Posted on 10/21/2005 11:20:49 AM PDT by etlib
The case against Proposition 76 – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to curb growth in state spending – hinges on claims that it is a stealth measure to devastate crucial programs and empower a governor hostile to the interests of average Californians. But you don't have to belong to the Schwarzenegger cult of personality to recognize these contentions are canards. You just have to have remedial reading and math skills and a passing familiarity with economics.
...
Proposition 76 is radical only if you believe living within your means is radical. If you think that's an unfair way to characterize 76's opponents, then consider the fury of the California Teachers Association – the most powerful critic of 76 – over the state's current education budget. It's up $3 billion and 7 percent over last year, meaning schools made out better than any other part of government in the annual budget scrum. Yet the CTA and its Democratic allies endlessly promote the flat-out fiction that this is a spending cut.
Better than any other example, this reflects the mentality of the Sacramento status quo that Schwarzenegger is up against. A yes on Proposition 76 isn't just a vote for responsible government, it's a repudiation of the unions' sense of entitlement to an endlessly growing share of your tax dollars. Only such a sense of entitlement could produce the lunatic assertion that a mere 7 percent increase in annual spending isn't just disappointing – it's a cause for outrage.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
"The key is not to crank government spending down," said Tom Campbell... "It's just to spend no more than we have."Current law already prohibits them from spending more than they have! They also are prohibited from borrowing more money--unless people approve the fine print in Prop 76 to allow them to borrow more.Among the main backers of the initiative that lifted the Gann limit are the business groups that helped write Schwarzenegger's Proposition 76.
McClintock, the rock, and the hard place--up close and personal.
Thanks for the dwe diligence.
A pact with the devil, as it were. I have a lot of respect for Tom, and it's hard for me to believe he would do this. But then I have an almost limitless capacity to be surprised at these things.
If this can in any way be verified, I believe it will cause McClintock a great deal of future support.
If you meant to type "cost McClintock a great deal of future support"; I disagree.
Most conservatives are above average in their political savvy and understand how the system works. If McClintock is seen as cooperating with the CAGOP in matters that he previously publicly denigrated, borrowing to pay day to day operating expenses, he'll survive any muttering from his traditional base. He's all conservatives have in the expanding CAGOP tent.
If, on the other hand, the word was correct as published: "cause" you're correct. By supporting the governor, McClintock will, indeed, greatly widen his base for the next election cycle.
He wins either way.
They're just so G.D. exasperating I don't even wanna talk about em anymore tonite! They go through life thinkin it's so smart to be neither hot, nor cold, right or wrong, forward or backward, adamant nor moderate... no! Wait!! Fergediboutit!!! (I just went to bed)
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
That would be all of the funds that are to be recharacterized as one-time obligations under Proposition 76 and spread over 15 years (transportation, education, etc). This was the last tally I started.
It all has be paid for and it won't paid for through spending cuts.
Not unless they are forced to do so. Approving more borrowing certainly won't help.
I hear ya!
I love Denny Crane. Loved the last episode when he came in dressed like a minute man. Freakin classic.
Yes, I did intend to type "cost" rather than "cause". Sorry for the confusion.
"If McClintock is seen as cooperating with the CAGOP in matters that he previously publicly denigrated, borrowing to pay day to day operating expenses, he'll survive any muttering from his traditional base."
We do disagree about this. What has always distinguished Tom from the rest of the Sacramento crapweasels has been his Reaganesque honesty, integrity and straight talk. Once that is called into question, support starts to erode. Speaking only for myself, doubts about Tom's trustworthiness would be generated by any such tawdry backroom "deals".
"He wins either way."
Perhaps. But you can't unring a bell. If what you posted is verified, Tom will inevitably lose some support among those voters who care about such things. Once you start to act like "just another politician", your credibility begins to diminish, especially within the conservative base. I hope this doesn't happen to Tom. He's just too good a man for that.
The radio ad itself bring focus to that issue. The script reads: "76 is the Live Within Your Means Act - to control state spending, balance the budget without new taxes and stop borrowing from our kids".
If McClintock's base were looking for evidence which diminished a reputation of Reaganesque honesty, integrity and straight talk then the misdirection in the quote itself is fairly persuasive. McClintock is aware that Prop 76 authorizes more borrowing and other 15 year deferrals of tax liability to offset today's proposed spending increases. Evidence of "back room deals" is not necessary.
Some of McClintock's supporters are active on FR. They recognize that the same McClintock who gained their respect when he bucked the CAGOP and cautioned against Prop 57/58 now publicly endorses a similar tact. In spite of the misrepresentation contained in the script these same folks have not cried for his head.
While I vociferously object to the policies of the miscreants in this particular squandering of conservative principles, I don't count McClintock among them. He's a victim of the two party system and I don't believe he would have taken this course had he a viable alternative. Had he not cooperated with the CAGOP he wouldn't have gained their full support. Had he again stood up to the CAGOP, his candidacy would have again been torpedoed at the primary level and again he would have been a minority loser.
Don't lose sight of the big picture in this episode. Candidates like McClintock are not necessarily bad guys worthy of our scorn. They are victims of their own aspirations within a system that values winning over principles. In this particular case the CAGOP has tunnel vision. The historic principles of their party, use of celebrity without credentials and the compromise of good men are not going to deter them.
In other words, "the system made me do it." A squandering of conservative principles is a squandering of conservative principles, even when--or especially when--it's a conservative doing the squandering. Nobody gets a pass. Tom's endorsement of a measure he knows to be a snow job has caused a lot of problems. His imprimatur is being used to silence conservatives and sell what certainly appears to be an undesirable Proposition.
"He's a victim of the two party system and I don't believe he would have taken this course had he a viable alternative. Had he not cooperated with the CAGOP he wouldn't have gained their full support. Had he again stood up to the CAGOP, his candidacy would have again been torpedoed at the primary level and again he would have been a minority loser."
These are excuses, not justification.
"Candidates like McClintock...are victims of their own aspirations within a system that values winning over principles."
Nobody is a victim. Those who make a calculated decision to let aspirations trump principles should not be offended when they are called on it. The first compromise may seem insignificant but, too often, it turns out to be the slippery slope; once on it, it's hard to get off.
I'm not trying to start a big argument here. I wanted you to understand how I, and perhaps at least a few other conservatives, feel about this. I will continue to support Tom because I believe he can actually fix the damn system if we can ever get him elected.
I suppose I am guilty of being willing to compromise my own principles--at least on this issue--in order to get a real conservative elected. So I now join Tom on that slippery slope. This, however, changes nothing. I just hope we can contain any damage that may have been done.
I'm speaking to the current version of the CAgop which is controlled by muddled moderates, not considerate conservatives!!!
I was concerned about Tom with the Indian Gamers during the Recall, I know he's not totally above reproach, but the Indians haven't corrupted him like this current bunch of CAgop prigs are doing!!! This really makes him look bad and like he's done a 180!!!
Yes, we know. Those who vote to cut spending are the "corrupted conservatives".
The "REAL conservatives" are the ones who promote and vote for the Democrats agenda, as in against Prop. 76.
(/sarcasm)
Which leads to some thorny questions.
Would you rather have seen MClintock remain pure in his small kingdom or change to seek political success in another?
How much more borrowing will McClintock have to support before he becomes part of the problem and not the solution?
If events are predictable, McClintock with have to stand shoulder to shoulder with Schwarzenegger and muster his best enthusiasm to support a candidate with whom he shares limited principle. How much back slapping will you tolerate before you say "Enough!"?
Who is talking about "cuts"? Certainly NOT the Yes on Prop 76 campaign!
From today's San Francisco Chronicle:
But Campbell said he has looked forward starting in 2006, which is when the measure would take effect, and doesn't believe that the cap would have an impact on state spending until 2013.Not to mention 2 years of record spending inflated by Prop 57/58 borrowing. Like I said HERE:"That's because we start with three good years of revenue behind us," he said. "It completely depends on what year you start."
Given recent history, this means the spending level (inflated by borrowing) and the revenue (inflated by one time increases) will be used as a basis to “limit” future spending. They are taking the best-of-the-best and presenting it as a fiscally responsible basis for “limiting” future expenses. What is responsible about using the highest revenues and the highest expenditures of all time as a basis to establish a "cap" for limiting future expenditures?
Yes. It is. My mind understands what Amerigomag is saying. My heart remains with Czar's commentary. The only solution I see is to take back the leadership of the CA GOP and oust the hispandering, RINO, moderate, log cabin, country club, big tent, stand-for-nothing infiltrators.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. It's not an "either/or" situation. Nobody can know how it would have turned out.
"How much more borrowing will McClintock have to support before he becomes part of the problem and not the solution?"
Not much more. As I said, it's a slippery slope. We'll just have to wait and see how long I am willing to remain there alongside Tom.
"How much back slapping will you tolerate before you say 'Enough!'?"
I have a higher tolerance for "backslapping" than I do for selling out specific conservative principles.
Now, would you like to take a crack at answering your own questions?
Howard Dean, the chairman of the DNC, John Kerry, the CA Democrat Party, Diane Feinstein, the Unions AND CALCOWGIRL are agitating AGAINST the reform Propositions.
Arnold, the CA Republican Party, Tom McClintock, Ray Haynes and all conservatives and Republicans are FOR the reform Propositions 73-77.
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.