Posted on 06/10/2006 11:25:00 AM PDT by calcowgirl
To hear Governor Schwarzenegger tell it, he didn't need any convincing by Democrats to support a separate bond measure for more affordable housing. And he wishes the infrastructure package was much, much bigger.
In one of the unreported tidbits from the Wednesday north state press bus interview, Schwarzenegger was asked why he didn't mention the $2.85 billion housing bond at his town hall event that morning in Redding.
He blamed it on a simple oversight, not having his notes in front of him. But he didn't stop there. "To be honest with you," he said, "I don't even know why I didn't have it in my State of the State address. Because when Fabian [Nunez] and [Don] Perata brought it up, it was not even a debate."
That's interesting, if for no other reason than it was indeed a debate among his fellow Republicans in the Legislature, who balked for weeks at long-term borrowing for housing.
That wasn't the only revelation in Wednesday's discussion. Schwarzenegger said that he wished the infrastructure bond offering would have been much larger than the $37 billion agreed to... even bigger than the $68 billion in bonds he proposed in January.
"As a matter of fact," he told reporters, "I wanted $150 billion. I think we need so much to really, if you're serious about rebuilding." Schwarzenegger, however, said he also understood that some legislators were not "comfortable" with such a large proposal.
Drunken sailors can't compete with this guy.
I guess you are still promoting Angelides, hm?
Remember, it's Arnold and McClintock vs. Angelides/Garamendi. By your constant attacks on Arnold, it's very clear which side you are on.
====
"Westly and Angelides were twins on the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill (yes), fully funding education (yes), affordable housing (of course), health care (yes), same-sex marriage (yes), and signing a bill to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants (yes)"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631511/posts
=====
ANGELIDES:
Angelides calls himself a champion of "progressive values." As state treasurer, he has pushed public pension funds to dump tobacco stocks, invest in urban renewal projects and pressure corporations into cleaning up the environment. A close ally of labor, he also supports abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
If he makes it into a general-election race, his call for increasing taxes could pose problems; Schwarzenegger has been steadfast in opposing higher taxes.
http://www.calcoast.org/news/cpr0060122.html
Angelides Pushes Health Care In Election Speeches
http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_160221352.html
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides is promising to provide health care for all of California's children if elected.
He proposes to do this by closing corporate tax loopholes and tax breaks given to those who earn more than 500-thousand dollars a year.
=====
In the meantime, Arnold:
"They're focused on the Capitol's perpetual war between business and the big four Democratic Party subfactions: labor unions, personal injury lawyers, environmentalists and consumer protection advocates.
The past two years have been bleak ones for the Big 4 because Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has aligned himself with the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, rejecting nearly all of the measures they had dubbed "job killers." Schwarzenegger and business, moreover, bulldozed the Legislature into approving an overhaul of worker's compensation that authorities say is reducing employers' costs by $15 billion a year. It was the most significant advance either side had made in the war in many years and one that Democrats and their allies now want to undo. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627876/posts
====
Arnold also vetoed the homsexual marriage bill, which Anglides is on record of supporting.
Arnold made the legislature rescind the drivers licenses for illegals bill, then when they put it on his desk again, he vetoed it. Angelides is on the record FOR the bill.
Arnold categorically refused to raise taxes, despite Dem pressure and Angelides's main platform is to raise taxes.
There are huge differences with major impacts on CA, between Arnold and the Dems.
====
How can any conservative be working AGAINST Arnold and therefore FOR Angelides, defies reason. The ONLY explanation is that the Arnold attackers are NOT conservatives, just DICCs (Democrats in Conservative Clothing)
Quit lying, FO. I have never promoted Angelides and never will.
I will however be promoting a NO vote on the outrageous spending package.
Will you be supporting a Yes vote on Proposition 1C to issue billions in bonds for Affordable Housing?
You've come undone!!! Get some help... And hurry!!!
I am not working "against Arnold"... I am however working against irresponsible, outrageous spending and borrowing. Got it?
My position is consistent with the majority of our Republican legislators. If you are supporting the Big Bang Bond Bonanza, it places you firmly in the court of Nunez and Perata.
Throwing money into the housing at the top of the bubble, to be repaid in future taxes? Every day NOT in California is your lucky day.
"I am however working against irresponsible, outrageous spending and borrowing. "
====
I couldn't tell from your posts, since your posts help Angelides, who IS promoting huge spending increases and tax increases. So why would you want Angelides to defeat Arnold? You DO keep bashing Arnold, trying to get conservatives riled up to stay home of vote third party, which HELPS ANGELIDES.
Therefore, your activities directly help Angelides.
Not to mention, that while you keep saying that you are against spending increases, you promoted a NO vote and voted NO on Prop. 76, the "live within your means" proposition, which would have limited spending.
Your stated objectives are in contradiction with your actions. It just upsets you, that I point it out, thought it's quite clear to anyone who has been reading the CA threads.
I'm not quite sure how a $2.85 billion government bond can solve the California housing crisis. Last I heard--my economics is a bit underdeveloped--the market determines housing prices in California or any other market. In the absence of supply shortages or gluts, housing prices generally follow the costs required to erect new housing: building materials, labor, land, and the costs associated with government regulations (including taxes). Government can create supply shortages through over-regulation, restrictive zoning, ridiculous labor laws, and NIMBY environmentalist empowerment. Supply shortages generally drive up prices to enrich entrenched interests at the expense of young families and others attempting to enter the housing market.
Government surely can help create affordable housing by lowering taxes, eliminating zoning, and dismantling regulatory impediments to housing construction. Sensible legislation probably could make California housing affordable. This process unfortunately does not require a multi-billion-dollar slush fund that taxpayers ultimately must repay. Such repayment through taxation necessarily makes housing and practically every other commodity less affordable for consumers and impedes economic progress as surely as a parasite sucks energy from its host.
So I'm confused. How does the "solution" relate to the "problem?" Help!
Go register in the Communist Party, that's where you belong!
The DC legislature & administration is trying hard ;)
1. Raise $2.85 billion
2. Find some land
3. Hire cheap labor (illegal aliens) to build houses
4. Sell only to "poor" people (cheap labor illegal aliens) and their children (aka anchor babies)
5. Rinse, lather, repeat
6. Problem solved (California style).
I mentioned spending and borrowing, not tax increases. You don't know who is promoting the Infrastructure bonds? Have you been reading the news? Frankly, I don't care who is promoting them, bad legislation is bad legislation and I will vote against it no matter who promotes it. I was against the proposed unconstitutional borrowing by Gray Davis and the same borrowing when proposed by Schwarzenegger.
So why would you want Angelides to defeat Arnold? You DO keep bashing Arnold, trying to get conservatives riled up to stay home of vote third party, which HELPS ANGELIDES.
I want conservatives to get riled up to vote NO on the bond package and support strong down ticket candidates such as McClintock, Poochigian, Strickland, Parrish, etc.
Not to mention, that while you keep saying that you are against spending increases, you promoted a NO vote and voted NO on Prop. 76, the "live within your means" proposition, which would have limited spending.
Apparently you have a very short memory, FO. Prop 76 didn't limit spending, as Arnold's own Finance Director stated on many occasions, and there were plenty of other reasons to oppose it.
My post to you: Proposition 76 - A Conservative Argument for Voting “NO”
"The key is not to crank government spending down," said Tom Campbell, Schwarzenegger's former finance director, who left the post to campaign for the initiative. "It's just to spend no more than we have."
San Diego Union-Tribune, October 21, 2005But 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. "That's because we start with three good years of revenue behind us," he said. "It completely depends on what year you start."
San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2005
Your stated objectives are in contradiction with your actions.
My actions are consistently conservative. Are yours?
It just upsets you, that I point it out, thought it's quite clear to anyone who has been reading the CA threads.
Many things are clear to readers. Your constant shilling makes it clearer every day.
.
It has little to do with housing. It's a welfare program for special interests designed as a means to help the poor. It includes homeless shelters, farmworker housing, and creation of new parks, as well as brownfield cleanup and infill development to benefit some of California's 'stakeholders'.
designedasto look like a means to help the poor
ROFL! This is NOT the contest I like to see!
LOL Couldn't resist :)
I guess you are promoting Feinstein, hm? Arnold has all but endorsed her. He thinks she's just dandy. Funny we didn't see you around that thread. Are you going to continue to stand by Arnold when he abandons our Senate nominee, whose only crime is to support the state party platform?
By your constant cheering for for Arnold, it's clear which side you are on in the Senate race.
Good post....until we resolve the reasons that there isn't enough "affordable housing" we're left with the whine "GOVERNMENT HAS TO DO SOMETHING".......oh, maybe that's the purpose....when almost no one can afford "housing", then we're forced to live where the gov't provides it.....
What's totally clear is that all your attempts to make hobgoblens out of California Conservatives on the World's Premier California Conservative Web-Site is ignomanius, at best.
To sit around judging others motives, you have to have a righteous clue what's helping, or hurting the State of CA in the first place... Which a knowledge of, you do NOT have a command!!!
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.