THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Calif. Dems pass austerity budget; Brown expected to sign it


image_pdfimage_print

By Shane Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times

SACRAMENTO — The Legislature passed an austerity budget Tuesday night that would cut from universities, courts and the poor, shutter 70 parks and threaten schools but would not — by officials’ own admission — restore California’s long-term financial health.

The UC and Cal State systems would face about a 23 percent funding cut, among the steepest in the proposal. Cash grants for the needy would fall, a program to help thousands of teen mothers get an education would be suspended and hundreds of millions of dollars would be siphoned from mental health programs.

The state park closures would be the first ever. Courts would face what the state’s chief justice has described as crippling reductions.

In an optimistic forecast, lawmakers built in an extra $4 billion of revenue. If all that cash does not materialize, K-12 schools — which had so far survived negotiations relatively unscathed — would face a cutback equal to shortening the academic year by seven days.

“These cuts will forever haunt our conscience,” said Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills), who chairs the budget committee in the lower house. “However, those of us who do vote for this budget can take comfort with the knowledge that we did what was necessary to move ourselves toward stability.”

Many of the cuts were adopted in March; more were undertaken Tuesday as a rare summer thunderstorm blanketed the city shortly before lawmakers began passing their second budget in as many weeks. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the first one but is expected to sign the new package before a fresh budget year begins Friday.

Brown lost his months-long bid to win enough Republican votes to extend temporary taxes that would have helped balance the books. Instead, he forged a deal with Democrats, who do not have enough votes to raise taxes alone.

As a result, temporary sales and vehicle tax hikes enacted in 2009 will officially come off the books Friday.

Read the whole story

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (8)
  1. dogwoman says - Posted: June 29, 2011

    So they’ve added a $150 fee for homeowners in wildfire danger areas (that means us) and vehicle registration fee? I guess they can add the car fee, but where do they get off calling a TAX a FEE and sticking it to us without the voters 2/3 approval?

  2. DAVID DEWITT says - Posted: June 29, 2011

    DONT YOU KNOW TAX IS A BAD WORD SO WE JUST DO NOT USE IT, THINKING SOME PEOPLE WONT NOTICE.

  3. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: June 29, 2011

    It’s probably too little, too late, but at least they are finally making some drastic cuts, and sounds like a couple that were put before the voters, to make the decision for them, a couple years ago.

    My budget has been adjusted my whole life based on what’s coming in, and has had drastic cuts the last 3+ years, so that I don’t dig a big whole, it’s very disheartening that our government is unwilling to do the same.

    And University’s are getting huge funding? With the rates they charge, they need supplemented? And I thought they were full of smart people ;) Smart like a fox!

  4. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: June 29, 2011

    Dogwoman—– Based on the fires a couple of years ago, shouldn’t the entire state be a wildfire danger area?
    We shouldn’t be singled out.

  5. dogwoman says - Posted: June 29, 2011

    Good point, Advocate. I agree: I think 90% of the state is high wildland fire danger. And honestly, I don’t REALLY mind paying a little extra (if it actually does go to fire protection). Even though I do pay extra for my fire insurance because of where I live.
    But my point was about the legislature calling it a fee instead of a tax to make an end-run around the REQUIREMENT that property tax increases be approved by a 2/3 majority of the voters to be implemented. It’s sneaky and they shouldn’t get away with it.

  6. John says - Posted: June 29, 2011

    I mind paying more for fire protection unless it goes to Lake Valley. If Lake Valley got this money they could actually increase local fire protection. Cal Fire has a single engine in South Lake Tahoe and they are part time. We are not getting our monies worth on this.

    I also agree that this is clearly a tax, but that doesnt bother me as much I guess, I just wish it was going to our local fire district.

  7. Where is the turnip truck says - Posted: June 30, 2011

    Feeling sorry for state government workers and educrats. Oh yeah. Pathetic crybabies who bribed every legislator they could find to achieve bloated salaries and extremely bloated pensions at 50 or 55, while the rest of blokes must wait until 66 or 67 with only a third to half the pension gw’s get.
    Let’s not get into the cost of illegals and their progeny to the state or their displacing legal workers.
    Our state is sick,sick,sick and they give us arsenic for a cure.

  8. dogwoman says - Posted: June 30, 2011

    Better move now before Governor Moonbeam erects an electric fence at the eastern border to keep all the productive people IN!