Arnold nixes Buffett advice over Prop. 13

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

[afraidfortherepublic]

How come I haven't read this anywhere else? I'm sure that this WSJ article touting Buffett's advice is the reason Arnold slipped so badly in the polls. Californians that I know are outraged.

[EGPWS]

Yep and it seems that Arnold has disinfected the smell of Warren Buffett's meglomania.

And you do not like that.

Disliking it is not an appropriate way to convey my attitude towards it. He had to disinfect the smell in the first place. Why?

Why is Warren Buffett involved in his campaign?

Why isn't Arnold personally "disinfecting" himself?

Is he too busy with more important issues?

Does he lack confidence that he can convey it himself in a more appropriate fashion?

He's running for Governor, for crying out loud, and seeing him profess his agenda or explain his motives for actions in his campaign personally isn't happening.

[af_vet_1981]

That was NOT a "trial balloon". It was an egomaniac socialist shooting off his mouth. Didn'tyou see this: "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." Obviously Arnold is in favor of Prop 13.

The anti-Arnold partisans will still find a conspiracy. They really want the Democrats to control California so they can whine about what life was like in the old days with a real conservative. The future belongs to those able to adapt and succeed. Arnold offers the best, and perhaps only, chance of victory over Davis/Bustamante.

[FairOpinion]

Read my post #30 re. Buffett.

[Brian_Baldwin]

I agree with you ... at first, I've been giving Arnold the benefit of the doubt, influnced by positive things others have told me about Arnold, and so I have been undecided between Arnold, Bill, and Tom as my three choices but not committed to any particular one.

However, this was a very, very BAD mistake by the Arnold campaign, this Buffet move.

Because, I can tell you, even if Republicans in California can grin and bare his position on abortion, gays, etc., a governor doesn't really have any say regarding these issues, but when it comes to property taxes and Prop 13, the governor is a major player in what's going to happen. And I can tell you right now, it would be political suicide for any candidate to say, that the agenda of his/her candidacy is "TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES, BECAUSE CALIFORNIANS DON'T PAY ENOUGH PROPERTY TAX" and "REPEAL PROP 13" - it doesn't matter HOW liberl California is, it would be political suicide.

And then, this idiot Buffet says exactly that.

My God, total political idiocy. Suicide.

So now Arnold is back peddling.

But I got to ask, he must have know where Buffet was coming from, and where some of his other "spokespersons" were coming from. Now Arnold says they don't speak for Arnold.

Then why the hell did he put them in charge of such things?

Man, this was real stupid on the part of Arnold.

Yeah, I think my choice has now narrowed down to Simon or McClintock.

Yeah, and I don't care what the "pundits" say - this was so stupid on the part of Arnold, that I think Simon or McClintock are now VERY electable.

An election can turn on the dime.

I think, maybe Arnold just dropped his dime in the sewer hole. It was the "magic" dime. It's down there, in that hole right now. Can he get it out?

I mean, it made me double-think - Prop 13 and property taxes, that's REALLY crossing the line. It made me think, I sure like what Simon and McClintock have to say, and what's Arnold got to say?

Real stupid, man.

Real stupid.

[EGPWS]

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.

Got it FO!

When it's referencing the political leadership of California, is this actually a benefit? Warren Buffett didn't become a Billionaire by compassion for the public. (I don't mean that as a discredit to him)however his financial endeavors are a mystery like Arnold's political endeavors are. Giving California a cashflow from a billionair to resolve the political status in California which has created the deficit in the first place isn't going to do anything but mask the underlying issues with the Great State.

[zchip]

LS Wrote: "Look, I don't agree with Buffett, but if he volunteered to be MY PERSONAL financial advisor, do you think I'd say no? "

I hope you would say no. People like Buffett would never help anyone voluntarily (IMHO). The old "if-it-sounds-too-good-to-be-true, (it-probably-isn't!)" addage would really apply here.

I think the only reason he got into the fray in California politics was the irresistable urge to get his hands into the taxpayer's cookie jar. The ability to INFLUENCE and DIRECT fiscal outcomes is the blood-in-the-water that sharks like Buffet are attracted to.

That Buffett is a mini-marxist is a good observation on your part! I would only add that he is a mini-marxist-ELITIST.

[FairOpinion]

California is going to give him some incentive, such as giving a discount on the bonds, kind of like borrowing $98, but giving an IOU for $100 and interest on $100.

As you said, Buffett is not in it for charity. But then if you loan money to someone who goes bankrupt, the paper you are holding regardless, even if you loan someone $98 and they write and IOU for $1,000. Buffett didn't have faith that CA could recover under the Davis leadership, but has faith that Arnold can turn it around. Putting his money there is the biggest vote of confidence for Arnold.

Of course all this is being ignored by the media, beyond the brief mention in the WSJ article.

Here is what Buffett said recently, which ran in the Kansas City Star, but not in the main media:

Buffett, a multibillionaire, also said serving as an adviser for the Republican Schwarzenegger does not mean that he intends to switch his political affiliation from Democrat to Republican.

"That doesn't make any difference to me," Buffett said. "If you are fighting in a war and someone is providing cover for you, my guess is you don't care whether he is a Republican or a Democrat."

Everyone should be concerned about California's financial and political problems, Buffett said.

"Everybody in Nebraska, everybody in Kansas, everybody in Missouri has an interest in California," Buffett said. "It is a big economy. You can't have problems out there without it chilling the rest of the economy."

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/6548901.htm

[EGPWS]

I think the only reason he got into the fray in California politics was the irresistable urge to get his hands into the taxpayer's cookie jar. The ability to INFLUENCE and DIRECT fiscal outcomes is the blood-in-the-water that sharks like Buffet are attracted to.

Of course that's why. Sure I'm cynical but it is the truth, however as long as he does it legally and promotes himself without discredit, who's to argue with his motives?

Outside of the envious of course.

[Roscoe]

If he wants credibility Arnold should dump Warren Buffet immediately

Exactly.

[FairOpinion]

If Buffett in effect loans money toCA, that will buy CA TIME, to make adjustment and maybe solve the problems without tax increases.

If you are going broke, there are certain fixed expenses you have and your choice is either to generate revenue now, as in raising taxes, or borrow money, which will give you some breathing room to figure out and implement the best measures.

[EGPWS]

As you said, Buffett is not in it for charity. But then if you loan money to someone who goes bankrupt, the paper you are holding regardless, even if you loan someone $98 and they write and IOU for $1,000. Buffett didn't have faith that CA could recover under the Davis leadership, but has faith that Arnold can turn it around. Putting his money there is the biggest vote of confidence for Arnold.

Thanks again FO!

Yes it's a good option to consider no doubt, however is it going to change California's direction in it's financial demise and the reason for the state to achieve such a poor financial status in the first place?

Or is it going to slap a quick fix on it dependent upon 1 person...Warren Buffett?

[zchip]

As long as someone steals from others "legally" who is to argue? When we are looking at the business end of a "gun" I suppose that one could argue that it does no good to argue. (The "gun" I am speaking of is metaphorical: the law-enforcement element of The State.)

It has nothing to do with envy!

[EGPWS]

If you are going broke, there are certain fixed expenses you have and your choice is either to generate revenue now, as in raising taxes, or borrow money, which will give you some breathing room to figure out and implement the best measures.

That sounds like a family considering applying for another credit card to alleviate their credit woe's.

Don't you think by now that it is time for California to seek a well known credit advisor to put them back on track so to bring them back to financial stability?

[EGPWS]

When we are looking at the business end of a "gun" I suppose that one could argue that it does no good to argue.

The idea is to place oneself on the handle side of the gun. I can't stand the guy politically, however Warren Buffett has done a fabulous job of putting himself in that position legally.

[liberallarry]

No, he can't dump Buffet without looking like a complete idiot.

What he can do is say that California's problems are enormously complex, that he's seeking advice from the best financial minds, that he intends to make much of the advice public so that voters can see what is involved, and that he will make up his own mind at the proper time.

This strategy restricts his options but makes him look fresh and good. Maybe he can come up with something better. I couldn't.

[GrandMoM]

Agh.... Have you heard of RED DIAPER DOPER BABIES ????????????

[EGPWS]

No, he can't dump Buffet without looking like a complete idiot.

How can one place themselves into a position to look like a complete idiot when one doesn't do anything?

[FairOpinion]

California already had their credit rating downgraded, this can start or speed up a downward spiral. Being able to sell enough bonds would generate enough immediate revenue, so they would have time to "Do the right thing", otherwise it could be a downward death spiral.

Naturally the borrowing is only a very short term solution and major changes, i.e. serious spending cuts need to be implemented to recover.

[EGPWS]

i.e. serious spending cuts need to be implemented to recover.

Anything else, in the minds of sensible people, will only exasperate the problem.

Don't you agree?