Either cut spending (What’s left to cut in california? nothing! They already tried to balance the budget on the old, disabled and jobless).

Raising taxes is the only other alternative. Did I mention I hate whiners?

The problem in California is the budget requires a super majority (66%) to pass the legislature, even before being given to the Executive. This rule has hampered every budget since it was enacted. A small rump of legislatures may now hold the entire State hostage to get their way. This is neither democratic nor very efficient. Here, we have the Republicans stymieing every attempt to fix the mess.

By law, the State is required to fund many programs, including: prisons, schools, roads and other infrastructure, law enforcement, and medicaid. There is very little room to change or reduce spending in any of these areas.

Because of proposition laws, the jails are overfilled with three strikes prisoners and those with excessively long sentences. Yet, the Republicans refuse to allow the construction of new facilities. Programs that work, such as helping prisoners achieve education and job training to KEEP THEM OUT of jail are being eliminated . Medical services have been stretched to the point the Federal Courts have stepped in to force changes.

Let me explain this since you failed social studies in grade school even if they socially promoted you.

Part I

And please allow someone who did pass civics to explain it to you.

The President / Governor / Mayor prepares and presents a budget. This is done using projected expenditures for the next fiscal time frame. Each department head is responsible for preparing their immediate budget goals. The Executive then fine tunes the budget to follow their platform, where necessary.

Once the Executive is satisfied with their results, the budget is presented to the legislative body. The various committees of the legislature then reviews the areas of the budget they are responsible for and then make any changes they feel are required. The various committees then return the budget back to the main legislature who votes to either accept or reject it.

Once the budget has been accepted by the legislature, the Executive then gets to have the final decision. If he can accept the budget he signs it. If he doesn’t accept the budget, he vetoes it and it is returned to the legislative branch.

If the budget is passed, each department now has the money to spend as they may UNLESS it is explicitly stated that the money be spent on a specific point. Generally that means the budget will tell them to buy X number of cars, allowing the department head to decide on the exact model and trim. Sometimes the budget will states that specific land be purchased for a public project (school, road, etc) or other specific item. Usually, only very large ticket items are specified.

Most Constitutions are mute on the exact process for finalizing a budget. They all do require the vote of the legislature and approval of the Executive.

The head of the executive branch in a Republic does not pass tax bills nor does he decide how to spend the money except in a limited way if he abides by the constitution. That is what the legislative branch does.

If he does do those things it’s called a dictatorship.

Nice name calling and posturing. Looks good and totally doesn’t look bottom-of-the-barrel!

The expression goes “Ask not what the country can do for you, but what can you do for the country?”

Take a hit for the state of California!

Btw, where are the liberals that think that Obama’s spending to get out a recession is good? Why don’t they endorse the CA government spending even more? It’s not like begin broke should ever stop them.

#47
You cannot be serious. Mr. Milk Toast? Mr. Bend over for Enron? Furthermore, if Arnold has proven anything it is that it has been the uber-liberal CA Congress that is to blame for CA woes for the past 40 years. It took a couple of propositions to force bozos like Willie Brown out and to get some semblance of gerrymandering order (only last year).

How would the headline read if it stated “CA increases income tax 1%”

Blaming Reagan is a bit of a stretch even for you. That was 25 years ago. You complain about revising history, then do just that.

Bush on the other hand deserves a portion of the blame. As it stands, Obama is now wearing the crown so the financial well-being of the nation is his problem.

A problem I might add that he is intentionally making worse.