Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has been pitching his budget plan (the one that calls for a big tax increase on the middle class) to the several newspapers in hopes of getting more support. I wrote about that plan recently, sharing with readers what a bad idea it truly is.
In today’s Sacramento Bee, Steinberg was asked how he can support higher taxes when California voters rejected Proposition 1A at the ballot box in May 2009. Amazingly, Steinberg answered the question by saying “I don’t think voters rejected 1A because of the taxes,” and then blamed its failure on those who saw it as a “spending cap.”
It’s bad enough that Steinberg would speak on behalf of the 65% of voters who voted against Proposition 1A, and laughably assert that they voted it down because they wanted the government to spend more—not less—tax money. But even worse is that it’s the complete opposite of what he said after it failed in 2009!
As he put it in a statement back then: “The voters have spoken and they are telling us that government should do the best it can with the money it has.”
And as he told LA Times columnist George Skelton: “The reason these measures went down … is that people have less money, they’re hurting and they expect us to do what they’re doing.”
Maybe Steinberg is just so obsessed with raising taxes that he is delusional about even his own thoughts?
August 18th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Tax money is like “found money” to Government. It really belongs to no one and the goal is to spend it, leverage it to incur more debt, buy votes with it, then just revel in rolling around in piles of it ending with seeing how much you can drag away to your house.
Big Government can only be stopped by starving it to death. When I was a kid, there was a ride at Disneyland called “Journey To The Center of the Universe”. I think it was sponsored by Monsanto. The riders got into little blue cars and then were “shrunk” down to the size of an atom as you traveled through the molecular universe.
We need this ride back in Sacramento. Shrinking Government down to the size of an atom maybe over ambitious. I will be happy with just shrinking Government down to the size that will fit squarely in the back of an F250.
Just saying that Government should live with in its means is not enough and it will never happen as big spenders keep gaming the system and allowing itself to be infiltrated by Union moles.
Senator Steinberg, please visit any Sacramento Ford dearlership and bring a non union tape measure to carefully review the bed size and load capacity of the F-250 and then go back to the senate floor and present oversized sketches so your colleagues can see what they want to fit into it.
Long Bed O.K., but no one tons or flatbeds allowed.
Taxed Enough Already..get off my back and the back of free enterprise.