Schwarzenegger Declares Fiscal Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.

wingman

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,196
Location
texas
Schwarzenegger Declares Fiscal Crisis



By TOM CHORNEAU, Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) declared California in a fiscal crisis Thursday and invoked emergency powers so he could impose $150 million in spending cuts without the Legislature's approval.



"I had to do this," Schwarzenegger said at a news conference announcing the move.

The cuts, expected to come from social service programs, free up money for city and county governments that have lost more than $300 million since the governor voided an unpopular tripling of the state's car tax.

During his campaign to oust Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites), Schwarzenegger promised to eliminate the tax hike Davis and the Legislature had agreed to in July. Repealing the tax was Schwarzenegger's first official act as governor last month, but he has yet to replace the billions of dollars the tax would have generated for local government services, particularly police and fire services.

The same budget agreement that increased the car tax gave the governor the power to cut this year's budget without legislative approval.

Some legislators said Thursday they were surprised by the emergency declaration and said it is the wrong way to react to budget problems.

"I think a lot of us are worried about where he's going to get the money from," said Democratic Assemblyman Joe Nation. "I don't think you get yourself out of a hole by digging deeper — his action just means that there will be more devastating cuts down the road."

Although some Democrats have questioned the legality of Schwarzenegger's move, Democratic state Controller Steve Westly — who will be the one to issue the checks to local officials — said he supports the idea and believes it is legal.

"Our police officers and firefighters must not be held hostage," Westly said. "This is an appropriate but temporary solution. The governor and the Legislature now have six months to cut waste and solve California's fiscal crisis."

Schwarzenegger has sponsored legislation to repay cities and counties with reserve funds, but Democrats — who form the majority in both houses — say the state can't afford the expense without imposing deep cuts that they won't do.

The administration has said that cuts to cover the lost revenue from the car tax probably will come from social service programs.

A few weeks ago, Schwarzenegger had proposed suspending a civil rights law known as the Lanterman Act, a measure that guarantees care for the disabled, but administration officials said the governor has changed his mind about cutting millions in services for the developmentally disabled.

Another key issue in the recall of Davis and election of Schwarzenegger was Davis' handling of the state's multibillion-dollar budget deficit. Last week, he a reached a bipartisan agreement with Democrats to place a $15 billion bond and new spending limits on the March ballot.

A Wall Street rating agency, Fitch Ratings, lowered the state's bond rating Thursday to just above junk-bond status. Moody's Investors Service made a similar move Dec. 9.
 
Maybe we could cut a little out of the private jet for Sheriff Lee Baca or the chaufferred limos the top officials get. Cut out some of their entourage on their fact finding junkets. Honest, if we just rethought how we treat our royalty we may not have to deprive the commoners or raise taxes. Top city officials (city of 60K souls) make salaries around $250k, and there are perks. School admin six figure salaries. The list is quite long. Eventually it adds up to real money.
 
"I think a lot of us are worried about where he's going to get the money from," said Democratic Assemblyman Joe Nation. "I don't think you get yourself out of a hole by digging deeper — his action just means that there will be more devastating cuts down the road."

Spending = digging.
Stop spending = stop digging.

I think Democratic Assemblyman Joe Nation is confused.
 
'Twould gladden an old taxpayers heart if he cut legislators' salaries & perks to the bone... His included, of course...:D bicycles instead of limos,f'r instance.:neener:
Tom
 
Arnie is taking no salary.

He has proposed making the legislature part time, as it used to be until about 1960; if they had to keep real jobs in the private sector to make ends meet and were only in Sacto part time, (a) they'd have real-world experience of what their regulations and taxes do to the rest of us, and (b) they'd only have time to work on legislation that was really needed, not sit around dreaming up stupid laws to reward their supporters and screw their opponents.
 
He has proposed making the legislature part time, as it used to be until about 1960;
I didn't know the Legislature used to be part time, but I sure like the idea. Also, according to what I've read, Davis hired more State workers in his term than the previous 30 years combined. If that's true, it seems like Arnold could get a PR campaign going on getting the state gov workforce back to what it was 5 years ago. I certainly haven't seen any benefits from the bloated workforce -- I've only seen increased regulations and taxes.
 
Arnie just might pull this off. He isn't really beholden to anybody. If he can take his position to the people and make it believable good. I see lots of people running scared for their cushy phony balony jobs. If he pulls it off in California everybody better take notice. DC will be next.
 
DC will be next.


Maybe, but not as President. Actually, I kinda hope not since Sen. Schwarzenegger be real "moderate" on RKBA issues, to the point of selling out the 2nd, save for rifles and shotguns.
 
But the disabled, elderly, young, pre-natal, minority, and school-aged populations would DIE if Sacramento was not in business full time. :rolleyes:

The budget will be balanced by pulling Grammies respirator and by starving daycare attendees.:rolleyes:
 
He doesn't have a clue about what to do about the crisis, just more of robbing Peter to pay Paul. We're begining a cyclical recovery anyway, and that might raise enough taxes to prevent disaster. Then I suppose everyone will give him credit for it.

The longer I live, the less faith I have in my fellow citizens.
 
"...just more of robbing Peter to pay Paul."

If done correctly it will be closer to having Peter pay restitution for what he has been getting away.
 
If he pulls it off in California everybody better take notice. DC will be next.
Maybe, but not as President.
I think he meant that if it works in California, DC Republicans would take notice and follow suit, resulting in tax cuts on the federal level. I don't think he meant Arnold would go to the Senate or House, though I do see how it could be read that way.

Which did you mean, Bruce?
 
If Arnold pulls fiscal sanity off in California the rest of the country better look. They are in a really deep hole. How much does he have to lop off of every program that was passed to buy votes? I seem to remember an article by McClintock stating that a fifteen percent cut would do it. At least he is going to try something instead of whining and complaining like the general politician does.


Is Malone about to get pinkslipped? Studying why water runs downhill, indeed.
 
He doesn't have a clue about what to do about the crisis
Here's one clue, given by my State Senator (who is one guy in the state legislature that I don't mind paying to hang around full time):

---------------
Senator Tom McClintock
Date: December 1, 2003
Publication Type: Column

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.

Senator Tom McClintock represents the 19th State Senate District in the California Legislature. His website address is www.sen.ca.gov/mcclintock.
 
Arnie to the state of California: "Come with me if you want to live".

Oh, wait, that was from Terminator 2...
 
Since about 90% of most of the PRK's social programs are a pure waste, lopping off 15% shouldn't be that bad..

Ask JFK use to say, if you want more money for the government; LOWER TAXES..
 
El Tejon-

That's why Ahnie declared a "State Fiscal Emergency" - almost all the 'mandated' spending has an out to temporarily suspend the mandatory percentages or increases in this case.

And you're right - but it isn't just Kalifornistan that has abdicated legislative oversight on spending, the Feds do the same. Something like 75% of the Fed budget is actually mandated UNLESS Congress specifically votes to end or decrease it.

Yes, it's an argument against initiatives, but more of one against LEGISLATIVE initiatives. Most of Kalifornistan's mandated spending initiatives were placed on the ballot by a legislature looking for a way to pretend THEY didn't vote for it, the VOTERS did, what can WE do?? :scrutiny: :uhoh:

Most CITIZEN initiatives have been to STOP or limit spending; the 'racism' charge will usually foil them, and a friendly court will usually gut the ones that do pass as being 'discriminatory.'

:banghead: :banghead: :cuss: :fire:
 
O yeah. I remember them quite well.

The Clean Air, Clean Water, Old Growth Conservation, and Healthy Baby Act of 2000. Who would vote against that? It created a park in San Francisco, bought some coastal property, and saved the redwoods. Cost: ~$3Billion.

There are many other insidious shennanigans going on as well. Remember the Healthy Families program? Health "insurance" for the very low income. Red Davis raised the limit for annual income to $44,000 to qualify. Wow. Why would I pay for health insurance if they give it away for free?

Oh, so many other examples.
 
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) declared California in a fiscal crisis Thursday and invoked emergency powers...

Elsewhere, President Bush is heard to query, "You can do that?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top