Opinion
Voters tried to tell him that they approved of the budget the Assembly had passed earlier, the one that he vetoed.
Voters sent a clear message that they wanted a balanced budget solution that includes revenue increases.
In fact, according to an April 30 Field Poll (www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2306.pdf):
74 percent of California voters support increasing tobacco taxes;
73 percent of California voters support an oil extraction tax;
63 percent of California support raising the state income tax for top earners.
Every other oil-producing state in the union taxes the extraction of oil from its lands – including Texas and Wyoming. Even Sarah Palin raised the oil severance tax in Alaska to 25 percent in 2007.
The California Budget Project estimated a 9.9 percent oil severance tax would bring it at least $1 billion to state coffers. If oil prices rose again above $100 a barrel, then we could see $2 billion in revenue per year. Given the high likelihood of such increases, an oil severance tax would be a significant long-term boon to the state's coffers, since oil companies can't exactly shift production out of state, since oil is only going to become more valuable over time.
And that money could help prevent the most egregious human services cuts that were agreed to in the budget deal – the cuts to Healthy Families that will cost 500,000 children their health care coverage, the cuts to In-Home Supportive Services that people need to survive.
Voters don’t want drastic cuts to the programs Californians depend on. Voters don’t want to close schools and parks. And voters don’t want $2.5 billion a year in more corporate tax breaks for a handful of the world's largest corporations. Or to lose billions in federal funds because of stupid cuts.
Californians expect choices to be made that keep teachers in the classroom, keep public safety personnel on duty, keep infrastructure projects moving, keep our hospitals operating and our cities and county governments open to serve us.
Californians expect revenue increases to come from the corporate chief executive officers who receive astronomical profits from doing business in California.
Oh, and that whole “the rich are leaving California” mythology was debunked two weeks ago by a Public Policy Institute of California analysis of the census (www.kcra.com/money/20017385/detail.html). In fact, the study concludes that the poor are leaving California, not the rich. Which is just what the Republican Yacht Party wants.
Years of shortsighted political pandering to oil companies and big corporations have left the state with truly staggering budget problems.
Tough choices have to be made, but Californians demand and deserve better.
A budget that preserves services all Californians need and positions our economy for recovery is the only solution.
This new budget preserves billions of dollars in tax cuts for oil companies and the state’s biggest businesses.
It will have drastic impacts on California’s economy.
It will:
Drain $24 billion from California's economy, stunting the state's recovery efforts;
Drive up the unemployment rate by more than two percent, plunging California further into recession;
Deny 300,000 students a college education and increase class sizes in our public schools, making California less competitive;
Decimate public safety and the public services that maintain our quality of life and attract businesses;
Result in a loss of billions in federal funds.
It does not matter to Californians what the Republican Yacht Party and the governor promised Grover Norquist.
The last time I checked, he neither lives nor votes in California.
I do.
Rebecca Curry lives in Kelseyville.
- Details
- Written by: Rebecca Curry
Water has led the way for the growth of California. Just add water, and you get a state with half its 38 million person population in its seven southernmost counties – the most arid part of our 100 million acres. Just add water, and you get an agricultural landscape that produces more than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables. This freedom to expand, to convert desert to both suburb and breadbasket, has been a hallmark of California’s growth and success. But freedom today doesn’t necessarily translate into freedom tomorrow – there’s no free lunch.
When I travel the Second Senate District, people constantly talk about water. They note that water is intertwined with our valuable vineyards, and is the lifeline for the people. They stress that water is key to our declining fisheries, and that the rains and water table feed our superlative forests. And they express their real fears that Southern California is still on the prowl for our rivers and valleys to quench the thirst of growing cities and established agriculture.
This need for water creates an everlasting drought in California. While we speak in terms of “average” rainfall, we hide the fact that two out of three years are “below average.” When we speak of “water needs” for agriculture and cities, we suggest that California can’t be as productive without endless diversion of water from the northern and Sierra rivers to the deserts of the state.
We must get beyond the concept that there is only so much water, and that the cities, farms and fish must fight it out. Rather than continue with this struggle, we must tap the well of ideas to find the abundance that we Californians are so lucky to have.
Cities and farms must support water conservation in their zoning, choice of plants, application methods and water sources. In agriculture, this may mean selecting plant varieties and rootstocks that are less thirsty, and monitoring the soil to restrict over-watering. In cities, this may mean giving up traditional lawn mixes for less water intensive grasses, and developing gardens that reflect the native ecosystem. Rain barrels, cisterns and thrifty appliances all help as well – provided that cities and counties allow them.
I have been concerned about water and growth for a long time. As an Assemblywoman, I introduced AB 2924 in 2002. That measure would have required local government approval before water could be shipped out of the Russian, Eel or other watersheds to the north. While that bill failed to become law, I subsequently introduced a new and improved bill, AB 858, requiring study of any proposed diversion of greater than 500 acre-feet per year, which was signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis.
The state still struggles to develop groundwater laws, following the lead of forward-thinking counties like Napa. While the state still is hesitant to suggest curbs to water use, the State Water Resources Control Board has placed a significant conservation goal in this drought year for the Sonoma County Water Agency. The state is still unsure about “fixing” the Delta with a peripheral canal, and rumors still persist that the Eel and other North Coast rivers are at the heart of plans to move yet more water south.
Why let our permanent drought achieve crisis status, when we know it will persist in California for the foreseeable future? Why do we cling to a landscape of lawns in the desert? Why can’t the use of water be rationally shared, rather than continued as a competition between old users, new users, groundwater users, and the state and federal governments fulfilling contracts written in a fog of abundance?
Where the state fails (generally due to veto), the counties need to act. Groundwater, water conservation and land use all may come under the purview of counties and local, special districts. Agricultural practices can be made more thrifty with help from University Extension and the farm advisor. Gardens can be more efficient with permission from cities and support from the community and master gardener network. And stream flows and the wildlife dependent on them can be protected by land trusts, parks, water districts and effective zoning.
Freedom is why people come to and stay in California. But we are not free to waste water, to take others’ resources or devastate the environment for personal or corporate convenience. And when others do that, it limits our own freedom. Fortunately, we still have the freedom to innovate – and that will be our solution.
Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) represents California’s 2nd Senate District, made up of portions or all of six counties: Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma. She chairs the legislature’s Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.
- Details
- Written by: Sen. Patricia Wiggins
How to resolve AdBlock issue?