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

Skip to comments.

Perdue Proposes $1 Billion Spending Increase (Republican spending spree)
wsb radio (Atlanta) ^ | 1/13/05 | wsb radio

Posted on 01/13/2005 3:38:25 AM PST by from occupied ga

ATLANTA (AP) For the first time in two years, Gov. Sonny Perdue laid out good news to a Georgia Legislature weary of budget cuts, outlining a proposed $1 billion budget increase for next year that will put bulldozers to work on school, road and port construction projects across the state.

But even as he outlined his proposed $17.4 billion spending package to a joint legislative session Wednesday night, he cautioned that the ``New Georgia'' he envisions as the first Republican governor since 1870 is one of making government an instrument to help people do more for themselves not to do it for them.

Apparently responding to criticism that he has been an unambitious governor, Perdue insisted in a combined State of the State and budget address that the path to greatness for a state is not one of increasing the size of government or adding new programs.

``We don't want a busybody government a boss that butts into our lives every chance it gets to tell us how to work, how to play, where to live and on and on,'' he said. ``And we don't want to perpetuate an entitlement mentality that causes people to expect more and more from the government and less and less of themselves.''

``The starring role belongs to We The People the citizens of Georgia who are the true strength of our state,'' he said.

It was the first time since his election in 2002 that he was speaking to a fully appreciative crowd. Both chambers now are under Republican control. For the first two years of his term, Democrats held the house.

His allies rewarded him with two dozen rounds of applause, often rising to their feet.

They also punished his enemies. Democratic Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor, who by custom presides over joint sessions of the Legislature, was not allowed to wield the gavel. Taylor hopes to challenge Perdue for re-election in 2006.

The new House leaders told Taylor in a letter just hours before the event that they would handle those chores, themselves. Joint sessions always are held in the larger House chambers.

Taylor, delivering the response afterward for Democrats, attacked Perdue for ``a lack of vision, a lack of priorities, a lack of leadership'' in presiding over two years of steep cuts to education and health care, and said Perdue should have focused on the strained state of Georgia families rather than the state of the state.

But House Speaker Glenn Richardson, R-Hiram, said of the address, ``I thought it was great. This was a speech from the heart.''

Some of the budget initiatives Perdue announced in the speech were old news the 2 percent pay raise for teachers, state employees and university system personnel; full formula funding for K-12 schools and the university system; and the hiring of 500 new state child care workers and more driver's license examiners. He already had made those announcements at previous events.

Teachers previously had said they were unhappy with the size of the raise, and the speech did not change their minds.

Merchuria Chase Williams, president of the Georgia Association of Educators, said, ``Clearly, it's not enough,'' and added that with the 13 percent increase Perdue proposes for their health care premiums, they will lose further ground.

Despite earlier concerns that health programs like Medicaid and PeachCare for Kids would take heavy hits, they won't. Perdue said no one currently eligible for those programs will lose their eligibility, although some services will be scaled back and some payments to medical providers will be reduced.

That fear resulted from Perdue's announcement to state agency heads last year that they must show him where their budgets could be cut more. In the previous two years, state agencies absorbed cuts of more than $1 billion.

A rebounding economy enabled him to spare most agencies from the ax. One that wasn't: the Secretary of State's office, headed by Democrat Cathy Cox who also plans to challenge Perdue for the governor's office in 2006.

Part of the new money in the budget will pay first-year principal-and-interest costs on an additional $1 billion in new debt, about the same as Perdue proposed last year. About $400 million of the money will finance the governor's ``Fast Forward'' program to relieve traffic congestion in the metro Atlanta area and build or improve rural roads.

Other construction will occur at public schools, colleges and universities and technical schools.

In policy areas, Perdue said he will push a new initiative to put ``booster rockets on small business growth in Georgia'' by offering a new tax exemption for small businesses. In addition, he said he hopes to eliminate many burdensome government regulations.

``Survival is tough enough without the government coming along to poke a stick in your eye with costly, poorly considered and, can I say dumb regulations.''

Perdue also said he will propose a tourism growth initiative and one targeting strategic industries by offering a $500-per-job tax credit for Georgia companies that expand.

The government's safety net is important, he said, but should be augmented by members of the faith community. Perdue said he will again propose legislation allowing government to spend money for services provided by churches and other faith groups.

Perdue also plugged again for passage of his ethics bill, stalled for two years by Democrats when they ran the House.

``I fully expect a strong ethics bill to reach my desk by the end of the session,'' he warned. ``The people of Georgia want it and I think it's time we got it done.''


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: getaclue; hardlyarino; loot; needroadsidiot; perdue; plunder; rino; squander; whinewhinewhinewhine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: from occupied ga
Coburn was the lone opponent on this bill here. Coburn Lone Opponent on Spending Bill.
41 posted on 07/15/2005 7:10:33 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (DON'T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THE CURTAINS THEY ARE WEARING ON THEIR HEADS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
"Wrong question. We SHOULD NOT be paying for health care other than our own. Why not pay for televisions for the indolent also. No difference."

I'm pretty sure - though I'm willing to shift my view if I'm wrong - that no one has ever died from not having a television.

42 posted on 07/15/2005 7:25:01 AM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
"`We don't want a busybody government a boss that butts into our lives every chance it gets to tell us how to work, how to play, where to live and on and on,'' he said."

I guess that's why they passed a statewide smoking ban...

43 posted on 07/15/2005 7:26:41 AM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I'm pretty sure - though I'm willing to shift my view if I'm wrong - that no one has ever died from not having a television.

Not relevant. Health care is a commodity like anything else. Is someone else's misfortune (ie being sick) your moral responsibility? I don't think so. For Example, if someone else engages in behavior that leads to AIDS, then should you and I be obligated to pay for treatment? If someone sends their money back to Mexico and then applies for Medicade should they get it? If people download children that they can't afford why should we pay for their education? This is socialism - the redistributionist philosophy that bankrupted every notion that has persisted in following it.

44 posted on 07/15/2005 7:32:21 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I guess that's why they passed a statewide smoking ban...

Good ol' Republican hypocrisy. Although Perdue was a Democrat for many years before he saw the writing on the wall in GA and shifted parties.

45 posted on 07/15/2005 7:35:26 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
It is a debatable point whether government should provide anyone with health care. My point was that it is not quite so debatable whether providing health care is 'no different' from providing a TV.

As far as the actual debatable point goes, it is easy ideologically to take your position. It is more difficult practically, because there are some situations that I just don't think our populace is going to accept. You are correct that some people are responsible for their own health care crises. But some are not. I don't think that we, as a nation, are prepared to say "tough sh#@" to a child brought into the ER by a parent without the resources to pay for health care. We may be, but I don't think so. So, at present, those who show up to a publicly funded ER get care, whether they can pay or not. If this is our standard, I'd much prefer that we provide efficient care to those persons, rather than crisis care. It is cheaper and more responsible to do so. For me, the only way around this conclusion is to decide that we are going to turn those folks away at the ER.

Should we segregate such care between those who are simply unable to provide for their own health care needs (children, disabled, elderly) and those who can? Probably. But I'll be amazed if we ever get to the point, as a nation, where we decide that those who can't pay for health care can just go ahead and die.

46 posted on 07/15/2005 7:54:14 AM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
As far as the actual debatable point goes, it is easy ideologically to take your position. It is more difficult practically, because there are some situations that I just don't think our populace is going to accept. You are correct that some people are responsible for their own health care crises. But some are not. I don't think that we, as a nation, are prepared to say "tough sh#@" to a child brought into the ER by a parent without the resources to pay for health care.

Anyone who goes to an ER in any hospital in the USA today is treated regardless of the ability to pay now. The costs are just passed on to those of us who pay our bills. Although what do you think about a homeless junkie who runs up a couple of hundred thousand bill. I know doctors who'd like to pull the plug on these guys.

My biggest problem is not about emergent care, but ongoing problems. I thnk that free clinics should be done away with EXCEPT as supported by charity. If someone wants to donate money for the care of others, then more power to 'em. I just don't think that it should be a function of government.

Health care is on that evil list of "human rights" that the UN promulgates (and btw was authored by Elanor Roosveldt). IF I have a "right" to health care, then someone has an obligation to provide it. Either you make the doctors work for free (kind of like they do in Canada) for your fellow taxpayers cough up the cash. For example an electro-cautery machine costs about $30k If surgery is my right, then is the manufacturer obligtated to provide the mache for free? You're welcome to form whatever opinions you want of course, but I just don't think so.

47 posted on 07/15/2005 8:26:29 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Perdue Proposes $1 Billion Spending Increase

That's a lot of chickens.
48 posted on 07/15/2005 8:28:42 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
I think I stated that anyone can get emergency care. I also thought it was pretty clear from your post that you think they shouldn't.

I don't think we are going to get rid of emergency care for indigents. If we accept that premise, then my issue becomes 'why have we chose to provide free health care in the most expensive, least effective manner?'. I'd much rather have the government spend $50 of my money to keep the kid from getting sick than $500 for an ER visit when he gets sick. As I said, for me, the only way around this conclusion is to say that we aren't gonna pay for the eventual ER visit. As long as we are, I think we should try to control those costs as best we can.

49 posted on 07/15/2005 8:43:17 AM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I'd much rather have the government spend $50 of my money to keep the kid from getting sick than $500 for an ER visit when he gets sick.

Then you're accepting socialism. This idea of everyone's wants becoming obligations to the rest of us is a late 19th century idea that really got its main impetus under FDR, and the more socialism that we have the screwier the country becomes. I'm much rather the parents or a charitable institution pay rather than force me to pay, and the hell with junkies. If they want to shoot up, let them, but then if they die from an OD that's their problem too.

50 posted on 07/15/2005 9:34:37 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
"Then you're accepting socialism."

No, I'm accepting efficiency. By your construct, I accepted socialism when I accepted that my money is going to be spent on the kid at the ER. And, if I understood you correctly, so did you.

Or are you saying that it is 'socialism' to spend $50 of your tax money on preventive care, but it is not 'socialism' to spend $500 of your money on emergency care? If that is what you are saying, I'd really like to hear how you differentiate the two.

51 posted on 07/15/2005 9:40:57 AM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
By your construct, I accepted socialism when I accepted that my money is going to be spent on the kid at the ER. And, if I understood you correctly, so did you.

It depends on whose money. If it's government money plundered from the taxpayer it's socialism. The kid going to the ER is paid for by the customers and stockholders of the hospital, not the taxpayers.

"Efficiency" is used to cover a lot of evils. I'm saying that spending $50 of the taxpayer's money on your straw man (the sick kid) only is efficient if you accept the socialistic premise that his health is the responsibility of the taxpayers anyway and it will cost the taxpayers $500 later on. If it costs his parents $500 then not spending the $50 isn't a problem for me. That is what parents are for, not to just squirt out children, but to take care of them as well.

Health care is a commodity, and if a sick person can't pay for health care, then look to private charity, but don't plunder what I worked for to pay for it. It isn't any different than any other commodity. You're distorting the whole argument by the handwringing emotional example of the "sick kid." What about the sick junkie who has abscesses from using dirty needles. I guarantee that one hell of a lot more ER admissions who can't or won't pay are from deadbeats who due to their lifestyles and stubborn persistence in poor life choices have health problems (abscesses, hep c etc.) and no money (all spent on dope or booze) than the hypothetical sick child.

52 posted on 07/15/2005 10:00:22 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
"The kid going to the ER is paid for by the customers and stockholders of the hospital, not the taxpayers."

That's your fallacy. The only ER's that have to provide indigent care are those that are publicly funded.

"You're distorting the whole argument by the handwringing emotional example of the "sick kid." What about the sick junkie who has abscesses from using dirty needles."

Did you choose not to read where I addressed this distinction in my original post to you on this topic? Or are you just choosing to ignore it now?

53 posted on 07/15/2005 10:26:55 AM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Just proving once again that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two halves of the redemopublicrat superparty.

Enough small government single issue voters are going to jump ship in 2008 to sink the GOP in many races. And it will be the fault of the neocons.
54 posted on 07/15/2005 10:29:29 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
The only ER's that have to provide indigent care are those that are publicly funded.

Not true. All have to provide emergency care

Did you choose not to read where I addressed this distinction in my original post to you on this topic? Or are you just choosing to ignore it now?

All I remember your saying on this is that we are going to have to accept indigent care.

55 posted on 07/15/2005 10:31:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
Enough small government single issue voters are going to jump ship in 2008 to sink the GOP in many races. And it will be the fault of the neocons

I'm not a single issue voter, and I'll probably vote libertarian. It's just that on all my issues there is not very much difference between the pubs and the dems. Gun control, government spending, illegal immigration - I don't see the pubs doing much conservative on these fronts.

56 posted on 07/15/2005 10:35:07 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
outlining a proposed $1 billion budget increase for next year that will put bulldozers to work on school, road and port construction projects across the state.

Translation: keeping corporations happy with taxpayer dollars.

57 posted on 07/15/2005 10:36:52 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
That's because neocons have taken over. Neocons want to spend like dems, but they say socially conservative things to keep the base happy. And they are pro-authoritarian statism.

I got neo-conned into voting Republican in 2000 because I believed the hype.
58 posted on 07/15/2005 10:40:12 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
That's because neocons have taken over. Neocons want to spend like dems, but they say socially conservative things to keep the base happy. And they are pro-authoritarian statism.

PRAVDA TOVARSCH! They've taken over these forums too in case you hadn't noticed.

59 posted on 07/18/2005 3:33:03 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
It's just that on all my issues there is not very much difference between the pubs and the dems. Gun control, government spending, illegal immigration - I don't see the pubs doing much conservative on these fronts.

Sadly, I agree with you. I voted for Sonny as a protest vote- never thinking he had a prayer of unseating a sitting Governor- but obviously, Barnes had offended enough voting blocks to get the boot, despite all the influence-peddling he indulged in. The joke down here- six hours away from the fever swamps of Hot-lanta, was "Roy Barnes? Why, he's the best Governor money can buy..."

While not as blatantly corrupt, Sonny seems to have no problem spending everybody else's money. My tagline is from a true story--

60 posted on 07/18/2005 3:41:59 AM PDT by backhoe ("It's so easy to spend someone else's money." [My Dad, circa 1958])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 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