Here’s what most average (normal) people think about what should happen to BALANCE a state budget (or federal budget): spending cuts combined with a plan to bring in more revenue by increasing sales tax and the tax paid by the wealthy –
Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said they supported the governor’s measure, which he hopes to place on the November ballot. It would hike the state sales tax by a quarter-cent per dollar for the next four years and create a graduated surcharge on incomes of more than $250,000 that would last seven years. A third of respondents opposed the measure.
Brown’s new plan, rewritten recently amid pressure from liberal activist and union groups that had a competing proposal, relies on a larger share of revenue from upper-income earners than his original measure. Correspondingly, it leans less upon sales taxes, which are paid by all California consumers. The poll shows that taxing high earners is overwhelmingly popular.
Or as one voter puts it:
“Those who have an unbelievable amount more than those who do not should contribute more,” she said. “And on the sales tax, the more you buy, the more you pay. It’s pretty tough on low-income people who have to pay an extra nickel here and there, but we’ve got to get the money from somewhere.”
Most normal people would agree that where the money comes from shouldn’t be exclusively from cuts to programs and services set up to help those who are less fortunate than the rest — that would be evil and cruel. Which is why this is absolutely no surprise:
Views of the governor’s initiative are split along party lines. Eighty percent of Democrats approved of it, while just 38% of Republicans expressed support. The measure also has the firm backing of independents — voters who state no party preference, who are more than 20% of the California electorate and whose support Brown will likely need to pass his measure. Three-quarters of independents said they liked Brown’s idea.
ONLY the New American Theocracy subdivision of the Republican teaParty considers it “evil” to help the less fortunate in the 21st century, and labels it “socialism” when it’s suggested that funneling more money from the bottom 99% to the top one percent should be slowed or stopped.
They’re going to have a lot of explaining to do at the gates of Heaven.