Balancing the Budget
The San Jose Mercury News proposed a challenge to fill the $34.6 billion state budget. I took the challege and turned the $34.6 billion deficit to a $4 million surplus. I did this with a political cost (defined by the Mercury News) that would suggest that I would get re-elected in the next election.
I am not happy with this result, because the political damage should be far greater. Anyone involved with the budgets that got us into this mess should not be re-elected.
My basic philosphy is that growth is the primary problem with the state. The state provides too many incentives to growth, and the people don't pay enough to support it. So my focus was to tax people, and cut programs that support growth.
So my plan calls for $22.9 billion in tax and fee hikes. I would increase sales tax, tax internet sales, increase taxes for the top payers, increase alcoholic beverage taxes, tax soft drinks, raise cigarette taxes, raise gasoline taxes, kill mortgage credits, and raise community college, and state college, and university fees.
Then I eliminate $11.7 billion in program cuts. I would cut the followng programs, k-12 spending by 5%, community college spending by 26%, non-essential Medic-Cal services by $250 million, 12 % state worker layoffs. cut vehicle license fee payments to cities, cut transportation maintanence and new programs, and cut aid to local parks.
I don't like the cuts to education and parks, but political expediency appears to require them.
I am also concerned that a $120 million cuts through prison reform have the same political costs as $4.8 billion in cuts to k-12 education. There is a disconnect here.
Anyway, according the Mercury News, you can balance the budget and still remain in office. I think our state goverment should balance the budget and leave.
4:35:36 PM 
|
