Enrollment to be slashed at Cuesta College

March 31, 2011


Cuesta College could turn away more than 3,000 students next fall because of stalled Sacramento budget talks.

“It is a disaster for the community,” said Cuesta College Marketing Director Stephan Gunsaulus who noted the cuts will affect current students, graduating high school seniors and people looking for job training after losing jobs. “There will be a ripple effect on the local economy if we have to cut jobs.”

Statewide, 400,000 students could be excluded from attending community college campuses in the fall because California lawmakers failed to place a tax extension on the June ballot, Community College Chancellor Jack Scott said Wednesday.

Gov. Jerry Brown was unable to get the two-thirds majority required to put the extension on the ballot, which would have required the votes of four Republicans. Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, sat on the Cuesta College Board of Trustees from 1998 to 2005.

With budget talks stonewalled, the community college 112-campus system faces an $800 million funding cut, nearly 10 percent of its total budget.

Cuesta College is bracing for two shortfall scenarios having to do with the possibility that the school may not receive Proposition 98 funding.

California Proposition 98 requires a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education using a complex calculation which is economically driven. The Legislature has the power to suspend Proposition 98 with a two-thirds vote.

With Proposition 98 funding, Cuesta College is expecting to turn away about 2,000 students, dropping enrollment from 11,831 to about 9,831. In addition, 321 fewer classes will be offered.

Without Proposition 98 funds, about 3,164 students will be turned away from Cuesta College reducing enrollment to approximately 8,667 students. It is projected that 507 classes will be eliminated under the worst case scenario.

Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill that increases the fees at all 112 community colleges beginning in the fall 2011 semester from $26 to $36 per unit, a 38 percent boost.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has recommended that policymakers consider increasing community college fees even further, from $26 to $66 per unit to offset some of the cuts to the community college system. An increase in fees of that magnitude could make it difficult or impossible for the state’s most vulnerable students to attend college.

“We know if you raise fees, fewer students go to college,” Gunsaulus said. “The bottom line is we have less offerings and more demand.”

On a positive note, Cuesta College is offering an unusually robust schedule this summer at $26 a unit.


The notion of under paid, over worked teachers is a perverse joke. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

Education is an industry where we measure performance backasswards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn’t pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

But public employees are shielded from economic reality by the union and political patrons. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we’ve gotten.

Every modest attempt to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts.

Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

I find it interesting that people who hate big corporations embrace the ever-growing nanny state. The reality is the nanny state is nothing but a gigantic corporation that hires those who would not be hired in the private workforce at prices far more than they are worth.

In many respects, government is no different than big business. Governments, like business want to grow. Bureaucrats always want more employees and bigger budgets.

The difference is the nanny state is run by politics not by profit. It is run for a political agenda.

If you want a perfect example of a corporation too big to succeed, it’s the government.

Take a look at those protesting in Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and elsewhere.

Who is protesting government cuts? Why it’s government employees. They protest for their benefit, not the benefit of the public at large and they want government to use even more force to take what it desires.

Sorry, guys, you had your cake, you ate it all and now it’s time to pay the bill. Don’t even THINK about handing it on to my kids. The Party is over, time for the hangover to kick in.


I wonder how many of the dislikes are union members or dependents of one? Unions are ruining this country period.


Well said, it will be the government workers who argue against your comments, those in private sector understand.


Glad to see all the neanderthal knuckle-dragging xenophobes from the Repuklithan party commenting on this article, lol

Robert1 do you wear your hoodie at home or just on the boards?

Gosh good thing that Ronnie Raygun decided the California school system, the pride of the world when he entered office needed some “fixing”. Remember when EVERYONE could go to ANY Cali JC tuition free? Or the top 12% got a free 4 year education in any UC school?

Race to the bottom, as you guys use zero critical; thought but blame the “anchors”(WTF??) or illegals as the excuse.

Yes Mr Freeburg your “free market” crap would solve it all right?

Sorry guys, as the latest reports show the rich getting richer and the middle class shrinking, PERHAPS you can use your Gawd given critical thinking skills? Nah, just go with it’s the poor persons fault!!!

Think the critical mass meltdown created by Bush and Co has no effect now? You create a disaster then use that disaster to extract cuts? Hmm? Shock doctrine?


You guys keep shilling for the Kochs

The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama


or the other CONServative liars


who not only created, but engineered the current dismantling of the destruction of the middle class!


Many of your points are accurate, especially about the rich getting richer by shrinking the middle class.

However, the left is largely responsible for California’s budget problems. While we have had a few republican governors over the years in California the legislature, which actually makes and passes the budget, has been solidly democratic. Since Ronald Reagan was governor the number of new CA agencies and departments that have been created is astronomical, as is all the additional social programs created. All these new state agencies, departments, and social programs created by the left have to be paid for and the money has been coming out of other departments and programs, including failing to fund the state teachers and state workers retirement funds. The left really expects it all without paying for it. The one thing the left never understood with the budget is the math is the math. There are states that currently have budget surpluses, so California’s financial problems are ours and nobody else’s – we own the financial mess, we have to fix it and the fixes will be painful.

What upsets me about this story is the idea that a little under a 10% budget cut for community colleges will translate into a 27% cut in the student enrollment at Cuesta. Using this math logic a 20% budget cut would mean a 54% cut in student enrollment at Cuesta. Something is wrong with the economics of these numbers and we need to find out what and fight back.


Funny how you write “The left really expects it all without paying for it.” but don’t think the 30+ years of CONservative race to the bottom but tax cuts(which DO cost real $$$$) for the rich had nothing to do with it at a state or national level? Sorry both sides have issues, but the minority can and has blocked many things in Cali!!!! Having the majority but needing a super majority to pass things(accept stupid ballot measures, which are never paid for!) is what got US here.

No more it’s only Cali’s fault as last I looked over 45 states had budget problems, even Texas(25 billion over 2 years), the state that is supposed to do it “right”, lol

BTW, can you show me these states with budget surpluses?

UCLA tries to put economic debate about California and Texas to rest:

“California’s tax burden isn’t actually that high and has been shrinking, and environmental regulation can be a good thing — after all, even if one business wants to pollute rivers, most other businesses around it benefit from clean water.”

“As for bureaucracy driving businesses out of the state, Nickelsburg says that it appears that some businesses are more naturally suited to California, and are growing, while others are more naturally suited to Texas. Legislators should focus on making it easier for California-centric businesses to grow in the state.

To explain: Texas has relatively cheap land and lots of open space. California has expensive land and less space. So businesses that are likely to grow in California are those that don’t need a lot of land but are what Nickelsburg calls “high value-added, labor-intensive production of goods and services.”


“Texas likes to portray itself as a model of small government, and indeed it is. Taxes are low, at least if you’re in the upper part of the income distribution (taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average). Government spending is also low. And to be fair, low taxes may be one reason for the state’s rapid population growth, although low housing prices are surely much more important.

But here’s the thing: While low spending may sound good in the abstract, what it amounts to in practice is low spending on children, who account directly or indirectly for a large part of government outlays at the state and local level.

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.”


More from the link:

“A few months ago another Texas miracle went the way of that education miracle of the 1990s. For months, Gov. Rick Perry had boasted that his “tough conservative decisions” had kept the budget in surplus while allowing the state to weather the recession unscathed. But after Mr. Perry’s re-election, reality intruded — funny how that happens — and the state is now scrambling to close a huge budget gap. (By the way, given the current efforts to blame public-sector unions for state fiscal problems, it’s worth noting that the mess in Texas was achieved with an overwhelmingly nonunion work force.) ”

“So how will that gap be closed? Given the already dire condition of Texas children, you might have expected the state’s leaders to focus the pain elsewhere. In particular, you might have expected high-income Texans, who pay much less in state and local taxes than the national average, to be asked to bear at least some of the burden.

But you’d be wrong. Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration”

Sorry, whatisup, if you don’t understand things like fixed costs, building, electricity, etc and how budgeting works in a large biz(yes, education is a biz). Not sure how a 10% budget cut works out to a “27% cut in the student enrollment at Cuesta” when my math says taking 2,000 out of 12,000 is around 16% cut to students. Perhaps it’s that new winger math?

But your premise that the left doesn’t understand math is at odds with the CONservatives saying tax cuts don’t cost or add to the deficits???


Sorry JonnyB, but the California democratic state legislature is responsible for the CA state budget. As the budget issues got worse over several years they just kept spending and promising more. If you read some of the proposed bills some of the democrats have tried to bring forward in the last year requiring additional spending you would think there was no budget concerns at all in California. Sometimes the right is dead wrong and won’t admit it, as with many of their tax cuts. Sometimes the left is dead wrong and won’t admit it. In the case of the CA budget the left is dead wrong. They knew how much money they had to deal with and they spent far more anyhow. The math is the math.

Your rant about the super majority is of course nonsense. Had the super majority not been needed the tax rate in CA would be super sky high instead of just sky high. I know this is hard for you to grasp, but in today’s interconnected and completely mobile society businesses just up and leave when the tax structure is better elsewhere. I don’t like it, I feel business has no loyalty to CA or the U.S., but I have to deal with reality, not left wing idealism. We have to have a competitive tax structure with other states, as well as other countries. Unfortunately, those businesses you love to hate, with some good reason, are the ones that also provide the jobs that pay virtually all the CA taxes collected. If they leave there is little CA tax collected.

As far as the percentage goes, the story is a little confusing, but if you read the next paragraph of the story it indicates the Cuesta enrollment will drop to 8,667 students (from 11,831). Either way it doesn’t make sense. The most expensive student to educate is the first one (a building and teacher for one student) and the least costly is the last student (same building and teacher for 30 students).

I know you feel strongly about your ideals of how Corporate America should act, but in the end we need a grasp on reality of what it means to be in competition with the world. For a long time CA was the world leader and could get away with being financially sloppy, but today there is no business that I know of, except agriculture that is not easily moved to a different state or country. Whether we like it or not we are in competition to keep these businesses (and jobs) here which means being competitive on tax rates. Being competitive on tax rates means we can not spend on every social program the left can think of. However, education should be a priority in California and we need to structure the budget to keep it a priority.


“but the California democratic state legislature is responsible for the CA state budget”

So the Repuglithan Governator wasn’t responsible at all? His “unique” borrowing from future revenuers? Or idea to sell property then renting it back? lol

I admit the Dems have made some mistakes, but you’re forgetting that he general fund budget has been cut by $20 billion from it’s 2007-2008 high levels.

Your rant about the cost of taxes and a “competitive” tax structure is crap too! Studies show Cali lost less than 2% of all jobs that moved out of state because of taxes. America competing with the rest of the world on a tax structure? lol Yeah, because our standard of living and government services are equal right? lol

Sorry, another right wing spin on Cali or America’s “high” tax structure, lol

The “Budget Crisis” is the Product of Tax Avoidance Scams By The Very Rich

But the budget “crisis” is a scam. It’s the product of the rightwingnut “starve the beast” (i.e. starve the government) effort that they’ve been engaged in for 30 years or more. There’s actually plenty of money out there–but the pols just don’t want to take it from the rich. Why not? Because the rich are their bread and butter. The rich are their primary campaign fund contributors! And as far as the Repugs are concerned, it’s much better to break the unions, for they are still a significant source of Democratic fund raising, and may (if not put to death now) come roaring back at some point, much to the disadvantage of Republican candidates all over the country.


Let’s see about 2/3rds of corporations paid zero in federal income taxes, yet offshore because they create more income for themselves!!!

The US needs to compete on taxes too?

“the United States is on the low end in terms of the overall tax burden — 28 percent of gross domestic product in 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, compared with an average of 36 percent in the 30 OECD countries. Only South Korea, Mexico and Turkey were lower.” BELOW 22% TODAY!!!



JonnyB – You answered your own question. You admit U.S. companies are moving offshore and taking jobs to avoid paying the higher corporate taxes. Your solution is to raise corporate taxes to make the rightwingnut companies pay their fair share of taxes. In, what has become, a highly competitive business world how will your idealistic left wing concept of raise the taxes on corporations keep jobs in California and/or actually raise tax revenue for CA or the U.S.? Unless all the other states and countries cooperate with you and keep their corporate taxes high, you will continue to see corporations move from CA.

At this point in your life you have to start to realize the world has changed and we have to adapt. Companies will just leave CA and the U.S. if the profit advantage to do so is large enough. There will be no jobs for young people in CA. We simply have to develop a different tax structure and realize we can not spend on every social program anybody can think of. In the end the math is the math and even you, JonnyB, will have to live by it.


Sorry whatisup, I didn’t:

“You admit U.S. companies are moving offshore and taking jobs to avoid paying the higher corporate taxes”

What I said was they are off shoring for their own wealth, regardless of what is best for US, NOT to avoid paying higher corp taxes. When Mexico or China works for dollars a day that to an extent is assumed to be. ALL off-shoring isn’t all bad, BUT taxing at low rates are!!! I don’t care WHERE you create your product, but if you profit, don’t expect to pay 5% in taxes on it!

Did I not point to a study showing ONLY Skorea, Mexico and Turkey have a lower EFFECTIVE tax rate on corps than the US in the OECD? This TALK of high taxes is just that!!! Just more Fright Wing BS!

Again, studies SHOW less than 2% of biz left Cali BECAUSE OF HIGH TAXES!!!! GO TO THE LA TIMES LINK ON THE BOGUS TEXAS VERSUS CALI COMPARISONS THAT THE FRIGHT LOVES TO USE! Or even the tax structure here! If some corps want to leave the US? GREAT, like we’ll have problems replacing them, lol

Sorry bud, but America AND Cali has enough money, we are VERY wealthy, we just aren’t taxing at the proper rates!!! Of course the Fright Wings answer is ALWAYS, to dash to the bottom on taxes and wages, they will not be happy unless the US middle class lives like the Latin America or Chinese middle class, on slave wages!!!!

BTW, why is Germany which is a very high tax structured nation, with a min of 6 weeks vacation for EVERY employee(MINIMUM), MANY safety nets ALSO the worlds #2 exporter of the world(behind only China!)? Gosh they have about 70 million people versus our 300 million? Hmm. Your THEORY advanced by the Fright Wingers is bogus!!!!


Businesses support 36 million plus people in California. My guess is your study that claims that only 2% of businesses have left CA because of high taxes is a left wing propaganda study, but assuming it is true that would mean this 2% was the business that supported 720,000 or 2% of Californians. (Keep in mind your study doesn’t cover the businesses that left because of excess regulations in CA).

Further, companies are not opening new businesses or expanding existing manufacturing, research and development, service centers or the administration parts of their businesses in CA. Even Silicon Valley companies are doing most of their business expansion outside of CA now. If we lose another 2% of business in CA, than we can’t support another 720,000 Californians, for a total of 1,440,000 Californians. The problem is real, the math is the math.

Do you think the problem of businesses leaving CA, or not expanding in CA is an accelerating problem or a decelerating problem, JonnyB? If we raise corporate taxes as you want California to do, do you think the problem will get worse or will more companies expand in CA to pay the higher CA tax rates?

JonnyB, pretending this is not a problem because there is no way for the left wing to fight this problem, i.e., get back at the corporations for being bad citizens does not solve the job issue for the people of CA. Either we decide to compete to have the jobs or we don’t have the jobs and the CA middle class will start, as you point out, to look more like living conditions in Latin America or China. The choice is yours; deal with the cards competition has dealt us or quit the game as losers.


whatisup says “There are states that currently have budget surpluses, so California’s financial problems are ours and nobody else’s – we own the financial mess, we have to fix it and the fixes will be painful.”

September 28, 2010

State Surpluses: “Bryan Leonard takes a look at the four U.S. states likely to produce budget surplus this year. Alaska, Montana and North Dakota are sparsely populated and resource rich. Then there’s Arkansas”


Funny, how they are the welfare queen states right?

Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

The (ANTI)Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are “winners” — receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes — 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States.

The reds paid $697 billion and received a whopping $909 billion.

Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State



Actually 7 states have surpluses. You point out that at least four of the states are resource rich which is part of why they have surpluses. In addition, these resource rich states undoubtedly receive federal funds for managing those natural resources. CA is also resource rich, but for the last 40 years the left fights using the resources every step of the way and therefore CA receives comparatively little federal natural resource funding as a result. Our money for natural resources goes to other states.

Oil drilling – the left says no way.

Solar and wind farms – the left fights them all the way.

Mining – the left says no way.

Agriculture – the left fights agriculture every step of the way. (The only agriculture the left has no problem with is marijuana production. The more the better.)

Logging – the left says no way.

Coal – the left says no way.

Desalination of ocean water – the left says no way.

There would be more money in the school budget if the left would use California’s natural resources, but you believe money naturally grows on trees.


Man whatisup you LOVE to spin.

If we “allowed” oil drilling in Cali, are the Repukes going to all of a sudden allow taxing that production? They haven’t yet, leaving Cali the only oil producing stater that doesn’t!!!

As for the other things, mining, logging, coal(Cali has it? I doubt that!), wind, solar, etc. No “the left” isn’t against most of that, they just want SMART use, like solar on houses and buildings, no clear cutting, etc.

Now your statement here

“CA receives comparatively little federal natural resource funding as a result.”

PROVE IT!!! Cali is one of the largest recipients of federal funding for our natural resources, it’s called the nation park system!!!

They don’t get money “for managing those natural resources.” but get SUBSIDIZED for their ignorance WHILE they proclaim their “independence” lol Look at Alaska, the largest welfare queen of them all, WHILE taxing the oil comps that pay each citizen about $2,000 a year WELFARE(strait out of our pockets!!!!)

It’s ONLY the “free markets” that the Fright Wing loves, even though there is no such thing! Show me 1 city, county, state or nation that was EVER a free market! It doesn’t exist! Government sets the rules to an economy, either it helps the bottom 90% of US or it doesn’t! Where you place your roads, education, laws, tax rates, etc are just some of the ways the gov sets those rules! For 30 years the CONservatives have made sure government doesn’t work for the bottom 90% of US!


You claim all the people of Alaska are ignorant. You admit the left is against solar and wind farms. You complain other states recieve the federal funds for developing their natural resources like oil, but then admit, “Cali is one of the largest recipients of federal funding for our natural resources, it’s called the nation park system!!!”

I completely agree with you about your feelings of the so called free market and conservatives not supporting the bottom 90%. The problem is the left’s answer is full steam ahead with raising corporate taxes and income taxes on the wealthy to support the bottom 90%. In an ideal world that might be the answer, but in today’s connected and mobile world the corporations and wealthy will just leave if taxes are too high. It is this reality that you have to deal with, so what do you propose as a workable solution?


Whatisup, What a bunch of BS!. Did you not see that the US is near the bottom on tax burden? What do you really think the wealthy are heading to Turkey, SKorea or Mexico to take advantage of the lower taxes?

The top 400 taxpayers last year paid less than 18% federal taxes on more than $200 million each! It’s a trend that’s is near 25 years old! The top 1% paid 23% on min of $376,000(ADJUSTED!).

Having a high marginal rate on taxes, like corps 35% means nothing when loopholes and off shoring of profits, like the current near $2 TRILLION that they want to bring back to the US, at a lower rate of course, when the effective rate is much lower! In 1965 corps paid 30% of all federal taxes, today 6%!!!

More Fright Wing spin from you!

I never said the left was against wind or solar, they just want SMART planning, not the reactionary that the CONservatives have given US for 30+ years!

BTW, I never said All the Alaskan’s are ignorant, just a huge majority I’m sure, like Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, etc. To much inbreeding maybe? No perhaps just no critical thought!

You going to SHOW ME where those states have budget surpluses? Because “In addition, these resource rich states undoubtedly receive federal funds for managing those natural resources”?

BTW, your premise of RAISING corp taxes as the lefts idea is wrong, we just want them to pay a AMT REGARDLESS of how the money was earned!!!! Unlike in 2004 when Dubya allowed them to bring back over $1 trillion they off shored, at 5% rather than 35% that they should be paying, while promising to build factories and employ people, while giving 80% as bonuses or dividends, which they did AND cut jobs! GE alone cut 20,000 the next 5 years after bringing back their cash!!!


JonnyB – What don’t you understand here? We both agree the corporations have figured out how to not pay taxes. No matter what our U.S. or CA government does to try to make them pay higher taxes, it can’t be done. They will simply move their companies to another state or off shore. Yes, it is for the selfish reason of increasing profits at the expense of taxes and jobs for U.S. citizens. In this we are in complete agreement.

What you are doing is living in the past trying to still fight past ideological battles. You blame Gov. Ronald Reagan for the downfall in the CA education system. Ronald Reagan died seven years ago and left the CA governorship 36 years ago before the parents of many of today’s school aged kids were even born. Seriously, this is 2011 not 1975.

You keep railing against the corporations for being bad citizens, I agree. I also realize that this is reality. Other states and countries are slashing corporate tax rates to attract businesses away from CA and the U.S. and it is working. In today’s connected and mobile world it is just too easy for a business to do this.

I have asked you a few times now if you have a solution to this problem, and you, so far, have provided none. I understand it might be maddening to you that there is little the left can do about this, but I can assure you that many in the middle would like to do something about this too, but understand there simply is no way. If we raise taxes on corporations as you want, they will simply leave. I believe there will be a race to the bottom by states and countries to lower the corporate tax rates to bring the jobs to their locations. The tax structure will need to be redone to deal with this reality.

If you have a way to successfully raise taxes on corporations and not have them leave, please let us know what it is.


“so what do you propose as a workable solution?”

Go back to the tax rates pre Raygun! You say corps will leave, THEY ALREADY ARE!!!! Tax them, the money is here, the wealth is here. WHY does Cali have more billionaires than any other state? Because we have high taxes? More Fright wing BS.

This BS that corps will leave? Well Dubya proved lowering the tax rates didn’t keep the corps OR jobs in the US!!! It’s not like we’ll have problems, look to GERMANY! ANY ANSWER THERE!!!

Again go to the link to the LA times article, because apparently you can’t read. NOTICE I LINK TO ARTICLES THAT SUPPORT MY POSITION? It clearly blows your IDEOLOGICAL stance that taxes and regs hurt Cali and the US!


JonnyB – Really, your answer is that you have linked to articles that support your position. And when almost everybody thought the world was flat, if you “linked” to articles of the day that supported your position that the world is flat, would you be right?

Billionaires mostly have capital gain assets like stocks and real estate or tax advantaged investments like tax free municipal bonds and charitable remainder trusts. They have very little ordinary income like you and I have. If CA tries to double or triple their tax rate what do you think they would do? Stay here or just set up house at Lake Tahoe (Nevada side) and stay in CA just under six months of the year. You apparently don’t understand how many wealthy people already do this. It is easy.

Years ago, even the incredibly left wing William Randolph Hearst left CA when there was a big CA State tax increase that affected him. He did not stick around to pay the higher taxes to CA even though he thought this was the best place in the world to live.

John Kerry, Massachusetts Senator, who ran for President as a Democrat, and voted over and over again to raise taxes, was caught last year avoiding over $400,000 in boat and use taxes by mooring his yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts. The Boston Herald called Rhode Island “the tiny state to the south a haven – like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau – for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners.” This was left wing John Kerry doing this.

JonnyB, you really have to grasp the concept that the corporations and wealthy are not going to play ball with your left wing ideals about taxes, and this includes the left wing wealthy.

I have carefully read each of your linked articles. Several are about Texas; one is about the Koch brothers, etc. Only the Richard Clark article seems germane and he is wrong and uses bizarre logic. Here is why. He makes the premise that the real corporate tax rate that companies like GE pay is really very low, which is true. He says GE has hundreds of accountants and tax lawyers to find all the tax loopholes to pay a low tax rate. All true so far, but now he makes a bizarre claim — since GE is really paying a low tax rate all you have to do is raise the corporate tax rate to force GE to pay higher taxes. So, GE has hundreds of accountants and tax lawyers to try to figure out how to pay the least corporate income tax possible, but if CA sharply raises corporate income taxes to force GE to pay more, the hundreds of accountants and tax lawyers that GE has wouldn’t recommend to the GE management that they move their operations out of CA?

Richard Clark is correct about the corporations and wealthy paying as little as possible in taxes. He is bizarrely mistaken if he thinks you can just double or triple their tax rate and they will just stick around and take it. Clark is from a past era that does not get how mobile companies and the rich have become. They simply will up and move if it is in there financial favor to do so. You pretending that they don’t leave to avoid taxes (and regulations) will not change the fact that they are leaving and will continue to do so.

JonnyB, who is moving large numbers of employees into CA? After all, one out of eight people in the U.S. lives in CA so companies should be moving gobs of business into CA. Where is all the new business moving into CA?

The only viable answer I see is a national sales tax. If the wealthy want to spend their money they have to pay national sales tax, including on real estate. In addition, anything they buy from a foreign country and bring into the U.S. is subject to a substantial tariff and cheaters will have very severe penalties. Whistleblower laws should be implemented to reward employees and others who turn in cheats. This would force the wealthy to pay taxes or live outside of the U.S.

Corporations should have a flat low tax rate with no loopholes allowed, period. It has to be kept low to keep them from moving out of the U.S. The corporation’s profits would pass to the stock holders who are all people. The key is how to extricate tax out of them. Again, a national sales tax is the answer. The corporation pays a low tax and passes the profits to the stockholders. If the stockholders want to enjoy their money, i.e. spend there money on stuff then they have to pay the national sales tax. I believe you could just eliminate the complicated income tax system we have and go with a national sales tax, both for billionaires and the rest of us.


Why are you mixing apples and oranges ALL the time? What does Cali’s tax rates have to do with “ordinary income” ? THAT is for FEDERAL tax purposes! That is why the FEDS need to change to a REAL AMT on incomes over $1 million. REGARDLESS OF SOURCE, you get taxed at the marginal rates.

Sorry you don’t respect linked articles showing with REASON why you’re wrong, instead YOU STICK TO YOUR IDEOLOGICAL distortions!

Don’t worry about the studies I link to keep listening to the Drugster and Crazy Beck!

Who’s moving jobs into Cali? Are you crazy or just lazy? Of course until Dubya crashed the economy through his deliberate distortions and manipulations Cali was growing. Sorry I forgot, all the Fright wingers love to blame the meltdown on the poor and people of color who got loans they couldn’t afford, lol

Your sales tax is BS.

On the Raygun thing? Yeah, policy matters, he F**KED US good both nationally and in Cali, if you don’t understand history I can’t help you!


You wingers want it to go lower? They used to pay 30% of federal revenues, that’s now about 7%, how much lower should they go?

Again, I linked to REAL studies and they back it up, you have opinions based on distortions and lies!

Funny how between 1950-1980 the bottom 90% of US grew income by 75% but next 29 years only ONE PERCENT. You see if you tax biz at a high enough rate, they reinvest in the workers and equipment to expand there wealth, in the past 30 years it hasn’t benefited them to do that at a low tax rate, both personally and corp!


If anyone read the stats on the 2010 census you would understand why all the politicians are catering to the minorities. The figures were staggering and truthfully speaking, I think it is far to late to do anything about. California is a full plead Nano State, we take care of everyone, no exceptions, and we do it the best (except for education). And yes, we are going to pay more money in taxes, because the schools, teachers, and unions are frightening and lying to us all. I read in article that if the tax increase passes, it will go for the next 6 years and then the economy will have recovered and we will feel comfortable enough to just keep paying it for the betterment of the State. This increase by the way, will cost a family of 3/4 an extra $1000 a year, ain’t that great!


Oh, looky looky at the administrations for cuts. Gotta go line by line boys and girls.

The other issue is not so much in hiring scabs ( sometimes referred to as part timers), but in bring classroom size to maximum. Also more on-line offerings need to be considered. My daughter Karen teaches some on-line classes and she had a student last semester who was a soldier in Afghanistan.

Cuesta and others need to move into the 19th century… when they get there… we can continue this conversation.


So, the Community College programs will have a budget cut of almost 10%, but the number of students will be cut by 26.7%. There is a serious scam going on here and at what point do the taxpayers get tired of it and get rid of these highly overpaid public sector executives that run the University and Community Collage programs in California.

The public just sits back and takes it without fighting and removing these scoundrels. Community College Chancellor Jack Scott gets paid a lot of money to figure out how to educate as many CA college students as possible, but his answer is a 10% budget cut should translate to a 26.7% cut in the number of Cuesta and other community college students. It is time for Chancellor Jack Scott to be fired.


People, until we start looking at the over-expenditures regarding our law enforcement and monster prison system, we are doomed.


Prison expenditures are the easiest one to fix. Simple contract out confinement to a company in Mexico. The ones that can verify US citizenship would be allowed back into the country after their sentence is done. We would end up reducing our tax burden for housing prisoners by about 90% and suddenly, prison would be something to avoid at all costs by the criminal element.


Never happen, it makes to much sense!


Not only does it make sense, but the unions couldn’t exist without the prisons. That is their biggest scam!


We also need to look at the huge waste of LEGAL citizens tax dollars such as this-

Los Angeles COUNTY spends $52 million a month on anchor-babies-and the total is a staggering $1.6 BILLION for illegal aliens in just one county.


According to the Pew Hispanic Center, a Liberal think-tank, there are 4 million anchor-babies already in America. At an annual cost of $4,000 per child, just for education, the yearly tab is $16 BILLION!

We don’t have a income problem, we have a spending problem.


A large part of the overall problem with our state’s school system is in the second paragraph, “It is a disaster for the community,” said Cuesta College Marketing Director Stephan Gunsaulus.

Can someone explain to me why we need a Marketing Director in a California Junior College. Was their target market about to run off to another community to attend a different junior college beacuse another JC had branded itself differently? What does this superfluous position cost the district and is that cost multiplied by 112 statewide? Does this person have assigned staff?

I’m oversimplifying picking on one position and I imagine that a Marketing Director benefits the school in some small way. I just have a sneaking feeling that the benefit is not great and maybe it’s a position that the school could survive without. And I suspect there may be other similar positions. How about one of the business classes doing some sort of a Return on Investment study of the situation?

Our state is in dire straits financially for many reasons and we are all affected. Our investment in education will only pay off if we make demands of our legislators and school boards to make sound financial decisions. In recessions of the past, our leaders just postponed those decisions until the economy rebounded. This one isn’t going away anytime soon.


Here is part of the problem-

Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa Announces Support for DREAM Act – at your expense-

The DREAM Act now has the support of the mayors from two largest cities in the nation. In May, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and eighteen CEOs from companies like American Express, Pfizer, and News Corp (yes, Rupert Murdoch) signed a letter pledging their support for the DREAM Act.




Before Sam Blakeslee became a VIP with the California Republican Party he was a trustee on the Cuesta College Board. Now he has voted lock in step with the Republican’s to kill every attempt offered by Jerry Brown to move the budget process along.

Sam can afford to send his kids to private schools. He doesn’t care about California’s educational system. All he cares about is moving up the Republican ranks. Shame on you Sam.

The Republican’s did advocate for more funding for the county fair boards which would have removed funding from some where else. Priorities, priorities!


Oh but Im sure Calif will still be able to give aid to another 100,000 or more illegal aliens entering our county in the next year. Glad to see us take care of our own first.


The system is becoming unsustainable because those that benefit are starting to outnumber the contributors. This socialist experiment was fun while it lasted, but alas, they have ran out of other people’s money to spend.

The imaginary utopia that they are viewing through rose colored glasses has failed. Get over it. The nanny state and free handouts to both citizens and non-citizens was doomed from the start. Our institutions and infrastructure are falling down around us while we continue to overcrowd classrooms with non-citizen and free loading students.

If the liberal socialists on this board are for real, they will volunteer their wealth to financially sponsor a non-citizen student’s education. Will that happen? I highly doubt it. Will they gladly demand that I open my wallet to do so? Absolutely. The difference is that we are forced to do so at the threat of prison for not paying taxes.

Government is the problem, not the solution. Government created the crisis that we are in. The only way to fix the crisis now is to drastically reduce the size and reach of state government.


Yeah, nothing like saying “gubmnt” bad, getting elected then putting those in charge who will destroy it to show how bad gov is right?

Funny how we are by far the richest nation in the world but we have the most unequal and are in the middle or lowest on everything from education, vacations, health-care for all, job insecurity, lifespan, etc. Think something like the Fright Wing masters creating their “think tanks” and “public policy” groups, all tax deductible of course, that create the lies and distortions might have had something to do with that?

From 1950-1980 the bottom 90% grew their SHARE of income by 75%. From 1980-2007? 1% That’s right in 27 years 1%. Thanks CONservatives!

Public policy matters, the government sets the rules, either for the bottom 90% of US or the top 1%(with a little for the other lowly 9%’ers they don’t much like either but need!)


For a starter, have a one year residency requirement before benefits are handed out to out- of -staters, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants. Other states already do this.


How about 5 years and you must have worked and contributed to the system for the previous 5 years before you can apply?

Fixing California’s Broken Welfare System-

California has about 12 percent of the nation’s population-our state has about 30 percent of the nation’s welfare recipients



If you look at the link I posted below you will see 64% of Cal Works recipients do not work as required to receive benefits. It is a sham on us that pay our fare share.


Suck it up thumbs downers,its the truth. How is screwing our own kids out of an education in favor or supporting illegal aliens justifiable? Debate this one.