Posted on 08/06/2004 9:12:02 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
It's hard to believe a year has passed since Arnold Schwarzenegger shocked the world from the set of "The Tonight Show" by telling host Jay Leno that he would run for governor of California.
And what a year it's been.
While the past few months have been hard for the governor, it's still astonishing to think of all that Schwarzenegger has pulled off.
He unseated a sitting governor. He delivered on his promise to overturn the much-hated tripling of the state car tax. He persuaded the Legislature to withdraw its poorly devised plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He passed a fiscal recovery program and enacted workers' compensation reform.
Then he ran into a wall.
In every other battle, Schwarzenegger had one overwhelming political weapon: his ability to take his agenda to the people in the form of a ballot measure. But you can't put a budget to public referendum. So instead of going to the people, Schwarzenegger tried wooing over the insiders -- sipping espresso and smoking cigars with Senate President John Burton and making nice with Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuez. Yet after all the smiles and handshakes, the legislative leaders pulled out their brass knuckles -- and ended up beating the action-hero governor into girlie-man pulp.
And so now, one year into the Arnold show -- with several victories and one huge defeat -- how are we doing?
Not a whole lot better.
Yes, people are thrilled not to be paying an onerous tax on their cars, and workers' comp reform should help make California more business-friendly again. But big-picture, the state of California is scarcely in better shape today than it was when Davis was still governor, and Schwarzenegger still a movie star.
The budget, although technically in balance, is dreadful. Rather than rationalize state government, Sacramento opted to borrow here, make short-term cuts there -- policies that will all have to be paid for later. Meanwhile, the state's infrastructure and its public services remain poor, while its bureaucracy is as big and unresponsive as ever.
What lesson can Schwarzenegger take from his first year in political life?
Well, hopefully it's a realistic appraisal of his abilities. He can win over the public with his populist charm, but not Sacramento. If he's ever going to really change the way the state government works, he's going to need to radically change the way it looks.
He can begin this November by barnstorming the state on behalf of challengers in the Legislature. The effort might result in a few fresh faces in Sacramento, and it could put the Fear of Arnold into the rest.
A year after joining the political fray, Schwarzenegger remains popular, and he still carries the promise of a better future. But unless he's willing to go on the offensive against Sacramento's old guard, it will obstruct him again and again.
The people are ready to line up behind the governor, but only if he's ready to lead them in creating a government that puts them first and special interests last.
"But unless he's willing to go on the offensive against Sacramento's old guard, it will obstruct him again and again."
Sacramento's old guard Girlie-Men will have to be taken care of in the November election. If the people of Kal-e-fornia don't step up and handle their end of it, Arnold cannot do it alone...
Amen to that.
As long as Rats rule the nest, any real reforms are so much vapor and nothing more than wish list items.
It's going to be very, very difficult to accomplish that thanks to the extremely solid gerrymandering that has been accomplished by the Democrats over the years, most recently in 2000.
I don't hold out much hope for any significant change in the California legislature, which is one of the many reasons my wife and I pulled up stakes and moved to New Hampshire.
I suspect that the only way California is going to save itself is through the initiative process, but if you float initiatives that threaten the Democrat hegemony, you'd better watch your back, because they will actively work to destroy you if you gain any traction.
I was of the mind last year to not recall Davis and let the 'Rats stew in the swill of their own making. I knew that the 'Rat controlled legislature simply would NOT give any Republican a victory by going along with their plan.
I was right.
"...but if you float initiatives that threaten the Democrat hegemony, you'd better watch your back, because they will actively work to destroy you if you gain any traction."
The recall worked great, and Arnold is not afraid to go the initiative route if necessary.
Beautiful country back in NH, I like snow, but I'm not about to have to clear it from my driveway any more in this life :-) Good Luck to you
Did anyone expect anything different? Only a revolution is going to change this. Talk ain't the answer.
SB 1113 (2004-05 State Budget), Senate Floor Debate
Over the last few years, we have seen a variety of inventive ways to balance the budget on paper while racking up multi-billion deficits. So in preparation for this budget, I asked the Legislative Analyst’s Office two simple questions.
First, how much are we taking in from the revenue structure of the state – all of our taxes and fees and interest earnings?
And then I asked, how much are we actually spending for general fund programs?
In other words, how much is this family actually earning and how much is it actually spending?
And it turns out that last year, we spent $4 billion more from our general fund than we received as income.
Under this budget, according to the LAO, the revenue structure of this state will actually generate – in round numbers -- $76 billion. And it will spend $81 billion on general fund programs. We’ll “earn” $76 billion and spend $81 billion. The deficit – nearly $5 billion – will have to be borrowed.
And that assumes every budget assumption works perfectly.
In our last budget debate, one senator said, “that’s OK. Borrowed money is real money.”
If you believe that, try this one out on your spouse – “Honey, we spent $5 billion more than we earned last year, but don’t worry – I just put the difference on our charge card.” I wish you better luck with that one than I know I would have with my wife.
We’re told, “at least this is a step in the right direction.” No it’s not – it’s a $5 billion step in the wrong direction.
Let me put it another way. Over the next year, inflation and population will grow at a combined rate of 4.2 percent. Our revenues will grow 6.7 percent. So, this is still NOT a revenue problem. Revenues continue to grow faster than inflation and population combined. But here is the problem -- spending will grow 7.4 percent. That’s a faster annual growth rate than under the previous administration’s 7 percent. Our annual spending is actually growing faster now than it has over the past five years.
The widening gap between revenues and expenditures continues to be papered over with borrowed money.
Less than three months ago, on May 1st, the total amount of state general fund supported debt (this includes all the bond issues) was $33 billion. By the end of this budget year, that debt will have grown to nearly $51 billion. That is a 54 percent increase in debt in a mere 14 months. Borrowing by this state is now completely out of control.
Here is what we have:
That is the budget we are about to vote on.
- A significantly larger general fund deficit than last year.
- Spending growth that is actually accelerating compared to the past five years
- Spending that continues to grow faster than revenues and much faster than inflation and population.
- Total general fund-supported debt up 54 percent in just 14 months.
“Never mind that,” we’re told, “the budget doesn’t raise taxes” – or, at least, it doesn’t raise them by much.
But here’s the fine point of it: resistance to tax increases only works IF IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY RESISTANCE TO SPENDING INCREASES.
As I have repeatedly warned – YOU CANNOT PAY FOR SOCIALLY LIBERAL PROGRAMS WITH FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE POLICIES. You cannot be both things. IT DOESN’T BALANCE. Fiscal conservatism means not only restraining taxes but restraining spending.
“Never mind that,” we are told. “We’ll control spending increases sometime in the future.” This is a song we hear with every budget – like we hear “Jingle Bells” at Christmastime. Let me remind you that successful diets don’t start in the future. They ALWAYS begin in the present.
And here’s the problem with the future diet that we are promised. This budget also obligates us to make enormous balloon payments beginning in 2006. Not only are we spending more than we can afford this year, but we are agreeing to even bigger obligations just 24 months from now. We will have balloon payments due to local governments, to the pension system, to the public schools, to the universities. Some diet.
Last year when we took up the budget (a budget that we also were told was “balanced”), I warned that it was “a rotting porch just waiting to collapse.” We ended up spending $4 billion more than we took in. This year – if all goes well – we will spend $5 billion more. The porch is gone. Now the very financial structure of our house is being eaten away.
Forty years ago, in 1964, when California admirably met the needs of its people, it spent $202 per person from both general and special funds. That’s $1,160 adjusting for inflation. $1,160. You are about to vote on a budget that spends $2,878 per person. And let me ask you – where are the roads, where are the aqueducts, where are the power plants, where are the top-flight schools and universities that our parents delivered 40 years ago?
What will be our generation’s answer to history? “Sorry, it’s the best we could do?” Shakespeare’s words come to mind: “Age, thou art shamed. Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods.”SB 1106 - Pension Obligation Bonds, Senate Floor Debate
The measure borrows nearly $1 billion from our children to make the state’s annual payment to the pension system.
Last year, when we were about to take up a nearly identical measure, I did a rather eccentric thing: I read a passage from the Constitution of California. It’s a rather obscure document, but you can still find it in some second-hand bookshops around town. For those of you unfamiliar with the Constitution, it is what you swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend in that quaint public ceremony in this chamber that nobody pays much attention to every two years.
Last year, the reading didn’t take. I will try again:
It is from Article 16, Section 1: “The Legislature shall not, in any manner create any debt of debts, liability or liabilities, which shall, singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities, exceed the sum of $300,000…unless it has been passed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house of the Legislature and until, at a general election or at a direct primary, it shall have been submitted to the people and shall have received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it as such an election.”
Now, let me also remind you that after you passed a nearly identical measure last year, it was struck down by the courts for that very reason, blowing a billion-dollar hole in last year’s budget. And you’re repeating the same process now and expecting a different result.
Good luck.
Absolutely right. Most of the Democrat districts look like they were sketched by a postmodern sculptor. Sadly, the RINO Pubbies do the same thing but they get sloppy seconds and go along to get along.
Until the stranglehold on the legislature by the San Francisco and L.A. socialists/Marxists is broken, there's no hope. Initiatives are scary. Direct democracy is very dangerous, especially in a state that's home to Michael Moore-style TV ad campaigns cooked up by Hollywood that tell blatant lies as boob bait for the bubbas (they work). Even if a good initiative passes the Dims have the judiciary in their pockets. Remember Prop. 187? I think California's doomed. Lately I've been playing Mose Allison's old albums a lot, especially the "Livin' in a Fool's Paradise" cut.
I didn't agree with his Bonds. as mcclintock says, billions earned on the interest by the bankers in NY, while all it did was paper over the debt. meanwhile, in a shocking embracement of collectivism, arnie seizes 75% of punitive damages citizens recieve in civil lawsuits (for the "common good", of course. because thats the state's job, dont ya know?)
I still cannot believe Californians didnt stop the car tax altogether when they could have. it would have saved most families at least $1000 per year for the rest of their lives. but no, they were happy with their leader just lowering it back down to what it was. Why should an auto be taxed at all?
oh, golly gee. thats boring political talk. just pay it, be glad to pay it, and shut up. after all, papa govt needs the money. ;-)
i cant believe that californians didnt get enough sigs for the 'save our state' initiative. they whine endlessly about illegals on LA radio but people didnt care enough to stop benefits for them. (stop the incentive).
Oy!
thanks for the posts. very interesting.
i was happy to see that Tom didn't cave in & stop the criticism after arnold helped raise almost a $$$$$$$ million dollars for him at the fundraiser.
My husband was on a rant the other day about the constant stupidity being pumped out by the legislature and asked, I assume rhetorically, "How do these people keep getting elected?!!" Although I assumed the question was rhetorical, I took a shot at an answer. I tried to explain gerrymandering and safe seats to him.
His answer? "I thought gerrymandering was illegal."
Oh, my, what does illegality have to do with anything? What an innocent he is.
Way too many have their wallet connected to the state or federal government here in CA and that is why there is such a strong Democrat hold in this state.
There was an initiative circulated a while back to mandate the use of software that would group census districts to make compact and equal size electoral districts, putting an end to gerrymandering, but it didn't get any traction since probably both sides of the aisle opposed it.
Gerrymandering is a double-edged sword, after all.
Of course it is. My husband was equally surprised to learn that many Pubbies in the legislature played nice with the Dems to draw the tortured district lines, since is assured safe seats for their party as well as the other side of the aisle. My husband was also surprised to learn that there are anti-second amendment Republicans. "He's anti-gun? But he's a Republican!", he cries with dismay. I'm trying really hard to educate him in political reality.
My husband is unbelievably intelligent when it comes to things like physics, higher math like calculus, organic chemistry, etc., but he's a political naif.
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.