Posted on 08/25/2006 12:15:55 AM PDT by FairOpinion
From the beginning of his time in government, California’s Democrat candidate for Governor, Phil Angelides has never met a government program he didn’t like, or tax that he thought was too high.
In the midst of the energy crisis, he proposed a complete government takeover of the electricity system. During the budget crisis, his contribution to the spending problem was to renegotiate state bonds to obtain a payment holiday. In other words, for two years we did not pay off any of the principal while interest accrued. That is Phil Angelides way of “saving” the state money. In the end, state taxpayers ended up spending more money, and getting no relief, as Angelides tried to paper over the state’s deficit. You and I are still paying for his ill-considered solution to the deficit.
During his primary campaign against State Controller, Steve Westly, he proposed tax increases to close the deficit he worked so hard to create and perpetuate. He claimed that the state could not cut any government programs, and that the only way to solve the state’s continuing fiscal crises was to raise taxes on you and me. Even though state spending was $57 billion just seven years ago, and $79 billion just two years ago, State Treasurer Angelides believes our $101 billion general fund budget is not adequate enough to deal with the state’s problems.
For example, when I joined the Legislature 14 years ago, the state spent approximately $6,000 per student in 2006 inflation adjusted dollars to educate our children. This year, we are spending well over $10,000 per student, over 70% increase in spending per student in the last 14 years. Angelides believes that 70% more is not enough.
In 1998, the state was spending approximately $20 billion on health and welfare. Last year that number was $34 billion. Another 70% increase.
Then he did a poll. Tax increases are not popular. Angelides said he only wants to tax the rich, not the middle class, but most people are smarter than that. They know that if a politician is eager to raise taxes on one group of people, it is only matter of time before their taxes will go up as well.
What is a big government liberal to do, when the old liberal line of “tax the rich” is not working? Resort to the old Bill Clinton line—tax cuts for the middle class. So, this week, Mr. Angelides proposed an increase in the deduction for dependents; a whopping $200 for a middle class family with kids. See, he says, “I’m not taxing you. I am cutting your taxes. It is safe to vote for me.”
Except it is really bad fiscal policy. If the state increases taxes on the rich, they move to Florida or Texas, or some other state where they don’t tax income. Since rich people pay over 30% of our taxes, government revenue will go down and if these rich folks move to another state. Their employees pay income taxes and they pay thousands in sales taxes that are not directly attributable to them. In addition, most of these rich people own businesses that have employees who pay income taxes.
If these rich people start moving out of California, and taking their money and their businesses with them, the state will never be able to give anyone a tax cut. The Angelides budget will look an awful lot like the Davis budget; lots of red ink and a fiscal crisis of epic proportion.
He thinks it is good politics though. We all hate rich people. So, if he punishes rich people for being rich, Angelides thinks, we might actually vote for him. Good pandering, bad policy. It’s not worth the risk.
( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
See my post on the other thread -- same answer.
Arnold is NOT emperor to do anything he wants.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689690/posts?page=4#4
( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
Arnold is impotent. Why do we disagree on this? Did Sumner Redstone get to you too?
For the tenmillionth time: we have a choice between Arnold and Angelides.
Arnold has been curtailng the leftist agenda of the CA Legislature, he refused to raise taxes, vetoed some significant Legislations passed, such as drivers license for illegals, homosexual marriage bill, Arnold to the workers comp bill passed, helping CA businesses, he vetoed the burder of requiring businesses to provide health insurance for their employees, etc. Arnold vetoed some 35% of the bills passed by the Legislature.
Angelides is on record that he can hardly wait to sign the bills Arnold vetoed.
So while you keep railing against Arnold, do you really want Angelides to rubberstamp all the leftist Dem Legislature's bills and totally destroy CA?
Arnold vetoes some 35% of the bills passed by the CA Legislature.
Wow!! 35%!!! Our President must veto that much from the Congress.
It's funny, I think Arnold is way to liberal, but, when you consider the alternative....So, yes, I will vote for him.
As a side note, I'm planning on voting for McClintock for Liet. Gov. Hopefully, he'll win.
New laws suffocate California
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1686976/posts
Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown and George Deukmejian added roughly 1,500 new laws yearly; Pete Wilson and Gray Davis about 1,000 annually.
Scary.
But in 2004, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made news. He vetoed 311 bills. His vetoes caused legislators momentary pause. They sent him “only” 961 laws in 2005. Arnold let 729 become law — a “record low” in our times.
And do you want leftist socialist Angelides to become goveror?
You are berating Arnold, because he couldn't reverse all the damage done to the state in the several years prior him becoming governor, in a couple of years -- when he is also opposed by the Dem Legislature at every step.
What do you think will happen to CA business climate if Angelides becomes governor?!
729 + the 311 that he vetoed does not equal 961. Nice try, however.
Arnold is one step from total mental retardation.
There are two different years mentioned -- they don't specifically say how many bills they sent him in 2004, Ub I read it was around 1000 -- out of that he vetoed 301, so that's 30%.
In 2005, he signed 729 out of the 961, meaning he signed 75% and vetoed 25%.
Vetoing 25-30%, even it's not exactly 355, it's still very significant.
Also, it is scary when someone can leap far enough to the center during a special recall election, that he can garner the support of the conservative movement when his is an outright "gay marriage" liberal.
You, on the other hand are so brilliant, that you want to have Angelides become governor.
Maybe under George W. Bush. Under a real executive, a liberal assembly would have no chance. A 50% veto ratio would be the best outcome for the socialist California assembly.
If you reallly think that it makes a difference, then by all means, support Arnold.
More RINO math? Arnold has vetoed 24% to date since taking office.
IMO, it should have been 35% (plus some) given that it is a dem controlled legislature.
Davis vetoed 21% of all legislation, most coming from his own party.
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.