently outlining the dysfunctional budget process.
Some of these programs have hidden costs -- well, not so deeply hidden. The
three-strikes law saddled the state with hundreds of millions in costs to
prosecute and jail thousands of innocuous defendants. After Proposition 63
expanded mental health services in 2004, the Mental Health Department's
budget expanded from $370 million to $1.5 billion.
From 1998 to the present, by my count, voters passed 27 separate bond issues
to pay for school buildings, libraries, hospitals, highways, a high-speed
rail system, stem cell research, veterans facilities, clean water and air,
and more. These may be mostly worthy amenities, but that doesn't mean they
pay for themselves.
Since 2000, the legislative analyst's office reports, $85 billion in such
borrowing has been authorized at the ballot box -- half of it in 2006 alone.
Annual payments on these bonds have climbed from $2.5 billion in 1998 to
more than $5 billion this year.
Then there's budgetary borrowing, those little subterfuges so favored by our
political leaders, which include the $15-billion deficit bond issue of 2004,
the governor's version of a credit card max-out binge.
Debt service on those borrowings rings in at more than $4.2 billion this
year and next.
Every one of these items was approved at the polls. But here's the real
scandal of the California budget: Not a single one received the support of a
majority of eligible voters.
That's because most voters are harder to get off their duffs than Homer
Simpson. The California voter's default approach to the ballot is a sort of
militant apathy.
Only about 70% of eligible voters even register, and it's rare for even 40%
of the eligible to turn out. Undoubtedly many of them have better things to
do with their time on election day, like shriek about politicians on talk
radio and write profane e-mails to the newspapers.
The share of all eligible voters who cast a ballot on May 19 was 19%. Do the
math on the 65% "no" vote on the key measures, and you find that it
translates to about 12.5% of the California electorate.
This makes a mockery of Schwarzenegger's claim that the election delivered a
"loud and clear" message. What message? Proposition 1A, if passed, would
have extended a parcel of tax increases for an additional two years. Who's
to say that the 81% of eligible voters who just stayed home didn't intend to
endorse the tax increase?
But rather than blame the state's fiscal condition on illegal immigrants or
unthrifty politicians, they should blame their own stupefied -- or is it
embarrassed? -- silence.
--
John R. Carroll