I’m guessing that Gov. Schwarzenegger thinks something very different when he sees this slogan these days: The thing that won’t die, in the nightmare that won’t end.
It’s not the Terminator but rather, the budget.
The state of California is facing a $21.3 billion shortfall. Billion.
And the measures that Schwarzenegger hoped would be a step towards resolving those issues failed – and failed miserably. Voters in California voted down five of six proposals on Tuesday with more than 60% of voters issuing a resounding “no.”
The one proposal that did pass prevents certain state officials from receiving pay raises when California has a budget deficit. But other measures failed. The controversial proposals included shortening the school year by a week and a-half, cutting education jobs, eliminating health insurance for nearly 250,000 children, laying off state firefighters and limiting funds paid to local governments.
Cuts are inevitable now. So are higher taxes. Just months after California cut billions in spending, raised the state sales tax by a penny, borrowed and yes, begged, from the federal government, the state is expected to once again raise taxes. This time, income taxes are the likely target.
But wait… Before you start writing those “what did you expect from California?” comments, consider this statistic: 33 of 50 states have either already raised taxes or are considering raising sales, income and/or excise taxes to make up shortfalls in their budgets. My own state, Pennsylvania, is one of them.
A number of Republican governors have indicated that they will turn down federal money offered to states as part of the stimulus package. The Republican governors of Alaska, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas have signaled that they will pass on the money because it could lead to a tax increase in the future.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) had a message for them: We’ll take it. As California seeks to dig itself out of a fairly deep economic hole, Schwarzenegger said:
I am more than happy to take his money or [that of] any other governor in this country that doesn’t want to take this money. I take it because I think California needs it.
Schwarzenegger does not believe that the provisions in the stimulus package will result in an increase in taxes in the near future. But my own Governor, Ed Rendell (D-PA), begs to differ. He told “Fox News Sunday” that “I’m not sure that we can, over the long run, cope with the high unemployment compensation standard that this mandates for states.” He did, however, say that Pennsylvania would be taking the money anyway.
What exactly is the hubbub about? In the stimulus bill, federal dollars can be used by the states to expand their unemployment insurance program. However, if the states take the money, they must agree to expand the number of people who are given jobless benefits. That, some say, will be a problem once the federal money runs out (of course, that assumes that the current unemployment rates remain largely the same, which we hope is not the case in a few years).
So, that’s the end of that, then, right? Not really. The law allows a state legislature to overrule a governor’s decision not to take the money.
Hmm. What if I say that I don’t want the money because of the potential for debt down the road… when I know that the legislature will take it anyway? Ooh, those clever political strategists…