Posted on 01/13/2006 2:12:36 PM PST by calif_reaganite
Statement on the Governor’s Budget Proposal for 2006-2007
Today the Governor released his budget proposal for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.
It projects general fund spending of $97.9 billion with income of $91.5 billion, for a general fund operating deficit of $6.4 billion. This brings the accumulated three year operating deficit to $9.8 billion.
This deficit is funded entirely with borrowed funds from Proposition 57, approved by voters in 2004. Although the public was promised that this bond would only be used to pay for past deficits, it is in fact being used to cover deficits for 2004 ($0.6 billion), 2005 ($2.9 billion) and now 2006 ($6.4 billion).
In November, the Legislative Analyst projected that if nothing were done to rein in spending, the 2006 budget would consume $95.1 billion. The governor proposes spending $2.8 billion above this figure.
In the last three years, combined population and inflation will have grown 16 percent; revenues 19 percent; spending 25 percent. For the budget year, combined population and inflation will increase 4 percent; revenues 5 percent; spending 9 percent. Revenues continue to outpace inflation and population; spending continues to outpace revenues.
I have always applied two fundamental tests to a budget: it must be balanced within existing revenues and it must contain a prudent reserve. The proposal as submitted to the legislature fails both tests.
bttt
Glad to see him coming out on the budget in this manor. The other day I heard snipets of an interview where he addressed the massive spending bonds Schwarzenegger wants to float. The part I heard sounded as if Tom wasn't that opposed to those bonds. I hope that was an incorrect impression.
Really wish Cali had elected this man. He's the only one who seems to actually think, and do so consistantly. But hey, that's life, and I don't live there, so who am I to say?
Here's a link to Tom's recent position on bonds (December) that might help clarify.
He makes very specific distinctions.
Bond Bombshell - A column by Senator Tom McClintock
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543717/posts
He is the MAN.
We all should support him in CA.
McClintock needs the CAGOP to run an effective campaign this year. His silence and/or tacit support of measures on the November ballot were easily explained by pressure/threats brought to bear by the CAGOP if he didn't cooperate. The spin from the party that he actually believed in some of the dirty tricks the party was fronting for Wilson/Schwarzenegger fell on my deaf ears. A brief review of his outspoken objections to such shenanigans just weeks earlier, made the spin just that: spin.
So why has McClintock now become vocal, turned "traitor" or jumped ship? Ostensibly he still needs the CAGOP's blessing and support to win in November.
The possibilities are endless but these three are at the top of my list:
1) McCLintock is well aware that the CAGOP will eventually turn on him, after his usefulness is gone (selling the "reforms" to conservatives), as they have done to many conservatives and he pragmatically realizes the no amount of booth licking will change the course of events.
2) McClintock is becoming increasingly aware that Schwarzenegger will not survive, either within the CAGOP or with the electorate in November, and McClintock is just trying to salvage someting conservative out of the Schwarzenegger debacle, using his typically undiplomatic style.
3) McClintock calculates that he might be better off to "go it alone" this summer in view of the considerable damage the CAGOP has done to their reputation supporting Schwarzenegger's failed agendas. Just as Schwarzenegger has distanced himself from the CAGOP, so will McClintock. He'll run as a "reformer", not a partisan.
I'm guessing number 3.
I recall being very impressed with the things I heard from Mr. McClintock during the California recall election. It made me wish I still lived in California so that I could vote for him.
Definate Presidential material there.
I like it too. If nothing more than for the symbolism it represents. But where will he get his money and "neighborhood warriors"?
Maybe us?
Buried behind the various bills introduced in the legislature for the $222 Billion infrastructure plan the other day... was McClintock, introducing a new Constitutional Amendment re: Eminent Domain.
SCA 20 ... Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act of 2006
SCA 20, as introduced, McClintock Eminent domain: condemnation
proceedings.
The California Constitution authorizes governmental entities to
take or damage private property for public use only when just
compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been
paid to, or into court for, the owner. It also authorizes the
Legislature to provide for possession by the condemnor following
commencement of the eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court,
and prompt release to the owner, of the money determined by the
court to be the probable amount of the just compensation.
This measure would further provide that private property may be
taken or damaged only for a stated public use and not without the
consent of the owner for purposes of economic development, increasing
tax revenue, or any other private use, nor for maintaining the
present use by a different owner. The measure would also require that
the property be owned and occupied by the condemnor, except as
specified, and used only for the stated public use.
This measure would also provide that if the property ceases to be
used for the stated public use, the former owner would have the right
to reacquire the property for its fair market value. This measure
would further require a county assessor, upon property being so
reacquired, to appraise that property for purposes of property
taxation at its adjusted base year value as had been last determined
at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor.
This measure would define "just compensation" for purposes of
condemnation and specify the showing required in an action
challenging the validity of a taking.
Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
EMINENT DOMAIN: The National Grange supports legislation to prohibit the federal government from exercising its power of eminent domain to be used for private economic development. Any state or political subdivision that exercises the power of eminent domain for private economic development shall be ineligible for any federal economic development funds for any purposes for at least two years.
Thank you. I'll check it out later. Sounds good...
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.