(California) New Governor pulls a double header

[Jobber of the Week 0]

For those who forgot or haven't kept up, the Republicans here won't let the Democrats raise taxes. The Democrats don't want all the cuts into social programs the Republicans want. Davis' ineptitude and Bustamante's ties to Indian casino money causes a freakin' action movie star to lead the world's sixth largest economy running on a "won't raise taxes unless an emergency requires it" pledge. We now join our circus in progress:

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said for the first time Thursday that Republican lawmakers and California voters would have to approve his still- incomplete "fiscal recovery'' plan or face higher taxes because he is unwilling to cut deeply into social programs.

 

The plan to issue a $15 billion bond to erase part of the state's debt has run into opposition from some lawmakers, including conservatives in Schwarzenegger's own party. In an interview with KFBK radio in Sacramento, the governor said his proposal is the only alternative to higher taxes.

 

"Well, I mean, you know, the Republicans have a choice. It is the fiscal recovery bond or raising taxes. That is the choice that is up to them, because I am only going to make cuts to a certain point,'' Schwarzenegger said.

 

"I'm not going to cut dog food for blind people,'' he added, referring to state assistance for seeing-eye dogs. "It won't happen. I'm not going to take prosthetics from people with disabilities and all that stuff. There is a certain point where I stop."

 

The GOP governor also said voters should be given a choice.

 

"Let the people have the power. Let them say we want a recovery bond, or we want an increase in taxes," Schwarzenegger said.

 

The governor ran on a no-new-taxes platform but early in his campaign was careful not to promise that he would never raise taxes.

 

"It's the first time he's mentioned the possibility of taxes, but I think it's a message more for the Republicans than us," said state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, a San Francisco Democrat.

 

A spokesman for Schwarzenegger later sought to clarify what the governor meant during the radio interview.

 

"If people think they can fix the state's fiscal problems by opposing the refinancing bond and, instead, putting tax increases on the March ballot, they are living on a different planet than the one the voters of California were on this year,'' said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger's Department of Finance.

 

Besides raising the specter of a tax increase, Schwarzenegger's position on spending reductions makes it even more difficult to close the state's cash gap, which the GOP governor estimates at more than $24 billion over the next 18 months.

 

In a second day of grilling by lawmakers, Schwarzenegger administration officials said that even if the $15 billion bond is placed on the March 2004 ballot and approved by voters, the shortfall won't be closed without another $10 billion in cuts.

 

Throughout his campaign, Schwarzenegger pledged not to cut support for public schools, which accounts for more than one-third of state spending. Health and social programs represent the next biggest chunk of the budget.

 

For GOP lawmakers, a bond is a slightly lesser evil than a tax increase, although some refuse to vote for either.

 

State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks (Ventura County), said a third choice exists. If state spending is reduced by 13.5 percent between now and the end of 2004, he contends, the deficit will be wiped out.

 

"This is one legislator who believes that most families at one time or another have had to cut their budget by 13.5 percent or more. It is not pleasant, but it's also not impossible, and its not permanent,'' said McClintock, who challenged Schwarzenegger in the recall race.

 

"If you face your financial problems squarely, they go away, but if you paper them over with borrowing, you drag them into the future. That's the choice before state government,'' said McClintock.

 

At least one lobbyist wants voters to have a choice on the March ballot, claiming it is consistent with Schwarzenegger's position.

 

Lenny Goldberg of the California Tax Reform Association encourages placing a temporary tax increase on the state's wealthiest citizens.

 

That would yield $2 billion to$3 billion in new revenue each year, Goldberg predicts.

 

After intense questioning by the Senate Budget Committee, a top Schwarzenegger budget aide pledged to present lawmakers a detailed budget proposal next week -- just 10 days before the deadline to place the package on the March ballot.

 

Members of the Senate Budget Committee bored into the new GOP governor's proposal for the general obligation bond and a cap on state spending, noting that even if approved by voters, the two actions would leave another $10 billion cash hole.

 

Several senators worried that because Schwarzenegger has so far provided them with only a general idea of his strategy, it will be difficult to meet the Dec. 5 deadline to place measures on the ballot.

 

But Mike Genest, chief deputy of the Department of Finance, assured senators the administration will spell out its plan next week.

 

Genest said the administration isn't sure what debts would be erased with the $15 billion bond, other than a proposed $10.7 billion bond that was the centerpiece of this summer's budget deal but now is under court challenge.

 

As to what obligations would be retired with the remaining $4.3 billion of the new bond, Genest said no decision has been made. Nor did he offer specifics on how Schwarzenegger's proposed spending cap would work.

 

Schwarzenegger estimates that, if the bond is approved by voters, another $10 billion cash shortage remains. He wants to close some of it with $2 billion in midyear cuts but hasn't said what those would be.

 

Genest said Schwarzenegger wants to work with lawmakers on a list of proposed cuts.

 

Burton acknowledged that "the governor proposes, and the Legislature disposes. In a special session, the governor submits a plan and we react to it, " he said.

 

Genest referred to the debt as "inherited,'' which drew the ire of Sen. Jack Scott, D-Altadena (Los Angeles County).

 

"We inherited $3 billion more in debt by the acts of Gov. Schwarzenegger, '' Scott said, referring to the executive order reducing vehicle license fees issued Monday. "Instead of charging car owners, we're now charging every Californian.''

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGFE3809Q1.DTL

 

Of course, he's already getting testy:

 

After three days of congenial meetings and calls for bipartisanship, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reverted to "Terminator" mode on Thursday, threatening legislators with "severe casualties" in the March and November elections if they fight his economic plans.

 

On his fourth day in office, lawmakers complained again about the lack of details in Schwarzenegger's plan, while the new governor traveled to Los Angeles to urge voters to pressure the Legislature to enact his proposals.

 

The Republican chief executive returned to the talk radio shows that helped elect him and spoke at a rally celebrating his order repealing the state car tax increase. The rally was hosted by two talk radio hosts at a San Fernando Valley auto dealership.

 

At each appearance, he called for legislators to adopt his plan to cut $11 billion from the workers' compensation system and to act by Dec. 5 to put a constitutional spending limit and a bond of up to $15 billion on the March ballot.

 

He told talk radio audiences that lawmakers are facing their "first test" of how they would react to the historic Oct. 7 election that recalled former Gov. Gray Davis and elected him.

 

"Have they gotten the point that politics as usual has to be dead for California to succeed?" he asked on the "Tom Sullivan Show" on KFBK radio in Sacramento. "If they didn't get it, there will be some severe casualties comes election in March. There will be some severe casualties on their side comes election in November."

 

Reminding lawmakers that he "won in almost every county," Schwarzenegger vowed to campaign "up and down the state."

 

In Sacramento, Senate President Pro Tem John Burton snapped at Schwarzenegger's threats, saying the governor "hasn't got a plan."

 

The San Francisco Democrat joined others in complaining about the lack of details in the governor's proposals, saying Schwarzenegger has yet to explain the $2 billion in spending cuts he wishes to make.

 

Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Santa Ana, said Schwarzenegger's remarks signaled a return to "politics as usual."

 

Dunn said Schwarzenegger's threats "won't bother us one iota. ... We have serious problems. We will not react to partisan politics that do not help solve our huge problem."

 

Senate Majority Leader Don Perata, D-Alameda, said Schwarzenegger needs to recognize that the Legislature's job is to "provide the check and the balance" by questioning his plans.

 

"We are not stupid," Perata said. "We know we lost that election, but we are going to do our job."

 

But he pointed out that lawmakers were also elected.

 

"He may have gotten more votes," Perata said. "But I got here the same way that he did, and so did everybody else."

 

For a second day, lawmakers complained that they didn't have enough information about Schwarzenegger's proposals, especially with a Dec. 5 deadline for approving measures for the March ballot.

 

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, some members were miffed by the absence of Schwarzenegger's finance director, Donna Arduin. Dunn said her absence at the committee's first hearing on the budget package, "sends the absolute incorrect message."

 

Dunn told Mike Genest, chief deputy director for the department, that he considered Arduin to be a "figurehead."[

 

Department spokesman H.D. Palmer later called Dunn's remark "outrageous. ... It was offensive. It was insulting. It was beneath the dignity of the Senate."

 

He said that Arduin paid a courtesy call Wednesday on Budget Committee Chairman Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata. Arduin said at that meeting that she would appear before the committee next Tuesday.

 

Palmer said Arduin couldn't attend Thursday because she was meeting with Cabinet secretaries to talk about the budget.

 

Arduin ruffled some feathers in an Assembly Budget Committee hearing Wednesday by departing after 25 minutes for a meeting with Schwarzenegger.

 

Schwarzenegger needs two-thirds of the Legislature's approval by Dec. 5 to put the spending limit and bond on the ballot.

 

He's also seeking a 134-page revision of the California workers' compensation system, and has said he wants to make at least $2 billion in spending cuts.

 

The governor said Thursday he'd have to make "some severe cuts," but he warned Republicans there is a limit to how deeply he would slash the state's budget.

 

"The Republicans have a choice," he said on the Sacramento talk radio show. "It is the fiscal recovery bond or raising taxes. That is a choice that is up to them, because I am only going to make cuts to a certain point."

 

He singled out two spending cuts Davis proposed and then withdrew because of criticism, saying he wouldn't eliminate state spending on artificial limbs for the poor and food for guide dogs used by the blind.

 

Noting that the estimated debt is $28 billion, he said, "You can't cut all of this by cutting programs."

 

He said he would "sit down next week" with lawmakers and accountants to consider various spending cuts.

 

"We all know California is facing an unprecedented financial disaster," he said. "The problems are sobering. The situation is urgent, and the need for action is immediate."

 

Earlier, Schwarzenegger told a crowd of about 600 at a rally that many lawmakers oppose his proposal for a bond of as much as $15 billion because "they want to increase your taxes. The politicians, all they know is to raise your taxes when they get into trouble."

 

Lawmakers have asked about the size of the bond. They've also questioned whether voters would be likely to approve borrowing on that unprecedented scale and also pass a bond of more than $12 billion for school construction that is set for the March ballot.

 

Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Simi Valley, suggested Thursday that the deficit bond could run afoul of a constitutional provision that requires general obligation bonds to pay for specific projects, such as highways or parks.

 

He said that such borrowing was not intended to put future generations into debt for "past mistakes."

 

Lawmakers also want to know more about the governor's proposal for a spending limit and midyear budget reductions. Genest said that the administration would provide specifics next week.

 

He also said Schwarzenegger's budget proposal in January for the coming fiscal year would recommend even more cuts.

 

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/sto...p-8764251c.html

 

 

 

Well, I say, I think we're about fucked.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I mean, the Republicans wanted Arnold as their governor because of the ® next to his name... now, they're getting Arnold, the man, who may be a fiscal conservative, but is realizing that it's hard to balance a budget on the back of cutting programs he supports. Yeesh, yeah, it looks like you're fucked either way.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Reminds me of when Bloomberg won NYC -- Saw some Republicans going "We won again! We won again!"

 

Uhhh, yeah.

 

Just about anywhere else in America, except of course California, Bloomberg would be running as Democrat.

 

(Not comparing Arnold to Bloomer -- just how some GOP'ers acted afterward in each election.)

 

Love the "I won't cut social spending" garbage that I normally hammer Dems with -- I'm sure there is NOTHING to cut at all regarding California's budget. All that tax money is going right to what it's intended for...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, Arnie's a huge supporter of schools, yet we throw an amazing, absolutely mind-boggling amount of money at schools and can't get out of the 40s in the top schools grading.

 

Perhaps we could save some money if the kids of the families crossing the border were taught English, instead of having special education to learn everything in Spanish. But don't even consider saying that in anything more than a hushed tone...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Didn't they try to do something about that in a Bilingual education referendum some years back?

 

Or did another extremist judge rule that unconstitutional, a la Prop 187?...

[Guest Cerebus]

Perhaps we could save some money if the kids of the families crossing the border were taught English, instead of having special education to learn everything in Spanish. But don't even consider saying that in anything more than a hushed tone...

Unless I'm being my completely thick to sarcasm (like before) I'm surprised to read this coming from you Jobber.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Jobber can surprise you, especially if he's talking about politics from his home state...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It suprises me too how much of a Republican I can be on state issues. I'm not sure if I'm always like that, or if it's more because I live in California.

 

I'm sure my view of immigration would be different if I lived in another state. That's why I forgave Howard Dean for endorsing Gray Davis' licenses for illegals because "I wouldn't want a bunch of people running around not knowing how to drive, either." The people crossing HIS border over into Vermont are not exactly well below the poverty line and coming in huge droves.

 

At the same time, I swear that I can't imagine any other state where a guy at a Gubernatorial debate will say: "We loosely use this word, I think totally inappropriately, illegal. No one is going to arrest them. If somebody is illegal, you arrest them. But nobody is going to arrest them because they are essential to California. Everybody knows they are here to stay. They are part of our family. We have to end this apartheid system that we have toward them. They are part of our community and are essential to our economy. I really object to this term illegal."

 

Now, we're only calling them illegal because they, you know, BROKE THE LAW. I know I'm not the only one who's pissed off by this. Legally-immigrated Latinos have even mentioned how THEY can't get any work because employers find the illegals so much cheaper. It's shit like when the people of San Francsico wake up and decide that if they give more money to homeless, more homeless will come to the city for money, so they pass the "Care Not Cash" program and then some bleeding heart judge comes in and strikes it down, telling the people it's unconstitutional and they don't have a say in matters like that.

 

Unlike the Democrats at my state level, I don't really hate business. Unlike the Republicans at our Federal level, I don't trust business enough to let it police itself.

 

So yes, the more I think about it, the more likely it is that I should have registered non-party. But I keep hoping the rest of the nation's Democrats aren't as dim as the ones here. Universal Health Care is about as socialist as I get.