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

Skip to comments.

Ray Haynes (R): Arnold Insists and Persists. Reform Is Necessary
ChronWatch ^ | Sept. 30, 2005 | Ray Haynes

Posted on 10/02/2005 2:32:17 PM PDT by FairOpinion

In January, the governor issued a challenge to the Legislature's Democrats: change how you do business, or I will change it for you. The Democrats yawned. They were sure that Schwarzenegger would cave. The Democrats had been in charge before he got there, and they would be in charge long after he was gone.

But a funny thing happened: Schwarzenegger didn't cave. How could that be, they asked, since he knows we are in charge. Schwarzenegger said: Tough: change is necessary. He said he would qualify initiatives, call a special election, and get the people to bring about change. The Democrats didn’t believe he would dare do such a thing.

To insure his failure, the Democrats got their union boss buddies to start picketing Schwarzenegger, who laughed at their endeavors. I actually attended a meeting where he said "You think a couple of union goons with picket signs is going to change me, you have got to be kidding. We are going to change this town." He ran out his initiatives and got them qualified.

The Democrats were shocked. He was supposed to give up. He wasn't supposed to qualify those initiatives. He wasn't supposed to call the special elections. They were outraged at his defiance toward their self-ordained authority.

So they went to their union boss buddies again, and had those unions run commercials on television. They were certain this would cause him to back off, give up, and cancel the special election.

He didn't. He called their bluff. They called him to negotiate. They indicated if he would allow them to change term limits, they would consider giving him a small portion of what he wanted. They said he could declare victory, but things would stay the same. He said no. He wanted real change.

They continued the attacks. Despite plummeting polls, the governor didn't flinch. Now, he is fighting back. This week he began his response.

His reform agenda is simple: control the public employee unions that control Sacramento, make sure spending matches revenue, make sure that teachers teach, and make sure that the legislature actually responds to the people that elect them, and not to the special interests in Sacramento.

Proposition 74 reforms the tenure system, the system that gives bad teachers a lifetime job, before we can figure out that they are bad teachers. Proposition 74 says: let's give teachers tenure after five years (instead of the current two), so school districts can figure out if they are bad before they give them a lifetime job.

Proposition 75 says union bosses cannot force state and local workers to pay them money for political causes the bosses like, but the workers don't. Today, every state and local government employee is forced to pay the union boss money, just like the communist party members in the old Soviet Union, as a condition of having a government job. As an example, the California Teachers Union has already assessed its membership additional dues sufficient to raise $50 million to fight these initiatives, whether the member agrees or disagrees is irrelevant. Proposition 75 says that the union boss has to get the employee's written agreement before he or she can spend their dues on some liberal cause. That only makes sense. It is the employee's money, and forcing them to pay for something they don't like is just plain wrong.

Proposition 76 says the state cannot spend more than it takes in. Well, duh, as my daughter would say. It also says that the governor can cut any program if the money doesn't come in. That is smart.

Finally, Proposition 77 says judges not politicians, will draw legislative districts. Politicians like to draw districts that guarantee themselves jobs and power. The idea is that judges will be a little bit more fair--since their job won't be at stake. It may not be perfect, but it is better than the current system.

One thing we know, the current system doesn't work. Reform is needed now. The governor's ideas make sense. They are at least worth a try.

About the Writer: Ray Haynes is the assemblyman for California's 66th Assembly District.


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: arnold; california; calinitiatives; prop74; prop75; prop76; prop77; propositions; rayhaynes; schwarzenegger; specialelection
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
Conservative Republican Ray Haynes is supporting Arnold's reform agenda.
1 posted on 10/02/2005 2:32:20 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GVgirl; calcowgirl; NormsRevenge; Amerigomag; Carry_Okie; Czar; doodlelady

Let's see, we have conservatives Tom McClintock, Ray Haynes, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association all supporting Arnold's reform agenda.

We have Democrat Angelides, who is running for Governor violently opposed to Arnold's reform agenda.

Then we have some FReepers, who are actively working AGAINST Arnold's agenda, especially, and including Prop. 76, CA "live within our means" spending cut initiative.

Where do you think they fit in within the political spectrum? They agree with Angelides, and disagree with proven conservatives like Tom McClintock and Ray Haynes. And yet they keep telling us they are conservatives. Now isn't this odd?


2 posted on 10/02/2005 2:38:07 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The Spirit of Proposition 76. Spend within our means...
by Anthony P. Archie

http://www.californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/Archie/20050930Archie76.html

Proposition 76, the Schwarzenegger-backed “Live Within Our Means” Act on the November ballot, might not inspire like the great works of Jefferson or Madison, but it shares the same underlying principle: government spending must be restrained.

Prop. 76 aims to control autopilot spending mandates and permit the governor to make mid-year expenditure cuts. With these provisions in place, California will see greater fiscal discipline and counteract increasing reliance on deficit spending. Since 2001, California’s expenditures have outpaced tax revenues, leaving the state with swelling deficits.

The budget crisis reached a boiling point in 2003 with a long-term, cumulative deficit of more than $38 billion—the worst deficit the state, or any state, had seen. California teetered at the brink of insolvency, with an abysmal credit rating lowered to just above junk bonds.

Since then, the situation has slightly improved (the credit rating moved up a step in July 2005 to just above Lithuania’s), but annual deficits loom. One factor driving perpetual deficits is the formulaic spending mandates that require categorical expenditure hikes regardless of the state’s fiscal health. While there are spending requirements for a number of social services, the biggest and most stringent is the education mandate prescribed in Prop. 98 passed by voters in 1988.

Prop. 98 requires that the state provide a minimum level of education funding in a given year and mandates that each year’s funding level be greater than the previous year’s allocation. Currently, education spending takes up the biggest slice of the budget pie—about 50 percent—with K-12 and community colleges receiving more than $50 billion in 2005-06, up 6.4 percent from 2004-05. Projections of Prop. 98 funding show that it will reach $62 billion by 2009: a 24 percent increase in four years.

Under state law, this mandate must be adhered to even when revenues cannot support it. Forced to fulfill the obligation, legislators often turn to sizable borrowing and tax hikes as it takes up more and more of the budget. While the mandates severely handicap state budgeting, legislators still have power to make discretionary cuts in the budget. Most lack the political will to do so.

Instead, they cave in to the demands of special interests, regardless of fiscal conditions. As always, taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab. Fed up with out-of-control spending and annual deficits, Governor Schwarzenegger pushed for a reform that would override the formulas.

Proposition 76 would still retain the Prop. 98 mandate, but it would tie education spending to available revenues by allowing for decreases during fiscal emergencies. Prop. 76 would also allow the governor to make discretionary mid-year expenditure cuts to balance the budget if the legislature cannot agree on cuts. This would decrease the need to raise taxes and force an evaluation of spending priorities.

Prop. 76 isn’t perfect, but it would infuse the state with greater and much-needed fiscal control. It will reduce the size and severity of budget problems, control autopilot spending, repay debts, and instill some fiscal responsibility on elected officials.

James Madison wrote: “In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” On November 8, California voters will choose whether they want to impose needed controls on state government through Proposition 76.


3 posted on 10/02/2005 2:39:52 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Then we have some FReepers, who are actively working AGAINST Arnold's agendats, especially, and including Prop. 76, CA "live within our means" spending cut initiative.

____

There , just needing a little modifycation.

Do you see anything negative at all in anything proposed,, Is it all as prefect as you make it out to be?

Is it now politically incorrect to question or start a discourse on issues or is this latest "you're not with the program" proptalk just being used to obscure what lies within the measures, in the fine print?

Blind voting is best done with braille ballots, those who just trust but don't verify are the ones you should "educating/indoctrinating", imo.

4 posted on 10/02/2005 2:46:02 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

agenda agents
5 posted on 10/02/2005 2:47:52 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Well, what does it make those who come down on the same side of important issues, such as cutting spending, as liberal leftist Democrat Angelides, and on opposite side from conservatives like Ray Haynes and Tom McClintock?

Next you will be telling me that socialist Bernie Sanders is a conservative. I am sure, if you asked him, he would be opposed to prop. 76 also.

People who agree with liberal leftists on important issues, such as spending cuts, are NOT conservatives.

I am on the same side as Arnold, Haynes, McClintock -- you and your pack are on the side of Angelides. So who is the conservative?

You make is sound, as if I were the lone opinion, when in fact I hold the same opinion as a lot of smart conservatives, including notable ones, such as above.


6 posted on 10/02/2005 3:03:00 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

LOL.. twist twist twist to serve your purpose,, the jig is up.

I love how you hug Tom so tightly NOW..


7 posted on 10/02/2005 3:08:25 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Next you will be telling me that socialist Bernie Sanders is a conservative. I am sure, if you asked him, he would be opposed to prop. 76 also.

-----



Have I said I would not support it?

Huh?

Even looking at the measures critically gets you agitated.


8 posted on 10/02/2005 3:13:45 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: FairOpinion

Ray Haynes is running for the Board of Equalization. ( I think he's being term-limited out of the assembly.) A good man. A worthy candidate.


10 posted on 10/02/2005 4:58:35 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"And yet they keep telling us they are conservatives. Now isn't this odd?"

Only to a GOP Big Tent RINO, liberal or moderate.

Conservatives always think for themselves. It's what distinguishes us from the denizens of the GOP Big Tent.

11 posted on 10/02/2005 5:00:32 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stickman65
Fiscally, wasn't clinton a better conservative than Bush?

No. Clinton left the country in peril, and now Bush has to fight a war.

12 posted on 10/02/2005 5:02:46 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Well, what does it make those who come down on the same side of important issues, such as cutting spending,

Proposition 76 has little to do with cutting spending. As its title implies, it has every thing to due with matching expenditures to revenues.

Three alternatives are available under Prop 76's formula. Under defined circumstances 1) the executive may unilaterally cut expenditures to match existing revenues, 2) the executive, with the approval of the electorate, may borrow to match existing expenditures or 3) the legislature, with the concurrence of the executive, may raise taxes to match existing expenditures.

Of the three alternatives available to Schwarzenegger he is unlikely to cut spending. Schwarzenegger has consistently increased spending and he has indicated his willingness to continue to increase spending, in the short term, using bonding as a revenue source if Prop 76 is approved. A Schwarzenegger's spokesperson has also indicated that Schwarzenegger will approve a tax increase, rather than cut spending, if Prop 76 fails.

Please do not be offended by this basic review of Prop 76. I am confident the Republican Party understands its language and implications. This review is offered instead to lurkers who might be swayed by the CAGOP's presentation. As to Schwarzenegger historical actions; he is what he is, regardless of his party affiliation or the lamentations of the CAGOP.

13 posted on 10/02/2005 5:59:43 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag; calcowgirl; Czar; Carry_Okie

" I am confident the Republican Party understands its language and implications."

====

Yes, they do. That's why the Republican party, along with conservatives like Ray Haynes, Tom McClintock and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are all supporting Prop 76.

The Democrats, Angelides, Amerigomag, calcowgirl, Czar, carry_okie are opposing it.

The reasons don't matter, only the bottom line votes. You and the Dems want to have it defeated. Conservatives want to have it passed. You just have to admit that you are no conservative.


14 posted on 10/02/2005 6:04:35 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; calcowgirl; NormsRevenge; Amerigomag
Refer to #11.

It's OK to admit you can't think for yourself, and have to follow the (R)-bot line.

You just don't get it. We are opposed to #76 simply because we do not trust Arnold. He will borrow and/or raise taxes before he will ever cut expenditures. He and his representatives have said as much.

There are some conservatives who are willing to throw the dice and bet that Arnold will do the right thing. We don't think he will. At bottom, that's the simple difference.

Try to grasp reality, won't you?

15 posted on 10/02/2005 6:12:50 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Get bent.
Join Arnold or join the darkside.

And no, I don't think Arnold's measures are perfect in every way.

I would rather see teachers NEVER get tenure. They should ALWAYS have to maintain high standards.

I would rather see Union dues outlawed altogether. Its time career union thugs stop exploiting the working class.

I would rather see the state spend LESS money than it takes in so Sacramento can start reducing the deficit and repay the bonds more quickly. And cut taxes.

I would rather see CLERGY, ECONOMISTS, or ROBOTS draw legislative districts than retired judges. But still, I'd rather see even practicing trial lawyers draw the districts over politicians.

So no, Arnold's measures aren't perfect, but they come close enough. Certainly a lot closer than your proposal of "business as usual".
16 posted on 10/02/2005 6:37:44 PM PDT by counterpunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Czar; FairOpinion
We are opposed to #76 simply because we do not trust Arnold.

It is not exactly that, for me. Mostly, I object to the borrowing. Also, this law, if passed, will be in place for many years. The Governor's office will not always be held by an (R). Therefore, one must consider what the changes being made would do, not only tomorrow, but with a (D) in control. Even someone who trusts that Arnold will do the right thing tomorrow, may find the changes not to their liking if a Dem were in power.

The continued effort by FO to quell discussion on items included in this Proposition, other than the mid-year reductions, makes me even more suspicious as to it's implications. Instead of responding to the concerns I have posted by actually discussing the issues, I have been told that it is supported by Arnold, HJTA, Haynes, McClintock, etc. While noted, I've never been much of a follower; I'd rather conclude things on my own. If it is good law, it should be able to withstand scrutiny, IMO.

17 posted on 10/02/2005 6:49:20 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

Thanks for saying it a whole lot better than most!


18 posted on 10/02/2005 6:53:01 PM PDT by seenenuf (Progressives are a threat to my children!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
"It is not exactly that, for me. Mostly, I object to the borrowing."

Mostly, I object to everything except cutting expenditures which, of course is not what Arnold can be trusted to do. Nor, down the line, anyone else with a (D) after his name.

I agree with your other points.

19 posted on 10/02/2005 6:56:06 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

>>Then we have some FReepers, who are actively working AGAINST Arnold's agenda, especially, and including Prop. 76, CA "live within our means" spending cut initiative.


I wouldn't call it working "AGAINST", F.O. It's not like we're out running ads or standing with "No on 76" signs on the street corner. What I'm trying to determine is if the benefits outweigh the flaws--or, if it's another screw-job like George Deukmejian gave us in 1990 with Proposition 111 that obliterated the Gann Spending Limit, hyping it as the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act." That measure was backed by... guess who? The California Small Business PAC--the same folks backing this measure.


20 posted on 10/02/2005 6:56:49 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Czar

>>Mostly, I object to everything except cutting expenditures ...

Me too! That is what is so ridiculous about the argument that those asking questions are "against spending cuts". That is the ONE part we all seem to be in agreement on!


21 posted on 10/02/2005 7:02:47 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
The Democrats, Angelides, Amerigomag, calcowgirl, Czar, carry_okie are opposing it.

Not necessarily.

For my part, I clearly offered that utilizing the avenues available under Prop 76, either a Democrat administration or Schwarzenegger's administration will likely emphasize raising taxes or borrowing, instead of reducing expenditures, contrary to the presentation of the CAGOP.

Others Freepers targeted by the CAGOP have simply reminded forum members that Prop 76 is redundant. Existing legislation, which both the Democrats and Schwarzenegger's administration have chosen to ignore, offers authority under the code, to force matching expenditures to revenues.

Another target has pointed out that Schwarzenegger purposely skirted these existing safeguards when he successfully promoted the legal substitution of borrowed monies for tax revenues to meet General Fund obligations. Again thwarting the already established legislation by expanding definitions. Now that the Prop 57 funds are nearly exhausted, the CAGOP is urging the electorate to authorize more bonding to meet General Fund obligations.

22 posted on 10/02/2005 7:06:02 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Do you see anything negative at all in anything proposed,, Is it all as prefect as you make it out to be?

Here's a new license pL8 for ya, Norm.

YB NEG8F

Much like the mainstream media
who hollers, whines and screams
at every candle in the darkness,
so do you, it seems.

You say it's not constructive
to believe what leaders urge.
If Tom's your guy, then why oh why,
his prop supports you purge?

23 posted on 10/02/2005 7:16:21 PM PDT by b9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

Get bent.

---

close enough

---

my my

btw, You don't know what I will vote for or against. If you infer things from my posts, then I guess I'll salvage what I can from your reaction as having had some effect , be it limited or willing to see sides other than you think are in evidence so far..

You are apparently offended by critical analysis and opinion that differs and arrives at conclusions other that what match your perceived ideas of what is being offered and "guaranteed" in some of the measures on the upcoming ballot..

Thanks for using the broad brush, nice touch, I am sure others aren't "offended" by the contents of some of your post to me either.


24 posted on 10/02/2005 8:12:14 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

LOL..

I see you have met the latest rendition of the Islamic wing of the CA GOP ? ;-)

Your infidels , indoctrinate or perish..

Tom is one of ours now.

lolol


25 posted on 10/02/2005 8:13:52 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Then we have some FReepers, who are actively working AGAINST Arnold's agenda, especially, and including Prop. 76, CA "live within our means" spending cut initiative.

Another of your typical twisted spin jobs. It is absolutely false to call this a spending cut iniative when its provisions include tax increases under the auspices of an emergency.

I am pro on 73, 74, 75, and (reluctantly) 77. I am against 76, 78, and 79. That hardly makes me reflexively against Arnold's agenda, no matter how you would like to claim otherwise.

Where do you think they fit in within the political spectrum? They agree with Angelides, and disagree with proven conservatives like Tom McClintock and Ray Haynes. And yet they keep telling us they are conservatives. Now isn't this odd?

To say that those against Prop 76 because it constrains spending too little constitutes agreeing with Angelides who complains that it constrains spending too much is the height of dishonesty, because you know that distinction and don't care as long as you think you can get away with the misattribution.

But dishonesty has never stopped you before, so why should we take heed of you now.

Seeing as you have campigned relentlessly against conservatives and conservative positions (McClintock was AGAINST Arnold's 57 and 58, both of which you supported), you have no claim of authority to decide who is or isn't a conservative. I have no idea why they are supporting Prop. 76 and don't care. My reading of it and the LAO's opinion, having nothing to do with either of their expressed opinions, is all that has led me to decide against it. Neither Arnold, nor McClintock figured into my decision, although I did give it a more careful read because of the latter's support.

Further, you still haven't answered my posts from either this morning or yesterday, or many times before. It's been cut and run on your part, as usual. Your citations of Reagan are neither exception nor response, just more blowing smoke. The miniscule differences between he and conservatives in that day are inapplicable compared to the vast gulf between Arnold and conservatives today. Reagan raised taxes all right, but he cut the growth in spending, as opposed to Arnold increasing that rate of spending growth by 50%. There is no legitimate comparison.

26 posted on 10/02/2005 9:52:18 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You can write volumes of excuses, but none of that changes the bottom line, that your vote is the same, as that of the Democrats and Angelides: AGAINST SPENDING CUTS. You are voting WITH the Democrats, AGAINST the Republicans and conservatives. When they count the votes, there are only TWO possibilities: yes or no.

The Republican party, along with conservatives like Ray Haynes, Tom McClintock and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Arnold and I are all supporting Prop 76.

The Democrats, Angelides, Amerigomag, calcowgirl, Czar, carry_okie are opposing it.


27 posted on 10/02/2005 9:57:42 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; Carry_Okie; Amerigomag; Czar; NormsRevenge
Tom McClintock on the propositions (CA special election)

"Proposition 76: State Spending. Should government live within its means? YES. This measure restores the authority that the governor of California had between 1939 and 1983 to make mid-year spending cuts whenever spending outpaces revenue without having to return to the legislature.

28 posted on 10/02/2005 10:16:20 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
You can write volumes of excuses, but none of that changes the bottom line, that your vote is the same, as that of the Democrats and Angelides: AGAINST SPENDING CUTS.

Prop 76 does little to cut spending and in fact, may increase it. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office:

In years in which revenues increased sharply, the elimination of the maintenance factor provisions would result in less growth in the minimum funding guarantee for K-14 education than would be the case under current law. (The Legislature could, however, choose to raise funding for schools by overappropriating the minimum guarantee.)

In short, the legislature could over-ride the spending limits of Prop. 76 and build in yet MORE structural expenditures which is EXACTLY what Davis did to get us into the fiscal mess we are in today.

But, couldn’t the legislature cut those “one time increases”? Prop. 76 says no:

In years in which revenues fell, however, Test 3 would no longer be operative, and thus the minimum guarantee would not be reduced automatically. This could result in higher funding for K-14 education in certain years. (The Legislature, however, could still reduce K-14 education funding through suspension, and Proposition 98 would also be subject to gubernatorial reductions that could occur under the circumstances discussed above.)

If K-14 funding were not reduced during revenue downturns, more of the solutions to any budget shortfall would need to come from either (1) deeper spending reductions to non-Proposition 98 programs or (2) new revenues to cover budgetary imbalances.

Gosh FO, that looks like Proposition 76 contains structural means to increase taxes while accomplishing little to reduce spending. It isn’t even as tight as were the Gann spending limits that are STILL ON THE BOOKS.

You call that SPENDING CUTS, which is par for your level of integrity.

29 posted on 10/02/2005 10:21:42 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

"You call that SPENDING CUTS, which is par for your level of integrity."


===

There you go, impuning the integrity of Tom McClintock and Ray Haynes again...


30 posted on 10/02/2005 10:24:57 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Does Prop 76 also includes raising revenue thru taxes as well if the Gub determines it "necessary"?


And can you guarantee that that it won't, if not specifically mentioned?

That should be a last resort right up there with no additional borrrowing.


31 posted on 10/02/2005 10:24:57 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Why don't you look at what the situation is NOW, when the entire CA budget is shackled by the idiotic and tremendously damaging Prop 98 provisions. I gues you prefer that?

I guess you really WANT tax increases, because if Prop 76 won't pass, that will be the only option left, as Arnold pointed it out.

The most important impact of Prop 76 is that it takes out the sting of Prop 98, giving more flexibility to allocation within the budget.


32 posted on 10/02/2005 10:27:55 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
There you go, impuning the integrity of Tom McClintock and Ray Haynes again...

I will quote the LAO every time you call Prop. 76 a spending cut measure. We'll see if your slander or my sourced information carries the day.

33 posted on 10/02/2005 10:28:17 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Why don't you look at what the situation is NOW, when the entire CA budget is shackled by the idiotic and tremendously damaging Prop 98 provisions. I gues you prefer that?

Prop 76 FINANCES past Prop 98 commitments over fifteen years to make certain they get paid. It does NOTHING to eliminate Prop 98 guarantees.

34 posted on 10/02/2005 10:29:51 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
“My relationship to power and authority is that I’m all for it,” he once explained. “People need somebody to watch over them.... Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger, U.S. News & World Report, Nov 26, 1990
When are you going to get it, FO? I'm one of the 5% that can think on my own. I don't need anyone to follow or tell me how to vote. That goes for you, Arnold, the CAGOP, and McClintock.

I agree with the one positive part of Proposition 76 that McClintock has chosen to highlight. As I have told you in numerous other posts, it is the other provisions in the law that I have a problem with.

35 posted on 10/02/2005 10:30:57 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

There are only TWO conclusions to come to: YES or NO on Prop. 76.

Well, your "independent" thought process parallels that of the Democrats, since you and they came to the same conclusion: NO on Prop. 76, the "live within our means" measure.


My independent thought process lead me to the same conclusion as Republicans, conservatives, including Tom McClintock and Ray Haynes: YES on Prop. 76, to limit spending.


36 posted on 10/02/2005 10:35:25 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

It slows the rate of growth of expenditures.

It uses formulas that will make legislators and Governors act responsible when it comes to our tax monies.

It grants powers back to a Governor that he will use appropriately and thus have more flexibility in dealing with budgetary crises.

You have a lot more faith than I do that all 3 of the above are either 100% true or implementable.

I really do tire of you and your Milk (moderate ilk), telling us it's a sure thing, and then trying to lay a guilt trip on folks that have concerns or don't follow lockstep over the cliff like lemmings.

That's what really TAXES me of late, if you get my drift..

Have a good one , a little over 5 weeks to the election.


37 posted on 10/02/2005 10:38:20 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I guess you really WANT tax increases, because if Prop 76 won't pass, that will be the only option left, as Arnold pointed it out.

And there you have it folks. The CAGOP apologist line. The excuse to raise taxes.

It is BULL, F.O. The option is to CUT SPENDING. That is what Arnold was elected to do and he has failed miserably! He has a veto pen. He was given $15 Billion of one-time, cut-up-the-credit-cards borrowing to help cushion the blow and he has spent most of that like a drunken sailor.

As C.O. just pointed out, the LAO analysis shows that the changes to Prop 98 language included in Prop 76 will actually result in increased funding in lower revenue years.

Did you forget this?

Hugh Hewitt: Now Prop. 76, the companion initiative, goes after state spending, and part of that is school funding. Are you proposing to cut school funding?

Schwarzenegger: No, no. We never want to cut anything. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. We want to increase funding for education, because as you know, I'm an education Governor.


38 posted on 10/02/2005 10:40:03 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Well, your "independent" thought process parallels that of the Democrats, since you and they came to the same conclusion: NO on Prop. 76, the "live within our means" measure.

If two people come to the same conclusion for diametric reasons, to portray that as a "parallel thought process" is a damnable lie.

39 posted on 10/02/2005 10:41:51 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

And you voted for the same Governor that Lockyer did.
What does that say about you, by your own standards?

Personally, I prefer to vote on principles. Mine are conservative.


40 posted on 10/02/2005 10:42:08 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; FairOpinion
If two people come to the same conclusion for diametric reasons, to portray that as a "parallel thought process" is a damnable lie.

Ditto that!

41 posted on 10/02/2005 10:44:03 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

When the votes are counted they count the YES and NO votes. PERIOD.

You are voting NO, against the ONLY chance to reform California. Your reason doesn't matter, your vote will be added with all the other "NO"-s. It will make the Democrats very happy.

No matter how much you try to wiggle, you can't get away from these facts.


42 posted on 10/02/2005 10:47:57 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
...the ONLY chance to reform California.

My, F.O. You're sounding so melodramatic! lol.

This is far from the "only chance" and I would argue that the ballot measures do little to "reform California." But you and Sara Berhardt can carry on!

43 posted on 10/02/2005 10:53:34 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Recommendation of CA Democratic Party:

VOTE NO on Proposition 76

Recommendation of calcowgirl:

VOTE NO on Proposition 76





Recommendation of Republican Party, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom McClintock, Ray Haynes:

VOTE YES on Proposition 76

Recommendation of FairOpinion:

VOTE YES on Proposition 76



44 posted on 10/02/2005 11:06:34 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; NormsRevenge; Carry_Okie; calcowgirl; FOG724; Amerigomag; Czar
I guess I'll hafta say it again:

To: FairOpinion

Now stop that! Those subtle slurs just make you come off as silly! Really !!!

Anybody that marries up with ANY politician is soon going to have their heart broken badly. Most of us here try to align with principles that are good for Californians, especially Conservative Californians!

It grieves us whenever anyone, especially anyone claiming to be a Republican violates good principles and practices and especially uses whatever position they have to appoint liberal Democrats to high office.

Even more grievious is to find FReepers such as you clinging to the slightest conceivable conservative action by a Governor that deliberately swings from left to right and back again before even turning the page of his script... Whew!!!

12 posted on 10/02/2005 11:03:33 PM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)

45 posted on 10/03/2005 8:23:35 AM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"Now isn't this odd?"

Not at all! What's odd is your take/spin/rationalization!!!

Can't you be honest and see that Arnold has blown it so badly that these other two conservatives are whistling in the dark in fear that the entire CAGOP is going down in flames with the "Terminator!!!"

It's far too late to salvage any Schwartzenegger moves... Stick a fork in 'em! They're DONE!!! Hasta La Vista... Baby!!! Turn out the lights... The Party's over!!!

Thanks, Terminator. Now go to MN and apologize to Jesse Ventura that you really couldn't do any better as Governor than he did!!! That's the whole deal that's been going on here at OUR EXPENSE!!! Shame on you F.O.

46 posted on 10/03/2005 8:32:54 AM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; calcowgirl; SierraWasp; NormsRevenge; Carry_Okie
"Recommendation of FairOpinion: VOTE YES on Proposition 76"

So far, we've established that you are not a conservative, cannot think for yourself, and endlessly repeat the same phrases much like a parrot.

What we haven't established yet is exactly why you are so driven to defend Arnold and Prop. 76.

I'll just take a wild guess that: (1) you are employed as a teacher or staff in the school system; or, (2) you are employed by the CTA; or, (3) you work for Duf Sundheim and the CRP, or are otherwise associated with it; or, (4) you are a state employee or consultant.

Which is it?

47 posted on 10/03/2005 1:17:44 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
... Then we have some FReepers, who are actively working AGAINST Arnold's agenda

The ilk? They're in complete cohoots with the demonratz, liberalz and unionz. They won't be happy until the demon's again own the executive and FR is further neutralized.

48 posted on 10/03/2005 1:21:57 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
I remind you Wasp that FairOpinion is simply the name of an account at Free Republic. It isn't necessarily even a person.

In this case it might well have been a simple media buy the California party made in 2002 as they sought to expand their big tent. The party may assign different people to this account from time to time or might even split the work into three shifts as an election nears.

Who knows!

49 posted on 10/03/2005 3:59:49 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
"Who knows!"

You know... I hadn't even thought about that!!! Shazzam!!!

Do ya spose that's why the responses are so robotical and knee jerky? Oh! And Predictable???

I think you're on to something!!!

50 posted on 10/03/2005 4:21:57 PM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 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