Posted on 12/14/2007 4:02:10 PM PST by SmithL
Actually, it was the democrat State Legislature that caused
this problem.
LOL! That’s a good one. Sell it somewhere else.
Davis left the state with a $6 billion dollar deficit. Arnold borrowed $15 billion to fill that hole and spent the difference. And now, we're staring at a $20 billion dollar deficit on the horizon, an inconceivable number just a few years ago.
I believe McClintock would not be in any better shape at this point.
Would Tom have pushed borrowing as a solution to the $6 billion dollar deficit Davis left? (Hint: he opposed Prop 57/58).
Could Tom have used his celebrity status to push for a $6 billion stem-cell research obligation?
Would Tom have championed new spending programs for solar roofs, hydrogen highways, and global warming caps?
Would Tom have proposed record spending increases, far exceeding revenue growth (as Arnold did)?
Would Tom have spent 4 years defending in court Davis's borrowing scheme for pension contributions?
Would Tom have hidden his veto pen and approved budgets with full knowledge that there was an ever-growing structural deficit?
There was only one solution to the fiscal mess and that was to cut up the credit cards and shut off the credit line. The only option at that point would be to CUT SPENDING. Instead, Arnold used his celebrity status and mythical title as a "fiscal conservative" to sell his irresponsible borrowing schemes to voters and has worked behind the scenes to establish fee increases at almost every possible level. The Dems are big spenders--yes. But without Arnold aiding, abetting, and many times leading the liberal charge, there was no way things could have turned out as bad as they have.
You are familiar with the 2/3 vote requirement, right? (I guess not).
And yes--they will reduce if they have no money. Unfortunately, our "R" governor has aided the liberal spending by finding new piggy-banks.
The Republican Congress ran a budget deficit each of those years.
I am not sure what state attorneys you are taking about, but I know a lot of them are involved in fighting crime.
I think that deporting illegals would be the best solution to the budget problems. Of course, that would never fly with the Democrats.
Come now. A lot of them fighting crime? Thanks for that bit of humor. Let me ask ya.....Then why all the crime?
Why all the brutal gangs? Why are millions entering this country at a whim, while the Feds and State line up to coddle and suckle the criminals? Whats up with that?
Like the Feds, the state of California is a circus of attorneys, interpreters, court reporters, judges and con men, and others with job descriptions a professional resume writer couldn't possibly figure out.
He'll just bind our children with more bondage with compound tax increasing debt service!!!
I'm not pingin anybody to this because everybody knows this already and the stupidity of Schwartzenegger being our Governor just compounds and nobody gives a (bleep!)
I don’t think McClintock would have pushed for Universal Health Care in California like Arnold has.
My guess is that neither the other poster nor torchthemummy have every read an analysis of the Prop 98, let alone the legislation as booked or ensuing judicial and/or legislative addendums.
Please come to this forum, but do the homework first. Dissemination of feelings, rumors or media perceptions of reality are of no benefit to no one.
The vast majority of state hired attorneys work as some type of prosecutor. That is just a fact. I do not think that firing prosecutors is going to cut crime.
Whether law enforcement/boarder patrol, on the ground, is enforcing the boarders is another matter.
Those in government at all levels can’t even manage collecting taxes and implementing credible budgets any more.
Government at all levels must be reduced and downsized dramatically.
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.