Tuesday, March 17, 2009

More Taxes, More Spending

Not content with passing what might well be the biggest state tax increase in history, Democrats in our state legislature assure us they're not done yet. New taxes and tax increases are still being proposed. The Sacramento Bee lists some of the proposals.

As always, if asked for a login to the Bee site, you can use humboldtlib as a username and blogspot for a password.
The San Diego Union- Tribune also makes mention of the new tax proposals this morning, recommending state leaders focus on spending, not revenue. One interesting quote about the latest budget from their commentary:

"...more than half the $15 billion in “cuts” were actually a reduction in projected future spending increases."

Hmmm...a reduction in spending increases being called "cuts". What a surprise? NOT, although I had wondered just how much of what I was hearing involved actual cuts.
Along that same line, Pete du Pont looks at two different states in the Wall Street Journal today. He compares California and Delaware- Delaware having past history similar to California's sordid spending practices.

Delaware rose above those practices and put their house in order. We've seen what's become of California following the old spending habits of Delaware. What a mess.

So which state is the Obama administration seem to be using as a model for its economic polices, according to du Pont? California, of course.


At 7:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that California is getting Federal funds for public works projects, especially for those "shovel ready," will the Willits bypass highway finally get built???

At 4:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i beleive "sordid" IS the model

At 2:06 PM, Blogger Gary Gas Tax said...

The only smart tax today is on gasoline. America's weakness in the world is multifactorial; the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the failure of the banking system (largely from the subprime crisis)and the loss of international respect resulting from the above. But the biggest proportion of it is from our immense use of foreign oil and the immense trade defecit it creates.
The Obama administration is spending billions to subsidize green energy in the form of photovoltaic and wind systems while improving the grid. That's fine but it does nothing to reduce oil consumption. Wind and sun compete with coal, our biggest source of electricity. We have a gazillion tons of coal.
Taxing gas: starting small with 25 cents a gallon and increasing by 25 cents a year will provide funds to accelerate alternative fuels like electric vehicles (my all-electric car arrives next week - a converted Pontiac Vibe). It's the first in the U.S. If we had 300,000 of these on the road we would be reducing the demand and thus the cost of oil. If subsidy money were there from the government, auto manufacturers would be scrambling to build these cars and improve the technology. Increasing the gas tax allows for this while moving the cost balance from the favor of gasoline to electricity. It's a no-brainer. As gas consumption slowly drops, so will the price! This allows for increasing the gas tax to keep the price stable, providing more funds to subsidize electric cars. It will take only 5 to 10 years (depending on the gas tax rate) to elimiinate our need for foreign oil but the benefits will be felt in year 2 and accelerate thereafter. We were paying the middle east $4 a gallon. Why not pay the U.S. an additional 25 cents, raising gas to a mere $2.25 and starting us on the road to 100% energy independence? This would be world-changing, very much in our favor.

At 2:35 PM, Blogger Fred said...

If we had 300,000 of these on the road we would be reducing the demand and thus the cost of oil.

No we wouldn't, since you want to keep increasing the gasoline tax, the price would go through the roof and stay there.

Besides, prices for gasoline can only go so low on the production end because a certain amount of money is required to produce gas. It's a lot like water, and we're seeing here in California that you can often pay more when you use less.


Post a Comment

<< Home