tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post2768041972680635611..comments2023-12-30T19:42:59.088-08:00Comments on Adventures in Fuel Economy, Energy Use, Physics, and Life: Evil California homeowners and their failure to repeal Proposition 13King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-89570551189574821802011-05-29T10:42:22.532-07:002011-05-29T10:42:22.532-07:00Clearly, Proposition 13 was not for the stated pur...Clearly, Proposition 13 was not for the stated purpose of budget reduction. In 1978, inflation was a huge issue. Homeowners saw themselves as sacrificial lambs and were not willing to lose their houses to inflation and uncontrolled spending.<br /><br />At that time, I was a renter. I became a homeowner for the first time in CA in 1981. Despite that, I voted in favor of Prop. 13 for all its flaws (and there are flaws).<br /><br />This is not the point of the post. The point is that the State of CA has continued to increase its spending and then utilized "the horrific consequences of Prop. 13" as one of the primary excuses for the inability to balance the budget. My point is that Prop. 13 has never slowed them down and that this excuse is not valid.<br /><br />You're quite correct that the State has taken money from local government in order to attempt to keep up the pace of per capita inflation adjusted increases in spending levels. The thought of "why don't we see why $371 per capita 1970 dollars sufficed in 1978 and $538 per capita 1970 dollars are insufficient now" has never entered the minds of those elected to serve us.<br /><br />CA is still #12 in <a href="http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/10taxbur.html" rel="nofollow">per capita tax burden</a> so it's not as if we're at the bottom of the heap. And local taxes (sales, business, etc.) are extraordinarily high as well.<br /><br />The fact is that the primary message ("you do not have a blank check") has never been received by our State government.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-69158579936378397232011-05-29T09:07:13.803-07:002011-05-29T09:07:13.803-07:00Prop 13 didn't cut the state budget. It was t...Prop 13 didn't cut the state budget. It was targeted at county budgets. <br /><br />Consequently, there should be no expectation of a reduction in the state budget as a result of Prop 13. <br /><br />However, your charts demonstrate that the state was required to take on additional burdens in spending as a result of thoughtless, lawnmower "trimming" of county revenues throughout California. Schools, libraries, police departments, fire departments, sewage treatment, and road maintenance, to pick a few categories, suffered greatly. <br /><br />Prop 13 started a dramatic and tragic decline in the ability of local California governments to deliver the services and infrastructure that make a civilization great, or even workable. The increases in <i>state</i> budgets reflect, in part, the desperate attempt by state legislators to make up for the damage done by Prop 13.<br /><br />The charts you show are off-target. State tax revenues were not targeted by Prop 13. Your charts do not show county revenues, or spending. <br /><br />I'd accuse you of bait and switch, but I think you genuinely did not understand the difference between state and county spending in this exercise.<br /><br />This is <a href="http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/raise-taxes-to-pay-for-regulation-what-do-we-get-for-our-money/#comment-135332" rel="nofollow">a point I've made at my blog, in response to your comments there</a>.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-7670046052860908982011-03-01T15:43:29.037-08:002011-03-01T15:43:29.037-08:00Brilliant.Brilliant.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12332789862615057696noreply@blogger.com