Feinstein, Boxer announce support for Schwarzenegger bond plan

AP via San Francisco Chronicle ^ | February 10, 2004 | Associated Press

[calcowgirl]

California's two Democratic senators on Tuesday endorsed Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's bond plan, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein warning of dire consequences if it fails.

The boosts from Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer came on the same day the Democratic leaders of the state Legislature also backed Propositions 57 and 58, which would authorize $15 billion of borrowing and require balanced budgets and a reserve fund in the future.

[calcowgirl]

It just gets better and better. /sarcasm

[calcowgirl]

Boxer said, "I have been convinced by Republican and Democratic officials who deal with this crisis every day that this is the one solution that they agree on to address the state's fiscal problems."

I wonder which Republican officials she is referring to.

[Digger]

Funny how whenever it comes to YOUR money these pols can ALL agree to not force cutting. You tell me this isn't the "Two-Party Cartel" shafting the taxpayers.

[SunStar]

Feinstein, Boxer announce support for Schwarzenegger bond plan

Hmm...

Nancy Pelosi also supports it. Tom McClintock doesn't.

I guess I can safely give Schwarzenegger the middle finger on this one... LOL

[SunStar]

I wonder which Republican officials she is referring to.

Not Tom McClintock.

[Jerry Attrick]

Obviously this is an ill-conceived plan.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Vote NO on Prop 57


The 13% Solution
As printed in the Wall Street Journal

"Have you ever had to make serious cuts – 15 percent or more – in your family budget because of an unexpected job-loss or unforeseen expense? It’s not pleasant, but it's not impossible. And it's also not permanent. As long as you’re willing to face your financial problems squarely, you can be sure that the hard times won't last forever and things will improve.

But if you're not willing to face those problems – if you paper over your debt by borrowing and continue to spend as if that debt didn’t exist -- those hard times will follow you far into the future.

State government is no different. And as the new administration decides which road it will take, it is important to understand the simple math of the state’s finances.

California’s current budget deficit is caused by two actions Davis took last year to paper over his mismanagement: he illegally tripled the car tax and he attempted to borrow $12.6 billion unconstitutionally.

Governor Schwarzenegger rescinded the illegal tax increase on his first day in office. It’s important to note the word "illegal." Not one of the conditions required to raise the car tax had been met, and it was only a matter of time before the courts ordered the money to be returned to taxpayers with interest. By acting now, he saved California from having a multi-billion dollar hole blown in a future budget by court order.

But repairing this problem requires that local governments be reimbursed for their losses. In addition, the courts have already invalidated $1.9 billion of Davis’ borrowing plan, further deepening the deficit.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, these developments mean that the state will end up spending $76.9 billion this year, with only $74.2 billion in revenue.

It gets worse. The courts are also poised to strike down the additional $10.7 billion of borrowing in Davis' last budget. It is not a pleasant financial situation. But it is also not impossible.

If the current rate of state spending were reduced 13.4 percent on January 1st and frozen through Gov. Schwarzenegger's first budget, the state would be back in the black, free and clear of external debt, and able to start the Governor's second year in 2005 with a clean slate.

A 13.4 percent reduction would mean cutting $5.2 billion from this year’s budget before January 1 and setting next year's budget at $66.6 billion. That’s a big cut – and it means giving up billions of dollars of programmed spending increases next year. But it's still 15.2 percent more than California was spending when Gray Davis took office. And after 18 months of austerity, the Governor would be able to plan his second budget with $12 billion of breathing room in 2005 when revenues are projected to reach $78.6 billion.

Like a family that has faced its finances squarely and tightened its belt, California would be solidly back on its feet and looking toward a sunny future.

The alternative is to borrow the difference at heavy rates of interest over the next generation. Like a family that can’t bear to change its ways, it would end up dragging its financial difficulties into future years as it struggles to meet its current expenses and pay down a crushing credit card debt as well.

These are the two roads diverging in the budget woods and the choice that is made in coming weeks may well determine whether California has the fresh financial start it deserves, or whether the ghost of Davis' excesses stalks a generation to come."

Tom McClintock

[calcowgirl]

Don't forget the SEIU, CTA and other union organizations.(thugs)

Related Thread: State Democratic Party endorses Schwarzenegger's March ballot measures

(I just couldn't resist posting the Boxer/Feinstein/Schwarzenegger headline... it kind of grabs you.)

[heleny]

I wonder which Republican officials she is referring to.

Many GOP Assemblymen supported placing the measures on the ballot. The GOP state Senate mostly did not.

[heleny]

So, those officials were probably the Senate/Assembly minority leader, Gov. Schwarzenegger, and perhaps party leaders who support Schwarzenegger.

[DumpsterDiver]

I guess I can safely give Schwarzenegger the middle finger on this one... LOL

OK, but I've got dibs on Feinstein and Boxer. A Double Digit salute for the Dynamic Duo.

[BurbankKarl]

another reason to vote no......on all four measures

[BurbankKarl]

another reason to vote no......on all four measures

[kellynla]

Two more reasons to vote "NO!"

[Carry_Okie]

Just think: The Ardroids have something in common with...
Barbara Boxer!?!

Be still my bleeding heart.

"Fiscal conservative" my butt.

[Carry_Okie]

Hmmf! Shoulda been Arndroids.

Not my day today.

[Dog Gone]

Arnold appears to be trying to ease into fiscal conservatism with these two measures. The spending caps seem like a pretty good idea to me, but it appears that he doesn't want to cause the political and economic dislocation that would occur with immediate spending cuts.

A 15% spending cut would be disruptive. It would increase unemployment because state workers would have to be laid off.

I'm not at all disputing that California expenditures could be cut 15% or more and actually result in a better government. That definitely needs to happen.

But if it happens in one year, then I think Schwarzennegger is probably voted out in 2006. He might be anyway. There is no easy fix to California's budget and long-term energy problems.

I really don't know whether it's better to take the pain upfront or try to spread it out over a couple of decades, although it's always more politically attractive to postpone the pain with a credit card.

[Carry_Okie]

The spending caps seem like a pretty good idea to me,

Then all we have to do is abide by the Gann spending limits already in the California Constitution. Have you read them? I would suggest to you that they are tighter than ANYTHING Arnold and the current legislature would put on the ballot.

A 15% spending cut would be disruptive.

After a 45% increase in spending in only five years? Gimme a break.

It would increase unemployment because state workers would have to be laid off.

So? Maybe it will be THEM leaving the state instead of the people losing productive jobs because of them.

I really don't know whether it's better to take the pain upfront or try to spread it out over a couple of decades,

History proves that the latter is the prudent course. Remember Volker? It took two years of pain after Carter and we were off to the races.

[BurbankKarl]

They can start with the 40,000 they hired during the "hiring freeze"


>>>A 15% spending cut would be disruptive. It would increase unemployment because state workers would have to be laid off.

[Carry_Okie]

Me: Maybe it will be THEM leaving the state instead of the people losing productive jobs because of them.

Seeing as you think unemployed bureaucrats constitute such a tragedy, I am certain they would be more than welcome in the State of Texas. N'est pas?