Posted on 08/20/2003 5:17:25 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Because Gray Davis campaigned for Simon. The attack ads by Davis on Riordan had more effect than anything Simon did, imo.
Gee, then how are you going to fix the California economy Arnie??? Magic???
If they're unwilling to do this, the deficits will only grow higher, and higher, and higher, with no end in sight.
Two other "must-do" actions to reign in public spending:
1. Swarzennegger (sp?) must revive efforts to overturn the [local] federal judge's suspension of Proposition 187 (correct number?), the state ballot initiative that was supposed to cut off state spending to illegals.
Remember the old line from the "Field of Dreams" movie? "If you build it, he will come."
My transposition re the illegal problem: "If you provide them, they will come". Provide _what_? Why, BENEFITS, of course. The more benefits you provide for free, the _more_ they will come, and come and come, and come, and come, like a swarm of ants to the sugar bowl. STOP providing these benefits, and that army of marching ants will whither away.
2. I'm not sure how (or if) my next idea could be accomplished, but it there were some way to prevent the mailing of money to OUTside the United States, I think this would go a long way towards forcing illegals out. How many of these people (gosh, didn't Ross Perot get in trouble for using that term before the wrong audience?) send a large part of their earnings south of the border? Make it impossible (or at least difficult) for them to do that, and a significant part of their reason for being here evaporates. At the very least, we should consider imposing some kind of "export tax" on ALL dollars sent abroad. Since many (most?) of the illegals are paid "under the table", the state (and feds) collect not a dime of their earnings (all the same time paying out for the cornucopia of benefits that the illegals consume). Let's "recover" some of it at the source. If we can't stop them from sending the cash back home, let's make them "taxpayers" right up front. Personally, and on the corporate level, as well (but that's an argument for another thread).
Some closing thoughts (speaking the unspeakable?):
• California's troubles are directly linked to its innundation by illegals from south of the border.
• California (and the U.S. government) _must_ take the necessary steps to stop this influx.
• California (and the U.S. government) _must_ take the necessary steps to cut off aid to illegals _already in_ California (and the United States). California and the U.S. must become a very INhosipitable place to be an illegal alien.
• If California _does not_ take the necessary action to stop illegals from coming in, and to cut off their ever-increasing welfare benefits, and take the necessary action to _encourage_ and force the out-migration of illegals already here, then the ONLY possible result will be MORE illegals flooding in.
• If the flood of illegals cannot be stopped, and their consumption of public revenues cannot be reversed, there is no hope for California.
Seems pretty obvious to me ('way back east). How about you?
Cheers!
- John
Keep reading. You've fallen prey to bad reporting.
The twin pillars of fiscal conservatism, is cutting taxes and reducing government spending. This is not the rhetoric of a candidate whose a fiscal conservative. Arnold continues showing his true colors. Arnold's a liberal RINO.
WRONG
Schwarzenegger did say cuts would be made.
My, how hasty some are to leap to erroneous conclusions in their zeal to bash those they don't like (for irrational and baseless reasons).
Might I add that Fox News has been a bitter disappointment in the last several weeks. I've noticed several errors in their reporting, including California election coverage. I am still reeling from that Adam Housley labeling Arianna H. as a conservative pundit recently. I wanted to smack him, he had this weird expression when he said this. I am not a fan of his.
What's your theory as to why he has been a registered Republican all of these years?
Sigh
Hope you got around to seeing he did not say he won't cut spending. He said cuts would be necessary.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say you did not watch or read about the press conference prior to this article that contained erroneous information.
True?
I advise you read more about it before launching your offensive.
He said he would cut spending, Tator.
He's more of a social libertarian than a social liberal. Big, big difference.
The GOP has always stood for tax cuts, reductions in governemnt spending and deregulation.
Other than the reporter's incorrect claim that Arnold said he wouldn't cut spending, that's exactly what Arnold said he'd do. Read his quotes, not the summary of a journalist who is trying to discredit him. Honestly, it was very refreshing to hear such an overtly pro-business line coming from a candidate. I mean, he actually emphasized cutting government mandates on businesses. When was the last time you heard someone make that strong a pitch in the current anti-corporate environment?
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.