Posted on 01/22/2007 9:48:59 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
When politicians break their pledges not to raise taxes, they come up with the darnedest evasions. Take Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who wants to levy new charges on California doctors, hospitals and employers to help pay for his $12 billion health-care plan. "It is not a tax, just a loan, because it does not go for general [expenditures]," he told the Sacramento Bee last Thursday. "It goes back to health care."
A loan? The first reaction of many Californians was: What state office will I be able to go to and get my loan back--perhaps with interest? It's preposterous, for example, to characterize as a "loan" the 4% payroll levy the governor wants to impose on employers who don't offer health benefits. California's gas taxes are dedicated to transportation but no one would call them "gas loans." Property taxes go to local education. Are they not taxes?
The over-the-top absurdity of the Schwarzenegger statement led Rush Limbaugh into fits of laughter last Friday "Bill Clinton calling [tax increases] 'investments' was bad enough," Mr. Limbaugh says. Bruce Bartlett, a free-market economist and harsh critic of the Bush administration, thought he'd heard all the euphemisms for a tax hike ("revenue enhancements" and "solidarity payments" are classics), but he allows that "calling one a 'loan' is new."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Tom Campbell held the title of RINO King in California befor Arnold came along. If Tom Campbell is jumping ship, then Arnold really has jumped the shark.
ping
The healthcare proposal is just smoke. It is far too radical to actually get anywhere in CA, and would be subject to dozens of legal challenges if it did. It does almost nothing to address health costs.
My sense is that it may, however, provoke some interesting discussion about the hundreds of overlapping state health programs and their exponetially rising costs. It also might get the industry to be more focused on actually helping the uninsured.
Who cares if he raises taxes, he's an electable Republican.(/sarcasm)
Weren't all the duplicate costs & programs supposed to be brought to light when Arnold "opened the books" and audited everything? What ever became of that? We should be seeing a reduction of state programs any day now.
No. This governor doesn't propose "smoke" strategies. When he wants something he wants it bad. This is exactly what it claims to be -- socialism. Period.
Hopefully he will be eaten by it .... do sharks like the taste of RINO
I guess it depends what shark you're talking about. Arnold did a public U-turn after the failure of the propositions he backed in that earlier referendum, and has been acting openly like a Democrat ever since. And after the last elections, if anything, it got even worse.
The problem is, what's the alternative? Evidently California voters won't buy a conservative candidate, as they showed in the last election, when the Democrats defeated every candidate but Arnold. The last good chance we had for installing a decent conservative with a conscience and real administrative experience in the governor's office was Bill Simon, against a badly crippled Gray Davis.
Regretably the administration, notably Rove and his stooge Parsky, pulled the plug on Simon because they were still mad he had beat out their favored candidate, Richard Riordan. Now that chance to run against a crippled, famously corrupt, and discredited Democrat is gone, and won't return anytime soon.
It's a real mess.
Now I hear that he's raiding funds from Prop 63 (one of those "1% tax and the richest Californian" measures that passed a couple of years ago) in his continuing effort to bleed the taxpayer dry.
Not that I ever supported the stupid measure in the first place but to trick the (ignorant) voters into voting for it by claiming it will help the mentally ill and then stealing the funds to feed the bloated bureaucracy - shameless.
Arnold has jumped the Pacific ocean.
"RU Ready 4A Recall"
I respect your credentials in the field but I'd be willing to bet that this plan or something very close to it will pass this year or next.
As far as industry involvement in the solution, this kind of crackpot socialist intervention gives them all the cover they need not to get involved.
Right On! Just another of the many mistakes this so-called guru, Rove, did to put the dems in power. Mr Rove better never come near my house and darken it. Go Tom Tancredo.
That's what some said about his global warming rhetoric. Now we have the most radical legislation in the country.
My sense is that it may, however, provoke some interesting discussion ...
Unfortunately, it that discussion is going the wrong direction. Instead of focusing on getting government out of the process, it has provoked a whole new demand by people for their right to healthcare. From the article:
Far more consequential is the expense of the 49 mandates California insists all health insurance policies cover, ranging from chiropractic and mental health care to treatment for alcoholism and infertility. The governor's plan does almost nothing to reduce the burden of those mandates or to allow consumers to buy insurance on the Internet from other less expensive states the way they now do with car insurance.
Simon was a moron. Unlike many here, I've never been a Rove acolyte. Arnold's always been a Populist and so he's only doing what the People want.
[follow link for more doozies](snip)
You made big friends with Tony Blair over climate change. In Britain he is now very unpopular. What impressed you? JENA GRAHAM, London
Tony Blair is a great leader and he has been out front on global warming and environmental protection for years. I was grateful we could work together.
Do you feel let down by the Bush administration's ostrich-like attitude to global warming? DIANA MACKENZIE, Belfast
We are frustrated that Washington hasn't chosen to lead on this issue, and that's why California has stepped in. We are not waiting for the federal government to act because the future doesn't wait. But I feel the tide turning.
Have you met Hillary Clinton? And is America ready for a female president? MARIA CASTELLI, London
I have met her many times and she is a great person. And I don't think gender is a prerequisite to be president. If she does run for president, I have no doubt she would be a very strong candidate.
What does that mean? What would motivate an "industry" to focus on helping the uninsured? At some point in the future, can I look forward to dropping my expensive insurance coverage so that I can take advantage of help offered from the "industry"?
Have you ever met him, jerk?
You Sir/Madam, have scoped the scenario precisely! Other FReepers would be wise to absorb your 21st Century history of conservative CA politics!!!
Carry Okie is another who has spelled this recent Repellican mess out in even more specific and precise historic detail!!!
Others have been aware of it, but you two have spelled it out with the most precision and clarity for the record.
bump
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.