Just call me a political geek girl
Aug. 21st, 2003 01:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sethrakJust a quick comment about the CA election.
I was, and still am, all in favor of the recall. You don't get a state the size of CA into the fiscal condition it is currently in without displaying gross incompetence and needing to be held accountable. I was even tentatively in favor of Schwarzenegger's candicacy - despite him being a Republican and me being a Democrat. When I first heard that Davis' Lt. Gov. was running as a replacement to his boss, I hooted. I figured he couldn't possibly be any good.
But the stuff I've been reading lately seems to suggest Bustamante's got some good things to say, and he's got a more coherent economic plan than Schwarzenegger's. S. keeps saying he'll fix things without raising taxes or cutting education, but will have to wait til he appoints an audit *after election* to give specific details. Bah. Bah, I say.
B., as a good Democrat ought to, rather than one of the tepid Republocrats we seem to get these days, wants to put more of the state's revenue brunt on businesses and the wealthy. I like that. It makes a lot more sense than having the majority of taxes come from fees and income taxes asessed against the lower economic tiers. They may be more numerous than the rich, but they still have less overall to give, and they can afford it the least. Doing that may not be enough to get CA out of it's budget hole. He's probably going to have to cut services somewhere too, if elected. But at least he's got a plan formed and ready to hand out to voters.
I may try to do more reading on the other CA gubernatorial candidates - but for God's sake, there's just so damn *many* of them! o_o I think CA needs to toughen it's standards fopr becoming a candidate. Somewhere in one of these articles I read a would-be candidate needs less than a hundred signatures to be elegible. I forget the exact number. But that's just insane. This is CA, not Rhode Island.... You can find a hundred people to sign your petition by going to downtown LA during lunch hour.
I'm reading up on some of the Democratic candidates for President, too. Dean's got some darn good things to say about civil unions for gay couples. But that's not enough to run the country. I need to do more research and less fangirl-stuff online. The primaries aren't all that far away.
Somebody remind me why I didn't get that poli sci degree.... ^_^
I was, and still am, all in favor of the recall. You don't get a state the size of CA into the fiscal condition it is currently in without displaying gross incompetence and needing to be held accountable. I was even tentatively in favor of Schwarzenegger's candicacy - despite him being a Republican and me being a Democrat. When I first heard that Davis' Lt. Gov. was running as a replacement to his boss, I hooted. I figured he couldn't possibly be any good.
But the stuff I've been reading lately seems to suggest Bustamante's got some good things to say, and he's got a more coherent economic plan than Schwarzenegger's. S. keeps saying he'll fix things without raising taxes or cutting education, but will have to wait til he appoints an audit *after election* to give specific details. Bah. Bah, I say.
B., as a good Democrat ought to, rather than one of the tepid Republocrats we seem to get these days, wants to put more of the state's revenue brunt on businesses and the wealthy. I like that. It makes a lot more sense than having the majority of taxes come from fees and income taxes asessed against the lower economic tiers. They may be more numerous than the rich, but they still have less overall to give, and they can afford it the least. Doing that may not be enough to get CA out of it's budget hole. He's probably going to have to cut services somewhere too, if elected. But at least he's got a plan formed and ready to hand out to voters.
I may try to do more reading on the other CA gubernatorial candidates - but for God's sake, there's just so damn *many* of them! o_o I think CA needs to toughen it's standards fopr becoming a candidate. Somewhere in one of these articles I read a would-be candidate needs less than a hundred signatures to be elegible. I forget the exact number. But that's just insane. This is CA, not Rhode Island.... You can find a hundred people to sign your petition by going to downtown LA during lunch hour.
I'm reading up on some of the Democratic candidates for President, too. Dean's got some darn good things to say about civil unions for gay couples. But that's not enough to run the country. I need to do more research and less fangirl-stuff online. The primaries aren't all that far away.
Somebody remind me why I didn't get that poli sci degree.... ^_^
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-21 04:36 pm (UTC)The reason that the greater taxes upon businesses and the rich wouldn't work is that part of the reason California's in the shitter is that all the taxes and requirements already chased most of the businesses off.
So, while they could make the businesses pick up more of the burden, all it'd do is make what businesses they have remaining consider leaving, and would almost certainly make most companies reconsider building or expanding to California.
Also, isn't taxing the rich more just punishing the successful? Granted, they have a disproportionate amount of money, but then again the taxes put on them already make up the majority of tax money collected.
To wrap this up, additional taxing isn't the answer. Reorganization and reduction of the government is. The state governments need to keep up with the fact that there's not as much money out there anymore, and adding taxes is just trying to take more of what's not really there.
Cut spending before upping taxes.
Bah, I say!
Date: 2003-08-26 03:00 pm (UTC)a) EVERY american was given a PERCENTAGE of their ernings to the government - not this flimsy crappy Tax scheme we have now.
b) each state did a flat percentage tax, as well.
For example: 1/3 of your wages are ALREADY taken out due to taxes, SS, etc.
So, why not just keep doing that, with out these "tax brackets", etc. At the end of the year, the only thing you need to return to the IRS to get any deductions is the expenses that are already taken out, etc. when you fill out the forms.
ok, now back to this: so 1/3 pay-> govt
1/2 of that -> Fed
1/4 -> state
and then the rest can be broken up to social security, and all that other crap we have to deal with.
Do this to EVERY amaerican, and you'd see that they would still be able to survive, while still giving their fair share. (note: the 1/3 is an example - it'd work with 1/4 better, with less uproar.)
But then again, that's just my 2 cents.
-- By the way,m has anyone seen my LJ password around anywehere
WillZ
Re: Bah, I say!
Date: 2003-08-26 03:43 pm (UTC)Also, while 1/3 of the paycheck isn't a whole lot to the richer amongst us, it's a fair amount to those who don't make as much.
And one final thing...
When'd you get an LJ, Will?