CA: This is the party of small government?

North County Times ^ | January 27, 2006 | RAY HAYNES

[calcowgirl]

Ray Haynes represents the 66th Assembly District, including portions of Western Riverside County and Northern San Diego County.

I joined the Republican Party a little bit later than most, as a direct result of the messages I heard from Ronald Reagan. When I began my own business, I discovered that most of the things I had been taught in college about government were wrong. As Ronald Reagan said and I quickly learned, government was a lot like a baby: a large appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

I could find precious few government agencies that accomplished their actual mission, and none that did so efficiently. I came to the conclusion that the only way society could actually cure its ills and satisfy its needs was by finding some way other than through government bureaucracy.

The problem is that government eats up so much money. For that reason, when someone wants to help the poor through a private charity, or educate their child in a setting other than a government run school, or tries to pay for his or her own health care, that person is taking care of the problem with the crumbs from the government table.

The bureaucrats and politicians eat so much, and provide so little, that they actually hurt the people they are trying to help, and those who are actually helping struggle to find the resources to do the job. The only way to solve society's problems was to starve the government monster, and let society fill in with the resources left over. The Republicans were the only one talking about starving the monster.

What a difference a revolution makes. The party of small government seems to have forgotten its roots. I don't wish to be too critical of my party in Congress or the governor of this state, but if the Republicans are the party of small government, I sure don't want to see the "party of big government." With all due respect to those who are making the spending decisions in Washington and Sacramento, they are not exercising a whole lot of restraint.

I understand the temptation. There is not much of a constituency for less spending. Whenever someone tries to restrain spending on any program, those who make money off the program howl, and the good people of society who pay for the program are silent (and therefore seem unappreciative). And, much like the mama pig who satisfies that piglet that bleats the loudest, the politician satisfies the dogs that howl at the budget door for more money.

Of course, the politician also benefits from this transaction. Politicians obtain and maintain power by granting or withholding the benefits of big government. In fact, it is really hard to determine who the prostitute and the "john" are in this relationship since both the politician and the recipient of government largesse exchange money, power and benefits, while the taxpayer gets the business end of the transaction.

The justification for this scheme is the great benefits the government provides to the taxpayer for the money it takes, but most taxpayers know exactly what they are getting from the politician and the recipient of government largesse, and they are not happy about it.

Since he took office, Gov. Schwarzenegger has increased spending in the state by $22 billion, exactly the same as Gray Davis did in his first two years in office. The Republican-controlled Congress increased spending by 33 percent since 2000. Neither of these trends is a good thing, either for the country, for the state or for our party.

The problem is big government. Republicans promised they would starve the monster. They are not.

We are supposed to be different than them. We had better start proving it.

[calcowgirl]

A little birdie told me that. :}

A little birdie^NM?

[UCANSEE2]

Thanks for posting the article.

Since he took office, Gov. Schwarzenegger has increased spending in the state by $22 billion, exactly the same as Gray Davis did in his first two years in office. The Republican-controlled Congress increased spending by 33 percent since 2000. Neither of these trends is a good thing, either for the country, for the state or for our party.

The question is what did the increases in spending go toward? Were there decreases in political corruption, and were there increases for public benefit?

Were the increases possibly a result of the fact that there have been increases in population, and natural disasters?

Or does this author just do like all the MSM and use selective math to slander public officials?

[UCANSEE2]

No. He is tranferring responsibility for atmospheric pollution to 'responsible' public and government industry, and removing it from the general public.

It is not a panic of buying into the global warming/cooling b.s.

It is doing something that will have long term benefits for the public.

Or would you rather that Arnold be like a certain gov. of Louisiana and lojack your money for her plantation?

[ElkGroveDan]

Or does this author just do like all the MSM and use selective math to slander public officials?

This author is not MSM. He is a longtime conservative Republican legislator. He served in the State Senate for eigth years and is in his fifth year in the Assembly.

He is correct. Arnold is spending like a liberal drunken sailor. Right now his rate of spending is about identical to his predecessor who was recalled for fiscal irresponsibility.

[calcowgirl]

It is not a panic of buying into the global warming/cooling b.s.

Really?

"Today, California will be a leader in the fight against global warming . . . I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat and we know the time for action is now. Global warming, pollution and the burning of fossil fuels that caused it are threats we see here in California and everywhere around the world . . . We have no choice but to meet this challenge."

- Arnold Schwarzenegger, speaking at World Environment Day
San Francisco City Hall, June 1, 2005
Source

[calcowgirl]

The question is what did the increases in spending go toward? Were there decreases in political corruption, and were there increases for public benefit?

Decrease in political corruption? You have to be kidding! The skill is being well honed of late. "Public Benefit"? Is that kinda like the "for the Public Good"?

Were the increases possibly a result of the fact that there have been increases in population, and natural disasters?

Population is up about 4%. Spending is up over 20%.

Or does this author just do like all the MSM and use selective math to slander public officials?

The author quotes facts about out of control government spending and you call it slander? The guy is an Assemblyman that sits on both the Budget and Appropriations committees. I'd say he is well versed in the subject at hand.

[Alia]

You raise good points. The more I dig into what is going on in the "real" world, as in business, nationally and internationally, the more I see. And the more I understand some of the moves that are labeled by some as "rhino" or whatnot. Without a doubt, the world is moving into a newer economy -- ways of trading and dealing with each other. Isolationist policies are just plain stupid. There is so much more going on and generally not on the "front pages" but in the business section which provide glimpses into the whys of policies and "bottom lines".

[Alia]

I think you are both wrong. Newer "party" systems are only useful in "how they can be used". It's like.. investing in Bluechip stock versus high risk. Good to have a balanced mix of the two. Greenies, Libertarians, Socialist Parties have no leadership. Without leadership, there can be no "negotiations".

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Mojave]

Since he took office, Gov. Schwarzenegger has increased spending in the state by $22 billion, exactly the same as Gray Davis did in his first two years in office.

Who could have guessed that would happen?

/sarcasm

[Alia]

Ray Haynes is a good guy.

However, yours: "The question is what did the increases in spending go toward? Were there decreases in political corruption, and were there increases for public benefit?"

Bingo. In order for the United States of America to complete in the newer "market place" it's got to be competitive. Yes, things have changed that much. More and more countries, having freedom, have markets now on the international score card. To attract certain markets to residency in the US, infrastructure must be resident, operational, and enticing. But more importantly, American businesses need the infracture to ENSURE they can market on time, safely, on domestic and foreign markets. If they can't drive the product out due bad roads, those products are going to be exported or distributed in timely manners.

Over past many years, far too many American companies found equity in building and locating in foreign countries. So, there's a cross-hairs between the small, local business (which is good) and competition on the largest market.

Socialists advocate isolationist policies but only for the U.S.

[ndt]

"The question is what did the increases in spending go toward? Were there decreases in political corruption, and were there increases for public benefit?"

How can decreasing political corruption account for an increase in spending when the result of political corruption is usually pork projects.

As for "increases for public benefit", you are treading dangerously close to the liberal definition of the "role of government".

[John Lenin]

You must have forgotten about Ross Perot. Arnold ran a similar campaign and got elected in the largest state in the country.

[calcowgirl]

Unfortunately, spending increases have NOT been the result of infrastructure.

Since they have neglected infrastructure needs (and maintenance) for years, the administration now proposes borrowing to accomplish that task and imposing more fees on businesses and citizens. This is not the path to economic success.

[BlackbirdSST]

I believe the two party system is on it's last legs.

I'd be impressed if there were two party's to begin with. Blackbird.

[Hank Rearden]

I believe the two party system is on it's last legs.

I think so, too. I find more and more people either don't care, ignore it or vote third-party.

I sure don't donate to, work for or vote for the two Big Stupid Goverment parties. America deserves better; more and more people are either getting a clue or sitting on the sidelines, getting on with their lives.

The Republican Party needs to go the way of the Whigs - it's demonstrated through its actions that it's just a pack of useless big-government liars spending and controlling our country into bankruptcy, not liberty. We don't need more election cycles to see if they'll fix themselves. They won't.

[John Lenin]

Social Security is in crisis. Paying Social Security’s promised benefits over the next 75 years will require $5.7 trillion more than the existing payroll tax provides, and raising taxes by that amount would reduce employment, slow economic growth, and devastate working families.

Social Security, however, is not the gravest fiscal crisis that America faces. The 2005 Medicare trustees’ report estimates that providing promised Medicare benefits over just the next 10 years could require over $2.7 trillion in new tax revenues. Raising taxes by that amount would eliminate almost 816,000 jobs per year, on average, and shave an average of nearly $87 billion from the real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) between 2006 and 2015. Even worse, the Medicare trustees project that providing promised Medicare benefits over the next 75 years would require $29.9 trillion in new tax revenues. Raising taxes to meet Medicare’s 75-year shortfall would cost an average of 2.3 million jobs and well over $190 billion in real GDP annually through 2015.

Historically, lawmakers have confronted new federal spending with tax increases. The economic costs of addressing Medicare in this way are, to say the least, prohibitive.

This is where we are headed towards in the future.