CA: Should state make next generation pay for debt?

Sac Bee ^ | 12/7/03 | Daniel Weintraub

[NormsRevenge]

In a political world that's become all-Schwarzenegger, all-the-time, Phil Angelides is the anti-Arnold.

California's treasurer couldn't be more unlike the state's new governor. The governor is the instant politician. The treasurer has dedicated most of his life to politics and public service. The governor can be erratic, speaking in slogans and often contradicting himself. The treasurer is focused and measured, almost professorial.

[NormsRevenge]

.

[randita]

It's becoming clear that, as predicted, the Democrat controlled CA Legislature is going to do nothing but impede Arnold at every turn. The Democrats don't want the budget crisis solved. They just want to blame Arnold for not solving the problem.

It's going to take amazing political and leadership skills by Arnold along with a clear message from voters that they want a concise plan on tackling the budget crisis which doesn't involve raising taxes to get the situation under control. Arnold needs to start labeling the Legislature as obstructionists. He's tried joint cooperation and has been rebuffed. Time to go on the offensive.

[DustyMoment]

CA has few choices. The inability of the state leg to pass Arnie's referendum that would have restored the state's coffers to the black, coupled with their inability to pass an alternative measure to deal with the budgetary woes is particularly telling.

The state leg is stuck and doesn't know how to fix the mess it made. They won't pass Arnies' bill, but the leftists, as always, have no ideas of their own. California has limited possibilities:
1. Accept the responsibility, bite the bullet and become a fiscally responsible state,
2. Delay fiscal responsibility and force the obligation to the younger generation,
3. Default on everything so that the rest of the US will have to pay to bail them out of debt.

I think that what the state leg wants is option #3. Politicians are so gutless today that, they don't mind passing tax increases to take more money out of our pockets so they have more of our money to waste, but they are unable to make the tough decisions that are required to fix budget messes like this. They won't admit that their free-spending policies are what got CA in the current mess and that ending some of their free money give-aways are necessary to restore the health of their state budget. They longer they can stall taking any action by deciding not to decide, the closer they get to defaulting and forcing the federal government to bail them out.

I don't want to pay off their problems when I had no voice in the decisions they made that got them where they are. Conversely, if I have to bail them out, I want a voice in future budget decisions until the debt is repaid.

THAT'S how a representative republic should work!

[KantianBurke]

"This bond, when it's all paid off by our children in 30 years, will leave us with nothing but a bill paid. Unlike a school that's being constructed, unlike a transportation project in which our children and grandchildren share in the benefit, our children and grandchildren get nothing out of this bond other than a tab which is stuck to them."

They must be following Bush's lead due to his recent "free pills for granny" plan.

[cynicom]

CA has never been a "pay as you go" state. Socialism cannot be fostered by such a restriction.

[SAJ]

Any Congresscritter from any other state who would vote for a bill bailing Calbania out of its entirely self-created fiscal mess using taxpayer monies had better be in the most ''secure'' district in recorded history.

Talk about a political nuke, geez! Imagine saying to your voters ''Hey, not only do you get to pay for our state politicians' idiocy, and the idiocy of us dudes and dudettes in the Regress, NOW you're going to get to pay for the idiocy of Calbanian pols, too -- AND, you don't even get to vote on it! Isn't that great, folks?''

Nobody in the Regress can run fast enough to escape the mob that that sentiment would produce.

[dalereed]

They could cut the school spending and order an immediate 10% pay reduction for all state employees and balance the budget.

All they have to do is run the schools like they did 60 years ago and they would have more money than they could spend.

The first thing the schools should do is cut about 80% of the administration, most of which are listed as teachers in the school budget in order to cry poverty for more money. A school district that a man I helped put on the school board listed every person in administration that had a teaching credential as a teacher and he was the only one with the inteligence and dedication to even see it.

[Publius6961]

CA: Should state make next generation pay for debt?

NO!

The only thing worse than runaway spending by morons is increased taxes, a 25 year debt, and continued out-of-control spending.

[cynicom]

Grandson graduated from UCLA. Now in law school. When he finishes, he will leave CA. Very little direct cost to him for education.

[William Tell]

DustyMoment said: "The inability of the state leg to pass Arnie's referendum that would have restored the state's coffers to the black, ..."

The fact that Davis' "deficit bonds" are illegal didn't stop the legislature from including them in the budget. Arnold's proposal for a spending cap will be equally worthless without public flogging of legislators as an inducement to compliance.

Also, Arnold's $15 billion bond issue merely refinances the illegal bonds and makes up for some of the reduced car taxes. This in no way turns red ink to black.

DustyMoment also suggests as an alternative: "3. Default on everything so that the rest of the US will have to pay to bail them out of debt. "

I don't recall seeing the federal government rushing to aid Tennessee when their overly generous health care system was causing them to close public parks. Likewise, there is no reason to tax people in 49 other states in order to allow Kalifornia to spend beyond its means.

Kalifornia has many valuable assets. Merely allowing offshore drilling would probably add billions to the public treasure. Why would somebody in Utah deprive their children of any comfort whatever in order to keep Kalifornia beaches free of tarballs?

Even without drilling, Kalifornia can convert state beaches into very attractive luxury homesites. Reducing the number of state beaches by half seems a much fairer way to address Kalifornia's budget needs rather than ask someone in Kansas to delay maintenance on their homes due to an increased federal tax burden.

I continue to be puzzled by people who fear a federal bailout. Just what would the feds do? Deliver trucks full of money until the Demoncrats get tired of spending it? That would be a lot of trucks.

[dalereed]

"Why would somebody in Utah deprive their children of any comfort whatever in order to keep Kalifornia beaches free of tarballs?"

Offshore oil drilling is the only reason that we have tar free beaches today.

When I was growing up, before oil drilling off the coast or shipping oil by tanker you couldn't go on any beach from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border without getting covered with tar due to natural seepage. The oil drilling relieved the gas pressure that was forcing the oil up and today that seepage has been reduced to a minimum.

[Publius6961]

I think that what the state leg wants is option #3. Politicians are so gutless today that, they don't mind passing tax increases to take more money out of our pockets so they have more of our money to waste, but they are unable to make the tough decisions that are required to fix budget messes like this. They won't admit that their free-spending policies are what got CA in the current mess and that ending some of their free money give-aways are necessary to restore the health of their state budget. They longer they can stall taking any action by deciding not to decide, the closer they get to defaulting and forcing the federal government to bail them out.

First of all, if the rest of they country is rational, nobody is about to bail California out.

The conditions under which I would vote for a tax increase are rigid and non-negotiable, and the safeguards must be bulletproof.
Plus
The strict prohibition on deficit spending better have some penalty attached. Like instant ejection from the legislature if anyone proposes such.

In addition, there better be a Constitutional Amendment to permanently prohibit the total fiction of "the constitution requires us to spend 80% of all present and future budgets". That is so 70's and a main ingredient of our flirtation with state bankrupcy.
Everyone can now see the sham: Keep raising taxes to satisfy Constitutional spending, while diverting funds to pet projects and arbitrary pork which the state has no business funding in the first place.

[DustyMoment]

I'd like to agree with you, but there is a history, there. Congress bailed out Lockheed in the 70s and Chrysler in the 80s. Those are private companies doing business with the government.

The difference here is that the state of CA is a member of the Republic of the United States of America. As such, if CA defaults on their financial obligations, the responsibility for those obligations fall to the federal government. Bush has already announced that he has set aside funds to bailout CA. IMO, that's another reason that the state leg wouldn't go with Arnie's bond legislation. They'd rather let the state go under and let the debts fall to the feds than take proactive, muture, responsible action to slow the hemaorrhage of money.

If/when this occurs, it sets up an interesting set of Constitutional events that will have the SCOTUS on the bench handing down earthshaking rulings that will affect the rest of us for generations.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, as a Californian, I am opposed to having the Federal government bail out our state. I have reservations about substituting future tax increases for present tax increases (which is really what the current plan is all about), but one way or another, we as Californians need to solve this problem ourselves.

And, we can. We really are the greatest state in the Union!!! We got everything we need!! ;-)

[DustyMoment]

I fully agree . . . well, maybe not about the greatest state in the union part, although I do like CA. There are some other great states in the Union, too, and I am partial top ALL of them. :-)

But, you DO have everything you need; and the power to use it.

[Scenic Sounds]

I fully agree . . . well, maybe not about the greatest state in the union part, although I do like CA. There are some other great states in the Union, too, and I am partial top ALL of them. :-)

Well, if you're going to "fully agree" with me, you must begin by acknowledging that California is the greatest state in the Union. LOL. All the other states follow our lead. And they should. ;-)

Remember, our Governor promised only that he wouldn't raise present taxes. He didn't say he wouldn't raise our future taxes!!! ;-)

[SAJ]

You make an interesting argument, but, equivalently, I can see absolutely no part of the Constitution that grants the U.S. any power to deal with the public debt of any State in ANY fashion, nor confers upon the U.S. the duty to maintain the credit of any State.

Of course, the government of the U.S. ignores the Constitution routinely and regularly, so I don't expect much impetus from that argument. You're quite right, I think, that SCOTUS will obtrude itself into these events. What was it that Jefferson said about the ''stealthy advance of the judiciary''? Someone posted this quotation a couple of days ago, and was Mr. J. exactly correct or what!

I'm very disappointed, but completely unsurprised, that Mr. Bush is already considering this extraconstitutional spending (haven't seen the details, but will certainly accept your word for it).

[Joe Hadenuf]

They just want to blame Arnold for not solving the problem.

I know your in Pennsylvania, so let me try and get you up to speed.

No one is going to fall for this blame game.

Even the hard core socialist and libs know it's going to take time and it's going to bite them hard. Even they know who's fault the budget disaster is and that the fix is going to eat them. Even the people sitting at the bus stops know who's to blame, as we all watch them duck the swinging axes.

The criminals in the Legislature can attempt to blame Swarzenegger for not fixing it, or fixing it the wrong way, or not fixing it fast enough, but no one is going to buy it.

We can only hope they continue to try and stop what needs to be done at every turn, as it only pisses off the people even more. They are now under a microscope, and everyone is watching. It's no longer business as usual behind closed doors. It don't work no more.

You ought to hear the radio airwave here. California's are not in a real good mood when it comes to politicians that have spent our money like common drunks.

The criminals in Sacramento government have been thoroughly exposed. Even the weak minded can see this.

Most of us don't give a damn how they fix this bull sh*t, or what programs get screwed, or what state employee loses their job. We no longer have any sympathy. None. Many of us want them jailed.

F-um all in Sacramento, is the consensus on the street.

They can point their fingers all they want. It no longer fly's....Most all of them have lost their credibility and the overall majority can clearly see this.

We over threw their extreme liberal government. It was a historic bloodless revolution. It's a new day.

They pushed Californian's one to many times. They paid the political price, as the Davis government died in total disgrace, at the end of a political rope.

The greatest state of the greatest country on earth

[SAJ]

One other thing. Comparing the Chrysler & Lockheed bailouts to Calbania is disingenuous at best. While I agree that these two enterprises should have been liquidated, at least, the loans having been made, said loans WERE paid back on time and with interest -- so the taxpayers at large lost nothing (indeed, due to the indenture of the Chrysler loan, the U.S. made a tidy packet on the subsequent recovery in the share price).

Calbania will never, NEVER pay back a dime of principal, because the indenture that the U.S. will grant (whether formal or merely ''understood'') will have all sorts of weasel-outs embedded within. Just watch.

I wish I could take bets on this proposition.