(California State)Senate Rejects Governor Schwarzenegger's Budget Plan

BakersFieldChannel ^ | DEc. 5, 2003 | BakersFieldChannel

[FairOpinion]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The state Senate has turned down Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget package. That leaves little possibility for a last-minute agreement as the clock ticks toward Friday's midnight deadline to put measures on the March ballot.

Senators vote 34-0 against the governor's plan to cap spending, with even Republicans voting no after the outcome became clear. The governor's bond measure also lost.

At the same time, counter proposals from Democrats failed to get the two-thirds majorities needed for passage.

Senate Republican leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga is warning that Republicans will try to put an even tougher spending limit on the November ballot if the negotiations fail to produce a March ballot agreement.

Schwarzenegger wants voters to consider his idea for borrowing up to $15 billion to wipe out the state's existing deficit.

He also wants the Legislature to place a spending cap on the spring ballot.

[FairOpinion]

What's wrong with the Republicans?!

Senators voted UNANIMOUSLY against Arnold's plan to cap spending!!!!!!!

Time to clean house in the CA Legislature -- in BOTH parties!!!!!!

[Torie]

with even Republicans voting no after the outcome became clear.

Why vote for the compromise measure, when the compromise is killed by the opposition? You do get it don't you?

[KellyAdmirer]

Californian politicians, with only a handful of exceptions, are imbeciles.

[FirstPrinciple]

Best news I have heard all day. Thank God this bond measure failed. Otherwise, all Americans would have to bail out CA when the bond would mature and CA wouldn't have any money to pay it.

[savedbygrace]

Audacious.

[Kay Soze]

Its not like he could ask Bush for any support to limit government spending.

He'd do better asking Jimmy Carter for help!

[Lancey Howard]

Best news I have heard all day. Thank God this bond measure failed.

Then you oughtta love this:

Arnold "Quietly" Approves....

[FairOpinion]

If this measure doesn't get on the March ballot, CA will be OUT OF MONEY IN JUNE!

(California) State Cash Supply Is Dwindling (OUT OF CASH IN SIX MONTHS)

Over the next few months, lawmakers must act quickly to find ways to keep from running out of cash in June — when the state must repay $14 billion in short-term loans taken out to keep the state solvent last summer. Without a large bond, such as the $15-billion long-term borrowing proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state won't have money to make those payments.

Many budget experts in Sacramento and elsewhere agree that trying to pay back the loans due in June without a large, long-term bond is close to impossible at this point. The state simply wouldn't have enough cash on hand, even if it enacted massive cuts in programs and services.

One option would be for lawmakers and Schwarzenegger to agree on raising taxes. But that is unlikely because the governor has said repeatedly that he would not support a tax increase.

===

The Democrats want to leave Arnold NO other option, except to raise taxes, and the Republicans are helping the Democrats to put Arnold in that position.

You DO get it, don't you?

[Sabertooth]

The governor's bond measure also lost.

That's good news. It was a bad idea.

The bad news is that Schwarzenegger is trying to revive Gray Davis' illegal $10.7 billion bond that bypasses the voters...

After saying for weeks there would be no option for putting a big bond measure on the spring ballot, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly gave the green light Friday to a plan to borrow $10.7 billion without voter approval.

Last summer, the Legislature authorized the bond sale as part of the budget agreement signed by former Gov. Gray Davis. But taxpayer groups, as well as many Republican lawmakers, criticized the deal, saying borrowing of that magnitude should be approved by voters.

One group, the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit in September, arguing the proposal to sell $10.7 billion of deficit-financing bonds should be ruled invalid because of provisions in the California Constitution that prevents the Legislature from taking on more than $300,000 in long-term debt without approval of the voters.
CA: Governor OKs borrowing plan
AP - December 5th, 2003 (FR link)

[FairOpinion]

Oh, and anyone cares to guess, WHY do the Dems want to leave Arnold no other choice than to raise taxes in June -- months before the 2004 elections?

They want to kill any chances for Republicans.

And the CA Republicans obligingly cooperating with the Dems. because they want a "tougher measure", which they will never get.

More of the same, if we can't get everything, let's destroy CA and kill any chances for any Republicans for the next 20 years on CA. Great going! (/major sarcasm)

[ladyinred]

It didn't take that stupid California legislature long to forget how mad we all are did it?

[fleur-de-lis]

The bonds would not "mature" all at once on a specific date. They are paid off over X years.

[Sabertooth]

If this measure doesn't get on the March ballot, CA will be OUT OF MONEY IN JUNE!

Good. It needs to happen.

The Democrats want to leave Arnold NO other option, except to raise taxes, and the Republicans are helping the Democrats to put Arnold in that position.

Not true. He can wait them out and force them to cut spending.

Besides, his $15 billion bond measure was just a delayed tax increase anyway.

[Thud]

ping

[Hank Rearden]

The state simply wouldn't have enough cash on hand, even if it enacted massive cuts in programs and services.

Therefore, the parasites have their excuse to not even try massive cuts in programs and services.

What's that flushing sound I hear? Oh yeah, it's CA's economic prospects.

[FairOpinion]

"It didn't take that stupid California legislature long to forget how mad we all are did it?"

===

If they think we are mad now -- let them wait and see how mad we'll be in November, after CA either raises taxes or files bankruptcy, because we can't pay off the huge short term debt due in June.

The way I feel right now, I would like to see every single incumbent defeated, BAR NONE, for handing the Democrats a resounding victory of defeating Arnold's sensible approach, the only sensible approach to get out of the budget CRISIS.

After this, I bet the Dems are aleady counting CA in the Dem column for every single statewide office and presidential elections for the next 50 years and the Republicans helped them do it, for the same old excuse, "we will pass a tougher measure later" -- sure they will, so they rather have the Dems have a 100% victory.

[Hildy]

I don't understand...He's just REFINANCING THE EXISTING DEBT. What is so bad about that?

[FairOpinion]

"What's that flushing sound I hear? Oh yeah, it's CA's economic prospects."

===

And it may ripple through the US economy -- people keep forgetting that CA is the WORLD's 5th largest economy.

Things are looking up for the Dems in 2004 -- if they can tank the US economy, they can use the old slogan they used against Bush's Father: "It's the economy, stupid".

And the stupid CA Republicans in the Legislature can't seem to think ahead two microsecond -- what were they thinking, handing the Dems a UNANIMOUS victory?!

[jagrmeister]

Yeah, I don't get this. Republican legislators should have gone on the record voting for Arnold's bill, demonstrating to the California public that Arnold's concepts of capping spending and issuing bonds are the right ideas. That Arnold's proposals are rejected unanimously gives the impression to the public that Arnold doesn't know what he's doing. Republicans could still push the tough measure on the November ballot. Now it's hard to go to the public and say Democrats, exclusively, voted to bankrupt California come summer of next year.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Right!