A Path to Put Taxes on Ballot if Gov Takes Calculated Risk: Listen to Reps
The Republicans have lighted a path for the governor to put
the tax extensions on the ballot if the governor is willing to take a
calculated risk – put tax cuts on the ballot as well.
The governor insists the people should vote on his tax
extension plan. Many Republicans say they will only put those tax extensions on
the ballot if equivalent tax cuts are also placed on the ballot.
It’s a risk to the governor and Democrats agenda, but how
big a risk? There really hasn’t been much call for a tax cut recently and there
doesn’t seem to be a demand for new tax cuts from the voters.
The tax extensions are a different matter. Defeating the tax
extensions might be considered the same as approving a tax cut because it would
affirm the current temporary tax levels expire. Governor Brown said he is willing
to take on that fight.
Pension reform begins with the current workforce
While Governor Brown
was acknowledging yesterday that pension reform is a
possible element of a budget solution, a bipartisan, independent state
commission released a report charting a bold path for
pension reforms that would create both short- and long-term budget savings.
The Little Hoover
Commission, of which I’m a member, unanimously adopted Public Pensions for
Retirement Security, calling for Legislative action to establish the legal
authority to allow state and local governments to freeze pension benefits for
current workers, and allowing those workers to accrue future benefits under
more sustainable pension plans.
After ten months of
public hearings and background research, Commissioners concluded that
California’s pension crisis cannot be solved without addressing the obligations
of current employees, many of whom have accrued generous benefits augmented
during the go-go years of the dot.com and real estate bubbles.
Grossly Unfair to Older Businesses
I was an early customer of Netflix. In late 1999, I signed up for its then-revolutionary service – DVDs of my choosing in the mail! I can keep them as long as I want! – and I was a happy customer.
But I wasn’t so happy a few years later when I saw an advertisement from Netflix touting new lower rates for those who sign up now. In other words, new customers were getting a better deal than old customers.
I asked Netflix to give me the lower subscription rate it was charging new customers. I got turned down. The discounted rate is for new customers only, the company said.
So, I thought, this is how Netflix rewards customers loyal from the beginning? It makes them pay more? I quit Netflix, never to return.
Obama’s High-Speed Rail Obsession
Cross-posted at NewGeography.
Perhaps nothing so illustrates President Obama’s occasional disconnect with reality than his fervent advocacy of high-speed rail. Amid mounting pressure for budget cuts that affect existing programs, including those for the inner city, the president has made his $53 billion proposal to create a national high-speed rail network as among his top priorities.
Our President may be an intelligent and usually level-headed man, but this represents a serious case of policy delusion. As Robert Samuelson pointed out in Newsweek, high-speed rail is not an appropriate fit for a country like the U.S. Except for a few areas, notably along the Northeast Corridor, the U.S. just lacks the density that would make such a system work. Samuelson calls the whole idea “a triumph of fancy over fact.”
Arguably the biggest problem with high-speed rail is its extraordinary costs, which would require massive subsidies to keep operating. Unlike the Federal Highway Program, largely financed by the gas tax, high-speed rail lacks any credible source of funding besides taxpayer dollars.
Part of the pitch for high-speed rail is nationalistic. To be a 21st century super power, we must emulate current No. 2 China. But this is a poor reason to indulge in a hugely expensive program when the U.S. already has the world’s most evolved highway, freight rail and airline system.