How much has Prop 13 denied to California government? We have this from the wikipedia entry on the topic

Estimates are that Proposition 13 has saved California taxpaying citizens over $528 billion (value retrieved 5/31/2009).

So if the taxpayers had NOT been saved that money, and instead it had been paid in to the treasury coffers, would anyone today be talking about a deficit problem?

from James50

Also, I do not understand your use of the work "denied".

I think this post should clarify it.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

How much has Prop 13 denied to California government? We have this from the wikipedia entry on the topic

Estimates are that Proposition 13 has saved California taxpaying citizens over $528 billion (value retrieved 5/31/2009).

So if the taxpayers had NOT been saved that money, and instead it had been paid in to the treasury coffers, would anyone today be talking about a deficit problem?
.

But you are ignoring the counter-factual. With property taxes kept at a low level by Prop 13, the government need to tax was channeled into other taxes. There is no way to say that the total tax burden would or would not be different today. I think the way to think about the California experience is to say that the electorate decided to cut off property taxes as a way to increase revenue, but they did not vote to decrease the size of government. The money came in, but from a different place.

BTW, I agree that Prop 13 has created distortions in the government in California and in the way residential real estate is bought and sold that have not been good for the state. However, I think you would be hard pressed to show that it had significantly reduced revenue flows into the California treasury.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

But you are ignoring the counter-factual. With property taxes kept at a low level by Prop 13, the government need to tax was channeled into other taxes. There is no way to say that the total tax burden would or would not be different today. I think the way to think about the California experience is to say that the electorate decided to cut off property taxes as a way to increase revenue, but they did not vote to decrease the size of government. The money came in, but from a different place.

BTW, I agree that Prop 13 has created distortions in the government in California and in the way residential real estate is bought and sold that have not been good for the state. However, I think you would be hard pressed to show that it had significantly reduced revenue flows into the California treasury.

James50

I would be happy to look at the figures to show that the state did NOT lose half a trillion dollars because of Prop 13. .

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Obama and Hillary sink or swim together on Egypt; The loss of Egypt will empower the Neo-Con's to the rest of our determinate.

But what really gets me is that despite the Republicans controlling the lower house of Congress, the Democrats are still the "party in power" overall - and they need to start acting like it.

By sympathizing with America's enemies, the left - at least the far left anyway - is acting like the "outs" instead of the "ins" they actually are; and wasn't anyone (besides present company of course) paying attention when that Islamic wing-nut cleric Sean Hannity had on his show last week named Barack Obama as the leader of the "decadent" Western bloc he claimed his side was ranged against?

Originally Posted by James50

Lot's of things I have thought about Obama, but clueless has never been one of them. I hope this is just from some disgruntled insider.

Here.

James50

Something almost identical to that went around about a year ago (didn't talk about reelection at that point, though).

That said, I know someone who worked in the OWH and was desperate to get out, mainly because he was so disillusioned with what the administration did/didn't do. He learned the hard way not to trust government.

Originally Posted by Weave

Did you vote for Nixon in 72? Or the other guy...Senator George McGovern. I doubt the leftwing nutjobs worried about him being from SD.......Did you vote for Clinton from Arkansas? Did you vote for John "Lurch" Kerry...what were his accomplishments in the Senate besides flip-flopping on the Iraq War? Did you ever support John Edwards, a sleazy ambulance chaser with a measly 1 term in the Senate under his belt.....

Of course you supported the biggest light-wieght of them all B. Hussien Obama...a "Community Organizer".....

I give up. I get it ... from your perspective, Obama sucks.

I'm still wondering though, about the wonderfulness of John Thune. As his apologist, you're saying that he stands out, among fellow Republicans, as a stalwart? A short-lister for the 2012 presidential election?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But what really gets me is that despite the Republicans controlling the lower house of Congress, the Democrats are still the "party in power" overall - and they need to start acting like it.

By sympathizing with America's enemies, the left - at least the far left anyway - is acting like the "outs" instead of the "ins" they actually are; and wasn't anyone (besides present company of course) paying attention when that Islamic wing-nut cleric Sean Hannity had on his show last week named Barack Obama as the leader of the "decadent" Western bloc he claimed his side was ranged against?

Its a walking contradiction, which I agree with you on. Reid was the reason Obama's mandate failed and should not have not have been rewarded for almost losing the Senate.

Its not Obama's fault for the past 30 years of failure in that region; but every time he say, 'I will support this person', Egypt will suffer more with a group more radical to take over its country. Its coming full-circle, Zahawri (Muslim Brotherhood) might have the last laugh.

Starve the beast.....

Originally Posted by James50

There is no way to tell. It looks like in lieu of property taxes, all other taxes have been raised to high levels.

You know better than that; come on James. Prop 13 included the provision that a 2/3 vote is required in the legislature to pass a budget or new taxes. Since then the Republicans, who care about one thing (let me keep my money), have blocked all new taxes. Miraculously we did get a 1-year increase through a Republican governor, who blocked all other taxes. If CA has done OK in some areas, it is not because there have been state tax increases.

School Districts are the main losers from Prop. 13. They have resorted to local parcel tax increases, which I vote on and have to pay.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Its a walking contradiction, which I agree with you on. Reid was the reason Obama's mandate failed and should not have not have been rewarded for almost losing the Senate.

Its not Obama's fault for the past 30 years of failure in that region; but every time he say, 'I will support this person', Egypt will suffer more with a group more radical to take over its country. Its coming full-circle, Zahawri (Muslim Brotherhood) might have the last laugh.

Starve the beast.....

I don't know why anyone would assume that America's enemies are taking over Egypt. The people rising up are moderate liberal youth who want a modern country like Europe or even America. Obama is doing the right thing by getting on the better side of those who will soon run the country. The neo-cons and others constantly justify America's aggression in this reason by saying democratic countries don't support terrorism and are better for American interests. Bush trotted out that line constantly. If the rebels win in Egypt we'll see if that's true. Don't assume the Muslim Brotherhood will take over Egypt. They will only be one of the parties participating in the new democracy.

If this new democracy is less supportive of America's misguided policy to prop up Israel, its oppression of Palestine, and its refusal to make a viable peace, then so much the better. Mubarek's support of American policy has not been completely beneficial for the Middle East and its people. If America wants support in the region, it had better start getting on the side of the people there, not the oppressors. Obama has made a pretty good start at this this week.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You know better than that; come on James. Prop 13 included the provision that a 2/3 vote is required in the legislature to pass a budget or new taxes. Since then the Republicans, who care about one thing (let me keep my money), have blocked all new taxes. Miraculously we did get a 1-year increase through a Republican governor, who blocked all other taxes. If CA has done OK in some areas, it is not because there have been state tax increases.

School Districts are the main losers from Prop. 13. They have resorted to local parcel tax increases, which I vote on and have to pay.

Well, let's look at some facts. You know- those things that the left says it relies on.

1. Population 1980: 23,667,764; 2010: 38,067,134
2. Inflation Rate: 1980-2010: 178.52%
3. California state budget: 1980: $24.5B; 2010: $119.2B

Multiplier for increase in CA state budget 1980-2010: 119.2/24.5= 4.86 (386%)

Multiplier for product of population increase and inflation:
38067134/23667764 = 1.608 -> x 2.782 (178.2%) = 4.473

If CA state budget had simply kept pace with population and inflation since 1980, today the budget would be 24.5 x 4.473 = $109.58B. Instead, it was $119.2B. (This 119.2 number is actually a substantial decline from $144B in 2009 which would be an even more dramatic difference).

Bottom line: Prop 13 changed the source of tax revenue, but did not change the total amount of taxes raised. What it did was to make the other sources of taxation go much higher.

Eric - you have bought into a long term meme about Prop 13 that is simply not true. If you want to gripe about the super-majority requirements of Prop 13, the centralization of power in Sacramento, or the over-reliance on economically sensitive income and sales taxes, I am with you, but blaming Prop 13 for CA budget woes is not supported by the facts.

James50

Originally Posted by TnT

I give up. I get it ... from your perspective, Obama sucks.

I'm still wondering though, about the wonderfulness of John Thune. As his apologist, you're saying that he stands out, among fellow Republicans, as a stalwart? A short-lister for the 2012 presidential election?

I was simply pointing out that its hypocritical to call Thune and empty suit when those on the left who are calling him that are the same who supported numerous empty suits including the current President.

Does he have the stuff to win the nomination? That remains to be seen. I certainly prefer him at this time over the stale current crop like Palin, Huckabee or Romney.

My suspicion is that those calling Thune an empty suit are merely doing so because they fear his candicacy more than those I listed.

Originally Posted by Weave

Does he [Thune] have the stuff to win the nomination? That remains to be seen. I certainly prefer him at this time over the stale current crop like Palin, Huckabee or Romney.

From your lips, to God's ears.

Originally Posted by Weave

Well what were the accomplishments of the Annointed One, Obama?

How do you measure that as a congressman or senator when it takes collective action to get things done. Thune has added amendments and sponsored bills that I have supported. Does that make it an accomplishment? Im sure we'd disagree based on the contents of the bill in question. Obama, in contrast, was an empty suit in the Senate, rarely even getting involved in much as he began campaigning for Pres in late 06.

As far as stacking resume's against Obama in 08, Thune is much more accomplished and experienced in national government. The last 2 years have been a steep, steep learning curve for the Annointed One and he has shown he is in way over his head. Voting present as commander in chief rarely works out well....

I wasn't accusing Thune of being an empty suit or trying to be snarky. I really don't know much about Thune except that he defeated Daschle in 2004. And I certainly wasn't trying to compare him to Obama. I was just curious.

I guarantee that there will be lots of outside money involved from corporations supporting Republicans with help from the US Chamber of Commerce.

You can all thank the conservatives in the Citizens United case for making foreign money part of a domestic election.

Originally Posted by James50

Bottom line: Prop 13 changed the source of tax revenue, but did not change the total amount of taxes raised. What it did was to make the other sources of taxation go much higher.

What state taxes brought in the income to the state? Income taxes have been kept low. Sales tax increases are mostly local ones to support transit. I don't know what taxes you are talking about.

PS There is no reason for Obama to be interested in "legislation" now. None. He has GOT a clue, if that's what the author meant.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What state taxes brought in the income to the state? Income taxes have been kept low. Sales tax increases are mostly local ones to support transit. I don't know what taxes you are talking about.

PS There is no reason for Obama to be interested in "legislation" now. None. He has GOT a clue, if that's what the author meant.

Once again, your post is totally fact free.

CA income taxes are among the highest in the country and have one of the smallest bases. CA sales tax rate is the highest in the country.

Facing budget shortfalls, revenue-hungry states are raising personal income tax rates. As they do, some are targeting the better-off. In May, Hawaii displaced California as the state with the highest rate when it imposed a new top rate of 11% on income above $400,000 for a married couple.

here

States with the highest sales tax are: California (8.25%), Indiana (7%), Mississippi (7%), New Jersey (7%), Rhode Island (7%), Tennessee (7%), Minnesota (6.875%), Nevada (6.85%), Arizona (6.6%), Washington (6.5%), Kansas (6.3%), Texas and Illinois (6.25%).

here

Overall CA ranks number 6 in the country in overall taxation largely because its property taxes are relatively low. The idea that CA state government has been starved for revenue is ludicrous. Incidentally, you can bet that states with no personal income taxes uniformly will have high property and sales taxes.

I suggest you get out more and see the rest of the country. At the very least, try doing a little research. You know the left is fact based.

James50

You have to love polls: Americans Think Obama Would Lose In 2012

Originally Posted by James50

Once again, your post is totally fact free.

CA income taxes are among the highest in the country and have one of the smallest bases. CA sales tax rate is the highest in the country.

But James, our income taxes, however high, have not been raised for decades. That's the point. The Republicans keep them flat.

Sad day for Virginia and the United States, Senator Jim Webb will not seek re-election.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ek-re-election

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Sad day for Virginia and the United States, Senator Jim Webb will not seek re-election.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ek-re-election

Drats. I admired the guy. I actually got to meet him on a couple of occasions.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Sad day for Virginia and the United States, Senator Jim Webb will not seek re-election.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ek-re-election

Good riddance. The so-called conservative Dem never challenged Obama on much and singed on for the stimulus and Obamacare. A great chance for a Republican pick-up.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Sad day for Virginia and the United States, Senator Jim Webb will not seek re-election.

Drats. I admired the guy. I actually got to meet him on a couple of occasions.

He hated the job, but mostly he hated the money chase. He had no campaign war chest, because he refused to go about begging.

I'll be interested to see what he does next.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Drats. I admired the guy. I actually got to meet him on a couple of occasions.

I liked him as well. He was an even keel spokesman a conservative could vote for. But I think Marx & Lennon was correct in saying he didn't want to dance for money and the long campaign b/w now and 2012.

Webb quit because he knew he was going to lose, and wanted to save face.

Here's a good article about Obama's chances in 2012:
An Early Look at Obama's Re-election Bid

Things can and will change in the next two years, but the big questions at this point are:

1) Whether Obama's high personal favorability is enough to overcome his very low ratings on key issues.

2) How the economy performs over the next two years.

3) How much of his 2008 turnout he can replicate.

4) Who the Republican nominee will be, and how well they campaign.

My view:

1)/2) He will not win re-election with a 60-37 disapproval rating on the economy. That rating will improve if the economy improves. The problem is that the recession has been over for almost two years, and the "recovery" has been anemic. Unemployment has barely come down at all, and has continued to rise depending on how you measure it. Usually a recession is followed by a big bump in GDP growth and hiring, which then levels out to an average rate. There was no bounce this time around.

3) I suspect he will replicate a significant share of his turnout from 2008, but not all of it.

4) I don't see anybody on the Republican side that's a sure bet. With Chris Christie refusing to run, I lean towards the idea that they have to roll the dice, nominate Sarah Palin, and hope she steps up to the plate. If things are going badly enough, they could nominate someone boring like Pawlenty and win by default, but they can't bet on that happening.

As of now, I think it is clear that Obama has almost no chance of carrying IN, NC, and VA. He looks very weak in OH and FL. He has reason to be concerned about PA and MI. I think 1), 2) and 3) lean against him, and 4) leans in his favor. As the first article I linked suggests, the most likely outcome right now (very early) looks like a very close election on par with 2000 and 2004. The next most likely possibility is a solid Republican win, if they end up with a solid nominee. The chances of Obama repeating his performance in 2008 are almost nil. It would require an economic boom that is simply not happening.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

I liked him as well. He was an even keel spokesman a conservative could vote for. But I think Marx & Lennon was correct in saying he didn't want to dance for money and the long campaign b/w now and 2012.

Unfortunately, as the 2010 election may show, money is everything in American politics unless the opponent is an absolute nutcase. May show -- because the GOP freshmen in the House aren't doing so well in keeping their credibility. The perfect candidate for 2010 was a 100% sell-out to Corporate America. When they have drained the US of all assets, left behind a moonscape, poisoned the atmosphere, bankrupted every state and local government, saddled the rest of us with unpayable private and public debt, sold off all public assets, and left behind a ravaged society in which violent revolution is inevitable, then they will take off for places with more socialistic policies that remain livable -- and leave America to the patsies whose heads will roll in a replay of 1789 in France.

Citizens United may be the worst USSC ruling ever. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, disgusting as they were, didn't hurt the majority of people. Citizen's United doesn't discriminate in its harm. One of the first effects is to debase political life by connecting electability to being able to kiss up to the vilest of interests. But as shown elsewhere, debasement of political life begins the debasement of everything else.