Posted on 07/27/2004 8:23:51 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and top state lawmakers reached agreement late on Monday for a balanced budget that would maintain existing service levels and not raise taxes.
The Republican governor and top Democratic and Republican legislators described the agreement, which followed a sometimes bitter three-week delay, as "a bipartisan budget." Based on Schwarzenegger's $103 billion spending plan, the budget for the fiscal year that started July 1 would restore some transportation funding and hold down certain fees.
"We have just agreed on a budget," Schwarzenegger told reporters at a late-night news conference in his office. "We negotiated very hard."
A vote of the full Legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, would be held on Wednesday or Thursday, lawmakers said.
During recent talks to reach an agreement, an angry Schwarzenegger called Democrats "girlie men" for not backing his spending plan and not meeting the July 1 deadline.
California's Legislature in recent years has not delivered a new fiscal-year budget by the deadline. Schwarzenegger, who vowed to end business as usual in Sacramento during his election campaign last year, had promised to meet the July 1 date for a new spending plan for America's most populous state.
Earlier on Monday, the state's chief financial officer said California would be unable without a budget to make half a billion dollars of state payments starting on Wednesday because of the budget impasse but should avoid any further Wall Street downgrades.
Budget negotiations had reached a stalemate over funding to local governments, but Democratic state Senate leader John Burton told Reuters earlier on Monday the issue had been resolved.
"We all had to agree to things we do not like," Burton told the news conference.
Schwarzenegger said a budget deal looked impossible six weeks ago but that prospects brightened in the past two weeks.
"We just hung out enough together," Schwarzenegger said. "Eventually everyone got it."
Lawmakers attending the Democratic National Convention in Boston had earlier been put on notice they could be called to return to California for a budget vote.
And quite cold...
The hardest thing about leaving California must be leaving California weather and the beaches. We're seeing more people coming out looking around at jobs and housing in this area saying they just know they'll like 100 plus degrees and in fact are already used to it --- but I don't think they are.
Well there really isn't much difference between weather in Sac vs. weather in Phx. 10 degrees more for eight more hours a day?
The purchase price of my house at 80,000 vs. 350,000 in CA.
More Republicans in office in AZ vs. ? in CA. Oh, that's right they have Bill Jones.
I sweat easily so cool is OK. ;-)
Well having transported myself from CA I never learned how to drive in snow.
You aren't my "honey"and you don't live here NOW, you don't work here NOW and you don't pay taxes here NOW!
We are dealing with the present not past...
And like I said let us know when you move to CA!
What I consider hopelessly dismaying is that ANY FReeper, from CA or not, would not be utterly ashamed of what is happening with this Governor, IF they still consider themselves any kind of consistent conservative!
It just disheartens me to see this caveman honored by any fiscal, or anyother kind of conservative. Incredible!!! There's a great article in today's SacBee.com about how the Dems always wanna be "in" with the "in croud." The author calls it something like "Inism." The exact same thing has happened to this website during the Recall election and continues to this day.
I'm gonna go get it an link it here as soon as I finish this reply.
Why on earth do you think I left?
You missed the part where I stated that he is bound by the same law to have a budget in place by 7/1 as is the legislature.
Here's the paragraph that fits the FReepin "posse" on FR during the recall campaign and persists to this day, defending Governor Caveman!!! "Deeply rooted policy differences and personality clashes that provided all the excitement of lusty, newsworth Democratic conventions past - and that surely exist today - have been submerged in the fervent desire of the Outs to Get Back In. The driving ideology is In-ism."
Brother! Does that ever remind me of the nasty intramural smashing, crashing and bashing that went on here to extinguish the hopes of anyone on FR not swooning for Schwarzenegger and trying to hold out for conservatism!!!
To many of us, it felt like we were even considered "disruptors," fit to be pitched out of the FR family of conservative contributers due to supporting a consistent conservative!!! That hurt a LOT!!! It's hard to forget, let alone forgive.
Thus, even this article about the current Dems, reminded me of the "In-ism" that was and still is being practiced here. I sure wish we could get back to normal support of conservative principles that CAN win elections in CA!!! It's been done before, ya know. Many times.
I've been posting on this forum for six years now. I would think you would be able to find out what I support and what I don't, but evidently you don't want to do that. You'd rather hiss and moan.
I've told you directly a number of times that I do not think Schwarzenegger is going to be a good governor. Is that too complex a sentence for you to comprehend?
Yesterday or the day before your hot topic was Conservency Preserves. I said that the could declare each of them unconstitutional, confiscate their land and give it back to the citizens. This wasn't good enough for you and one other individual.
I haven't defended this budget process or given Kudos for Schwarzenegger's part in it. I have express my displeasure with the state's tactic of taking too much funds from the local municipalities.
I did vote for Scharzenegger. That doesn't mean I think he was the best man, that I undyingly support him on all issues, or want him to remain governer after 2006.
We've been down this road a number of times. While I do like Schwarzenegger's movies, and him too, I don't think he's the quality of man we need in there. Neither was Bustamante.
On election day, it was Bustamente or Schwarzenegger. McClintock's 14% just wouldn't cut it.
I'm sorry that Schwarzenegger made it in over Tom, but I'm not sorry that he made it in over Bustamante. As for Tom, I think he's a self-sentered idiot.
I voted for Buchanan in 2000, so I'm capable of throwing my vote away. I just elected not to do so this time. I won't be doing it again either.
If I'm going to caste a vote, it's going to influence the electable candidates on election day. This is not about adulation. It's about demonization. I would never waste a vote with a prick like Bustamante running.
Please don't ping me to thread which reveal you haven't a clue as to what I've been telling your for months.
Thank you.
I guess Arnold's motto is "Do something, even if it's wrong and only get upset if it doesn't get done on time!"
And yes, I'm certain you are now finally beginning to understand how when one sacrafices all principles and sheds the courage it takes to maintain support for one who valiantly profers those principles which, through your switchin support then causes harm to the whole state system of governance... you are bound to become quite sensitive!!!
My purpose in pinging you was not to rub your nose in anything, but to demonstrate how some on here are still defending this caveman as some kind of fiscal conservative with a powerful personality and a Greek-god-like prowess in negotiating skills and vainly hoping he might STILL be someone that will ever make even fiscal conservatives somehow proud!
Your over-reaction to the disappointment of backing Pat Buchanan has really made you still another conflicted conservative and I understand that. Nobody ever enjoys either being, or backing a loser. The only thing worse is backing a winner that will not, or cannot help make things better and enables your adversaries and disables your like-minded electeds!!!
Bustamonte was NEVER ANY THREAT to be elected so bounce you phonograph needle outa that groove without scraping it entirely across the record in a giant squacking sound.
Sincerely, The Waspman and still your FRiend!!!
Well I guess he takes being sworn to uphold the law seriously...
And yes, I'm certain you are now finally beginning to understand how when one sacrafices all principles and sheds the courage it takes to maintain support for one who valiantly profers those principles which, through your switchin support then causes harm to the whole state system of governance... you are bound to become quite sensitive!!!
The only thing that bothers me about this situation, is that since thirty days before the election I have been saying that Arnold would do some things I'd like and a number of things that would really piss me off. So far not a damned thing has happened to change my opinion on this subject. What has happened is that certain people who couldn't stand the fact that other conservatives had to do what they needed to do in good concience, are now continuing a campaign of scorched earth politics against them. You and I probably agree on 98 % of our politics. For all the insults you've hurled, no one would know it.
My purpose in pinging you was not to rub your nose in anything, but to demonstrate how some on here are still defending this caveman as some kind of fiscal conservative with a powerful personality and a Greek-god-like prowess in negotiating skills and vainly hoping he might STILL be someone that will ever make even fiscal conservatives somehow proud!
Since I can read this forum as well as you do, and I follow the budget process to some degree, why is it that you feel I need to be pinged to this topic? It is an abysmal situation that we face with the lack of needed cuts. There's not a thing I can do about it. And voting for Tom wouldn't have changed that. He'd have gotten 14% plus 1 vote. For that you would have cut me some slack. Well, taking a chance on Bustamante getting in wasn't worth that to me.
Your over-reaction to the disappointment of backing Pat Buchanan has really made you still another conflicted conservative and I understand that. Nobody ever enjoys either being, or backing a loser. The only thing worse is backing a winner that will not, or cannot help make things better and enables your adversaries and disables your like-minded electeds!!!
You know guy, I wish you were able to think just a little deeper than you do. Voting for Buchanan nearly cost Bush the last election. In Florida, a larger than expected vote for him nearly handed the White House over to Gore. Would you have wanted Al Gore in there on 09/11? Stop and think before you post some of this stuff. It's not an over-reaction to vote for a viable candidate rather than someone you know hasn't a chance.
Bustamonte was NEVER ANY THREAT to be elected so bounce you phonograph needle outa that groove without scraping it entirely across the record in a giant squacking sound.
I've explained my position on this. You have chosen to ignore it. Bounce your own needle.
Sincerely, The Waspman and still your FRiend!!!
I have explained my position on this topic since last fall, before and after the election. Your reaction was to ignore everything I've said consistantly over time. By so doing you have called me a liar on a number of occassions. Today you have resorted to saying that I had been swept up in inism. You made other charges that are blatantly false in light of the comments I've made over time, that have not changed since day one.
Later.
The "liar" thing and a whole bunch more crept into the sand blasting we took.
I too tire of the subject, except to succumb to the irresistable urge to ping and post to the inevitable outcome of winning the battle and losing the war of the historic Recall. Phyrric Victory is what it's called. It looks like we couldn't afford either Bustamecha or Schwarzenegger!!!
Later.
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.