Governor of California's State of the state speach

[Som Guy]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/politics/4052240/detail.html

"Last year, we had $78 billion in revenues coming in. The great news is that this year, we have $83 billion coming in, over $5 billion more than last year. Now that is terrific.

However, various budget formulas require us to spend over $10 billion more.

Do the math. Our revenue increases by more than 5 billion but our spending increases by over 10 billion. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

In fact, the way the formulas now work, we will never catch up. No matter how well we do, the current system is programmed to spend even more.

It is on automatic pilot. It is accountable to no one. Where will it all stop? How will it stop unless we stop it?

The truth is that we cannot fix the budget deficit without first fixing the budget system. The Constitution requires that I submit a budget to you, which I will do in a few days.

Yes, it sounds good, and it would get us through the current year, but I do not like this budget at all. It does not solve our ongoing structural problem, because our deficit the following year will be even worse.

It does not restore the integrity of the budgetary process. It is a painful budget forced upon us by a broken system.

And we all know what's going to happen. The special interests will run TV ads calling me cruel and heartless. They will organize protests out in front of the Capitol. They will try to say I don't understand the consequences of these decisions.

Let me tell you something. I am well aware there are lives behind the numbers. But I have a responsibility for the fiscal health of this state and for the honesty of its finances.

A lot of people say, "Arnold, why don't you just raise taxes and be done with it?" Well, as I said earlier, we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. We could raise taxes by billions but that would only further drive up spending by billions of dollars.

California would never come out ahead. Our economy would suffer, jobs would be lost and the people would be punished. Unless we go to the root of the problem and reform the system, the budget will continue to be one big fight, year after year after year. I don't mind a fight, but if there is to be one, let it be over new, important things that move us beyond the past.

Therefore, in the special session, I will submit to you legislation that cuts expenditures across the board when they grow above revenues."

I laughed when Arnold first came into office in California, but it seems he is actually doing a great job.

[Lu Norton]

Another funny thing is.. I remember I saw this futuristic cop movie Demolition Man. Wherein a character in the movie mentioned that their current president(which suppose to be in the future) is Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I might vote for him if he runs for the presidency.

[Som Guy]

Another funny thing is.. I remember I saw this futuristic cop movie Demolition Man. Wherein a character in the movie mentioned that their current president(which suppose to be in the future) is Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

I might vote for him if he runs for the presidency.

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal, I think you need to be born in the U.S. to run for president.

[gadfly]

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal, I think you need to be born in the U.S. to run for president.

You're right; some people want to change that. Personally, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't. It's not like someone from the British royal family is going to get elected and have us re-colonized...

While no politician is ever going to be perfect, the bottom line is, I admire Arnold as a person. He is the epitome of the American Dream. He's smart, confident, seems to have integrity, and he's obviously extremely hard working and determined. I have not looked into his politics yet, so I can't comment about that.

[Ed from OC]

Off-topic, but look at this point Arnold makes:

"Last year, we had $78 billion in revenues coming in. The great news is that this year, we have $83 billion coming in, over $5 billion more than last year. Now that is terrific."

Why are increasing government revenues a good thing? This is a euphemism for more stolen money. It is a measure, also, of the increasing cost of government. This is the bill the California population has to pay for government services.

Arnold's no statist, but he is (like most people) operating on mistaken premises. What is revenue for the state politicians is a cost for its citizens. It's the same premise underlying the discussion of the "need to pay for tax cuts" -- as if tax money were primarily the property of the state, to be "given back" to the citizens.

The context of the debate needs to change to one in which the property rights of individuals are the given, and from that point we can discuss tax cuts, the size of government, the role of government, and so on.

[scottkursk]

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal, I think you need to be born in the U.S. to run for president.

Actually there is a little known exception in the Constitution that would allow a non-U.S. born citizen to become president: you just had to be a resident at the time the Constitution was signed.

Ok, so it's an exception that doesn't quite apply but is a little known fact.

[tommyedison]

You're right; some people want to change that. Personally, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't. It's not like someone from the British royal family is going to get elected and have us re-colonized...

Actually, even though I am an intending immigrant, I would like to keep that law until the world is pre-dominantly laissez-faire and freedom-oriented.