This just in from Grover Norquist, Prsident of Americans for Tax Reform…
Republicans in the California State legislature and Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate are both in the minority and facing demands by the majority Democrat party to join them in massive spending and tax increases.In Washington DC Republicans point to two different models. One was in 1990 where George H.W. Bush went to Andrews Air Force Base with the Democrat and Republican leadership in the House and Senate and hammered out a "compromise" that raised taxes and spending as the Democrats wanted. Very bipartisan. Something was "done." A bill passed. Two years later the American people tossed Bush 41 out of the presidency. Bush would go on to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, manage the collapse of the Soviet Union and rack up 90% approval ratings. But his fingerprints were on the bipartisan spend and tax "compromise."The second model was the Republican reaction to the election of a Democrat House and Senate alongside President Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes and increased spending. But they did so without a single GOP vote in support. Voters then awarded the House and Senate to the Republicans in 1994 for the first time since 1954.Oppose bad legislation, win. Make horrible legislation, slightly less horrible and vote for it: lose.There is nothing wrong, and much to praise in working with elected officials of "the other party" to achieve positive goals. There is no value in joining with the other party to do something damaging to the people; more spending and taxes. That is not a compromise. That is doing the wrong thing. And it is politically stupid as well as destructive to human progress and liberty.The world did not begin yesterday. We have seen this play out before. Voters and taxpayers reward those who "just say no" to drug use and higher taxes. Actually they will be more forgiving of Michael Phelps than of Obama or the tax hikers in Sacramento.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, February 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Interesting revisionist history. Apparently Mr. Norquist doesn’t want to be reminded of what happened to his brother in arms, Newt Gingrich, after the Republicans shut down government. And that’s exactly what Chuck DeVore & Co. want to do.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Instead of just talk, do something about it. Has anyone started to look into writing a measure for the ballot to control Sacramento? Here are my thoughts-
As we are most certainly aware, when Sacramento finally “solves” the budget situation, it will in fact, offer no real long term solutions. This is why the GOP, the party of less taxes and government, needs to step in and get an initiative on the ballot ASAP.
Let’s look at the facts-Most of our legislature does not know how to balance a budget (That is shown every year by the smoke and mirror approach that we see during every budget situation).
Fact-Most of our legislature can’t say no to enlarging existing or creating programs with no regards how to fund it.
Solution-A voter lead initiative (Since we know that most of our legislature couldn’t handle something like this) that would bring back a stable and fiscal responsible budget system for the state. The benefits? Quite obvious-The state, counties, cities, school districts agencies could actually plan on the future than relying on what Sacramento will take away from them now to try to solve their fiscal mess. But most importantly, these reforms will make California into a strong state once again, a state that will, once again, attract businesses and attract new jobs.
The initiative-
Revenue projections-Pessimistic NOT optimistic revenue projections would be used in projecting revenue for the state. Using optimistic projections end up creating programs and bloating others and when the projections for revenue fall short, the state finds it hard to cut back. Using a lower revenues projection will mostly eliminate that. What to do with that excess revenue brought in? Put it away for a rainy day fund. When that fund hits a certain level, a portion can be rebated back to the consumer.
Rainy day fund. This fund needs to be defined so that it cannot be raided for whatever reason. I would classify it as a fund to be used for emergencies, such as disasters, not the disasters when Sacrament overspends and now needs help to balance their budget.
Funding of programs. If the Sacramento wants to bloat or create a program/agency, they would be required to find the funds for that out of existing programs. They will not be able to raid the Rainy day fund for it.
Government watchdog for waste. A watchdog with power needs to be establish to go thru the different agencies and departments and find the waste and ways to improve efficiently. These reports would mandate change. Allow this to spread to any agency that receives state funding. Allow the state to check their operations and then mandate change. Any agency that refuses this, would not receive funds from the state. We need to be a watchdog for the taxpayers.
Legislature. I think most citizens are angered by the fact that our elected officials are getting paid during this mess, while state offices are being closed and workers are being threatened to be furlough. A simple solution-No pay for any State Office holder until the budget is solved and no payment for this lost wages after the budget is solved.
We deserve more than smoke and mirrors every year from the folks in Sacramento. We deserve REAL fiscal leadership and responsibility. The proposed measure would do such. Who is up for the challenge? Let’s get this or a similar measure on the ballot ASAP. Let’s make the initiative simple and straightforward so the other side cannot smear it.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:00 am
If one conjures up a decison tree and follows the branch we are climbing to it’s logical end, they will see that the only reasonable choice is to resist tax increases. The allocation of wealth is now determined by the recipients of that wealth. The goverment no longers serves the people but it is their master.
Expenses will grow because the legislature will be pressured by those that pay for the campaigns of and turn out the voters for those legislators.
Our state government has the lawful power to use force to affect the direction of flow for all wealth in the state. Save that does not go to another taxing agency.
What could possibly go wrong with this arrangement?