Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TOM MCCLINTOCK: Arnie's Choice
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, December 1, 2003 | TOM MCCLINTOCK

Posted on 12/01/2003 8:01:35 AM PST by presidio9

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Have you ever had to make serious cuts -- 15% or more -- in your family budget because of an unexpected job -- loss or unforeseen expense? It's not pleasant, but it's not impossible. And it's also not permanent. As long as you're willing to face your financial problems squarely, you can be sure that the hard times won't last forever and things will improve.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 1joina3rdpartytom; 1soreloser; botshatefacts; budgetcrisis; calgov2002; catrans; mcclintock; schwarzenegger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last

1 posted on 12/01/2003 8:01:35 AM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9; Carry_Okie; EternalVigilance; ElkGroveDan; PeoplesRep_of_LA; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...
Thanks for posting this.
2 posted on 12/01/2003 8:06:52 AM PST by Avoiding_Sulla (You can't see where we're going when you don't look where we've been.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
California should declare bankruptcy. the Dem's did it.
3 posted on 12/01/2003 8:11:10 AM PST by bonesmccoy (Defeat the terrorists... Vaccinate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"A 13.4% reduction would mean cutting $5.2 billion from this year's budget before Jan. 1 and setting next year's budget at $66.6 billion. That's a big cut -- and it means giving up billions of dollars of programmed spending increases next year."
I didn't see any specific cuts mentioned. Where will the $5.2bil in cuts come from? What programs, etc will be cut?
Is this the only solution to the budget woes of Calif, and how much support do these recommendations have in the CA legislature?
4 posted on 12/01/2003 8:12:49 AM PST by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
He puts it very well. Not blaming Arnie but blaming Gray Davis, and saying that it's a choice and an opportunity.

What Arnie decided right now will be crucial. He needs more than a 1 or 2 billion dollar cut; he needs major surgery immediately.

Machiavelli said that when you need to something very unpopular, don't do it in dribs and drabs and stretch it out over a long time. Do it early and do it completely. Then the shock will be over and people will be relieved as things gradually get better.
5 posted on 12/01/2003 8:12:58 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
If only it were as simple as McClintock describes.

A 15% drop in family income can almost always be dealt with by belt-tightening. A 50% drop is a catastrophe...and that's what will happen to some people as the state cuts spending.

Here's an example.
The Governor is proposing a 10% cut in Medical, on top of a 5% cut that was recently implemented. He also proposes a small drop in wage assistance for long-term care nurses.
Between 20 and 50 of California's rural hospitals are in grave financial danger. Some will be pushed over the edge and forced to close. That means the loss of a signicant number of jobs and income to the hospital's town and a significant drop in property values. So some businesses may be forced to close and some people may default on their mortgages...and some patients may have nowhere to go. The governor and the Legislature will try to prevent this kind of collateral damage...but it will occur anyway.

It's the multiplier effect working against us.

6 posted on 12/01/2003 8:17:32 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I hope the right thing will be done. If you have to cut deeply, do so. They did this during the depression which I am assuming was not a pretty sight.
7 posted on 12/01/2003 8:17:56 AM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"California's current budget deficit is caused by two actions Gray Davis took last year to paper over his mismanagement: He illegally tripled the car tax and he attempted to borrow $12.6 billion unconstitutionally."
Actually the cause is that expenditures outpaced revenues. That said, I don't disagree with the solution. Cut spending now.
8 posted on 12/01/2003 8:20:38 AM PST by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
A 15% drop in family income can almost always be dealt with by belt-tightening. A 50% drop is a catastrophe...and that's what will happen to some people as the state cuts spending.

Government outlays are not "income."

9 posted on 12/01/2003 8:23:43 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Damn. If your property value solely depends on the fact that there is a hospital in town, then reality will catch up with you one way or another. As for the nursing staff, there is a huge shortage of them in the rest of the country. Maybe they can relocate.
10 posted on 12/01/2003 8:26:57 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
BUMP
11 posted on 12/01/2003 8:28:22 AM PST by GrandMoM ("Without prayer, the hand of GOD stops, BUT, with prayer the hand of GOD moves !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
If only it were as simple as McClintock describes.

McClintock knows more about every line of that budget than anyone in Sacramento; he's just putting it in simple terms for public consumption. There's plenty of flab. The problem is that the Slave Party thugs WILL cut essential services first, to get the people to believe that the situation is truly desperate but in reality punishing them for not coughing up more money.

Between 20 and 50 of California's rural hospitals are in grave financial danger. Some will be pushed over the edge and forced to close. That means the loss of a signicant number of jobs and income to the hospital's town and a significant drop in property values. So some businesses may be forced to close and some people may default on their mortgages...and some patients may have nowhere to go. The governor and the Legislature will try to prevent this kind of collateral damage...but it will occur anyway.

It's been occurring for 20 years. There's a way to crank up the rural economy, but it would involve dealing with the regulatory straitjacket with which rural resource industries have been virtually murdered. Arnold's globalist handlers won't permit that, so don't cry to me about rural hospitals as if you care.

12 posted on 12/01/2003 8:31:23 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
MAKE THE 15% CUTS NOW ARNIE.
13 posted on 12/01/2003 8:33:07 AM PST by jocko12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Between 20 and 50 of California's rural hospitals are in grave financial danger........ That means the loss of a significant number of jobs and income to the hospital's town and a significant drop in property values.

Your example makes it sound as if the purpose of rural hospitals should be to support local jobs and property values. While I don't deny that rural Californians need hospitals, a hospitals purpose is for health care and not to economically sustain a rural town and its "property values".

Your example, though well meant, is an example of the "Mission Creep" that government spending and local politicians tend to encourage. Perhaps a clinic will do, that is satellite to a larger facility.

14 posted on 12/01/2003 8:38:12 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Right on. A 12% across-the-board decrease will cause some excessive screaming, but will force each department of state govt. to examine their spending and make their operations more efficient.
15 posted on 12/01/2003 8:39:04 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Government outlays are not "income."

They're income for those who work for government, or get paid by government for goods and services.

16 posted on 12/01/2003 8:43:52 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
They're income for those who work for government, or get paid by government for goods and services.

But that's not what you were talking about Larry.

17 posted on 12/01/2003 8:46:58 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
And that income comes from where? Government does not create wealth, never has, never will. The financial state of California is the direct result of socialistic policies implemented by Sacramento. One cannot continue to place more and more demands on business and tax payers without consequences. Current policies in the State of CA are about the most anti business you will ever see.
18 posted on 12/01/2003 8:50:16 AM PST by stylin_geek (Koffi: 0, G.W. Bush: (I lost count))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
And that income comes from where? Government does not create wealth, never has, never will. The financial state of California is the direct result of socialistic policies implemented by Sacramento. One cannot continue to place more and more demands on business and tax payers without consequences. Current policies in the State of CA are about the most anti business you will ever see.
19 posted on 12/01/2003 8:50:20 AM PST by stylin_geek (Koffi: 0, G.W. Bush: (I lost count))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Yep. Let's take a trip to bizarro world and see what the LATimes would headline there...
20 posted on 12/01/2003 8:51:37 AM PST by Avoiding_Sulla (You can't see where we're going when you don't look where we've been.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Avoiding_Sulla
LOL
21 posted on 12/01/2003 8:54:07 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Thanks for posting! Now would someone please find the scissors for Arnold! Make the cuts now across the board which would still be an increase over what the state was spending only four years ago! NO MORE BONDS, ARNOLD!
22 posted on 12/01/2003 8:58:06 AM PST by kellynla ("C" 1/5 1st Mar Div. Viet Nam 69 &70 Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The problem is that the Slave Party thugs WILL cut essential services first

The proposals to cut Medicare and wage assistance come from the governor.

It's been occurring for 20 years.

True. Economic and technological changes have largely been unfavorable to the rural environment. In the example I've been using, small hospitals are unable to afford modern diagnostic equipment, do not have the traffic to afford an emergency room, and cannot meet the requirements of or provide the traffic necessary to support specialists.

There's a way to crank up the rural economy, but it would involve dealing with the regulatory straitjacket with which rural resource industries have been virtually murdered

In some cases yes. In others they've been driven under by new competition with cheaper labor or cheaper extraction costs or an environment better suited to farming or ranching.

None of that ameliorates the effect of budget cuts on these who've remained in the rural environment and are attempting to survive.

Arnold's globalist handlers won't permit that

It remains to be seen what Arnold will do about the regulatory environment...or how much he can do given the attitude of the populace and the federal government. As far as I can tell he's an environmentalist and is not willing to sacrifice it for short-term gains.

...so don't cry to me about rural hospitals as if you care

Scrap away the veneer of education and you're nothing but an ill-mannered, short-tempered, self-important pig...as I suspected.

23 posted on 12/01/2003 9:00:24 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Avoiding_Sulla
Thanks for the ping! I hope Arnold is reading the WSJ! SHOW SOME GUTS AND MAKE THE CUTS!
24 posted on 12/01/2003 9:01:57 AM PST by kellynla ("C" 1/5 1st Mar Div. Viet Nam 69 &70 Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Machiavelli said that when you need to something very unpopular, don't do it in dribs and drabs and stretch it out over a long time. Do it early and do it completely. Then the shock will be over and people will be relieved as things gradually get better.

I agree completely. I remember when Reagan was being vilified in the press for months because of threatened cuts, which were actually decreases in the rate of growth of various government programs. I thought, if he's going to take the heat for imaginary budget cuts, then why not make real cuts and actually get something accomplished? Then when things turn around, the cuts can be justly credited.

25 posted on 12/01/2003 9:04:17 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
. In the example I've been using, small hospitals are unable to afford modern diagnostic equipment, do not have the traffic to afford an emergency room, and cannot meet the requirements of or provide the traffic necessary to support specialists. Surprise, surprise. Hospitals are better in more highly trafficed urban areas? Who knew?
26 posted on 12/01/2003 9:08:30 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Perhaps a clinic will do, that is satellite to a larger facility

Even medically, there is no simple answer. Small isolated communities are difficult to serve well...as are the major highways which may pass through them.

Your example makes it sound as if the purpose of rural hospitals should be to support local jobs and property values

I was just describing reality...and it's a reality not limited to small towns or government. Any community is going to feel the loss of a major employer or industry. Why do you think it's so difficult to close military bases? Why is there so much pain when Ford, or General Electric, or Microsoft closes a major plant?

27 posted on 12/01/2003 9:10:57 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
But that's not what you were talking about Larry

I think it is. What's the problem?

28 posted on 12/01/2003 9:13:38 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Surprise, surprise. Hospitals are better in more highly trafficed urban areas? Who knew?

First,my reply to Carrie_okie was an elaboration of his statement...which was equally obvious. Complain to him if you think it's foolish.

Second, you're flat wrong. Quite often the care you receive in rural hospitals is better than in urban areas. The nurses and doctors are less stressed and more willing to care for you.

Third, even second-rate care is better than no care at all.

29 posted on 12/01/2003 9:19:51 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
ping
30 posted on 12/01/2003 9:21:36 AM PST by nickcarraway (www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
[Government outlays are] ... income for those who work for government, or get paid by government for goods and services.

Ya know, Larry, all cash outlays, government sector or private sector, represent income to someone. In tough economic times, the private sector reduces its cash outlays as needed to stay economically viable: businessess cut spending (capitalized and expensed purchases, wages, staff, benefits, etc.), individuals cut spending too.

Government is the only entity in the economy that NEVER cuts spending. (No, cuts in rates of growth are not cuts in spending.)

While cutting government programs puts some individuals in difficult economic straits, those individuals are no different than individuals in the private sector, nor should they be. Employment by a government or a government subsidized should NEVER considered a guarantee of permanent employment with insulation from economic downturns. That's a breach of the fiduciary trust over the "public's" hard-earned money (not to mention that it is a recipe for financial disaster: eg. California.)

As for your property value...

...give me a break!

I seem to have missed that section of the Constitution, Public and Common Law the somehow obligate government to protect property values.

31 posted on 12/01/2003 9:22:06 AM PST by Dimples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Keep in mind my original point...which was that McClintock's portrayal of a relatively painless 15% cut in state expenditures would translate into a much larger, catastrophic cut for many individuals and communities.
32 posted on 12/01/2003 9:23:14 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; RedBloodedAmerican
But repairing this problem requires that local governments be reimbursed for their losses. In addition, the courts have already invalidated $1.9 billion of Mr. Davis' borrowing plan, further deepening the deficit. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, these developments mean that the state will end up spending $76.9 billion this year, with only $74.2 billion in revenue.

One point nine, one point nine, hmmmmmm that sounds so familiar. Where I have I heard that before?... Oh yeah, this fiscally conservative-bone thrown that I was pinged to by one of the uber-Userful Idiots; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1028327/posts

If CA can get it down to $74.2, then it won't have any immediate problems, and the Fat Cats will still get all their graft, how slick of the Governor. These are the kinds of faux "balanced budgets" that Clinton popularized in the 90's, which left Bush a recession.

33 posted on 12/01/2003 9:24:32 AM PST by PeoplesRep_of_LA (Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimples
See post #32. I think you've not understood my point.
34 posted on 12/01/2003 9:24:42 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Bump.
35 posted on 12/01/2003 9:25:40 AM PST by k2blader (Haruspex, beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Arnold has to go after the education budget. There is at least 10 billion there that can be cut without affecting the anachronistic classroom instruction model that everyone is so enamored with (though the effect on the Democrat fund-raising/patronage machine is likely to be considerable). He needs to attaack the educrats now, while he has the public on his side, and get any mandatory school spending laws repealed.
36 posted on 12/01/2003 9:26:39 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Keep in mind my original point...which was that McClintock's portrayal of a relatively painless 15% cut in state expenditures would translate into a much larger, catastrophic cut for many individuals and communities.

Uh hello liberal? Everyone is aware of your original point. The reason so many different posters are correcting you is that your original point was invalid.

37 posted on 12/01/2003 9:28:23 AM PST by PeoplesRep_of_LA (Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dimples
There's another point to make.

Notice how many FReepers complain when it's they who're laid off or they who suffer when the stock market plunges?

That's human nature.

If too many people suffer hard times the government falls, or the society collapses. It doesn't matter the form of government or the ideology.

People get very upset when the lose their jobs and homes...and they lash out.

And finally, don't make it personal. My property values are not in danger. :)

38 posted on 12/01/2003 9:30:45 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRep_of_LA
The reason so many different posters are correcting you is that your original point was invalid

Not at all. Posters have merely said that lots of people shouldn't expect to be protected...whatever the size of their loss.

39 posted on 12/01/2003 9:32:45 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Well, I guess that depends on what your point is. I understand your point to be:

If it ain't painless, we outght not do it (cut spending by 15%.)

I believe Senator McClintock point to be:

The longer you wait to cut spending the more painful the ultimate financial disaster will be.

Between the two, I'll pick cut deep, cut now.

If I have not correctly understood your point, perhaps you'd be so kind as to state it clearly and unambiguously.

40 posted on 12/01/2003 9:34:24 AM PST by Dimples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I think it is. What's the problem?

You're the one who constantly questions people's ability to reason. If you're going to be discussing how a so-called "multiplier effect" might influence the state economy of California, you have to be talking about more than 20 hospitals.

41 posted on 12/01/2003 9:37:12 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry; Carry_Okie
"Scrap away the veneer of education and you're nothing but an ill-mannered, short-tempered, self-important pig...as I suspected."

In your case, there's nothing to scrape away; just a standard, unabashed whinning, begging, sloven tax-eating parasite.

42 posted on 12/01/2003 9:37:20 AM PST by editor-surveyor ( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Quite often the care you receive in rural hospitals is better than in urban areas.

Your definition of "better" care is different from mine. When you go see your doctor, you want him to be attentive. I want him to be good. It is a fact that the best doctors tend to be employed in urban areas.

43 posted on 12/01/2003 9:40:14 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dimples
Have you ever had to make serious cuts -- 15% or more -- in your family budget because of an unexpected job -- loss or unforeseen expense? It's not pleasant, but it's not impossible

That's how McClintock begins. It makes sense.
Substitute 50% for 15% and it doesn't.

That was my point.

I have no objection to cutting the State budget by 15%. I support it. I think it necessary. I think it better to cut quickly rather than slowly.

But the costs of the cuts should be honestly portrayed...which means that the public should be aware that some will suffer no loss of income at all and others will be hurt catastrophically.

44 posted on 12/01/2003 9:43:49 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
So now people have not been correcting you because you were wrong? I see, it takes some serious pretention and pride to try to pull that one when the truth is there in black and white right above.

You "liberals" are all the same. Never right...but can never admit you are wrong.

45 posted on 12/01/2003 9:44:47 AM PST by PeoplesRep_of_LA (Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
In your case, there's nothing to scrape away; just a standard, unabashed whinning, begging, sloven tax-eating parasite

HehHeHe... I guess it's your taxes I'm eating. Taste pretty good too. :)
If you don't like whiners then take your own advice and stop whining.

46 posted on 12/01/2003 9:47:50 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
If too many people suffer hard times the government falls, or the society collapses. It doesn't matter the form of government or the ideology.

As it should. One might infer that ex-Gov Davis lost his job because of this very mechanism. Given that we agree on the mechanism, I suspect we differ on how to manage the mechanism.

I would argue that government should be exposed and accountable for its bad decisions and bad management (even bad luck.) A government should NOT be able to use it's power as a weapon to protect its incumbancy at the expense of the general public.

I infer from your posts that you'd prefer to PROTECT incumbancy by insulating the government from bad decisions, bad management, or just plain bad luck.

And finally, don't make it personal. My property values are not in danger. :)

Nothing personal intended ... You brought the subject of property value into the discussion, not me. You used it as yet more fuel to throw into the fire of the terrible hardship of cutting government spending. I'm calling that subject a red herring.

47 posted on 12/01/2003 9:48:49 AM PST by Dimples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRep_of_LA
So now people have not been correcting you because you were wrong?

They're stating their opinion and I'm stating mine. Who's right and who's wrong is also a matter of opinion.

Troubling for those who demand certainty...but that's how it is.

48 posted on 12/01/2003 9:50:45 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Right on, Tom!
49 posted on 12/01/2003 9:51:17 AM PST by StoneColdGOP (McClintock - In Your Heart, You Know He's Right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimples
As for your property value...

I took that to be personal.

I infer from your posts that you'd prefer to PROTECT incumbancy

Not at all. I voted for Arnold. And supported his candidacy on this forum...mostly by telling McClintock supporters that he was a great guy and would make a great governor. :)

50 posted on 12/01/2003 9:55:51 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson