> According to supporters, the law that set this up (Proposition 13) has saved taxpayers $528 billion (http://www.hjta.org/about-hjta/history-hjta http://www.hj

> According to supporters, the law that set this up (Proposition 13) has saved taxpayers $528 billion (http://www.hjta.org/about-hjta/history-hjta http://www.hjta.org/about-hjta/history-hjta); that's $17.6 billion a year - pretty much the budget deficit of the state. I'd love to spend 20% more than I get to keep after taxes, but to do so would be irresponsible. Prop 13 has been law for decades. It isn't a surprise. The legislature and governor knew how much they had to spend and decided to spend more. The fact that they chose $17B is completely arbitrary on their part, so it's absurd to use it as an argument about prop 13. CA govt has a lot of money to spend. Why isn't it reasonable to expect it to stay within those bounds? If not the current bounds, then what bounds? Note that CA has ramped up its spending significantly (beyond inflation) over the past few decades with almost nothing to show for it. In fact, CA govt spending during the "golden era" was significantly less (inflation adjusted) than it is now.... Based on what we're getting, CA govt arguably spends too much. If you want something more from govt, find something to cut. LIFO works for me.