Honorable governor Schwarzenegger.
Recognizing the ongoing gridlock in the lack of agreement on a state budget, there is a funding source that is readily available.
Let me suggest taking 20-25 percent of redevelopment agency “tax increment” money not pledged for Bonds. Therefore, taking 25 percent of that existing bucket of money would be in the neighborhood of $one half billion dollars that could be used for education rather than subsidizing sports teams, auto dealerships and big box stores.
To learn more about these redevelopment agency funds simply read our book entitled “Redevelopment- the Unknown Government”
To request a copy simply call 714-871-9756
Larry Gilbert, Orange County Co-Director, Californians United for Redevelopment Education.
Larry;
With all due respect to you, this is a no go here in the budget dilemma here in sacramento.
Schwarzennegger Centrist Republican
While the budget hole is much deeper and wider than this suggestion, I will not endorse any temporary tax increase. As a conservative Republican we have been told over and over again that you cannot eat an elephant in one bite. This is just a beginnning that does not add a further burden on the taxpayers.
Larry, I never knew. What a guy!
You’re absolutely right! Why should cities go wanting when these agencies who are supposed to be building the city’e revenue base actually take the taxes from that area for a neverending period of time. I knew this had to be in the millions! Its such a slick switcheroo of public funds.
The Governor should absolutely take one quarter of their tax funds for this budget emergency.
Solution-take the dam cigarette tax money that is sitting idle in the bank and use it. In case some have not paid attention that money is NOT being spent and there is a ton of money sitting there doing NOTHING. Everyone is afraid to touch it because it is earmarked for children however apparently there is not enough need. And then repeal the tax altogether. It is MY money, and I for one am pissed that I pay all that in taxes and it just sits doing nothing!
Flowerszzz:
You labor under the misimpression that the cigarette money is sitting in the bank going unused. The couonties use the money that you, as a smoker, contribute to Californians for your addiction. You need to read the documentation that is required of ALL COUNTIES regarding the cigarette tax $$$ expenditures. The Reeps in the legislature raised this issue several weeks ago (actually in conference committee) and got into a big battle with the counties (like walking into a buzz saw-a real bright move).
Regarding your thinking that it is your money, when you purchase cigarettes and you pay the dollars to the vendor for your cigarettes, is it still your $$$ even tho you have the pack in your shirt pocket.
Better yet, why dont you write a letter to John Chiang requesting YOUR $$$ back. Consider hiring an attorney to file a lawsuit against OC First Five and the state challenging the legality of the cigarette tax and requesting YOUR $$$ back. I will be happy to place a wager on the success of that lawsuit.
Lastly, smoking rates have substantially declined for a variety of reasons. I, for one, want to encourage you to continue to smoke and pay the tax. That way, in the future, when you have terminal lung cancer and are without health insurance, and must go on MediCal to cover the expensive treatments that will not reverse your declining health, we can honestly say that you, as a consumer of tobacco products, and having paid your tobacco taxes, are entitled to health care provided by the state of California to its residents.
But in order to qualify, remember you must have no assets to qualify for MediCal.
SCR – Ahh a reformed smoker eh?
So now I am a BAD person because I in fact smoke….what a joke. Judge not lest ye be judged. Tell me where you live and I’ll be sure to flick my cigarette butts in front of your house! 🙂
Yes it is still MY tax dollars…not yours, unless you buy smokes just for the cause. I expect the money to be used for what it is intended….that is called holding the Government accountable. If the money is undee utilized then it seems the tax is unnecessary or at the least should be reduced.
And dont worry about my health, and health care. I unlike you, do not expect the government to take care of me. I work my butt off, and have medical insurance and retirement because I know it is not the governments job to do for me what I can do for myself.
I have looked into the issue and MILLIONS of dollars sit unutilized because “meathead” snowed everyone into believing that children needed this much $. Hmmm, wasnt he removed from the commission…I wonder why.
And just so everyone knows, I was in accurate in the $$ amount sitting idle, it is more the millions….there is about $5 Billion dollars sitting there. Just confirmed with a State Assembly Chief of Staff.
Flowerszzz:
“SCR – Ahh a reformed smoker eh?”
Nope-not at all. I wasnt stupid enough to adopt and addiction to tobacco. I dont make a judgement about your addiction. I do make a judgement about your personal stupidity.
“So now I am a BAD person because I in fact smoke….what a joke.”
No not at all. I am around smoking addicts all the time here in sacramento. The quality of the person you are is up to you and your sense of personal ethics. Its called personal choice.
“Judge not lest ye be judged. Tell me where you live and I’ll be sure to flick my cigarette butts in front of your house!”
The only judgement I make is that I dont associate with addicts. That is my CHOICE. You are an addict. You consume a legal product that has a consumption fee on a “sin” product. You decide to consume the product:that is your CHOICE.
As to your butts, if you come into my area, you dont have the right to violate municipal laws and litter my residential area or that of others. If that is your choice of action, then the municipal reaction to you is without dispute by you. Its like speeding on the freeway; you can do so, but at your own peril and at the risk of receiving a citation from those noble individuals who maintain and protect the civil order from those who choose to disregard it.
This Legislative session produced additional legislation to deal with alcohol and pornography. No one says you cant consume them; but as a member of OUR CALIFORNIA society, we as the larger society have a right to impose consumption fees on you the consumer who CHOOSES to imbibe in such products to deal with health issues associated with its consumption. So you can now say that you believe in choice and are pro-choice.
“Yes it is still MY tax dollars…not yours, unless you buy smokes just for the cause.”
Sorry-you just showed your stupidity. I CHOOSE not to imbibe and consume tobacco; you do. If you dont want to pay the fee, dont purchase the product.
Your argument that you OWN the tax dollars after you pay the fee, is on its face, STUPID. Its the type of perverted logic that one finds coming out of the mouth of Jabalito “I am still learning spanish” Cunningham on Red-faced County.
When I think about your statement, why dont you make a claim for the return of your “TAX” dollars to the California Franchise Tax Board. Instead of complaining here, put your money where your mouth is: Im sure that a consumer of tobacco products like yourself, with such a level of disposal income, can hire Schroeder to make the argument in Orange County Superior court that you are being “TAXED” for the purchase of a product. Afterall, he has a sterling record for filing litigation. His ability to win cases is, to my way of thinking (based on fact and not supposition), not very good. I suggest that you bit the bullet on behalf of all smokers in California, and file the class action law suit, on behalf of all smokers in Orange County, against Orange County for imposing a “TAX” on your right to consume tobacco.
If you dont want to put your money where your mouth is, go play on RED-faced County in Jabalito’s sandbox in Orange.
“I expect the money to be used for what it is intended….that is called holding the Government accountable.”–I agree with you. The problem is that your issue about performance for the consumption fee that you pay is with Orange County, and not with the State of California, since the state does not collect the consumption fee that you pay; Orange County does as do all other 57 counties by law.
“If the money is undee utilized then it seems the tax is unnecessary or at the least should be reduced.”
Since Orange County collects the consumption fee, the County decides how best to use the fee in compliance with the enabling proposition. The burden of demonstrated program funding and resource utilization is on the County and its programs as called for in the proposition.
A “minor” detail, but it illustrates a tremendous lack of knowledge, on your part, about the enabling proposition passed by the VOTERS of California to impose this fee on the Californians who choose to consume tobacco. And how the Counties can expense those fees on tobacco cessation programs. Read the proposition and familiarize yourself with it.
“And dont worry about my health, and health care.”
Believe me, I dont concern myself with your health. LOL.
You made a choice to smoke. In exactly the same way a woman does when she decides to terminate a pregnancy. It is a personal choice in both instances and for which there is no role for government.
“I unlike you, do not expect the government to take care of me. I work my butt off, and have medical insurance and retirement because I know it is not the governments job to do for me what I can do for myself.”
Good for you. When you lose your job and your health insurance, or when your company seeks bankruptcy protection and argues that it cannot afford to pay its unfunded retirement obligations and wants to discharge those obligations and pass them on for the federal government to assume those obligations at .25 on the $1, dont complain and dont file for assistance. Afterall you made a choice to work for the company that employs you.
BTW, I would suggest that you discuss this situation and your trust in employers with various United Airlines employees. As a federal tax payer, you are paying their retirement obligations now.
As to my personal situation, I set my retirement and dedicate a portion of my income for succeeding years. Again, I realize that this is a lot for you to consider but it really is quite simple: Personal Choice.
“I have looked into the issue and MILLIONS of dollars sit unutilized because “meathead” snowed everyone into believing that children needed this much $. Hmmm, wasnt he removed from the commission…I wonder why.
Reiner is not the issue here. Tobacco cessation rates in California are amongst the lowest in the nation as a result of the imposition of a consumption fee. The rate and number of Californians who have historically smoked in the past and who CHOOSE not to smoke any longer are amongst the highest in the 50 states.
You have a personal choice: to smoke or not; to purchase gas or not; to purchase taxable items or not. You pay sales tax on your purchases as a result of your decision to purchase said items. You pay state fuel user fees as a result of your decision to drive in California and travel the roads and highways of this great state. You pay the toll to use the toll roads in Orange County as a decision by you that you wish to get to a destination and avoid traffic. Travel the Riverside freeway and look at the toll area. Its virtually empty because of CHOICE and the FREEway is congested because of personal CHOICE.
You pay the tobacco tax because you choose to consume tobacco. No one is forcing you to do so.
Given the massive body of evidence compiled over the last 40 years regarding smoking tobacco and its impact on the human body, we have not outlawed its sale to or purchase by the consumer.
That is because personal choice is such an individual right.
What we as Californians did, through the proposition process, is to recognize that tobacco causes a multitude of health problems and that we, as a society, believe that the greater good is served by the imposition of a consumption fee on those Californians who CHOOSE to purchase tobacco. As well, all 58 California counties will collect those consumption fees and use them for tobacco cessation and education programs for the general public. What the proposition did do is preserve your right to continue to purchase tobacco for your personal use. It memorialized your individual right, or that of any Californian, to CHOOSE to consume tobacco.
“And just so everyone knows, I was in accurate in the $$ amount sitting idle, it is more the millions….there is about $5 Billion dollars sitting there. Just confirmed with a State Assembly Chief of Staff.”
I dont know who you talked to but, in all likelihood, it must have been an individual who is employed by a member of the Legislature in their district office. Had they been here in Sacramento, they would have informed you on the basics of the proposition: that each county controls their First Five monies; that the Counties are audited for how those funds are used; that the Republican Caucus wanted to “take back” these funds from the counties thru legislation this session and that the counties (all 58) waged a very aggressive lobbying effort before the Health/Government Operations/Budget Committees of both the Assembly and Senate to prevent this take away. And were successful in their efforts.
Your “chief of staff” person (and I have to question the accuracy of your description since typically the chief of staff position is in Sacramento and not at the district level: that is usually the district director. I suggest you purchase a copy of the Legislative Red Book to see the staffing of each Legislator) has provided you with very inaccurate information. I can only conclude that they are, since they are at the district level, very misinformed on the interworkings of First Five and have conveyed to you much misinformation.
You state that there are billions of dollars squirreled away by the state (again to correct you, First Five funds are held by the 58 counties-its THEIR monies and belongs to them)–If you check CalChannel, you will be able to find the committee hearings conducted during this session and the presentation by the state-wide First Five Commission (by the way they have no authority or control over the sin funds(in this specific case tobacco-that is reserved for the counties).
I will be happy to convey to you the various First Five documentation from the hearings this session and the location of the archived hearings on the CalChannel.
In closing, I want you to exercise your right to choose. I dont want to take that away from you. But as a Californian living in this great state, and partaking of all that it has to offer, there is a price to pay. I am sure that you will agree that nothing is free except our right to choose to engage in specific behavior.
You have the individual right to purchase and consume tobacco. To engage in such behavior has personal responsibility. That responsibility entails paying the consumption fee levied by the state for tobacco.
Seriously lighten up a bit…the cigarette butt was a joke. I dont need a book….so boring u must be a policy wonk…snore, no personality nor sense of humor.
I am well aware of the difference between a Cheif fo staff and district director lol. And I know to whom I spoke thanks very much. I have lots of friends who work in sacramento, some elected, some on staffs.
I also know that there is 5 billion dollars sitting idle. You know it too, you are just trying to pull the wool. The program is a decent program – just WAY over funded. I dont mind paying the tax…..I just want the money to be used for what it is intended. It is not, so why not use it to help balance the budget….and lower the cigarette sin tax. Yes Cigarettes are the devil. LOL.
Before you write back another book trying to convinceme how smart you are, I suggest you read the article below. And whileyou are at it you should remove the word “Republican” from your moniker.
http://cssrc.us/web/17/publications.aspx?id=3958&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Week In Review, January 31, 2008: First 5 cash is collecting cobwebs not serving children
First 5 cash is collecting cobwebs not serving children; Information for transportation to LA Court to protest placement of sex offender in LA County
Here is the entire article:
Week In Review, January 31, 2008: First 5 cash is collecting cobwebs not serving children
First 5 cash is collecting cobwebs not serving children; Information for transportation to LA Court to protest placement of sex offender in LA County
Ten years ago, voters established the First 5 Commission to use tobacco tax revenues for improving the lives of California’s children. Its proponents argued that the First 5 Commission would “provide child immunizations, health care, nutrition services, domestic violence prevention, and treatment…” from the time they were born until they entered kindergarten.
However, political gain and mismanagement have corrupted that noble goal.
To begin with, the First 5 Commission spent tens of millions of dollars intended to provide direct services to kids on ads advocating the virtues of preschool while an initiative to mandate preschool was being circulated by the First 5 Commissioner. Now it has been discovered that the First 5 Commission and its 58 county commissions are letting billions of dollars collect dust rather than be used to provide services for children.
According to The Sacramento Bee (Jan. 17, 2008), the 58 “county commissions in California that decide how to use money from [Proposition 10] are sitting on a combined balance of more than $2 billion….” And, that is not including the state portion of “a nearly $367 million surplus.”
While it is prudent to have a rainy day fund, the “$2 billion balance was nearly four times the amount that county programs spent in 2007.” That’s hardly what voters intended for the Commission to do with these tax dollars.
When the county First 5 Commissions did spend taxpayer money, they spent funds on “swimming, photography and other programs… of questionable value…,” rather than on critical immunizations and other healthcare programs. Although the authorized programs may be worthy, how exactly does community photography improve a toddler’s health and well-being?
What’s more, while the First 5 Commission has more than $2 billion collecting cobwebs, “California has an estimated 800,000 uninsured children…while advocates [for these children] say it would cost less than $500 million annually to provide [health] coverage for them.”
The executive director of the association of First 5 county commissions defended the surplus by explaining that the county commissions “do business differently from typical government agencies.”
Yes, they are the polar opposite of the typical agencies that overspend, and then demand more for the following budget year. But, I still question whether they are effectively serving the children they were created to help and protect, or if the money is being spent to keep their administrators happy and well paid.
What can we do to change this practice?
My colleague, Sen. Dave Cox, a Sacramento area representative, proposed that the state redirect these dollars from inactive status to an active one of funding insurance for the 800,000 children in California who go without coverage.
In doing so, the state would receive matching dollars from the federal government, thereby doubling its funds (and I believe taxpayers’ wishes would be obeyed as well).
The idea to redirect First Five dollars (Senate Bill SBX1 5) was quashed in the Senate Health Committee a few weeks ago, but this proposal is far from dead and the debate about this specific topic and health care reform are nowhere close to finished.
The time to truly reform California’s health care is past due. If we are going to get this job done for the people of California, the Legislature and Governor must promote realistic ideas (such as the one presented by Senator Cox) to create transparency in health care costs and make sure our children are covered. In addition to that, true reform means we must create access, affordability and choices while not raising taxes on families, businesses and health care providers.
Wonderful……
I attended the hearings in Sacramento. I dealt with both Runner’s and Cox’s comments.
Revamping the First 5 program is dead. Both Runner and Cox know it. I told you it was dead. And it is.
58 counties will make sure it stays dead.
… a billion here, a billion there; pretty soon…
SMS
SCR ok so then we just let the money set? First you said there was no unspent money….now atleast you admit there is. If the money is not being spent for what it was intended, if even at all…what is the purpose? Just to penalize smokers? And what gets me is you see nothing wrong with that? Just tax me for the sake of it? How about lets put it into helping people quit since there is not enough need. It was not intended to just set idle in the bank. The 58 counties better start using it or it will be raided – this I guarantee.
Flowerszzz
You are politically naive or stupid.
A. The counties set the programs they spend the money on. Local Entities decide–not the state.
B. It is THEIR money to spend and they are accountable for that-not the state of California.
C. What part of smoking cessation programs do you not understand?
D. The Legislative Session is over–we are in call back mode–and the effort to revise First Five failed on a democratic system (you do believe in democracy dont you? with the small d) vote. Session over–measure failed.
E. It is a consumption FEE (not a tax)–you have the choice of paying it or not. end of discussion.
F. If you are so knowledgeable about this measure, why didnt the Reep Caucus view this as a tax (BTW-they dont) and advocate for its abolition instead of advocating moving the funds to the state to balance the budget and use the funds for healthcare programs?
G. So you agree that Runner’s effort is a raid on County funds?precisely why the 58 Counties successfully fought his efforts.
Centrist Republicans for Obama/Biden 2008
watching the McCain/Palin trainwreck implode
SCR wrote, ” you, as a consumer of tobacco products, and having paid your tobacco taxes, are entitled to health care provided by the state of California to its residents. ”
That would be all nice ‘n hunky dory SCR, except for the fact that people who sound a lot like you, people who enjoy calling other people “addicts” because it makes them sound dirty, are actually the people living off of the extra taxes that smokers pay. You seem well-read enough that you should be aware of this, but perhaps your readers are not. Will you let them read and decide for themselves? See:
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7
(Please forgive the typo problems in the text transferral… I’m an activist and a writer, not a web-guru)
SCR, according to the figures in my research there, which is all clearly laid out and fully referenced, smokers are MORE than supporting their own health care AND a good bit of yours. So why do you, a supposedly “centrist Repulican” support that kind of theft?
California’s had just about the lowest smokiing rate in the country for almost twenty years now. Why does it have one of the highest percapita health care costs? Why is it that instead of being ranked high in the better half of statistics for heart disease and stroke it is actually ranked down around #33? You certainly can’t blame “Second Hand Smoke” since it’s been banned pretty much everywhere for over 10 years now, even more in municipalities like San Luis Obispo.
Read my article SGR, and feel perfectly free to attack it for all you’re worth.
To echo your Governor…
I’ll be back.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
SCR wrote, “E. It is a consumption FEE (not a tax)–you have the choice of paying it or not. end of discussion.”
True enough. Same as the fees on gasoline, properties, and alcohol. They’re not taxes and you don’t need to pay them. Figure out the percentage, leave the proprietor the appropriate amount without the fee and if they give you guff about it just say you made your choice and refer them to SCR. We live in a taxless society… Amazing.
It’s actually not a new argument: the Governor of Connecticut came out with the same kind of nonsense three years ago when he imposed a “user fee” on smokers. The “user fee” concept is also a great way for those who’d like to destroy our Constitution to get around interstate taxation restrictions. Just wait’ll they go after all the grandma’s who’ve been robbing us blind buying gifts for their grandchildren from the Home Shopping Club while actually stealing money from our government.
They can pay up … or do the time.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”