Skip to comments.
McClintock vows to fight 'spending lobby'
Fresno Bee ^
| 8/27/03
| By Daniel Weintraub
Posted on 08/29/2003 12:14:18 PM PDT by GrandMoM
Edited on 04/12/2004 2:10:09 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 next last
To: elbucko
Tom might listen more to the Indian gaming donors than Arnold.
21
posted on
08/29/2003 1:32:03 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Why do liberals always side with the enemies of the US?)
To: TheDon
Arnold did make such a promise. And he did define emergency as a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. Come up with that quote yet?
22
posted on
08/29/2003 1:35:28 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: GrandMoM
A Weblog by
Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub
« Republicans for Cruz | | The blogosphere meets the recall »
August 12, 2003
Playing two hands at once
Ever since Cruz Bustamante entered the race, it's been assumed that California's Indian tribes were going to pool their money and do independent expenditures on his behalf, expensive ads that get around the $21,000 limit on contributions. Now I am hearing rumblings that the Indians might think about helping Cruz in a more creative way as well. If they spent, say, $4 million on behalf of state Sen. Tom McClintock, the most conservative Republican in the race, they might pump McClintock's numbers up while hurting Arnold and not harming Cruz a bit. Remember, Cruz needs a split GOP vote to win. That would be one way to get it. Besides, as a libertarian-leaning Republican, McClintock is a natural ally of the Indians anyway.
23
posted on
08/29/2003 1:41:33 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Why do liberals always side with the enemies of the US?)
To: TheDon
hearing rumblings No quotes or facts, "rumblings".
24
posted on
08/29/2003 1:47:38 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: TheDon
Is this the emergencies that maybe he would raise taxes for? I've seen other posters say that no matter who is governor they will have no choice but to raise taxes to solve the balanced budget requirement..... I don't know about the CA budget but to find cuts of some $30+ billion in a $100 billion dollar budget with a huge percentage of it committed by mandatory spending is going to be hard to do, imo.
Schwarzenegger announced he would convene a special legislative session after his election to reform workers' compensation laws. He sounded Republican themes, saying Californians are "overtaxed" and "overregulated." "The people of California have been punished enough," he said. "From the time they get up in the morning and flush the toilet, they are taxed. ... This goes on all day long. Tax, tax, tax, tax."
But he wouldn't pledge never to raise taxes, he said, because they might have to be increased to pay for emergencies, such as an earthquake or a terrorist attack.
25
posted on
08/29/2003 1:48:46 PM PDT
by
deport
To: ambrose
Cite your source that he limited "emergency" to those to examplesStill, Schwarzenegger stopped short of pledging never to raise taxes, saying an earthquake, terrorist attack or other emergency might require it.
click for source
Just for you, a little something you can use to be more informed on the issues.
Schwarzenegger said, "We must have a constitutional spending cap and must immediately attack operating deficits head on. Does this mean we are going to make cuts, yes. Does this mean education is on table, no. Does this mean I am willing to raise taxes? No. Additional taxes are the last burden we need to put on the backs of the citizens and businesses of California."
click for source
26
posted on
08/29/2003 1:50:19 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Why do liberals always side with the enemies of the US?)
To: Roscoe
see post 26
27
posted on
08/29/2003 1:51:01 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Why do liberals always side with the enemies of the US?)
To: Roscoe
I figure turn about is fair play. ;^)
28
posted on
08/29/2003 1:52:14 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Why do liberals always side with the enemies of the US?)
To: GrandMoM
Once you get beyond pension hikes, salary increases and bureaucratic belt-tightening, balancing the budget means reducing programs and services on which people rely.Like the welfare pimps, a million or so illegals, assorted bums, drunks, druggies, baby machines, and other vermin that have flocked to California for the Marxist-inspired "free money and benefits" paid for by the over-burdened California taxpayer. Then when you throw in the billions of dollars flushed down the toilet of "publik edjakashun" in California, why, before you know it, it adds up to a lot of money!
I live in a city in Santa Clara County which has the county jail; I used to kid people that its a good thing the jail is here, because its such a short drive from the local high school. That way, the so-called "graduates" go directly to jail. They have "jail preparatory" instead of "college prep" courses.
29
posted on
08/29/2003 1:52:31 PM PDT
by
45Auto
(Big holes are (almost) always better.)
To: GrandMoM
"Governor McClintock could have stopped both of those, and would have," My 4 year old might as well say "Governor Benjamin would have stopped those too!" because he has as much chance of being elected Governor as McClintock does.
A vote for McClintock is a vote for "Aztlan". A wasted vote, a vote detached from reason.
To: deport
"I've seen other posters say that no matter who is governor they will have no choice but to raise taxes to solve the balanced budget requirement..... "
I've heard from them too. But, I don't buy it. I've heard Rep John Campbell state that reverting to the budget of 3 or 4 years ago would yield a surplus. The governor has a line item veto, he only needs the will to use it.
31
posted on
08/29/2003 1:55:24 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Why do liberals always side with the enemies of the US?)
To: GrandMoM
I find it very funny that the same guy who's trying to sell his soul to the Indian GAMING COMISSION is claiming to fight the spending lobby. . .
32
posted on
08/29/2003 1:56:44 PM PDT
by
Tempest
To: TheDon
"Still, Schwarzenegger stopped short of pledging never to raise taxes, saying an earthquake, terrorist attack or
other emergency might require it."
You just refuted your own argument.
33
posted on
08/29/2003 1:57:11 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
You McClintock KoolAid drinkers are too funny. You whine because Arnold will not say what President Bush Sr. said, "No new taxes?"
Who are you going to vote for when Tom drops out and supports Arnold?
34
posted on
08/29/2003 2:02:13 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Why do liberals always side with the enemies of the US?)
To: TheDon
The quote refuted your assertion.
35
posted on
08/29/2003 2:04:30 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: TheDon
As Roscoe states, the quotes you cite refute your own assertion.
36
posted on
08/29/2003 2:07:16 PM PDT
by
ambrose
(If You're Not Outraged, You're Not Paying Attention...)
To: Roscoe
My assertion that Arnold has stated that he will not raise taxes to resolve the deficit? I think the quotes are quite definitive in proving my assertion.
37
posted on
08/29/2003 2:08:25 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Who are you going to vote for when Tom drops out and supports Arnold?)
To: Tempest
Kind of like a John at a whorehouse claiming to fight against prostitution.
38
posted on
08/29/2003 2:09:59 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Who are you going to vote for when Tom drops out and supports Arnold?)
To: TheDon
Did you forget what your assertion was?
And he did define emergency as a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.
"Still, Schwarzenegger stopped short of pledging never to raise taxes, saying an earthquake, terrorist attack or other emergency might require it."
39
posted on
08/29/2003 2:12:04 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
Gee, maybe he can't think of every type of disaster.
I think everyone is concerned that he will raise taxes to resolve the deficit, not that he will raise taxes if some unforseen disaster occurs. The quotes should definitely calm your fears on that issue. Unless you remember the "No new taxes" pledge of a former Republican president.
40
posted on
08/29/2003 2:15:24 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Who are you going to vote for when Tom drops out and supports Arnold?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson