California: Forecast for '03: upheaval

The Orange County Register ^ | Jan. 5, 2003 | Scott Browne - Tustin resident and professor of business at Concordia University

[Lancey Howard]

Wow. This is a terrific column.
The author is a professor?
He certainly doesn't toe the line of political correctness. Nearly everything he said is the kind of thing that makes scumbag Democrats soil themselves, especially the parts about "God" and "faith" and "family".

[A CA Guy]

It is totally unfair for a generation of folks who bought their homes at a time long ago. Their taxes reflect the earning capacity of the time they bought the home.
Some new buyers scream unfair, then I put it this way:
30 years from now you have your home paid off and you pay about $4500 a year in taxes in the year 2033. A new buyer might be buying the same home at a cost of $5,000,000. That would be $50,000 a year in taxes alone or more.
How can today's generations pay $50,000 a year to be the same as new buyers in 2033?

Can't be done, that's where EVERY older generation of people will lose their home and saving while trying to maintain it.

California lead the nation in 1% tax reform of proposition 13. If California ever goes down with that law, expect the rest of the nation to crumble.

Being there is no money now paid for retirees in CDs, it is bleak enough for older folks as it is.

Maybe soilent-green is the future beginning with California.

[Southack]

"I would like you to tell me which of the 18 powers granted to congress by the U.S. Constitution could be used to loan money to a state government. Seriously."

Congress has the explicit power to tax, thus, it has the implicit power to rebate, loan, or defer said taxes, and this could be done in a way in which the state has control of that money.

Loan guarantees could also be pitched as de minimus, since in theory no harm or effect is caused (so long as the loans are paid back).

Apparently such things are being considered due to several (at least 6) states being misrun as poorly as California.

Frankly, I'd like to see bankruptcy take them down, take their credit ratings down, and force massive cuts in their governments, but there is just no way that it is going to happen this early in the game. Even without federal help California could survive the '03-'04 budget cycles (but at some point after '04, that state is in for some real trouble).

[cartoonistx]

[snopercod]

This whole concept of taxpayers in one state being forced to bail out some other state drives a stake through the very heart of federalism.

Why have a federation at all if we just have one big homogeneous country? Why not just abolish all state lines?

Would not the residents of say...Utah...have a legitimate claim in federal court if their tax money was being used to pay for social programs in California?

It is a direct violation of the constitutional provision against one state taxing another.

[Uncle Hal]

I will lay my body down to keep prop. 13 in place. Once the state starts to modify it we are doomed. RE prices will drop. I guess the first step is to exempt commercial and industrial properties from prop. 13. This is a constitutional amendment passed by the people. I do not see how the state legislature can amend it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ROFLMAO***!!

That is a great cartoon!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Gray Davis takes his stage!

Referring to the toon at post #24!

[Southack]

"Would not the residents of say...Utah...have a legitimate claim in federal court if their tax money was being used to pay for social programs in California? It is a direct violation of the constitutional provision against one state taxing another."

I would suspect that the argument would be that California is getting its own money back, not money back from the taxes of other states (an argument that would lose merit if California recieved MORE back in refunds than the amount of taxes that its citizens paid in).

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Here is a Davis Depression!

See the toon at post #24!!

[aught-6]

prop. 13....is a constitutional amendment passed by the people. I do not see how the state legislature can amend it.

The single party kleptocracy of Kalifornistan can intimidate their cronies who sit on the judgiciaries to declare prop. 13 unconstitutional, as they have done to many other propositions.

[aught-6]

Spell check: judgiciaries = judiciaries