Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schwarzenegger Proposes Billions in Cuts (No new taxes)
AP ^ | Jan 9, 2004 | TOM CHORNEAU

Posted on 01/09/2004 1:09:48 PM PST by TheDon

By TOM CHORNEAU, Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) unveiled a $99.1 billion budget plan Friday and proposed cutting billions of dollars from public health and welfare programs to help pay for it.

AP Photo

Without cuts or higher taxes, California is expected to face a $14 billion deficit by June 30, 2005, the end of the upcoming fiscal year.

Schwarzenegger did not include any new taxes in his budget plan Friday, but in addition to the cuts, he requested higher state park fees and tuition increases of as much as 40 percent for college students.

"For the past five years, the politicians have made a mess of California's budget," Schwarzenegger said. "Now it's time to clean it up."

The biggest hits are aimed at the state's Medi-Cal program, which would lose close to $900 million next year under the governor's proposal. The state's program to bring welfare recipients into the work force is also targeted in his plan with a $800 million cut.

City and county governments, already upset by the loss of about $4 billion they were expecting from a car tax increase that Schwarzenegger repealed, also would lose out.

The governor proposed taking an additional $1.3 billion that the local governments are counting on and instead use it to pay state expenses. The move is a shift from Schwarzenegger's previous pledge to protect the local governments, though he said Friday that he would still find a way to replace the lost car tax revenue.

"We need to know what else is piled on top of it," said Pat Leary of the California State Association of Counties.

Schwarzenegger's budget is built on a rosy economic picture next year, projecting $2.9 billion in additional tax revenue to be available in 2004-2005.

Getting support for the spending plan won't be easy. Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, have said the burden of the state's fiscal crisis shouldn't fall on the poor and disabled.

The hit to public health under Schwarzenegger's plan would include caps on enrollments for the state's health insurance program for the poor and elderly and the elimination of some medical benefits for the poor and disabled.

University students would see higher fees under the proposal, with undergraduates paying 10 percent more, graduate students paying 40 percent more, and middle-income students being offered less financial aid.

Community college students would be asked to pay $8 per unit more — from $18 per unit to $26.

Some social service advocates say tax increases should be used instead of spending cuts to solve the state's problems.

"I expect that there will still be hard hits on health programs that will hurt children and working families very hard," said Catherine Teare, spokeswoman for the Oakland-based advocacy group, Children Now. "I just don't see how this all gets done."

According to estimates updated this week, the state will have a deficit of nearly $27 billion by June 2005 — created by an existing deficit of $12.6 billion run up over the past three years and a projected shortfall of $14 billion by the June 30, 2005.

Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have put a $15 billion bond issue on the March that would pay off the existing deficit, but the $14 billion projected deficit for next year remains.

A key underpinning of his plan to balance the state's budget without raising taxes had been backed by educators, who agreed to accept $2 billion less next year than they are owed.

But even if legislators approve Schwarzenegger's budget plan, which will be revised in May, it will mean little if voters don't approve the $15 billion bond deal in March. So far, administration officials said, early polls indicate voters don't like the measure and may not pass it.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: arnold; calbudget2004; cool
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 last
To: Tamsey
Heck, I'm the first to admit I married well above me. But Mrs. Hb says she did too.

Life's good!

Hb
121 posted on 01/09/2004 11:12:32 PM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
You are quibbling over semantics. The license fee (VLF, not the VFL- get it straight) was reduced in the past by 1/3 and had a trigger that could undo the reduction in the case of budget difficulties. Schwarzenegger, soon after taking office, repealed the car tax increase. Please educate yourself on California state politics before further humilliating yourself.

After I stopped laughing at your pathetic "expository" on "passing versus signing", I got to your mindless repetition that the budget increased. Are you that intellectually lazy to wonder why its being reported that cuts are being proposed if the overall figure is higher? There are one-time fees which cannot be avoided which lead to the higher figure. The discretionary aspects of the budget are being trimmed.

I would suggest you actually read the proposed budget at http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/BUD_DOCS/Bud_link.htm and educate yourself, but I doubt you could process the information.
122 posted on 01/10/2004 12:25:55 AM PST by jagrmeister (I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
It is obvious that you aren't going to listen to me so I can only suggest that you refer to pages 39 and 40 of the budget summary at the link you provided. Perhaps you might believe Schwarzenegger's explanation of the tax mechanics of the VLF offset.

Oh, you might also refer to that same document on page 11 which breaks down the sources of the expenditures. You'll notice, under the word "total" in the upper chart, that Governor Schwarzenegger proposes to spend $99.144 in fiscal 2004/2005 if Prop 57 and 58 pass in March.

Good luck to you.

123 posted on 01/10/2004 8:28:34 AM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
**Probably breaking his pencil tip trying to figure out how he got the first calcs he posted with. **

:o)

124 posted on 01/10/2004 8:30:57 AM PST by mrs tiggywinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey; Tempest
"Fees" are being used to get around requirements for 2/3 vote for tax increases. People in some States, WA I believe for one, finally got smart and passed a measure saying that ANY money going from private sources to government is a tax.

The fee scam is a politicians dream! With it, he can bypass any 2/3 vote requirement. Taxes can be raised without a vote for a tax increase on the politician’s voting record. The politicians can pit the people against each other by singling out different people for a "fee increase" (aka "divide and conquer".) All those who don't use the service scream, "Right on! Why should I pay for that!!" (Tobacco tax sound familiar?) The second time it happens, the 10% taxed the first time scream, "Yeah, go ahead and tax em like you did me!", and the remaining 80% again scream, "Right on! Why should I pay for that!!"

All that’s left to do is single out a different 10% of the population 10 times for the "fee increase". After 10 times, you have a tax increase on 100% of the people, with a 90% backing of the people, absolutely no way to know how much the government is collecting, no record of voting for a tax increase on any politician’s record, and the ability to raise taxes at the whim of a regulator.

No thanks.

Hb
125 posted on 01/10/2004 10:01:10 AM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: cpst12
Not exactly: a bond is a loan and can be paid for by higher tax revenues that result from lower tax rates, just as Andrew Mellon repaid the WW I "Liberty" Bonds with lower tax rates. The bottom line is many of you guys were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG about Arnold and won't admit it.
126 posted on 01/10/2004 10:15:06 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Or succeeds.
127 posted on 01/10/2004 10:15:46 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
Your knee-jerk opposition to Schwarzenegger is appaling. Thankfully, given your uninformed nature and poor command of logic, you are a veritable punching bag when it comes to political debate.

In the future if you've got something to convey use this public forum, not my private Freepmail box.

128 posted on 01/10/2004 10:25:15 AM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Tempest; Tamsey
ping!

Hb
129 posted on 01/11/2004 4:44:29 PM PST by Hoverbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson