Famous Gassed Words

Matt Welch | January 11, 2006

From California's illegal-motorcyclist in chief, Arnold Schwarzenegger:

When I ran [for office], I thought it was easier to balance the budget.... But it is very, very difficult.

So difficult that the Austrian Oak has basically given up, using an unplanned surplus carry-over to patch the hole in his spendtastic 2006-07 budget, and proposing a $68 billion bond issue for infrastructure. Says Sac Bee columnist Dan Walters:

The fine print of the voluminous budget reveals just how much spending, and deficits, have increased under Schwarzenegger. The $97.9 billion in general fund spending that he proposes for 2006-07 would be $18.1 billion or 22.7 percent more than his first budget spent two years ago, historic data show, while revenues would have increased by just $9 billion.

Links all harvested at Rough & Tumble.

Comments

|1.11.06 @ 12:06PM|#

Repeal the 22nd Amendment! The man is clearly qualified to be president.

Kraorh|1.11.06 @ 12:22PM|#

This is so depressing. I remember thinking his candidacy was a sign of hope, and that Schwarzenegger represented the kind of direction I hoped to see Republican Party take - socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Instead, he seems to be a mixed bag on social issues, and any pretense of fiscal responsiblity seems to be gone. Arnold, you're quickly joining Steve Forbes in my list of former heroes of mine who have betrayed what originally made them worthwhile.

|1.11.06 @ 12:37PM|#

CA voters are the real problem. They want to spend and spend. I think Arnold is just throwing up his hands and saying "So be it, and let it be on infrastucture."

|1.11.06 @ 1:06PM|#

Doesn't it seem like if you want (relatively) restrained government spending you are better off voting for the Democrats than the Republicans?

Think about our recent US presidents, the last couple of British PM's. Makes you go hmmmmmm.

Is there a way a Republican will lead to less government spending than his Democrat counterpart in an election would have? Yes, but either the Republican needs to go into office with the explicit aim to radically reduce government in the economic sphere, or the Democrat needs to go into office with the explicit aim to radically increase government in the economic sphere.

With the exception of said "extremists", I think the more moderate candidates are their own worst enemy by conceding the legitimacy of the opposition's p.o.v. while not actually trying to all that hard to significantly move things in the "correct" (i.e. less goverment spending for GOP, and more for Dem's) direction.

In other words, they concede their opposition too much, while having to fight too hard to get what their more "extreme" allies would call mere scraps.

Conclusion: If you want less government spending your best bet is to vote for someone who wants a lot less spending. If such a candidate does not exist, then you are actually better off voting for a candidate who wants slightly more spending than one who wants slightly less spending.

|1.11.06 @ 1:07PM|#

That is so slack-assed.

|1.11.06 @ 1:08PM|#

I agree with Chaddy about California. At least the money will be spent on infrastructure instead of state employee salaries.

MP|1.11.06 @ 1:15PM|#

Arnold, you're quickly joining Steve Forbes in my list of former heroes of mine who have betrayed what originally made them worthwhile.

What's objectionable about Stevo, beyond his hawkishness?

|1.11.06 @ 1:23PM|#

Schwarzenegger's first proposed budget two years ago proposed dramatic spending cuts but was essentially a dead letter.

It so happens that the current budget is more or less in balance (at least for this year), which you certainly couldn't say for what eventually passed the Legislature (run by Democrats to whom fiscal responsibility means paying your bar tab) two years ago.

So, yeah, spending is up, but the state isn't plunging headlong into bankruptcy. Schwarzenegger won't ring in the Libertarian utopia, but look at the material he has to work with.

Franklin Harris|1.11.06 @ 1:56PM|#

Schwarzenegger is the man who campaigned for a proposition to waste taxpayer money on "after school programs" because, apparently, kids can no longer just go home after school and watch TV the way I did back in the '70s and '80s. Why did anyone expect fiscal restraint from this man?

The Wine Commonsewer|1.11.06 @ 2:48PM|#

Ahhh, Californicate just keeps getting better. Somehow I don't think the Atzlan crowd could get it worse.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.11.06 @ 2:54PM|#

Shit, the governor wasn't ticketed? I got tagged for no motorcycle license and the god dam cop threatened to impound the bike as well. Told me he had the right to do it and I best kiss his ring and thank him for not doing it. The fine was 140.00 and that was over ten years ago.

Not who you know, it's who you blow regards, TWC

|1.11.06 @ 2:59PM|#

Seriously, you people didn't realize during the recall campaign that Ahnold was talking out of his hat?

You really thought he knew what he was talking about, had a plan, and that the fiscally-responsible policies you liked were achievable just by putting the right person in charge?

I don't get it. You're intelligent people, and political junkies, too. It took me about two days of Swartzenegger responding to hard questions with his "girly man" shtick to know he was both full of it, and not up for the job.

What's the deal? Did you hate Grey Davis that much, that you were willing to suspend critical judgement?

R C Dean|1.11.06 @ 3:03PM|#

Doesn't it seem like if you want (relatively) restrained government spending you are better off voting for the Democrats than the Republicans?

God knows I wish there was a politically viable low-spending alternative to the Repubs, but the Dems ain't it, seeing as how their main complaints about every budget-busting Repub proposal are (a) it doesn't spend enough and (b) it doesn't raise taxes.

|1.11.06 @ 3:28PM|#

I guess it's about time for the Govenator to retire, write his memoirs, and hit the talk-circuit. Oh, and he could probably make another action movie about a governor whose plane gets hijacked and has to fight the hijackers to save his family. Oh? They already made a movie like that? The President, you say? Well, Ah-nuld could make a sequel...

Mike Laursen|1.11.06 @ 4:16PM|#

Don't blame me, I voted for Georgy!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3168177.stm

|1.11.06 @ 4:42PM|#

Larry N. Martin wrote:

I guess it's about time for the Govenator to retire, write his memoirs, and hit the talk-circuit. Oh, and he could probably make another action movie about a governor whose plane gets hijacked and has to fight the hijackers to save his family. Oh? They already made a movie like that? The President, you say? Well, Ah-nuld could make a sequel...

Not to mention a Terminator 4. Yes, I know how T3 ended, but we still don't have a definitive answer to how the War Against The Machines turned out. Come to think of it, T4 would be a fitting final act for the Terminator movie series and for Ahnuld himself, both of which have clearly jumped the shark.

|1.11.06 @ 4:50PM|#

I can't believe the whole motorcycle license brouhaha. If you believe Ahnold's telling of the story of the accident, the guy looked his direction and backed out anyway. Everyone who rides a motorcycle has a similar story- when you ride, you just have to assume you are invisible.

Which shows how stupid the special license is, because it doesn't make you any less invisible, and it wouldn't have prevented this accident in the least.

|1.11.06 @ 5:37PM|#

|
|
|
...Arnold's budget problem merely stems from a legal inability to print more money.

George Bush faces no such handicap -- and can easily fund a 2 Trillion-dollar adventure in Mesopotamia.

|1.11.06 @ 10:04PM|#

I saw on the news this morning (Yeah, I know, if I saw it on the local news, then it must be true!), that they're gonna put a carpool lane on the 405. The reporter said that if the California didn't spend the money on it now, they would lose matching funds from the federal government for the project. Now, I don't want the State of California to lose, really I don't...

...but why does it always seem like every time the State of California wins, I lose.