Posted on 03/01/2004 12:42:50 PM PST by calcowgirl
Universally, polls indicate Arnold Schwarzenegger is highly popular across the political spectrum, and that the state’s voters are largely grateful that the new governor appears to be fostering a more cooperative political environment while restoring some semblance of fiscal sanity in Sacramento.
But along the way he made the calculated decision to ignore one of the major commitments he made during the recall campaign: an open audit of the state’s finances.
While the marginalized newspapers made little mention of it, voters who are against any and all new taxes and continued lack of financial responsibility in state government remember Arnold’s, “Ja, we will open up all the books to the people and audit everything to find the billions of dollars in waste.”
After all, how does an executive leader justify taking on $15 billion more in loan debt without reconciling current outlays against revenues. The voters were entitled to an answer to the question: Who is paying for services they don’t receive, and who is receiving services they don’t pay for?
The question was never answered.
In retrospect, the deliberate decision to deep-six the audit was without question a sound tactical idea. Who knows what sort of hobgoblins would have come flying out of the closet to humiliate both parties.
Thus largely in the dark, Californians will go to the polls Tuesday to vote on a number of important measures. Arnold has been aggressively campaigning for passage of two measures that go hand in hand.
Proposition 57 is a one-time $15 billion Economic Recovery Bond to refinance and consolidate California's budget deficits. It would take nine to 14 years to pay off the bonds that would then be repaid by a quarter-cent sales tax increase. The measure however, says nothing about the excessive spending that produced the problem in the first place.
Proposition 58, the Balanced Budget Act, is designed to balance the budget annually in the future, while setting aside a reserve balance to stabilize spending.
The Day of Reckoning, March 2
But more importantly, voters will make a decision on Proposition 56, after being subjected to a highly deceptive $14 million union-financed TV campaign touting the measure as necessary for “budget accountability.” The ads propagandized the need “for an end to the bipartisan gridlock.”
That’s a laugh, because if the measure passes, there will be only one party deciding when and how much taxes will be increased, and what will be in the budget. And that will be the law!
The legislature is dominated by a 60 percent Democratic majority. Yes on Proposition 56 will render irrelevant any Republican opposition to tax increases.
According to the Sacramento Bee’s Clea Benson, “A proposition on the March 2 ballot would make it easier for California lawmakers to pass a budget and raise taxes.” As well, Benson states, “the measure would allow legislators to pass a budget or tax increase with 55 percent of the vote, instead of the two-thirds majority currently required.”
This means that the Democrat-dominated legislature would be able to raise taxes without a single Republican vote, but the governor would have the power to veto whatever gets through both the Assembly and the Senate.
Was Proposition 56 “All In the Cards”
Anyone familiar with California’s insane political chicanery recalls a revealing moment that occurred in July 2003, back when Gray Davis was still governor, and the legislature was busy finding new ways to bilk taxpayers and drive businesses out of the state.
Several members of a coalition of liberal Democrats discussed stalling negotiation on the budget as a method to force Republicans to cave on increased taxes.
Embarrassingly, they were unaware that a live microphone was broadcasting their machinations around the Capitol.
The conversation was piped to roughly 500 “squawk boxes” that permit lobbyists, staffers and media members to listen in on the lawmakers' discussions. Of the 11 strategizing members, Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg said, “If the budget crisis were extended, it could improve chances for a ballot initiative that would make it easier for the Democrats to raise taxes by lowering the threshold for passage from two-thirds to 55 percent.”
"No one is running" for re-election, she said, according to a transcript made by Republicans. "And maybe you end up better off than you would have, and maybe you don't. But what you do is show people that you can't get to this without a 55 percent vote. "
Suddenly an unidentified staffer said, "Excuse me, guys, you can be heard outside."
"Oh s--t, s--t," Goldberg said.
"The squawk box is on," the staffer said. "You need to turn it off right there."
"How could that happen?" Goldberg said.
A poison pill buried in the measure would gut the Proposition 13 mandate that requires a two-thirds legislative supermajority to thrust new taxes on the voters.
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association, has been barnstorming talk radio in an attempt to inform the public and help defeat Proposition 56.
"Even within this last legislative session,” said Coupal in the February 29th Orange County Register, “the two-thirds vote has stymied tens of millions worth of tax increases. It has been an effective barrier.”
California voters need to be aware of how important their vote is on Tuesday March 2. The squawk box truly is on, and we need to turn it off before our taxes go through the roof.
Otherwise, Jackie Goldberg’s nightmare could be coming to a mailbox near you and it will be too late to ask, "How could that happen?"
Patrick Mallon can be contacted at gohabsgo@cox.net
Yes, heaven forbid that a RepublicRAT would have to take responsibility for padding the budget with PORK! Nope, can't let that out of the bag, it might "humiliate them."
Please, someone try to convince me that Ahnold is a fiscal conservative.
Like all RepublicRATs, he hasn't met a big-government snake oil he didn't like.
It's beginning to look like there's two types of Republicans --Those who get elected, then "grow the government" and the dupes who elect them.
The people who elected Ahnold certainly were duped.
It was ever thus...
I'll make it even easier: NO on EVERYTHING!!!!
I agree. The tax-happy legislature placed all these propositions on the ballot, any they simply want more of our tax money.
If Props 57/58 pass, they will serve as a precedent in CA history to permit borrowing money to cover general expenses. Although Prop 58 makes Prop 57 a one-time exception to the state Constitution, future legislatures with fiscal troubles can easily claim that they don't need to reign in spending; they can simply make another exception and pass another bond like we did in 2004.
To solve the deficit, there are really only two options: cut spending or raise taxes. That's the issue that the legislature needs to be forced to deal with. The bonds are no better than a tax. They will be paid for by taxes over time (with interest), vs. immediate tax increases. George Skelton's column in the LA Times, Arguments For and Against Propositions Are Based on Myths highlights the real issue. There is much more than what I am posting, but here's a couple of snips.
Myth 1: There's no alternative to Schwarzenegger's $15-billion bond — Prop. 57 — even if everybody does have to hold their noses to vote for it.In truth, there are alternatives that are more fiscally prudent. They're just deemed more politically painful by the governor and most lawmakers.
(snip)
Conservative Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) wants to move the opposite way. His alternative is to cut spending by 13.5%, contracting out many state services to private enterprise. "If you can find it in the yellow pages," he asserts, "government shouldn't be doing it."
Raise taxes or whack services? "That's a legitimate debate," McClintock says. "What's not legitimate is to add $6 billion in interest to the problem and dump it in our children's laps."
I am definitely on the "Whack" side of this argument. :-)
In what parallel universe does the HJTA operate?
If it is not new debt why is Schwarzenegger asking the electorate to authorize it?
If it is not new debt then how did we escape the previous payments?
If it is not new debt why do we have to pay? Let the original debtor pay.
If it is not new debt then why pile more debt onto the old debt?
If it is not new debt is it a freebie since it was already borrowed once before?
If it is not new debt will we still get an interest deduction on our federal taxes?
Can anyone borrow twice using the original, approved, loan application ?
How can I get in on this creative action?
Do I have to know someone on the inside?
My jaw dropped at the quote you referenced. I started screaming when I read the above.
How can he say this? There is absolutely nothing to stop this legislature from doing the exact same type of short term borrowing they have done and get us in exactly the same place as we are today! Proposition 58 is a sham. And Jon Coupal and HJTA are shameless.
Question: why is HJTA lying? What interest do they have in this sham or how were they bought? I know that I will never trust another word coming out of the organization.
I think we will see increased taxes!
Apparently you two live in flush areas. For the rest of us we have to look no further than our March 2 sample ballot.
Hundreds of municipalities, counties and school districts state wide (three on my sample ballot) are asking our permission to raise local taxes in expectation of the passage of Prop 57/58, which incidentally raises the state component of the sales tax by 1/4% to 1/2%.
Yes, I do. None on the ballot this time around.
ABSOLUTELY - NO ON 56!
If you see the original post, I was referring to HJTA's position on Prop 57/58. Those are the positions that are inaccurate and misleading.
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.