Posted on 12/16/2003 8:50:07 AM PST by kellynla
Last year, I and many others on this floor believed it was a bad idea to borrow $13 billion to paper over the state’s deficit.
And today, I believe it is still a bad idea to borrow $15 billion to paper over that same deficit.
I am not going to get into the debate over whether it is better to borrow that money over 13-years or 30-years. The only distinction in that debate is between bad public policy and really bad public policy.
There are only three ways to remedy a deficit. You can raise taxes – in a state that already suffers one of the heaviest tax burdens in the nation. You can borrow money – in a state that is already up to its eyeballs in debt. Or you can rein in spending -- in a state that is now spending a larger portion of people’s earnings than at any time in its history.
I would think the choice would be self-evident.
We need to suspend the state’s spending mandates and restore to the Governor the power he had from 1939 to 1983 to make mid-year spending reductions. A 13.5 percent reduction effective January 1st would cure the entire deficit in 18 months and allow California to begin the next budget year debt free, with a clean slate, and $12 billion of breathing room going into 2005.
And it would still provide annual general fund spending 15 percent above what we were spending the day Gray Davis took the oath of office.
If we succumb to the Siren song of borrowing, I fear that this will not be the end of it. New York City tried this – and just this year they rolled over their now 25-year-old debt yet again.
Let us be honest. This proposal is set at $15 billion to assure that the underlying problem can be ignored for 2003. Let me remind the members that the LAO’s November report predicts a $15 billion gap between estimated expenditures and estimated revenues again in 2004.
If we are going to borrow $15 billion because we don’t want to address the problem this year – right now – with the full impact of an historic election fresh in mind – how can we seriously believe that somehow we will muster the political resolve to do so next year in the middle of an election?
So far, only $1.3 billion of actual cuts have been proposed this year and only $1.4 billion for next year. Ladies and Gentlemen: that's barely enough to cover the annual debt service on the bond now before us.
The only way this bond can be issued constitutionally is to temporarily repeal one of the oldest provisions in the state constitution that dates back to the original document of 1849.
Why did the Founders place that provision in the law? They were very clear. Let me share the words of the State Supreme Court just seven years later in 1856:
"The Framers of the State Constitution were mostly men fresh in the experience of the errors into which other states had fallen. They had witnessed the unhappy results that followed extravagant legislation, and were anxious to rear a bulwark here, which would protect us against similar disasters...they were aware that years would scarcely repair the follies of a single day, and that the high rate of taxes imposed in many of the States, to pay the interest of the debts so improvidently contracted, had the effect to drive capital and population from their shores."
The next year, the court wrote:
"The framers (of the Constitution) knew that it was not the practice of governments, well conducted, to borrow money for the ordinary expenses of government...the framers of the Constitution knew that if they permitted the Legislature to borrow money to defray the ordinary expenses of the government, it would not be long before the State must be brought practically to rely upon the yearly revenue...Besides this, the Convention doubtless thought it unjust to throw the burden of paying the present expense of the government upon posterity, who would be compelled, in addition, to pay their own expenses, or resort to the same method of postponement."
These are the warnings of a generation of giants who built our state. They have been heeded by every generation that has followed until this one.
And of this one, what can be said? Words are vain. Reason is vain. With this vote you now set in motion the classic spiral of spend-borrow-and-tax that California's Founders had anticipated, feared, and protected against.
Tom's right again, though.
Tom would not get his spending cuts through a Democrat legislature.
Arnold's doing what he can given the makeup of the legislative branch.
Sen. McClintock is trying to give the governor the power to reduce spending.
This is too easy. Where's the catch? Let's put that up ffor a vote.
Tom McClintock has been preaching how to cut the California budget for years. In specifics and details. Here's a few examples.
"But let me make some immediate suggestions for budget savings:
According to the LAO, failure of the state to conform to federal welfare eligibility standards costs the state general fund over $1 billion annually.
Cutting general fund support for the Trade and Commerce Agency would save $60 million.
Cutting general fund support for the California Arts Council would save $30 million.
Consolidating the Board of Equalization and the Franchise Tax Board would save far in excess of $100 million in the first year. Shifting state income taxes to a straight percentage of federal tax liability would easily save $100 million more.
All vacant staff positions should be de-funded for savings estimated at over $400 million.
There are six simple steps right there, saving nearly $2 billion.
-Senator Tom McClintock Date: June 7, 2002
Read the entire speech, Bringing the Budget Under Control
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that McClintock is wrong about the California budget containing oodles of 'fat and waste'? Or are you suggesting that McClintock doesn't have the guts to identify specific cuts, in contrast to other politicians? If your point is the later, could you point out some politicians in California, aside from McClintock, who have identified specific areas to cut.
I see.
So, how will Arnold's bond measure pay off the debt and reduce the operating deficit?
Not only for this year, but also for the remainder of his term in office?
Please be specific.
There are two bonds on the March ballot.
Prop 55 is a school bond. Prop 57 is the colossal $15 Billion bond. Prop 58 includes both a balanced budget requirement (which we already have), but, more importantly, it allows bonds like Prop 57 or last summer's $10Billion bonds not to be unconsitutional (which they would be, under the current Constitution, because they're not "for some single object or work").
Most ominous of all is Prop 56, which will lower the Constitutional requirements to pass a budget to only 55%.
NO on 55, 56, 57, 58.
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.