Ray Haynes (R): Arnold Insists and Persists. Reform Is Necessary

ChronWatch ^ | Sept. 30, 2005 | Ray Haynes

[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.

[calcowgirl]

>>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!

[Amerigomag]

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.

[b9]

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?

[NormsRevenge]

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.

[NormsRevenge]

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

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[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. 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.

[FairOpinion]

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.

[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.

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.

[FairOpinion]

"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...

[NormsRevenge]

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.

[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?

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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[calcowgirl]

“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.

[FairOpinion]

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.

[NormsRevenge]

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.

[calcowgirl]

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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[calcowgirl]

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.