Schwarzenegger unveils budget using borrowing, health cuts

[Ultima]

Schwarzenegger unveils budget using borrowing, health cuts
advertisement

Tom Chorneau
Associated Press
Jan. 10, 2004 12:00 AM


SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday proposed a $99 billion budget that calls for college fee increases and cuts to welfare and health care while relying on the same mix of borrowing and one-time solutions he previously criticized.

The governor's plan would cut more than $4 billion in spending, with nearly half of it from welfare programs and the state's health insurance plan for the poor and disabled. Undergraduate students would pay 10 percent more in fees, while graduate students would pay 40 percent more.

The plan would include $3 billion in borrowing - money that would come out of a $15 billion bond issue to go before voters in March. There is an additional $2 billion in deferred payments to schools and a $1 billion shift of money away from highway and transportation programs.

Schwarzenegger said the size of the state's financial crisis demands that he consider all types of solutions.

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

The budget represents the biggest step yet for his administration. He took office two months ago after a recall election in which voters tossed Democratic Gov. Gray Davis out of office.

The budget is aimed at closing what could be a $14 billion deficit by the end of the upcoming fiscal year. Schwarzenegger's task has been made even more difficult by his promise not to raise taxes, forcing him to bring the budget into balance through spending cuts and other measures.

Pointing to the large amount of borrowing and funding shifts, Democratic state Treasurer Phil Angelides said the plan would not "meet the test of truthfulness, economic soundness or fairness for California."

The governor built his budget on projections for a somewhat-rosy economic picture next year, anticipating $2.9 billion in additional tax revenue. The bond issue would pay off the existing deficit, but next year's deficit still remains.

Schwarzenegger also is proposing to shift $1.3 billion in local property taxes to help pay the state's bill to schools. The move comes only a few weeks after Schwarzenegger assumed emergency powers to ensure that money would continue to flow to local governments after he cut car-tax revenues on his first day in office.

To get the budget approved, Schwarzenegger needs two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Article

I think cutting spending is always a good idea, but when you're cutting fat, not meat. Surely education and healthcare qualify as meat, not fat? He was planning on passing balanced-budget legislation though, no?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ultima

Schwarzenegger unveils budget using borrowing, health cuts
advertisement

Tom Chorneau
Associated Press
Jan. 10, 2004 12:00 AM


SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday proposed a $99 billion budget that calls for college fee increases and cuts to welfare and health care while relying on the same mix of borrowing and one-time solutions he previously criticized.

The governor's plan would cut more than $4 billion in spending, with nearly half of it from welfare programs and the state's health insurance plan for the poor and disabled. Undergraduate students would pay 10 percent more in fees, while graduate students would pay 40 percent more.

The plan would include $3 billion in borrowing - money that would come out of a $15 billion bond issue to go before voters in March. There is an additional $2 billion in deferred payments to schools and a $1 billion shift of money away from highway and transportation programs.

Schwarzenegger said the size of the state's financial crisis demands that he consider all types of solutions.

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

The budget represents the biggest step yet for his administration. He took office two months ago after a recall election in which voters tossed Democratic Gov. Gray Davis out of office.

The budget is aimed at closing what could be a $14 billion deficit by the end of the upcoming fiscal year. Schwarzenegger's task has been made even more difficult by his promise not to raise taxes, forcing him to bring the budget into balance through spending cuts and other measures.

Pointing to the large amount of borrowing and funding shifts, Democratic state Treasurer Phil Angelides said the plan would not "meet the test of truthfulness, economic soundness or fairness for California."

The governor built his budget on projections for a somewhat-rosy economic picture next year, anticipating $2.9 billion in additional tax revenue. The bond issue would pay off the existing deficit, but next year's deficit still remains.

Schwarzenegger also is proposing to shift $1.3 billion in local property taxes to help pay the state's bill to schools. The move comes only a few weeks after Schwarzenegger assumed emergency powers to ensure that money would continue to flow to local governments after he cut car-tax revenues on his first day in office.

To get the budget approved, Schwarzenegger needs two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Article

I think cutting spending is always a good idea, but when you're cutting fat, not meat. Surely education and healthcare qualify as meat, not fat? He was planning on passing balanced-budget legislation though, no?

The SOB better not cut healthcare for poor seniors.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Well he didn't cut education, but I'm ALL for cutting out Social services COMPLETELY. It's time to throw Robin Hood out on his sorry ass and stop stealing from the productive to give to the lazy and stupid.

Jason

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ultima

Schwarzenegger unveils budget using borrowing, health cuts
advertisement

Tom Chorneau
Associated Press
Jan. 10, 2004 12:00 AM


SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday proposed a $99 billion budget that calls for college fee increases and cuts to welfare and health care while relying on the same mix of borrowing and one-time solutions he previously criticized.

The governor's plan would cut more than $4 billion in spending, with nearly half of it from welfare programs and the state's health insurance plan for the poor and disabled. Undergraduate students would pay 10 percent more in fees, while graduate students would pay 40 percent more.

The plan would include $3 billion in borrowing - money that would come out of a $15 billion bond issue to go before voters in March. There is an additional $2 billion in deferred payments to schools and a $1 billion shift of money away from highway and transportation programs.

Schwarzenegger said the size of the state's financial crisis demands that he consider all types of solutions.

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

The budget represents the biggest step yet for his administration. He took office two months ago after a recall election in which voters tossed Democratic Gov. Gray Davis out of office.

The budget is aimed at closing what could be a $14 billion deficit by the end of the upcoming fiscal year. Schwarzenegger's task has been made even more difficult by his promise not to raise taxes, forcing him to bring the budget into balance through spending cuts and other measures.

Pointing to the large amount of borrowing and funding shifts, Democratic state Treasurer Phil Angelides said the plan would not "meet the test of truthfulness, economic soundness or fairness for California."

The governor built his budget on projections for a somewhat-rosy economic picture next year, anticipating $2.9 billion in additional tax revenue. The bond issue would pay off the existing deficit, but next year's deficit still remains.

Schwarzenegger also is proposing to shift $1.3 billion in local property taxes to help pay the state's bill to schools. The move comes only a few weeks after Schwarzenegger assumed emergency powers to ensure that money would continue to flow to local governments after he cut car-tax revenues on his first day in office.

To get the budget approved, Schwarzenegger needs two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Article

I think cutting spending is always a good idea, but when you're cutting fat, not meat. Surely education and healthcare qualify as meat, not fat? He was planning on passing balanced-budget legislation though, no?

Depends on who you ask(edit: see post above for example ), but I agree that any money cut from those programs probably is meat. However, when in a fiscal crises you don't always have a lot of choice. That said, cutting taxes doesn't make any sense.

California should be considered as a canary here and as a reason that Fiscal Conservatism should take hold in the Federal Government. You can not overspend indefinitely.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

They shouldn't overspend *at all*. Budgets, federal and state (at least in California, I can't speak to other states' budgets) are just too freaking huge, and riddled with pork projects and wealth redistribution programs that should be eliminated altogether. At both federal and state levels we need to MANDATE that government *cannot* spend more than, say, 80% of its projected revenue in a given year, and that all the rest must go into savings --untouchable savings--for emergency situations such as wars, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and so on. This crazy idea that we have to spend every dime we get every single year is destroying our fiscal solvency. I wonder, how many of these politicians spend every dime of their *personal* income every year and then whine about not having enough to cover it?

Of course, it's always easier to spend *someone else's* money

Jason

 

[IGBT]

Golden oppertunity for all yuz liberals to step up to the plate and start writting personal checks fer yer favorite boohoo social program...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: IGBT
Golden oppertunity for all yuz liberals to step up to the plate and start writting personal checks fer yer favorite boohoo social program...

Our Society is comprised of all the folks. Our society membership recognizes the existence of both the 'have' and the 'haven't' and seeks to enable the less fortunate 'haven't' to exist at a reasonable level of economic and social reality. To take from the rich via taxes and give to the poor via programs is consistent with our moral values and methodology. The 'have' have by virtue of the entirety of society as does the 'haven't' have not. If you don't put funds in the hands of all the people the multiplier affect of this economic stimuli would result in the 'have' having less.. much less... think about it.. it is a well directed economic stimuli and a socially moral exercise.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'm afraid, Ray, that Stealing from some people to give to others is NOT consistent with this country's moral values or methodology. The implementation of this idea came about with FDR's New Deal and has been a stunning failure in every capacity. Instead of giving a "hand up" he created 2-3 generations of people who never got off the dole until (amazingly) under Clinton's administration they revised the welfare code to allow ONLY 2 years at a time and 5 years in your lifetime of welfare from the federal government.

Jefferson, at his first inaugural address, said that "a wise and frugal government?shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned." Not exactly consistent with the idea of taking from some to give to others, now is it?

The ideology of the American system of government as originally founded can be summed up thus: Recognition that all men are created equal in terms of Natural Rights, that they should be restrained from harming one another but should otherwise be left free to conduct their lives as they choose.

The idea that you endorse and try to pawn off as "American and moral" is neither; it's not part of our founding ideology and it is not moral to steal from anyone, *ever*.

If you want to give to causes you think are worthy, by all means *do*, I do it and I encourage others to do the same! But don't take money from others at the point of a gun in order to give to those causes. If you want to *convince* them of the cause and the need for their help, I congratulate you, because that's the way to do it with honor and truth and compassion, while also maintaining JUSTICE.

Jason

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well he didn't cut education, but I'm ALL for cutting out Social services COMPLETELY. It's time to throw Robin Hood out on his sorry ass and stop stealing from the productive to give to the lazy and stupid.

Jason

But then, what would you do for food?

The problem with Schwarzenegger is he's not really fixing the problem. He's doing what he criticized Davis for doing: Moving money from one pot to another, deferring payments, relying on a (possible) future improving economy and borrowing money to the tune of $15 Bil. I don't call that a fix for CA's problems, I call that deferring the problem to the future. Pathetic.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The problem with Schwarzenegger is he's not really fixing the problem. He's doing what he criticized Davis for doing: Moving money from one pot to another, deferring payments, relying on a (possible) future improving economy and borrowing money to the tune of $15 Bil. I don't call that a fix for CA's problems, I call that deferring the problem to the future. Pathetic.

Hey, but he can still claim the title of Governor of California . . . no experience, mediocre message. If California's best options were this turd and the previous turd . . . flushing ain't going to help . . . somebody's got to stick a hand down there and unclog the drain.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The problem with Schwarzenegger is he's not really fixing the problem. He's doing what he criticized Davis for doing: Moving money from one pot to another, deferring payments, relying on a (possible) future improving economy and borrowing money to the tune of $15 Bil. I don't call that a fix for CA's problems, I call that deferring the problem to the future. Pathetic.

Hey, but he can still claim the title of Governor of California . . . no experience, mediocre message. If California's best options were this turd and the previous turd . . . flushing ain't going to help . . . somebody's got to stick a hand down there and unclog the drain.

no. CA democrats have been overspending for years and Ahnuld is doing a good job. A lot pf californians are still very supportive of him (besides the hippies in berkeley who are trying to sue him). He has kept most of the campaign promises so far. at least he's not increasing the tuition by 30% like davis did.

not that i hate all democrats... i just dislike CA democrats.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The problem with Schwarzenegger is he's not really fixing the problem. He's doing what he criticized Davis for doing: Moving money from one pot to another, deferring payments, relying on a (possible) future improving economy and borrowing money to the tune of $15 Bil. I don't call that a fix for CA's problems, I call that deferring the problem to the future. Pathetic.

Hey, but he can still claim the title of Governor of California . . . no experience, mediocre message. If California's best options were this turd and the previous turd . . . flushing ain't going to help . . . somebody's got to stick a hand down there and unclog the drain.

Well the 15 billion, as I understand it, is actually a refinance of illegally formatted borrowing that Davis did last year. Apparently it needed to be voted on by the public and Davis and his Socialists in the legislature (most of whom are, sadly, still there...) never put it up. I'm not clear on all the specifics, though.

In either case, I intend to vote AGAINST the borrowing and I encourage everyone else in California to do the same. Schwarzennegger said it himself: If the borrowing doesn't pass, it will mean big, deep spending cuts that a lot of people won't like. I'm ALL for that. Cut the spending, and KEEP it cut.

Jason

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The problem with Schwarzenegger is he's not really fixing the problem. He's doing what he criticized Davis for doing: Moving money from one pot to another, deferring payments, relying on a (possible) future improving economy and borrowing money to the tune of $15 Bil. I don't call that a fix for CA's problems, I call that deferring the problem to the future. Pathetic.

Hey, but he can still claim the title of Governor of California . . . no experience, mediocre message. If California's best options were this turd and the previous turd . . . flushing ain't going to help . . . somebody's got to stick a hand down there and unclog the drain.

Well the 15 billion, as I understand it, is actually a refinance of illegally formatted borrowing that Davis did last year. Apparently it needed to be voted on by the public and Davis and his Socialists in the legislature (most of whom are, sadly, still there...) never put it up. I'm not clear on all the specifics, though.

In either case, I intend to vote AGAINST the borrowing and I encourage everyone else in California to do the same. Schwarzennegger said it himself: If the borrowing doesn't pass, it will mean big, deep spending cuts that a lot of people won't like. I'm ALL for that. Cut the spending, and KEEP it cut.

Jason

Aren't there a lot of things he CAN'T cut though, because of the referendums?

 

[SteelCityFan]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlexInstead of giving a "hand up" he created 2-3 generations of people who never got off the dole until (amazingly) under Clinton's administration they revised the welfare code to allow ONLY 2 years at a time and 5 years in your lifetime of welfare from the federal government.

If there was ever a program limit full of loopholes, this is it.


I have no problem helping out people who CAN'T help themselves, but a very large percentage of people sucking down welfare are perfectly able to get a job... they choose not to. The town where I lived from age 14-20 had 5000 people and 4 welfare developments. People have lived in these free rent places for decades. The problem is that most states don't consider food stamps, WIC, etc welfare... only the cash falls under that category.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Fair enough. You're right, they *definitely* need to close those loopholes. 5 years government aid PERIOD, no passes. Get off your ass and support yourself or let nature take its course and die where you stand.

Jason

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SteelCityFan

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlexInstead of giving a "hand up" he created 2-3 generations of people who never got off the dole until (amazingly) under Clinton's administration they revised the welfare code to allow ONLY 2 years at a time and 5 years in your lifetime of welfare from the federal government.

If there was ever a program limit full of loopholes, this is it.


I have no problem helping out people who CAN'T help themselves, but a very large percentage of people sucking down welfare are perfectly able to get a job... they choose not to. The town where I lived from age 14-20 had 5000 people and 4 welfare developments. People have lived in these free rent places for decades. The problem is that most states don't consider food stamps, WIC, etc welfare... only the cash falls under that category.

I wonder if your town is an exception, meaning that it may have "4 Welfare developements" not because your town has that many Welfare recipients(though obviously they do now), but because the town sought those developements as part of their attempt to draw people or develop the economy. Case in point:

I live in a small village of 600+ population. Here we have a 3 floor retirement home of approx 30 Units. We have this not because the local retirees needed it, as most own their own homes, we have it as part of a Town Developement plan. The idea is to attract people to the town from major cities, though they are on fixed incomes they still need groceries, other goods, and many require some form of assistance, which means that a few jobs are also created(don't know actual number, but suspect it is less than 10).

Perhaps your town has similar ideas and has sought out Welfare Developements? Your State government may also benefit from this arrangement, it could be much cheaper to build in your town than in a major city as property values would be much lower etc.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

stupidity in CA

In his campaign last fall, Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, praised the Healthy Families program and vowed to do whatever he could to make sure all those who qualified for the program were enrolled. But in his budget, which is certain to be modified by the Legislature, Mr. Schwarzenegger proposed $2.7 billion in cuts in social service programs, including the cap on enrollment in Healthy Families.

Mr. Schwarzenegger also proposed a 10 percent reduction in fees to doctors and other medical providers under the Medi-Cal program, a move some fear will drive many providers out of the overburdened system. A court has blocked a 5 percent reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursements imposed last year, so the $462 million Mr. Schwarzenegger hopes to save from the larger reduction is hypothetical at this point.

"This really represents a frontal assault on health and human services programs," Mr. Janssen said. He said denying basic health coverage to thousands of low-income residents would drive them to underfinanced community clinics and overcrowded emergency rooms. The counties and cities foot the majority of the bills for those services, he said.

Mr. Janssen also noted that Mr. Schwarzenegger's budget depended largely on California voters approving a $15 billion deficit-reduction bond on the March ballot. Without that money, the state will run out of cash in June and the budget hole next year will be at least $3 billion deeper.

Mr. Janssen said that borrowing to finance current spending was fiscally irresponsible, but utterly necessary given the state's plight.

"It's lousy government," he said, "but it has to pass."

Any honest person would tell you CA needs more revenue AND less spending. But repealing the car tax was stupid. Withholding revenue from municipal governments is real stupid. And proposing to reduce healthcare costs by reducing provider payments when the previous year's reimbursement reduction was blocked by the judiciary is just plain idiocy.

 

[Dissipate]

Go Arnold! You the man! Cut that spending, and then cut it again and again. You know what this damn healthcare is? It is about irresponsible parents popping out babies at the taxpayer's expense. That's right these "low income" families get free healthcare for their kids. So not only is the government subsidizing this crap, it is literally breeding a new generation of dependents! People need to pay for their own children. If these people are poor and can barely provide for themselves what the hell are they doing bringing children into this world? Oh yea, and let's not forget all the illegal immigrants from Mexico reaping most of these government funded benefits.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Go Arnold! You the man! Cut that spending, and then cut it again and again. You know what this damn healthcare is? It is about irresponsible parents popping out babies at the taxpayer's expense. That's right these "low income" families get free healthcare for their kids. So not only is the government subsidizing this crap, it is literally breeding a new generation of dependents! People need to pay for their own children. If these people are poor and can barely provide for themselves what the hell are they doing bringing children into this world? Oh yea, and let's not forget all the illegal immigrants from Mexico reaping most of these government funded benefits.

Hmm, you sure that's the problem?