OK by me.
The columnists and state legislators are the ones who aren't serious.
Arnold is very serious.
Remember who is running this State. Not Arnold, but the legislature. All CRATS. Arnold is not a dictator and cannot pass bills alone. It takes the body of the legislature. He has moved slow in order to get some support of the CRATS. It's tough, but thats the Socialist State of California.
Two things are certain. 1) The column was approved by the editorial staff or it wouldn't have been published and 2) the advice wasn't offered to further conservative goals.
My guess is that McClatchy would like to see the Austrian stick around because, at heart, Schwarzenegger is a typical Eurowienie who will capitulate when "our" programs are threatened.
Arnold gave the Dems a chance to come on board, they didn't. So now he is going into his Terminator mode.
Here is Arnold's vision of CA's economy:
My Economic Policy
California needs someone to terminate taxes.
BY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
I have often said that the two people who have most profoundly impacted my thinking on economics are Milton Friedman and Adam Smith. At Christmas I sometimes annoy some of my more liberal Hollywood friends by sending them a gift of Mr. Friedman's classic economic primer, "Free to Choose." What I learned from Messrs. Friedman and Smith is a lesson that every political leader should never forget: that when the heavy fist of government becomes too overbearing and intrusive, it stifles the unlimited wealth creation process of a free people operating under a free enterprise system.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004058
Newsflash out of the "BOHEMIAN GROVE" eh??? Governator!
never forget that kalifornia is run by democrat trail lawyers and unions.
the gop evaporated.
I knew he was serious when I saw his administration float the proposal to reopen private prisons, and he started talking about merit pay for teachers. The teacher's and prison guard's unions are the most powerful and feared in the state, and taking them on is a sign that he's ready for a real fight. He may not be the best on the social issues, but he's starting to look like the kind of fiscal conservative we need. Time, of course, will tell.
A little reminder!
The 13% Solution
Tom McClintock
As printed in the Wall Street Journal
"Have you ever had to make serious cuts – 15 percent 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.
But if you're not willing to face those problems – if you paper over your debt by borrowing and continue to spend as if that debt didn’t exist -- those hard times will follow you far into the future.
State government is no different. And as the new administration decides which road it will take, it is important to understand the simple math of the state’s finances.
California’s current budget deficit is caused by two actions Davis took last year to paper over his mismanagement: he illegally tripled the car tax and he attempted to borrow $12.6 billion unconstitutionally.
Governor Schwarzenegger rescinded the illegal tax increase on his first day in office. It’s important to note the word "illegal." Not one of the conditions required to raise the car tax had been met, and it was only a matter of time before the courts ordered the money to be returned to taxpayers with interest. By acting now, he saved California from having a multi-billion dollar hole blown in a future budget by court order.
But repairing this problem requires that local governments be reimbursed for their losses. In addition, the courts have already invalidated $1.9 billion of 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.
It gets worse. The courts are also poised to strike down the additional $10.7 billion of borrowing in Davis' last budget. It is not a pleasant financial situation. But it is also not impossible.
If the current rate of state spending were reduced 13.4 percent on January 1st and frozen through Gov. Schwarzenegger's first budget, the state would be back in the black, free and clear of external debt, and able to start the Governor's second year in 2005 with a clean slate.
A 13.4 percent reduction would mean cutting $5.2 billion from this year’s budget before January 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. But it's still 15.2 percent more than California was spending when Gray Davis took office. And after 18 months of austerity, the Governor would be able to plan his second budget with $12 billion of breathing room in 2005 when revenues are projected to reach $78.6 billion.
Like a family that has faced its finances squarely and tightened its belt, California would be solidly back on its feet and looking toward a sunny future.
The alternative is to borrow the difference at heavy rates of interest over the next generation. Like a family that can’t bear to change its ways, it would end up dragging its financial difficulties into future years as it struggles to meet its current expenses and pay down a crushing credit card debt as well.
These are the two roads diverging in the budget woods and the choice that is made in coming weeks may well determine whether California has the fresh financial start it deserves, or whether the ghost of Davis' excesses stalks a generation to come."