Arnold nixes Buffett advice over Prop. 13

Contra Costa Times ^ | Aug 16, 2003 | George Avalos

[FairOpinion]

The Oracle of Omaha may need a new crystal ball after Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday rejected comments by his adviser Warren Buffett that California property taxes should be increased.

Indeed, within hours of Costa's suggestion, top aides to Schwarzenegger moved to distance the actor from Buffett's comments.

Mr. Buffett doesn't speak for Mr. Schwarzenegger," said Rob Stutzman, spokesman for Schwarzenegger's campaign. "Arnold Schwarzenegger has supported Prop. 13 for 25 years. ... Arnold is an admirer of Howard Jarvis and has referred to him as the original tax terminator." Jarvis and Paul Gann were the prime movers behind Prop. 13, the tax-slashing initiative approved overwhelmingly in 1978.

Ironically, it was in June that Schwarzenegger was the keynote speaker at a 25th anniversary celebration of Prop. 13. Schwarzenegger praised the measure, which sharply curtails yearly increases in property taxes.

[xm177e2]

Ok... then who does speak for Arnold?

Not even Arnold speaks for Arnold... YET.

I think he's saving the policy talk for later. He's trying to manage expectations. He's a very smart man, he's capable of learning all of the intricacies and debating the other candidates into the ground. He's waiting until the time is right. He puts a lot of effort into waging pschological warfare on his political opponents.

[Ann Archy]

If that's the case, will Arnold make a deal with Commie Buffet....buy the bonds and I'll raise the property taxes??

$14,000 on a $500,000.00 i Omaha NEBRASKA????? That is highway ROBBERY!!! Nebraska????

[speekinout]

no true conservative has won california since Reagan in 1970.

That's another thing that annoys me about Rush. I was living in CA in the early 70's. Reagan was definitely a fiscal conservative. But he traded off the social policies to get what he wanted. For example, abortion. He always said he was against that, but it was on the top of his list of issues to be traded for the fiscal policies he wanted. He signed the most Liberal abortion policies in the country in return for fiscal discipline.

Rush keeps saying that Conservatives shouldn't compromise on "their principles", but he really means that he won't support anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%. And he forgets that his beloved Reagan (who I also loved) picked 6-7 issues that were most important and traded the rest. Sometimes he prevailed on the lesser issues, sometimes he didn't. But he always won on the important stuff.

The best politicians, IMO, are the ones who can pick their issues and focus hard - W, with the war on terror, tax cuts, and education; maybe Arnold, if he means what he says about getting businesses back to CA.
Never clintoon who can BS the night away and never accomplish anything. And never the current Dem wanna-bes who want power but can't figure out why.

[Deb]

Arnold is a lot of things, but "idiot" ain't one of them. He learns fast and never makes the same mistake twice. He's also unrelentingly positive and inspiring especially to children.

I'll put much of his seemingly conflicted positions on Maria. Keeping her on board and working on his behalf has probably meant a few PR consessions. But he won't sell-out what he believes.

[autoresponder]

Colin Powell has often said dumb things concering policy without clearing the with George W.

Not smart.

Buffet is blabbing his mouth off on policy before Arnold clears it or even gets elected.

One thing you must do if you are #1

Tell all your volunteers and all the hired PR people to clear everything with you before breathing a single word.

Tell them if they open their traps just once they are history.

Buffet not only sucked up Ah-Noldt's oxygen and gave his supporters a big pause, he attempted to eclipse his new boss.

I'd bounce his egotistical butt outta there to show the his staff, the media, his political opponents, and the voters who is #1.

There can be only one.

[Burr5]

What do I want?

Gallagher!!!!

He'll smash corruption! He'll flatten the special interests with the mallet of fiscal responsibility!

He'll make the nectar of prosperity splash in the faces of the people of California despite the plastic shields of apathy some of them continue to hold!

He'll make a joke of the Democrats, and ride his eight foot long Big Wheel over the corpse of their socialist government. Arnold's numbers are heading south.

Maybe comedy's quintessential idea-man can prove that a brilliant jokester is preferable to a medacious weasle.

It's time for California to take the situation seriously, and vote for Gallagher.

Either him or McClintock. ;)

[autoresponder]

Not true.

Everyone knows that George W. picked Colin Powell for his Secretary of State well before the 2000 election.

[cyncooper]

$14,000 on a $500,000.00 i Omaha NEBRASKA????? That is highway ROBBERY!!! Nebraska????

Our house in Milwaukee was valued in the $60,000 range (Hey, nice brick ranch with built-ins) and the property tax on that lowly abode was just over $2300. We pay $1800 in AZ on a home valued at much more.

[FairOpinion]

It's the other way around -- if Buffett would buy CA bonds, that would provide CA with immediate needed cash, so Arnold wouldn't have to raise taxes.

As I said before, this is only a short term solution and spending cuts would need to be made, but otherwise to meet immediate needs of the state Arnold (or anyone else) may not have any other choice, except to raise taxes.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us for a Complete Listing of All The Recall Threads.

[goldstategop]

I've thought it over and I think Buffett has a point: California doesn't know what revenues its getting from year to year. I could live with a small increase in the property tax IF the state income tax was abolished and other taxes reduced downwards to make the whole thing revenue-neutral; i.e no one has to pay the government overall more than they do now. And make sure the government doesn't take in more than its supposed to have, we'll need a Colorado style "Taxpayers Bill Of Rights" to automatically refund excess revenue back to the people since otherwise you're going just have the politicians spend it. Sounds fair. The problem of course is, such a deal is anathema to the Democrats. They can never see the government live on less and all they're interested in is what they can finangle out of the taxpayers.

[liberallarry]

I've thought it over and I think Buffett has a point

Of course he has a point. Financially he's brilliant. How else could he pick 'em so well over a long period of time?

I could live with a small increase in the property tax IF the state income tax was abolished and other taxes reduced downwards to make the whole thing revenue-neutral; i.e no one has to pay the government overall more than they do now.

The problem here is whose ox is gored. Retirees, for example, pay property tax but no income tax. They'd be screwed. Maybe it could be worked out. Probably there'd be winners and losers - as usual.

[goldstategop]

True. But I don't see how we get this under control until we stop this nonsense that overall tax increases will solve California's structural problems. Sure, structural adjustments in some tax rates can be talked about but what we essentially have is a spending not a revenue crisis.

[lewislynn]

I hope everyone who is involved in the California recall comes out a loser. All of them.

Why should anyone as in ANYONE care what you or any other Gray Davis loving sore loser who wishes they were still here in California "hope"?

[liberallarry]

but what we essentially have is a spending not a revenue crisis.

It seems that way to me too. We've got a whole lot of poor folks in this state who want to see the same services that long-time residents have gotten. So who's gonna pay?

Health care is a perfect metaphor for the whole sorry mess. If you tell people they can't have what they can't pay for - that the rich can and should have better health care them they do. Well try it.

[liberallarry]

Then there are cultural issues that are almost impossible to talk about in today's politically correct atmosphere...but which have real financial impacts. Putting it as delicately as I can...education is no simple matter.

[The Other Harry]

Why should anyone as in ANYONE care what you or any other Gray Davis loving sore loser who wishes they were still here in California "hope"?

Please don't construe my comment about hoping everyone loses as representing any kind of support for Davis. I hope that SOB goes down first and fastest.

The more I've read about Tom McClintock, the more I think he looks like the guy I'd actually like to see win.

But I still think the job properly belongs to Diane Feinstein. Lots of reasons for this. One being that I don't think it is morally right for there to be a change of parties between regularly held elections. California's recall laws are downright goofy.

Arnold has said some incredibly idiotic things. It's hard to take him seriously as a candidate for governor of the largest state in the union. I don't think he's up to the job.

[illumini]

Arnold's bringing ROB LOWE into the campaign made me rethink his being in politics at all.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Thanks for saying that. I'm in AZ but may move to California in the next four years and I pray that the slide to socialist oblivion is stopped. I have many relatives there who are sick of the communist takeover.

[hrhdave]

Mark Steyn asks: “Who would you say best embodies the spirit of California? The guy who has made all his own money? Or the fellows who've squandered everybody else's?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/08/10/do1010.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/08/10/ixportal.html