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.

[A CA Guy]

His platform is being pro-business and getting business to come back to California to provide a new bunch of people to tax and therefore balance the budget.

He is also against girly men.

[FairOpinion]

I agree completely. Anything other than spending cuts will be a temporary "solution", which actually would make the long term prospects of the state worse.

Arnold said he wants to bring back business to CA -- that can only be done by giving them tax cuts and incentives, and keeping taxes low, which of course can only provide sufficient revenue to meet spending, if you cut spending.

As I and others pointed out in other thread, CA's problem is not a lack of revenue, but an out of control spending, which they were engaging in, as more revenue was coming in during the market boom. If they kept spending under control, instead of skyrocketing it, just because they got this temporary windfall ( a large fraction of their revenue came from capital gains taxes), we would never be in this situation.

That is why I get rather upset at the thought that we may end up with Bustamante as governor, who will turn CA into a third world type state, then I guess the US won't care if Mexico will buy it back for $1, f course Bustamante wants to hand over to Mexico, even without that.

[EGPWS]

Anything other than spending cuts will be a temporary "solution", which actually would make the long term prospects of the state worse.

Now THAT is a directive worth looking into for the California people! Whew, finally I see some sense in the posts on this thread.

What is Arnolds platform for cutting spending to put California on track again?

What is Tom McClintocks platform for putting California back on track?

One of the choices has an immediate answer to that question without hesitation, and the other hasn't even given a clue as to what should be done to make this recall election worth while.

[FairOpinion]

You also have to consider that it's the Democratic Legislature with complicity from the Dem governor who put us into this situation. The next governor needs to be able to reign in the Legislature. IOW, you may have the greatest solution and ideas, but if you can't implement them because you are being obstructed, they won't do us any good.

I keep telling people that Arnold is much smarter than people think -- he is building his bridges that he will need to actually turn CA around, instead of just talke about it.

Do you think Buffett would loan CA money if McClintock became governor? I am not sure, but he seems to have worked out something with Arnold.

Being able to implement 30% of good things is much better, than not being able to implement any of your best ideas.

Here are is some real good analysis from Horowitz for those who missed, or even if you/they didn't,it's worth rereading and thinking about it:

"I am less amazed at conservative Republicans who still don't get it (because that's actually what Republicans are famous for) and are still in the race. As previously noted, even if a Republican candidate like Tom McClintock or Bill Simon could win the plurality to become governor, which they can't, their administration would be a disaster -- for them, for Republicans and for their conservative cause. If conservatives want to make California a conservative state they need to lay a lot more groundwork for that to be possible.

Arnold's is a dream candidacy for the Republican Party, which he alone can rescue from the dead. He has already made Republicans more user friendly to the public at large. He will make it easier for media talent in the state to relate to the Republican Party, which has ramifications for campaigns beyond California. He will inspire significant numbers of independents to vote for his party. And if he is elected -- unlike the conservatives biting at his heels -- he will be a formidable counter-balance to the Democratic legislature, which means he could actually improve the financial condition of the state.

If Governor Schwarzenegger were to do the right thing -- for example veto Democratic attempts to protect their expensive programs -- he would be in a position politically to resist their override. He could just take his enormous popularity and media presence into their individual senatorial and assembly districts and immediately threaten their electoral futures, so great is his popularity and media presence. Of course politics has its uncertainties and unseen pitfalls and no one knows if Arnold will be able to navigate them successfully. But if he manages to do so and win, he will actually have a chance to revive the state and run for a second term.

Even more important, Governor Schwarzenegger would change the political equation for the next presidential contest in 2004. A Bush 2004 campaign with Arnold as the President's point man in the state would unquestionably turn it into a competitive affair. This means that even if Bush does not ultimately win the state, the Democrats will have to pour big dollars into the state to contest the election. The drain of money and resources will impact close races across the country.

For all these reasons Republicans of all factions should rejoice at the Schwarzenegger candidacy. It offers the only possibility of a win for state Republicans or for the Bush campaign in California. It will help to revive the California Republican Party. And it could reshape the politics of the nation."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9320

[EGPWS]

For all these reasons Republicans of all factions should rejoice at the Schwarzenegger candidacy. It offers the only possibility of a win for state Republicans or for the Bush campaign in California. It will help to revive the California Republican Party. And it could reshape the politics of the nation."

I see your mindset on this and it is a very understandable one at that!

Being an outsider, and looking at California's demise as an outsider, what I see in Horowitz's scenario is a gradual shift to the left to appease and make everything flow to keep us strong as a nation. IMHO we have been doing that on a national basis for decades and gradually we have been distancing ourselves from what this country's creation was based upon.

I, however, question this appeasment as being something to promote the betterment of California on the issues at hand.

Again, it is a quick, and most likely, a short term fix. If it even gets to the point of fixing the problems California has with Arnold as Governor.

[liberallarry]

The Jeffersonian vision of a nation of small independent farmers is dead, gone, impossible. The industrial revolution, the demographic explosion, technical advance, massive immigration of non-Western Europeans have changed America and the world permanently. We can't go back. We can't look back. What we can do is try to mold the new world and its new institutions to accomodate our values.

[EGPWS]

The Jeffersonian vision of a nation of small independent farmers is dead, gone, impossible. The industrial revolution, the demographic explosion, technical advance, massive immigration of non-Western Europeans have changed America and the world permanently. We can't go back. We can't look back. What we can do is try to mold the new world and its new institutions to accomodate our values.

Perhaps your right. I've got an idea, why not take the "written in stone" concept out of our constitution and make it "living and breathing" so it is more prone to change to accomodate?

[liberallarry]

. I've got an idea, why not take the "written in stone" concept out of our constitution and make it "living and breathing" so it is more prone to change to accomodate?

We're doing that right now, on this forum. At least I hope so.

[EGPWS]

We're doing that right now, on this forum. At least I hope so.

Swell.

[Steelerfan]

If we are going to do that, can we do it by explicit written amendment (as the framers intended) as opposed to allowing a bunch of 9th Circuit judges "interpret" the document to reflect "contemporary" values? Policies may change with the times, but the core values in the Constitution were not supposed to without explicit action by the senate and the states. Just to take one example, the more expansive interpreation of the commerce clause we now have may (or may not) be a good thing but I will be darned if I accept that it was the role of the Supreme Court to create it out of thin air.
Ok I admit we are now off topic, but this will become relevant if the 9th Circuit gets its hands on the recall

[The Other Harry]

Being able to sell enough bonds would generate enough immediate revenue...

Pssst...

Selling bonds does not generate revenue.

[cyncooper]

Can you say ``trial ballon?'' He can wait until after the election to bring this one out again.

How does that explain his comments in June? The recall wasn't even expected to pass then, so I hardly think he was angling at that time for a spot on the ballot.

Same goes with his years and years as a Republican. It defies common sense that he maintained that affiliation for years just so down the road he could run for office and emerge as a dem.

[liberallarry]

I wish I could predict the future (and had the answers) but I can't (and don't). We'll argue, and debate, and dispute (just as the framers did) and out of it will come some sort of consensus.

There was trouble right from the beginning - trouble writing the Constitution, trouble getting it adopted, trouble interpreting it. There's a wonderful article, "Founders Chic", in the September 2003 Atlantic Monthly. It helped me put things in perspective.

[harpo11]

I find it refreshing to read how Arnold is shaping and building his campaign to win the CA Govenorship Title. If anything, he is determined, and although, it's too early to tell, he sure seems like he is pumping himself into the Uni-Candidate...something fits for everyone, talk about diversity.

[Steelerfan]

Thanks for the suggestion and I will look the article up. I will be the first to admit that the concept of "framers' intent" is subject to as much spin as any other doctrine, there were obviously many framers with many different intents (though I always tend to fall back on the Federalist Papers in case of doubt). However, I believe there are a number of cases, such as the deth penalty, where there can be no legitimate argument over what the framers intended given the historical record. You can argue it is bad policy, you can argue that the constitution should be changed but you should not be able to argue it violates the document as drafted and as amended. Problem is that rather that amend the document in cases where times have legitimately changed, we keep fudging it. And every time we fudge it, we create the precedent to fudge it even worse the next time. End results is decisions like the Michigan affirmative action cases which have no basis in the document whatsoever, but can be justified by the judges' feelings and vague references to existing precedent.

I live in a state where legal concepts like statutes of repose have been overturned three times in the last 15 years as the composition of the elected Supreme Court has changed. It makes me nostalgic more a more honest, or maybe objective is a better word, standard for judicial decison making.

Have a good night, and thanks again for the recommendation.

[PhilDragoo]

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.

Arnold's is a dream candidacy for the Republican Party, which he alone can rescue from the dead. He has already made Republicans more user friendly to the public at large. He will make it easier for media talent in the state to relate to the Republican Party, which has ramifications for campaigns beyond California. He will inspire significant numbers of independents to vote for his party. And if he is elected -- unlike the conservatives biting at his heels -- he will be a formidable counter-balance to the Democratic legislature, which means he could actually improve the financial condition of the state.

I've got Horowitz' Radical Son and The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future.

His tactical instincts are respected by Republicans; his Restoration Weekend is the counterpart to the Left's Renaissance Weekend.

Arnold is the one who will beat Bustamonte.

[liberallarry]

For me the bedrock values are individual liberty and opportunity. We've sought to maximize those two things throughout our history. I want us to continue to do so.

How to do that in any particular time and place is negociable and disputable. Maybe we should fudge less or maybe more in our constitutional interpretation. I think at different periods in our history we've done both.

What I learned from the article I recommended is that disputes about process were always bitter and viscious but the goals were never in question.

[speekinout]

I'm sure that this WSJ article touting Buffett's advice is the reason Arnold slipped so badly in the polls.

I'm not so sure. Rush is determined to deep-six Arnold. Maybe he does have as much influence as he thinks he does.
It sounds like he wants Uberoth (sp?), but that guy won't win. It's either Arnold or Bustamente. I left CA nearly 7 years ago, so I suppose I shouldn't care. But I really would like to see the state get back to its former status as the most appealing state in the nation.

[DodgeRam]

The field poll was done before the comment by buffet on the 14th (field poll 10th thru 13th). The 48% to 22% that has been cited in in the earlier posts are bogus. Arnold was never at 48% in the field poll that I saw, and the poll that had him that high has not released their latest figures. I agree with you that rush has it in for Arnold. Maybe he needs to read Novaks column where he states that no true conservative has won california since Reagan in 1970.

[Ann Archy]

Hey Arnold....you hired a Democrat....that's what they DO....raising taxes and hating Christians and tearing down normal marriages.....it's why they are Democrats.