On Friday Feb 20th I posted an announcement from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, HJTA, in which they intend to oppose the just approved state budget where voter approval is required in a Special Election.
In my closing comments of that post I referred to an event featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger that Cutting Edge-a Talk Show producer Ron Winship and I covered at the OC Fair Grounds in Oct of 2003.
As credentialed members of the press we were sent to join our peers on a riser with Network and Cable TV crew members and other reporters covering the appearance of gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger. As stated in my post the candidate’s appearance ended with someone dropping a wrecking ball, when prompted, on an old white vehicle with Gray Davis’s name painted on the side.
I received a voice mail message after church that George Stephanopoulos referred to the same (ABC) archive coverage on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos program this morning. On that program, I am told, governor Schwarzenegger acknowledged making those statements at that event which I posted in my earlier Juice story adding something to the effect that “times have changed.”
Here is the program link. http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek
Question #1. As California voters decided to recall governor Gray Davis for his huge budget deficit, his plans to increase the car tax, and Arnold’s comments about the prior administration engaging in “spend, spend, spend” followed by “tax, tax, tax,” and, Whereas governor Schwarzenegger has followed suite, should he too be recalled? Just curious.
Question #2. Based on his performance as governor would you vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger for US Senate as we have heard of a trial balloon of his running to oppose Barbara Boxer?
Larry,
There is a global meltdown of epic proportions going on right now. Can you name one country that is doing “fine” in the current economic crisis right now? I can’t think of even one.
I saw a clip by the Lt. Govenor in which he says they were doing what they could. Could they have done more, sooner? According to him, yes: As a leader, Arnold could have geared up the troops a couple of years ago, when there needed to be cutbacks, budget adjustments and some kind of revenue creation. The reason that things have been so difficult and chaotic in the assembly, is because many were still not geared up for the radical shift in revenue and budget shortfalls. I think Arnie will get a pass because he has a ton of company with all those other govenors.
He won’t stand a chance against Boxer, imo. She’s in tight.
Nice job on getting a nice scoop over George and Arnie 😉
Red, you are so right, this is far more than liberal v. conservative, this is a global economic crisis.
Yesterday on the Daily Kos there was a truly frightening diary entitled; “Europe’s entire banking system on the edge of the abyss”.
Here are some highlights (or more accurately, depressing lowlights);
It starts with a report from The Daily Telegraph which claims that European banks may need a $25 TRILLION (in U.S.) dollar bailout.
Ireland (who just a couple of years ago had a booming economy) is in the worst shape, with a real possibility it may DEFAULT on its debt.
In Eastern Europe, from Greece and the Ukraine in the south, to Latvia and Lithuania in the north, you have economies that are”clinically dead”.
Swiss banks have given billions of credit to Eastern Europe-now their customers cannot pay back the money. SWITZERLAND IS THREATENED WITH THE FATE OF ICELAND.
George Soros is quoted “the world financial system has effectively disintegrated” and the crisis is “actually more severe than the Great Depression”.
Paul Volker ; “I don’t remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world,”.
The diary ends with this;” We are looking at a future with either massive bank defaults that will OVERWHELM THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO GUARANTEE YOUR SAVINGS, or HYPERINFLATION caused by massive government bailouts.”
Scary, huh?
Larry, to answer your questions;
#1, As I understand this, Arnold did not tax and spend, he spent and added it on to California’s debt. Now we can’t service our debt and he’s forced to raise taxes. And no,I don’t believe a recall would solve California’s problems.
#2 No, I wouldn’t vote for Arnold, I like Boxer.
anonster.
I would agree that a recall is out of the question.
Arnold threw in the towel when his early ballot measures were defeated.
While he may still have some Hollywood star quality and name recognition my sense is that the GOP machine, what’s left of it, will not give him any more support than they did for John McCain.
He has just told the governors at their National Governor’s conference that we should all work with president Obama (even when we disagree with his recovery package?) No thank you!
“Red, you are so right, this is far more than liberal v. conservative, this is a global economic crisis.”
Anonster,
The Americas are in trouble too. Canada has a housing and banking crisis. Mexico is an absolute mess with runaway inflation. We get such little information about the South American countries in the regular news, but according to my workmates, S. American countries are in chaos and turmoil.
Seriously, I cannot think of one country that is not feeling pain. I would have said the Swiss, but their banking practices are being challenged and it looks like they might be turning over 20k accounts of US citizens who were dodging taxes.
Maybe Norway? Sweeden? Iceland is bankrupt…. gads.
“adding something to the effect that “times have changed.”
Indeed. And people like you still live in the 20th Century.
Time for you, the Jarvis Association, and the California Republicans to enter the 21st Century.
If you don’t, expect to end up irrelevant.
And being in the 21st Century means getting rid of Prop. 13, which prevents the state from going forward.
Joe.
Are we to interpret your definition of “going forward” to increase taxes?
Wrong answer. Cut spending.
Let’s look at taxation.
Alaska, Del, N.H., Hawaii and Montana have ZERO state sales taxes.
Colo is next lowest at 2.9%.
Ala, GA, S.D. Louisiana and even New York have a 4% state sales tax while we just increased CA state sales tax to 8.25% LA will be paying 9.25%
That is more than double.
So your position is to punish those of us who have retired, stay in the same homes, watch as billions of tax dollars dollars are spent on programs we no longer partake of such as K-14 education by forcing us to pay higher property taxes.
Joe. I would aruge that based on other states, we are taxed enough in CA. You cannot simply “cherry pick” which tax you feel is too low.
As a footnote to Mr. Gilbert’s comment. I had purchased a home out in the sticks when prop 13 took effect because houses were cheaper and taxes were lower than in the metropolitan basin. Prop 13 RAISED MY TAXES! I wasn’t happy about it, but my taxes were still lower than downtown because the homes were cheaper and the annual tax cap kept them that way. Their must be something to that formula because what I called “out in the sticks” 30 years ago is now known as the “Inland Empire”.
Larry,
“going forward” means fixing the budget problem.
Prop. 13 is the major reason why California has a budget problem. So, it needs to be fixed.
Plain and simple. Arnold understand that. Only people like you who got stuck in the 20th Century fail to see it. Have fun being a completely irrelevant backwards doohickey…
Joe.
You don’t fix the budget problem by expandin g the size and scope of government.
As to Prop 13, your favorite targer, let me share an old input from former Leg Analyst Elizabeth Hill as reported in the Sac Bee.
“Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill projected last week that California is awash in new money. In her five-year fiscal outlook, Hill estimates that California state government will have a surplus of $2.6 billion this year, rising to $3 billion next year and for several more years to come.” The problem is that our legislature found themselves in a candy store and could’t wait to spend future revenues when no one has a crystal ball.
Let’s see. Prop 13 was approved by 4,280,689 voters in CA on June 6, 1978. As such, that outcome was surely not a squeaker. Prop 13 passed with 64.8% of the votes cast. Question. Did you vote no and, like some of those not happy with the more recent outcome, namely Prop 8, can’t give it up?
That’s my final comment regarding Prop 13 on this story.
Joe and other readers. Took a phone call while writing the above response and left off a key date and argument point. The Sac Bee article was published Nov 23, 1999, 21 years AFTER the successful Prop 13 election. As such passage of Prop 13 did not hamper our ability to fund our state budget.
Larry,
AS I said, last century. Thanks for making my point.
Times have changed, and it is time for you and your few holdouts to leave your fantasy land and enter the reality of the 21st Century.
Larry, and in case you still don’t get it: There was a war, a mortgage market collapse, a banking collapse, and a global recession between what you quoted and today. Times change. Demands on budgets, city-wide, state-wide, country-wide, change.
Prop. 13 is a left-over from a by-gone era, and it is time it dies.
Joe.
So you now are blaming “a war, a mortgage market collapse, a banking collapse, and a global recession” to justify overturning the will of the 4 million voters who approved Prop 13 which dates back to 1978.
Did you miss anything in your list such as AIG coming back for “a little more please” having already received $150 billion in bailout funds. Isn’t that due to Prop 13 using your yardstick?
*We apologize for coming late to the party! First off, Prop. 13 was responsible for stability in the Real Estate market. People that were on fixed income, retired…could afford to stay in their homes….without being pushed out by the
“Taxman”! You might recall Joseph that Jimmy Carter was the President when we passed Prop. #13.
Interest rates were 22% by 1979. It was perhaps the most ruinous time in American history. Had local or State government been given an open credit card……every person in a home would have been taxed out of it in California.
Right now, Stabilizing the Real Estate market should be the goal. Taking off the possibility
that anyone might know what their world will look like in three years by removing Prop. #13 would be as dumb as a stump! Let’s get our Real Estate markets “shaken out and stabilized” before you go off to a “Flat Tax, throwing out Prop. #13 and wanting Privatization of Social Security!”
Larry,
you obviously still don’t get it.
Times have changed. I explained for what reasons times have changed.
Prop. 13 is a relic of the last century. It doesn’t fit into the challenges we have in this century. It is outdated, and needs to go away.
Joe. What needs to go away is you constantly beating the drum in opposition to Prop 13. Why don’t you look out your windshield instead of your rear view mirror because you crash.
Signed. Larry Gilbert ,relic of the last century
Larry:
“What needs to go away is you constantly beating the drum in opposition to Prop 13.”
It seems you know deep in your heart that I am right. You obviously don’t have any real argument.
And btw, I am looking out the windshield. That’s why I know that the time for Prop. 13 is up.
Joe. I have the solution for you. Perhaps you should move to New Hampshire or my home state of New Jersey where property taxes are the highest.
That will make you feel better. PS: Both of these states have budget deficits. Should they raise their property taxes even higher or cut spending?