Arnold Blinks

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, December 15, 2003

[TroutStalker]

Arnold Schwarzenegger has missed a Golden State opportunity, no matter how he spins the economic recovery plan he signed on Friday.

The deal -- to be put to voters on a March 2 ballot -- includes a $15 billion bond to cover past debt, a balanced-budget requirement for the future and provisions for a rainy day fund. All well and good. But absent from the package are any long-term spending controls, which is how California arrived at its $38 billion deficit in the first place.

[RS]

"...But after signing the budget bills on Friday, Mr. Schwarzenegger said he no longer had any plans to pursue that course. We'd suggest he keep his options open."

...a statement like "no longer had any plans" IS keeping your options open ...

[Cicero]

We knew Arnold was pro abortion and pro homosexual activism. Now it seems he is pro big spending too. So, how is this helpful?

Methinks Karl Rove and Gerald Parsky pulled a fast one. They didn't manage to insert RINO Richard Riordan as governor because the Republican base voted against him 2-1 in the primary. So they undermined Bill Simon in the last election, ensured the re-election of the crippled Davis, used conservative money to vote Davis out of office, and inserted RINO Arnold without benefit of primary. Conservative voters were give the choice of voting for the annointed RINO candidate or risking the election of a lunatic leftist.

Great. The destructive legacy of Pete Wilson, which plagued California Republicans for ten years, has been renewed. More big tent country club nonsense shoved down the voters' throats. Thanks a lot, Karl and Gerald.

[templar]

Great. The destructive legacy of Pete Wilson, which plagued California Republicans for ten years, has been renewed.

By the Republicans.

Thanks a lot, Karl and Gerald.

Thanks California voters.

[LS]

I hate to say it, but there IS a long-term spending control. It's called a veto.

[NormsRevenge]

Re-Pete "Wilson" Schwarzenegger 8-?

Somebody should have warned 'em, eh? Like the media...

Oh, well.. Onto 2004

[Digger]

Right On, Cicero. Get your new bumper stickers - "Don't Blame Me I Voted For McClintock". Yes, it's just another smoke & mirrors which pervades the "Two-Party Cartel". Remember, this cartel which is owned by the elites has no plans for a conservative agenda to be revived because it is against their interests. Why can't the voters see thru this.

[NormsRevenge]

Arnold is only one man, after all.. It takes lots of votes to overturn regimes whose adherents are embedded firmly amidst the many wastelands and agencies of this state's bureaucracy.

The initiative process has always been the Governor's not-so-secret weapon, if he's willing to use it. Mr. Schwarzenegger may never be stronger politically than he is right now. Solid public support and a press corps finally paying attention to Sacramento could spell trouble for Democrats up for re-election next year.

Let's Take It to the RaTS in 2004!

[.38sw]

Unfortunately, the senator from the district I live in, Tom Torkakson, is running unopposed. He supports higher taxes, higher fees, more spending, every government program that comes his way, drivers' licenses for illegal aliens, and basically has the opposite viewpoint from mine on every issue I can think of. *sigh*

[Golden Buffalo]

I disagree with the WSJ assessment. The balanced budget amendment in conjunction with a restriction on debt is all you need. If the D's wish to spend they must tax and then they get tossed by the voters. It is called accountability. The spending control proposed is similar to Colorado and while it works it is difficult to administer and the courts have had a field day carving exception to it. And government lawyers spend the day figuring out new and improved way to thwart it on the taxpayer dime. Better to go with the BBA and let the voters exact revenge on the big spenders.

[heleny]

a balanced-budget requirement for the future

Don't we already require a balanced budget, since CA doesn't print its own money? I thought that's why we had all the smoke-and-mirrors budgeting where money would be borrowed from certain accounts that could incur debt in order to fund things that couldn't.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I disagree with the WSJ assessment. The balanced budget amendment in conjunction with a restriction on debt is all you need. If the D's wish to spend they must tax and then they get tossed by the voters. It is called accountability. The spending control proposed is similar to Colorado and while it works it is difficult to administer and the courts have had a field day carving exception to it. And government lawyers spend the day figuring out new and improved way to thwart it on the taxpayer dime. Better to go with the BBA and let the voters exact revenge on the big spenders.

Good points!

[SierraWasp]

"Mr. Schwarzenegger may never be stronger politically than he is right now."

I'm sorry, but it seems to me they just neutered him!!!

[Grampa Dave]

I had this explained to me by a former bigtime CFO, who now is a CFO for hire and runs his own business of building, leasing and selling commercial property.

He felt that this bill that was signed was very similiar to the Colorado bill and will be an excellent tool to curb the big spenders. It is an excellent first step according to him.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

That is encouraging!

The pundits don't seem to see it that way. Maybe it takes a businessman to see that!

[Cicero]

I'm willing to support some Republicans. I still support Bush, because although he has done some things I don't like, on balance he is sound on just about everything but spending. Good pro-life policy, good foreign policy, good tax policy, and good intentions on judicial appointments.

Unless things change, I hope to see Bush resoundingly reelected with enough of a senate majority to start getting his judicial appointments through. So far, unlike Reagan and Bush I, he has not come back with weaker judicial candidates that the Dems will accept. I think that's a good sign.

Arnold, on the other hand, was weak in almost every area EXCEPT spending. If he can't cut spending, then that leaves just about nothing.

[Amerigomag]

Don't we already require a balanced budget, since CA doesn't print its own money?

Yes we essentially do. Here's why

1)The State Constitution requires that the Governor submit a budget to the Legislature by January 10. It provides for a balanced budget in that, if the proposed expenditures for the budget year exceed estimated revenues, the Governor is required to recommend the sources for the additional funding.

2)Although there is no constitutional requirement for passage of a balanced budget, Government Code Section 13337.5 requires that projected expenditures shall not exceed projected revenues for the ensuing fiscal year.

However, these resrictions has been bypassed of late because of the manipulation of the forecast revenues and, sadly, the state has simply ignored the later code section and never been challenged in court.

This is a basic expalanation of the current California budget process taken from the California Department of Finance web site. It it is only a 5 minute read and deserves bookmarking for reference in view of what's ahead in California this comming January.

[heleny]

Thanks for the explanation and link!