Schwarzenegger to run for governor

[ralphwiggum 6]

reality check kicks in!

http://www.nbc4.tv/automotive/2544868/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]SACRAMENTO -- Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger won't be able to keep his promise to roll back the tripling of California's car tax without legislative approval -- at least not until the state's budget woes ease, a state attorney said Thursday.

"The short answer is he can't do it on his own," said Floyd Shimomura, chief counsel for the state Department of Finance.

<snip>

The tax cut bill that Wilson signed in 1998 when the state's coffers were bulging included a provision allowing officials to raise the tax without another vote of the Legislature when the state faced a financial crisis and couldn't continue to compensate cities and counties for their lost VLF revenue.

Rolling back the increase would cost those local governments about $4.2 billion a year and mean cuts in police, firefighting and other services, city and county leaders say.

Wilson's law never cut the tax rate, Shimomura said, which is still 2 percent of a vehicle's value. Instead, the state essentially agreed to pay two-thirds of the car tax by subsidizing local governments to make up for the lost revenue.

To cut motorists' tax bills when he takes office next month, Schwarzenegger will either have to persuade lawmakers to cut the tax rate or pare other programs to generate enough money to resume the local government subsidies, Shimomura said.

and who voted for this governator?

anyways, he announces his new transition team

http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/2543192/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]Partial list of Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger's transition committee:

Willie L. Brown Jr., San Francisco mayor.

Michael S. Carona, Orange County sheriff.

Susan Estrich, law professor, ran Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign.

Carly Fiorina, Hewlett-Packard chief executive officer.

James K. Hahn, Los Angeles mayor.

Bill Jones, former California secretary of state.

Richard Riordan, former Los Angeles mayor.

Gerry Parsky, President Bush's top California adviser.

George Shultz, former U.S. secretary of state.

Bill Simon, businessman, former gubernatorial candidate.

Pete Wilson, former California governor.

i have no idea why someone would want the last two to help them out.

[ralphwiggum 6]

tomorrow(monday, Nov 17th, 10am PST) is the inauguration day.

8000 invited guest in a 'low key' ceremony.

ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the new era of California.

and is it me or is it that T3 DVD came out just a few days ago? seems like the state gov't wants us to learn a thing or two about our new governor

note: one of the words on news is that the state deficit will be announced to be bigger than it was reported. is it because new 'audit' revealed more, or is it another way to exaggerate the problem, so in case it fails, Arnie has something to fall bac k on?

[ralphwiggum 6]

so far he has restored the vehicle registration tax rate, and got a budget cut powere by declaring a fiscal emergency. and today he makes State of State speach, which i think was a good example of lack of ideas.

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]Schwarzenegger, who swept into office in October vowing to fix the state's battered finances, said the bond plan was the best way to avoid new taxes or even deeper spending cuts. California needs the money to pay the bills when $14 billion of short-term notes come due in June.

"Together, we put measures on the March ballot that, if passed by the people, will save our state from a June bankruptcy," Schwarzenegger said in his speech.

"June is the month when billions of dollars in past loans come due and the financial house of cards built over the last half of the decade is set to collapse."

yea sure. threatening people works very well...obviously, he had no idea what the state of the state was before election, and afer election has little ideas either.

Quote[/b] ]Just hours before his speech to the legislature and television viewers, Schwarzenegger also received some good news from State Controller Steve Westly, who said the state is taking in more tax revenue than originally expected.

Current projections show the state has taken in $35.3 billion for the first six months this fiscal year, or $1.27 billion more than forecast due mainly to improved sales, corporate and personal income tax revenues, Westly said.

out of 35bil deficit, we might actually get 1.27bil reprieve. now where's rest of 33bil going?

http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/2742681/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]Lawmakers and lobbyists who have talked with Schwarzenegger in recent days say he will propose sweeping cuts. While the biggest targets might be public health and welfare programs, Schwarzenegger also intends on trimming some of the money due to public schools -- a move he promised not to make during the campaign.

"I expect him tomorrow to offer a very positive message," said Karen Hanretty, spokeswoman for the California Republican Party. "At the same time, there are very difficult decisions that face California and I think he will be very honest with voters about the decisions."

at least he got the idea of cutting expenditures. however, it's going to be a nice farce to see him trying to keep his words that he will not raise taxes. good luck on that. funny thing is Democrats opposed spending cut, and Republicans opposed tax increase. So far Arnie has reached agreement with Democrats in terms of asking for expenditure cut, but decided to keep taxes as is, which is republican's idea. good job with partisan politics.

[ozanzac 0]

On a scale of A to F. What's Arnie like to have as a governor so far?

[blackdog~ 0]

On a scale of A to F. What's Arnie like to have as a governor so far?

A hell of a lot better than Davis.

[ralphwiggum 6]

B-/C+

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]B-/C+

So, he's coping well considering the state budget is kangaroo-edward. (Roo-Ted)

Do you think some of the other candidates could have been capable or more capable of delivering what Arnold has promised, and has he thus far been more of a peoples champion, promising just about everything to everyone, or is he actually shaping up to be an effective politician?

[ralphwiggum 6]

problem with Arnie, as stated in this thread, is that he decided to go broad, without actual analytical work. for example, the 'repeal' of vehicle registration fee would undoubtly cut some fundings that would have gone to county and city levels. with his 'repeal' he had to find a way to not compromise the situations in lower levels, while dealing with limited budget.

furthermore, he came in as 'people's governor' which implied that he would 'terminate' bureaucrats and politicians. unfortuntly, running a company and a government is slightly different. you cannot just say 'do this' and they will follow it. he can say things about how politicians are blocking his way, but creating unhelpful results won't get the job done.

i say Bustamante was the best choice since he seemed to have some idea of how to deal with budget crisis(cut spending and raise taxes).

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/2753160/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled a $99.1 billion budget plan Friday, as he proposed cutting billions of dollars from public health and welfare programs while shifting another $1.3 billion in property taxes from local government to pay state expenses.

Schwarzenegger did not include any new taxes in the plan, but he did ask to impose higher fees on users of state parks and on college students.

"For the past five years, the politicians have made a mess of California's budget," Schwarzenegger said. "Now it's time to clean it up."

The biggest hits are aimed at the state's Medi-Cal program, which would lose close to $900 million next year. The state's program to bring welfare recipients into the work force is also targeted with an $800 million cut.

The loss of property tax money to local governments is a shift from Schwarzenegger's previous pledge to protect the governments that rely on that money. While proposing the $1.3 billion shift, the governor also proposes to maintain a $4 billion replacement for the car tax money.

Schwarzenegger's budget is also built on a rosy economic picture next year, projecting $2.9 billion in additional tax revenue to be available in 2004-2005.

When asked how he expected to convince Democratic legislatures to go along with his plan, Schwarzenegger said, "I don't have a specific plan on how to deal with each one of the legislatures and how many cigars I need to smoke with them. ... So far I haven't had a problem. These are all very reasonable people and Democrats and Republicans alike are interested in making this a better state. I think everyone is interested in working together and I think we have proven that we can do that."

Getting support for the spending plan won't be easy, as Schwarzenegger has surprised and angered local government officials who thought he would protect their sources of state revenue. Also, Democrats control both houses of the Legislature and have said the burden of the state's fiscal crisis shouldn't fall on the poor and disabled.

Local officials said they haven't studied the whole budget, but they're disappointed by the proposed property tax shift.

"Shifting property taxes has all sorts of negative concerns associated with it," said Pat Leary of the California State Association of Counties. "We need to know what else is piled on top of it."

NBC4's political analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe said that Schwarzenegger is faced with "reality that he's got to find money somewhere."

"The policies that he criticized during his campaign are exactly what he's using now," Bebitch Jeffe said.

The hit to public health includes caps on enrollments for the state's health insurance program for the poor and elderly. The governor also called for the elimination of some medical benefits for the poor and disabled.

University students would see higher fees, with undergraduates paying 10 percent more; there would be a 40 percent increase on graduate students. The plan also lowers the amount of financial aid available to middle-income students.

Community college students are being asked to pay an $8 per unit increase -- from $18 per unit to $26. Students there who already have bachelor degrees would pay $50 per unit.

Some social service advocates say tax increases should be used instead of spending cuts to solve the state's problems.

"I expect that there will still be hard hits on health programs that will hurt children and working families very hard," said Catherine Teare, spokeswoman for the Oakland-based advocacy group, Children Now. "I just don't see how this all gets done."

Indeed, according to estimates updated this week, the state will have a deficit of nearly $27 billion by June 2005 -- created by an existing deficit of $12.6 billion run up over the past three years and a projected shortfall of $14 billion by the June 30, 2005.

Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have put a $15 billion bond issue on the March ballot that would pay off the existing deficit, but the $14 billion projected deficit for next year remains.

A key underpinning of his plan to balance the state's budget without raising taxes had been backed by educators, who agreed to accept $2 billion less next year than they are owed.

But even if legislators approve Schwarzenegger's budget plan, which will be revised in May, it will mean little if voters don't approve the $15 billion bond deal in March. So far, administration officials said, early polls indicate voters don't like the measure and may not pass it.

If voters reject the bonds, most observers believe the resulting budget hole will force Schwarzenegger to reconsider his no-tax pledge.

When asked if he has any regrets over taking the job of governor, Schwarzenegger said, "The honeymoon has been terrific. I have enjoyed every single day of this job. Everyone has been helpful. It's such a satisfying feeling for me to come to work and solve problems."

Quote[/b] ]there would be a 40 percent increase on graduate students.

i think i heard cursing from general direction of UC Irvine, possibly from my friends in their graduate programs. Arnold visited UC Irvine campus long before the recall, and he was happy to mingle and say he was for education. the scene, as told by my friends was that there were so many people around the place where he was speaking. guess Arnie may want to forgo skipping same visit for now.

[ThruYerStErNuM 0]

i wont discuss all of them but as a voting student at UC Irvine I feel somewhat obligated to provide a counter argument.

I dont know how nbc or any democrat could spin up this number

Quote[/b] ]40 percent increase on graduate students

Maybe it is a %40 increase on a limited range of students? I can tell some people here could use a real reality check MRC

I searched and noticed

Quote[/b] ]

The proposal ... making unspecified cuts of $18.4 million to the University of California

from here

If you dont think this is negligible, let me put it into perspective: There are 192,000 students in the UC system, and 157,000 faculty and staff. This is to whom the 18.4 million cuts apply.

The UCI school of Information and Computer Science that I attend has just over 2000 students (about %1 of the students in the UC system), and it recently recieved a $20 million anonymous donation. I wonder if anything in the news encouraged this large donation - could any recent changes in the economy have?

If anything, cutting just a few percent from the california budget is extremely modest, but tax cuts have a way of generating more revenue for the government than anyone predicts.

Anyway I give Schwarzenegger an A for doing everything as he should so far, he seems to be the right man for the job. For all the other stuff I don't want to have to defend or debate - I will only recommend you research beyond biased media.

[ralphwiggum 6]

i wont discuss all of them but as a voting student at UC Irvine I feel somewhat obligated to provide a counter argument.

so were you able to meet Arnie?

Quote[/b] ]I dont know how nbc or any democrat could spin up this number

Quote[/b] ]40 percent increase on graduate students

Maybe it is a %40 increase on a limited range of students? I can tell some people here could use a real reality check MRC

it's called Arnie's own proposal

I'm actually a little bit shocked by the fact that you can't seem to grasp that graduate students are those who are working on masters and phDs. those TAs don't work for free. they are graduate students who work.

the 10% increase will work for those who are in undergrad.

and speaking of Media Reaserch Center, that is a flagrant rightwing nutcase group. from their 'about MRC' section.

Quote[/b] ]The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC).

Quote[/b] ]I searched and noticed

Quote[/b] ]

The proposal ... making unspecified cuts of $18.4 million to the University of California

from here

If you dont think this is negligible, let me put it into perspective: There are 192,000 students in the UC system, and 157,000 faculty and staff. This is to whom the 18.4 million cuts apply.

from your own link

Quote[/b] ]The proposal cuts outreach programs at the state's university systems, as well as making unspecified cuts of $18.4 million to the University of California and $13.4 million to California State University, as well as bigger reductions in the 2004-05 fiscal year.

Quote[/b] ]Steinberg(D- Sacramento) said the unspecified cuts to higher education would likely reduce access and cause fees to go up again, which he called "tax increases by another name."

whether you like it or not, the UC Regents will try to recooperate 18mil cut and the best way they can do is to 1)cut services and or 2)raise fees. take your pick. either way, the UC system lost. In addition, Arnie repeatedly said education is important and will not compromise it. but with 18mil cut, i don't see how it's not a compromise.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway I give Schwarzenegger an A for doing everything as he should so far, he seems to be the right man for the job. For all the other stuff I don't want to have to defend or debate - I will only recommend you research beyond biased media.

I have no idea why you called Arnie's proposal a biased media.

Quote[/b] ]The UCI school of Information and Computer Science that I attend has just over 2000 students (about %1 of the students in the UC system), and it recently recieved a $20 million anonymous donation. I wonder if anything in the news encouraged this large donation - could any recent changes in the economy have?

simple. private donations usually come with strings attached. and needing a private donation only shows that your school needs that money. if economy is so well, why aren't there MORE of this? Oracle, MS and other corporation donated a lot more before Bush Jr. came into office.

Quote[/b] ]If anything, cutting just a few percent from the california budget is extremely modest, but tax cuts have a way of generating more revenue for the government than anyone predicts.

18 mil is asmall compared to state budget, but for average joe, fraction thereof is a big money.

since you brought that old useless tax cut argument again i'll say this again. read this thread from page 1. i think i answered why it does not work.

in a nutshell, tax cuts won't work since people/firms that recieve the cut knows that in later time in future, they will be subjected to paying more tax(or same rate before the tax cut) that gov't provided to make up revenue deficit, under assumption that gov't suddenly doesn't get increase in revenue to fill the revenue gap.

then, people will be less than likely to use that tax break, since it won't be anymore usefull than not having one. thus they only spend a fraction of it. so gov't loses revenue of t, then return on that is a*t where 0<a<1

furthermore even if the taxcut is used to fullest extent, the resulting economy will only give out corresponding amount, (actually, less since rate of return in any input is going to be less and less - diminishing marginal increase), and only a fraction of it will be taxed back, thus revenue is less.

for better explanation take an econ class, preferably something around 3rd yr level, or ask an econ professor there.

[ThruYerStErNuM 0]

yeah i shouldn't have posted, ive tried debating politics on forums before - really only in a chatroom or im can you properly discuss each item out to its conclusion. and especially since the election is passed, debating even fellow californians seems like a waste of time at this point. weve all seen him in the movies we all know he is stupid. obviously!

I want to discuss just one thing:

A much larger issue than the california budget has got to be the media bias. I found what I believe is the original source of that %40 number. NBC took it from none other than the LA times: LA times   who took it from "sources familiar with the governor's budget" who happen to be one man -

Quote[/b] ]"another source said: 'At the graduate level, they are recommending a very big increase, like in the neighborhood of 40%.'"

- so some guy, we do not know who, made up the number from what he says he heard about the budget - the same budget that outlines much lower numbers - like the few dozen million in cuts (about $50 mil in the year following next I failed to mention earlier). We do not have the % number we wanted detailed because it is up to the universities to make cuts (it is assumed they will throw away the most wasteful spending first). But if all the cuts went directly to fee increases for all studets, a simple calculation shows that the fees could increase by no more than %5 on an average student - in the worst case scenario.

So what does this mean - that NBC would lie to us? No - they are reporting what the LA times report - and the LA times are reporting what they heard from some lunatic they call "another source". So you see a single bad piece of information that hurts republicans is multiplied through reporting in the liberal media to the point that Ralph would assume it to be true. There are countless other examples of liberal bias in the media - even just straight quotes if you cant stand listening to the right wing - at that site I mentioned, the Media Reaserch Center.

And if anyone thinks tax cuts dont work - well nevermind it let the rest of us just all point and laugh

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]- so some guy, we do not know who, made up the number from what he says he heard about the budget - the same budget that outlines much lower numbers - like the few dozen million in cuts (about $50 mil in the year following next I failed to mention earlier). We do not have the % number we wanted detailed because it is up to the universities to make cuts (it is assumed they will throw away the most wasteful spending first). But if all the cuts went directly to fee increases for all studets, a simple calculation shows that the fees could increase by no more than %5 on an average student - in the worst case scenario.

so you think by being an 'undiclosed source' automatically enteiles that the claim is false? just becuase he/she was undisclosed does not mean he/she was wrong.

Quote[/b] ]So you see a single bad piece of information that hurts republicans is multiplied through reporting in the liberal media to the point that Ralph would assume it to be true.

oh well, had to wait a few hours to wait for bureaucrats to update the website, but it was worth it.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/Budgt04-05/BudgetSum04/04-05_BudSum.htm

from

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/Budgt04-05/BudgetSum04/High_Ed_w.pdf

read 5th page,(page 75). i'm pretty sure media bias has caught up with state, and governor's own ideas.

Quote[/b] ]And if anyone thinks tax cuts dont work - well nevermind it let the rest of us just all point and laugh

so how does that work? could you show analytically that it works? FYI, i'm a graduate student in economics.

[ThruYerStErNuM 0]

Wow, i was looking for that - now there's a good source. It is right I was wrong about the validity of the source. Usually when there is only one usupported unidentified source, the source is wrong.

But now i'm confused. The numbers dont add up - apparently the fee increases do not generate extra revenue for the most part - as though the UC budget is becoming less efficient. I read that the Universities did decide on these numbers based on the new budget provided by the governor, so they had the final word on how much the increases would be. I disapprove of this large waste that I didnt previously believe would occur.

Your analysis of a tax cut seems to assume that money given to people is just money waiting to be taxed like all other. Additional money in the GNP encourages growth and expansion, not just slightly larger bank accounts to sit there. Any such growth can even encourage investors and companies to put more money that was previously stagnant into the system. But the US economy is way too complex to know all the factors that cause all the changes.

Every economist I've seen on the news has predicted the economy, the dow, etc would improve less than it has - it doenst seem debatable that tax cuts stimulated US economic growth.

[ralphwiggum 6]

But now i'm confused. The numbers dont add up - apparently the fee increases do not generate extra revenue for the most part - as though the UC budget is becoming less efficient. I read that the Universities did decide on these numbers based on the new budget provided by the governor, so they had the final word on how much the increases would be. I disapprove of this large waste that I didnt previously believe would occur.

welcome to college fee hike. it's not unusual for college reg fees to hike up faster than what seems normal. as technology progresses, schools, especially in engineering and other fancy equipment dependent ones, needs to stay up-to-date and its a good reason to increase it. not to mention libraries needing more books.

and all these add up to more bureaucracy sooner or later, so inefficiency will linger around. in fact ANY organization would have such problem.

the increase amount should not be judged on linear basis. although it is possible that it can be done in such manner, there are enough tidbits in operation management that will scew the numbers. i have no idea what UC Regents went through to reach numbers so won't comment on it, but hopefully they worked it out with best of intentions.

Quote[/b] ]Every economist I've seen on the news has predicted the economy, the dow, etc would improve less than it has - it doenst seem debatable that tax cuts stimulated US economic growth.

when recent news about retails sales measure increasing better than expected, TBA was citing it as an evidence of his tax-cut working. not a good idea since there is also that (blasted) seasonal change. for US economy, in general, from march to september is not so good, but from september to next february or so is usually good due to holiday sales and etc. so it is debatable whether the tax cut was the reason for such increase in sales.

second, US economy runs on credit(lendings, loans), not dow or market economy. that's why Greenspan is watched carefully. he has bigger impact through his decisions on lending rate. and that tends to be more conservative than relying on other highly fluctuating indicators such as dows. furthermore, there are problems of gathering data. the numbers are gathered and revised often, due to inability to get correct data more often.

Quote[/b] ]Your analysis of a tax cut seems to assume that money given to people is just money waiting to be taxed like all other. Additional money in the GNP encourages growth and expansion, not just slightly larger bank accounts to sit there. Any such growth can even encourage investors and companies to put more money that was previously stagnant into the system.

somewhat true, but not entirely. i assumed that gov't cannot generate additional revenue except through taxes so closing the gap after giving tax break would leave deficit larger than before. if there is a way to recooperate the larger deficit, then tax cut has better chance of working. but gov't are not in business of money making.

problem is that when tax money goes into people's pocket some will spend, and some will not. i spend some and not all of them. that means only a fraction will goto consumption, which is what companies rely their revenues on in most cases.

what revenue cut will do is that it will force gov't to spend money on what it needs, and leave more market for private sectors to jump in, thus giving incentives for private sector to invest since there is a bigger share of the market.

giving money outright does not give incentive to invest. you have to give confidence that money they invest will give them returns, not loss of values. when economy shows no sign of improving you cannot just hand out money and say 'go buy stuffs'. people will rather prepare for the rainful and not use it.

in corporate level, in case of bad economy, you'd be wiser to have more assets at your disposal than investing in murky future. so tax cut will do little to stabilize economy.

Quote[/b] ]But the US economy is way too complex to know all the factors that cause all the changes.

not just this economy but ANY economy is. the economics has general idea of how the economy works, and going into detail would require enormous work. however, there are enough general ideas that have proven themselves to make a good judgement.

[toadlife 3]

He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't.

Ralph - I can't beleive you think Bustamate had a clue about what to do. His idea was to Raise income tax, raise property tax, and raise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, and probably twinkies, all to maintain the status quo in our state, which is to keep spending rediculous amount of money on the broken welfare/social programs we have.

The amount of welfare assistance available to the citizens of California is staggering, and the amount of fraud going on with thse programs is sickening, and one of the big contributors to our fiscal crisis. Six years ago, I worked various jobs to support myself, which included McDonalds, a Dry Cleaners, and a Dairy Queen - all for right around minumum wage. I made around $600-$900 per month, and was able to fully support myself. No, I didn't have a very nice computer, no playstation, no designer clothes. I had a car, but it never ran, and I had to have two roomates in order to afford a place to live. Meanwhile a couple I knew who were both managers at McDonalds were both taking home welfare checks from the state. Both of them worked FULL TIME as shift managers, taking home over $2000 per month. There are thoudsands upon thousands of people in this state that are on disability that are fully capable of working. I work aquaintance of mine has a brother in law that hasn't worked in three years. He sits at home collecting disability.

As for school tuition, it's cheap as hell when you compare it to private schools. When you compare the tution at a a state school, to that of a a private school, you'll find that around 90% of your education is being subsidized by the state as it is now. I just got done paying for my wifes BA at Fresno State, and she'll be entering the graduate program in awhile. I say raise tuition.

Of course Arnold is realizing that the job is harder then he imagined, and there is no way he will be able to uphold all of his pledges, but I'd rather have someone in the governors office that sees the problem for what it really is - a spending problem (not an income problem).

Edit: I know this sounds simplistic, but take it down to a induvidual level, and think - If you spend more money than you make (like running your credit cards up) in a year, what is the most logical solution? Should you A) Keep spending more money than you make in hopes that you will get a raise soon, or (B) Spend less money

Just like tax cuts don't guarantee a better economy, tax increases don't guarantee increased revenue.

[toadlife 3]

Every economist I've seen on the news has predicted the economy, the dow, etc would improve less than it has - it doenst seem debatable that tax cuts stimulated US economic growth.

The measly things politicians do really don't have much influence on the economy, though they'd like to make you think they do.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Ralph - I can't beleive you think Bustamate had a clue about what to do. His idea was to Raise income tax, raise property tax, and raise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, and probably twinkies, all to maintain the status quo in our state, which is to keep spending rediculous amount of money on the broken welfare/social programs we have.

If you followed his comment, he was up for both cuts and tax increase. kinda funny that you are about to claim that raising tutition fee is good but not on those.

Quote[/b] ]Six years ago, I worked various jobs to support myself, which included McDonalds, a Dry Cleaners, and a Dairy Queen - all for right around minumum wage. I made around $600-$900 per month, and was able to fully support myself. No, I didn't have a very nice computer, no playstation, no designer clothes. I had a car, but it never ran, and I had to have two roomates in order to afford a place to live.

i lived like that for 5 years too. this kind of experience is not unique. except that instead of getting min wage at mcdonalds, i got it from school library work.(which i forgot to claim tax return )

Quote[/b] ]Meanwhile a couple I knew who were both managers at McDonalds were both taking home welfare checks from the state. Both of them worked FULL TIME as shift managers, taking home over $2000 per month. There are thoudsands upon thousands of people in this state that are on disability that are fully capable of working. I work aquaintance of mine has a brother in law that hasn't worked in three years. He sits at home collecting disability.

then blame those bastards who rip off.

Quote[/b] ]As for school tuition, it's cheap as hell when you compare it to private schools. When you compare the tution at a a state school, to that of a a private school, you'll find that around 90% of your education is being subsidized by the state as it is now. I just got done paying for my wifes BA at Fresno State, and she'll be entering the graduate program in awhile. I say raise tuition.

say that to students. i wonder how much of money will translate as 40% increase, but bear in mind that that's the same amount that you could have used in other things. The whole point of public education system is to give access to many people, not just those who can afford private institution.

Quote[/b] ]Of course Arnold is realizing that the job is harder then he imagined, and there is no way he will be able to uphold all of his pledges, but I'd rather have someone in the governors office that sees the problem for what it really is - a spending problem (not an income problem).

Edit: I know this sounds simplistic, but take it down to a induvidual level, and think - If you spend more money than you make (like running your credit cards up) in a year, what is the most logical solution? Should you A) Keep spending more money than you make in hopes that you will get a raise soon, or (B) Spend less money

and if you are paying your credit card debt, you also have to consider getting a new source of revenue to pay it off. you 1)cut spending AND 2)get another job to pay the bill off. usually 1) is sufficient, but in some cases both are needed.

currently, Arnie is pushing for 15bil bond proposal. what does that mean? we will be ending up paying the interest on that bond, i.e. borrowing. of course those who buy those are not loan sharks, but if things don't turn out well, we'll be left with 15bil to pay off with.

issuing bonds will work better in private sector, but since a gov't cannot compete with(or should not) private sector, their largest source of income is tax.

Quote[/b] ]Just like tax cuts don't guarantee a better economy, tax increases don't guarantee increased revenue.

a short term increase to get the fiscal situation can work since it is short term. by raising tax temporarily for one period, gov't can afford to pay for its programs for that period. but it should come with cut in spending so that next period does not come with another spending problem.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/2963331/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]LOS ANGELES -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hinted that raising taxes may be unavoidable, acknowledging he is under extreme pressure to increase the state's revenue to offset a $14 billion budget shortfall.

Schwarzenegger, who has opposed new taxes, said on Tuesday it would be "wishful thinking" to assume the state would not increase taxes.

"I'm going through wishful thinking that I'll never have to go there," Schwarzenegger said. "Because I just don't like it. I try to work around and find ways so we don't have to do that. So that's the stage I'm in right now."

He said increasing taxes would punish ordinary Californians for the state's mistake of overspending.

Though Schwarzenegger didn't rule out a tax hike, he said he needs to further review budget forecasts in the next weeks to decide whether to raise taxes.

"When I look at the numbers, I can make up my mind about what that means," he said.

Schwarzenegger's communications director, Rob Stutzman, said the governor was not changing his opposition on taxes but "expressing his optimism for a solution without taxes."

Stutzman added, "Once he is set on a direction, he's relentless, and he is set on solving the budget without tax increases."

Some lawmakers said Tuesday they have not been notified the governor intends to raise taxes, nor did they suspect he was sending out feelers to gauge reactions.

"We've never had that discussion," said Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from Bakersfield.

Translation: Keep every option open.

But it's nice to see that he is willing to admit there is a (remote) possibility of tax increase ahead.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Forogot to add:

in last election(march), he got what he wanted, am approval for $14 bil bond to pay off debt.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/07/31/calif.budget.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- Amid much fanfare inside the Capitol's historic rotunda, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a $105 billion budget package Saturday that he celebrated for imposing no new taxes while balancing spending with income.

While technically accurate, the Republican governor failed to mention that $7 billion in loans and one-time saving are embedded in the spending plan and are used -- much as former Gov. Gray Davis did last year -- to paper over the state's spending problems one more time.

The budget, negotiated after a difficult 26-day standoff with the Legislature's Democratic majority, does little to resolve the spending imbalance either by raising taxes or cutting spending. Some say this plan may even make the problems bigger in the future because of funding agreements the governor and the Legislature have made with key interest groups, such as schools and local governments.

Some of these problems, administration officials said, will be addressed in the governor's long-awaited California Performance Review plan, which is expected to propose eliminating 12,000 state jobs, hundreds of state boards and commissions while possibly saving $32 billion over the next five years. But he will have to move that interest-attacking plan while also pushing for a budget that fixes many of the problems that remain unsolved.

bad news: same freaking budget crisis.

good news: he still has some chance to work on it.