CA: Governor touts automatic budget cuts, downplays poll results

Bakersfield Californian ^ | 2/23/05 | Steve Lawrence - AP

[NormsRevenge]

SACRAMENTO (AP) - As a giant faucet spewed red-colored water in the background, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger touted his plan Wednesday to eliminate the state's red ink and said he wasn't worried about a poll showing his popularity dropping.

"Don't be so negative," he told a reporter who asked about a new Field Poll that found 54 percent of Californians approve of his job performance, down from a near-record high of 65 percent in September. "I am very happy with my numbers. As you can see, I am smiling." Schwarzenegger staged the campaign-style event at the state fairgrounds to promote his plan to automatically cut state programs across the board when spending exceeds revenues.

He used a replica of the state Capitol and a huge faucet spewing what was supposed to be red ink as backdrops to illustrate that the state needs to control "autopilot spending" he blamed on politicians beholden to special interests.

He climbed atop a platform and grimaced as he turned off the spigot.

"If we don't get our autopilot spending under control there will be deficits for as far as the eye can see and we will risk every program for years to come," he said. "We need to stop the madness."

He brushed aside criticism from the Legislature's budget analyst that his proposal would trigger more automatic spending.

"I want to create autopilot spending that will help us live within our means, rather than autopilot spending that makes us live beyond our means," he said.

And he suggested that voters weren't worried about his record-setting campaign fund-raising or the cost of the special election he plans to call later this year to enact the budget cut plan and proposals to alter redistricting, teacher pay and public employee pensions.

"The people know that unions and special interests that are fighting my reforms have so much money, an endless amount of money, so I have to go out and raise money in order to be successful with the reforms," he said.

But Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, who showed up at the fairgrounds to respond to Schwarzenegger, called the governor's event a publicity stunt and said voters were being turned off by the governor's tactics.

"Californians really do understand that this governor is really about politics and they are reacting to that," he said.

He contended that Schwarzenegger's budget proposals would rely too much on deep cuts and borrowing and would give too much power to a minority of lawmakers who could block budget agreements.

Schwarzenegger should spend his time trying to get more federal funds for California and working with legislators to solve the state's fiscal problems, he added.

Schwarzenegger's plan calls for automatic, across-the-board cuts if the Legislature fails to agree on a new budget within 30 days after the start of a new fiscal year and if lawmakers can't agree within 45 days on how to erase a revenue shortfall that shows up after a budget is adopted.

---

On the Net:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: www.governor.ca.gov

[calcowgirl]

Legislative Analyst's Office
Analysis of the 2005-06 Budget Bill
February 2005

Governor's Budget-Related Reforms

(snip)

Summary

The Governor has proposed constitutional reforms involving several areas of the budget—including Proposition 98 K-14 education funding, the budget process, and transportation. The Governor has indicated that the main purpose of the reforms is to deal with "autopilot spending" and instill discipline in future budgets.

We believe, however, that the administration's specific proposals work in exactly the opposite direction. That is, they would put more spending on autopilot and make it more difficult to balance future budgets in a rational way. The changes would also result in a diminution of legislative authority. To the extent that the Legislature considers reforms, it should focus on those which: (1) build on existing provisions in law related to balanced budgets, restrictions on borrowing, and building large budgetary reserves; and (2) modify existing provisions of law that allocate General Fund dollars on a formula-driven basis.

Along with the release of the 2005-06 budget proposal, the Governor proposed several budget reforms that involve changes to Proposition 98, the budget process, transportation funding, and employee pensions. The administration asserts that the budget reforms are necessary to contain future spending growth and prevent future deficits. In this piece, we describe the Governor's budget-related reforms and then discuss several key issues that the Legislature should consider when evaluating them. The Governor's pension reform proposal is discussed in the following write-up in this part.

[goldstategop]

Its almost two months and the State Legislature still has not acted. It seems as if they're afraid of reform. Granted, Arnold's proposals don't go far enough. But at least it points us to where we have to go. What is the Democrats' answer besides more spending and higher taxes?

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

[calcowgirl]

Its almost two months and the State Legislature still has not acted.

Actually, it's been 1 month. Keene's bill was introduced on 01/20/2005.

Granted, Arnold's proposals don't go far enough. But at least it points us to where we have to go. What is the Democrats' answer besides more spending and higher taxes?

Borrowing another $10 billion over 15 years is where we need to go? I think not. That's what is being proposed in this reform. He needs to cut now. Borrowing is just a tax--due later.

[Lancey Howard]

Schwarzenegger's plan calls for automatic, across-the-board cuts if the Legislature fails to agree on a new budget within 30 days after the start of a new fiscal year and if lawmakers can't agree within 45 days on how to erase a revenue shortfall that shows up after a budget is adopted.

Excellent!
Get it on the ballot and then get it approved by the voters. I think the voters will go along with this plan by a convincing margin. But then, of course, some scumbag liberal Democrat activist judge will scrap it. California.... LMAO!!!

[goldstategop]

I agree - scrap the borrowing and begin the cuts. The funny thing about our predicament is the Democrats wouldn't find themselves staring in the abyss today if they had cut spending over two years ago. They put up with borrowing and now they learn as the Legislature's Analyst Elizabeth Hill recommends, the new revenue be used to pay off the borrowed funds rather than being spent on their favorite new programs. Its another illustration of how liberals' unwillingness to accept short-term pain for the long-term benefit of their constituents has now backfired on them big time.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

[goldstategop]

I didn't say they were sufficient. And yes - the majority party in Sacramento doesn't even have a plan of its own the table. So far, Arnold is the only one attempting to grapple with the need to rein in government. Every one else is too selfish or Chicken Little timid to do what needs to be done.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

[calcowgirl]

Read the fine print.
With the across-the-board cuts, you get an additional $10 Billion in long term debt.
Not good, IMO.

[goldstategop]

What's wrong with across the board spending cuts? Othewise its more borrowing and higher taxes. Neither of the latter is a good idea.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

[calcowgirl]

Have you read the proposal? You only get spending cuts if you accept Arnie's additional borrowing. If you want a clean bill, without the borrowing, McClintock proposed a bill prior to Keene's that will do just that.

Arnie needs more money because he is unwilling to cut. Instead of being honest, he buries it in a "reform" bill and promotes it with bleeding faucets as Hollywod props. What a joke. It's BS.

[goldstategop]

Then its up to conservatives to put a "clean" spending limit measure on the ballot. If the trade-off is more borrowing, thanks but no thanks. We've been there and done that already.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

[calcowgirl]

Then its up to conservatives to put a "clean" spending limit measure on the ballot. If the trade-off is more borrowing, thanks but no thanks. We've been there and done that already.

As I said, McClintock had already introduced such a bill. Apparently Arnold didn't like that one, and had Keene introduce one that included the borrowing. Without more borrowing, despite the unexpected increased revenues, Arnold has no plan to balance the budget.

For McClintock's proposal, see SCAX1 3, introduced 1/13/2005

[Lancey Howard]

Read the fine print.
With the across-the-board cuts, you get an additional $10 Billion in long term debt.

Oooops! You're right - - that's ridiculous.
As a matter of fact, THAT could be the part that kills voter approval.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. Arnold promised voters last year it would the end of borrowing, period. And now they learn he wants to borrow more. They feel like they've been lied to. So an otherwise sensible spending cap will go down to defeat. If the Democrats are smart - they will mention in TV ads Arnold is a spend and borrow politician and never let him get a word in about cutting spending. Game set and match for the Left here.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")

[Penner]

As I said, McClintock had already introduced such a bill. Apparently Arnold didn't like that one,...

Of course he didn't like it, because it would take away his authority to govern.

Just another attempt by Tommy McC to sieze control of the office that he could not get elected to.

Go Ahnold! Ignore that girly man Tommy McC!

[calcowgirl]

>>Of course he didn't like it, because it would take away his authority to govern.

HUH? It gives him MORE authority, veto power anytime expenditures exceeded revenues. You should give it a read before making such an inaccurate statement.

Of course, the proposal assumes that the governor would have the backbone to actually USE the veto pen instead of the girly-man auto-pilot reduction he is proposing where he can skirt responsibility.

[Penner]

I'm too impatient and/or lazy to reread the proposal, but IIRC there was language in there that said, "prohibits the governor from declaring a fiscal emergency" or something to that effect. I find it troubling that someone from the governor's own political party would try to tie his hands when it comes to budget matters; this is something you would expect from the opposition.

[calcowgirl]

I'm too impatient and/or lazy to reread the proposal, but IIRC there was language in there that said, "prohibits the governor from declaring a fiscal emergency" or something to that effect.

Well, like I said before, you really should read it before making inaccurate statements as you continue to do. It increases the Governor's authority by saying he doesn't have to go through the step of declaring a fiscal emergency to reduce spending. Instead, he can just reduce spending by proclamation and doesn't need to wait for the legislature to approve it. It also lowers the bar by eliminating the word "substantial."

I find it troubling that someone from the governor's own political party would try to tie his hands when it comes to budget matters; this is something you would expect from the opposition.

I find it troubling that someone in a conservative forum goes so far to misrepresent and twist facts in order to paint a negative picture of one of our legislators who is trying to do what is best for California. Your apparent hatred for Sen. McClintock or strict allegiance to the Governor seems to have blinded you to the facts.

SCAX1 3, introduced 1/13/2005

        (f) (1) If, following the enactment of the budget bill for
the  2004-05 2005-06 fiscal year or any
subsequent fiscal year, the Governor determines that, for that
fiscal year, General Fund revenues will decline 
substantially below the estimate of General Fund revenues
upon which the budget bill for that fiscal year, as enacted, was
based, or General Fund expenditures will increase 
substantially above that estimate of General Fund revenues,
or both, the Governor may  issue a proclamation declaring a
fiscal emergency and shall thereupon cause the Legislature to
assemble in special session for this purpose. The proclamation shall
identify the nature of the fiscal emergency and shall be submitted by
the Governor to the Legislature, accompanied by proposed legislation
to address the fiscal emergency. (2) If the
Legislature fails to pass and send to the Governor a bill or bills to
address the fiscal emergency by the 45th day following the issuance
of the proclamation, the Legislature may not act on any other bill,
nor may the Legislature adjourn for a joint recess, until that bill
or those bills have been passed and sent to the Governor.
(3) A bill addressing
the fiscal emergency declared pursuant to this section shall contain
a statement to that effect. , by proclamation, reduce
or eliminate one or more items of appropriation from the General Fund
for that fiscal year as necessary to prevent General Fund
expenditures from exceeding the estimate of General Fund revenues for
that fiscal year. The Governor also may suspend for that fiscal year
the operation of any statute to the extent the reduction or
elimination of an item of appropriation pursuant to this paragraph
renders infeasible the operation of that statute.
   (2) The Legislature may override or amend an action taken by the
Governor to reduce or eliminate an item of appropriation or to
suspend the operation of a statute by a resolution if passed in each
house by rollcall vote entered into the journal, two-thirds of the
membership concurring, within 30 days of the Governor's action.

 

[NormsRevenge]

I'm too impatient and/or lazy to reread the proposal,
..

Hence, you are a perfect supporter for the actions of the CA GOP and the Gub the last couple of years. as they have added massive debt to the state's long term indebtedness, let the dems slide off the hook last year by not even attempting to make any significant cuts anywhere in the budget.

Thanks for showing up and 'raising' the level of discussion.

It is most illuminating of why this state will have to go bankrupt before certain informed 'folks' as yourself see the folly of their blind approach to government and selecting its leaders, be they dems or moderates 'acting' in the state's best interests..

[Penner]

Thank God Ahnold is in charge instead of the La Raza activist with the room temperature IQ. In case you've forgotten, we live in California and are damn lucky to have an R in the governor's office.