Our Party stands with CA voters who approved term limits in 1990 and have voted twice since then, in 2002 and 2008, to keep them. Proposition 28 is a deceptive proposition that doubles the time an Assembly member can be in office to 12 years and grows by 50% the time a state senator can be in office to 12 years. It actually weakens the current term limits.
We know that incumbent office holders are re-elected 80 percent of the time, which means that most state legislators will serve a full decade in office without having to deal with a competitive election. That’s more time for cozy relationships to develop between state legislators and special interests such as labor unions, which often pay for their elections. Limiting service to 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the state Senate, as the current term limits do, ensures that these elected officials do not forget that voters put them in office. CA needs a more effective and responsible legislature, but Proposition 28 would hardly guarantee that outcome.
When you look at who is behind Proposition 28 you see a sweetheart deal between the current CA legislature, big real estate developers and labor unions. It is no secret that the big donor support for this initiative are developers who won an exemption from environmental regulations from the state legislature to build a stadium in The City of Industry, and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO.
The big money donations began pouring in two months after the developers were granted the exemption and were a payback to the legislators to support Proposition 28, which they want. ‘YES’ on Prop 28 has raised ten times the money support that the ‘NO’ on Prop 28 has, and the executive secretary- treasurer of the L.A. County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO is leading the ballot proposition effort.
Labor wants a predictable long-term relationship with legislators whose elections they fund. The same people who urged voters to reject term limits in the first place are now urging voters to pass this initiative.
Voters have approved two other reforms that are just now being enacted and we need time to see how these new reforms impact our elections. I’m referring to the new redistricting process and new district boundaries for Congress, state Senate and Assembly. The other reform is the Open Primary, which takes control away from political parties. We should wait and see how these reforms change the legislative election "playing field." There is no motivating reason right now to increase the terms of our legislators.
A good website to review all aspects of ballot initiatives is the non-partisan BallotPedia.org. Follow the link below to take you to their website page about CA Proposition 28.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_28,_Change_in_Term_Limits_(June_2012)
California Codes Section 7596-7598
All these changes to the tax code were done with a Republican president and under Republican control of Congress. I would agree there is a level of taxation that is too high, but you would have to agree we aren't above that threshold yet and in fact are far, far below it. Especially when you consider we've been fighting two wars for 10+ years. For Tim, Obama has made it eminently clear that the tax cuts should only be extended for people earning less than $250,000/year. To say Obama favors extending the Bush Tax Cuts is descending down to the level of FOX News.
>"I would agree there is a level of taxation that is too high, but you would have to agree we aren't above that threshold yet and in fact are far, far below it." 1. Could you be more specific at point is too high and how you derive it? 2. At what point are we now? how do we know we are so far below it? 3. Do you mean to say that the economy is not affected by taxation unless it reaches a particular high level? please explain. Thanks, Albert
You addressed your comments to GT but I assume you meant me. The idea that entrepreneurs and the rich do not create jobs is not a theory, it's a fact. I am a business owner and an entrepreneur. If I hope to maximize my profits the LAST thing I want to do is hire more staff. If my profits are down the FIRST thing I do is lay off workers. Taxes on the rich have never been lower in this country yet unemployment hovers at or above 15-year highs. That is a direct refutation of the argument that the rich create jobs. The fact that you think personal finances relate to government finances and corporate finances is enough to convince me you have no idea what you're talking about. By the very definition of how government must work it cannot be "pay as you go" like most Americans. If the government had tried to finance WWII or even our current two wars the way Americans are supposed to do their personal finances, the outcomes of those wars would have been markedly different. That's without even getting into the realities of corporate financing - again an entity whose finances are a very far cry from anything resembling how people are supposed to do their personal finances.
1) Are you a servant of the government, or is the government here to serve you? 2) If you are not a slave of the government, what level of taxation supports the government's necessary, enumerated services? 3) Any taxes more than the bare minimum to support basic government service is legalized theft. Taxes aren't to make life fair. Taxes aren't to "spread the wealth around." Taxes aren't to punish. Taxes are to fund basic functions of federal government that are enumerated in the Constitution: running the courts, military, regulating interstate commerce, etc. Local and state taxes are to fund basic functions that the local populations agree should be funded. There's always going to be someone richer, better-looking, smarter, and/or younger than you. That's life. It's stupid to try to use the government to make you feel better about your current station in life.
I can't be more specific about the level of taxation. The level of taxation is not a science, it's an art and a moving target. It's one of the reasons why I think marginal tax rates should not be set by elected members of Congress. It's too easy to promise tax cuts to get yourself elected. To be as specific as I can I would say that if the government lowers the marginal tax rate and tax revenues remain flat or go up, the marginal tax rates may be lowered further. If the marginal tax rates continue to be lowered but reach a point where tax revenues go down, the marginal rates have been lowered too much. But again this is a moving target as the reasons for a decrease in government tax revenues can be varied and complex. The reason tax rates today are too low is also a complex answer. It's related to the fact that government borrowing - above and beyond what it needs to operate on a daily basis - is too high. Some government debt and borrowing is necessary and desirable but that is not where we are today. Yes, spending cuts are an option but they are not preferable in an economy as weak as it is today. It is clear that government spending is about the only thing keeping the economy moving forward as it has been established the rich and the entrepreneurs aren't creating as many jobs as they can. Question for you Albert or the other easy-chair economists. For every $1 the federal government spends on goods or services, how much does it get back in tax revenue?
I would still like to know the answers to my question unless you decline. >"The fact that you think personal finances relate to government finances and corporate finances is enough to convince me you have no idea what you're talking about. " I don't know everything I admit, but I have studied economics for some time now. Perhaps I have learned nothing but you need at least point me to the name of your position or theory so I have a chance to study it. I think it fair to require this of someone who sincerely thinks I know nothing. >The idea that entrepreneurs and the rich do not create jobs is not a theory, it's a fact. I am a business owner and an entrepreneur. If I hope to maximize my profits the LAST thing I want to do is hire more staff. If my profits are down the FIRST thing I do is lay off workers. When you have increased business and decide to expand, don't you generally have the need to increase employment? Is this not what we see in the general economy when conditions improve? Another question, when profits are down you lay off, but how did those laid off come to have a job in the first place? It seems you are only giving a partial explanation. Lastly, What economic theory do you subscibe to? Can you tell me what books explain your views? I myself subscribe to the Austrian theory of Economics. You can learn more about it at www.mises.org Do you know of it and do you think this school of economics has no merit?
When I have increased demand or a need to expand, my preference is to use overtime as much as possible to avoid hiring additional staff. Overtime is generally cheaper than hiring a whole individual staff member and the employee receiving the extra pay is usually grateful. That's a reason why some of your arguments about productivity are specious - the reasons for an uptick or downtick in productivity are nearly as complex as those of appropriate marginal tax rates. Yes those that I laid off had a job because of me - but now they DON'T have a job because of me too.
“the larger the percentage of the national income taken by taxes the greater the deterrent to private production and employment. When the total tax burden grows beyond a bearable size, the problem of devising taxes that will not discourage and disrupt production becomes insoluble.” - Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson >Question for you Albert or the other easy-chair economists. For every $1 the federal government spends... how much does it get back in tax revenue? 1. "Easy Chair Economists". I am trying to hear you out and be fair but contempt makes you out to be a fraud. 2. The question is not about economics. It's a math problem and the answer is only an historical data point. It does not reveal or derive from an economic principle. a. Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/ Not counting borrowing or inflation let's low ball it at 15%. b. 15% of what is spent is automatically taxed back and the rest is from taxing private incomes and consumption and borrowing still more money. c. Increased Spending means an Increased percentage taxed from a smaller economy.
I agree with you. I don't think there is any contradiction between what we say.
What do you say creates jobs?
Europe and their austerity measures are coming close, but even they won't go so far as to leave the market COMPLETELY alone. But of course as a believer in the Austrian theory you would never admit that the theory has been largely debunked since inherent in the theory is the idea that modeling and performance need not be measured. Laissez-faire economics makes for good quotes and nice debates, but the theory has little to offer the real world of policy. I will say the idea of opportunity cost games from the Austrian theorists and it is a fine value to live by, but even that has its limitations.
I would venture to guess 10 averaged-sized small businesses, dollar-for-dollar, have created more jobs compared to one company like FaceBook.
2. Governments do not make money, every dollar is taxed directly or indirectly from people involved in successful businesses in #1 3. NGO's are beside the point here as I see it. Therefore: Entrepreneurs are necessary in the final analysis of job creation.
>Question for you Albert or the other easy-chair economists "The characteristic feature of this age is the revolt against economics. The “practical” man boasts of his contempt for economics and his ignorance of the teachings of “armchair” economists. What is called “orthodox” economics is in most countries barred from the universities and is virtually unknown to the leading statesmen, politicians, and writers. It must be emphasized that this civilization was able to spring into existence because the peoples were dominated by ideas which were the application of economics to the problems of economic policy. It will and must perish if the nations continue under the spell of doctrines rejecting economic thinking." Ludwig von Mises
>"The fact that you think personal finances relate to government finances and corporate finances is enough to convince me you have no idea what you're talking about." I think it's fair to say I have some idea TG: Can Government's Finances Be Compared to a Household's? http://mises.org/daily/5304/Can-Governments-Finances-Be-Compared-to-a-Households "When Times Are Tough, the Proper Move Is to Cut Spending Of course, politicians of all stripes mouth platitudes while failing to enact policies living up to their rhetoric. But in this case, the rhetoric itself is correct: Just as most American households are much more careful about their finances now than they were during the housing-bubble years, so too should the government be. Most of the statistics quoted above merely convey that households have debt. But that's not the issue — the government has a massive amount of debt as well. The difference is that once the housing bubble burst and everyone realized Americans had been living beyond their means for years, the average household changed its ways. That is, savings rates shot way up, and households began paying down their debt [SEE GRAPH]: Of course, the federal government has just done the opposite. Even while Presidents Bush and Obama both acknowledged that excessive leverage and overconsumption were problems during the housing bubble years, and even as revenues plunged, this is what happened to spending on their respective watches: [SEE GRAPH]"
If belt-tightening worked, how would you explain the largest peace-time expansion of the US economy back in the mid-1990s (when the top marginal tax rate was around 35% and the government was running surpluses and spending money rapidly)? Governments DO make money. Learn about municipal bonds, treasury bonds, war bonds, government securities, government investments in emerging technologies, the sale of military hardware and other assets to foreign allies. The list of ways the government makes money through methods other than taxation is very long. When you've realized the Austrians were wrong and are willing to think for yourself and debate actual economic policy and theory, feel free. Until then I'm done answering your "questions".
Proven a failure? I know you think so. By whom? I asked so many times for a book, an author a link and nothing. So I give up asking. Honest people can judge between us. I was never trying to convince you. Government spending was dramatically reduced after the WWII. You can look it up. regarding the 1990's - One cannot prove or disprove economic theorems by historical events. They are proven or dis-proven by the strength of logic they are constructed with. History is then interpreted by the strongest theories. This is done in other science as well. FALSE: Governments DO NOT make money. Think about it. The bonds are debt. The interest and principle are paid for by tax receipts in the future. Asset price increases is not making money. The sale of such assets almost never amount to the original costs with taxpayer money. PLEASE find me one economist of your choosing ANYWHERE that shares your opinion about Government making money and explains how it's true.... just one. But I see you don't want to answer anymore. Fine. Whatever. I will let the FAIR reader determine who has more sense between us. You've offered NOTHING (not an author, a link, an article, a quote) to convince or refute me. On what basis should I take your word against the understandable explanations of people much smarter and qualified than yourself? You are not stupid, but you have been ridiculous!
Last word from me to you. >When you've realized the Austrians were wrong and are willing to think for yourself and debate actual economic policy and theory, feel free. Even the greatest Original thinkers acknowledge the contributions of others to their thought. It is the educated way. how much more should the rest of us do the same. There is no point in discussing theory with you. You have not even named your theory. You discredit yourself by putting yourself above having to be intellectually honest.
>Austerity in Europe won't fix their problem and it wouldn't fix the problem here in the US "There Are Solid Reasons to Support "Fiscal Austerity" ...the Depression of 1920–21 provides a textbook example of the Fed engaging in "tight-money" policies while the federal government engaged in (what are now almost) inconceivably aggressive budget cuts. The result was a short, painful, deflationary depression, followed by a decade of immense prosperity.[1] There are other, more recent examples of debt-ridden governments slowing or even cutting spending in order to eliminate budget deficits and improve economic growth. In one sense, the analogy between households and the government is flawed: Households (generally) earn their income through voluntary transactions in which they provide goods and services to others. In contrast, the government raises the revenue with which to provide its "services" ultimately through the threat of imprisonment. Even so, the deficit-hawk politicians are right when they say the government should be sharing in the belt-tightening along with everyone else. Slashing spending at the federal level would return much-needed resources to the private sector, where they would do the most good. [1] Keynesian sympathizer Daniel Kuehn has argued that Woods and I are wrong to think the 1920–21 episode bears much relevance for today."
I'm sorry you had to endure Philistine responses for what is actually a good question. >explain how a law designed to circumvent the will of the people is trumpeted as the will of the people. I think the answer here is that there is no real will of the people because the people can never all have the same will. Also there can be no such thing as an "unpopular" vote since a measure passes only by the majority. > Putting up an arbitrary limit doesn't seem like much of a solution to me. To me it sounds like, "The people can't be trusted to vote for the right candidate so we're going to take the choice away from them." The Classical liberal philosophy had reasons for this. It's concern was born from bitter historical experience that power must be limited to protect the people from the excesses of the State. It is still needed today. Washington freely let go the reigns of power after two terms and every president respected this tradition until FDR. You know the rest. We do have freedom of choice for all things PERSONAL, but in politics the crucial difference is that virtually every vote either grants greater power to the state (diminishing liberty) or appoints someone to that power. "Government is essentially the negation of Liberty" and so since voting is not neutral or always good, and the voters are not infallible it is prudence to not permit anyone too much access to power.