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.

[Paleo Conservative]

Ok... then who does speak for Arnold? I haven't heard anything from him in a week. What DOES he stand for? What IS his platform? He's dropped from 48% to 22% in a week by keeping his mouth shut... it's time to lay out your plan, Arnie

The question we really need to ask, who is writing Arnold's lines now?

[firewalk]

bttt

[rwfromkansas]

I guess the President should not have announced who his cabinet is.

[So Cal Rocket]

I don't believe Bush announced his Cabinet until AFTER the election

[FairOpinion]

" I will hold my nose and back Arnold to oust the fat-assed La Raza separatist Bustamante. "

--

Exactly.
Even if all conservatives voted for McClintock, they are outnumbered 2 to 1 by moderates and liberals, who would rather vote for even Davis or Bustamante,than a true conservative. That's how Davis beat Simon in the last election.

[FairOpinion]

You forget that everyone was talking about Powell becoming Bush's Sec of State if he got elected?

In Arnold's case it was important to show that while he may be regarded as a novice, he will surround himself with experienced advisors.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

If he wants credibility Arnold should dump Warren Buffet immediately and put his money where his mouth is by choosing a fiscal conservative (as he claims to be) as his financial advisor instead of a democrat pro tax advocate.

Buffet's remarks about California property taxes being too low will haunt Arnold's campaign. Big credibility problem here. Why have an economic advisor you supposedly disagree with? There are too many important economic decisions to be made. Let's see now, Buffet is against the federal tax cut and now his anti Prop 13 views. I've seen enough. No thanks.

[Quix]

I hope you read the character and values of your spouse and children better than you seem to read those of Arnold.

[ErnBatavia]

Obviously Arnold is in favor of Prop 13.

It is most certainly NOT obvious and won't be until he hauls his arse in front of a bank of cameras and microphones and bitch-slaps Buffet.

[FairOpinion]

There is more going on with Buffett.

At first I also thought that it was all for show, and B really put his foot in the mouth. ( I still think this part)

Then I reread the WSJ article on the interview with Buffett, where B. mentioned that Davis tried to get Bershire Hathaway, B's co. to buy a lot of CA bonds, but Buffett declined, because he didn't have faith in CA. But maybe under Arnold's leadership he would buy CA bonds, which effectively means he would be loaning CA money, which may help out CA quite a bit.

[Quix]

Arnold will state his own position on 2-3 major issues

IN HIS WAY

IN HIS TIME

AFTER HE'S DONE WHAT

HE CONSIDERS

HIS HOMEWORK

SUFFICIENTLY WELL.

He doesn't seem to really give a flip about other people's timelines or expectations on him. Must be some carry over from his doing his thing his way from rags to riches. Or perhaps it's a carry over from his Terminator personna. Or perhaps it's genetic. In any case, it's NOT corrupt politics as usual. At the very least, it does not SEEM to be so by all measures and evidence available. And the public in California is big into what APPEARS to be true.

Thankfully, in Arnold's case, what seems to be true to at least the alert and discerning--will likely prove to have been true. He doesn't seem to be a wholesale Shrillery-dissembler.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[rwfromkansas]

True. But by this guy's logic, it should "hurt his confidence with the voters" in his 2004 re-election campaign to even have an advisor known to the public.

What garbage. Voters like to know that a President or anybody else has ideas and the people to help him accomplish them.

[concentric circles]

These pages come in handy once in a while:

Los Angeles Times/Washington Post vs Free Republic Settlement documents and Amended Final Judgment

[FairOpinion]

Butwho would know that http://www.bayarea.com/ is part of that deal?

I guess that's why they cleverly put in that safeguard when posting new thread, that they don't let you post full articles from the set of sites and remind you to excerpt them.

[gloworm]

"I have to agree with George Will's recent column. I hope everyone who is involved in the California recall comes out a loser. All of them."

Why? There are a lot of people hurting in this state and for you to wish us all ill will seems rather harsh.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

If BH underwrites CA bonds it only makes the matter worse by introducing an independence problem on behalf of Buffet and his company and the State of California. In order to ensure profitability it appears that Buffet wants to guarantee financial protection at property taxpayers expense by raising property taxes. Good for Buffet, bad for taxpayers.

[So Cal Rocket]

Good enough... however... why are there all these so-called Republicans telling me to get behind Arnie NOW because if I support McClintock, I'm handing the governorship over to Bustamante...

I'm not a sheep... I vote for candidates who share my vision and has clearly stated his policies and plans. I won't vote for someone because he's popular.

If Arnold comes out with a coherent, viable, and fiscally sound plan, I will consider supporting him. Until that time, I can only judge him on what he does... and at this point he has:

1. Appointed Pete Wilson to run his campaign - the Governor at the time of the biggest state tax increase in the history of the US. Who was AGAINST Proposition 13 when it was being debated.

2. Appointed Warren Buffet - who has socialistic views on the distribution of wealth in this country. Who has just said that Proposition 13 should be changed.

3. Appointed Rob Lowe - to bring in more Hollywood types.

4. Appointed George Schulz - who was one of the first SoS's to bring in the "World View" into the State Dept.

I don't like what I've seen so far.

[EGPWS]

Ok... then who does speak for Arnold? I haven't heard anything from him in a week. What DOES he stand for? What IS his platform? He's dropped from 48% to 22% in a week by keeping his mouth shut... it's time to lay out your plan, Arnie.

In his mind he is wondering "do you really want to know"? If I tell you, will I drop to 5% or go to 75%? I'm in a quandery, I need to say what's best for my campaign. Oh, that's right..what I mean is what's best for the California citizens.

[LibKill]

Arnold's a little bit more conservative than some people think. And he's a lock for the next governer of kali.

[Commiewatcher]

"Then I reread the WSJ article on the interview with Buffett, where B. mentioned that Davis tried to get Bershire Hathaway, B's co. to buy a lot of CA bonds, but Buffett declined, because he didn't have faith in CA. But maybe under Arnold's leadership he would buy CA bonds, which effectively means he would be loaning CA money, which may help out CA quite a bit."

May sound good but you have to wonder what Buffett really wants in return, and I suspect it's more than merely having confidence in CA.