http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1064578016136140.xml
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L11652806
Some interesting commentary on the bogus politics of Ahhhnold and the Republicans.
"The average Californian pays just more than 16 percent of his or her income in state and local taxes, compared to a national average of 15 percent. That, as we're learning, isn't enough to pay for the high level of services we demand.
Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock, the conservative who's his chief Republican opponent, talk glowingly about the wonderful days of the 1960s, when, in Schwarzenegger's words, "this great state said to the people everywhere: Come here, work hard, play by the rules, and your dreams can come true."
But in 1968, California was a high tax state -- among the top 10 in the country. The previous year, California's new Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, had just called for, and signed, the biggest tax increase in the history of any state."
Doug
Lying liars....
I've just read a few lies myself, but don't let that stop you. (The link doesn't work so I can only go off of what you copied).
Californians pay 10.6% in state and local taxes, compared to the national average of 9.7%. That may not sound bad, but it's 8th in the country. My own idiot governor compares our state tax rate with surrounding states saying we do not pay enough. Maybe the others pay too much? The opinion writer may have other fees added (like the 300% raise in car registration fees, HA!) but I cannot see how he'd get a 6% mistake. Heck, maybe he only counts those who actually pay taxes which would be refreshing.
What services can't they pay for? Why do services demanded by some outweigh others feeling they are paying too much taxes?
The two candidates talk about the 60s. Even Arnold can count ten years in a decade, yet the opinion writer only signals out three of those years. What was California's rank before Reagan raised taxes? Without saying what reasons were behind the tax raise makes the statement untenable. The baby boom would have been hitting college, obviously that'd be a large drain on the state resources.
During every year in the 60s per capita income rose in California. (Well, it rose every year, period; with 1993 being the lowest at 0.8%) I cannot find how tax revenues compared in those years. Maybe the candidates should have used 73 to 81 when per capita income rose ten percent each year. But I don't know how this compared to the rest of the country.
I'm not trying to defend anyone, just in a generally bad mood (F***ing steelers and falcons.)
Kevin T. - VRWC
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
