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]

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

===

McClintock gets on TV to attack Arnold, which rejoices the Dems, I point this out, and I am the one with the attacks?

[RKV]

And how does his opposition to debt (bonds) put him in the same camp as the RATs? The RATs want us to pay more taxes and bonds do just that. Oh, we pay later, not now, but the net result is still the same on a present value basis. And we pay interest, too. Don't think we can cut (enough) spending. I beg to differ. This problem is large enough, but not unsolvable. Some sacred cows will be slaughtered in the process, but that is OK with me. Do we need a Coastal Commision, no. Do we need CAL_OSHA, no. College students will pay more, yep. And so on.

[FairOpinion]

The Dems want Arnold to raise taxes, so he will destroy CA even more, so the Dems can get elected. It's either the bond measure or immediate tax increases.

Whatever reasons McClintock states, the results are what count, and he is voting, and speaking out publicly against the bond measure, just like the Dems.

Arnold is doing the responsible thing, the only feasible thing: "The bond would only be sold if the voters approve the state spending limit described above to ensure politicians can never again put current year spending on the state's credit card," the governor's office says.
"

[FairOpinion]

Arnold IS working on Budget cuts:

"Schwarzenegger did not unveil any specific budget cuts Tuesday, but said he would do so in the coming days, after discussing budget plans with legislative leaders from both parties. Nor did he outline how he would find the $3.4 billion to make up for revenues from repealing the car tax.

Budget cuts will be 'severe'
He cautioned that the budget cuts, when they are announced, would be "severe."

"I can guarantee you there will be at least $2 billion in budget cuts," he said.

Schwarzenegger also said he will follow through with plans to lay off state workers -- plans drafted by the man he ousted from office, former Gov. Gray Davis. However, he promised that no one would be laid off before Christmas. "

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/18/elec04.schwarzenegger/

[truth_seeker]

Although I have contacted the McClintock led repeal of the car tax THREE TIMES, I still have not received petitions in the mail.

Twice by e-mail, and once by phone. The guy I talked to on the phone assured me the petitions would be out soon, but that was about three weeks ago.

McClintock is a small time operator. Can't run campaigns, can't raise funds, can't execute what his website promotes.

His agenda now is to assist Arnold's opponents, so he can gloat and say it could only work, if done Tom's way.

Small time.

[JoeSchem]

I think McClintock would serve the interests of California and those of Republican better, if he would come up with a list of suggested spending caps and cuts

I can't believe the incredible gall of you Gropemeister Worshipers. You're accusing McClintock of exactly what your guy is doing.

McClintock had such a list BEFORE the recall election. It was Schwarzenegger who declined to produce such a list and still hasn't done so.

The intellectual void here is really Schwarzenegger's. He thinks that selling bonds is different than borrowing money.

[hunter112]

Arnold holds the ultimate trump card in dealing with Republicans he considers irredeemably recalcitrant. He can just declare the mess beyond his ability to deal with as long as the current crop of Republicans is in the legislature, and resign. This would make Bustamonte the acting governor, and would tar the Republicans with failing to use this historic chance to solve the mess.

Arnold goes back to making movies, maybe even jumps to the Rat party out of pure disgust. But, we're nowhere near that yet.

[FairOpinion]

"SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recovery plan will require slashing at least 18 percent from the state's budget for programs such as higher education, social services, welfare and corrections, according to a Times analysis.

After three days in office, Schwarzenegger has provided few details about where he plans to cut. But his comments and proposals so far suggest drastic reductions in almost every state-funded agency except kindergarten through twelfth grade and community college education."

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/7307183.htm

As I said, if McC had CA's best interest at heart, he would work with Arnold, instead of getting in front of TV, criticizing his plan.

[LexBaird]

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

Strawman argument. I propsed line-item vetos for all of the non-essential items. We should fund the emergency services, mandated education, and the like, but cut the pork-barrel stuff that is only there so Jackie Goldberg can get votes.

Then you force the Dems to try to override the veto on the extravagencies, using Arnold's starpower to shine publicity on them while they do it.

You are in debt so Jackie can pass out free condoms in bars in West Hollywood. You want to vote in a bond, so she can continue the program.

[RKV]

I guess that is where we differ. I think it is better to cut now, rather than later. We should also sell state property (land) before we take out one more bond.

[nothingnew]

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

and "you can call me Ray, you can call me Jay, but you doesn't has to call me Johnson!"

FMCDH

[FairOpinion]

See my post 68. Arnold is planning drastic budget cuts, but he is doing it the right way: by action, not by useless rhetoric, like some people, whose name starts with McC.

[goldstategop]

18 percent is a start. We really should double that figure. And let's see the Demorats and GOP purists propose an alternative.

[FairOpinion]

"We should also sell state property (land) before we take out one more bond. "

==

I did read something about selling state property, I think that is a good idea.

But, considering the size and severity of the crisis, we need a multi-prong approach.

Did you see my post, that Arnold plans to slash the budget by 18%? I think that's a good start.

[RKV]

Proposing debt (bonds) is the WRONG action.

[jas3]

Cutting $40B from the budget overnight is not even close to realistic.

Too bad that you are probably right - it's not realistic. Although as a practical matter it wouldn't take me more than a couple hours to cut $40B.

[LexBaird]

McClintock gets on TV to attack Arnold, which rejoices the Dems, I point this out, and I am the one with the attacks?

Yes, you are.

Your attacks are ad hominum. McClintock's are disagreements on policy. You want to disagree on Tom's fiscal policy? Fine, knock yourself out.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Dems want Arnold to raise taxes, so he will destroy CA even more, so the Dems can get elected.

The Democrats want Arnold to raise taxes so they can create another "read my lips" moment for Republicans. That's all they want to do, they want to discredit him by forcing him into reneging on his pledge to not raise taxes except for disaster. They tried it after the fire/flood, but that was only an ecological disaster with some lost homes, not a freeway disaster that threatened to shut down all of Los Angeles.

-PJ

[Mudboy Slim]

"This compendium offers over 217 specific reductions that could be made in the 1995-1996 state budget. Total savings from these proposals amount to more than $11.7 billion, including $1.2 billion in proposals by the Legislative Analyst's Office in 64 items. In compiling this collection, our purpose is to show that there are ample opportunities to reduce spending. It will be said by defenders of many of the items that they are "small amounts" in the context of a $89 billion budget. This is true, but it misses the point. "Small" programs involve real dollars that add up to millions, then tens of millions-all of it spent on unnecessary state activities. To regain control of the budget, unnecessary spending of all kinds must be eliminated. All that is needed is the requisite resolve."

Thanks...MUD

[Publius6961]

I think McClintock would serve the interests of California and those of Republican better, if he would come up with a list of suggested spending caps and cuts, instead of criticizing the bond measure, which is the ONLY solution, short of actually raising taxes, to tackle the budget problem.

The California Constitution prohibits deficit spending.
This bond proposal is deficit spending by another name.
You would encourage anyone to support an illegal act? and to compound it into the indefinite future?

What's to prevent the out of control legislature from leaving the voter's no other choice every year?