Spokesman: Schwarzenegger Won't raise taxes

FoxNews ^ | August 21, 2003 | Major Garrett

[hotpotato]

LOS ANGELES

[ElkGroveDan]

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has stated clearly his intention to cut taxes to make California's job climate a competitive one. Regrettably, in comments I made to Fox today, I left the impression that Arnold Schwarzenegger could consider increasing taxes based on economic conditions. I misspoke," said spokesman Sean Walsh.

This is what happens when you surround yourself with Dems and liberal Republicans who are itching to get their hands on the state purse strings. Walsh can't WAIT to start apologizing for the tax increases.

[DoctorZIn]

PING!

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin.

[Tempest]

Errrr... The article says that he will cut taxes.

[deport]

The budget package, as passed by the Legislature, authorizes total spending of $98.9 billion. Assumes spending of $41.3 billion for Proposition 98 in 2003-04.


41.3 / 98.9 = 41.75%

thanks.

[The Old Hoosier]

You have to include community college funding in that number. The total comes out to 45.1 bn. It's also part of prop 98.

[rolling_stone]

Arnold said he would cut expenses, like a surgeon sometimes you have to cut to save the patient...

As for Prop 98 there are several ways to go, one being reducing the budget from say 100 billion to 80 billion results in a 20% budget cut across the board, and education can be cut the same as other cuts in state spending for other budgeted services... ....

"Test 3b: any reduction, compared to the previous year, must be no worse than cuts in state spending per capita for other budgeted services."


"Suspending the provisions of Proposition 98 requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature and agreement by the governor."

http://www.edsource.org/pub_edfct_prop98.cfm


Proposition 98 In Practice

Tax cuts create test threes. In general, test 3 applies in years with relatively low state revenue growth, while test 1 applies when revenue growth is extremely strong. Low revenue growth can result from a lagging economy or from tax cuts that reduce state revenues. In short, TAX CUTS CAN CAUSE A TEST 3 SITUATION WHEREIN AS MUCH AS TWO-THIRDS OF THE REDUCTION IN STATE REVENUES COMES OUT OF EDUCATION. While the legislature can allocate more money for education than required by Proposition 98, fiscal constraints make substantial overfunding unlikely, particularly in years where revenue growth is minimal.


http://www.cbp.org/2000/qh000701.html

(note getting rid of illegal aliens students will cut enrollment)

[deport]

Thanks.... that's a lot of money.... But it's sorta like in Texas where Education and Health/Human Services get somewhere approaching 70% of the budget..... Not a lot left to run the rest of the government....

[Cinnamon Girl]

Why is Drudge on the war path against Arnold?

[The Old Hoosier]

It will be almost impossible for Arnold to balance a budget without dealing with education.

What they really need is to get rid of prop 98 with a new spending limit initiative/constitutional amendment that essentially guts it. Arnold has at least theoretically backed a new Gann limit, and they're already working on it at the Nat'l Tax Limitation Committee.

But I still don't think Arnold would be able to cut 25% of the non-ed budget. That's just too deep to cut in one year on too small an amount.

[The Old Hoosier]

Actually, much as I oppose him, there is a benefit to Arnold winning. Darrell Issa would look like a king, and he'd take on Boxer. He could actually beat her too, unlike the pretty-boys they've run against her in the past.

But if Cruz wins, it's even better. He won't be able to get his $10 bn tax hike through the legislature with the two-thirds vote, so he'll put it on the ballot, where it will be trounced, and he'll be totally perceived as a moron, and ready to get his @$$ kicked by McClintock in 2006.

If Tom becomes governor, he'll be an automatic national player and draw the national GOP to the Right.

But I still haven't given up on him winning this one. I want to see the next Field poll.

[The Old Hoosier]

Have you heard specifically that he'll raise them?

When a candidate won't pledge absolutely to not raise taxes, then he wants to be able to raise taxes. There are way too many examples of this happening already. Bob Riley in Alabama, Kenny Guinn in Nevada, and on and on.

The idea of "an earthquake" or a terrorist attack being a reason to raise taxes is silly. California doesn't have an army, and it's just obviously wrong to hike taxes on the back of people who are devastated by such a disaster. That didn't stop the New York RINOs from doing it, though.

[The Old Hoosier]

In Calif, I think that ed and hhs take up almost 80%.

[deport]

You have an opinion, I have an opinion so I guess we'll just disagree to some extent. At this stage I think someone that will take a business approach to the gov't financial problems is what's needed. Anyone to swear not to raise taxes would be a fool and I think there are some foolish ones in this race. One can't always foresee the future and what maybe needed. Restructing the tax system should be a part of the solution.....

Cutting as deeply as possible, suspending Prop 98 if necessary, reorganizing governmental departments/agencies, restructing debt, tax reduction, etc are things that need to be looked at and done where possible.

Any of the lower tier candidates that are going to be a factor have 46 days to get themselves into play. For most it means they need to raise their voter acceptance by 1/2% per day between today and Oct. 7. That would get some of them around the mid 20% range in voter acceptance.

Yes the next Field Poll will be interesting as it will have data taken after the Arnold news conference. So far most polls have it a two way race. I don't think they are all in error but time will tell. The Public Policy Institute of CA just issued results from a poll they took over the past few days.... Here's one question from it....

7. Regardless of how you would vote on the first part of the recall, how would you vote on the second part of the recall ballot: If the election were held today, who would you vote for? [if necessary: read rotated list, then ask “or someone else?”]

23% Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican
18 Cruz Bustamante, Democrat
5 Tom McClintock, Republican
4 Bill Simon, Republican
4 Peter Ueberroth, Republican
3 Peter Camejo, Green Party
3 Arianna Huffington, Independent
8 Someone else (specify)
32 don’t know

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_803MBS.pdf

[lainie]

I have no idea, but here are two wild guesses:

1. Poking holes in phony Hollywood fakery is a Drudge forte;

2. Arnie's not a conservative.


And this from me; after witnessesing the uninspired, mean-spirited, memo-above-all behavior of Hannity. I personally would distance myself from that, if I had my own radio show and wished to remain known as an independent voice in the media.

Or it could just be that I'm not missing an opportunity to dig into Hannity these days.

[Cinnamon Girl]

He's fiscally conservative, and I think that's true based on what he said yesterday about running a business. Does anyone think he's a real conservative? Not us conservatives. But that argument is getting old. Arnold could win, Tom McClintock most likely couldn't, and that's why John Campbell, David Dreier, Ann Coulter, etc. are saying let's get behind Arnold so at least we could possibly get SOME of what we want instead of NOTHING from Bustamove.

[winner3000]

"Schwarzenegger pledged Wednesday to protect education from any budget cuts."

Just when I thought Arnold was starting to lean to the right, I read stuff like that. If he's got a problem taking the "no tax" pledge, why is he so willing to take pledges to protect any spending?

[The Old Hoosier]

Anyone to swear not to raise taxes would be a fool

Well, that's a pretty defeatist attitude for a conservative, I think. We'll have to disagree, but I think Californians would like to see a no tax hikes pledge, since it's their taxes we're talking about hiking.

A major problem with this poll--and maybe with the Field Poll too, is that in a race with over 100 candidates, I think the only poll that will really accurately gauge anything is a poll that asks for voluntary responses only. Few people will go to the booth and go through the list of 135 candidates and then say, "Oh, OK, now that I see the choices, I'll pick John Smith." In a regular election, that might happen, but it seems unlikely here. I don't know Field's methodology, but they may want to consider that in this case.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Cruz fall badly in the next field poll thanks to his tax plan, and McClintock in low double digits. That's when Simon has to bite the bullet and get out. He'll probably endorse Arnold, but his people will mostly go to McClintock. I know from personal experience with him that Simon is a lightweight when it comes to discussing issues, and a total buffoon in just about everything else.

I don't think the conservatives will cause Arnold to lose the race. When (if?) he loses, it will be his own refusal to present a workable plan for Calif. He can't resist suggesting specific budget cuts until "after" he's elected. Sorry, pal, no training wheels.

Arnold appears, though, to have kept the teachers' union money out of the race with this huge, stupid sop to them of not touching ed spending. That is a huge service to the conservatives. If everyone keeps their sights trained on Busty, I maintain my prediction that he could come in third.

[A CA Guy]

The attitude should be that taxes is the last thing we want to do to correct this problem and that all other measures including decreasing the rate of growth should be tried first.
I would also suspect that freezing hiring and having people die or retire to reduce the number of government state employees would also help, but you can never say never to almost anything and not get bit by it if you are a Republican.
Democrats are immune from their word since they are expected to break it.