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

Skip to comments.

Losing The War - California Government Is Bigger Than Ever
FlashReport ^ | 3/6/07 | Jon Fleischman

Posted on 03/06/2007 12:42:26 PM PST by NormsRevenge

I would imagine that Generals fighting wars have to occasionally 'step back' from the individual battles they are fighting, to check on the overall progress of the total campaign against the enemy. Of course, for fiscal conservatives, the 'enemy' is growth in size and scope of spending of government at every level -- or put another way, the goal of the war is to preserve, and in fact 'win back' freedom and liberty for the people.

When California voters stepped up in 2003 to ceremoniously recall now-disgraced Governor Gray Davis, that effort was led by a strong coalition of people that felt that Davis and his administration were failing the people -- the taxpayers. An important part of that effort were fiscal conservatives, such as myself, who were concerned that our State Budget had climbed to a record $78 billion. We were outraged that the annual growth of state spending was at an alarming 7%, and that Californian's were saddled with a state deficit that was $6.6 billion dollars. As Tom McClintock points out in our "Golden Pen" column today, debt-service costs when Gray Davis was Governor were a whopping $2 billion a year.

We prevailed in the recall, and replaced the principle-devoid Davis with a new Republican superstar, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I remember chatting with Dee Snyder, the lead singer of the band Twisted Sister at the last big Sacramento Rally. It was surreal watching Schwarzenegger wave a broom in the air, yelling that he was going to "sweep the special interests out of the Capitol behind me" and then Snyder started to sing his signature, "We're not going to take it anymore" song.

Fast forward a couple of years later, and now the luster seems to have come off of the shining star. The man I voted for (over Tom McClintock, I might add -- now with regret) has gone AWOL (absent-without-leave) on the battle against the special interests, and the battles that he chooses to fight as the General elected to take on the special interests are, instead, to increase regulation and to spend more, and more, and more. Fiscal conservatives and our agenda seem to have been swept under the rug. As a matter of fact, with the Governor's introduction of a massive tax increase this year as part of a health-care proposal that is geared around the concept of government responsibility for the healthcare of Californians, it seems like California is going in the wrong direction.

Let's look at the progress on the war against growth in state government: The state budget has now increased to $102 billion (up a staggering $24 billion from the Davis era), the deficit is up to $8 billion (up a very troubling $2 billion over what Schwarzenegger inherited from Davis), debt-service costs are up to $6 billion annually (they were at $2 billion at the time of the recall), and the annual growth of state spending is just over 10% (up 3% from the Davis days). Here is a poignant statistic to at an 'exclamation point' to these numbers: state government now consumes $9.54 for every $100 in personal income.

It is clear that we are losing the war. I understand that when you have a liberal Democrat majority in each house of the legislature, that we are not going to see reductions in the size and scope of spending -- or if we do, it would only come with tradeoffs that would be equally unpalatable. But I also expected that our Republican Governor would take any measure necessary to make sure that spending would shrink under his watch.

That having been said, it is my hope that the Governor will reflect on the State of California, and if he is as alarmed at these figures above as the fiscal conservatives who just played a big role in re-electing him (based in a large part on his iron-clad "I will never raise taxes" pledge) -- that he will immediately withdraw his multi-billion dollar tax increase proposal, and officially declare the State of California to be 'chronically obese' and pursue 'trimming the fact' in our California budget with the same vigor that he has pursuing in promoting physical fitness in himself and in others. If not, California is going to have a massive heart attack.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: bigger; biggovernment; calbudget; california; fairopwhereareu; government; losing; mcclintock; schwarzenegger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: calcowgirl

gov. arnold's done most of the same things as gov. dumby, and has gotten by with it because there were higher taxes collected in the recent years. but that could be changing.


21 posted on 03/06/2007 7:28:19 PM PST by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
California's Governor IS a Democrat in all but name. Its reflected in his policies.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

22 posted on 03/07/2007 6:30:21 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cinives
He fooled a lot of people, me included, and I'm under the impression people like McClintock were also fooled. At the last minute, I decided to vote for McClintock because I thought he was a truer conservative. But I never thought Arnold was a closet liberal. Few did.

One guy I heard call him a closet liberal was Michael Savage, but I don't know how he came up with that. What tipped you (and a few others) off from the beginning that he would do this?

23 posted on 03/07/2007 2:40:53 PM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

He fooled a lot of people, me included, and I'm under the impression people like McClintock were also fooled. At the last minute, I decided to vote for McClintock because I thought he was a truer conservative. But I never thought Arnold was a closet liberal. Few did.
One guy I heard call him a closet liberal was Michael Savage, but I don't know how he came up with that. What tipped you (and a few others) off from the beginning that he would do this?


24 posted on 03/07/2007 2:42:49 PM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
What tipped you (and a few others) off from the beginning that he would do this?

What tipped me off to Arnold? For starters conservative vs. liberal are package deals. I have never known a Republican social liberal (abortion gays etc.) who was an at-heart conservative, fiscal included. When they claim to be a "fiscal conservative" that's the first sign for me.

Arnold was pro abortion, pro gay, and a huge backer of arch-RINO former LA Mayor Richard Riordan when Riordan ran for governor against Bill Simon.

Finally, you have to look at who a person surrounds themselves with. The whole Warren Buffet thing was a big tip-off. Finally a guy I know who writes a political column and has worked as a campaign researcher, did some research on Arnold's top- gal Bonnie Reiss. It was posted here on FR http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/979670/posts

25 posted on 03/07/2007 2:57:21 PM PST by ElkGroveDan (When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Well, this is a lesson to be learned. Looks like if a guy is a "social liberal" (IE. morally corrupt) it doesn't matter what they say about their politics. How can these people call themselves Republicans? If the Republican party can't be wrenched from the hands of these kinds of people and headed once again by true constitutional conservatives with Christian values, then I think there should be a mass migration to the Constitutional Party.

BTW, this is a preview of coming attractions - the Bible warns of a soon-coming a world leader who will gain power by fooling just about everyone.

26 posted on 03/08/2007 4:13:35 PM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Fiscal conservatives and our agenda seem to have been swept under the rug.

That was the intent of those who inserted Swartzenkennedy into the middle of the recall.

27 posted on 03/08/2007 4:49:17 PM PST by abigailsmybaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
What tipped you (and a few others) off from the beginning that he would do this?

Among other reasons, one was that fiscal conservatism cannot provide money for social liberalism. I also did not like his spending priorities, such as promoting extra spending for more long-term government programs when the state was still in Gray Davis' fiscal crisis.

During the recall campaign, Schwarzenegger was pretty open with the fact that he was a social liberal, yet he claimed to be a fiscal conservative. Tom McClintock often asked a rhetorical question along the lines of,
"How do you plan to pay for your socially liberal programs with your fiscally conservative policies?"

28 posted on 03/11/2007 6:39:53 PM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: heleny
That's good insight. I don't know how anyone from the beginning could have predicted he would do this. The only thing I can come up with is that because he is morally compromised/desolate (same as socially "liberal"), when it came time for him to "blow up the boxes" as he promised, instead, when his propositions put him squarely in the enemy's cross-hairs, he folded. A morally deficient ("socially liberal") person in a leadership (especially govenrmrnt leadership) position doesn't have the internal structure that's necessary to withstand the heat which will surely come from the other side. I hope I've learned my lesson.

We've got more of these type vying for 2008 Republican nomination and I believe I will only vote for a true conservative, win, lose or draw.

29 posted on 03/11/2007 8:31:51 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

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