Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Governor signs a rare on-time budget
Sacramento Bee ^ | 6/30/6 | Clea Benson

Posted on 06/30/2006 3:17:54 PM PDT by SmithL

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the state budget into law during a signing ceremony in the Capitol rotunda Friday, a day before the start of the new fiscal year.

It was the first on-time budget since 2000.

The $131 billion spending plan for the 2006-07 fiscal year uses a nearly $8 billion tax windfall to pay down state debts, dramatically boost spending on education, and infuse new funds into social programs. The governor used his line-item veto powers to strip $175.5 million in state spending from the budget.

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: budget; deficit; governator; ontime; overbudget

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs the state budget in the Capitol rotunda Friday. Behind the governor, from left to right, are Sen. Dick Ackerman, R- Irvine; Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D- Los Angeles; Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz; and Senate Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland.
1 posted on 06/30/2006 3:17:58 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

And where did the 8 Billion come from? Bush's economy? Bush's fault!!


2 posted on 06/30/2006 3:20:50 PM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The governor used his line-item veto powers to strip $175.5 million in state spending from the [$131 billion] budget.

...or slightly more than 0.1% of the total spending spree. That axe is cuttin' pretty deep, eh Guv? It's a regular Conan The Barbarian slash-fest up there in Sacramento!!

3 posted on 06/30/2006 3:26:38 PM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MPJackal

Our tax dollars bilked from the other 49 states?


4 posted on 06/30/2006 3:26:42 PM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

$131 billion... no wonder it passed early. It had something for everyone but the taxpayer in there.


5 posted on 06/30/2006 3:38:55 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Al Qaeda / Taliban operatives: Read the NY Times, for daily up to the minute security threat tips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

Three things that shouldn't be administered by the federal government. Education, Social Services, and Taxes. The federal government should have to create a bill every year that REQUESTS revenue from the states on a per capita basis. There should be no FICA, Social Security, Income Tax. Education, Social Security and Welfare, and the Internal Revenue Service should all be shut down and done away with. Those three entities of government are very likely the largest most overfunded entities.

I realize we are a Federation of United States, but I think certain government programs should be strictly run by the individual states with no federal intervention at all.


6 posted on 06/30/2006 3:45:32 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

Do you REALLY think the Democratic wacko Assembly will agree to wholesale cuts of the budget? Arnold is lucky he got this much done. You guys act like Arnold is a one man show without a far left Assembly. At least no taxes were raised.


7 posted on 06/30/2006 3:51:04 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
Do you REALLY think the Democratic wacko Assembly will agree to wholesale cuts of the budget? Arnold is lucky he got this much done. You guys act like Arnold is a one man show without a far left Assembly. At least no taxes were raised.

The governor sets the ground rules for the budget with his proposal in January, and then his revision in May. Yes it has to be approved by the legislature, but it also needs to be signed by him. Moreover they need 2/3 of each house, which they can't get without Republicans.

Arnold might have begun with something far smaller, and after the increased revenues at the time of the May Revise, he could have held the line on spending and reduced the carry-over debt. But he didn't do any of that. He didn't even try.

8 posted on 06/30/2006 4:19:16 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

Now watch the PORK money flow.


9 posted on 06/30/2006 4:20:44 PM PDT by jocko12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

We have a line item veto in this State. Aaaanold could have used it a bit more liberally, if you'll pardon the pun. "Slashing" 0.1% is nothing. There's a lot of crap that he could cut. If the Dems really want their goodies back in the budget, let them override a veto.


10 posted on 06/30/2006 5:07:06 PM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MPJackal
And where did the 8 Billion come from? ... a nearly $8 billion tax windfall

Well .. yes and no. A substantial portion of the money was given to the state on the advice of tax attorneys because the state will probably have to pay the money back, with interest, plus, reimburse the petitioners for their legal costs.

Here's the short story: The State Franchise Tax Board, allegedly illegally, changed its accounting rules which increased corporate taxes. The changes were questionable under "standard accounting practices" and litigation was immediately filed. Corporations, upon the advice of their tax experts, voluntarily paid the increased taxes, awaiting the outcome of the litigation which is expected to the favor the petitioners. These payments pending judgment will most probably be ordered refunded by the plaintiff when the case is finally adjudicated.

11 posted on 06/30/2006 7:33:58 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson