LOL, $6 billion is what percent of $100 billion? Now, since that budget has been going up seven percent, how much less will a 6% cut be than it would have been?
You folks carp all day long about wanting Schwarzenegger to make cuts, but when the study is done and cuts are about to be implemented, you folks find every excuse in the book to be unhappy about that too.
Who set up this commission? McClintock? NO! It was Arnold Schwarzenegger. We souldn't even be contemplating this action if weren't for him. Are you happy about that? Heck no?
It's really pointless to discuss this with you folks, because you wouldnt' be happy if Schwarzenegger cut the budget in half, turned the state house to Repbulican and did away with the state personal income tax. Why? Because he would always be judged to be about ready to do something you don't like.
We're talking $32 billion in state budget cuts, and all you folks can do is whine. Well, go ahead and whine.
I guess I'll just need to dig up the links to Tom's BRAC legislation and State Budget Proposal Analysis from 1995 that makes recommendations that will be mirrored to a great degree in what is being proposed here.
Or would that, like Tom, be irrelevant? ;-)
Like approve the Sierra Conservancy, another boondoggle in the finest traditions of the "powers that really be" in this state.
We are activists here, not pacifists and mo matter how much you spin Arnie as a saviour, he was a late arrival to the party w/a lot of words and no plans, and this repeated slamming at Tom is just more proof of what some folks here will swallow so willingly in the name of progress.. need I repeat, the largest state budget ever.
Let's digest his proposal and we'll go from there.
I have no idea what you're laughing at or what you mean by "Now, since that budget has been going up seven percent, how much less will a 6% cut be than it would have been? ". The article said $32 Billion in possible savings over 5 years. $32 Billion divided by 5 years is 5.9% relative to the new $105 Billion budget just approved. You're saying that a 6% reduction in the presence of annual 7% growth is a good thing? In other words, the budget can go up 1% every year and you'll be happy?
You folks carp all day long about wanting Schwarzenegger to make cuts, but when the study is done and cuts are about to be implemented, you folks find every excuse in the book to be unhappy about that too.
Huh? No one is unhappy... they are simply waiting to know what the report said before making a conclusion.
Who set up this commission? McClintock? NO! It was Arnold Schwarzenegger. We souldn't even be contemplating this action if weren't for him.
Huh? Since Schwarzenegger is Governor, I guess he is the only one who could have set up a commission reporting to him. If McClintock was Governor, I'm sure he would have done something similar (but probably more agressive). If you recall, McClintock had called for BRAC... and also had a plan for a 14% reduction in the annual budget. That kind of cut could have avoided the $15 Billion in borrowing that Schwarzenegger has brought us.
Are you happy about that? Heck no?
I stated that I don't know what I think about it until we see the report. On the surface, based on the summaries released, the recommendations seem to focus not only on spending reductions, but on new revenue opportunities, as well. If the combined total of those is only a 5.9% reduction, I think the report may be disappointing. Any cuts are better than none... but my preliminary opinion is they still have a long way to go.