You have some big tax impact coming from the State budget finally approved by the last vote needed. Abel Maldonado (r) was holding out for some concessions, which really meant that he WAS eventually going to vote FOR the budget and FOR the additional billions to be covered BY taxes. [Update:"California Legislature finally approves new budget" in L.A. Times today-http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget20-2009feb20,0,5263469.story ]
Look for the details that will become law when Arnold signs off on it. Not a pretty picture. The plan is to continue for 5 years, with some review in 2 years when voters can act again, I am told. Meanwhile the taxes-on-taxes (surcharge on state income tax bill) and double car tax and spending increases will roll on.
Democratic Speaker of the House Karen Bass continued to say "do the right thing" and she meant "approve the tax hikes" not 'let's continue to work on terms and solutions" that would include a few more frugal moves.
Bass and the other politicians were cleverly changing the vocabulary used, "taxes" was used no more, instead they call it "revenue"- they come out the same for US in the end, but the word tries to sidestep the slogan that SOME Republicans were still following, "No More Taxes" (that's no "additional taxes"- "no more taxes ever" would be nice).
Lots more to the picture. Maldonado's "work" before caving in does not give you, the taxpayer, much of anything to hold onto when you balance it all out. All politics on all sides.
CONSIDER WHAT A RESPONSIBLE STYLE OF GOVERNMENT DOES.
Today's L.A. Times shows cooperation happening in the city of Redlands in San Bernardino County, about an hour (in no traffic) east of L.A. They have their budget woes, too, and their solutions involve serious measures taken that demonstrate what can happen with ALL players working together AND working for the benefit of the City and the people. "A spirit of sacrifice sweeps over Redlands City Hall"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-redlands19-2009feb19,0,7916203,full.story
There in Redlands, the financial pain was spread around to enable all to survive instead of just wiping out some segments completely. You can see in the story that a certain built-in value of greed is present, shown where other unions criticized the Redlands police officers and their union because that sets a precedent for other unions to share in giving up some things in negotiations.
That's a tradition that is not good in these times and works to shift the burden completely to others, like a hot potato or a case of musical chairs- some are the big losers and others are the big winners. Spreading out the whole pain would maybe even make the "untouchables" see what changes are needed in spending, especially at a state-wide level, if they were included in the "sharing."
In L.A., you have too many people protected in government. The DWP situation highlights that and the terms proposed in Measure B even work in a plan to get new members FOR THEIR UNION and to have training paid for before they get their jobs. As the consumer, YOU get to pay their bill in YOUR DWP bill , where it all shows up sooner or later. In Sacramento, Arnold already signed off for SEIU workers to be guaranteed a no-layoff status, I think it covered 93,000 workers.
Politicians or union leaders don't highlight that sort of deal-making and you see why. There is something inherently wrong when "some" are made to be untouchable and not feel any of the pain. But that's the reality of politics in action and why various unions get too powerful. A trade for favors- "Do what I want and my members will vote for you"- so that get's done. It's not costing the politician anything personally when taxes go up, when new programs get approved, worthy or not, and need funding. You will pay for that. This makes the case for "The tale wagging the dog," or "Who's working for who here?"
L.A city elections coming up in less than two weeks. The voters to come out to show you don't just let things happen. If you don't vote on March 3, you have no basis to complain about what happens in this city later. That would be called rolling over on your back like you see on Cesar Milan's T.V. show "The Dog Whisperer"; it give you a demonstrations of dogs doing that, going into a "submissive" condition- showing either "complete trust" or "fear." You have little reason for any complete or partial trust of incumbents. WE NEED new blood there, and if you vote for these incumbents, it just may be out of fear.
For me, keeping them to do more damage is what I fear. Time for change.
All the odd-numbered council districts are up for election March 3rd- including Ed Reyes' CD-1 that covers Lincoln Heights and over to Pico Union. The only challenger Jesus Rosas is not perfect but Ed has become just too comfortable as a career politican who needs to move on to shake off all those entanglements he's built up with special interests, lobbyists and unions that have so obviously seen Lincoln Heights for their own development profiteering opportunities.
They will object to that view, but this is when the voters make the difference.
Posts
