CALIFORNIA DREAMING..
Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 09:29AM I see that Californian Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared a fiscal emergency and called the state's politicians into a special session to address California's $11bn deficit.
The state's revenue gap is expected to hit $28bn over the next 19 months without bold action. The emergency declaration authorises the governor and politicians to change the existing budget within the next 45 days. Without quick action, the state is likely to run out of cash in February. Schwarzenegger and Democrats have proposed a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, but Republican politicians are steadfast in their refusal to raise taxes.
Quite right too. Ar-nuld is a RINO and I would let him and his Dem allies sort out the mess over which the have presided. How did California get into such a state and is this a template that Obama will replicate?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (43)
So what they mean is, "We're a bunch of irresponsible spendthrifts and cannot control ourselves with others people's money. So we're gonne take more of it."
David,
When Arnold was first elected, I was spending some time in Washington DC- work related.
The Republicans I worked with at the ime, were delighted that Arnold had run and won.
When did thise change?
California state budget expenditures are not indexed to revenues.
Politicians in Sacramento do not have to balance the budget. They can spend as much as they like, regardless of incoming funds. Historically, when the budget deficit is too large, California politicians raise taxes.
In the late 1990's, the internet bubble burst, drying up much of California's tax revenues; in 2000, there was an electricity shortage, trippling the cost of electricity for Californians.
The state was out of money and voters were fed up.
Signatures were gathered and a recall election was held. Voters were asked to vote on the recall of the then Gov. Gray Davis (D), and to vote on his replacement. 135 individuals ran for Governor (!), including Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).
(I know a real estate agent who ran for Governor just because he thought it would increase his name recognition and help future home sales.)
Some Republicans voted for Arnold because they felt that he would be able to "cross the aisle" and work with the Dem. majority in Sacramento.
Arnold was very lucky. He came into office, and California's economy recovered; the housing market boomed. Tax revenues were plentiful, once again; politicians in Sacramento spent with total disregard to the future revenues, once again.
But (metaphorically), it's winter, once again -- the grasshoppers in Sac. have no nuts stored; they have to raise taxes! (or get federal money)
Arnold should have passed a law requiring that the state budget balance, that expenditures be indexed to the revenues -- so that when the tax revenues dry up, the expenditure side of the balance sheet shrinks proportionately.
But, he didn't. And now we are stuck.
If "Republican" represents fiscal conservatism, then Arnold Schwarzenegger is not much of a Republican.
For that matter, based on all of this bail-out nonsense, I would argue that both McCain and Pres. Bush are RINOs.
California should not be bailed out. We need to sort the budget mess out on the State level without Federal "help."
Patty
Name me a republican that really represents fiscal conservatism
Give California back to Mexico. They've re-colonised it anyway.
Sean
John McCain
Sean: Tom McClintock (R- CA )
The RINO tag is applied to actual republicans with popular support (McCain, Bush etc.) by those who favor republicans with little popular support (McClintock gathered less than 14% of the vote when he ran for governor).
We'll see, Mahons...the Republican Party is in the middle of an identity crisis having lost a few elections. (thanks to the RINO's, I believe)
The so called RINOs saved the Party from total annihilation. But no one should write off the party, it will bounce back. These things happen in cycles.
"The so called RINOs saved the Party"
This is just one side of the current debate. The other side thinks that the RINO's (or COuntry Club Republicans) are the problem, not the solution.
The RINO's are the Republicans who abandoned fiscal conservatism, losing seats in Congress.
If Republicans abandon Conservative principles, what are they? Why bother?
Abandoning fiscal conservatism was an immense factor in the loss. And its not just country club guys--that crook Sen. Stevens in Alaska couldn't really be called that and he was the biggest gangster of them all with the Stevens/Palin Bridge to Nowhere.
The people you label RINOS happen to have carried your party's flag in the last three elections and creamed the oppostion in their own party each time. In addition, they won two out of three of the last general elections and made a good showing in this recent one.
Mahons, McCain (RINO) lost. And other Republicans (RINOS) lost in the Congress.
It's not enough to say that RINOs won the Party nomination so they must be the future of the Party! Or, to say that Bush, and McCain were RINO's so this is the future of the Party!
You're basically saying that the Republicans should keep doing the same thing by picking RINOs and then, keep losing elections.
What's the point of a two party system if one party (RINO) is just a poor copy of the other? (Dem.)
That's not much of a winning strategy.
Patty - No. If you look again you will see how I mentioned that an alleged RINO won two out of the last three general elections, and another alleged RINO made a damned good showing in the third despite a collapsing economy and unpopular war. Had McCain picked another alleged RINO for a running mate it might have even been closer.
If the party wants to win it has to look to the center, if it wants to whine, it can look to the far right.
Patty
I think that the Republicans lost this one due to
the financial crisis, which, fairly or not, was blamed on them
the real and perceived incompetence of the Bush Administration
wild and insane spending by Republicans
The first was a bipartisan thing for the most part and is a hit you must take if it happens on your watch
The other two are 100% to be laid at the feet of the Republican Party - incl those who paved the way for a pretty inept guy like Bush to be in charge - and to all the senior leadership in the House and Senate who stole everything not nailed out when they had the chance to do so.
If the Republicans were restored to power tomorrow morning, a GOP Congress would resume stealing. This is a very big issue to many people.
These are centrist positions - as are most of the social conservative things too, as California and Prop 8 teach us. This is a center right nation.
Phantom: " a GOP Congress would resume stealing. This is a very big issue to many people."
I agree. This is why Republicans are now losers. At a minimum, this issue creates indifference in the typical Republican voter. Afterall, why vote, and why contribute/support candidates who steal, just like the other guy?
If Republican leadership supported SHRINKING the govt. there would at least be fewer thieves, but certainly Bush, and McCain were not up to the task.
And Bush and McCain are very pro-govt. expansion as the "bail-out" illustrates.
Mahons: I assume you mean Bush when you say "alleged RINO?"
Bush won because of the enthusiastic support of Social Conservatives.
Not because he was a centrist.
Its not just shrinking the government, though I am for that.
If money were spent wisely, you could make a strong case for spending more of it.
When you see for example the European train systems on the continent ( not England, which has gone astray with their costs and issues )- they're subsidized, but I would kill to have an Amtrak of that quality from coast to coast, and would not mind paying for it.
I could think of up to ten major mass transit or freight rail projects just in the Northeast that could create jobs, unclog roads, and ultimately save a ton of fuel/foreign dependance on bad regimes like Venezuela or Saudi.
We're in a lose-lose situation where there is high tax and poor services in many areas and in many places.
Patty - Yes, enthusiastic conservatives helped him. They seem less enthusiastic now.
Mahons,
I am currently reading Thomas Frank's " The Wrecking Crew- How Conservaties Rule." Written in his usual humourous, or should that be, bemused tone, he picks apart, and explains how the conservatives deliberately wrecked havoc, fiscally and politically, with the end result of self-destructing.
Among other things- he calls the latest GOP experiment with democracy- 'Fantastic Misgovernment"
Only into the third chapter- but the best line so far:
" Michelle Malkin, a concervative pundit with the appearance of a Bratz doll and the soul of Chucky" !!!!
Pinky - Tom Frank was at my sister's wedding (15 years ago) since he was a good friend of my brother-in-law, so I am always amused that someone I've met a couple times has achieved a degree of notority. He is a smart guy, but not always a wise one in my opinion. I bought his premise a bit more in his Kansas tome than I do in the recent work which seems to be more about staking his place among the opinionists (but I haven't read it, just of it).
'What's the Matter with Kansas' is a great book on US politics- political voting behaviours.
One of my favourites, Mahons.
( Frank is a wee bit too left and cynical for me, sometimes!)
Mahons -
If you look again you will see how I mentioned that an alleged RINO won two out of the last three general elections, and another alleged RINO made a damned good showing in the third despite a collapsing economy and unpopular war.
But so what? Conservatism has still taken a beating. You're conflating the Republican Party with conservatives (which so many do here) when the fortunes of the GOP and Tories are irrelevent.
Look at the American debt. Like here, it's very rapidly moving to where it won;t be repayable. This is not a theoretical debt, or something that doesn't concern Americans. Even if it stopped growing today, future generations of Americans will have to work damned hard to pay it off.
In short, neither Americans nor Britons can afford their goverments. They are rapidly bankrupting us and RINOs have played their full part in that - who gives a damn for the prospects of a few very wealthy individuals at the head of the GPO when hundreds of millions of Americans not yet even born are in debt?
So what if the GOP could only gain power with RINOs at its head - which I strongly disagree with. The point is that fiscal conservatives are right, however many votes they might gain today. Without fiscal conservatism the United States is on a slow but certain decline.
Pete: You can strongly disagree with it, but it happens to be fact. Far right candidates have gotten destroyed these last few decades, in their own Republican Party mind you.
Oh, and Pete, I am calling Bush and McCain alleged RINOs, I don't agree they are Republicans in name only. They are mainstream Republicans. I will say that the Republican party across the board, like the Democracts across the board, has provided blessed little leadership on fiscal responsibility.
Phantom -
When you see for example the European train systems on the continent ..... they're subsidized, but I would kill to have an Amtrak of that quality from coast to coast, and would not mind paying for it.
Americans don't have enough money to pay for such a network. European population densities mean passenger levels remain high enough to make it work.
The US is just too empty - although in my view no country can ever be too empty for civilised living.
Mahons -
'Far right'? Conservatives, constitutionalists and traditionalists maybe, but fiscal conservatives are not of the far right, and it ill behoves a far Left extremist to say so!
Maybe Bush and McCain represent mainstream republicanism today, but if so republicanism and conservatism have gone their seperate ways.
Pete - Reagan was certainly a conservative, and he had the fiscal responsibility of a pimp on payday.
Pete
I disagree.
The passenger system has regressed terribly since the early part of the 20th Century and some routes ( NY-Chicago ) are actually much slower than they were then.
Maybe you can't have Eurostar type service between Reno and Cheyenne, but there's no good reason you can't have it between NY and Chicago. And lots of other places.
And it doesn't have to be a bullet train everywhere. Other standard trains can work just fine, if they're on time all the time and go at a reasonable speed.
I was terribly impressed when in Belgium I had to take three connecting trains in order to wind up in Charleroi for the Ryanair plane to Dublin. Did NOT want to do it, as I was certain one of the first two trains would be late and screw the whole trip up.
But no. They were all right on time and I made the flight just fine. These were old carriages but so what. The system was coordinated wonderfully.
There's a huge unmet need for rail in the US now, esp with an aging population and the desire to be green.
Amtrak sucks but it is what we have. I think we should set the bar much higher.
fiscal conservatives are not of the far right,
Pete, until I first came to the United States, that is what I believed.I never associated fiscal conservatives with the far right.
When the culture wars (which I associate with the far right,) intensified however, fiscal conservatism took a back seat.
Thomas Frank talks about that a lot in his Kansas book ( although from a lefty critic standpoint). But he treats the culture war, fiscal conservatism dichotomy very well.
he had the fiscal responsibility of a pimp on payday.
LOL Classic.
Phantom -
Well the population density of the north east US is greater then elsewhere, but I was repsonding to your 'Amtrak from coast to coast' comment.
Of course, I cannot let it pass that the US has a coast to coast service and it was private energy and finance (and lots of Chinese labour) that made it happen.
But whatever way you cut it, going from coast to coast means going through lots of empty landscape.
Other than that, you're talking culture. Trains are much more deeply ingrained in the European conciousness than the American. European cities have rarely been built from scratch in the age of the motor car and stations are usually somewhere close to the centre of town.
Pinky -
I never associated fiscal conservatives with the far right.
Neither do I. Fiscal conservatives represent the sane centre. It just goes to show how far Left politics has moved in the last century.
As for the kulturkampf, it is a Leftist battle. It was launched against the prevailing conservative, patriarchal societies of the West. Reactionaries (a Bolshevik term) like me react against the Left. Conservatives never wanted a culture war, they wanted to conserve.
Of course, so great has been the Left Wing victory that they now represent the established orthodoxy.
"I never associated fiscal conservatives with the far right.
Neither do I. Fiscal conservatives represent the sane centre. It just goes to show how far Left politics has moved in the last century.""
Pete, I don't think the left or right can be blamed- I think the 'sane centre' got lost in the furor of the culture clash.
"As for the kulturkampf, it is a Leftist battle. It was launched against the prevailing conservative, patriarchal societies of the West. Reactionaries (a Bolshevik term) like me react against the Left. Conservatives never wanted a culture war, they wanted to conserve."
Pete, I am not sure that it is entirely true that it is a leftist battle. The culture war is like a tug-of war ( do you have them in England) where the sane centre just gets pulled one way then the other.
""Of course, so great has been the Left Wing victory that they now represent the established orthodoxy""
Why do you feel this way? What triumphs have the left established as othodoxy? ( Can of worms?)
The days of cheap Chinese ( and Irish, who built plenty on the east coast leg ) labor is gone and good for that. But that means that the new rail can only be done with a subsidy, which I'm cool with so long as the system is good and people actually ride the thing
I'm thinking mainly
NY-Chicago
Boston-NY-Washington-Richmond ( our best service now, but thats faint praise )
Florida
Toronto-Detroit-Chicago-Milwaukee-St Louis
Houston-Dallas-Austin
San Diego-LA-SF-San Jose
Pinky -
But the culture war has an origin. That origin lies in the revolutionary campaign launched against conservative, patriarchal hegemony (see? this leftist language is a doddle) which began in the early 20th Century in the West.
'Pinky -
But the culture war has an origin. That origin lies in the revolutionary campaign launched against conservative, patriarchal hegemony (see? this leftist language is a doddle) which began in the early 20th Century in the West.'
Pete, it was not necessarily a revolutionary campaign, but a natural development or evolution of society.
I am not sure I understand you correctly Pete, but are you railing against modernisation?
Where would you have liked history to stop?
Yes, I am railing against silly, daft 'modernisation'
Sometime before 1906 would do me fine. Don't think I'm joking.
'Yes, I am railing against silly, daft 'modernisation'
Sometime before 1906 would do me fine. Don't think I'm joking.'
But then Pete, you wouldn't get to call me names on the internet- you'd have to insult me by telegraph?
I meant telegram of course.
I would never insult a woman.
Not even if she couldn't cook, but I can't imagine any woman who isn't a natural in the kitchen.
''Not even if she couldn't cook, but I can't imagine any woman who isn't a natural in the kitchen.''
well some women are good at cooking in the kitchen- some others are good at some other hot and spicy things in the kitchen- then there are some of us who are just good at everything in the kitchen :-)