California Dems dispute budget cuts (cuts propopsed by Schwarzenegger)

SHNS ^ | Jan. 27, 2006 | CLEA BENSON

[John Lenin]

a Dem governor, who will really show you what spending and government control is like

The sooner the Soviet Republic of California implodes on itself the sooner these idiots will get thrown out of office.

[FairOpinion]

I think in CA, people getting SSI get part of it from the Federal Gov, and part of it from the state. I don't know the exact ratio, maybe 75% from Federal, and 25% from the state.

[FairOpinion]

You keep referring to Arnold as "the Austrian".

He is a US CITIZEN, therefore AN AMERICAN, and has been for some 30+ years.

He came here legally, has and is paying his taxes and so on.

EVERYONE in this country came from somewhere else ( some say even the American Indians, they just came before the Europeans)

Your constantly referring to him as "the Austrian" is really pathetic -- it only implies your hatred for all immigrants, forgetting that your ancestors were immigrants too.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The Baghdad Bob (FairOpinion) of the California threads strikes again.

[FairOpinion]

I am not the one who voted AGAINST Prop. 76, the "live within our means" proposition, which McClintock supported also, but YOU did. Obviously with all your rhethoric you are the one who didn't want to see the spending controlled. You and all the Democrats were against it and succeeded in defeating it. So if you want to blame someone for the large budget, looking in the mirror is a good first step.

[NormsRevenge]

I love the incessant whining ,, don't look at facts, just point a finger and blame those who call your bluff with ease. How clintonesque.

[FairOpinion]

How witty. (sarc)

But you have your compass malfunctioning, I am on the side of the Conservatives, and the little bunch is the one who wants Dems elected and actually voted WITH the Dems, against the Republicans, and conservatives in the past very important special election on the propositions.

Suppose we have two people claiming to be conservatives, person A votes FOR conservative ideas and propositions, and Republican candidates, against the leftist Dems; person B votes AGAINST conservative ideas, works to weaken Republican candidates, to get leftist socialist Dems elected. Who is the real conservative here A or B? Well???

I am person A, the little attack brigade is person B. They do Carville proud.

Normrevenge and calcowgirl admitted that they voted against Prop. 76, which the Dems and Unions spent large sums of money to defeat. So who is the real conservative and who are the DICCs (Democrats in Conservative's Clothing) around here?

Judge allows extra union dues to fight Calif ballot Props 75, 76, Nov. 4, 2005
THE CA PROPOSITIONS; Democratic and Republican activists discuss the propositions
Dean urges voters to reject measures governor supports [California]
Davis opposes Schwarzenegger's reform initiatives
CA: Feinstein to oppose Schwarzenegger's special election initiatives
John Alden (Marin cnty Dem Party chairman): Vote no on Prop 76 - we need better leaders
Top Democratic leaders at Penmar Park rally to 'swat' governor's special election measures. Key note speaker: Angelides, Dem candidate for governor
Liberal groups (Moveon.org) try to link special election to broader GOP agenda
Open letter from Phil Angelides (opposing Schwarzenegger and the Propositions)
McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions
Summary of Recommendations on the CA Propositions by various organizations and parties
CA: McClintock stumps for governor's ballot initiatives
Ad watch: McClintock in radio spot supporting Prop. 76 (includes actual text)
Supporters of the CA Propositions 74-77 include CA Club for Growth, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, Ray Haynes, San Fernando Valley Town Hall Conservatives, Republican Party, and many others. Click on the link for a more comprehensive list.
And you can see from links above who are the ones opposing them: Democrats, Unions, Gray Davis, Howard Dean, Phil Angelides, MoveOn.org, various Dem party chairmen, etc.

[NormsRevenge]

never mention the little facts about prop 76, the ones the Gub never mentioned and his public realtions folks liked to dance away from, How special all of you are.


A Borrow 5 billion dollars get out of how water clause..


No, we shouldn't sweat the details , should we, FO?

Thanks for continuing to give us a segway to refute your claims.

Why don't you go smear the rest of the conservatives in California, that seems to be about all you are good for here at FR of late.

[NormsRevenge]

Calling for backup too, I see. Yes, you're very special indeed. You couldn't carry a tune muhcless an argument by yourself if you had a walkman or a loudspeaker implanted in your forehead.

[NormsRevenge]

Oh, and please don't honor Tom by quoting what he is now saying after seeing the latest horrendous offerings from the administration, t'wouldn't be prudent ,, especially for "your" side of the conservative message.

[FairOpinion]

BOTTOM LINE: the Dems opposed it vehemently and you voted with them.

The Republicans, CAGOP, and conservatives, such as McClintock, Haynes, CA Club for Growth, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, San Fernando Valley Town Hall Conservatives SUPPORTED it, and you voted AGAINST it.

You preferred the status quo. The choice wasn't between a "perfect world" whatever that means to people and a flawed one, the choice was between the status quo of mandated spending on schools, per Prop. 98, and no controls on the budget vs. weakening Prop. 98, and controlling spending and giving BACK the governor the right that most CA governor's had until recent years, to make midyear cuts, to have some ammunition against the out of control Dem Legislature.

Where does that put you?

YOU VOTED WITH THE DEMS, instead of for reforms supported by REAL Republicans and conservatives. Rationalize it all you want, either you are a DICC or you've been had, fooled by the Dem agent provocateurs. Communists used to call people who ended up supporting them for idealistic reasons "useful idiots".

[NormsRevenge]

Gee, If I wasn't a compassionate conservative like you, I'd almost say you were trying to impugn my character with your assassinative remarks and trying to porttray me as an enemy to be greatly feared and not worthy of consideration if I voice any dissnet at all.

You ought to look within yourself and how readily you are are willing to sell out to Just Win, Baby! and the costs be damned.

btw, you take this much too personally. Oh well.. Maybe you'll grow some skin eventually and mature beyond your myopic approach and lockstep mentality. But I doubt it.

[NormsRevenge]

Oh, and don't mention the New Majority and their support as well for this and other props.. blind allegiance can really bite , yaknow.

They also support the Big Tent, pro-choice, anti-gun, spend spend spend, win at any cost approach.

And you seem perfectly OK with that. Go figure.. pot kettle, you know the rest.

[Amerigomag]

Normrevenge and calcowgirl admitted that they voted against Prop. 76,

Please include me on the list of those who voted NO of Prop 76. Not only did I vote NO, I also campaigned tirelessly against it on this forum.

Apparently my efforts to warn CAGOP partisans that Prop 76 was:

A) nonpartisan, benefiting a select few large, non partisan donors and not particularly benefiting the CAGOP,
B) an attempt to cloak the indemnification of large, Wilsonegger gang donors, not CAGOP donors,
B) not in the best interest of the CAGOP if they wished to keep their traditional base
D) further diminish flexibility of General Fund revenues and would further antagonize the CAGOP's traditional base
E) duplicated existing, legal avenues to make midyear corrections but transfered more taxpayer wealth to a select few who had no interest in either conservative principle or good governance or the CAGOP other than as a vehicle for personal self enrichment

Prop 76 was the model of political corruption gone wild, but my efforts were apparently wasted on CAGOP partisans.

[calcowgirl]

Funny. Palmer doesn't mention all of the positions added for the Climate Change initiative and to promote solar energy.

[NormsRevenge]

You preferred the status quo.

---

That "status quo" looks pretty darned good about now for some reason.

Sometimes ,, marking time and staying in place is better that going deeper in debt.. don't ya think? Instead we are twice as deep in the hole and that much closer to a liberal juggernaut administration full of New Majoritites, gays and envirowackos who could care less how they took the party over and who they crapped on to do so.


I've tried to figure out who you are really maddest at,, those who voted and didn't march lockstep with your "progressive reform" packages or those who didn't bother to vote at all because they have tired of all hype all the time and then getting kicked in the teeth with more gay and green appointments than any administration ever. This is your idea of building a party? lol

You must live in fear that now that the GUb has cut his teeth in a real election and revealed how spineless he really is in the aftermath and what those faithful to conservative and what used to be Republican principles really think of all the lip service served up so far, that you may lose your place at the table.

Welcome aboard, sweetie. Like the CA Gop powers could care less about you or the published platform planks it supposedly supports.

Money talks, ethics walks in case you haven't noticed these days, but we won't look at who backs the Gub and why?

[Amerigomag]

If someone can provide additional info, Thanks

The "cuts" proposed are not cuts. They're a ploy that Wilsonegger has fronted, typical for the smoke and mirros making the rounds in Sacramento these past 3 years.

The claimed savings involve delaying federally funded, benefit increases to SSI recipients. The feds will give the money to Wilsonegger, Wilsonegger will delay passing it on the enrollees, using the funds temporarily to hide the huge deficit in his proposed budget

It's still federal money, it still belongs to SSI enrollees and Wilsonegger will still have to pay it, but not before he makes his seriously unbalanced budget proposal appear balanced on paper.

Smoke and mirrors for the gang and a temporary loss of "owed" benefits for the poor and elderly. The Democrats jumped right on the invitation to attack. The CAGOP remained silent, caught like a deer in the headlights and the gang has avoided commenting on a justification.

[calcowgirl]

I am not the one who voted AGAINST Prop. 76, the "live within our means" proposition,

Yep. You tried to sell it as spending control and ignored the many, many pitfalls that it contained--deferral of expenses, more debt, more bond authorizations, etc.

Obviously with all your rhethoric you are the one who didn't want to see the spending controlled.

What "rhetoric" is that, exactly? Arnold has proposed spending and borrowing amounts that dems could have only dreamed about before the neoliberal won office under the (R) label. I opposed Prop 57/58 borrowing, a scam to supplement the socialistic spending levels. Others however, ignored facts and tried to sell it as "a debt restructuring" and "not new debt," a lie that has been exposed over and over again. Such efforts at selling the socialist spending agenda are enabling and promoting liberalism, something I strenuously oppose.

This years budget proposal is no different and, as supported in Post #14 above, Prop 76 would not have reduced the spending levels one iota. In fact, he would have been able to spend even more by increasing the debt instead of paying off prior loans made to the general fund.

Have you looked at the budget numbers or read the budget, FO? This is not fiscally conservative.

                                                          
                                      Expenditures        Expend's per Capita
                                  ------------------      ---------------------
          Population              Gen Fund     Total      Gen Fund        Total
Year       (000's)    Employees     (Mlns)    (Mlns)                      
-------   ----------  ---------   --------
2003-04     35,990     316,860     $78,345    $104,223    $2176.85    $2895.89
2004-05     36,506     313,684      79,804     107,591     2186.05     2947.21
2005-06     37,005     330,141      90,294     127,483     2440.05     3445.02
2006-07     37,514     335,473      97,902     125,603     2609.75     3348.16

Source: Schedule 6, pdf Page 297, Governor's Budget Proposal

Furthermore, despite the governor having sold the electorate Prop 58, the "Balanced Budget Act", promising to never spend more than the state takes in, Arnold is proposing deficit spending as far as the eye can see, something else that Prop 76 would have done nothing about. This is not mandated spending by the legislature, nor it is the result of automatic formulas; this plan is that designed by this governor(R). For someone who sold himself as a "fiscal conservative", he is a disgrace.

[calcowgirl]

never mention the little facts about prop 76, the ones the Gub never mentioned and his public realtions folks liked to dance away from,

That campaign goes up there in the long list of dishonest campaigns. While sitting on a $9 BILLION dollar reserve at the end of the 2004-05 fiscal year, Arnold resorted to the age old threat of "pass Prop 76 or I will have to raise taxes."

That type of dishonesty and rhetoric is what exposed the Prop 76 sham to many.