Posted on 12/16/2003 9:06:03 AM PST by go_tom
Gee, thanks, Arnie. I'm sure glad I voted for McClintock. I just wish everyone had.
Karl Rove?
Hb
MCCLINTOCK: Of course, it's true. We just had a hearing on that, Gil. You asked the California Highway Patrol commissioner that question. And he told you that the state of California recognizes a valid foreign driver's license as proof of competence to operate a motor vehicle in this state.I laughed out loud at that one! McClintock makes so much sense.
If you're not going to get trained in your own country to obtain a driver's license, what makes you think you're going to get one here?
The only purpose of this is to obtain a valid state identification document that, before your bill, said not only that you're competent to drive a motor vehicle but you're also legally a resident of California. For that reason, the driver's license was used for everything from financial transactions to security clearance at airports.
By giving these licenses to people who are in this country illegally, you have just destroyed the value of the driver's license as authentic proof of legal residency for every one of the millions of California drivers who currently hold one.
CEDILLO: Now, with all due respect, Senator McClintock, I don't believe that statement is accurate. I believe the commissioner indicated that the use was time limited, maybe to 90 days, if I recall correctly. But the point is that we are...
MCCLINTOCK: You're only supposed to be here for 90 days.
Also, "general(ph)" instead of "gentlemen."
Enclosed is Senator McClintock's speech that he delivered on the floor of the California State Senate a few days ago.
Last year, I and many others on this floor believed it was a bad idea to borrow $13 billion to paper over the states deficit.
And today, I believe it is still a bad idea to borrow $15 billion to paper over that same deficit.
I am not going to get into the debate over whether it is better to borrow that money over 13-years or 30-years. The only distinction in that debate is between bad public policy and really bad public policy.
There are only three ways to remedy a deficit. You can raise taxes in a state that already suffers one of the heaviest tax burdens in the nation. You can borrow money in a state that is already up to its eyeballs in debt. Or you can rein in spending -- in a state that is now spending a larger portion of peoples earnings than at any time in its history.
I would think the choice would be self-evident.
We need to suspend the states spending mandates and restore to the Governor the power he had from 1939 to 1983 to make mid-year spending reductions. A 13.5 percent reduction effective January 1st would cure the entire deficit in 18 months and allow California to begin the next budget year debt free, with a clean slate, and $12 billion of breathing room going into 2005.
And it would still provide annual general fund spending 15 percent above what we were spending the day Gray Davis took the oath of office.
If we succumb to the Siren song of borrowing, I fear that this will not be the end of it. New York City tried this and just this year they rolled over their now 25-year-old debt yet again.
Let us be honest. This proposal is set at $15 billion to assure that the underlying problem can be ignored for 2003. Let me remind the members that the LAOs November report predicts a $15 billion gap between estimated expenditures and estimated revenues again in 2004.
If we are going to borrow $15 billion because we dont want to address the problem this year right now with the full impact of an historic election fresh in mind how can we seriously believe that somehow we will muster the political resolve to do so next year in the middle of an election?
So far, only $1.3 billion of actual cuts have been proposed this year and only $1.4 billion for next year. Ladies and Gentlemen: that's barely enough to cover the annual debt service on the bond now before us.
The only way this bond can be issued constitutionally is to temporarily repeal one of the oldest provisions in the state constitution that dates back to the original document of 1849.
Why did the Founders place that provision in the law? They were very clear. Let me share the words of the State Supreme Court just seven years later in 1856:
"The Framers of the State Constitution were mostly men fresh in the experience of the errors into which other states had fallen. They had witnessed the unhappy results that followed extravagant legislation, and were anxious to rear a bulwark here, which would protect us against similar disasters...they were aware that years would scarcely repair the follies of a single day, and that the high rate of taxes imposed in many of the States, to pay the interest of the debts so improvidently contracted, had the effect to drive capital and population from their shores."
The next year, the court wrote:
"The framers (of the Constitution) knew that it was not the practice of governments, well conducted, to borrow money for the ordinary expenses of government...the framers of the Constitution knew that if they permitted the Legislature to borrow money to defray the ordinary expenses of the government, it would not be long before the State must be brought practically to rely upon the yearly revenue...Besides this, the Convention doubtless thought it unjust to throw the burden of paying the present expense of the government upon posterity, who would be compelled, in addition, to pay their own expenses, or resort to the same method of postponement."
These are the warnings of a generation of giants who built our state. They have been heeded by every generation that has followed until this one.
And of this one, what can be said? Words are vain. Reason is vain. With this vote you now set in motion the classic spiral of spend-borrow-and-tax that California's Founders had anticipated, feared, and protected against.
There's a thread here on FR with it!
McClintock Floor Speech on AB9 Deficit(California Bond Issue)
The only way this bond can be issued constitutionally is to temporarily repeal one of the oldest provisions in the state constitution that dates back to the original document of 1849.
I think this is the purpose of Prop 58 (which also reaffirms the balanced budget requirement). Without the repeal (temporary or not), it would be unconstitutional to issue a bond such as the Prop 57 $15 Billion bond, because the bond wouldn't be for a specific project. If Prop 58 passes, the legislature will be free to "throw the burden of paying the present expense of the government upon posterity."
Who said Bush was a RINO? Oh yeah, YOU did in your strawman beating. Well, I pointed out the dis-similarities between the two so what does that mean?
Its means you are trying to ignore the differences between Bush and (R)nold, because hiding behind Bush's legs are all you shameless apologists have, like the Democrates, few core principles -just defensive Talking Points.
Well call me a Bush basher til your heart's content, that's no reason to be in support (R)nold. As always, your crew never does have reason to be FOR him.
No doubt. I watched The California debate and I found McClintock very impressive. Hope to hear more from him.
Well, I can split hairs that SB60 is worse, but I can't. Bush just sucks on immigration, its just plain undefendable. I will say that immigration has shown to be more of a state issue recently, since Prop 187 so in a state like CA its more important of an issue than a President...but that's splitting hairs.
Schwarzenegger's repeal of SB60 is MORE conservative than the Presidents position of "work for everyone", clearly a "RINO" position.
While that has just been talk from Bush, I believe there isn't a strong likelihood of anything happening on it. Now Gil and Arnold working together to "improve" SB60, I think in your heart of hearts you know that this is going to actually happen. Which is why I can't give him any props on getting Gil to take a step backward.
similar to the bonds the Governor and Legislature have agreed to float. It's not Apples and Oranges
I agree. All the more reason to reject (R)nold's idea to paper over the debt. Although to states, its just worse because they are forced to pay quicker, unless of course they can get long term loans...what an innovation.
The contrast here is that (R)nold is taking us in a bad direction and setting bad precident that Davis wanted to take CA down.
At least for Bush, he has inherited 100 years of this buck passing, (R)nold could have a legacy far beyond this generation, all from the party of smaller government®.
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.