From the Orange Country Register:
Unfortunately, the article is on a registration-only site. I got the link and the quote from Reason magazine’s blog.
Here’s a cite for the “cutting waste” part of Arnold’s promise:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/8/221331.shtml
That’s pretty much exactly what I said in the OP, isn’t it?
John, I don’t believe I ever made such a claim. Have I ever used the words “By X date” or anything remotely similar?
O.K., now it’s my turn to ask YOU for a cite. I will need a cite for Schwarzenegger EVER saying “maybe not during my term”, or anything similar.
Cite for Arnold now “not ruling out” raising taxes.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8320834.htm?1c
Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t sound the same as:
“I said it before that I will not raise taxes, and I will not raise taxes”
John Mace obviously remembers this differently than I do, but I recall Arnold harping on this issue again and again and again in the campaign. He LAMBASTED opponent Cruz Bustamante for being honest and saying that yes, raising taxes was the only way to get rid of the debt, because the debt is so huge. It was practically all he talked about - that democrats always raise taxes, and he would not do so.
Like I said, the fact that he’s not ruling out tax increases any more isn’t what bothers me, it’s that the people who voted for him seem to be O.K. with that. This was the CORNERSTONE of his campaign, and he ridiculed anyone who said it couldn’t be done. It was supposedly the reason he won the election. Are people’s memories really that short?
blowero, I remember it exactly as you do, too. And yeah, it’s annoying that he doesn’t deny that he may end up having to do something he “swore” he wouldn’t do. But first of all, he hasn’t even said he would be doing it, just that he admits he may have been wrong in thinking that he wouldn’t have to. I dunno, I hate the guy, but a politician who can admit he was wrong, well, I’m not really bothered by that too much. In addition, at least he repealed that stupid driver licenses for illegals bullshit that Davis approved on his way out the door.
But the biggest reason I’m not “outraged” or “incensed” is, quite simply, I have more important fish to fry in trying to unseat an even bigger liar sitting in the office of the President. I’ll worry about Schwartzenegger later.
But where’s the admission he was wrong? Yeah, if he came out and said, “You know, I was arrogant, and I shouldn’t have said I could solve the state’s financial woes without raising taxes”, that’d be one thing. But I haven’t heard any such admission from him. It’s not just that he was wrong, but that he was so cocky about it. Where’s the contrition?
Anyone ready to label him a “flip-flopper” yet? 
Actually, I think Arnold is doing a reasonable job so far. And I’d rather watch him that Gray Davis any day. 
He has managed to get some changes passed for the workers comp issue, which Davis was unable to do. We’ll have to see if this has any real impact on the problem or reduces the overall costs though.
He does seem to have a better relationship with the Democratic leaders in the Legislature than I expected.
I don’t agree with the Prop 57/58 passage. This only delays the day of reckoning and doesn’t solve the underlying structural problems. The principle and interest on the bonds will still have to be paid back. The $15 billion bond is going to cost 25-30 billion to pay back. At the same time, we also authorized $12.3 billion in bonds to be sold for school infrastructure upgrades, which will cost $20-25 billion to pay back. So we are 14 billion in the hole now and we just added another 50 billion or so that will need to be paid back. Where will the monies to do this come from?
Californians simply don’t want to cut back on spending but they also don’t want more taxes. Not unusual but also not realistic. OTOH, spending can’t really be curbed because something like 75% of the CA budget is constitutionally protected from cuts by various propositions that have been passed over the years. So many are hoping and praying for the return of another tech bubble, because that is the only hope we really have to dig ourselves out of this mess anytime soon.
Realistically, I think Prop 13 needs to be repealed, at least for commercial entities and probably for people above a certain income level (like Warren Buffet who paid $2000 tax on his $4 million Malibu house last year). But Arnold has put prop 13 off-limits, supposedly along with new taxes. I just don’t see where the revenue we need is going to come from.
No you never did. But you did say that Arnold promised to balance the budget. To do so, he’d have to do it by some date, even if he never committed to a specific date. I do not recall him saying that he would actually balance the budget. Do you see the difference between these 2 statements:
- I believe the budget can be balanced without raising taxes.
- I will balance the budget without raising taxes.
#1 makes no claim to actually do it yourself and implies that it might stretch out beyond your term. #2 is quite clear that it will be done during your term.
I don’t think he said it. I just don’t believe he ever explicitly said the budget would be balanced during his term in office.
I’m not trying to nit-pick here. Arnold’s campaign promise was not so much that he would balance the budget, but that he would bring fiscal responsibility to Sacramento so that the state could grow out of the deficit. It was unclear how long that would take, and the bond measure was meant to bridge the gap until it happened. Given that the bond is payable over something like 10 years, that problably gives us a reasonable timeframe within which to expect a balanced budget, ie well beyond his term.
Arnold has been very effective at commicating with Californians. If he thinks he absolutely cannot avoid raising taxes, I expect he’ll lay out the situation in a press conference. If he doesn’t, and just issues a statement, then I’d be extremely disappointed.
I think you guys are looking for an apology to early. Should he appologize for something he maybe might possibly under dire circumstances have to do in the future? No. I fully expect he will do so if and when the time comes that he actually does have to raise taxes. If he doesn’t, I’ll start a Pit thread calling him a lying, ass-hat NAZI. OK?
Didn’t Arnie discover after taking office that the budget was in much worse shape than was known before? I thought I recall reading that the Davis administration had left some nasty surprises for him. If so, then you have to cut him some slack. And in any case, you don’t get to label him a flip-flopper on taxes until he actually raises them.
As for prop 57/58 - If you want to see what might have happened had it not passed, have a look at New Zealand when it ran out of money.
I can’t say I’m disappointed in Arnie’s performance, because so far, he’s shown himself to be exactly what I took him for: a charming (to some), opportunistic political hack.
He really doesn’t know how to run a government, but he knows what stuff to scream to get elected. He knows that anyone really hopes is that he will not be as incompetent as Gray Davis, which, let’s face it, isn’t as hard. It was shameful to be a Californian during the previous administration.
What’s great about when the Pubbies take inordinate control of a situation is that they have no one they can credibly lay the blame on when their dumbest plans blow up in their faces.
I am confident enough in the current political climate that if Arnie does something seriously idiotic in a stupor of conservative power, it will bite him in the ass by election time.
From Gov. Governor Schwarzenegger’s State of the State address, Jan. 6, 2004:
Please explain which part of the word “never” means “maybe”.
Well, to a politician…they are synonymous. I think they use a different dictionary than the rest of us.
Now you’ve lost me. We were discussing campaign promises, right? What does a State of the State address have to do with campaign promises?
So if he fails to balance the budget without raising taxes, what difference does it make when the flip becomes a flop? I see no relevance to your distinction.
C’mon, John - you’re really reaching here. This just sounds like partisan ‘defending a Republican at all costs’. The idea that the budget would be balanced by his successor is completely inconsistent with Arnold’s campaign rhetoric. You’re just backpedaling.
It doesn’t even matter if he meant (1) or (2); if he raises taxes, then his campaign promise was false.
But why are you getting so hung up on that? Look, just forget about whether he said he would balance the budget - I don’t even need that to make my point. The POINT is that he made a big deal about how the solution to California’s financial troubles was to CUT WASTE, and that he wouldn’t need to raise taxes. What I’m trying to get at is that it was COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC, and that anyone with any sense KNEW it was unrealistic, yet we voted him in anyway. Cutting waste is a laudable goal, but it was obviously not going to close the gaping hole that is California’s debt. Not even close.
But he didn’t even MENTION that in his campaign. I daresay he might not have won the election had he said “My plan is to borrow billions of dollars more as a stopgap measure.” What bothers me is that when people take campaign promises at face value, and seem perfectly satisfied even when those promises are later broken, then honesty and integrity are rendered irrelevant. There’s no point in EVER telling the truth anymore.
O.K., I’m holding you to that. 
Seriously, though - circumstances already WERE dire. How would it be fair of him to claim “dire circumstances”? He’s the one who campaigned on promises of “La, la, la - I can fix this without raising taxes,” while everyone else was shouting that it was impossible. And by the way, he’s already cut school funding, which he promised not to touch.
blowero:
Well, we did get off topic about the whole balanced budget thing. Gettting back to your OP: WHERE"S THE OUTRAGE? Firstly, he hasn’t done anything yet, so I think it’s a bit premature for outrage. Secondly, if he does in fact have to raise taxes, the level of outrage will depend on exatly which taxes are raised. If he decides to reinstate the 3x car tax that he got rid of, he might even face a recall himself. If he raises taxes on business, he’ll be directly violating his most basic premise-- that CA needs to be a more attractive place for business.
And I’m not sure most Californians, even the ones who voted for him, expected him to not have to raise taxes. The current polls show that a significant majority supports increases in some taxes:
It’s unclear that Arnold won because of his no new taxes line. Everyone was just fed up with Davis and the only alternative was Bustamante, and he made a very poor candidate for lots of reasons (Indian gaming money being one of them).
Bottom line-- I’ll save my outrage for when we get the facts. Right now it’s just “hints and rumors”.
Everyone thought it would be vaguely funny if he won, but mostly we just wanted Davis out. Very few people really give a damn, since he can’t really do a worse job than Davis. If he does something good, that’s a cherry on top.
Me? I’m happy. It is somewhat shameful to have the Terminator be your leader, but at least he is taking the job seriously, and he seems to have surrounded himself with people who help him do a decent job (read: Not screwing the pooch - yet). This whole awful scenario might just turn out for the better.
Only psuedo-politicians like Bush who don’t know what they are doing actually follow through on their “I’m going to lower taxes regardless of the wisdom or economic effect and situation” rhetoric.
Um, I know. That’s exactly the point I made in the OP. Voters who supposedly elected the guy because of his stand against taxes, apparently now don’t seem to care if taxes get raised.
Well, I guess I ought to ask people why they voted for Arnold. If the election was really a referendum against Native Americans, so be it. But I never saw what was supposedly so bad about Cruz; I suspect the real reason he lost is that he just didn’t yell as loudly as Arnold did. Arnold basically shouted him down in the debate.
So let me ask that question: Why did folks vote for Arnold? Because of his platform of no new taxes and “cutting waste”, or because he promised to stick it to the Native American casinos? Or some other reason? They like his muscles? I don’t know.
I just don’t think that was the (main) reason people voted for him. And I think most people expected, before the election, that taxes would have to be raised.
Not a referendum against Indians, but against someone who appeared to be on their payroll. And Cruz was seen by a lot of people as Davis, Jr. It would have been a different ballgame if it had been Arnold vs Babs (Boxer). She would have given him a real run for his money.
All of the above, and the fact that he was “an outsider”.
Arnold Schwartzenegger won the Governorship because of the ABD(avis) philosophy. Bustamonte didn’t stand a chance in hell because he was a part of the Davis administration who made no attempt at representing that he’d do anything but continue the status quo, which is what people were trying to get rid of.
Arnie could have run with the campaign slogan “I’m A Sack Of Potatoes” and he’d still have won. Hell, he was accused of sexual harrassment against women who worked with him on his movie sets going back decades – people didn’t care*. Californians were furious with Davis, and rightfully so. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for his sorry butt, and I was furious with him. He was literally destroying our state, much the same way that Bush is destroying our nation (though without the war stuff). We did with Davis what we hope the nation does with Bush in November. Good riddance to bad rubbish. It’s really that simple.
I will get mad at Arnold when he does something as bad or worse than what Davis was already doing. And if a decent Democratic candidate opposes him at the next election, I’ll channel whatever dislike or anger I have towards Arnold into a vote for the Dem. At this point, that’s all I can do. Now I’m off to go write my Representatives in Congress about the atrocities that are happening in Iraq – for me that takes precendence over future taxes that haven’t even been raised yet. With our troops’ and our nation’s literal safety at stake, I really can’t get worked up about Arnie’s maybe tax hike.
*Except for me, apparently. I had planned on voting for him right up until he admitted he’d “behaved badly” (which in my opinion was as good as an admission). So I voted for Bustamonte, even though I knew he didn’t stand a chance.