It's right on Arnold's website. He is actively campaigning for 74, 75, 76, and 77.
Posted on 09/26/2005 1:24:26 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Elementary schools start with the fundamentals, the building blocks, the three R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic. The California Comeback starts with its fundamentals, its building blocks, too. They are a different three R's: recovery, reform, rebuild.
When I took office 22 months ago, I had no illusions about how difficult the job would be, no illusions about what it would take to turn around a state $22 billion in debt. But in that time, we have accomplished the first R - recovery. We saved the state from bankruptcy, increasing state revenues $6 billion without raising taxes. We rolled back the unfair car tax increase, reduced workers' compensation insurance premiums 30 percent, created a positive business environment and brought huge numbers of jobs back to the state - more than 400,000.
You put your full faith and trust in me when you sent me to Sacramento to fix a broken political system. I was - and remain - determined to reach your goal. I knew there would be challenges, but I believed I could get Democrats and Republicans to work together. Initially, we did. We got a lot done, and we did it quickly.
I am proud of the economic recovery, just as I am proud of our other accomplishments: supporting stem cell research, victims' rights, the three-strikes law and environmental initiatives such as the hydrogen highway. I'm proud I set aside more land for public parks than any governor in California's history.
I also know that while meeting those challenges, I made some mistakes and learned many vital lessons along the way that make me a better governor.
I've learned that it is a good idea as governor to listen more and talk less, especially lines best left for "Saturday Night Live." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
That one really pisses me off. Next crack out of the box he'll be running around saying he can't wait to sign that new bill prohibiting state and local governments from using eminent domain to take private property under the expansive law emanating from the recent SCOTUS decision.
Arnold talks a great game. He just doesn't do much.
Do you hold some Svengali power?
Why shouldn't Carry_Okie respond?
Madam you flatter me but no, I don't exercise any spiritual powers over the conservative masses.
Why shouldn't Carry_Okie respond?
I have long counseled that little is gained by responding to baiting from ideologues, partisans or shills. The forum was envisioned to promote a free exchange of political discourse to the goals of its founder. Neither its members nor this forum gains when ad hominem exchanges are promoted or practiced.
What in the hell are you talking about?
"First, we have to change the structure of the state budget in order to get California out of debt and make sure it stays out of debt. That gets done with Proposition 76, the Live Within Our Means Act. Proposition 76 holds state spending down to the amount we take in and it stabilizes education funding. Voting Yes will clear a path for us to start investing in and rebuilding California next year without raising taxes."
They found out that Arnold is paying me "the big bucks" to post here. ;)
Shhhh. Don't tell anyone.
(BEFORE someone starts making a fool of themselves, claiming that I admitted to being paid, I AM BEING SARCASTIC, when I said the above)
Of course, in the meantime our fine so-called conservatives are supporting the leftist position, taking a stand AGAINST limiting spending, even when McClintock, whom they claim as their hero, does agree with Arnold and they are both FOR Prop. 76.
SO how can people who claim to be conservatives, agitate AGAINST limiting spending, against Prop. 76. When I point out the truth, they have no answer, that's why they won't explain.
Perhaps this snippet from a recent exchange will help clarify my reply.
$10B is a less than a 10% reduction in the existing budget. That reduction could be accomplished without violating the letter or spirit of Prop 98.
Also troubling is the often proposed, Schwazrenegger administration, magic elixir of reducing subsidies to local (county) government to accomplish reductions in state spending. The reciprocal of subsidy reductions, suspension of state mandates, is so obvious that an undisclosed agenda is suggested.
This repetitive pattern also presents the irony that state funds used for these "rebates" to local government are derived from local taxes, principally property taxes, which have been increasingly diverted from local government by the Schwarzenegger administration.
Thanks for the explanation.
(I won't tell)
Um, you might want to double check that link.
"That reduction could be accomplished without violating the letter or spirit of Prop 98."
===
Oh, so you think that Prop. 98 is a great idea -- requiring that no matter how much money is actually needed or taken in, there is a guaranteed funding for schools, which amounts to some 35-40% of the budget?
Also, why do you find it troubling, that Arnold doesn't want to subsidize local governments?
Oh, and you call yourself a conservative...
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.
Cry Cry Cry
You are not alone if that is any consolation. ;-)
Another baseless assertion.
I have taken the time to read the LAO's analysis of Prop. 76, as should you. It isn't the picture you are presenting here.
First, after all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from both the governor and the legislature about how the appropriations process is too constrained by voter mandates, Prop. 76 does virtually nothing to undo Prop 98. In fact, it effectively borrows the money from deferred Prop. 98 payments by stretching out the repayment for fifteen years. Why not just abolish it and restore budget authority to the legislature so that they can be held accountable for spending?
Second, Prop 76 does try to restore Prop 42 funding, but given that Proposition 42 IS ALREADY law, why do we need to do anything but either have our gutless grovelnator line-veto the legislative budget or sue to restore the principal of using gas tax funding to be ONLY for road construction and maintenance as the law requires? If the governor, as chief LEO, can’t enforce the law now, what good is yet another ballot proposition mandating the same thing but deferring implementation for another two years? The reality is that the governor is just as complicit in these illegal transfers and proposes to legalize them as is the legislature.
The case is similar with regard to other “loans” against special funds.
HERE is the LAO’s analysis of fiscal impact (emphasis mine):
Given these circumstances, the impact of the proposed spending limit on the 2006 07 budget would depend in large part on how the state addresses the structural shortfall during 2005 06 and 2006 07 budgets. If the budget imbalances are eliminated through significant ongoing expenditure reductions, then the proposed limit would not have a major impact on allowable spending levels in 2006 07. However, if the shortfalls are not addressed in this manner, then the proposed limit could constrain spending in 2006 07.
In other words, all Arnold has accomplished so far in two years is to have deferred the date when we hit the wall to 2006-7 while increasing the interest payments (so much for “cut up the credit card”). What in the hell makes you believe that spending will be cut in 2006-7? If all Arnold has done is to borrow and defer, what makes you believe he will have the courage to ENFORCE Prop. 76 when all he has to do is sign a tax increase that he has already threatened to do if Prop. 76 doesn't pass?
All indications so far are that he hasn’t got the guts.
But that isn’t the only problem with Prop 76. Back to the LAO’s analysis:
During periods of accelerating revenue growth (such as often occurs during the early stages of a business expansion), the limit could constrain spending below what otherwise could occur. This is because the three-year average revenue growth would be lower than the budget-year revenue growth.
During periods of decelerating revenue growth or revenue declines (such as often occurs during recessions) this limit could allow more spending than could be supported by annual revenues. This is because the average revenue growth would be higher than the budget-year revenue growth.
IOW, when times are good (and the pain is less), Prop. 76 cuts spending. When times are bad it INCREASES spending over what we have now. Given that government spending is what hampers recover from spending, given that the President’s tax cut is what got us out of the 2001 recession, is increasing spending during recessions what you really want FO?
But does Prop. 76 really cut spending in high revenue years? Back to the LAO:
In years in which revenues increased sharply, the elimination of the maintenance factor provisions would result in less growth in the minimum funding guarantee for K-14 education than would be the case under current law. (The Legislature could, however, choose to raise funding for schools by overappropriating the minimum guarantee.)
In short, the legislature could over-ride the spending limits of Prop. 76 and build in yet MORE structural expenditures which is EXACTLY what Davis did to get us into the fiscal mess we are in today.
But, couldn’t the legislature cut those “one time increases”? Prop. 76 says no:
In years in which revenues fell, however, Test 3 would no longer be operative, and thus the minimum guarantee would not be reduced automatically. This could result in higher funding for K-14 education in certain years. (The Legislature, however, could still reduce K-14 education funding through suspension, and Proposition 98 would also be subject to gubernatorial reductions that could occur under the circumstances discussed above.)
If K-14 funding were not reduced during revenue downturns, more of the solutions to any budget shortfall would need to come from either (1) deeper spending reductions to non-Proposition 98 programs or (2) new revenues to cover budgetary imbalances.
Proposition 76 thus contains structural means to force tax increases while accomplishing little to reduce spending. It isn’t even as tight as were the Gann spending limits that are STILL ON THE BOOKS.
Some “solution.” I read McClintock’s support for this proposition as payback for his support in his re-election campaign for State Senate and for Lieutenant Governor. He'll let the current charade go on and hopes to come in to clean up the mess at a later date.
It cannot be supported logically.
He'll let the current charade go on and hopes to come in to clean up the mess at a later date.
-------
Thanks for re-detailing this info and the last comment.
Tom is no sunshine patriot.
At this point, he is playing to win and hoping the door opens to more reform in the future... and sleeping lile a baby.
Vote Tom for Lt. Gub!
Has that concern been placated, or what??? It sure turned me against this proposition completely!!!
Ok FOG724... I gotcher ping, right here!!! (grin)
FairOpinion must be making much more sense than that to you, or you wouldn't be taking every opportunity to impugn his/her motives by the namecalling you supposedly eschew.
Every time I almost believe that what you're saying makes sense, you nullify yourself with barbs, as if your logic can't stand on its own.
FairOpinion's acumen is very consistent, as is Tom McClintock's.
She is effective, not logical. Her pronouncements make sense to those who are uninformed because they rely upon standard Republican truisms but deliberately obfuscate how "moderate" GOP policy is at variance to those traditional Republican standards and principles. Hence, she'll cheer an Arnold speech about how he'll cut spending, but disappear when confronted with the fact that Arnold's budgets have increased spending faster than Davis ever did. She'll post early in a thread to make the cheerleading visible and then bug out when challenged with facts and references.
Given the information she has been provided from original sources over hundreds of posts over the last two years, it is too often deliberate misinformation in support of a destructive hierarchy, a true antidisestablishmentarian. The refutation gets tiring, but it must be done; else it is allowing false advertising to stand. The problem is that it is reacitve, comes later in the thread, and takes more time than bald-faced assertions.
I didn't see that in the LAO's analysis; ccg was quoting the OC Register.
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.