TOM MCCLINTOCK: Arnie's Choice

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, December 1, 2003 | TOM MCCLINTOCK

[presidio9]

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.

[Carry_Okie]

LOL

[kellynla]

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!

[liberallarry]

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.

[kellynla]

Thanks for the ping! I hope Arnold is reading the WSJ! SHOW SOME GUTS AND MAKE THE CUTS!

[Aquinasfan]

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.

[presidio9]

. 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?

[liberallarry]

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?

[liberallarry]

But that's not what you were talking about Larry

I think it is. What's the problem?

[liberallarry]

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.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Dimples]

[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.

[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.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

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.

[liberallarry]

See post #32. I think you've not understood my point.

[k2blader]

Bump.

[Mr. Jeeves]

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.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

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.

[liberallarry]

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. :)

[liberallarry]

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.

[Dimples]

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.