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]

McClintock could have gone on TV, lauding Arnold for his planned 18% cuts in the budget, in proposing spending caps, and said, Oh, by the way, I don't really agree with issuing bonds, in general, but given the state of CA, we may have to consider that.

But McClintock didn't do that, he was playing the usual Dem card, about whining about "the children", "our grandchildren" saddled with "our" debt, and publicly telling everyone what bad idea bonds are and our deficit, as if Arnold had created the debt singlehandedly in the 3 days since he's been in office.

[Aquinasfan]

"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."

A Democrat is what a Democrat does.

[Saundra Duffy]

Go, McClintock! He has a mind of his own, thank you very much.

[FairOpinion]

McClintock is carefully avoiding the point, that Arnold is coupling the bond issue with spending caps.

[FairOpinion]

"Go, McClintock! He has a mind of his own, thank you very much. "

==

Why is doing the Dems dirty work for them "having a mind of his own"?

[RKV]

The RATs already said as much. You remember the conference call which was overheard (several months ago)? Don't play the RATs game. Cut, cut and cut some more spending. Sell assets, sunset state agencies and repeal laws. That's the way out of this, not debt, not rasing taxes. I could accept raising tuition at state colleges too since the people who benefit are the ones who pay, but not increases in sales or income taxes.

[LexBaird]

Arnold is planning drastic budget cuts, but he is doing it the right way: by action, not by useless rhetoric,

Great news! As soon as he signs the paperwork, I'll give him kudos. But I'm still not gonna vote the legislature any more money. Find the money somewhere else than my kitchen table budget. I need the money more than Arnold does.

[Bernard Marx]

It will be curious to see how far some might go to defend Arnold, no matter what he does.

I think it already has been.

[FairOpinion]

See:


(California)Governor's plan means big cuts (Schwarzenegger to slash 18% from budget)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1025812/posts

[Sabertooth]

#64: Arnold IS working on Budget cuts

Haven't suggested otherwise. You asked for proposals by McClintock, so I posted some that were handy.

#68: 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.

This is presumptiuous. You're defining California's best interests as working "with Arnold." What if one sincerely believes, as I do, that bond meassures are not in any way in California's best interests?

If McClintock is sincere in his opposition to the bond, and I think he is, then how can he "work with Arnold" on it?

[Aquinasfan]

McClintock is carefully avoiding the point, that Arnold is coupling the bond issue with spending caps.

OK. Let's see what happens.

[NormsRevenge]

Speaking of tiresome...

re: Tom. Why don't you say what you really think about those damn purist conservatives? Don't hold it in, now. It can fester. :-) LOL

Saying "More debt now so less debt later is OK" seems like the same logic as temporary tax increases are OK when you are in a pinch for funds.

Bonds are a short-term fix that will only salve over the festering decay in state govt's ability to govern without asking for more funds for more social programs with no hope to ever see them eliminated or reined in. Fix govt first, then you can talk bonds.

Oh, any of Tom's past plans & proposed policy changes are "irrelevant" like him anyway, yaknow. Yur beating a dead horse to life, imo. Is there no room for debate anymore?

Damn , I was gonna give Arnie a B+ for his first couple of days, too..

[rightwingcrazy]

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.

What's the alternative? Californians couldn't let a rightwing crazy running the state!

[Brian Allen]

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

Try telling that one to Bank of America Mastercard or to Wells Fargo Visa.

Mr McLintock is Right-on on this one.

And there is is no Forty Billion Dollars.

It does not exist.

Its owners-to-be have not yet created it and the state gummint has no more right to squander it than it does to confiscate it -- as is Arnold's desire -- from people not even born yet or yet snuck feloniously across our northern, eastern, western and/or southern borders!

[Brian Allen]

<< Distinction without a difference.

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

I'm glad McClintock is voting against it. I will too. I vote against all bond measures.

Bond measures are the wiggle room politicians use to fund things voters would never approve. Money is fungible.

Ever notice why we only have bonds for schools, police, fire, and environmental spending? It's because voters wouldn't approve social spending. When you vote for any bond, you're giving the politicians license to spend and waste.

We're in our current predicament precisely because of earlier bond measures. Time for cold turkey.

While we're at it, let's get a proposition on the ballot requiring supermajorities for the passage of bond measures.

BTW, McClintock has a plan to balance the budget without taxes or bonds; it was in his campaign. >>

Hear! Hear!

Well said.

Thank you -- Brian

[Sabertooth]

Why is doing the Dems dirty work for them "having a mind of his own"?

How is opposing more spending via a $15 billion bond doing the "Dems' dirty work?"

"Politics makes strange bedfellows," or so it's been said. The Dems oppose the bond because they want higher taxes and no spending cuts. McClintock opposes the bond because he wants more cuts and lower taxes.

Should we conclude, since they both oppose the bond, that the Democrats are doing McClintock's dirty work?

Or, should we conclude, since a bond allows more spending, that Arhnold is doing the Democrats' dirty work?

Can't it be a sincere difference of opinion?

[Austin Willard Wright]

Why are further spending cuts unrealistc? If there is no bond issue and no tax increase, budget cuts will be required by legal necessity and thus be entirely realistic. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that, despite the talk of the Cassandras, most Californians are taxpayers, not tax consumers thus they would be helped more than harmed by the cuts both in the short-term and long-term.

The best way to make the spending cuts truly unrealistic is to argue, as you do, that they are impossible. Your "can't do it" position creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[FairOpinion]

So, do you think Arnold should fire the legislature and most state employees and declare himself KING?

[onyx]

I haven't even gotten around to forming an opinion the bond thang. The point is McC couldn't wait to voice his objection (sans his lofty solutions) of course.

[FairOpinion]

See my post #81 about the "acceptable" way McC could have done it vs. the way he did do it.

(of course, he could have just kept his mouth shut and stayed away from TV cameras, but I know that would be too much to ask of him)