Posted on 01/14/2006 8:53:48 PM PST by FairOpinion
Then some people blame Arnold for the budget, instead of putting the blame where it belongs, the voters, who swallow the Dem propaganda and vote in mandated spending, such as Prop. 98.
THIS is the real reason for the CA budget problems that some try to blame on Arnold. Arnold tried to mitigate this with Prop. 76, which was defeated.
"A major reason is that more than 70% of state spending, which totals a projected $126.6 billion in the fiscal year starting July 1, is already accounted for before he even begins the budget process. That money is mandated to be spent for specific purposes and nothing else. It's a fiscal straitjacket that makes it impossible for the state to make logical choices and put its tax dollars to work where they may be most needed. "
Dims always want to spend other people's money. They want confiscatory tax rates on the wealthy in order to pay community college costs of the millions in CA. Just like getting the money for the Constitutionally mandated "free health care for everyone" mantra the Dims are so found of touting. Who will pay for free health care in the perfect Dim environment? We all know the answer to that - stop the trillion dollar war in the middle east and raise taxes. We are the wealthiest country on the globe and we need to have a Democratic government that will provide free schooling and free health care from cradle to grave to everyone, illegal and legal alike. Vote us in and we will give it to you!! /sarcasm
The Dems keep coming up with more and more socialistic notions of taking away "from the rich" to "give it to the poor" and people still aren't discovering that anyone working is considered "rich".
Here is the latest proposition in CA:
Preschool measure makes June ballot (California -- tax "the rich" to pay for public preschool)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558199/posts
"The voluntary program would offer a full year of preschool to all California 4-year-olds, provided mostly by local school districts.
The initiative would boost the top tax rate by 1.7 percent on individuals earning more than $400,000 annually or married couples earning $800,000. That will raise $2.4 billion a year by 2010-11, when the measure would take full effect. "
The article in the LAT mentions this and actually makes the point, that:
"Tempting as it is, the state can only tap the wealthy so many times. "
Also:
"This year, two groups joined forces to press voters for an additional $2.60-a-pack boost in cigarette taxes to finance disease prevention, health insurance for children and to shore up faltering hospital emergency services."
All the Dems know is tax, tax, tax, and "socialize", i.e. have the government control everything.
"It's also kind of disingenuous for the LAT to act like Schwarzenegger found out that things were a little tougher than he thought they'd be, in the face of democrat intransigence."
====
Good point.
Of course Arnold knew about this all along, that's why he was pushing Prop. 76, which was a step in the right direction.
That was my opinion too, although some didn't think so.
By one report that I read, we had judges handling reapportionment into the 1990s. I didn't hear anyone screaming bloody murder about it then.
I am currently going through the process of informing my 11 year old grandson how the DemonRATs know better how to spend our hard earned money for us, because we are so stupid we just don't know how we should spend it and are too selfish to share our hard earned money with the less fortunate lazy bums that like to live on the "dole". I purchased a good kids book entitled Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! which tells the socialism story in small kid story fashion. He is conservative so my teaching is easy - he got a good laugh out of the book, and even suggested some senator names for a couple of the characters.
Cute!
I vaguely remember a story about teaching the children about the Dems and their vision of the government.
It was something like explaining that under Republican administratio and limited government, the kid wants $10, the parent gives him $10 and he spends it on what he wants. With the Dems in charge, the $10 has to be sent to Washington, they take out at least $5 and the kid is lucky to end up with $5.
Prop 76, others may have had a different outcome if they'd been floated in a general, not special election.
Wrong. He tried to get rid of part of the formula: Test 3, the one that makes sure Education funding can NEVER go down. (Prop 76 also created more debt, authorized more bonds, and deferred more expenses).
Regardless of formulas, Schwarzenegger is giving more to schools than the formulas require. And this is HIS proposal. When the legislature is done with it, if history tells us anything, it will be higher yet. From the Legislative Analysts Office: Overview of the Governor’s Budget:
The main increase involves Proposition 98 education, where the Governor is proposing to provide $2.2 billion more than the minimum guarantee over the current and budget year combined. These added funds are proposed for such purposes as school district equalization, payment of past mandates, and cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) foregone in past years.And lets not forget that one of those formulas was a result of Arnold's own Proposition 49, After School Programs. Also from the LAO Report:
In addition, the budget provides $428 million in new spending for K-12 after school programs as required by Proposition 49. In the higher education area, the budget includes funding for the “buy out” of student fee increases for both the California Sate University (CSU) and the University of California (UC).
Can they write a proposition that undoes all these diedicated funds.
Correction. I wrote:
He tried to get rid of part of the formula: Test 3, the one that makes sure Education funding can NEVER go down.
What I was trying to say was:
Changes being proposed in Prop 76, elimination of Test 3, would have prohibited any reductions to total Education spending from the prior year. So, if population was way down, or revenues, or per-capita income... Education spending could not be reduced--ever!. Existing law (Test 3) does allow for reductions under certain circumstances.
"Can they write a proposition that undoes all these diedicated funds."
===
I am sure they could, but unfortunately it would never pass. Prop. 76 was going to partially do that, and look what happened to it. One would think conservatives would have turned out in droves to pass it, but they didn't, and some on this very board voted against it, preferring the current untenable status quo, just so they can blame it on Arnold.
"We need to break the unions, no matter how risky the move is, it'll help us all in the future."
===
Arnold understood that, that's why he put Prop. 75 on the ballot. Unfortunately the CA voters keep buying into the Dem propaganda and defeated it, along with Prop. 76.
These two propositions would have been a huge step forward in bringing CA back from the brink.
I think the key is to way in advance educate the electorate over and over.
Eventually the union money train has to get derailed by the people getting fed up.
So you prefer the current status quo, of the untenable budget straightjacket, right?
Obviously, since you voted against Prop. 76 and urged others to vote with the Democrats as well, to defeat it.
I am sure the Democrats and unions are deeply grateful to you, you served them well.
No, the solution began in 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13.
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.