| The State of California is still billions of dollars in debt; billions, a huge amount of money. The budget issue is symptomatic of a problem of integrity, a moral problem. To be sure, the budget issue is complex, but can best be understood by using a familiar model, the family. The family wage earners generate a given income that is used to meet expenses. The family works cooperatively to make the income, and purchases only affordable items. The family’s savings provide a cushion for any unforeseen problems or may be used for "wants." |
 |  |  |  |  |
| Robert Newman For Governor |
The State of California has spent much more money than the State has received, hence the State, not the
people, has reported a "short fall." The State needs to better calculate income and expenses. The family
arms income.
The State of California is still over 25 billion dollars short of its projected expenses. Billions is a huge
amount of money. The budget issue is symptomatic of a problem of integrity, a moral problem. To be sure,
the budget issue is complex, but can best be understood by using a familiar model, the family: The family
wage earners generate a given income that is used to meet expenses. The family works cooperatively to
make the income, and purchases only affordable items. The family’s savings provide a cushion for any
unforeseen problems or may be used for "wants".
And in the event when incomes are depleted, some items must be sold to pay for the basic necessities of
the family. For example, my parents were frugal; they did not spend beyond their means. I learned that
the family works together to make ends meet. If income is conserved, saved, bills can be met. When there
is indebtedness, only necessities can be afforded. Any use of money beyond necessities must be
restricted until there is a surplus. The State of California is not to be considered an exception to this
model.
In California, when the surplus is large enough, tax-refunds may be issued to the taxpayer. After all, it’s
the taxpayer’s money, not the government’s money. Government must be responsible to the taxpayer;
however, most taxpayers have learned and accepted government indebtedness as a way of life. We, the
people of California, have the freedom of choice; we can choose not to overextend ourselves on a
personal level, a family level, and on a State level. I will emphatically advance a position of personal
responsibility and spending restraint which will automatically cause a monetary accumulation, i.e., a
reserve.
At the Community Renewal Summit, a conference, in Los Angeles I met a financial counselor. He stated
that many financially strapped people, who came to him for financial advice, were unwilling to give up their
cell phones, their cable, or their gourmet coffee even when the loss of their home was eminent. I was
shocked. I clearly live according to a different set of priorities.
On a practical level, public agencies that were of a reasonable size and affordable a few years ago, but
have expanded greatly, need to shrink so the taxpayer can afford the “benefits" derived from such
agencies. Many services provided by public agencies should be returned to the individual property owner.
It then follows that since government would be delivering fewer services, government would need less
money to operate. Taxes could then be reduced. It is clear that neither can California continue to spend
more than is taken in nor can the California taxpayer cover California’s indebtedness by continued
increases in taxes, bonds, and creative “assessments". The fiscal belt of California must be tightened.
Now, let’s address the integrity, moral issue. Many legislators are aware of some of the concerns herein
expressed. Yet, there is a general failure to correct the problem. Some say to try to change the course of
things is too much work. Former president Harry S. Truman said, “If it’s too hot in the kitchen, get out."
Some say that things have gone too far so it’s too late. My response to this is that if you can’t do the job
you shouldn’t get paid; do the honorable thing by resigning your position. Again, it is a moral problem.
Others say that to make the appropriate changes would be unpopular or contrary to party dictates. I say
the elected official needs to be responsible to the people, not the party if a choice is to be made. To do so
requires strength of character and strong moral fiber. Certainly you know, by now, my position concerning
a decision relative to serving the people versus, “I’m up for re-election”.
King Solomon said, “Don’t promise to be responsible for someone else’s debt (Proverbs 22.3). The state
debt is not the taxpayer’s doing and therefore is not the taxpayer’s responsibility.
people, has reported a "short fall." The State needs to better calculate income and expenses. The family
arms income.
The State of California is still over 25 billion dollars short of its projected expenses. Billions is a huge
amount of money. The budget issue is symptomatic of a problem of integrity, a moral problem. To be sure,
the budget issue is complex, but can best be understood by using a familiar model, the family: The family
wage earners generate a given income that is used to meet expenses. The family works cooperatively to
make the income, and purchases only affordable items. The family’s savings provide a cushion for any
unforeseen problems or may be used for "wants".
And in the event when incomes are depleted, some items must be sold to pay for the basic necessities of
the family. For example, my parents were frugal; they did not spend beyond their means. I learned that
the family works together to make ends meet. If income is conserved, saved, bills can be met. When there
is indebtedness, only necessities can be afforded. Any use of money beyond necessities must be
restricted until there is a surplus. The State of California is not to be considered an exception to this
model.
In California, when the surplus is large enough, tax-refunds may be issued to the taxpayer. After all, it’s
the taxpayer’s money, not the government’s money. Government must be responsible to the taxpayer;
however, most taxpayers have learned and accepted government indebtedness as a way of life. We, the
people of California, have the freedom of choice; we can choose not to overextend ourselves on a
personal level, a family level, and on a State level. I will emphatically advance a position of personal
responsibility and spending restraint which will automatically cause a monetary accumulation, i.e., a
reserve.
At the Community Renewal Summit, a conference, in Los Angeles I met a financial counselor. He stated
that many financially strapped people, who came to him for financial advice, were unwilling to give up their
cell phones, their cable, or their gourmet coffee even when the loss of their home was eminent. I was
shocked. I clearly live according to a different set of priorities.
On a practical level, public agencies that were of a reasonable size and affordable a few years ago, but
have expanded greatly, need to shrink so the taxpayer can afford the “benefits" derived from such
agencies. Many services provided by public agencies should be returned to the individual property owner.
It then follows that since government would be delivering fewer services, government would need less
money to operate. Taxes could then be reduced. It is clear that neither can California continue to spend
more than is taken in nor can the California taxpayer cover California’s indebtedness by continued
increases in taxes, bonds, and creative “assessments". The fiscal belt of California must be tightened.
Now, let’s address the integrity, moral issue. Many legislators are aware of some of the concerns herein
expressed. Yet, there is a general failure to correct the problem. Some say to try to change the course of
things is too much work. Former president Harry S. Truman said, “If it’s too hot in the kitchen, get out."
Some say that things have gone too far so it’s too late. My response to this is that if you can’t do the job
you shouldn’t get paid; do the honorable thing by resigning your position. Again, it is a moral problem.
Others say that to make the appropriate changes would be unpopular or contrary to party dictates. I say
the elected official needs to be responsible to the people, not the party if a choice is to be made. To do so
requires strength of character and strong moral fiber. Certainly you know, by now, my position concerning
a decision relative to serving the people versus, “I’m up for re-election”.
King Solomon said, “Don’t promise to be responsible for someone else’s debt (Proverbs 22.3). The state
debt is not the taxpayer’s doing and therefore is not the taxpayer’s responsibility.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Find an issue by topic |
The California Budget
"The voice of the people"