Arnold's "No New Taxes" Rhetoric Was Just That

"Everything is on the table," said Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday, when asked whether he would support a statewide sales tax, in this case, as part of a massive government intervention into health care in California. The Governor said that he could support placing a tax hike on the ballot on which Californians can vote. Presumably the Republican Governor, after negotiating such a "deal" for California taxpayers, would then advocate its passage as well.

I don't know how to sugar coat this, so I will just say it like it is -- he lied. He lied to me, he lied to his supporters and he lied to all Californians. When he campaigned for re-election last year, he said he was "moderate on social issues, progressive on environmental issues, and conservative on fiscal issues."

I cannot remember a stump speech that the Governor delivered to Republican activists, and I heard quite a few as a grassroots supporter of his campaign, where he did not flat out state his opposition to raising taxes, period. There was no audible "asterisk" qualifying his opposition to new taxes. Schwarzenegger's firm opposition to increasing taxes, in contrast to billions in tax hikes being promoted by Democrat Phil Angelides, helped to keep the Republican base fired up for the Governor while he reached out to Democrat voters with his social and environmental views.

Along with all of my fellow Republicans, we have been trying to practice a terrible balancing act, perched precariously on the Governor's stool while it is has been balanced on just one leg -- solid opposition to new taxes. Well, the Governor has yanked that stool out from under us and we Republicans have now all fallen on the floor. I don't know if it is more embarrassing, frustrating, or upsetting. My Republican Governor has proposed taxes on hospitals, income taxes on medical professionals, and now he is "open" to supporting a statewide sales tax.

The mantra that the Governor has been spewing on healthcare is downright... liberal. He has wrapped himself around the banner of the notion of "hidden taxes" and articulating that there is a cost to all insurance-holding Californians to provide coverage to all of those who do not have health care insurance and that this justifies tax hikes. He is correct about insurance-holding Californians bearing the costs of the uninsured, though the experts at the Hoover Institute have released a study showing that this burden is much lower than has been articulated by the Governor. But the next step that Schwarzenegger takes is to say that we should, in essence, replace the so-called "hidden tax" with actual non-hidden, overt taxes. What the Governor proposes is no fiscally conservative solution. It is not even a moderate one. His proposals on health care "reform" are quite liberal, and are based around this left-wing straw man called "shared responsibility."

Shared responsibility is just another way to say government responsibility, and moves away from a bedrock American principle -- individual responsibility. There is a notion in America, unlike any other place in the world, that here you have freedom. Freedom to succeed, and freedom to fail. You have opportunity that is boundless, but that comes from the notion of a limited government, one that affords liberty to its citizenry. The price for this freedom and liberty is individual responsibility, and the Governor's direction on health care "reform" in California is counter to this philosophical approach towards the proper role of government in our society.

Today in the Wall Street Journal, former Presidential advisor Karl Rove has an outstanding opinion piece in which he articulates a broad number of market-oriented approaches that government can take to increasing the accessibility to and the quality of health care in America -- including leveling the tax playing field through tax deductions or credits, tax-free savings for health costs, increase competition by allowing insurance companies to offer policies across state lines, allow for greater pooling of risk by small companies, increase transparency of medical costs so that American consumers understand what they are paying for, and reigning in junk lawsuits that are driving costs up dramatically. These are just some areas where market principles can be applied to make our health care system in America better -- without attacking the core American principles of freedom and liberty.

Today there is a bold headline in the Los Angeles Times proclaiming "In Clinton Health Plan, Coverage Is Mandatory" -- referring to the latest "HillaryCare" proposal to massively increase the federal government's role in health care. I find it disturbing that both Hillary Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger have at the core of their respective proposals the notion that carrying health care insurance is no longer the responsibility of the individual, but is the role of the government. Both want to move us in the direction of European socialism, and this should be rejected from the outset.

Sorry, the first 18 months show otherwise. Just my opinion.

A reasoned response would suggest that this opinion would be difficult to substantiate. Granted, the rhetoric was formidable, but the actions were either grounded in liberalism or justified by either contemporary mob whim or conflicting federal law. There was a consistent refusal to acknowledge conservative values as a basis for action.

There rapidly developed a pattern of emphasizing the few, apparently, conservative actions, while in the background, authorizing or codifying liberal policies which nullified the hype. Homosexual marriage v Unruh Civil Rights is an excellent example.

Beyond the undermining of driving privileges for illegal aliens, there is little evidence of any conservative action from Nov 2003 through May 2005, and even that episode was marked by an apparent willingness for concession with time.

‘I don’t know if McClintock will throw his hat in the ring again or not - he’s done so for the last couple of elections, but he doesn’t seem to get all that much support from the Republican machine in CA.’

So I’ve heard...its a pattern with some state GOP’s lately, here in Ohio, historically in New Jersey, both come to mind.

‘Beyond the undermining of driving privileges for illegal aliens, there is little evidence of any conservative action from Nov 2003 through May 2005, and even that episode was marked by an apparent willingness for concession with time.’

Fair assessment.

That said...who exactly is it that thought Arnold was a ‘conservative’ in the first place?

I didn’t. I just knew he had the best shot for Republicans to win the Governor’s race. It seems if you convinced yourself ‘beforehand’ that Arnold would be a conservative, you are very angry, and disappointed (not you personally, a general observation of mine).

I never had that thought cross my mind once. The conservative was clearly McClintock, and I say what I said then; He didn’t stand a chance in hell of winning.

I never had that thought cross my mind once. The conservative was clearly McClintock, and I say what I said then; He didn’t stand a chance in hell of winning.

Yes an no.

The case for yes:

1) If the Austrian had not entered the race, Davis would not have been recalled.
2) Conservatives only represented about 15% of the voting electorate in 2003. McClintock would have been forced to make significant concessions to achieve a plurality.

The case for no:

1) Bustamante wasn't competitive, regardless of public polling, because of the ingrained, cultural bias in the electorate.
2) Had McClintock been the chief Republican candidate, the Democrats would have entered a high profile, non Hispanic candidate and split the Democrat vote.
3) The electorate was ready for a fiscal change and whomever the Democrats entered would have been perceived as SOS.

As things turned out the Democrats and the Republicans were both winners. The Republicans, who early-on wanted nothing to do with the Recall, got rid of Davis and the Democrats got another liberal in the executive.

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.