Posted on 07/30/2004 1:13:21 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Like I said, we got such a mess here lots of stuff is going to be flying thru the air the next few months.
It ain't gonna get any easier for a bit, even here at FR.
As much heat as gets generated here on some threads, just imagine the debates ahead as the proposed plan attempts to make its way thru the legislature.
Norm, let me ask you one last question. It think it should cast this current situation in a very bright light.
If a Schwarzenegger commission were to leak that they were going to suggest a 33% increase in the california budget, an immediate hiring binge, an expansion of state departments and increase state commissions by 118, how long would you folks need to examine the details before going negative?
I'll just let you guys wallow in your own stew. Later.
Dufus, huh?
his proposed cuts in this plan are at least 2 years away.. and we are enroute to borrowing more money in the mean time as no other significant long-term solutions have been implemented, the latest go around was a slight of hand with heavy reliance on the big bond measure keeping us afloat.. for how many years? not to mention end around agreements with the unions and teachers w/ promises of future considerations for token actions now. It would make Davi$ blush.
Dufus.. lol
Piecemealing this thing this way was not my choice.
Arnie likes to play the PR game, some of us tire of that easily.
But that's the price ya pay for caring.
Have a good one.
So many here expect the world to change in one day. Pity on them for their childish rants.
You too Norm.
I have no idea what you're laughing at or what you mean by "Now, since that budget has been going up seven percent, how much less will a 6% cut be than it would have been? ". The article said $32 Billion in possible savings over 5 years. $32 Billion divided by 5 years is 5.9% relative to the new $105 Billion budget just approved. You're saying that a 6% reduction in the presence of annual 7% growth is a good thing? In other words, the budget can go up 1% every year and you'll be happy?
You folks carp all day long about wanting Schwarzenegger to make cuts, but when the study is done and cuts are about to be implemented, you folks find every excuse in the book to be unhappy about that too.
Huh? No one is unhappy... they are simply waiting to know what the report said before making a conclusion.
Who set up this commission? McClintock? NO! It was Arnold Schwarzenegger. We souldn't even be contemplating this action if weren't for him.
Huh? Since Schwarzenegger is Governor, I guess he is the only one who could have set up a commission reporting to him. If McClintock was Governor, I'm sure he would have done something similar (but probably more agressive). If you recall, McClintock had called for BRAC... and also had a plan for a 14% reduction in the annual budget. That kind of cut could have avoided the $15 Billion in borrowing that Schwarzenegger has brought us.
Are you happy about that? Heck no?
I stated that I don't know what I think about it until we see the report. On the surface, based on the summaries released, the recommendations seem to focus not only on spending reductions, but on new revenue opportunities, as well. If the combined total of those is only a 5.9% reduction, I think the report may be disappointing. Any cuts are better than none... but my preliminary opinion is they still have a long way to go.
So that's how he does it!
ROFL!!!
Funniest thing I have read in weeks,....Hilarious!
TOTALLY ROLLING ON THE FLOOR@!!!!
"His commission has proposed 33% cuts."
Why do you continue to misrepresent this? "Eliminating one third of the state workforce" is not equivalent to "33% cuts", nor is it equivalent to a cut in "state government by 33%".
Eliminating certain jobs and outsourcing may save money and is a good move... but it does not mean the cost goes away. I already demonstrated to you that the collective cuts and revenue increases included in the AP article equate to a 6% reduction in annual expenditures, not 33%.
How can you justify posting "33% cuts"??? I have usually found you to be sincere and genuine in your posts... but this is out and out deception!
Yup. Increasing spending by $7B will stop the bleeding.
Only a loyal Republican would even suggest this bizarre, circular reasoning. Reminds me of the William Calley defense.
I'd rather you don't burn my village.
Have a good weekend ol FRiend, Ernesto at da beach. Keep laffin, er you'll lose yer sanity, right??? By the way... I really do think CA needs CPR in more ways than one!!! (like in CardioPulmonary Resusitation) (trouble with Arnold is... all he knows is mouth-to-mouth, or is it mouth to ear?)
As for the budget, I believe I addressed your comment regarding only $6 billion dollar cuts per year, so you should be able to check that out and realize I accepted your explanation on that.
This year Schwarzenegger raised the budget by $7 billion according to one poster here. I had thought it was close to $2 billion At any rate, add which-ever is the actual amount of increase to a $6 billion dollar decrease, and that turns out to an overall drop of around $8-13 billion from what it would have been. Achieve that for five years and that's pretty damned good.
Enhance these cuts with increased revenue from the expanding tax base, by growth in population and an improved business climate, and we're talking the type of cuts that would more than likely turn this state around financially.
I'll be honest, I'd rather see more, but I remember folks just a few weeks ago lamenting the fact that there were no cuts. Now it looks like we're going to get them.
SACRAMENTO (AP) - A plan to reorganize state government that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will release next week will propose eliminating one third of the state work force, hundreds of state boards and commissions while possibly saving $32 billion over the next five years.
AP cited "a one third reduction" in workers, but other reports are now stating significantly different numbers:
LA Times:
...said J.J. Jelincic, president of the California State Employees Assn., which represents more than 140,000 mostly white-collar state employees. "To the extent that this leads to more efficient public services, we're going to be supportive. If this becomes a cover for reducing public services, we're going to have a problem."
J.J. Jelincic, president of the California State Employees Association, said the loss of 12,000 jobs - about 5.5 percent of state employees - on top of 25,000 jobs cut in the past three budgets, would impair services."
Other from the LA Times:
The report's strongest appeal lies in its promise to help ease California's budget woes, and indeed the report claims to have found ways to save $32 billion over the next five years.But most of those savings are not projected to materialize for some time. If every one of the recommendations were adopted, only $6 billion would be realized by June 2006, according to the report. Even those numbers appear optimistic to some.
(snip)
Some of the biggest budget changes come not from government streamlining but from raising more money. The report advocates increasing college and university tuition for out-of-state residents to bring in $1 billion over five years and setting an earlier enrollment cutoff date for kindergarteners to save $2.7 billion.
(snip)
Schwarzenegger and his top aides have yet to sign off on any of its more than 1,000 recommendations, which would also have to survive a battery of public hearings and one or more legislative votes to become law.
is this?:
to socialize/commonize the entire Sierra-Nevada Mountain Range
Or, is the above something else our new governor is trying to accomplish.
Pare down, state urged -- The task force assembled by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to streamline California's bureaucracy is expected next week to recommend eliminating 12,000 state jobs, wiping out hundreds of paid political patronage posts on state boards and commissions, consolidating agencies and departments, and shifting regulatory and political powers from lawmakers into the hands of the governor. Margaret Talev and John Hill in the Sacramento Bee -- 7/31/04
Businesses Had Say in Report on State Overhaul -- Some of California's most influential business interests — including Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and EDS — were given easy access to a state commission as it met privately to recommend sweeping government changes, according to disclosure reports and interviews. Public interest groups, in contrast, complained Friday that they were largely excluded from the five-month study, ordered by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Peter Nicholas in the Los Angeles Times -- 7/31/04
The Savings Bump Up Against the Costs -- Even before its official release, a plan commissioned by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to revamp state government elicited wide skepticism Friday over whether it could produce its promised savings and overcome opposition from some of the Capitol's established lobbies and institutions. Though many groups were withholding public judgment until they read the report, others voiced concerns that some of the report's recommendations cloaked political goals beneath the veneers of frugality and efficiency. Jordan Rau in the Los Angeles Times -- 7/31/04
Law Enforcement -- The plan to overhaul the state government includes a proposal to consolidate California's public safety system under one department in a move to fight potential terrorism while cutting costs. The Department of Public Safety and Homeland Security, as it would be called, would replace or oversee more than 80 state entities involved in public safety. The report's authors found that the "current system contributes to a bloated, confusing and unresponsive government." William Wan in the Los Angeles Times -- 7/31/04
Consumer affairs -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's commission argues that 118 out of 339 state boards — which keep horse racing honest, push for high-speed rail and oversee the state's hairdressers and barbers — cost taxpayers millions each year while creating a dizzying maze of bureaucracy. "When state goals are pursued through unelected boards and commissions, government is less accountable than if the tasks had been performed directly," the panel's report said. "When something goes wrong with a board or commission, the electorate feels powerless." Jessica Garrison in the Los Angeles Times -- 7/31/04
Public works -- The proposal to consolidate housing, transportation, water and related public works under one umbrella agency drew praise from unexpected quarters Friday, as academics and urban planners cautiously embraced the idea of considering these intertwined and vexing issues together. Although planners said they don't necessarily agree with each proposal, they said they are excited at the prospect of finding new ways to plan, finance and build public works projects. Sharon Bernstein in the Los Angeles Times -- 7/31/04
Human Services -- Using names to track new HIV cases rather than anonymous codes is likely to provoke one of the most emotional debates among the proposals to reorganize the state's vast health and welfare system. Concerns over protecting patients' privacy had already created divisions among medical professionals and activists. Carla Rivera in the Los Angeles Times -- 7/31/04
Education -- Educators on Friday gave a mixed report card to the plan to tinker with the state's schools and universities. The government streamlining panel's recommendations to move up the cutoff date for kindergarten enrollment would save money but hurt children from immigrant families who do not speak English at home, said Jim Morris, an assistant superintendent for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Jean Merl and Stuart Silverstein in the Los Angeles Times -- 7/31/04
Environment -- The plan to rebuild California government would eliminate the air pollution board that forced car makers to add catalytic converters three decades ago, a requirement that ranks along with removing lead from gasoline as one of the most effective clean-air innovations. Besides doing away with the Air Resources Board, the plan would drastically alter many of the agencies that have given the state a worldwide reputation as a trendsetter in environmental protection. In the process, it would eliminate an array of boards and commissions where decisions to regulate air and water pollution are made in public. Miguel Bustillo in the Los Angeles Times -- 7/31/04
I'm hoping someone can direct you to the link on the CONservancy to bring you up to speed on all the threads discussing and cussing it.
>>I'm hoping someone can direct you to the link on the CONservancy to bring you up to speed on all the threads discussing and cussing it.
Here is one for starters... lots more if you check "keywords"
RED ALERT: Socialist agenda being pushed through the California Legislature
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157144/posts
Keywords: Sierra Conservancy; Sierra Nevada; conservancy; socialist agenda; ab2600
I for one have been burned too many times to believe any cuts will be made. If some do mysteriously appear they will be minor things not effecting the major money suckers of the government. Proposed cuts are just that proposed. I'll wait until I see something real happen like eliminating the Conservancy idea and the new board he is pushing with the invasive species bill. Eliminating one board means nothing if you replace it with others that are worse.
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.