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.
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.
Great post... thanks for taking the time and doing the analysis.