Patt Morrison for February 15, 2011

Without tax increases prepare for budget doomsday in California: which would you prefer?

Mercer 14967

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Demonstrators carry signs as they march to Oakland City Hall during a national day of action against school funding cuts and tuition increases March 4, 2010 in Oakland, California.

Larger elementary school class sizes; starting kindergarten later for kids who don’t turn 5 before September; increased tuition for UC and CSU students, along with cutbacks to classes and programs; deep cuts to the state court system and law enforcement funding; elimination of many state-funded transportation projects. These are just some of the cuts that will have to come to balance the budget of California if voters reject proposed tax increases, or if they never have an opportunity to vote on those increases. Democratic State Sen. Mark Leno requested a workup on the numbers from the Legislative Analyst Office to illustrate the kind of choices that would have to be made in the absence of tax increases, part of Gov. Jerry Brown’s overall plan to balance the budget that is facing stiff opposition from Republicans in the legislature. Republicans argue that the LAO analysis doesn’t cut enough from state workers compensation and sets up false choices between tax increases and budget cuts. The choice will ultimately come down to California voters and it’s the same decision they’ve been putting off for years: what’s more important to you, state services or low taxes?

Guests:

Jason Sisney, Director of State Finance in the Legislative Analyst's Office

Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-CA’s 6th District, which includes Sacramento, President Pro Tem of California State Senate

Sen. Bob Huff, R-CA's 29th District, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties, Vice-Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and Senate Republican Caucus Chair


blog comments powered by Disqus