Posted on 01/15/2006 11:40:00 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is sometimes criticized unfairly for picking and choosing positions from across the ideological spectrum. There is nothing wrong with that. But on at least one issue - ballot-box budgeting - he is seemingly on every side of the same issue at the same time, and his incoherence is deafening.
Schwarzenegger on this issue, in fact, is a perfect reflection of the California voter: He loves to tie the hands of policymakers with initiatives and then complain incessantly about the gridlock that results.
--snip--
But at the same press conference, Schwarzenegger proposed measures that would worsen the very problem he says is responsible for the state's fiscal mess.
When the voters passed Proposition 42 in 2002, they directed that the sales tax on gasoline be spent on transportation but left some wiggle room for the Legislature and the governor to continue spending the revenue on general programs, such as health care and education and public safety, if the state's fiscal condition warranted it. Schwarzenegger took advantage of that provision in his first budget, since without it he would have had to cut more than $1 billion from those programs or else raise taxes.
But even as the budget he proposed last week would spend more next year than the state is taking in from taxes - evidence on its face that he is short of money - the governor wants to put a measure on the ballot walling off those sales tax dollars forever more.
And that's not the only new restriction he's pushing. As part of his otherwise admirable plan to rebuild California's infrastructure, Schwarzenegger wants to limit the state's debt service to 6 percent of the general fund, an arbitrary figure that makes sense as a guideline but not as an edict.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
"Schwarzenegger on this issue, in fact, is a perfect reflection of the California voter: He loves to tie the hands of policymakers with initiatives and then complain incessantly about the gridlock that results. "
=====
This is a preposterous accusation. Schwarzenegger WANTS to get rid of the automated spending, but the Legislature won't let him, and when he introduced Prop. 76, the CA voters voted it down.
Prop. 98 is what is causeing most of the budget problems and he wanted to get rid of it, he did NOT initiate that.
California's fiscal straightjacket. The initiative process has tied lawmakers' hands by legally mandating precisely how tax revenues are spent.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558353/posts
"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.
.. Proposition 98 in 1988, fixed education spending permanently at roughly 40% of the General Fund budget. Proposition 98 still is a major factor driving budget-making in the state. In the coming year, state spending on education from kindergarten through community colleges will total about $40 billion, or a little more than 40% of the General Fund.
The governor says nothing will solve the state's budget problem "other than getting rid of those automatic spending formulas."
"Schwarzenegger also noted that last year he proposed a ballot measure, Proposition 76, that would have loosened some of those restrictions, or at least allowed a governor to override them in a fiscal emergency. The voters rejected that measure by a 60-40 vote.
"There is nothing that will solve the problem other than getting rid of those automatic spending formulas, and we went through that during the last election," he said. "That's what I proposed, but the people did not like it. They didn't vote for it."
Toss out the second half of that lead statement.
"Schwarzenegger on this issue, in fact, is a perfect reflection of the California voter:
--
That doesn't miss the mark.. look at his budgets, his administration, his advisors and benefactors.
He supports GReens, Gays and massive borrowing to keep spending increases going and social programs funded.
OK,, FO, get out your canned points..
I knew you'd catch that, so? Big hairy deal. Just trying to compete with you and your (M)ilk.
Like you always tell the whole story yourself.. LOLOL
"He supports GReens, Gays "
===
You are the one with the canned talking points.
Please explain to me how VETOING homosexual marriage can be interpreted as "supporting gays" and you can bet your bottom dollar that a Dem governor would have signed it proudly.
And by your constant attacks on Arnold, you are h&ll bent on getting him replaced with a leftist, socialist Democrat, and I am sure that will be more to your liking. Nobody can be so naive to NOT see what the alternative is.
Ahhhh,, you still got it FO.. he supports civil unions and domestic partnerships. Remember those bills he signed even as he vetoed gay marriage.
No, you probably don't , you only see what you want to see. Too bad.
Who has benefitted most by his actions the last 2 years and you go after folks at FR, insulting old-timers and seeking the moral highground.
You're a real piece or work..
http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/2405964/detail.html
Gay marriage: Schwarzenegger told Talk Magazine he supports gay rights.If he doesn't support gays then he needs to quit telling magazines interviewers that he does.
Which part of VETOED homosexual marriage don't you understand?
ANY Dem governor would have signed it.
So, I guess YOU are in favor of homosexual marriage, since you are so upset that we don't have a Dem governor, who would have signed it, instead of vetoing it.
Let me explain to you again, SLOWLY:
Arnold VETOED homosexual marriage, despite the pressure he got from the Dems and homosexual lobby.
Norms Revenge said he supported homosexuals. YOu brought out the veto to refute that but Arnold himself says he supports them. What part of Norms statement do you find wrong?
Oh, Please don't confuse the issues with facts. ;-P
Which part of VETOED homosexual marriage don't you understand
The part where Schwarzenegger, utilizing an under the radar, end run, ploy, legalized homosexual relationships providing them the same rights and benefits as legally recognized marriage.
Schwarzenegger supports the homosexual agenda and would sanctify their unions were it not for one troubling little fact: millions of Californian's, armed with pitchforks, ready to run the Autrian back to either Hollywood or Braz.
Schwarzenegger has expressed his support of gays often. His veto of the same sex marriage bill was driven by politics, not his personal values.
The way I worded that makes it sound like you support homosexuals. Sorry!
According to FOG logic ( what an apt screen name), a governor VETOES a bill, because he is FOR it. That may make sense to you, but it is ridiculous to any rational person.
You must have voted FOR Kerry, because you were against him, is that it?
Dizzy? Your spin is making me dizzy. Spinning the facts won't change them.
How about refuting the facts instead of hurling the insults you complained about on the other thread.
Are you saying that it's NOT a FACT, that Schwarzenegger VETOED the homosexual marriage bill?
I"m saying that Norm was right and you are spinning it.
lol..
No problemo..
When Words Collide.
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.