NVR Logo
Schwarzenegger declares fiscal emergency
Monday, December 01, 2008
Save and Share Share
2:15 p.m.SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency on Monday and called lawmakers into a special budget session, warning that California was in danger of running out of daily operating cash within two months.

The special session will force the new Legislature to get to work immediately and figure out a way to solve the $11.2 billion budget deficit in the current fiscal year. The governor’s declaration came just days after a previous special session with the outgoing class of lawmakers failed to produce a compromise.
Unless budget corrections are made quickly, the state is likely to run out of cash in February and see its revenue gap widen to $28 billion over the next 19 months.

Schwarzenegger said legislators so far have failed to grasp the seriousness of the crisis, which is growing worse by the day.
“The longer we wait, the more we will have to lay off people ... It gets worse very quickly. It’s like an avalanche, it gains momentum,” Schwarzenegger said during a news conference in Los Angeles, where he signed a series of budget-related orders.

The Republican governor and Democrats in the Legislature have proposed a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, but Republican lawmakers have remained steadfast in their refusal to raise taxes.
Lawmakers failed to reach a compromise during the special session Schwarzenegger declared last month, pushing the problem to the new Legislature that was sworn in Monday.

Schwarzenegger said lawmakers’ failure to act has cost California an additional $1.5 billion to $2 billion because the state continues to spend at the same rate even as revenue declines.

“Now we have to make more cuts and raise more revenues because of that,” he said.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, in accepting her nomination to remain head of the Assembly, told her fellow lawmakers to put party ideology aside and help Californians.

“These are not ordinary times,” said the Los Angeles Democrat. “Our state continues to be rocked by the deepening national recession. Our projected deficit is growing, and the cash we need on hand is disappearing.”

But there appeared to be little reason to believe that Republican lawmakers are any more likely to support Schwarzenegger’s compromise appeal for program cuts and tax increases than they were when they rejected a Democratic proposal to do that last week.

“If anything, I think our resolve (against raising taxes) is deeper than it has ever been because of the economic realities,” Senate Minority Leader Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, said Monday.

Democrats were expected to gain three seats in the state Assembly, but failed in the November elections to win a two-thirds majority in either house, which is needed to pass tax increases or a state budget.

Democrats proposed $8.2 billion in spending cuts and $8.2 billion in tax increases during the special session Schwarzenegger called last month, but Republicans rejected the package because of the taxes. Instead, they seek an economic stimulus program to kick-start the economy.

Schwarzenegger asked for both Monday, offering essentially the same plan legislative leaders rejected last month.

His proposal includes raising the state sales tax by 1.5 percentage points — or 1 1/2 pennies on the dollar — for three years, generating $3.5 billion in the current fiscal year.

He also seeks to expand the sales tax to include more services, increase the annual fee for registering vehicles and tax oil extracted in California.

He proposed cutting K-12 education funding by $2.5 billion and funding for the University of California and California State University systems by $132 million, as well as reducing the state’s welfare-to-work program, CalWORKS, by 10 percent. Schwarzenegger also wants to cut two paid holidays for state workers.

Bass, the Assembly speaker, has called on the federal government to use some of its economic bailout money to help California, but Schwarzenegger said the state shouldn’t go hat-in-hand to Congress until it has taken steps to fix its own problems.

Schwarzenegger and other governors were expected to meet with President-elect Barack Obama Tuesday at the National Governors’ Convention in Philadelphia. Schwarzenegger said he will urge Obama to invest in infrastructure to stimulate job creation and boost the ailing economy.

He said California already has laid the groundwork for $26 billion worth of infrastructure improvements.

“We can put shovel into the ground literally the day after he becomes president. That’s how ready we are,” the governor said.

Schwarzenegger called two special sessions, one addressing the budget deficit in the current fiscal year and another to consider an economic stimulus plan.

The stimulus session would focus on two issues: preventing more home foreclosures through loan modifications and preventing the state’s unemployment insurance fund from sliding into insolvency. The governor wants to raise the taxes employers pay into the pool and slightly reduce jobless benefits.

Without changes, the unemployment fund is projected to have a $2.4 billion shortfall next year, according to the governor’s office.

Schwarzenegger enacted the fiscal emergency under Proposition 58, the initiative approved by voters the year after he took office. It forces the Legislature to address the current-year budget deficit within 45 days.

If lawmakers do not, they would be prevented from acting on any other bills until the problem is solved.

———

Associated Press writers Samantha Young in Sacramento and Solvej Schou in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
58 comment(s)

db76 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:17 PM:

" This is what happens when you have first-world benefits in a state with third-world immigration policies. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:26 PM:

" The wealth has done been spread in California... Now what.... "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:41 PM:

" okay db, immigration policy is set by the feds, not the states.

and there was a budget submitted last week that contained 8.7 billion in cuts matched by 8.7 billion in taxes and fee increases, and true to form, all the republicans voted against it saying they will support no new taxes or increases...well, guess what boys and girls, you cannot do it by cuts alone nor should you. "

db76 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:44 PM:

" Dwayne, if the wealth has been spread, then I didn't get the memo that said when and where they were handing out the checks. "

JustMy$.02 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:59 PM:

" db76 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:44 PM:

" Dwayne, if the wealth has been spread, then I didn't get the memo that said when and where they were handing out the checks. "

Really db76??
1st of the month, welfare department. Just check out the volume (number of and total value) of checks state wide, its a significant number. "

JimClark wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:01 PM:

" Lawmakers? Who got us into all this both State and Nationally? Our current socialist government is in a place where the demand "Partnership" in those who succumb to a bailout. To my mind, study & experience that is the Constitution in the swirl of a flushed toilet.
Most of our fellow American travelers cannot even define The Constitution of The United States. Public education does not seem to find what created the envy of the world population relevant since the end of world war two. We are entering a new age of continued indoctrination. Who cares? Who is going to play at the Super Bowl? I imagine that matters more. If the government can create a “partnership” with a company or corporation, who do you believe will eventually take control comrade? "

db76 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:14 PM:

" So, Raven, you're saying that the state has no say in enforcement of immigration policies? "

asahigo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:39 PM:

" If the talking heads wanted to save money they'd all take a pay cut. You could cut their pay by 15% and it wouldn't hurt them enough to change their daily routine. There is no reason for a politician to make that much money. Their sole purpose is to serve the people, not milk them dry. "

Dwayne wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:47 PM:

" db76 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:44 PM:
" Dwayne, if the wealth has been spread, then I didn't get the memo that said when and where they were handing out the checks. "

(snicker) California's the poster child for liberal spending and entitlements...

Obama and a Democratic Congress is likely to take the entire country down the same path...

What a mess this is gonna be..... "

Rob C wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:58 PM:

" What is interesting is the assumed fairness in a 50/50 plan cutting spending and raising taxes. Only fair, right?

Wrong.

The profligate spending and entitlement promises the past 15 years have been outrageous. Deficit reductions should be funded almost entirely by cuts.

Sniveling for a piece of the bail-out pie is pathetic and exemplary of the majority party who desperately wants to lay this mess on taxpayers any way possible. "

Raven wrote on Dec 1, 2008 5:59 PM:

" the state can enforce the laws but has no say so in the writing of those laws, that has been and is still, the ...basic civics, db.

Okay Rob, I have asked this several times of several people, what specific program would you cut and how much would it save, not the usual pablum of saying cut education, state employees....be specific..what programs are you taking advantage of that you will cut as part of the fiscal emergency. "

antipc wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:41 PM:

" Raven your question has been answered on another thread, but you chose to ignore it becuase it didn't include tax any increases.

So why don't you give us your plan? "

109823 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:01 PM:

" I vote to cut out all programs that subsidize illegal immigrants. Just to see if it helps. What could it hurt? I shouldn't get any responses here. (snicker) Also a whole new set of rules for welfare, including limiting the number of children (2?) length of time a person, that's able to work, can be on welfare, etc. The food stamp program, I'm tired of seeing people using food stamps to get their food and then using $100 bills to buy beer with. You just get the feeling we're being taken advantage of. "

manxkat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:12 PM:

" I wanna see all the fat cat government retirees lose their retirements and have to get a real job and work til they're 85 or live under bridges. "

Annabella wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:27 PM:

" Well there is your problems right ther..."tax hikes and spending cuts, but Republican lawmakers have remained steadfast in their refusal to raise taxes." So now they expect the Feds to bail them out? Not gonna happens folks...too many others already in the pipeline. No pain, no gain...hike those taxed and cut your spending. YOur beautiful state is not free. "

db76 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:30 PM:

" 109823, I agree that the number of children should be limited. If somebody is on welfare, they shouldn't have kids, period. Then, when they get off welfare, they could have kids again. I used to work at a pool and this lady there had 7 kids with 7 different fathers just to get the extra welfare. It was disgusting. That's 7 mouths for society to feed, educate, provide medical care for, and incarcerate. "

NAPA66 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:32 PM:

" I say cut off all programs benefiting illegals. If they choose to get pregnant, let them pay the hospital bill. "

pharper wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:06 PM:

" What about people who had kids before they fell on hard times and needed to go on welfare?

I don't think it's practical to limit welfare to families with a certain number of children. "

Rob C wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:37 PM:

" Raven - The first step is to thwart the strategy of asking what should be cut, or "who loses". That strategy is designed to divide the crowd by creating bickering over whose ox is will be gored. If there are unequal losers then it won't get done.

So necessarily, cuts to both spending and planned growth must truly be across the board. Straight percentage cuts based on current funding and planned growth levels.

Now, I would be willing to cut a deal for some revenue generation if, and only if, there is true tax reform enacted. A flatter tax, a less progressive tax that subjects the states finances to whipsaw swings during our states notorious boom and bust cycles.

Sadly, I have no confidence that the latter could ever be implemented given the character of our elected officials. So the former is the strong medicine required for the majority party to swallow. If that reality impacts their re-election chances, so be it. "

jfz wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:39 PM:

" Kennedys like Maria Schriver and her houseboy Arnold want to raise taxes and spend everyone else's money. The Socialist "Republican" governor wants to raise taxes and cut spending or layoffs may result. The end results out of Sacramento will be higher taxes for the low and middle, increased spending and token cuts, and layoffs of those that really deserve the state jobs. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Dec 2, 2008 12:15 AM:

" The U.S.A way of life is changing and there is no stopping it. People are going to start living off what they need and not what they want. People won't be spending money on dinners out, vacations, expensive boats and cars, remodeling of houses, ect. The only good that can come out of this is that the very rich will start to see there capital disappearing. They will need to make business decisions to protect there interests. They will have to pay higher wages and cut prices, this will help provide them with plenty of money just not as much as they use to make. The gap between the rich and the poor needs to close for this country to survive. Hopefully there greed hasn't already doomed us "

jonb3333 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:55 PM:

" 109823,
We are definitely being taken advantage of. They not only buy beer with $100 bills, but have you seen the $60,000 Cadillac Escalade's they are driving. HMMMMMM... "

jonb3333 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:58 PM:

" sorry, greed wins. We are doomed! "

Raven wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:20 PM:

" antipc, my plan would be a matching set of cuts and tax increases ... and to stay away from the sale tax as that hits the lower income people harder ... and I can find no plan of yours anywhere so share it with us ...

A good place to start would be something really unpopular... get as many non-violent prisoners out of the state prisons as possible. It would reduce both the cost of housing non-violent prisoners and may have an impact on the 8 billion that state has been ordered to pay to bring it's medical system up to standards and to reduce the number of beds needed without having to build new prisons. "

Raven wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:25 PM:

" and there is this solution from peter Schrag, a columnist for the Sac bee today...

For this year, beginning this week, the Legislature's task is to close a gap of $11.3 billion in the current budget and maybe $17 billion (maybe more) in the budget year ending in June 2010 – and do it at once, before the new members can even find the bathrooms, let alone the watering spots.

But in fact, it's simple, and without the tax increases that Republicans so vehemently oppose: Stop funding the University of California and the California State University, and shut down the prisons until June. Not a few but all of them. Alternatively, you could shut down the public schools sometime in March. Or you could cut all the state's health and human services programs by about two-thirds, assuming the feds would let you.

Any of those approaches, or some combination thereof, will get you there. Nothing else would. If you cut all the rest of California's general fund, it still wouldn't get you what you need. (Check the state budget at www.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/ agencies.html). None of these options would require a cent of additional revenue. "

jonb3333 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:46 PM:

" Raven,
you can't just shut down schools.
Lack of education is the biggest problem in this country, but you wouldn't know that would you. "

Jenna403 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:58 PM:

" I was shocked to discover the proposed CA sales tax (somewhere around 9%) on veterinarian services. Already I hesitate to contact a vet because of the cost and then to add this fee? Come on, I shouldn't be paying tax on my vet visit any more than I should have to pay sales tax for a physician's visit. And to lump veterinarian services in with vehicle repair and golf... "

Raven wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:35 PM:

" I know jon, explain to all that holler just cut education....even if you shut them all down, it wouldn't solve the budget crisis we face ... "

antipc wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:57 PM:

" Any new tax will cause the public to retreat. An added sales tax will make Internet shopping more affordable, shipping costs become cheaper than sales taxes. Any new business tax will cause more businesses to move &/or headquarter out of state, therefore resulting in less revenue to the state. Cutting is the ONLY answer. Start with the small & obvious while working upwards until a net zero is reached.

From the point of net zero we can start looking ahead toward the future & unattainable payouts to state, county, & city employee benefits.

It's man or mouse time. "

Raven wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:16 AM:

" antipc, so tell us...which program that you benefit from are you ready to cut...esp in light that even cutting all the elective spending stills leaves a deficit..after all is cut...what do you do then? and this is a deficit for this year...not the future so looking at future payouts ain't going to help... "

spatulabetty wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:09 PM:

" Lets invade Texas!!!!!! Slap on an excursion to Mexico and we might get enough funds to survive! Any takers? "

109823 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:11 PM:

" Jonb3333, I've actually seen the Escalades driving to and away from the welfare offices. Our tax dollars at work. Now that is disgusting. "

Raven wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:19 PM:

" and how do you know who owns those? Did you track them down? follow them to their homes? "

tfytmp wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:19 AM:

" The first time I heard about interest only loans, I knew it was a disater waiting to happen. Every elected official in the nation should never let interest only, sub-prime, and all the other "creative loans" to occur. The Governator is one of them; he should pay his failure to lead. "

steph wrote on Dec 4, 2008 4:51 PM:

" I've played the gotcha game with tax-and-spend liberals before. For every suggestion you make to cut government spending, they will insist that the money is necessarily spent and spent wisely, why, in fact, the agency/service/fund needs more taxpayer money. Never an acknowledgement of how high taxes stifle the economy, never an acknowledgement that government ownership leads to less efficiency or that citizens' dependence upon government leads to more dependence, more poverty, less productivity, less tax revenue.

Still, I'm going over the CAGW website California piglet report, which doesn't even begin to cover all the ways our dollars are being wasted.

We can blame our elected officials, but mostly I blame the voters for approving ridiculous mandates like prop 71 because they seem like such a good idea. No cares about where the money will come from.

Just ridiculous. What happens is what we have here. EVERYTHING gets cut--especially vital services like education, because everything is really important, even when it isn't. "

steph wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:07 PM:

" I'm having fun reading at caltax dot org about waste.

You can raise my taxes when you do something about the waste. "

steph wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:25 PM:

" Start by cutting UC Regents compensation packages and packages for their family members, and all their home remodels and paying tens of thousands of dollars in moving expenses.
Continue by drastically cutting welfare payments to able-bodied adults.
Outsource prisons for illegal aliens, oh, how about back to where they came from.
Let's hire some really expensive forensic accounting auditors to go after shady government contracts.
Make state/county/city employees manage their own retirements like private sector employees do.
Talk to teachers and health care employees about some of the people they know who are on public assistance and what kind of value they think we're getting for our money.
We're in a big mess because government is like a cancer that grows and spreads tentacles everywhere until you can't make sense of what's what.
It's all going to have to collapse and if we're lucky we'll start all over from the basics. "

109823 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 6:59 PM:

" Raven, haven't gone as far as to check registration, but do know that the driver was there to apply for/get aid. I still want to see the programs set up where those of you (Raven) who want to support these individuals can just have their taxes applied and those of us don't want to support them don't have to pay taxes toward the effort. I wonder how long it would take for the programs to go away? "

Raven wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:17 PM:

" so you don't know if for example, someone loaned him/her the car?

we all pay for parts of the society we wish we didn't have too but that is the price of society, 10923. Suppose all those who had no children were allowed to opt out of their share of taxes for schools? "

109823 wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:13 AM:

" All good points Crow, I know we all will continue to pay taxes on issues that we don't support. I just wish there were options. As for the high priced vehicles frequenting the wefare offices I would be willing to venture that they are the owners that are driving. There will always be what ifs and maybes to every posting. "

lucylutoo wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Increased sales tax, who can afford it? I worked and paid Ca. State taxes for over 25 years before I became disabled. Due to being disabled I am forced to live on Social Security (federal money). The only thing this state has done for me was to pay my Medicare Premium and that was just recently cut from the budget. If case some of you don't realize it Ca. new State Budget has just taken $1,500 (and higher) a year away from those of us who are disabled, and also from the elderly. To lose that amount when you are already living far below the Federal Poverty Level hurts! Schwarzenegger and the State make me absolutely disgusted! So much for caring about Californians, the elderly and the disabled! Wondering where do we go now? "

Raven wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:39 PM:

" i have heard that anecdote so many times but have yet to see any documentary evidence, a news story, anything... "

steph wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:44 PM:

" lucy, I don't mean to sound crass, but are you able to get a clerical job?
You are obviously intelligent and type well. "

spatulabetty wrote on Dec 5, 2008 5:58 PM:

" Hey steph, why don't you go invade Texas for us? "

steph wrote on Dec 5, 2008 6:06 PM:

" I don't mess with Texas. "

spatulabetty wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:37 PM:

" I thought it might be a little more constructive for you to do that instead of picking on disabled people. "

steph wrote on Dec 6, 2008 12:58 AM:

" How is that picking on her? She might be able to have a better income if she can find work to accommodate her disability.
Heck, the firefighter with two transplanted lungs on the front page has a job. "

steph wrote on Dec 6, 2008 1:00 AM:

" It stinks being dependent upon the government, doesn't it? "

Raven wrote on Dec 6, 2008 7:30 AM:

" steph, without knowing what her disability is, yes it is being crass that your response was ...why cant you get a job? "

steph wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:31 AM:

" Sorry that people are offended. But I'm not surprised. I think our society is a bit patronizing, though, and people suffer as a result. "

Raven wrote on Dec 6, 2008 2:35 PM:

" and who is doing the patronizing?...at first blush, and this may not have been your intent, to me your response came across as patronizing, automatically assuming that she could work even if disabled. "

steph wrote on Dec 6, 2008 5:56 PM:

" No, no, you got me right the first time. Many people who collect disability could actually work if they wanted to. Maybe not in their original field, but they could work. There are many less-abled people who do work because of their work ethic. Sometimes it's hard, I don't deny that. And I'm not saying that she SHOULD work, or COULD work, because I don't actually know any better. She may very well improve her economic situation and her mental and emotional health if she can find a way to work, however. I don't think it's taboo to explore that idea. It may be very hard to make the transition from not working to working, but it could be hugely positive transformation. There is something very depressing about being disabled or less abled or in pain, and being shut in and dependent on a bankrupt government that provides less and less. And as someone who is paying for part of that lifestyle, and as a fellow citizen, I think I have every right to simply ask the question, no matter how many gasps it evokes. I know we aren't supposed to ask the question, but who does that really help? Everybody benefits if disabled people work. Should we say instead, "Oh, it's terrible your lot in life and there is nothing you can do about it but I wish you had more money" or should she be encouraged to seek job training and get back out into society and become productive and make new acquaintances and build a sense of pride? I agree we need to care for those who truly cannot care for themselves, but that bar keeps getting lower and lower to nobody's benefit. "

Raven wrote on Dec 6, 2008 8:18 PM:

" steph, what kind of lifestyle do you think a person disability is living...one of pain, mental or physical, and receiving, if it is work-related, no more than 2/3 of your normal for a limited time...and if it considered permanent, facing denial several times and financial ruin to receive the pittance soc security disability and ssi provide. while there may be the mall minority gaming the system, the vast majority would love to be pain free and able tlo work...though with nearly 8 percent unemployment and rising, where will they find that job? "

steph wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:19 PM:

" Are you suggesting as an alternative that we raise their assistance amount? To how much? On a parity with working people? Is that fair? Is that smart?

Honestly, I've been reading commentary tonight on both sides of the issue. One person on disability for severe depression does work part time, but keeps his income below the cutoff for eligibility. He's smart. He says he wishes he could work more, but he'd lose certain benefits, like medical coverage if he worked more. So I believe reform is due. Same for all forms of welfare. I think people should be encouraged to work as much as they can and have sliding scale assistance. The fact that all benefits can be revoked when a person WORKS for a minimum amount of pay is totally counterproductive. It may even make sense to have universal health insurance (not socialized medicine, but insurance coverage) so people will be encouraged to work and not worry about high shares of cost (MediCal/Medicare) or having their housing allowances removed, for example. Our current system is faulty.
I believe work is good for people, and working people are good for our economy and overall societal well-being, and I'm sorry if you disagree. "

Raven wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:18 PM:

" what I saying is there is no one size fits all approach to disabilities. and disability is not welfare, but rather sdi is an insurance policy that you pay premiums for and should be able to use if your doctor decided you are unable to work because of illness or injury. And the SDI or workers comp assistance is a sliding scale based upon your income prior to being ill or injured. Trust me, having gone thru the system once years ago, while ill, you don't want to have to use it is at all possible.

and where did I say I didn't want people to work? What I want to stop is this automatic assumption that people on disability are shiftless and lazy and don't want to work. The whole idea behind SDI and workers comp is to keep people off the welfare rolls until they hopefully become able to return to work. "

steph wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:35 AM:

" I do not disagree with you.
But I will say that my suspicions are raised based on my interactions with many people who have claimed disability.
I don't disagree that we need to provide for our most helpless--the truly helpless--but I'm afraid I believe the bar is set very low.
That does not mean that everyone who collects disability is working the system. I fully understand that.
I disagree that it is wrong to question. This is serious money the state and feds take from working people, and that money has run out. "

steph wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Some people use insurance like a savings account, too, and that's not right--not the intent. (I paid for it, so I deserve it.) Insurance is a shared risk pool--if you NEED it, it's there. You paid less because everyone paid a little bit for the person who might need it--not enough for everyone to collect. Therefore, if you don't NEED it you must leave it there for people who DO need it, because the rest of us want to be secure in knowing that if we need it, it will be there, and not have our rates raised unnecessarily. "

anticommie wrote on Dec 14, 2008 8:23 AM:

" tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Dec 2, 2008 12:15 AM:

" The U.S.A way of life is changing and there is no stopping it. People are going to start living off what they need and not what they want. People won't be spending money on dinners out, vacations, expensive boats and cars, remodeling of houses, ect. The only good that can come out of this is that the very rich will start to see there capital disappearing. They will need to make business decisions to protect there interests. They will have to pay higher wages and cut prices, this will help provide them with plenty of money just not as much as they use to make. The gap between the rich and the poor needs to close for this country to survive. Hopefully there greed hasn't already doomed us "

Wow! The only good is that the rich will lose their capital? Where should it go? To you? To me? Then you write that they need to make decisons that is best for them? If they are forced to pay higher wages and benefits, they will lay off some workers to accomodate those increases. But its alright as long as its "fair" right? "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy