A Dose of Reality for Schwarzenegger (MClintock opposes California bond measure)

LA TImes ^ | Nov. 20, 2003 | Gregg Jones and Evan Halper

[FairOpinion]

"... the governor faced concerns from fellow Republicans over his plan to deal with California's fiscal difficulties without a tax increase.

Brulte said he expected the borrowing proposal to pass the Senate eventually. But Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) said he would vote against it, and other Republicans interviewed Wednesday echoed concerns already raised by Burton and other Democrats.

"I think it's fiscally irresponsible to use long-term, general obligation bonds to meet state expenses," McClintock said after the Senate session. "That is why, for over 100 years, the state Constitution has prohibited that practice — to prevent a prodigal generation from running up a huge debt while it parties, then passing the bill on to his children."

He added, "A deficit bond will not have my vote."

Brulte said the key to Schwarzenegger's fiscal recovery plan was a cap on state spending, a central Republican demand. "If the price I have to pay for a spending cap is a willingness to support a deficit bond, I'm willing to look at that," Brulte said. "But our prime objective is the spending cap."

[FairOpinion]

"I vote against all bond measures. "
====

So do I. I also completely agree with you, that they put the "noble cause" bonds, like for schools, firefighting, etc. on the ballot, then they can squander the other money which should be spend on this.

I thought we already have a 2/3 vote requirement to pass bond measures, that's why many of them fail. I know the Legislature was trying to change that, but as far as I know, they haven't been successful. Am I missing something?

But Arnold is being very responsible, coupling the bond with a spending cut. And as I and others said before, we are facing a crisis, and there is no way to cut enough quickly enough, without some revenue increase, and a bond measure, the way Arnold is doing it, is vastly preferable to a tax increase, which would hurt CA's economy further.


"Schwarzenegger said the bonds must be linked to a constitutional spending limit that will prevent the state from overspending and developing deficits in the future."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20031119-9999_1n19legis.html

[Solamente]

"A deficit bond will not have my vote."

[Howlin]

"grandchildren being saddled with our debts"

Is that man not aware that they already ARE saddled with debt -- or are his kids/grandkids planning on moving out of CA, too?

[onyx]

Thnaks for your information. McC is only for McC. But, we knew that all along.

Governor Arnold is popular. McC ought to get a clue.

[LexBaird]

The bond measure IS the only way out, short of raising taxes.

Bond measures ARE raising taxes.

You can call it a bond. You can call it a licence fee. You can call it a revenue enhancement. You can call it a permit. You can call it tariff. You can call it a duty. You can call it a property assessment

IT'S STILL A FRIGGIN' TAX!

Just because you push off its effects onto another group of people (our kids, in this case) doesn't make it right. Until the State budget is cut back by at least 25%, I'll not vote a single penny out of my children's pockets. When we are no longer paying for gangbanger tattoo removal and schoolteacher sex-changes and monuments to racist La Raza monuments and everything else the legislature buys votes with, I'll consider another bond.

What Arnold needs to do is play hardball, and line-item veto everything in the budget that isn't a vital service until we are spending less than our income, not run up our State credit card another $20 Billion.

[Hildy]

WELL, WELL, WELL... we finally agree. I vote against any bond, anytime.

[RKV]

"Today's bond measures are tomorrow's tax increases."

Carve that in stone.

[onedoug]

Thank you.

'Looking forward to reading about all these cuts in the Voter Information Pamphlet when the issue comes to the polls.

[goldstategop]

I don't like a bond either. My vote for one is tied into it paying off the current debt and there must be a constitutional amendment that prevents the state from easily taking on more debt. Tom McClintock thinks we can cut spending $40 billion. It ain't gonna happen. Republicans are going to have to realize that half a loaf approach is better than nothing and it'll take years to finally destroy the Democratic majority here. Unless every one wants Arnold to go Bob Riley, a package deal is the way to go. And we need to put California first.

[TheAngryClam]

Tom standing up for fiscal conservatism again.

[FairOpinion]

What I find really inappropriate, is not that McClintock opposes the bond issue, and may not vote for it, although that does put him squarely in the camp with the Dems, but that 3 days Arnold becomes governor, McClintock just had to get in front of the cameras to criticize Arnold's plan, in a very shrill voice, and non-diplomatic (to be very kind to him) way.

He is the best stooge the Dems could have.

[FairOpinion]

The picture is more accurate than you think. ;)

[P-Marlowe]

As long as the democrats remain in power in the legislature, nothing is going to get done. Our only hope is that this debt bond passes along with spending limits. Then come next november we can hopefully take over the legislature. If we cannot get control of the legislature, then California will have to go bankrupt.

Now there are a lot of positives to a bankruptcy. First of all if California goes bankrupt then all the state pension contracts and state employment contracts that are eating up more and more of our budget every year can be cancelled and renegotiated. The purse strings would be taken away from the hippie democrats and put in the hands of a receiver who would not be politically tied to any specific interests, so the receiver could make the necessary fiscal cuts that no politician would ever attempt.

[Poohbah]

Our only hope is that this debt bond passes along with spending limits.

Or else that it loses by a very convincing majority (55+% against), and makes the Dems spit up the Kool-Aid.

[FairOpinion]

"What Arnold needs to do is play hardball, and line-item veto everything in the budget that isn't a vital service until we are spending less than our income"

==

Sure, let's bring CA to a screeching halt, and not accomplish anything, right? That would be the net effect.

Let's make everyone hate Arnold and recall him, so Bustamante could finally get in.

(/sarcasm)

[fourscore]

While I voted for Arnold, I did so without enthusiasm. McClintock is right about bonds. Arnold does not have the courage to make the kind of cuts necessary to solve the structural probelm in the deficit. Why? Because he is NOT a conservative. Arnold is better than Cruz, but Arnold is still pretty bad. Just wait and see. It will be curious to see how far some might go to defend Arnold, no matter what he does.

[Sabertooth]

Where is his list of 2003?

Here's one...

McCLINTOCK: ...First of all, this state is already spending a larger portion of people's earnings than at any time in its history. We are not suffering a revenue problem. In the last four years of this administration, inflation and population combined has grown 21 percent. Our revenues are up 25 percent. That's after the dot-com collapse, after the car tax and after state revenues. We're taking in significantly more revenues than inflation and population. The problem is, we have a 38 percent increase in state spending in that same period of time. We haven't gotten a 38 percent increase in highway construction and school construction. We're paying through the nose for this government to provide. And it's not hard to find ways to find a system that produces as little as California and costs as much. Let me just give you some examples. If we simply restored to the California government the same freedom that every family or every business has to shop around for the best service at the lowest price, there's about $9 billion in savings across all departments in that one reform alone.

MODERATOR: Let me you cut you off for a second. I'm going to let you continue. You've got a minute and a half, we're gonna try to get as many questions as possible, so wrap this up if you could, please.

MC CLINTOCK: Let me come to about $8 billion of specific cuts and then we'll move on. Six billion dollars can be saved simply by reorganizing the state's bureaucracy. That means abolishing agencies that duplicate federal functions, or that overlap each other's jurisdiction. As I said earlier, workers' compensation reform ... simply swapping our plan for Arizona's. That's about $2.5 billion of direct savings to local governments and state governments alone. That's about $18.5 billion without even breaking a sweat.
CA Recall Debate Transcript - September 25th, 2003

[LexBaird]

Who is the real RINO around here, then?

Why don't you stop it with the ad hominum attacks?

Before the election, Swartzenegger said he wouldn't raise taxes unless we had a State emergency, like a natural disaster. Apparently what he really meant was that he wouldn't impose IMMEDIATE tax increases.

McClintock, OTOH, is being consistant with his pre-election policy. You would expect it to change?

If you think raising taxes on our kids is an okay thing for a Republican to do, then you voted for the right guy. If not, you didn't.

[onyx]

He's cutting his own throat. He's proving himself a 'little, bitter man.' Pitiful. Sorry to see it.

[FairOpinion]

And what is McClintock's REALISTIC solution to California's fiscal crisis?

As I said, this "we have bonds" "bonds are not the answer" are the same rhetoric, with NO solutions that the anti-war people use when the chant "war is not the answer".