Posted on 10/02/2005 2:32:17 PM PDT by FairOpinion
In January, the governor issued a challenge to the Legislature's Democrats: change how you do business, or I will change it for you. The Democrats yawned. They were sure that Schwarzenegger would cave. The Democrats had been in charge before he got there, and they would be in charge long after he was gone.
But a funny thing happened: Schwarzenegger didn't cave. How could that be, they asked, since he knows we are in charge. Schwarzenegger said: Tough: change is necessary. He said he would qualify initiatives, call a special election, and get the people to bring about change. The Democrats didn’t believe he would dare do such a thing.
To insure his failure, the Democrats got their union boss buddies to start picketing Schwarzenegger, who laughed at their endeavors. I actually attended a meeting where he said "You think a couple of union goons with picket signs is going to change me, you have got to be kidding. We are going to change this town." He ran out his initiatives and got them qualified.
The Democrats were shocked. He was supposed to give up. He wasn't supposed to qualify those initiatives. He wasn't supposed to call the special elections. They were outraged at his defiance toward their self-ordained authority.
So they went to their union boss buddies again, and had those unions run commercials on television. They were certain this would cause him to back off, give up, and cancel the special election.
He didn't. He called their bluff. They called him to negotiate. They indicated if he would allow them to change term limits, they would consider giving him a small portion of what he wanted. They said he could declare victory, but things would stay the same. He said no. He wanted real change.
They continued the attacks. Despite plummeting polls, the governor didn't flinch. Now, he is fighting back. This week he began his response.
His reform agenda is simple: control the public employee unions that control Sacramento, make sure spending matches revenue, make sure that teachers teach, and make sure that the legislature actually responds to the people that elect them, and not to the special interests in Sacramento.
Proposition 74 reforms the tenure system, the system that gives bad teachers a lifetime job, before we can figure out that they are bad teachers. Proposition 74 says: let's give teachers tenure after five years (instead of the current two), so school districts can figure out if they are bad before they give them a lifetime job.
Proposition 75 says union bosses cannot force state and local workers to pay them money for political causes the bosses like, but the workers don't. Today, every state and local government employee is forced to pay the union boss money, just like the communist party members in the old Soviet Union, as a condition of having a government job. As an example, the California Teachers Union has already assessed its membership additional dues sufficient to raise $50 million to fight these initiatives, whether the member agrees or disagrees is irrelevant. Proposition 75 says that the union boss has to get the employee's written agreement before he or she can spend their dues on some liberal cause. That only makes sense. It is the employee's money, and forcing them to pay for something they don't like is just plain wrong.
Proposition 76 says the state cannot spend more than it takes in. Well, duh, as my daughter would say. It also says that the governor can cut any program if the money doesn't come in. That is smart.
Finally, Proposition 77 says judges not politicians, will draw legislative districts. Politicians like to draw districts that guarantee themselves jobs and power. The idea is that judges will be a little bit more fair--since their job won't be at stake. It may not be perfect, but it is better than the current system.
One thing we know, the current system doesn't work. Reform is needed now. The governor's ideas make sense. They are at least worth a try.
About the Writer: Ray Haynes is the assemblyman for California's 66th Assembly District.
Let's see, we have conservatives Tom McClintock, Ray Haynes, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association all supporting Arnold's reform agenda.
We have Democrat Angelides, who is running for Governor violently opposed to Arnold's reform agenda.
Then we have some FReepers, who are actively working AGAINST Arnold's agenda, especially, and including Prop. 76, CA "live within our means" spending cut initiative.
Where do you think they fit in within the political spectrum? They agree with Angelides, and disagree with proven conservatives like Tom McClintock and Ray Haynes. And yet they keep telling us they are conservatives. Now isn't this odd?
The Spirit of Proposition 76. Spend within our means...
by Anthony P. Archie
http://www.californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/Archie/20050930Archie76.html
Proposition 76, the Schwarzenegger-backed “Live Within Our Means” Act on the November ballot, might not inspire like the great works of Jefferson or Madison, but it shares the same underlying principle: government spending must be restrained.
Prop. 76 aims to control autopilot spending mandates and permit the governor to make mid-year expenditure cuts. With these provisions in place, California will see greater fiscal discipline and counteract increasing reliance on deficit spending. Since 2001, California’s expenditures have outpaced tax revenues, leaving the state with swelling deficits.
The budget crisis reached a boiling point in 2003 with a long-term, cumulative deficit of more than $38 billion—the worst deficit the state, or any state, had seen. California teetered at the brink of insolvency, with an abysmal credit rating lowered to just above junk bonds.
Since then, the situation has slightly improved (the credit rating moved up a step in July 2005 to just above Lithuania’s), but annual deficits loom. One factor driving perpetual deficits is the formulaic spending mandates that require categorical expenditure hikes regardless of the state’s fiscal health. While there are spending requirements for a number of social services, the biggest and most stringent is the education mandate prescribed in Prop. 98 passed by voters in 1988.
Prop. 98 requires that the state provide a minimum level of education funding in a given year and mandates that each year’s funding level be greater than the previous year’s allocation. Currently, education spending takes up the biggest slice of the budget pie—about 50 percent—with K-12 and community colleges receiving more than $50 billion in 2005-06, up 6.4 percent from 2004-05. Projections of Prop. 98 funding show that it will reach $62 billion by 2009: a 24 percent increase in four years.
Under state law, this mandate must be adhered to even when revenues cannot support it. Forced to fulfill the obligation, legislators often turn to sizable borrowing and tax hikes as it takes up more and more of the budget. While the mandates severely handicap state budgeting, legislators still have power to make discretionary cuts in the budget. Most lack the political will to do so.
Instead, they cave in to the demands of special interests, regardless of fiscal conditions. As always, taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab. Fed up with out-of-control spending and annual deficits, Governor Schwarzenegger pushed for a reform that would override the formulas.
Proposition 76 would still retain the Prop. 98 mandate, but it would tie education spending to available revenues by allowing for decreases during fiscal emergencies. Prop. 76 would also allow the governor to make discretionary mid-year expenditure cuts to balance the budget if the legislature cannot agree on cuts. This would decrease the need to raise taxes and force an evaluation of spending priorities.
Prop. 76 isn’t perfect, but it would infuse the state with greater and much-needed fiscal control. It will reduce the size and severity of budget problems, control autopilot spending, repay debts, and instill some fiscal responsibility on elected officials.
James Madison wrote: “In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” On November 8, California voters will choose whether they want to impose needed controls on state government through Proposition 76.
____
There , just needing a little modifycation.
Do you see anything negative at all in anything proposed,, Is it all as prefect as you make it out to be?
Is it now politically incorrect to question or start a discourse on issues or is this latest "you're not with the program" proptalk just being used to obscure what lies within the measures, in the fine print?
Blind voting is best done with braille ballots, those who just trust but don't verify are the ones you should "educating/indoctrinating", imo.
Well, what does it make those who come down on the same side of important issues, such as cutting spending, as liberal leftist Democrat Angelides, and on opposite side from conservatives like Ray Haynes and Tom McClintock?
Next you will be telling me that socialist Bernie Sanders is a conservative. I am sure, if you asked him, he would be opposed to prop. 76 also.
People who agree with liberal leftists on important issues, such as spending cuts, are NOT conservatives.
I am on the same side as Arnold, Haynes, McClintock -- you and your pack are on the side of Angelides. So who is the conservative?
You make is sound, as if I were the lone opinion, when in fact I hold the same opinion as a lot of smart conservatives, including notable ones, such as above.
LOL.. twist twist twist to serve your purpose,, the jig is up.
I love how you hug Tom so tightly NOW..
Next you will be telling me that socialist Bernie Sanders is a conservative. I am sure, if you asked him, he would be opposed to prop. 76 also.
-----
Have I said I would not support it?
Huh?
Even looking at the measures critically gets you agitated.
Ray Haynes is running for the Board of Equalization. ( I think he's being term-limited out of the assembly.) A good man. A worthy candidate.
Only to a GOP Big Tent RINO, liberal or moderate.
Conservatives always think for themselves. It's what distinguishes us from the denizens of the GOP Big Tent.
No. Clinton left the country in peril, and now Bush has to fight a war.
Proposition 76 has little to do with cutting spending. As its title implies, it has every thing to due with matching expenditures to revenues.
Three alternatives are available under Prop 76's formula. Under defined circumstances 1) the executive may unilaterally cut expenditures to match existing revenues, 2) the executive, with the approval of the electorate, may borrow to match existing expenditures or 3) the legislature, with the concurrence of the executive, may raise taxes to match existing expenditures.
Of the three alternatives available to Schwarzenegger he is unlikely to cut spending. Schwarzenegger has consistently increased spending and he has indicated his willingness to continue to increase spending, in the short term, using bonding as a revenue source if Prop 76 is approved. A Schwarzenegger's spokesperson has also indicated that Schwarzenegger will approve a tax increase, rather than cut spending, if Prop 76 fails.
Please do not be offended by this basic review of Prop 76. I am confident the Republican Party understands its language and implications. This review is offered instead to lurkers who might be swayed by the CAGOP's presentation. As to Schwarzenegger historical actions; he is what he is, regardless of his party affiliation or the lamentations of the CAGOP.
" I am confident the Republican Party understands its language and implications."
====
Yes, they do. That's why the Republican party, along with conservatives like Ray Haynes, Tom McClintock and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are all supporting Prop 76.
The Democrats, Angelides, Amerigomag, calcowgirl, Czar, carry_okie are opposing it.
The reasons don't matter, only the bottom line votes. You and the Dems want to have it defeated. Conservatives want to have it passed. You just have to admit that you are no conservative.
It's OK to admit you can't think for yourself, and have to follow the (R)-bot line.
You just don't get it. We are opposed to #76 simply because we do not trust Arnold. He will borrow and/or raise taxes before he will ever cut expenditures. He and his representatives have said as much.
There are some conservatives who are willing to throw the dice and bet that Arnold will do the right thing. We don't think he will. At bottom, that's the simple difference.
Try to grasp reality, won't you?
It is not exactly that, for me. Mostly, I object to the borrowing. Also, this law, if passed, will be in place for many years. The Governor's office will not always be held by an (R). Therefore, one must consider what the changes being made would do, not only tomorrow, but with a (D) in control. Even someone who trusts that Arnold will do the right thing tomorrow, may find the changes not to their liking if a Dem were in power.
The continued effort by FO to quell discussion on items included in this Proposition, other than the mid-year reductions, makes me even more suspicious as to it's implications. Instead of responding to the concerns I have posted by actually discussing the issues, I have been told that it is supported by Arnold, HJTA, Haynes, McClintock, etc. While noted, I've never been much of a follower; I'd rather conclude things on my own. If it is good law, it should be able to withstand scrutiny, IMO.
Thanks for saying it a whole lot better than most!
Mostly, I object to everything except cutting expenditures which, of course is not what Arnold can be trusted to do. Nor, down the line, anyone else with a (D) after his name.
I agree with your other points.
>>Then we have some FReepers, who are actively working AGAINST Arnold's agenda, especially, and including Prop. 76, CA "live within our means" spending cut initiative.
I wouldn't call it working "AGAINST", F.O. It's not like we're out running ads or standing with "No on 76" signs on the street corner. What I'm trying to determine is if the benefits outweigh the flaws--or, if it's another screw-job like George Deukmejian gave us in 1990 with Proposition 111 that obliterated the Gann Spending Limit, hyping it as the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act." That measure was backed by... guess who? The California Small Business PAC--the same folks backing this measure.
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.