Posted by Allen, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on May 19, 2009 at 9:58 am

The Wall Street Journal editorial is correct. PW, please take notice of exceptional critical thinking.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on May 19, 2009 at 11:06 am
Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com

From the editorial: "Drilling for oil offshore would also bring in billions of dollars of revenues."

Isn't there more to this statement though? Like what extra revenues would that bring into California other than just corporate taxes? What about revenue from the lease of the oil deposits (or rather some fee on the removal of California's natural resources/assets)?

Posted by Get out of the wagon, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 19, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Just because they lease doesn't mean they have to drill. Let's get someone out there who will actually set out to DRILL for oil so we can finally reap the benefits. Those on the Left want to keep their stranglehold over the environment and the rest of us. There has to be a better balance between their "sacred" environment and the PEOPLE who reside in it / need utilize it. I'm sorry to offend the Left, but my children and their future are more important than any animal/sea creature or tree. If they need a house, I will chop down a tree for it. All you have to do is look at how far the logging industry stripped the land and how far the environmentalist swung back. Neither was right and now forests full of trees are burning and we are not reaping any benefits of some of those trees, in fact the environment suffers from the forest fires. I want balance - on BOTH sides. The Left's environmental agenda is a religion without merit. DRILL, Stupid, DRILL!

Posted by Sandy, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on May 19, 2009 at 3:44 pm

What you linked to, Pleasanton Dad, is not an article. It's an editorial.

What that means, Allen, is that it's a set of opinions, which cannot be correct or incorrect. Factual assertions can be correct or incorrect. Opinions can be consistent with your own or in conflict with your own. But to say that the editorial is correct just blurs the distinction between fact and opinion.

The editorial states a number of different opinions, and I agree with some, but not with others. Trina asked me on another thread what my opinions was of the editorial, so I came over to share my opinion.

Which opinions do you agree with?

- You have sympathy for Governor Schwarzenegger?

- He's decided to settle for the lowest common denominator reform, which isn't nearly enough?

- The rainy day fund is a sensible reform?

- Public unions neutered the Gann Amendment in the early 1990s?

- Prop 1B is worse than 1A?

- Props 1C, 1D, and 1E are gimmicks?

- Sacramento needs to rethink its highly progressive antigrowth tax code?

- Stronger reform is needed -- a better spending cap, and a flat-rate income and sales tax?

- Let companies drill for oil offshore and tax revenues will grow?

I actually think the article about Schwarzenegger in the WSJ is much more valuable. (This one: Web Link )

The article provides useful and detailed reporting, particularly about the reasons WHY revenue has been so unstable in California compared with other states.

The key quote, as I see it:

California is "highly dependent on one volatile stream of revenue -- personal income taxes, which account for about 53% of the general fund."

In the end, I think Californians are going to need to recognize that we need a stable source of funding for the services that the state provides. It's not about getting people to pay more or less in taxes -- it's about balancing the revenue from income, property, and sales taxes in a way that smooths out the bumps that economic booms and busts create, rather than turning them into a world-class rollercoaster.

For the record, I agree with 1, 3, and 6 above -- oh, and with half of 7, of course. I do believe the tax code needs to be redesigned, as I have explained above. But the reform that is needed is not about making the tax code more or less progresssive, or pro- or anti-growth -- it's about making tax revenue more predictable.

Posted by Bob, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on May 19, 2009 at 3:52 pm

This much I know for a fact. If California has any future at all they need to significantly reduce taxes otherwise we are finished. I like the idea of a flat tax because everybody is in and everyone pays there fair share.