Replies

It seems rather odd to me that McClintock would take to the floor of the senate on the eve of information coming out of Schwarzenegger's Budget Analysis Committee, revealing that suggestions for massing state staffing cuts, elimination of over 100 state commissions, and a rather heathy cut in state spending.

In effect McClintock's words were dated within 24 hours of them being uttered.

Let's presume the worst. Let's say none of these cuts take place. McClintock will come out looking pretty good. But if there are significant cuts, California's state employees are cut significantly, the budget is cut between $5 and $10 bilion per year and over 100 state commissions are disolved, then Tom's not going to come out looking pretty good.

Tom has gone on the record trashing Schwarzenegger's efforts to turn state politics around. If Schwarzenegger does turn state politics around, does bring spending under control, does balance the budget and pay down the debt, Tom's prognositications are going to ring hollow throughout the state and beyond.

Time will tell. I'll be rooting for Schwarzenegger's plan to work. I guess that makes me a star-struck person. I should probably join the others and hope like hell the predictions of his disasterous failures come true.

We'll see how things look by 2006. If things work out as Tom has predicted, perhaps I'll be voting for him in the 2006 primaries. If not, he's not going to have much political pull on me at the ballot box.

Well, this was a statement on the budget - a particular piece of legislation - not an assessment of how Arnold is doing in general. When looking at a budget, you have to go by the numbers in front of you, especially in light of the fact that there are no assurances that Arnold's CPR plans will come to fruition.

Tom McClintock is talking facts. You're spinning things.

>>>We'll see how things look by 2006.

By 2006?!

GovRino's rhetoric during the recall campaign gave many the impression that he would have the state turned around and back on track by the end of 2004, or sometime in 2005 at the latest. So far, Arnold has increased the size of the budget and hoodwinked people into voting for passage of an additional $15 billion in loan debt. A form of taxation that places a significant amount of the burden for payoff on the backs of future taxpayers.

I can appreciate your desire to see Arnold succeed. After all, you live in the state. I just thing your spin is misguided. Face it, you can't have it both ways and you definitely can't have it all.

Need I remind you of what Arnold said shortly after entering the recall race. Once the budget is back in the black, Arnold will be able to keep his pledge and fully fund all the social welfare and entitlement programs that the people want. That's tax and spend liberalism. That isn't fiscal conservatism. McClintock may not be in the drivers seat, but his rhetoric is right on the money.

I guess that makes me a star-struck person

Not only a a star-struck person but a disingenuous a star-struck person to boot.

You participated yesterday in the discussion of the yet unveiled proposal to redirect state spending to the private sector. You know the shift will accomplish some savings but not enough to offset the continued liberal binge to be approved by Schwarzenegger today.

One ballyhooed step forward to accomplish two quiet steps backward and Schwarzenegger's donor's get a pot of gold from the state to boot. A win-win deal, for liberals and big donors equally.

And to think that your blind party loyalty helped accomplish all this. Congratulations. Good for you and screw the rest of us.

Criticism of the Budget has everything to do with the fact that it is a BAD budget, and very little to do with Arnold personally. It increases the deficit and continues the dangerous practice of borrowing, despite "spending caps" and promises to "cut up the credit cards". The bills coming due a year and two years from now are looming in our future.

You realize that 10 out of 14 Republican Senators voted against this budget, right? Your support of the budget puts you clearly in the Republican minority, or on the side with the Democrats (only 1 of 25 democrat Senators voted against the budget). Perhaps you should take another look at whom you are aligning yourself with. It looks like you have teamed up beside the likes of Burton, Cedillo, Kuehl, Speier and the lot.

Republican Senators voting against the budget (10):

Aanestad, Battin, Bowen, Brulte, Denham, Hollingsworth, Margett, McClintock, Morrow, Oller, Poochigian

Republican Senators voting for the budget (4):

Ackerman, Ashburn, Johnson, McPherson

Democrat Senator voting against the budget (1):

Bowen

Democrat Senator voting for the budget (24):

Alarcón, Alpert, Burton, Cedillo, Chesbro, Ducheny, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Florez, Karnette, Kuehl, Machado, Murray, Ortiz, Perata, Romero, Scott, Sher, Soto, Speier, Torlakson, Vasconcellos, Vincent

Not Voting (1)

Vacancy (Republican - Knight*)
*may he rest in peace