Terminating the Budget Crisis

In a move that smells strongly of the old strength and decisivenessthat brought him into office, Governor Schwarzenegger has rejected themost recent Democratic budget plan as being insufficiently concernedwith cutting the right programs and with raising the right taxes,according to the Los Angeles Times.Thisrejection comes on the heels of a bit of truly dirty politicalmaneuvering, in which the Democrats managed to squeeze $9.3 million intaxes out of California's wallets without so much as consulting asingle GOP assemblyman or senator.

Schwarzenegger, having just takena truly principled stand against one bit of Democratic cynicism, oughtto now take the required steps to bring this flatly anti-representativebit of tax-and-spend zealotry to heel.

Ironically enough, one Democratic senator characterized his party'sattempt to duck the debate as the reign of "democracy." According tothe Times, Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles) said, "Today, we end the tyranny of the minority. No longer willwe becaptured by ideologues who don't respond to their responsibility."Funny how that works, since it is precisely the Democratic ideology(and Schwarzenegger's up-to-this-point nonstop record of appeasement)that has put California in budget shortfall. Moreover, consideringthat the proposed Democratic budget is essentially one giant mishmashof hypocrisy, Cedillo ought to be advised to look into the mirrorbefore he cuts himself with Occam's razor again. He has all the wrongactors in mind for his rant against "ideologues." Consideringthat according to Schwarzenegger, Cedillo's pet issue, driverslicenses for illegal immigrants, would cost the state "millions of dollars," Cedillo really ought to be more careful before ranting about the "responsibility" of cutting the budget.

But setting aside the intemperances of a few over-enthusiastic taxhikers, Schwarzenegger's veto of the Democratic budget constitutes avery important rejection - the rejection of a confused and oftencontradictory argument for a budget in which priorities and incentivestructures could have been stitched together by Victor Frankenstein. Inthe proposed budget,  the Democratspropose to get the necessary process of cutting the budget out of theway through "cuts to schools and healthcare." Yet, when Schwarzeneggerrefused to sign the budget on the grounds that it didn't go far enoughin cutting welfare programs, the Democrats responded thatSchwarzenegger's proposed budget (which is admittedly harsher onschools) would "ruin the basic functions of California's government andintensify the state's economic troubles." Very well, but if schools aresuch a "basic function," one wonders why the Democrats would includethem in their budget rather than cutting programs like the "state workforce and welfare programs" at all.Moreover, considering that the Democratic plan would cut school budgetsby $7.3 billion, as opposed to the Republican one that would cut $11billion, at the point where the difference between the two budgetsisn't even half, the Democrats need to make a more cogent argument forwhy those additional $3.7 billion are taking things too far.

None of this should be seen to minimize the impacts of the budget deficit, which is projected to reach the ghastly sum of $41.8 million by 2010. Indeed, something must be done to stop this problem. As such,Democratic strategist James Kinney was essentially correct when hestated that when a bus is about to go off a cliff, one should " keeppumping until the bus stops." However, this is not what the Democratsare doing. Rather, they are slamming their metaphorical feet atanything they can reach, whereas Schwarzenegger rightly wants to besure that he has his foot on the brakes, rather than the gas.