Posted on 09/02/2005 2:59:40 PM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO -- Facing widespread opposition to his special election, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday that if voters reject a proposed spending restraint on the November ballot, he might be forced to raise taxes.
Schwarzenegger previewed a campaign theme in a morning radio interview, predicting that new taxes might be the only alternative if voters reject Proposition 76, the "Live Within Our Means" act.
Asked on Sacramento station KTKZ-1380 AM what he might do to avert future budget deficits if the spending control is defeated, Schwarzenegger said:
"Then we have to look at raising taxes, because this is the only option we have, in order to create the money. And this is why I tell people vote yes on Proposition 76 and make sure that we do everything that we can to pass this proposition so that we force our legislators once and for all to live within their means and not to continue spending money and to keep making promises to people that they can't keep."
Schwarzenegger's comments came amid a new statewide poll showing little appetite for the Nov. 8 special election that he depicts as central to his "year of reform" agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Calcowgirl just reposted the news article about it on another thread and it needs to be repeated over on this thread. No body seems to know this and everyone will be in a severe state of shock when it happens!!! Just like Jesse Ventura, his co-star in Predator did in MN! A failed one term flinchinator!!!
Here's the link of the recap regarding CAGOP's rule change to give Arnold their early endorsement:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1474325/posts?page=25#25
Thank you! Now I've plopped my new tagline over here on this thread!!!
The teachers union doesn't agree and will spend $8M more to defeat Prop 76. I hope you're not planning to team up with them.
Nah, I think Cruz is done. I'm thinking Angelides or Garamendi. It's Arnold's to lose and he is doing a darn good job of it.
Feinstein could also run if she gets tired of the Senate and wants to come home. She would win.
I forgot about Villarigosa. Yikes. THAT is a scary thought.
The teachers union doesn't agree and will spend $8M more to defeat Prop 76. I hope you're not planning to team up with them
All unions want the Schwarzenegger OUT.
From today's Daily Breeze:
Ludlow called on the union membership to get the vote out in November.
"On Labor Day, we will kick off the campaign to take the state back from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger," Ludlow said.
Read last article posted by AnimalLover
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/profiles?location=53
It's all that steriod use I guess.
BTT!!!!!
I'm glad you think you can learn everything about someone from an icon.
I'm an American, I live in England to bring my wife closer to her family. I guess I'm being 'deceptive'.
However... Carry_Okie has summed-up the record in a brief, but unmistakeable summation of an absolutely devasting and failed record as Governor of CA by this confused and defeated man who I predict will NOT run for re-election.
If this happens, and I believe it will, based on Jesse Ventura's dropping out, we will not even have a Republican candidate for Governor as the Party forclosed ANY primary and has already endorsed Arnold prematurely!!!
Do you still think the CA Republican Party has ANY clue as to what it should be doing in your behalf? I didn't think so!!!
So now he's finally threating to raise taxes after borrowing the state's A$$ off anyway, to keep from cutting as he promised so many times
The Republican party in California has been listening to the press. The press says they're conservative so it must be so. Since they're conservative it's their duty to carry on the good fight without deference to the traditions of the party and without the guilt created by their betrayal to core principals. Conservative compared to what? This flawed comparative analysis is the undoing of the party. If the basis for comparison is that the opposition is liberal then the party would be vindicated. But the assumption isn't and they aren't. The problem is that the organized Democrat opposition in California is composed of far left, fringe, liberal cooks or single issue, ideologues who have found shelter under the Democrat Party umbrella.
The result of this flawed analysis is that since Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger are more conservative than their Democrat counterparts, then they must be conservative.
From a rational analysis of their actions Wilson was a moderate and Schwarzenegger is a liberal. What complicates the matter for the party faithful is that both men are politicians and both men used the bloody pulpit to shape a persona that deceives to pander. Of the two Schwarzenegger is the most deceitful. While Schwarzenegger pitches a conservative agenda, his actions are right out of the liberal handbook; taxes, spending, borrowing, redistribution of wealth to create an artificial consumer class beholden to government (government employees and public largess recipients).
Wasp, whether Schwarzenegger runs or not, the results will be the same. The electorate will have two choices. A far left, fringe liberal or a traditional liberal. The party registration will make little difference to conservatives. How often have we heard the Republican Party shills on this forum repeat over and over principals don't matter; winning matters.
I offer this multi-billion dollar, anecdotal scenario to emphasize my point
1) In the mid 1990s Wilson subsidized the in-lieu-of vehicle tax from the General Fund (principally income taxes). A classic, liberal redistribution of wealth scheme which didn't reduce the tax, it simply shifted the tax account from which he took the monies.
2) In 2003 Davis dropped the subsidy. Ultra ($4B) liberal because he diverted the savings to other government expenses and effectively raised the tax rate.
3) Schwarzenegger immediately, after taking office, reinstates the subsidy. Back to the old liberal shell game. No decrease in taxes collected but he looks good to his Republican base. He then quickly convinces the electorate to borrow the money to make up for the $4B shortfall this tested, liberal, shell game created.
So, which one you pushing? Its got to be one of them. Hey, how about Feinstein, you'd like her.
You must be one miserable human being if all you can contribute is a straw man and an insult.
Sure, and on post #85 my 'strawman' comes to pass. How is that an insult?
If you do not possess basic reading comprehension skills then you are a complete waste of my time.
Troll elsewhere. You are a known quantity around here. Some of us still remember.
Newzjunkey,
Since you didn't respond to any of the posts to you, I'll add some content and perspective for others. You said you value McClintock's opinion on fiscal matters. Like the Budget perhaps? Or opposition of Prop 57/58? Tom's positions on the budget would have avoided the mess the state is in today. Instead of praising him as a consistent voice doing what is right, you mock him.
I glanced at a bit of your posting history to see how much you "value" him. You call him a "hack," a "political dinosaur" and "out of step with California." You say: "I can't respect this guy." I see only contempt with your smearing. You don't value his opinion; you only use it as a sales point when it happens to fit your purpose.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/988828/posts?page=2060#2060
For a guy who's been there 20 years. You know, we *do* have term limits. I guess he only cares about a career in politics. He's a hack. That's a serious turn off. He claims to have never voted for a budget. Yippee. And I understand he's voted against the legislative pay-raises but hasn't ever turned away the money for his own pocket.
This guy can't win if he can't reach out (only 35% of voters are GOP and if that splits he's SOL). This guy can't get anything done if he can't compromise. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/988701/posts?page=55#55
I have to laugh at this. Tommy couldn't win in November against a nobody for state-wide office.... McClintock is a political dinosaur and not just in California. But his politics are so out of step with California that he'll never amount to anything. The right-wing keeps offering its latest "next Ronald Reagan" "Saviors" and one-by-one they fall. Simon was only the latest of these to fall. Against a rightly maligned Davis in 2002.
I can't respect this guy. He trumpets his "20 years" in the legislature which totally disrespects the will of the California voter to term limit their state representatives. It might be legal but he's just a political hack. "Proud" of having never voted for a budget.
He's on a personal vendetta against the party...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993062/posts?page=68#68
...*Electability* is the critical test. McClintock has never won state-wide (lost in '02), he's been in the legislature a Jurassic 20 years despite the will of Californians being *for* term limits. He talks the talk because he *can* and affects virtually nill. Didn't vote for any CA budgets and yet we still got them. Great work, Tom! Seems he lacks both the charisma needed for the governor's desk and the interpersonal skill to actually successfully move an agenda.
From what I've learned and observed, Tom's on a personal vendetta against the state party and reliving his "nightmare" of having stepped aside for Bob Hope's son who ultimately lost that Congressional race. This has nothing to do with Davis's failures, fixing California or Arnold's social views. It's all about Tommy's personal demons. I had enough of *that* kind of self-absorbed "leadership" during the Clinton years to last many lifetimes, thank you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/997125/posts?page=64#64
McClintock has very much tainted his previously sterling reputation with me in the way he attempted to act as a spoiler seeming due to his contentious relationship with the state GOP and inability to look beyond is having stepped aside for the ultimately losing son of Bob Hope for a congressional seat. I'm also not swayed by his "20 years" of political experience--we have term limits in CA for a reason, Tom--we don't want "experience money can't buy" like Gray Davis. Has he ever held a regular job? He's only 47! He's never voted for a CA budget. He's not a practical risk taker and seems to be able to accomplish little. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086140/posts?page=5#5
This is the fast path to wrapping that debacle up--as the ad says "refinance the debt at lower interest rates"--and puts The Governator in a position where controlling spending is *realistic* without dire economic consequences which would have dramatic *national* impact. AND it does not raise taxes.
I *HATE* bond measures (NO on 55), but I'm supporting his YES on 57 & 58 plan. This provides critical wiggle room to avert economic catastrophy.
Ouch, I hate doing that ...
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.