TOM MCCLINTOCK: Arnie's Choice

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, December 1, 2003 | TOM MCCLINTOCK

[presidio9]

Have you ever had to make serious cuts -- 15% or more -- in your family budget because of an unexpected job -- loss or unforeseen expense? It's not pleasant, but it's not impossible. And it's also not permanent. As long as you're willing to face your financial problems squarely, you can be sure that the hard times won't last forever and things will improve.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Thanks for posting this.

[bonesmccoy]

California should declare bankruptcy. the Dem's did it.

[familyofman]

"A 13.4% reduction would mean cutting $5.2 billion from this year's budget before Jan. 1 and setting next year's budget at $66.6 billion. That's a big cut -- and it means giving up billions of dollars of programmed spending increases next year."
I didn't see any specific cuts mentioned. Where will the $5.2bil in cuts come from? What programs, etc will be cut?
Is this the only solution to the budget woes of Calif, and how much support do these recommendations have in the CA legislature?

[Cicero]

He puts it very well. Not blaming Arnie but blaming Gray Davis, and saying that it's a choice and an opportunity.

What Arnie decided right now will be crucial. He needs more than a 1 or 2 billion dollar cut; he needs major surgery immediately.

Machiavelli said that when you need to something very unpopular, don't do it in dribs and drabs and stretch it out over a long time. Do it early and do it completely. Then the shock will be over and people will be relieved as things gradually get better.

[liberallarry]

If only it were as simple as McClintock describes.

A 15% drop in family income can almost always be dealt with by belt-tightening. A 50% drop is a catastrophe...and that's what will happen to some people as the state cuts spending.

Here's an example.
The Governor is proposing a 10% cut in Medical, on top of a 5% cut that was recently implemented. He also proposes a small drop in wage assistance for long-term care nurses.
Between 20 and 50 of California's rural hospitals are in grave financial danger. Some will be pushed over the edge and forced to close. That means the loss of a signicant number of jobs and income to the hospital's town and a significant drop in property values. So some businesses may be forced to close and some people may default on their mortgages...and some patients may have nowhere to go. The governor and the Legislature will try to prevent this kind of collateral damage...but it will occur anyway.

It's the multiplier effect working against us.

[freekitty]

I hope the right thing will be done. If you have to cut deeply, do so. They did this during the depression which I am assuming was not a pretty sight.

[RKV]

"California's current budget deficit is caused by two actions Gray Davis took last year to paper over his mismanagement: He illegally tripled the car tax and he attempted to borrow $12.6 billion unconstitutionally."
Actually the cause is that expenditures outpaced revenues. That said, I don't disagree with the solution. Cut spending now.

[presidio9]

A 15% drop in family income can almost always be dealt with by belt-tightening. A 50% drop is a catastrophe...and that's what will happen to some people as the state cuts spending.

Government outlays are not "income."

[FirstPrinciple]

Damn. If your property value solely depends on the fact that there is a hospital in town, then reality will catch up with you one way or another. As for the nursing staff, there is a huge shortage of them in the rest of the country. Maybe they can relocate.

[GrandMoM]

BUMP

[Carry_Okie]

If only it were as simple as McClintock describes.

McClintock knows more about every line of that budget than anyone in Sacramento; he's just putting it in simple terms for public consumption. There's plenty of flab. The problem is that the Slave Party thugs WILL cut essential services first, to get the people to believe that the situation is truly desperate but in reality punishing them for not coughing up more money.

Between 20 and 50 of California's rural hospitals are in grave financial danger. Some will be pushed over the edge and forced to close. That means the loss of a signicant number of jobs and income to the hospital's town and a significant drop in property values. So some businesses may be forced to close and some people may default on their mortgages...and some patients may have nowhere to go. The governor and the Legislature will try to prevent this kind of collateral damage...but it will occur anyway.

It's been occurring for 20 years. There's a way to crank up the rural economy, but it would involve dealing with the regulatory straitjacket with which rural resource industries have been virtually murdered. Arnold's globalist handlers won't permit that, so don't cry to me about rural hospitals as if you care.

[jocko12]

MAKE THE 15% CUTS NOW ARNIE.

[elbucko]

Between 20 and 50 of California's rural hospitals are in grave financial danger........ That means the loss of a significant number of jobs and income to the hospital's town and a significant drop in property values.

Your example makes it sound as if the purpose of rural hospitals should be to support local jobs and property values. While I don't deny that rural Californians need hospitals, a hospitals purpose is for health care and not to economically sustain a rural town and its "property values".

Your example, though well meant, is an example of the "Mission Creep" that government spending and local politicians tend to encourage. Perhaps a clinic will do, that is satellite to a larger facility.

[expatpat]

Right on. A 12% across-the-board decrease will cause some excessive screaming, but will force each department of state govt. to examine their spending and make their operations more efficient.

[liberallarry]

Government outlays are not "income."

They're income for those who work for government, or get paid by government for goods and services.

[presidio9]

They're income for those who work for government, or get paid by government for goods and services.

But that's not what you were talking about Larry.

[stylin_geek]

And that income comes from where? Government does not create wealth, never has, never will. The financial state of California is the direct result of socialistic policies implemented by Sacramento. One cannot continue to place more and more demands on business and tax payers without consequences. Current policies in the State of CA are about the most anti business you will ever see.

[stylin_geek]

And that income comes from where? Government does not create wealth, never has, never will. The financial state of California is the direct result of socialistic policies implemented by Sacramento. One cannot continue to place more and more demands on business and tax payers without consequences. Current policies in the State of CA are about the most anti business you will ever see.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

The problem is that the Slave Party thugs WILL cut essential services first, to get the people to believe that the situation is truly desperate but in reality punishing them for not coughing up more money.

Yep. Let's take a trip to bizarro world and see what the LATimes would headline there...

Democrats Target the Young and Infirm
Govt Services Shutdown Memo Surfaces
Taxpayer Extortion Forecast