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

Skip to comments.

McClintock's Floor Statement on the CA budget
Sen. McClintock ^ | 7/29/04 | Sen. McClintock

Posted on 07/31/2004 10:04:12 AM PDT by calif_reaganite

Mr. President:

Over the last few years, we have seen a variety of inventive ways to balance the budget on paper while racking up multi-billion deficits. So in preparation for this budget, I asked the Legislative Analyst’s Office two simple questions.

First, how much are we taking in from the revenue structure of the state – all of our taxes and fees and interest earnings?

And then I asked, how much are we actually spending for general fund programs?

In other words, how much is this family actually earning and how much is it actually spending?

And it turns out that last year, we spent $4 billion more from our general fund than we received as income.

Under this budget, according to the LAO, the revenue structure of this state will actually generate – in round numbers -- $76 billion. And it will spend $81 billion on general fund programs. We’ll “earn” $76 billion and spend $81 billion. The deficit – nearly $5 billion – will have to be borrowed.

And that assumes every budget assumption works perfectly.

In our last budget debate, one senator said, “that’s OK. Borrowed money is real money.”

If you believe that, try this one out on your spouse – “Honey, we spent $5 billion more than we earned last year, but don’t worry – I just put the difference on our charge card.” I wish you better luck with that one than I know I would have with my wife.

We’re told, “at least this is a step in the right direction.” No it’s not – it’s a $5 billion step in the wrong direction.

Let me put it another way. Over the next year, inflation and population will grow at a combined rate of 4.2 percent. Our revenues will grow 6.7 percent. So, this is still NOT a revenue problem. Revenues continue to grow faster than inflation and population combined. But here is the problem -- spending will grow 7.4 percent. That’s a faster annual growth rate than under the previous administration’s 7 percent. Our annual spending is actually growing faster now than it has over the past five years.

The widening gap between revenues and expenditures continues to be papered over with borrowed money.

Less than three months ago, on May 1st, the total amount of state general fund supported debt (this includes all the bond issues) was $33 billion. By the end of this budget year, that debt will have grown to nearly $51 billion. That is a 54 percent increase in debt in a mere 14 months. Borrowing by this state is now completely out of control.

Here is what we have:

That is the budget we are about to vote on. “Never mind that,” we’re told, “the budget doesn’t raise taxes” – or, at least, it doesn’t raise them by much.

But here’s the fine point of it: resistance to tax increases only works IF IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY RESISTANCE TO SPENDING INCREASES.

As I have repeatedly warned – YOU CANNOT PAY FOR SOCIALLY LIBERAL PROGRAMS WITH FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE POLICIES. You cannot be both things. IT DOESN’T BALANCE. Fiscal conservatism means not only restraining taxes but restraining spending.

“Never mind that,” we are told. “We’ll control spending increases sometime in the future.” This is a song we hear with every budget – like we hear “Jingle Bells” at Christmastime. Let me remind you that successful diets don’t start in the future. They ALWAYS begin in the present.

And here’s the problem with the future diet that we are promised. This budget also obligates us to make enormous balloon payments beginning in 2006. Not only are we spending more than we can afford this year, but we are agreeing to even bigger obligations just 24 months from now. We will have balloon payments due to local governments, to the pension system, to the public schools, to the universities. Some diet.

Last year when we took up the budget (a budget that we also were told was “balanced”), I warned that it was “a rotting porch just waiting to collapse.” We ended up spending $4 billion more than we took in. This year – if all goes well – we will spend $5 billion more. The porch is gone. Now the very financial structure of our house is being eaten away.

Forty years ago, in 1964, when California admirably met the needs of its people, it spent $202 per person from both general and special funds. That’s $1,160 adjusting for inflation. $1,160. You are about to vote on a budget that spends $2,878 per person. And let me ask you – where are the roads, where are the aqueducts, where are the power plants, where are the top-flight schools and universities that our parents delivered 40 years ago?

What will be our generation’s answer to history? “Sorry, it’s the best we could do?” Shakespeare’s words come to mind: “Age, thou art shamed. Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods.”


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: arnold; borrowing; budget; california; deficit; mcclintock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last
To: Barlowmaker

Simple question:

How would Senator Barlowmaker vote on a budget that projects to receive $76 billion in revenues and aims to spend $81 billion?


51 posted on 07/31/2004 12:20:56 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
>>>I think you said it all when you used this word, "Rhetoric".

Isn't that part of the gamesmanship of American politics? Sure it is. Look at John Kerry's speech from the other night. For a liberal, it was great rhetoric. From a conservative perspective, it was short on substance and woefully inadequate.

What Tom McClintock actually offered was an analysis of the current state of affairs of California's fiscal and economic conditions, based on his years of experience in the state government. Give the guy some credit.

Not much happens in a vacuum in Sacramento.  I think Tom knew the commission was going to release it's report.  I think he knew it would most certianly include significant cuts.  That leaves me with the impression that Tom wanted to get a final speach of admonission in before the commission's report became public.  I know his supporters liked what he said, and taken alone I probably would too, but it's simply disengenuous to think they were uttered in a vacuum.  Therefore those comments leave me thinking Tom was just grandstanding one more time.

>>>If you guys want to pull for his failure, do it without me.

I've never said anything about having a desire to see Arnold fail and you know it. I'm not being inflammatory. In fact, I'm being very nice. So don't look for trouble.

I appreciate the McClintock supporters thinking we're the children who need to be corrected, but your condescending tone here is both offensive and typical.

As for what you have personally said about Schwarzenegger, whether he is successful or not, please link me to your comments praising him for his actions, any actions.  Perhaps you can and I'll reconsider my comment, otherwise I'll just let what I said stand.

Here's high Reagan rhetoric from a true believer:

First of all, true believer's of Ronald Reagan do not take every opportunity to allienate others.  Reagan was elected with significant help from Reagan Democrats.  He DID NOT allienate his own party members.  You and other McClintock supporters on this forum throw a hissy fit on every thread that addresses him or his efforts.  When folks come in to ask you to wait and see, or perhaps give the guy a little credit, you trash them.  In this response you infer I was not a 'true believer" in Ronald Reagan, but also state you are not being inflammatory or looking for trouble.  Sadly, you folks just don't see yourselves as you truly are.

I guess this next comment was thrown in for comic relief.  It's common knowledge that Schwarzenegger's commission is going to release it's findings within a few days, and that the report will recommend significant cuts.

" As I have repeatedly warned – YOU CANNOT PAY FOR SOCIALLY LIBERAL PROGRAMS WITH FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE POLICIES. You cannot be both things. IT DOESN’T BALANCE. Fiscal conservatism means not only restraining taxes but restraining spending."

As difficult as it is for you folks, you're still going to have to wait and see what is proposed.  All these comments about the need for cuts are pointless until we know.


52 posted on 07/31/2004 12:29:11 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite

Gray Davis' last budget was proposed during his fifth year in office. This Schwarzenegger budget is being proposed during his first. If Schwarzenegger's budget for 2006 looks anything like this one, your suspicions will have been born out. I hope they aren't, but all I can truly do now is urge Schwarzenegger to slice and dice. I hope he does.


53 posted on 07/31/2004 12:33:06 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite
That's a foolish question. Those numbers are meaningless absent full knowledge of political and legal obligations. I accept borrowing as a necessary and legitimate part of funding a government the size of a European nation. Basically, I'd vote for the BEST BUDGET I could get considering the doorknob uber-Conservatives in my state were so inept, amateurish and ineffective as to relinquish my vote, dis-empower my Republican influence, to a 25-14 voting minority in the Senate.

Why don't you gadflies turn your attention and principled energies toward the Democrats who are making your lives miserable and bankrupting your children's future? Arnold is one of the good guys. Given the daily anti-Schwarzenegger diatribes carried out on FR by a relative handful of bile-laden nitpickers ... I often wonder if those individuals are.
54 posted on 07/31/2004 12:39:24 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker

This is the principal difference then: I would never vote for a state budget where revenues were outweighed by expenditures, regardless of the "political and legal obligations."


55 posted on 07/31/2004 12:47:19 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I do know it's next to impossible to drive anything of a conservative nature through that state house. Just about anything this governor drives through that we can get behind, that is resonable from a conservative point of view, we should be thankful for.

As I recall, one of the main points of Arnie's Angels here on FR involved Republican control of the governor's veto.

So where's the beef when it is needed?

56 posted on 07/31/2004 12:51:46 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker

Am I correct in interpreting your "Basically, I'd vote for the BEST BUDGET I could get," to assume that you would have voted for Gray Davis' budget last year, given that it was the *only* and thus, logically the best, budget pending before the Legislature?

If your answer to that is no, point out a single significant difference between Davis' and Arnold's budgets.


57 posted on 07/31/2004 12:58:41 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite
I don't give a crap about the philosopher kings and "only true conservative" policy wonks, I care about the ACHIEVERS, the DOERS, the PRODUCERS (i.e. non-McLintocks):

May 23, 2004 :A leading Wall Street ratings agency on Friday raised California’s credit rating, citing an improving economy, the first such upgrade in four years and a move that promised to bring down the state’s borrowing costs on $44 billion in debt.

Analysts saw the unexpected credit upgrade by Moody’s Investors Service as an endorsement of the steps Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken to bring California back from the brink of a fiscal crisis that drove its credit ratings near junk levels and had threatened to effectively shut the state out of the bond market for new borrowing.

Citing an “established trend of recovery,” Moody’s raised California’s rating to A3 from Baa1, reversing a downgrade it made in December out of concern over continued political deadlock and a move by Schwarzenegger to cut car license fees.

You are now free to continue your bitching and mewling.

58 posted on 07/31/2004 1:10:09 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I'll respond to your points one at a time in very simple context not because I want to attempt to educate you but so that others might see that your logic and reasoning are what's wrong with California today. Your beliefs, DoughtyOne, are a significant part of the problem and I hope that through this dialog I can prevent you from infecting others.

Did you get a car tax refund like the rest of us, or were you being screwed while Schwarzenegger rewarded the rest of us? Curious minds would like to know?

No one person, including you and I, received a reduction in our in lieu of vehicle fees. We pay the same rate we did in 1950. Our obligation is being subsidized from the General Fund which we support through a broad range of taxes and fees and Schwarzenegger is borrowing billions to support this subsidy and keep the General Fund solvent. You and I and our children and grandchildren will pay for this borrowing through tax rate increase or reductions in services.

Schwarzenegger arranded stop gap funding to keep the state going while a plan was developed and put in place. Short term debt was coming due, and without an immediate tax increase, the state would have defaulted on debt and it's bond rating would have dropped costing the state untold millions of dollars. Of course that was only the outcome without the bond measure

California's bond rating can't get much worse than it already is. In fact, had the governor made the moderate cuts suggested last summer when he took office in November, California's bond rating would already be out of the toilet. Instead Schwarzenegger borrowed even more and the bond rating continues to languish at the bottom, the worst of all fifty states. The legislative analyst is also suggesting that darker times are ahead for the state as a result of Schwarzenegger's proposals which "fail to come to grips with reality" (her words not mine).

Coming in and using a machete to dismember state government would have pleased you and I, but I'm not convinced we'd have kept many swing voters on board.

I'm absolutely confident that the Republican Party would have suffered but therein lies the agenda behind your comments. What's good for California is not in the best interest of either political party as far as maintaining their political control. That's the beauty of supporting a conservative rather than Republican stance on these financial issues. Loyal Republicans would prefer to maintain control of the ship of state as it sinks in deep water and conservatives sleep at night knowing they steered the right course.

The budget committee is months overdue. I believe Schwarzenegger said it would be done in the spring. Okay, that's not good, but if the plan does slice and dice state government, isn't that a good thing? I have been desiring to see state commissions abolished for twenty years. Now 118 of them have their necks on the chopping block for real. I can't tell you how great it is to know that

How disingenuous. You read the analysis of what limited information is avalable yesterday just like I did. The proposal essentially shifts rather than reduces spending. What savings are accomplished (estimated at 6%) are not enough to offset the spending increases (factually at 7%+). So why is it being proposed. Three reasons. It has popular, grass roots appeal regardless of party affiliation. It shifts state spending to Arnie's big donors. It facilitates the continuation of increases in "our programs" A win-win deal. Arnie improves his approval ratings, liberal programs keep increasing and Arnie's big donor's get a cut of the action.

What I see developing is a groundswell on the forum, which sees Schwarzenegger making cuts the democrats would never have made, but folks still carping because he didn't do other things they wanted

What you see doesn't matter. What is happening is that conservatives are becoming increasingly upset with those who would try to continue to rationalize his obvious actions to protect the Republican party from humiliation and defeat in two years.

The irony is that there is an emerging set of facts that strongly suggest that from a fiscal standpoint the state may have well been better off under Davis, as bad as he was, than Schwarzenegger.To date the Schwarzenegger administration is racing revenue rates (taxes and fees), increasing spending and the state's indebtedness at a greater rate than ever occured under the Davis administration.

All Schwarzenegger had to do was say NO but he didn't because his core values and his commitments to his donor's wouldn't let him and here we are suffering the consequences of his actions and the obnoxious intrusion of Republican Party loyalists handing out the Coolaid.

59 posted on 07/31/2004 1:10:39 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite
Where are Arnie's Angels when he needs them these days???

;-)


60 posted on 07/31/2004 1:33:02 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite
This is the principal difference then: I would never vote for a state budget where revenues were outweighed by expenditures, regardless of the "political and legal obligations."

That's why you'll always be standing outside on the sidewalk with your nose pressed against the glass, helplessly watching all the meaningful people who influence your life in action.

Let me cut to the chase: the entire motivation behind the recall campaign, among some here on Free Republic, was less to depose Gray Davis than to install Tom McClintock. Unfortunately, that caper was operated by the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight", and where power vaccuums are created, super-professionals with experience, smarts and resources move in. Arnold filled the vaccuum, the moribund McClintock and his diehards were left on the sidelines, and some you will NEVER get over it.

California is in a far better place today than it was one year ago. The GOP and conservative influence in Sacramento has been kickstarted. California's economy is becoming vibrant again ... and thus the American economy benefits concurrently. Arnold is a success. McClintock is a backbench maverick who has never accomplished a real world legislative victory beneficial to Californians, and never will. He's taken the arrogant posture as the principled critic. Thus, a hero to posturing Freepers. Tom accomplishes nothing of substance. Arnold is going to rescue the Golden State from bankruptcy and implosion. End of story.

61 posted on 07/31/2004 1:36:59 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: Barlowmaker
I accept borrowing as a necessary and legitimate part of funding a government the size of a European nation.

Wow, yes, I see now, why can't we just be like a European nation and borrow ourselves bankrupt! Just as long as we don't lose influence with folks like Burton or Bustamante (otherwise, after all, we would risk being perceived as "amateurish" and "inept"). Anything to the right of Maria Shriver is "uber-conservative." Labels are everything and substance is nothing. What, us worry? --pshaw: the governor has an "R" next to his name!

:-(

63 posted on 07/31/2004 1:49:50 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
>>>.... your condescending tone here is both offensive and typical.

There you go again. I was neither offensive nor condescending. You're getting thin skinned.

>>>As for what you have personally said about Schwarzenegger, whether he is successful or not, please link me to your comments praising him for his actions, any actions. Perhaps you can and I'll reconsider my comment, otherwise I'll just let what I said stand.

First off, you're talking apples and oranges. You know I never supported Arnold. I supported McClintock. And I have no intention of employing your standards either. If Arnold does something worthy of praise, he'll get kudos from me. I repeat. Never said I wanted to see Arnold fail in his efforts and you have no evidence to the contrary. So far, Arnold has worked on the political margins as Governor. Just what I expected from him. If he takes until 2006 to straighten things out, that is way beyond the time frame he basically indicated and should be unacceptable to all Californians.

McClintock made some important statements in his speech. He point out the truth about the current state of affairs in California. It's clear, you don't like hearing the truth from McClintock or anyone else.

Less than three months ago, on May 1st, the total amount of state general fund supported debt (this includes all the bond issues) was $33 billion. By the end of this budget year, that debt will have grown to nearly $51 billion. That is a 54 percent increase in debt in a mere 14 months. Borrowing by this state is now completely out of control.

Here is what we have:

*A significantly larger general fund deficit than last year.
*Spending growth that is actually accelerating compared to the past five years
*Spending that continues to grow faster than revenues and much faster than inflation and population.
*Total general fund-supported debt up 54 percent in just 14 months.

******************************

>>>First of all, true believer's of Ronald Reagan do not take every opportunity to allienate others.

Alienate! LOL Sorry bucko. I'm not playing your silly game this time. I'm onto you. You want to have it both ways and you want to have it all. On occasion you may knock Arnold, so you can say, I've been critical of him. On rare occasion, you show a certain support for Tom McClintock, so you can say, you're not always critical of him. Most of the time, you denounce anyone who utters any criticism of Arnold and most of the time, you denounce and degrade Tom McClintock and those who agree with his conservative agenda and political rhetoric.

In addition, you continually overlook what GovRino intends on doing, should he ever get the budget balanced and into the black. I repeat. Arnold intends on fully funding California's welfare entitlement programs. Again, this isn't the sign of a fiscal conservative.

64 posted on 07/31/2004 1:50:56 PM PDT by Reagan Man (.....................................................The Choice is Clear....... Re-elect BUSH-CHENEY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: snopercod

If that's the best argument you can come up with, I feel truly sorry for you.


65 posted on 07/31/2004 1:51:34 PM PDT by go_tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: calif_reaganite; SteveH
Consider this for a moment.

Barlowmaker is not a California resident and has no dog in the fight or interest in the situation beyond protection of the Republican Party image.

From a review of his comments since he began posting I'd guess Barlowmaker is at least very familiar with the Republican Party at a national level since most posts deal with national, rather than local issues. In a word, more marketing than sales.

If you think you can change Rove's mind then by all means joust with Barlowmaker. My advice is to concentrate on what's going on down on the field rather than be distracted by a cheerleader's comments from the grandstands 1000 miles away.

Dozens of out of state, loyal, Republican Party interlopers come and go on the California Topic. We apparently offer them a challenge - the one state whose conservatives won't capitulate for the "good of the party". Concentrate your energies on the Freepers that can vote in California. The Barlowmaker's will always be nipping at your heels regardless of your effort or insight until and unless you bow to the absolute will of their political party.

67 posted on 07/31/2004 2:09:24 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker

Dear Mr. Genius:

14 Reps in the Senate + 32 Reps in the Assembly = 46
25 Dems in the Senate + 48 Dems in the Assembly = 73

CA Supreme Court: 6 Reps, 1 Dem.

Let's learn to count first.

Signed,
Narcissistic Moron


68 posted on 07/31/2004 2:14:39 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

California's problem is the 83-46 Democrat majority in the State Legislature. California's problem is the 90% Democrat governing majority in its largest cities and counties. California's problem is its monopoly of Democrat-appointed Liberal judges in its municipal, state and federal courts. California's problem is the endless queue of environmental, race baiting, illegal immigrant enabling, public and teacher union, trial lawyer and gay/lesbian interest groups that have wrested political influence and access to your paycheck through Democrat controlled offices.

Regardless, you and your pals go ahead and blame Arnold Schwarzenegger. Have a cookie and some ice cream too. "Wheel of Fortune" is on. Let's keep it simple.


69 posted on 07/31/2004 2:18:03 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite

BUMP


70 posted on 07/31/2004 2:18:55 PM PDT by GrandMoM (When the devil presses your "UPSET" button, learn to press your "RESET" button! Joyce Meyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite

Well, you only have a 73-46 defecit then. Congratulations winner.


71 posted on 07/31/2004 2:19:27 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker

You are correct, the special interests are a problem. Arnold's budget, however, is a giveaway to most of these groups. That, intentionally or not, you fail to grasp.


72 posted on 07/31/2004 2:24:24 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker
California's problem is the 83-46 Democrat majority in the State Legislature. California's problem is the 90% Democrat governing majority in its largest cities and counties. California's problem is its monopoly of Democrat-appointed Liberal judges in its municipal, state and federal courts. California's problem is the endless queue of environmental, race baiting, illegal immigrant enabling, public and teacher union, trial lawyer and gay/lesbian interest groups that have wrested political influence and access to your paycheck through Democrat controlled offices.

Then I define a solution as not making nice to them, but challenging them... and anyone who claims that not doing so amounts to more than a dime's worth of difference.

73 posted on 07/31/2004 2:28:46 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker

Here's an example of #72:

Prodded by union supporters, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will provide $3.8 million in the state budget he is scheduled to sign today for a University of California labor think tank he had targeted for elimination.

The funding for the Institute for Labor and Employment, based at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of California, Berkeley, dismayed critics who contend it promotes unionization that increases business costs.

During last year's gubernatorial recall election, critics accused the institute of training union members to oppose the recall. Institute officials, who were unavailable Friday, denied the charges.


74 posted on 07/31/2004 2:29:24 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
If you think you can change Rove's mind then by all means joust with Barlowmaker. My advice is to concentrate on what's going on down on the field rather than be distracted by a cheerleader's comments from the grandstands 1000 miles away.

What concerns me with the out-of-staters is the preoccupation with style over substance. There seems little doubt that Arnold as California Governor constitutes some kind of perceived advantage to Republicans in other states. So there is a political force that sucks Arnold into national prominence, whether or not his actions in California deserve it. Who knows? Arnold's coattails might be long enough to one or another close future election in some other state. I think you're right, they are too far away to care, and too far away to notice. They are just dazzled by the star-power BS, and otherwise thinking "what does this do for me-- to heck with California anyway."

When they say McClintock is a loser, they really mean that McClintock did not star in his own blockbuster movies at the local movie theater, and so (they believe) can't help their own out-of-state candidates. Big whoop. Californians should put California first and tolerate but otherwise discard advice of the nosy out-of-state RINO groupies ;-).

75 posted on 07/31/2004 2:42:14 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite
Prodded by union supporters, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will provide $3.8 million in the state budget he is scheduled to sign today for a University of California labor think tank he had targeted for elimination.

Do you think Schwarzenegger creates the firat and only final California budget with an Excel spreadsheet on Maria's Purple IMac their Malibu bungalow? He SIGNS a bill that is budgeted, appropriated and funded by the elected California Assembly and Senate and subject to review from the California Supreme Court.

Did Arnold envision, shepherd and codify this particular $4 million expenditure personally? Of course not. He signed a damn budget with a lot of wasteful spending directed toward offensive programs, groups and people. Welcome to the World.

Unless you have some evidence that the Governor ... not legislative appropriators ... bowed to the influence of the union goonery I'm thinkin' this is just another example of folks desperate to assign their injury and grievence to ... oh ... ANYONE BUT THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE.

That's no longer acceptable in honest discussion. We're at war for our survival, and this campaign against RINOs (i.e. any Republican who can be elected in a liberal State) is stupidity, subversion and a non starter.

76 posted on 07/31/2004 2:46:45 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker
Unless you have some evidence that the Governor ... not legislative appropriators ... bowed to the influence of the union goonery As a matter of fact I do. Arnold has line item veto power (Cal. Const. art. 4 sec. 10(e).) He could have taken a stance against the spending lobby and the dems and vetoed this line item, yet he didn't. Explain this away.
77 posted on 07/31/2004 2:50:19 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker
Unless you have some evidence that the Governor ... not legislative appropriators ... bowed to the influence of the union goonery

As a matter of fact I do. Arnold has line item veto power (Cal. Const. art. 4 sec. 10(e).) He could have taken a stance against the spending lobby and the dems and vetoed this line item, yet he didn't. Explain this away.
78 posted on 07/31/2004 2:50:33 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: go_tom
That was a question, not an argument. If you don't know the difference, then you are the one in need of pity.

"If the Governor doesn't have the guts to tell the people that he won't balance the budget as the California Constitution requires, then I call him a girly-man."

(Hint: That's another statement.)

79 posted on 07/31/2004 3:00:49 PM PDT by snopercod (Fuerher is German for "leader".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
What concerns me with the out-of-staters is the preoccupation with style over substance.

You bet.

Barlowmaker is an excellent example. Short on facts about California's financial numbers and long on party dogma/platitudes. If there's a conflict between the facts and the dogma, between the reality and the broad bush strokes them change the subject or examine an inconsequential detail at length. Any thing to distract other readers from the essence of the point.

In the case in point I don't think the interloper is just dazzled by the star-power BS, and otherwise thinking "what does this do for me-- to heck with California anyway."

In this case the author is probably well connected with the party and trying to avoid public condemnation of the embarrassing agenda unfolding in California prominently associated with an (R). The last thing the RNC needs is grumbling in the crowd when Schwarzenegger is at the podium in August.

When they say McClintock is a loser, they really are attempting to distract the base from remembering the core values their party used to represent. When a party, any political party, tries to explain away what even a third grader sees as logical, in this case a reduction in spending, then the party is in trouble along the path most frequently traveled.

80 posted on 07/31/2004 3:03:46 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
Californians should put California first and tolerate but otherwise discard advice of the nosy out-of-state RINO groupies ;-).

No, given the dismal results of your stewardship and the damage your profound incompetance has inflicted on the other 49 states, you entrenched California GOP/CRA goofballs are being removed from power for gross dereliction of duty. You folks are historic political incompetants. Successful conservatives and Republicans from all over the fruited plain need to take over your little penny-ante circus of failure. Done.

Oh, and LMAO! You Californians put "California first" which means you've enabled a world that causes you to come on Free Republic each night and scream the hellish life of grievence and seige in which you live.

Move aside. The adults are in charge in California GOP politics now. Professionals are finally playing to win. Thank God. We're sick of listening to you folks whining 24X7 on this site about California going into the crapper. Americans don't need you unappeasable folks happy, but we desperately need California economically vibrant and culturally sane. You get to snipe from the cheap seats.

81 posted on 07/31/2004 3:06:42 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Need I remind you of what Arnold said shortly after entering the recall race. Once the budget is back in the black, Arnold will be able to keep his pledge and fully fund all the social welfare and entitlement programs that the people want. That's tax and spend liberalism. That isn't fiscal conservatism. McClintock may not be in the drivers seat, but his rhetoric is right on the money.

Thank you.

It feeels so good tho.

I caught a observation/comment by a talking head on a network during the Rat convention about the wedding of Hollywood and Washington DC in style and substance politically. Why did Fred Thompson leave the Senate? He can make more in Hooeywood. ;-)

Like many movies, over-priced and over-hyped. ;-)

82 posted on 07/31/2004 3:09:30 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "The terrorists will be defeated, there can be no other option" - Colin Powell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite
As a matter of fact I do. Arnold has line item veto power (Cal. Const. art. 4 sec. 10(e).) He could have taken a stance against the spending lobby and the dems and vetoed this line item, yet he didn't. Explain this away.

LOL. Okay, now it's that he didn't line item veto a $3.5 million appropriation in an $80 billion budget. That's his "caving". You're incorrigible.

Tilt at your windmills friend. It's a socially accepted - respected - virtue around here.

I really, really wonder what some folks posting here do for a living. I love that Hugh Hewitt always asks that of his contentious callers, because it provides delightful insight to how a person engages themselves economically and how intelligently and consistently they express their interests politically.

I'm not intrigued here on FR by where someone lives, or how old they are ... I'm fascinated by how they make their living. That's the true anonymity of this place.

83 posted on 07/31/2004 3:20:39 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker

Yes, this an example of his caving on the budget. This is one of hundreds, if not thousands. You can't seem to explain it away, though, can you?

Lemming-like allegiance is rarely helpful. I'm willing to give Arnold credit for repealing the illegal car tax and pushing through his workers' comp reform. But I will honestly criticize him when he fails to stand up to the spending lobby, as he inexcusably did with this budget.


84 posted on 07/31/2004 3:29:15 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite

The spending lobby is protected by that 73-46 Democrat majority.

No Republican Governor cannot operate a wholesale cost cutting program in that milieu. None.

Arnold has endeavored to pump the economy by reducing or maintaining existing individual and corporate taxes, fees and regulatory fines. The top half of the P&L. The disparities are covered by debt instruments, and the expense model needs to be transformed through citizen enlightenment and GOP electoral success. That's that.

Meanwhile, the Credit Agencies have upgraded California's creditworthiness, businesses who were planning to move or reinvest elsewhere are staying home, and Arnold is selling the State as a place for investment and commerce worldwide.

I have three siblings raising families in California, they are representative of Californians in my respected focus group, and they are doing well. They support Arnold. They do not, in any way, think California has become an illegal immigrant Hell on Earth or an inhuman state Gulag. They are enjoying prosperity, health and hopeful prospects.

I do a fair amount of business with California based firms. They are optimistic and busy.

The negative dicourse on FR is not, in any way, a representative portrayal of California's health and well being. Fix your problems people. Arnold is an ally.


85 posted on 07/31/2004 3:55:33 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: BradyLS

If he runs against Arnie in the next election he has my vote. I held my nose and voted for Arnie but he's no Ronald Reagan, that's for sure.


86 posted on 07/31/2004 4:17:51 PM PDT by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
Barlowmaker is an excellent example. Short on facts about California's financial numbers and long on party dogma/platitudes.

Well, I don't think I need to accept a small group of individuals projecting the blame for their personal failures, cynicisms, fiancial chaos and dismal prospects for life health and happiness onto Arnold Schwarzenegger, George W. Bush or any other politician or geographic location.

Fix your problems in a smart, systematic political way or stifle (aka s-tee-eff-u). Opposing Arnold Schwarzenegger, ignoring the real beneficial leverage he provides, garners no positive return.

The anti-Arnold crusade here is phony and asinine.

87 posted on 07/31/2004 4:23:24 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker
No, given the dismal results of your stewardship and the damage your profound incompetance has inflicted on the other 49 states, you entrenched California GOP/CRA goofballs are being removed from power for gross dereliction of duty. You folks are historic political incompetants. Successful conservatives and Republicans from all over the fruited plain need to take over your little penny-ante circus of failure. Done.

Well, thanks for all the compliments ;-).

Does your history extend as far back as Ronald Reagan?

Hard core conservatives have almost always since taken a back seat on statewide Republican strategy. Were you around, you would know what I'm talking about. So most of the failures you are talking about are due to RINOs not sufficiently distinguishing themselves in the eyes of voters to make a difference in California elections.

Oh, and LMAO! You Californians put "California first" which means you've enabled a world that causes you to come on Free Republic each night and scream the hellish life of grievence and seige in which you live.

Californians need to take care of their own back yard first. Ditto for the other states. You seem to disagree. I'm for local control. I fail to understand what the h*ck you are for. More polyester clad golf buddies maybe? ;-)

Move aside. The adults are in charge in California GOP politics now. Professionals are finally playing to win. Thank God. We're sick of listening to you folks whining 24X7 on this site about California going into the crapper. Americans don't need you unappeasable folks happy, but we desperately need California economically vibrant and culturally sane. You get to snipe from the cheap seats.

Big talk from out of staters is about as cheap as it gets, bottom of the barrel IMHO.

Someone can correct me but I think we Californians pay more income taxes than we get back in federal services. I think that's something worth considering among others. The adults in charge give us that and more. But indulge yourself, sit back in your easy chair and go on cheering for the California RINOs. Thanks in part to them and in part to their counterparts at the federal level, OUR illegal immigrants will reach YOUR fruited-plain-anytown soon enough, leeching off YOUR community's welfare services and YOUR tax dollars. Or, wait until the bottom drops out of Wall Street support for RINO fiscal bandaids, and California needs a federal bailout to prevent a national depression. Perhaps then and only then will the blinders will begin to drop from your eyes.

88 posted on 07/31/2004 4:35:51 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker
I take it you were extremely displeased when the bathroom door was opened while you were sitting and examining your credentials.

My advice. Know the facts before entering into conversations. Take a moment. Review the last few California budgets. Examine what's happened in California since the beginning of the Wilson administration. Examine the effects of the Bush administration's policies on California's economy and its fiscal challenges. Understand the rapidly changing nature of the demographics in California and their effect on the political culture.

Statements that suggest Schwarzenegger didn't create this mess by himself or hasn't the authority to unilaterally cut spending aren't helpful to your personal credibitly or your party's credibility and aren't productive in solving our state's problems.

And BTW, Freepers who stand on street corners and protest are shaping America's policies whether the expression is beneath your dignity or not.

89 posted on 07/31/2004 5:03:57 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

Steve, that may be true. I didn't touch on that issue. I'm not sure how it works in Sacramento. Can he x items out of the budget that was just approved?

The line item veto is something I support. I like the idea of the governor being able to slice off programs that are not worthy of funding. The situation we find ourselves in now, may not be the best time to use it.

We've got a lot riding on whether this governor can get anything passed by this legislature. Sure he can x out items that they want, but what happens two weeks later when they need to work on something we want?

I think both you and I can agree that we'd sure like to see a lot less liberal programs around. Let's just hope that some way somehow that comes about.

Later.

BTW, I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see the LIV used at all. When these two sides have felt each other out a little more, especially with the commission's new proposals, this governor is going to have to get down and dirty with the legislature. Pretty soon, there's going to be a time when good will just won't cut it any longer. Perhaps we're already there. I'm not quite ready to say that yet, but it's close.


90 posted on 07/31/2004 5:30:10 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Steve, that may be true. I didn't touch on that issue. I'm not sure how it works in Sacramento. Can he x items out of the budget that was just approved?

Here is what's on the California official web site:

http://sam.dgs.ca.gov/TOC/6000/6345.htm

6345 THE GOVERNOR'S VETO

(Revised 2/98)

The Governor may reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation while approving other portions of a bill. He/she will then return it with a statement of the items reduced or eliminated with the reasons for his action to the house of origin. Items reduced or eliminated may be separately reconsidered and may be passed over the Governor's Veto by a two-thirds vote of each house.

Here's a Sacramento Bee blurb which explains it somewhat:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/forum/story/9722716p-10645716c.html

"Big Five" negotiations developed during the Pete Wilson years and were a regular feature of budgets during the Gray Davis administration. They are a mistake for any governor; in reality there is only a "Big One," and letting the legislative leaders tie his hands through agreements before the budget is voted on can severely weaken the governor. It is another way of negotiating the blue pencil.

A better way is for the governor is simply to say: Send me the budget as you have written it and I'll exercise my constitutional prerogatives to reduce appropriations. If you do not like my reductions, you have the constitutional power to override my vetoes.

91 posted on 07/31/2004 7:23:46 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
To: DoughtyOne

I'll respond to your points one at a time in very simple context not because I want to attempt to educate you but so that others might see that your logic and reasoning are what's wrong with California today. Your beliefs, DoughtyOne, are a significant part of the problem and I hope that through this dialog I can prevent you from infecting others.

Well, whatever the case thanks for the response.  Let's look at what you have written.

Did you get a car tax refund like the rest of us, or were you being screwed while Schwarzenegger rewarded the rest of us? Curious minds would like to know?

No one person, including you and I, received a reduction in our in lieu of vehicle fees. We pay the same rate we did in 1950. Our obligation is being subsidized from the General Fund which we support through a broad range of taxes and fees and Schwarzenegger is borrowing billions to support this subsidy and keep the General Fund solvent. You and I and our children and grandchildren will pay for this borrowing through tax rate increase or reductions in services.

Well there is truth, half-truth and some no-so-truth in what you say here.  Let's remember that a new fee was place on our car registration renewals.  I'm sure you remember that.  Schwarzenegger struck down those fees and refunded some of the fees that had already been collected.  This year one of our licenses will cost $78.00.  If Davis or Bustamante were governor today it would have cost me around $234.00.  You tell me if that's real savings or not.  Those fees were raised under Gray Davis.  Schwarzenegger rescended and refunded.

Under Gray Davis a number of short term bonds were sold, which were coming due in the late spring or early summer of 2004.  Schwarzenegger could have opted to raise $9 billion in new taxes immediately after taking office, like Bustamante promised to   He could have made cuts without studying the state government's current status in detail.  He could have defaulted on those bonds.  I like what he chose to do.  You don't and continually deny any reductions in tax exposure to California's citizens based on that decision.  Is that rational?  Let's look at the issue.

When the bonds were sold, it did not mean that your Franchise Tax Board payments would be increased at this time.  What it meant was that the state of California would have funds up front, but would have to pay them back over time, plus interest.  This gave us some breathing room.  Of all the options, that's what I would have opted for in light of the current situation.  You obviously feel differently.  Here's why I don't think it is as bad as you seem to believe.

I don't like the idea of pushing debt off into the future.  In my opinion, the state constitution forbids this type of fiancing of the state budget.  The problem is, the Repbulican party did not challenge the legitimacy of Gray Davis financing debt in this manner.  Likewise, the press gave Gray Davis and company a free pass.  Today, the Republicans have opted to finance state debt in the same manner, and everyone looks the other way.  Of course that is except you folks.  And it may surprise you to know that I view the situation in pretty much the same way you do, with some exceptions.

While I agree with you in principle, taking office with $30 plus billion dollars of debt and multiple billions of dollars in short term bonds coming due, leaves one very few options.  Perhaps you and I could agree that we'd like to have seen $32 billion in immediate state funding cuts.  Is that really realistic?  Isn't it more reasonable to accept that those kind of cuts will have to take place over time.  Isn't it more realistic to accept that with the budget commission's work now being revealed, now is probably the best time to face down the hard decsions, and implement as many of the commission recommendations as we can?

The premise that seems to have been adopted by those who see things the way you do, may be legitiamte, but I am not convinced it is.  You state that we, our children and their children will have to pay down this huge debt.  The $15 billion dollar bond weighs heavily, in your assessment.  And if that debt were to take as long to retire as you think it will, I might agree.  I am however, not in agreement that this debt will take as long to pay off as you assert that it will.  I do believe that increased revenues to the state will pay down the debt much faster than your side believes it will.  I believe that there is a good chance that spending cuts and increased revenues will do just that.

You like to term this an infection.  I'd like to assert that it might just be a difference of opinion and outlook  Neither of us knows what the future holds accurately.  I would suggest that somewhere in between what I propose, and what you believe is a middle ground that isn't nearly as rosey as I believe, or nearly as disasterous unto the second and third generations as you believe.

Schwarzenegger arranded stop gap funding to keep the state going while a plan was developed and put in place. Short term debt was coming due, and without an immediate tax increase, the state would have defaulted on debt and it's bond rating would have dropped costing the state untold millions of dollars. Of course that was only the outcome without the bond measure

California's bond rating can't get much worse than it already is. In fact, had the governor made the moderate cuts suggested last summer when he took office in November, California's bond rating would already be out of the toilet. Instead Schwarzenegger borrowed even more and the bond rating continues to languish at the bottom, the worst of all fifty states. The legislative analyst is also suggesting that darker times are ahead for the state as a result of Schwarzenegger's proposals which "fail to come to grips with reality" (her words not mine).

Is that the same legislative analyst that allowed Gray Davis and company to run up a $32 billion dollar debt without pointing out that it was illegal to do so?  I'm sorry, but this woman is a little late coming to grips with realty herself.

Coming in and using a machete to dismember state government would have pleased you and I, but I'm not convinced we'd have kept many swing voters on board.

I'm absolutely confident that the Republican Party would have suffered but therein lies the agenda behind your comments. What's good for California is not in the best interest of either political party as far as maintaining their political control. That's the beauty of supporting a conservative rather than Republican stance on these financial issues. Loyal Republicans would prefer to maintain control of the ship of state as it sinks in deep water and conservatives sleep at night knowing they steered the right course.

Always looking to score the next point, you miss the obvious right in front of your face.  What good will it do make unthought-out cuts that will allienate the voting public?  We'll get about half what we want, will be demagogued to the max, lose the next election and watch every one of the cut programs reinstituted.  If we had the legislature in our back pocket, I'd be much more inclined to agree with you.  We don't.  Right now we have the executive office.  That's it.  The governor can't rule by edict.  I don't think you're being reasonable.

The budget committee is months overdue. I believe Schwarzenegger said it would be done in the spring. Okay, that's not good, but if the plan does slice and dice state government, isn't that a good thing? I have been desiring to see state commissions abolished for twenty years. Now 118 of them have their necks on the chopping block for real. I can't tell you how great it is to know that

How disingenuous. You read the analysis of what limited information is avalable yesterday just like I did. The proposal essentially shifts rather than reduces spending. What savings are accomplished (estimated at 6%) are not enough to offset the spending increases (factually at 7%+). So why is it being proposed. Three reasons. It has popular, grass roots appeal regardless of party affiliation. It shifts state spending to Arnie's big donors. It facilitates the continuation of increases in "our programs" A win-win deal. Arnie improves his approval ratings, liberal programs keep increasing and Arnie's big donor's get a cut of the action.

So what you're saying is that you don't want to see 1/3rd of  California's employees laid off, or that amount of the state workforce reduced by attrition.  You don't want to see 118 commissions disappear.  You think this will have nominal impact on the state's finances and our lives.  Well I disagree.  If you've ever seen committees or comissions work, you know that when they are tasked with a much boarder mandate, many items that used to be on the plate, simply don't get there any longer.

I've got to say that the prospect of 1/3 less state employess being able to interject themselves in the lives of California's citizens, certainly is a fantastic prospect for me, even if it doesn't impress you.

What I see developing is a groundswell on the forum, which sees Schwarzenegger making cuts the democrats would never have made, but folks still carping because he didn't do other things they wanted

What you see doesn't matter. What is happening is that conservatives are becoming increasingly upset with those who would try to continue to rationalize his obvious actions to protect the Republican party from humiliation and defeat in two years.

LOL, okay...  Frankly, I'm not at all certain I'll vote for Schwarzenegger in 2006.  He would have to do some pretty amazing things for me to do that.  I had not planed on it.  Instead, under a primary election scenario, I had planned on voting for someone else.  Frankly I'd like to see a conservative come along that could appear to people's better natures.  Tom just doesn't fill that bill for me.  I hope he is not the person who winds up going up against Schwarzenegger.  Still, I would be willing to change my mind and vote for Tom.  That being said, I don't think Tom's temprement is conduscive to him winning a general election or being able to work with the legislature if he did.  I think he would try to bully them over and it would wind up a complete fiasco.

You and I view things differently.  I opted to vote for Schwarzenegger.  I know you don't like that.  It's going to be hard for you to believe, but these are my views.

I do not want deficit spending in California's budget.
I am not a fan of big government.  The smaller the better as far as I am concerned.
I would work to change the way our state legislature operates.  I would seek to reduce the time they serve each year.  I would do my best to see that the legislature became a part-time public institution who's members did not become full-time state employees, but rather citizen legislatures who's personal lives were effected by the decisions they made.
I would do my best to roll back state salaries to reasonable levels.  Gone would be the days when six figure incomes were commonplace.  NONE of our elected officials should make more than $65k per year, and those who work part time in the legislature, would do so for part time wages.  Their salaries would be based upon their part time status, the idea that they would only serve if they were dedicated to the idea, and not the power they could wield.  That power would be limited by term limits.  Nobody should serve more than five to ten years at the capital.
Unfunded mandates from Washington would be DOA.  My goal as governor would be to insulate the state so that the feds would have no power to demand anything of the state.  We would fund our own education, highways and healthcare.  If the federal government tried to withhold funds, I'd look into refusing to forward payments to the federal government.
I do not want land conservancies.  I think they should be abolished, the land to be given to local communities or sold to private individual citizens only for occupation.
I would do my best to counter just about every whacked out ecological nut-job effort in the state.  Where possible I'd regulate them into non-existance.
I'd liquidate every Califonria comission, not replacing them with others, unless limited to a period of less than 18 months in total, for a special purpose.
I would eliminate the California income tax over a period of time.
If still possible, I would submit Proposition 187 to the SCOTUS for review.
I would eliminate state control over school funding and local school boards.  If a situation arose, a judge could appoint a conservator for a limited period of time.
One exception to state oversight would be this.  I would would task a small group to review every single tenet of California's education system.  I would do my best to eliminate every single program that interjected school official control over children's lives, userping the authority of the parent.  Whether it was healtcare realted, ecological indoctination related, civil rights related, homosexual related, sex education or more properly termed pornography on display related, the outside competition for true education would cease if there was anything I could do about it.  Our founding fathers would be held up, all others would be relegated to the true nature of their contribution to our nation.  Martin Luther King would be studied, but the idea that he was more important than our founding fathers would cease to exist.  Rosa Parks would also be studied, but she would return to the bump on the road to civil rights status she actually was.
I would encourage local school boards to take their schools private.  I would provide as much resources as I could to help them do so.  I would encourage those private education entities to hire non-unionized employees.

I would privatize the running of our state prisons with close controls on how those prisons were run.
I would encourage local municipalities to privatize all local government healthcare facilities.  I'd close a lot of public hospitals whose staff's main jobs seem to be wielding union power to blackmail public officials.
My attempts to reduce state employees would be driven by three concerns.  One, fewer state employees means fewer government union members to wield vast power over elected officials. Two, government simply cannot manage workforce conditions as well as the private sector.  Three, big government is the enemy of very state citizen.  For that reason state employees should be kept a bare minimum.
I would order all state employees to be on the lookout for illegal aliens.  If they did not comply with this, they would be termiated for cause.

I would order all state and local police agencies to apprehend illegal aliens and turn them over to the INS, or whatever that agency is known as today, or tomorrow.  If they did not comply I'd put the Attorney General on the case.

I would put my state's national guard units on the border with Mexico.  This would put the federal government on notice that the illegal immigration problem would no longer be tollerated in California.
I would file a federal level suit against the President, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States for non-compliance with the U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 4.  I would seek other state's involvement in this suit, bringing power to bear upon the greatest offices of our land.  If this did not do the trick, I might even hold a referendum in the state to see if citizens wished to ceceede as a last resort to save this state from further invasion.
I would repeal as many gun laws as were possible, and would order my attorney general to prosecute any local officials that did not offer concealed carry to the citizens in their district.
I would instruct my Attorney General to devise a method of using RICO act statutes to completely decemate gangs in California.  If I had to, I'd build detention camps in remote areas which I would fill up with every last wanna be gangsta.  While some might claim this was racial, I'd agree. These perps commit most of their crimes against their own race.  Those days would be over!

I would probably seek over time alternative fuels and conservation measures that would save the state energy.  I would like to see a program initiated that would make each individual house self-sufficient over time.  While they would not be disconnected from the grid, they would be able to ease power demands on our state's power suppliers.  This would end the monopoly that sees power providers holding their customers hostage to whatever prices they wish to demand.  These customers would be able to fed power back into the grid on days where their production exceded their demand.

Yeah, I'm a liberal alright.  LOL

The irony is that there is an emerging set of facts that strongly suggest that from a fiscal standpoint the state may have well been better off under Davis, as bad as he was, than Schwarzenegger.To date the Schwarzenegger administration is racing revenue rates (taxes and fees), increasing spending and the state's indebtedness at a greater rate than ever occured under the Davis administration.

Yes, I know that's what you want to believe.  And I don't have a problem with you believing it.  You're going to no matter what I say.  What I find interesting though, is that you completely dismiss the condition the state was in when it was turned over to Schwarzenegger.  Already $30 some billion in debt, the state also had massive short term bond debt coming due in upcoming months when Schwarzenegger took office.  When he racted to stabalize the state's status under that stiffling debt, you blamed that on him, and not Davis.

Davis, the democrats and the republicans in the state legislature are almost exclusively responsible for our current state debt, even including the bond measure.  A good portion of that bond measure went ot meet bonds taken out before he took office, that were coming due.

You're not very honest about all this.

All Schwarzenegger had to do was say NO but he didn't because his core values and his commitments to his donor's wouldn't let him and here we are suffering the consequences of his actions and the obnoxious intrusion of Republican Party loyalists handing out the Coolaid.

Frankly I don't like spending as much time defending Schwarzenegger as I do on this forum.  I'd spend a lot less of it if folks like you would address reality instead of trying to make Schwarzenegger the whipping boy for all this state's woes.  It's unfathomable to me to believe that some $37 billion in debt built up before Schwarzenegger became governor, is overlooked so that you can trash him as the biggest problem the state faces.

What was Schwarzenegger supposed to just say no to, the debt?  That's it?  Call up your creditors and just say no fella.  We'll see how far you get with it.  When you're strapped to the max and don't have an way to make ends meet without taking out a second on the house, you may have to do it.  Schwarzenegger did.  The voters of California agreed that was the best way to respond to the fiscal crisis he was delt.

I'm sorry you can't comprehend that.


92 posted on 07/31/2004 7:46:03 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite

I can't help but think about the 5 billion dollar hole that CA is in because of the illegals taking and not giving.

Wonder if that's the same 5 billion?

Nah, couldn't be.

So if we deport all the illegal teat sucking leaches...we'd be even for the year?

Nah, couldn't be.


93 posted on 07/31/2004 7:52:26 PM PDT by 1_Inch_Group (The National Council of La Raza should be labeled a Terrorist Organization and treated accordingly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

Thank you for your comments and the link Steve.

I think I mentioned that I like the LIV concept. I will say that it is impossible for me to determine which of serveral reasons might prevent Schwarzenegger from using it. I don't know if he's under what I might consider to be a mistaken impression the legislature will work with him, or if he just agrees with them too much to use it?

I would like to think the later is not the reason. While Schwarzenegger was campaigning, he seemed to recognize the California Legislature is out of control. His use of those terms were used in their proper context a number of times, so it's a little less easy for me to just write them off as political grandstanding.

I do think reality is a tough thing to deal with, when you officially take office, as opposed to just campaigning. In that respect, I think Schwarzenegger had to deal with reality and that reality overwhelmed him a bit.

I do hope his instincts will serve him and us well over the next serveral years, but I have no way of knowing if they will or not.

I don't and never did think the guy was a die-hard conservative. I've never tried to sell him as such. I've tried to take a middle of the road approach to sees his actions realisticly, sometimes good and sometimes bad. In truth some of his actions may be very bad.

For the next two years, we're stuck with him. While it might have been better under someone else, it could have been worse under another person.

I'm pulling for him to do the right things, but if he doesn't, I will agree to their true nature.

Take care.


94 posted on 07/31/2004 7:54:33 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite

Great post!
Tom McClintock BUMP!


95 posted on 07/31/2004 7:55:27 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calif_reaganite
there are no assurances that Arnold's CPR plans will come to fruition.

Those plans will not "come to fruition" in a million years. All those bureaucracies are patronage pigsties for the corrupt political class. Their milk and honey. At best, they'll shuffle a few deck chairs around and try to fake it, but no way do these scumbags in the legislature go cutting off their own limbs.

96 posted on 07/31/2004 8:07:09 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Thanks for taking the time to outline your political philosophies. I'll respond with an observation.

It would seem that our only political difference is party allegiance. I'm a registered Republican with absolutely no loyalty to the party. I believe our only political power is centered around the Second Amendment. I would sacrifice Republican control of the California executive in a heartbeat if it would solve our financial problems. I wouldn't hesitate to vote for a conservative regardless of political affiliation.

With regard to Schwarzenegger's fiscal decisions: saying no was exactly what Schwarzenegger should have done. He knew he couldn't control the legislature but failed to remove their power to tax and spend. He could have declared an emergency or defacto turned over state finance control to the lenders.

The lenders would certainly have raised taxes but they would have also forced deep cuts in spending. Schwarzenegger has increased taxation and increased spending.

California is one of the few political institutions that could benefit from IMF oversight. The situation is that bad and grows worse with each fiscal policy Schwarzenegger negotiates and/or approves.

97 posted on 07/31/2004 8:19:03 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker
I don't give a crap about the philosopher kings and "only true conservative" policy wonks, I care about the ACHIEVERS, the DOERS, the PRODUCERS (i.e. non-McLintocks):

Friend FReeper, when expenditures outweigh income, that's called "consumption" not "production." There is no achievement when you consume more than you produce.

98 posted on 07/31/2004 9:36:45 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
And BTW, Freepers who stand on street corners and protest are shaping America's policies whether the expression is beneath your dignity or not.

People who stand on street corners and protest make no impact whatsoever. None.

It can be a fun social event with friends, but it changes nothing substantive and influences no-one in power. The powerless and clueless - or those out for recreational fun - protest on the street. But, the bottom line remains, it changes nothing.

It never has. It never will. You want to influence policy, you go to the halls of power where policy is directed. That takes an investment of time, money and involvement in the political process where the people and institutions that impact our lives reside.

While you're standing around on a curb feeling engaged and influential, smarter people working in legislative caucus rooms and litigating in courtrooms are micromanaging your life and picking your pocket. Shazzam!!

99 posted on 07/31/2004 10:17:03 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
Thanks for taking the time to outline your political philosophies.

You're welcome.  That was the spur of the moment abreviated version.

I'll respond with an observation.

It would seem that our only political difference is party allegiance.

It might interest you to know that I am not a Republican at this time.  I am a Reform party member.  I cast my first non-republican vote for a presidential candidate in the year 2000, when I voted for Buchanan.  It was my first, and probably my last throw away vote.  Illegal immigration and some personal internalized perceptions caused me to vote that way in the year 2000.  I doubt that I'll ever do it again.    

I'm a registered Republican with absolutely no loyalty to the party. I believe our only political power is centered around the Second Amendment. I would sacrifice Republican control of the California executive in a heartbeat if it would solve our financial problems. I wouldn't hesitate to vote for a conservative regardless of political affiliation.

Well, if that candidate was close to viable, I would probably join you.

With regard to Schwarzenegger's fiscal decisions: saying no was exactly what Schwarzenegger should have done. He knew he couldn't control the legislature but failed to remove their power to tax and spend. He could have declared an emergency or defacto turned over state finance control to the lenders.

Well I disagree with you here.  We're in a financial mess to be sure, but I am not as inclined to lay this at the feet of Schwarzenegger as you are.  As for turning over financial control to lenders, what makes you think their decisions would be based on what's best for California?  Their self-interest would not necessarily guarantee a positive outcome for the state IMO.

The lenders would certainly have raised taxes but they would have also forced deep cuts in spending. Schwarzenegger has increased taxation and increased spending.

Have your taxes gone up?  Will you pay a higher tax rate next April?  No.  You won't.  Taxes were not increased.  You will pay the same tax rate until that tax rate is either increased or decreased.  Schwarzenegger's floated bond aleviated the true need to raise taxes.  While it may take considerable time to pay off that series of bonds, and our tax rate may have been reduced more easily if that bond had not been floated at some point, it is not accurate to state that a bond sale is a raised tax.  It's just not true.  We would have been paying this same tax rate for the forseeable future.  The idea that our kids or granchildren will have a larger burder placed on them than we have, isn't really accurate either.  As inflation reduces the value of this loan, our kids and grandchildren will pay it off with wages that are more than you and I make.Thus, the burden on them will actually be less percentage wise than it was on us.

California is one of the few political institutions that could benefit from IMF oversight. The situation is that bad and grows worse with each fiscal policy Schwarzenegger negotiates and/or approves.

While I don't like California's indebtedness, I do think we should keep things in perspective as we discuss it.  As a state, California's indebtedness is larger than any other that I know of, percapita.  It's present debt is roughly 35 to 50% of California's yearly state budget.  You and I can agree that is rediculous.  The fact is though, that our federal government services a debt that is at least three times it's yearly budget. This means that California's indebtedness is anywhere from one-tenth to one sixth as bad as the national debt.  California's GNP is significant enough to make it one of the top five governments in the world, if it were sovereign in it's own right.  While I don't like this deficit budget situation, California is very capable of servicing this debt.  Obviously we want to see that debt retired ASAP.  For that reason I agree with you that cuts do need to be made, and I hope they are made right away.

As for the IMF, I do not support the need for it in any way.  The IMF is a conduit to your and my tax dollars being stolen and redistributed outside our borders on a massive scale.  IMF loans are NOT always repaid.  You can take the IMF and toss it down the same rabit hole with the UN, the ICC, NAFTA, the FTAA and the WTO.


100 posted on 07/31/2004 10:30:26 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-154 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