Posted on 07/08/2007 8:30:23 AM PDT by goldstategop
Why did the governor push ahead an appeal of the trial court's decision, even though he removed the potential savings from his budget? Our only conclusion is that the administration wanted to create a precedent that would eviscerate taxpayer protections for bond spending. Had the state won the case on appeal, virtually any debt run up by the government (for schools, government salaries, pensions, etc.) could be determined a legal obligation, and then those costs could be offloaded to future taxpayers and kept off the annual budget books.
State legislators and this governor love to spend money. They love to make unsustainable promises to government unions and other interest groups. They know they can't easily raise taxes to cover their new promises, so they try to float bonds. Fortunately, the state courts have ruled that constitutional restrictions on reckless debt spending still apply – despite this spendthrift administration's arguments to the contrary.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
"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
If I recall corectly, in California government pensions are already a legal obligation for the state.
“Fortunately, the state courts have ruled that constitutional restrictions on reckless debt spending still apply – despite this spendthrift administration’s arguments to the contrary.”
I think we can all agree that Arnold’s claim that he’s a fiscal conservative turned out to be a lie. But I am surprised that the courts have given him a red light. Maybe not so surprising, in light of the fact that he’s a Republican. You can bet that if Davis were still governor, the courts would just rubber stamp his policy.
"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
Why bust Arnie’s chops? California has been taking long term debt to pay current expenses for over twenty years. Sure, it’s economically unsound, but no different from Bush cutting taxes while increasing spending. And don’t tell me the increased revenue covered the debt generated, because it didn’t.
"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
Unfortunately, California has no mint. They can’t print their way to ‘prosperity.’ LOL
"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
Your right Arnold is just another Kennedy- republican, we saw a few of those in the illegal immigration bill as well..
At least the state won't be able to, de facto, engage in deficit spending to cover those obligations, thereby kicking the problem down the road. They'll have to be handled in the budget. Maybe with a little present-day pain involved, the legislature might think twice about signing up for any additional benefit enhancements.
(but no different from Bush cutting taxes while increasing spending. And don’t tell me the increased revenue covered the debt generated, because it didn’t.)
I disagree with half of your argument. Cutting taxes made the economy improve and did increase the level of revenues to the Treasury (both the cuts in marginal tax rates and the capital gains tax cut). The extra spending is a problem and it cannot all be explained by the war. Both Bush and Congress did increase spending like drunken sailors. The difference is that the federal government is not required to have a balanced budget. Despite all this, the deficit is actually shrinking. Of course, if you honestly look at the real obligations and therefore include Social Security and Medicare, then you got a real problem, one that has to be solved eventually.
In summary, cutting taxes did increase revenues. The problem is the spending.
Yup. That’s what I thought I said.
It sure did. He's a Kennedy. Sorry, already been said lol.
His first act as Governor was to make us (taxpayers) pay 5 Billion Dollars for Fetal Stem Cell Research. Which will cost 10 Billion by the time the bonds are paid off. What an obscene waste of money and babies.
I have read that California might not gain any Congressional districts after the 2010 census. If so, foolishness like this is one of the reasons why.
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.