CaliforniaValentine’s Day came and went, and still there was no budget. On deep into the night it continued, desperately trying to find one more Republican Senator brave enough to end this nightmare, to cast the yes vote, and to save the state of California from fiscal turmoil the likes of which it has not seen before in this lifetime or many others. And yet on Sunday, there were no heroes.
First, the word came that Dave Cox, the Senator from the Sacramento Area could be the third vote. But late on Saturday night or Sunday morning, he said no.
The Sacramento Bee took the highly unusual step of issuing an email alert with an online editorial:
“Call Senator Cox and urge him to be a hero.”
The story read:
“As implausible as it may sound, a single vote by state Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, could determine if the Legislature saves California from going over a financial cliff.”
But it was not to be. The next word came that perhaps it could be Sen. Abel Maldonado who had shunned the budget largely over his riff with Controller Chiang on office furniture. The Capitol Weekly suggested on Facebook that he might be convinced over the creation of an open primary. But that too was fleeting.
And so here we are, Monday morning, waiting still for a miracle.
The logic here makes no sense. California needs a budget. Someone has to step up and say yes.
No one likes this budget. It cuts deeply into education and other spending. It raises taxes.
The LA Times on Saturday reported that firms would get over one billion dollars in tax breaks while the average person would pay higher taxes.
“The average Californian’s taxes would shoot up five different ways in the state budget blueprint that lawmakers hope to vote on this weekend. But the bipartisan plan for wiping out the state’s giant deficit isn’t so bad for large corporations, many of which would receive a permanent windfall.”
Bottom line it is a bad budget, but it is one that must be passed. But the Republicans continue to hold out. Despite all indications that they have to raise taxes. It has to be done.
George Skelton in his column this morning, does the math. His conclusion:
“To avoid raising taxes and still balance the books in Sacramento, you’d have to virtually shut down state government.”
Is that the goal of the Repulbicans? Shut down Sacramento?
“The basics: The state has a projected $41-billion deficit through June 30, 2010. It’s almost out of cash. Bills are not getting paid. Tax refunds aren’t being mailed. Construction work is stopped. Bonds can’t be sold.”
Back in December the Republicans issued forth their one and only plan, it continued zero tax increases and all spending. But guess what, that plan came up with only half of what was needed to balance the budget. Skelton continues:
“The problem for GOP politicians, however, is that 52% of Republicans favor eradicating the red ink “mostly through spending cuts.”
But the numbers don’t add up. The Legislature’s two Republican leaders — Assemblyman Mike Villines of Clovis and Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto — came to that realization in December as they dug through the budget books. They also knew that even if it were possible to avoid tax hikes, their GOP colleagues didn’t have the stomach for the kinds of slashing that would be needed in school, healthcare and prison programs.
“The only alternative now,” Villines said Saturday, “is to literally go insolvent and over the cliff. And many of us believe that is irresponsible and giving up our constitutional responsibilities.””
Skelton lays out the math in dizzying terms. If you layoff all the state workers under the control of the governor, that would only be $24.4 billion. But to do that you would have to dump 160,000 convicted felons onto the streets with the prisons being closed and the guards and warden fired. There would also be no Highway Patrol. No state parks. And as Skelton points out that wouldn’t even give you $24.4 billion because some of the employees are paid from special funds that are self-sustaining.
The legislature could be eliminated for another $400 million over 16 months which is a drop in the bucket.
“What many people don’t realize is that around three-fourths of the state’s general fund flows out to schools and local governments, much of it because of voter-passed laws.
But there is another place to look for savings: You could cut off all state money to higher education — the two university systems and the community colleges. That would save the remaining $16 billion.”
He continues.
“Don’t like any of the above — all those firings and slamming college doors on kids?
Instead, you could eliminate virtually all state money for healthcare and social services — grants for the aged, blind and disabled, assistance for the homebound, medical care for the poor, mental health treatment, welfare. . . . No exceptions.
Of course, you’d then be turning away tons of money from Washington, which shares the costs. And you would be violating some federal laws. But there, it’s done. You’ve avoided a tax increase. What a state!”
The math is there. George Skelton does the math. You have to raise taxes. No one wants to do that. No one. But what choice do we have? Shutdown our government? $41 billion is just a very large number. There are many things in this budget Democrats hate with a fiery passion. This is not a budget they want to pass. They had to compromise with the Governor to get it as far as they did. They have shown themselves willing to work with the legislative Republicans, but beyond the leadership there seems to be zero responsible Republicans in the legislature. How can that be? How can a group that represents 37% of the elected legislature bring this government to its knees?
How is it that Californians have allowed this to happen? Hopefully today, Republican lawmakers after a good night sleep bite the bullet and do the right thing. Otherwise, come Tuesday, things start falling out of the trees and the picture gets more ugly than it already is.
—David M. Greenwald report
I have to agree with you on the intransigence of the Republicans. What they are doing is shameful and in the name of ideology without regard to the blameless who had no role in getting us here.But let's not forget the Democrats who got us here in the first place. They've been in an irresponsible spending frenzy for years. For them to castigate the Republicans at this point for being reluctant to fix the mess they caused, is a tad hypocritical.Instead of cutting of all spending for the illegals, which should be the first step in any budget plan, they want to raise taxes on the people who legitimately call this their home. Why aren't we cutting spending to this population instead of screwing over all the people who work for a living, like state workers?Sorry, Dems aren't blameless. They are part of the problem just like Republicans.
Nice, DPD. What about the illegals point? Nothing to say?
Get over the …illegals… anon being a hater won't solve anything.
Isn't it true that the …illegals… do pay taxes on their income but are not entitled to full benefits like Social Security and unemployment benefits? The real financial negative impact of …illegals… on CA is difficult to determine.
That was my point. How do you determine the cost when you can't know the benefit. One example, we hear the cost to education the children of people here not legally. Well, where does the money come from for education? A variety of sources. One at least is property taxes. Do undocumented people pay property taxes? Most probably rent, which means that they pay money to landlords who pay property taxes. They also purchase goods and services which means that they add to the economy in that way. They enable others to purchase goods and services by working.So I would guess it is very difficult to determine the actual cost to the state, my guess is if there is a cost, (A) it is well mitigated by benefits and (B) it is not the cause of our deficit as there have been undocumented workers here in large numbers for years and the current budget deficit is a very recent problem.
Conservatives want to destroy California using a legislative filibuster showing the rest of the country why they can't be trusted with such veto authority and then blame it on immigrants. This strategy will relegate the Repubs to minority status forever. Enjoy being the party of Shiva while it lasts. If the backlash is getting rid of the 2/3 requirement Repugs will become the party of irrelevence. The sooner the better.
Gee, a …shovel ready… project to be funded by the Stimulus package. I wonder to whom we should submit our grant proposal.
As I have mentioned before, as per a three or four part series in the Sac Bee some years ago, there is huge waste in education in CA. Gobs of money is available to large school districts like LA, where there is no accountability, no assessment to see if the money is being used for what was promised and whether the funding is even being effective.My guess is there is tons of other waste in CA gov't. A small example is UCD becoming a Division One school in football, which necessitated building a new stadium. Then there is the new wine institute, the new music performance center, a huge increase in the President's salary/perks, and the list goes on. There is gross wastage and pork in state gov't, as well as federal gov't as well as in local gov't.That said, I don't see our politicians willing to take a close look at the budgets, and doing due diligence in eliminating all that pork. It is very frustrating to me to see things heading towards business as usual – raise taxes and citizens will pay for all that pork. It is just plain infuriating. A pox on both houses – bc both parties are guilty of loading gov't w pork, pork, pork.Lest you doubt – the latest piece of pork coming out of Washington, D.C. is twenty million dollars to resod in front of the Washington, D.C. monument, at a time when we are in a major fiscal crisis. On top of that, big banks are still taking luxury trips for huge office parties, as they take bailout money from the Feds. It is just disgusting what politicians do with taxpayer money. It is just too darn easy for them to spend OTM – other people's money!Having vented, and thank you everyone for being so patient in listening (and I suspect this resonates w many), I even see that we need to get a budget passed pronto. But I do wish there was some built in incentives to make sure that some of the pork is trimmed over time. And there is lots to trim, believe me. If you really knew what was going on in your gov't, it would shock the pants off most of you!!!
Call you cynical:You can be cynical all you want. There is no doubt waste. The problem is that the budget cuts needed as demonstrated in Skelton's article exceed the budget. You can cut entire programs and not gain enough savings to balance the budget.
My guess is there is tons of other waste in CA gov't. A small example is UCD becoming a Division One school in football, which necessitated building a new stadium. Then there is the new wine institute, the new music performance center,A counter argument would be that going Division I and the music performance center (Mondavi?) increase the name recognition and profile of the university (bringing in more student applications and donations) and would help the economy by bringing people to Davis who wouldn't have come before. In all I perceive that as a net gain for UCD and Davis.
My guess is there is tons of other waste in CA gov't. A small example is UCD becoming a Division One school in football, which necessitated building a new stadium. Then there is the new wine institute, the new music performance center,A counter argument would be that going Division I and the music performance center (Mondavi?) increase the name recognition and profile of the university (bringing in more student applications and donations) and would help the economy by bringing people to Davis who wouldn't have come before. In all I perceive that as a net gain for UCD and Davis.yes, but is that …net gain… going to offset the costs to build them? If so, how long will it take to pay them off? If it takes decades, is it really worth it? Or is it going to be a net loss instead?
I for one am sick and tired of paying for illegals and their families to mooch off the taxpayers. I also believe that someone should put the Sheriff from Arizona in charge of the prison system, maybe some of these criminals that liberals so dearly love wont want to spend their lives in the prison system. Reform welfare, get people off welfare that have the ability to work but just WON'T!!! I would also like for the public to see all of the bills posted prior to any voting on all levels of Government. How much do we spend at UC Davis each year? They have a lot of building that they want to do this year, Several million dollars worth. Why cant our legislators only spend what is brought in, Oh I apologize that is a stupid question, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY!!!
Conclusions about the benefits and costs of immigrants, legal or otherwise, depend on a lot of assumptions made by the researchers. Here is one quote:… Benefits and CostsThere is a great deal of disagreement over the costs and benefits of immigrants to the US and California. Studies in the early 1980s in Texas and New York concluded that the taxes paid by immigrants exceeded the cost of providing public services to them, but that the federal government got the surplus of taxes over expenditures, and local governments had deficits. Los Angeles did a study in 1992 that reinforced this conclusion….more hereThis keeps coming up in the budget debate, but it is unlikely that any change in immigration policy will affect the state's budget now or in the near future. Nor would it be practical to suddenly deny services to illegal immigrants, and there would be unintended consequences (deny county health services and you're likely to see more trips to emergency rooms, for example). So even if you're angry about illegal immigration, IMO it isn't really a factor in the present budget debate.
FundingCapital Campaign…$30 millionUC Regents
Maldonado issues his terms for agreeing to the budget:Maldonado announced his terms:open primary, no budget no pay, eliminate Chiang's furniture expendituresSide note: Maldonado wants to run against Chiang for Controller, has a running feud over office furniture expenditures, and wants an open primary so a moderate Republican can win.
…As I have mentioned before, as per a three or four part series in the Sac Bee some years ago, there is huge waste in education in CA….It would be good of you to cite your source. I'm sure plenty of us would be interested.And would this be recent enough to be relevent to today?
From the Secretary of State's web site:…History Behind California's Primary Election SystemClosed Primary SystemA …closed… primary system governed California's primary elections until 1996. In a closed primary, only persons who are registered members of a political party may vote the ballot of that political party.Open Primary SystemThe provisions of the …closed… primary system were amended by the adoption of Proposition 198, an initiative statute approved by the voters at the March 26, 1996 primary election. Proposition 198 changed the closed primary system to what is known as a …blanket… or …open… primary, in which all registered voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of political affiliation and without a declaration of political faith or allegiance.On June 26, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in California Democratic Party, et. al. v. Jones, stating that California's …open… primary system, established by Proposition 198, was unconstitutional because it violated a political party's First Amendment right of association. Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 198….How exactly does he plan to have the state get past that issue?!
…Senator Maldonado's demands sound reasonable to me…You think it's reasonable for him to hold up the budget so that they install an electoral device that will make it easier for him to get elected?Don:We were talking about that in the press room. Apparently it would have to go to the voters, presumably in May when everything else would be on the ballot. Whether it passes muster is another question altogether.At this point, if I were the Dems, I'd agree, but this is really petty, self-serving, and a number of other adjectives.
I told the guy from Bloomberg next to me that we were actually reporting on grass growing.
…As I have mentioned before, as per a three or four part series in the Sac Bee some years ago, there is huge waste in education in CA….Last time you mentioned this, you said the story was in the L.A. Times. I searched for it there, and found no series or articles matching your claims.Maybe this time, if you say it was in the Bee now, you can provide a link.
…As I have mentioned before, as per a three or four part series in the Sac Bee some years ago, there is huge waste in education in CA…….Last time you mentioned this, you said the story was in the L.A. Times. I searched for it there, and found no series or articles matching your claims.Maybe this time, if you say it was in the Bee now, you can provide a link….I NEVER said it was in the LA Times. I said it was in Sac Bee, about LA County school system getting huge sums of money that they were not held accountable for. Try searching the archives of the Sac Bee.
Report from Governor's Fiscal Director says 2.5 to 5 times ripple effect of loss of jobs. They are estimating at least 100,000 will be lost this week due to the cessation of infrastructure projects plus Governor's 20K layoffs of stateworkers. Talking 250,000 to 500,000 jobs.
David M. Greenwald said… I've never seen reliable numbers from an unbiased source that account for both cost and benefit of undocumented workers. But one thing I would suggest is that whatever budgetary drag it would create, it is not what caused the budget deficit, as that would be trying to explain a variable with something fairly constant.2/16/09 7:33 AM David M. Greenwald said… That was my point. How do you determine the cost when you can't know the benefit. One example, we hear the cost to education the children of people here not legally. Well, where does the money come from for education? A variety of sources. One at least is property taxes. Do undocumented people pay property taxes? Most probably rent, which means that they pay money to landlords who pay property taxes. They also purchase goods and services which means that they add to the economy in that way. They enable others to purchase goods and services by working.So I would guess it is very difficult to determine the actual cost to the state, my guess is if there is a cost, (A) it is well mitigated by benefits and (B) it is not the cause of our deficit as there have been undocumented workers here in large numbers for years and the current budget deficit is a very recent problem.2/16/09 8:32 AM David M. Greenwald said… That was my point. How do you determine the cost when you can't know the benefit. One example, we hear the cost to education the children of people here not legally. Well, where does the money come from for education? A variety of sources. One at least is property taxes. Do undocumented people pay property taxes? Most probably rent, which means that they pay money to landlords who pay property taxes. They also purchase goods and services which means that they add to the economy in that way. They enable others to purchase goods and services by working.So I would guess it is very difficult to determine the actual cost to the state, my guess is if there is a cost, (A) it is well mitigated by benefits and (B) it is not the cause of our deficit as there have been undocumented workers here in large numbers for years and the current budget deficit is a very recent problem.2/16/09 8:32 AM David M. Greenwald said… That was my point. How do you determine the cost when you can't know the benefit. One example, we hear the cost to education the children of people here not legally. Well, where does the money come from for education? A variety of sources. One at least is property taxes. Do undocumented people pay property taxes? Most probably rent, which means that they pay money to landlords who pay property taxes. They also purchase goods and services which means that they add to the economy in that way. They enable others to purchase goods and services by working.So I would guess it is very difficult to determine the actual cost to the state, my guess is if there is a cost, (A) it is well mitigated by benefits and (B) it is not the cause of our deficit as there have been undocumented workers here in large numbers for years and the current budget deficit is a very recent problem.PERHAPS YOU COULD PROVIDE SOME RELIABLE NUMBERS? There are many cases for the budget deficit in the State and it's Counties. Illegal immigrationIS a part of this problem. Why don't you do the research and find out how many illegals are in our prisons,how many crimes they have commited in the last year, how many are on Probation,how many take cash and do not report income,how much money is sent to country of orgin per year & ad infinitum? To help you out, there are approx. 360,000 children of illegals in our school system in Calif. at $8500.00 each per year. Multiply that one. I'll be you won't go to the trouble of finding out at least a portion of the truth. I think you will continue to look past this issue along with your other favorite issues and report as usual. Take up all the issues David, even those that strike close to home.
I love how people who won't reveal their name call me out by my name…In any case, I think some of your questions were answered above, if you read some of the articles written.I'm sitting here watching the budget debate. I don't have to time to research someone else's issue. If you want to know the answer, then you research it and you post it here.Because from what I understand there isn't a huge budget impact by undocumented workers on this budget.You site the number of students in the schools. That's great. That is mitigated by all of their parents either paying property taxes or renting from landlords who pay property taxes. It's mitigated by the sales taxes they pay. It's mitigated by the income taxes they pay or the income taxes that they help other people pay by working for them at submarket rates. It's mitigated by the fact that their working at submarket rates allow us to buy goods and services for less than perhaps we would have other wise.Until you factor that into the equation you get a distorted picture. I don't time to do anymore research. You want the answer, find it.
Illegal aliens cost America about $45 billion a year:Dr. Donald Huddle, a Rice University economics professor, published a systematic analysis of those costs …the net expense to the taxpayer from illegal immigration would currently be at least $45 billion.
Huddle's report is one that is often cited, and has also been disputed. The best I can figure (and I've only done some searching on Google, nothing really in depth) is that–you can plausibly show that illegal aliens cost local and state governments money due to increased services required;–that they plausibly provide net benefit to the federal government through payroll taxes. Former Gov. Wilson often made this point, arguing that the federal government should reimburse the states for the costs of providing services to illegal aliens because immigration is a federal issue with state costs.
…The study cited most often by all these groups is that of Texan Donald Huddle. The Federation relies almost exclusively on Huddle
You may find this interesting, it’s an Op-Ed from Mark Leno, Democratic Senator, in SF Chronicle:Leno ColumnIn there he lays out the spending issue….Here are some facts:Between 1998 and 2008, General Fund annual spending in California increased by about $46 billion. Of that, $31 billion is due to inflation and population growth. How did we spend the remaining $15 billion? Vehicle owners were spared, on average $200 when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reduced vehicle license fees in 2003, which voters then approved in 2004. The state had to make up the loss of those revenues, which fund local government programs, with monies from the general fund. This now costs the state more than $6 billion each year.The next largest increase in spending is in our Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Beyond population and inflation growth rates, spending increased $3.5 billion. Again with voter support, California has the only …three strikes… law in the country that does not require that the third strike, which puts an offender in prison for life, be a violent or serious felony. As a result, our inmate population is quickly aging. Whereas the cost of housing a prisoner is around $42,000 annually, the price nearly doubles for those over the age of 50 and triples for those over age 60.That leaves about $5.5 billion of annual spending increases over the past 10 years. Of that, about $2 billion is payments on budget-related debt, represented mostly by debt service on the Economic Recovery Bonds approved by voters in 2004. Another $2 billion is related to debt service on infrastructure bonds approved by voters in 2006 and prior years to rebuild our dilapidated transportation systems, hospitals and schools. Finally, in 2002, Californians overwhelmingly supported Proposition 42, which requires that about $1.5 billion of gasoline sales tax revenue be spent on state and local transportation projects….So it’s not that simple.
I’ve never seen reliable numbers from an unbiased source that account for both cost and benefit of undocumented workers. But one thing I would suggest is that whatever budgetary drag it would create, it is not what caused the budget deficit, as that would be trying to explain a variable with something fairly constant.
The math is there. George Skelton does the math. You have to raise taxes. No one wants to do that. No one. But what choice do we have?don’t raise taxes then pass the budget. Shutdown our government? $41 billion is just a very large number. There are many things in this budget Democrats hate with a fiery passion. This is not a budget they want to pass. They had to compromise with the Governor to get it as far as they did. They have shown themselves willing to work with the legislative Republicans, but beyond the leadership there seems to be zero responsible Republicans in the legislature. How can that be? How can a group that represents 37% of the elected legislature bring this government to its knees?the democrats have not been responsible. Their answer to everything is to raise taxes.
Just curious… in the budget plan, how much less in wages, benefits and overtime will prison guards get?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the State Acupuncture Board are going to be let go?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the California Commission on Aging are going to be let go?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the Office of AIDS are going to be let go?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the Apprenticeship Council are going to be let go?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the Barbering and Cosmetology Board are going to be let go?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the Biodiversity Council are going to be let go?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the Council for the Humanities are going to be let go?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the Board of Chiropractic examiners are going to be let go?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the Colorado River Board are going to be let go?How many $150,000+ a year employees on the Court Reporters Board are going to be let go?We literally have hundreds of these boards. I don’t know all the facts about them. However, anecdotally, I have heard that former elected officials and their friends serve as …commissioners… on them and are paid ungodly sums to go to a few meetings a year.It would be nice, in this time of crisis, to start cutting out some of the waste which is enriching these folks.
I’m on the Senate Floor right now. Keep you updated as anything happens. Senate session open and then went into recess in caucus. There was an audible cheer a few minutes ago, but not sure what that is.
According to Governor’s Budget Director, public works projects to stop tomorrow. 276 projects to stop if there is no budget deal. Value of these projects $3.7 billion. Caltrans Director Kempton described it as catastrophic if there is no budget for transportation projects.It will cost nearly $200 million to shut the projects down AND another $200 million to restart them.This would be the first time in history California stopped it’s projects.It will impact 38,000 jobs.
The other counter argument is most of that if not all of it did not come from taxpayer money. Some of it came from private donations, some of it from increased student fees. I really suggest some of you learn about financing before running off the mouth.
Genest mentioned the possibility that Sacramento County will be declaring bankruptcy.
The other counter argument is most of that if not all of it did not come from taxpayer money. Some of it came from private donations, some of it from increased student fees. I really suggest some of you learn about financing before running off the mouth.I don’t know what you are talking about. Much of the Mondavi Center did not come from private donations. Also, how does hosing the students for $ make it better than hosing the taxpayer? The students have to pay more fees to get these amenities, and the lion’s share of the student population doesn’t use them.
Senator Maldonado’s demands sound reasonable to me, even though the hardliner ideologues from both parties will likely object. The Legislature should go ahead and put it on the ballot and let the voters decide. Seems like a small price to pay, much smaller and better than the hundreds of millions in tax giveaways the Dems have given away to corporations in the last few days to get the other Republican votes.
…How exactly does he plan to have the state get past that issue?!…Seems like someone who wasn’t already term-limited out of the legislature would have been around and savvy enough to have remembered.
…Maldonado issues his terms for agreeing to the budget:Maldonado announced his terms:open primary, no budget no pay, eliminate Chiang’s furniture expendituresSide note: Maldonado wants to run against Chiang for Controller, has a running feud over office furniture expenditures, and wants an open primary so a moderate Republican can win….This is like watching sausage get made!
How much will the election cost? Does the State have to borrow the money to hold the election? Will there be any banks left by May?
……As I have mentioned before, as per a three or four part series in the Sac Bee some years ago, there is huge waste in education in CA….It would be good of you to cite your source. I’m sure plenty of us would be interested.And would this be recent enough to be relevent to today?…Others have asked me the same question, and drat, I cannot remember when this series ran. I want to say about ten years ago, but that would be just a guess. Has anyone tried to contact the Sac Bee to find out? I just don’t have the time at the moment, wish I did…It was a great series, and very eye-opening to say the least!
it is long past time to get rid of the 2/3 rule. i am sick of a party that cannot win more than a hair over 1/3 of the legislature holding the rest of us hostage out of pique, and then burning the state down after unreasonable concessions are made to their wild-eyed demands.this is absurd. they’re going to bankrupt the state because they can.
Regardless my view is this:I have no doubt there is tons of waste in every level of government. If we had time and went in with a scalpel we could cut some of that waste.If the deficit was $3 billion, I’d recommend it.However, it’s 41 billion and growing. This is sledgehammer time.As far as I can tell you can cut between $10 and $20 billion from the budget through these kind of cuts.Cuts are not painless. These are programs and monies that schools rely upon. It is also people’s jobs. About the last thing you want to do is lay people off during an economic crisis.The rest is going to be made up through some tax increases and some borrowing. We will have to pay that money back in a year. So again, not painless. Taxes are a bad thing during an economic crisis as well.No one likes what we have to do. No one. I talked to legislators and staffers, some are physically ill from the prospect of cuts. It has to be done. As the numbers show, so does tax increases.That’s my belief. The sooner we get this over, the sooner we can work toward doing better things.
…I NEVER said it was in the LA Times. I said it was in Sac Bee, about LA County school system getting huge sums of money that they were not held accountable for….My bad.I just did a Google blog search on Vanguard and found where you said that. You did say the Sac Bee and I mistakenly thought then that you had said the L.A. Times. You spoke about corruption in the L.A. schools. Hence, the fruitlessness of my searching the Times.
Steinberg said they are convening at 10 am, taking a tax vote and will stay on the floor until they pass a budget. Said bring a toothbrush.