Posted on 07/08/2004 8:32:04 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
I would be for taxing Democratic special interest groups heavily. I'm amused by their outrage. These happen to be the same people who insist every one else pay more and when it comes to contributing to what Hillary Clinton called "the common good" they balk. It just shows up the depth of their hypocrisy.
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Negotiators said they would resume talks Thursday on California's stalled budget as tensions mounted over the last remaining stumbling block - reforming how the state pays for the operations of local governments.
What's this crap about "state pays for local government" when the property tax was supposed to be for local government in the first place?
Gubmental intrusion at all levels of society has brought us to this point.
Now, the trick is to get the "enslaved" to realize they been had and we are deeply engulfed by socialism and time is a'wastin.
-y
As you know, I'm working on it.
We need to do two things to starve the beast in California: abolish the income tax and make the state government dependent on the sales tax and have local governments subsist on the property tax. That will give us the kind of government we need in our state for the 21st Century.
The outsourcing of various functions could also be a step in that direction. Our current statist model is no longer workable. Its not obvious yet to the elites but give it time.
Historically, they don't seem to care if it's workable as long as it's been workable for them. Corruption has been very profitable, for them, at the expense of total wealth. Unfortunately for that fantasy, if Hollywood or Atherton think they are immune from what happened in South Central LA, they have a lot to learn.
Honest outsourcing has to come by public demand and the understanding that only a bigger pie produces real individual wealth. A state in chaos benefits nobody.
BTW, perhaps you would like to learn more about how that can be done.
What Arnold should do is go tell Burton: "Enjoying that cigar? Good, because next Monday I'm going to start a little countdown. Monday, I'm reneging on $2B of previously-agreed-upon welfare spending, because you didn't deliver the votes you promised. Tuesday, another $2B. And so on. Smoke up; but our deal's off."
between mandated spending, entitlements and nanny state social programs,, all of which, WE, the Average Joes pay for, any break is a welcome one at this time.
And Good F'n Riddance to Burton.
between mandated spending, entitlements and nanny state social programs,, all of which, WE, the Average Joes pay for, any break is a welcome one at this time.
And Good F'n Riddance to Burton.
This is the area where I'm most upset with Arnold. For heaven's sake, if the governor can't cut spending at least a little bit, with all the advantages he now has, then he may NEVER cut it. Cripes, popularity is meant to be USED (by politicians).
True. Its like the old adage has it, "use it or lose it." Arnold will be never this popular again so its time for him to start putting the screws to the Democrats in Sacramento. Because they need government more than Republicans do. Its THEIR livelihood.
Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina has kept his state's increase to a mere one percent. In recent history, only one politician has done better. Ronald Reagan actually cut spending by an average of 1.3 percent per year over his two terms.
Sanford faced a $155 million deficit from his predecessor the day he entered office, together with threats from credit rating agencies to lower the state's borrowing status. To close this gaping hole, he engineered passage of a "Fiscal Discipline Act" through a hostile legislature. He negotiated $139 million in repayment and issued 106 vetoes to cut spending to close the remainder of the gap. While the legislature overrode all but one veto, the governor did not stop there. He walked into the statehouse rotunda with a live pig under each arm to ask why the legislators could not cut unnecessary pork spending. While the spenders were squealing, the people loved it and granted the governor a 70 percent approval rating.
This is how it's done, not with posturing and handwaving, not with secret deals in a smoke filled tent, but with line by line deconstruction of bureaucratic empires. The Arndroids keep excusing Schwarzenegger with the Slave Party majority in the California legislature, while both Reagan and Sanford showed results under the same conditions. Submit a truly balanced budget, swing the veto ax on the contorted results out of the legislature, and pull apart every bureaucratic empire you can find, one by one.
All it takes is courage and priciple. Arnold hasn't either.
I agree with everything but the last part, as to which I reserve judgment. You, of course, still have a bug up your gazoo about the election, as we all know -- here's some pliers for that -- and have already made up your mind about him; I'm going to see how he does first.
Guess who has "a bug up your gazoo"?
This is the area where I'm most upset with Arnold. For heaven's sake, if the governor can't cut spending at least a little bit, with all the advantages he now has, then he may NEVER cut it. Cripes, popularity is meant to be USED (by politicians).
I'm going to see how he does first.
I give you more credit than that. I think you've almost got it, a year too late maybe, but I'm quite sure Arnold will drive that message home for me.
*L* Unlike you, I'm going to focus on what I hope for the state: that Arnold gets it together and gets Sanford-like. Is it possible he won't? Sure, and then I'll be disappointed. What disturbs me about you -- among many, many other things -- is that your desire to see solid reforms is dwarfed by your desire to dance an "I told ya so" dance here in FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.