His handlers did.
Posted on 04/08/2009 8:46:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WOODLAND HILLS - As he launched a radio ad campaign Tuesday for his budget measures on the May 19 ballot, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said failure to approve the package would worsen the state's already-dire fiscal crisis.
"If they don't pass, we will be facing a $50 billion problem," Schwarzenegger said at a meeting with Daily News editors and reporters. "It will mean massive cuts in education, hospitals, prisons. These are things people don't want to see cut."
Schwarzenegger's campaign committee, Budget Reform Now, began its advertising campaign Tuesday for the six ballot measures - Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F - with a radio ad that highlights the impact of the budget crisis on state services.
The campaign has raised more than $6 million so far, officials said, to finance the print, radio and television campaign. The governor has also held public appearances and town town hall meetings around the state to rally voter support.
"When we are able to explain to the people, they get it," Schwarzenegger said. "We know people are furious. But once we explain to them what we are trying to do, they support it."
Schwarzenegger said the proposals are similar to ones that past governors have sought to limit state spending.
"None of us like raising taxes," Schwarzenegger said. "(But) anyone who says you can solve this without raising taxes is hallucinating, is on drugs or has a math problem."
The measures were part of a compromise developed by the governor and lawmakers to pass the budget this year.
The package enacts a wide range of budget reforms including extending tax increases, creating a bigger rainy day fund, borrowing against future lottery earnings and capping raises of top state officials when the state is facing a deficit.
Most of the attention and opposition has been generated against Proposition 1A, which extends new tax increases for up to two years to balance the budget, generating about $16 billion.
Some public unions oppose the measure partly because of concern it would limit growth and salary increases for the state work force.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has come out against Proposition 1A, saying it's a tax increase that does nothing to rein in spending.
"It has a built-in loophole allowing them to increase spending if they get more revenue," said Jon Coupal, president of the organization.
"This is just another shot of heroin for addicts. Until there is a realization that the taxpayer capacity to pay is limited, they will continue to overtax and say the sky is falling. We just don't buy it."
But the governor argued the measure also includes provisions to establish a rainy-day fund - which sets aside revenues in boom years to cover the extra costs in down years. Schwarzenegger said it also contains a cap on spending.
"When you get extra money, they will always spend it," the governor said of the Legislature. "That's the way it's always been. It's just human nature. That's why this budget reform is historic."
Joel Fox, a Republican consultant and former president of the Jarvis association who accompanied Schwarzenegger at the meeting, supports the measures.
"This is a flexible cap that will survive," Fox said. "None of us like taxes. But, if you look back, all our taxes have been raised to fund existing programs, not pay for new programs."
One option the governor says is not on the table is allowing the state to collapse.
"The cost of inaction is letting California go off the cliff. We still have all those contracts to honor and a federal receiver could come in, and no one wants that," said Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines, R-Fresno.
Despite bipartisan agreement in Sacramento over the measures, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California released in March found that all but the one limiting public officials' raises have an approval rating under 50 percent.
Schwarzenegger said he also felt he has a responsibility as governor to make sure that services - from education to health care - continue to be offered.
"When I was running, I opposed taxes. I despise taxes," Schwarzenegger said. "But when you get in this office, you see things differently. You realize how important these services are to the people."
Also, he said, the need for government services has increased as the economy has declined.
Schwarzenegger said he has held town hall-style meetings where he asks people where they would cut funding, and everyone wants to save services like schools, hospitals and prisons. Tax increases, in such cases, become the only option.
Schwarzenegger also rejected proposals to raise money by legalizing and taxing marijuana or selling state assets such as San Quentin prison.
"You hear those ideas all the time, you could make maybe $1 billion and we have a $50 billion problem," Schwarzenegger said. "When you get down to it and people say we should legalize marijuana, allow oil drilling or sell San Quentin, it is a ridiculous notion."
The governor said he also is aware of voter anger and frustration, but he hopes the campaign can appeal to voter reason.
He said he was prepared to stand up for legislators - primarily Republicans - who support the package and face threats of recall or serious opposition in their re-election.
And that comes from the man that costing the state tens of billions to fight "global warming," while businesses flee the overregulation.
Absolute Brilliance! NOT!
Drilling for oil would pretty much make CA solvent again w/o raising taxes. ... Oh yeah....me? I'm voting no on all of 'em!
Smart woman! Now that is brilliance! :-)
[ “. . .is hallucinating, is on drugs or has a math problem.”]
The governor is describing the California legislature.
The big gimmick is this so-called "cap" on spending. Prop 1A operates by forcing the government to put more money into a "rainy day" fund. It does not directly limit the amount of appropriations allowed. As I see it, there are two major problems with this:
(1) The government is already spending beyond its means. Forcing it to put some of that money into a "rainy day" fund doesn't stop the government gluttony. The legislature will put the required money in the rainy day fund, and go right back to the excessive spending.
(2) EXCEPTIONS: Prop 1B will allow Prop 1A's rainy day fund to be RAIDED by special interest groups such as the education lobby. Thus, this spending cap is nothing of the sort in the face of ever-increasing calls for more K-12 spending.*... Read More
* I'm not arguing that education spending is not important. However, there are better ways to tackle California's education woes-such as REDUCING REDUNDANT LAYERS OF BUREAUCRACY. [Teachers are overseen by local schools, local school districts, county school districts, and the California statewide school district. Each of these layers of oversight require massive amounts of bureaucrats and staff. The end result is our teachers in the classroom are overly regulated and underfunded. It's like the movie "office space" but far worse and far, far sadder].
From Wards Auto:
n announcing the decision, Ghosn focused chiefly on economics.
“The costs of doing business in California are much higher than the costs of doing business in Tennessee…and that difference is taken into account amid the realities of the fiercely competitive environment in the global auto industry. Tennessee has significantly lower real estate costs and lower business tax rates,” he summed up.
I watched the whole thing happen, and saw it differently. I believe that Arnold really believed in what he was saying. He just had no idea what that really was.
Because he wasn't standing on firm conservative principles in his heart (and mind), he was soon overwhelmed by the enemy's politics and pressures.
The Democrats were better than him. They, at least, believed in their philosophy of government.
Arnold was little more than a squishy actor, spouting Republican talking points. He didn't stand a chance against those Socialists, because he didn't have a solid backbone built from core conservative principles. He blinked, and lost the state.
He's probably so confused now, that he's not quite sure what happened.
Smart son! You should be proud! :-)
He pointed out the loophole of the “cap.” I would add two more simple problems with it. 1) The “cap” is based on a 10-year average that is so ill-defined they could come up with just about any number they want) and 2) revenues that the so-called cap will be based on will include the massive tax increases that were already passed by the legislature.
If they really wanted a spending cap, they would propose one in simple direct terms. That they only choose to offer these loophole-ridden shams makes it obvious what their intentions are: to continue massive spending as long as taxpayers are dumb enough to keep giving them money.
Cut the spending you RINO idiots.
BINGO
They've already been raiding it. They just haven't sent us the bill yet. ;-)
"Face it Arnie----you gotda no vay to go but belly-up."
Course, he might get some sympathy if Cali crumbles. Probably on his knees as we type, praying for the Big One---for the San Andreas Fault to kick in....
His handlers did.
I'll bet they did.
He was a puppet of the socialists. His starring role was to follow their script. He has done it masterfully.
He's probably so confused now, that he's not quite sure what happened.
No, he is rejoicing in his own legacy, reveling in the vision of the historical mark he has made on California and the nation. With his recent political resume, he will take his show on the road and wreak havoc on the international community with his global warming nonsense.
You still have no idea of who the man is that you are apologizing for.
So please explain why Arnold, worth $400 million at the time of the recall, went to Wall Street to raise $400,000 start his campaign. It left him with the obligation to use New York brokerage houses to underwrite the first $15 billion in bonds pursuant to Prop 57 & 58. He snuck provisions into those propositions to blow off the Gann limits while claiming to "cut up the credit cards." By using NY firms, it cost California a cool $250 million in revenue compared to California brokerage houses, not to mention the revenue on the economic activity associated therewith. In short, by going straight to his handlers for money he was setting up a criminal malfeasance on the order of AT LEAST $350 million and probably more.
Given all that, do you really believe this was a matter of stupidity? Really? If you do, you are either deliberately callow or willfully engaged in wishful thinking to excuse your lack of research prior to the recall election.
Hey Cowgirl, take a chill pill, would you? I'm not "apologizing" for Arnold, just sharing my personal observations.
If you've studied the man and every detail of his performance as governor of California, then hats off to you for being so well informed.
But stop slapping me in the face with your information, like I'm some ignorant Arnie supporter.
Huh? You're asking me to explain your research after I just agreed with you about Arnold being unduly influenced by "his handlers". You've lost me.
...do you really believe this was a matter of stupidity? Really? If you do, you are either deliberately callow or willfully engaged in wishful thinking to excuse your lack of research prior to the recall election.
Ok, I get it. You're perfect. You did all the research and predicted all of this, well prior to Arnold's election, right? And all of us conservatives who reluctantly voted for this man are now making excuses for our dismal lack of due diligence?
Post the URL to where you stated all these things in public, prior to Arnold's election, or you're going to out yourself as a liar and a drive-by character assassin.
I did not say that you "supported" him -- I said that you "apologized" for him, as you have done repeatedly on this thread. The man is not innocent in this debacle, as Carry_Okie has also pointed out with some real specifics.
I am indeed! He's graduating from Law School in about a month...he will use his skills for good and not evil (as in the money grubbin' Johnny Edwards type)!
No surprise that he learned well and highly respects both John Doolittle and Tom McClintock. That's mah boy! LOL
“The cost of inaction is letting California go off the cliff.
Then for Gods sake PLEASE jump ! The crap that starts in California always spreads like a cancer to other parts of the nation. So Please jump and end this insanity called “California “ !
This was my FR Profile page up until Arnold won the election in October 2003 (yes--I saved a copy):
THINGS THAT TURNED ME OFF TO ARNOLD (A Work in Progress)
*Refused to sign ‘no tax increase pledge’
*Is unwilling to discuss what programs he might do to cut spending until after he is elected ("I do care about details").
*Has provided more more information about his proposed Hydrogen fuel cars (and now proposes a 'Hydrogen Highway') than he has about how (and WHERE) he will reduce spending to get this state back on track.
*Instead of balancing the budget through spending cuts, Arnold has mentioned (in passing) that he will look at selling off state assets, "demand" additional money from the feds, and pursue additional revenue from Indian tribes so that they 'pay their fair share'. When the campaign began, Arnold agreed that the state did not have a revenue problem... it had a spending problem. I have yet to see him address spending.
*While Arnold says he will reduce taxes and get more money from Washington, those are the same promises made by Pete Wilson, the man he has chosen to lead his campaign. Wilson raised taxes, and I don't believe he was successful in getting the feds to pay up.
*Unwilling to consider reductions in Education spending (even though his 'experts', 'the best and the brightest', haven't been able to make 'heads or tails' of the budget.)
*Continues to make commitments to new spending initiatives, with no detail on how he will first address existing spending problems.
*Supports (and initiated) Proposition 49 ‘After School Programs’ (aka government babysitting), a program the state couldn't afford then, nor now.
*Published his environmental platform written by RFK jr that is offers a cafeteria of excessive regulation and whacked out liberal ideas like global warming.
*Opposes school vouchers. (Even Feinstein now supports vouchers!)
*Supports the family leave mandate
*Supports California's higher minimum wage
*Opposes Proposition 54
*Called those supporting Proposition 54 "Right Wing Crazies"
*Supports affirmative action and racial quotas
*Favors additional gun control measures for Californian's
*Wants to close the gun show loophole... What Loophole?
*Considers Proposition 187 a closed issue.
*Thinks illegal aliens become permanent residents and continue to receive benefits
*Opposes current Referendum effort on Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens
*Considers the only problem with Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens to be one of security. What is it about the word ILLEGAL that he doesn't understand?
*Opposes militarizing the borders
*Describes himself as "extremely liberal" on social issues (O'Reilly)
*IS extremely liberal on Fiscal Issues
*Supports abortion
*Supports same-sex domestic partnerships
*Supports gay adoption
*'Non-traditional' Education -Ref Duluth News Tribune, The Capital Times
*No prior experience, public or private, in leading a large organization.
*Says he wants to give back to California by running for office, while never having served in any other public office before. I believe one earns the opportunity to become leader of any people. Arnold has made no effort to earn my respect, my support, nor my vote.
*Failed to vote in 13 of the past 21 elections.
*Violated Federal Immigration laws when arriving in the U.S.
*Violated State Contracting Board Laws
*Violated local business code by not licensing his current businesses.
*Posed in pornographic photos published in gay magazines, some with "adolescent boys"
*Says he is environmentally conscious yet entered into business relationships with one of the worst polluters in the country (Ira Rennert/American General-Hummer).
*Recently has gone on an intellectually dishonest campaign against fellow Republican Tom McClintock regarding donations from Indian Tribes, implying that he is on the take. At the same time, he employs on his campaign an individual(s) who has financial interests in Las Vegas and California gaming. Moreover, he himself has received contributions from individuals who have significant interests in California racetracks and card clubs. Both compete with the Californian Indians. There is an appearance of conflict within his campaign.
to be continued
You can edit this page.
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.