Brown defends deep cuts in California budget

[The Northerner]

Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday defended the cuts and restructuring proposals in his budget plan against attacks by mayors who say they will cost jobs, and health and welfare advocates who say the changes could cost lives.

The state is in a crisis and has no choice but to make deep spending cuts and extend temporary tax increases to close a budget deficit projected to be $25 billion over the next 18 months, Brown said during a news conference.

"Sometimes when you pull the Band-Aid off, it's better to do it quickly," Brown said.

That will let California get past the pain and position itself for a long-term recovery, he said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/01/26/financial/f134402S80.DTL#ixzz1CC0lU0iL

[Ken Burch]

1. Brown was always a right-winger at heart.

His switch on Prop 13, his defense of "three strikes", his opposition to pot legalization. and his love of the insane prison-building program in Cali proved that years ago. There's nothing progressive he could still do after all that conservatism.

And anyone who defends him in this thread will basically post something along the lines of "it's ENOUGH to have OUR guy do the cutting".

[movonne]

2. I was raised and lived in ca. for most of my life...and I would never

call jerry brown a repug...he was very liberal...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. That is saying it like it is.

[Ken Burch]

6. He backed the cops on "Three strikes"-you CAN'T be liberal and do that.

and you can't be liberal and back austerity AND the status quo on drug law. There isn't anything left to be liberal on if you're right wing on those issues.

[Ken Burch]

4. Only when it wasn't risky.

Brown NEVER stood up against a right-wing assault on anything.

His Prop 13. reponse showed the real guy. As did his senseless support of keeping "three strikes" and his support of the fascist status quo on drugs(which is what opposing legalization means). '

Brown never walked the walk on anything.

[mike_c]

7. interesting perspective-- I've never thought of him that way...

...and of course I was eager to elect Jerry Brown rather than Meg Whitman, but I was not a Californian during Brown's earlier terms, and I think it's sometimes hard for us newcomers to keep his and his father accomplishments separate.

I'm of several minds about his budget proposals. I do understand that California's multi-billion dollar deficit requires drastic measures to overcome. I agree with Brown in that regard-- I mean, that's not chump change.

On the other hand, I'm REALLY disappointed that he's approaching it this way. First, as long as there is sufficient wealth in the state to meet the needs of its elderly, its poor, and its disabled citizens, I don't think there is ANY excuse for cutting essential services to needy folks. If the money is there, then it's the state's responsibility to raise sufficient revenue to pay for essential services. Second, I'm disappointed that Brown is going to use the referendum process to "ask permission" to increase revenue. I'm very doubtful that he'll be successful, so that will DOUBLE the cuts after June. The governor should govern, not seek popularity. The state needs revenue, and the wealth is plentiful for raising it. Balancing the budget on the backs of the poor is bad juju. Brown knows better.

[Ken Burch]

9. It's only bad juju if you're intending to govern on a basis of morality

Cleary, Brown just wanted power in name in his declining years. You can't be reactionary at the start of a term and then be progressive later. Nobody has ever done that.

If this is what he's like now, he's just going to get further and further right.

The only progressive thing Brown EVER did was backing the farmworkers, and he threw them under the bus after 1978.

(But no, this isn't an argument that you should have voted for Whitman. The worst of the worst did have to be stopped. It's just an argument that Democrats aren't supposed to do anything right-wing Republicans would do).

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. Californians have received the state we overwhelming voted for time and time again

Brown has to operate within that mess,

[Ken Burch]

11. No...he could lead the fight for something better.

He's not going to run for president again(he's too old now), so Brown has nothing to lose by finally BEING the uncompromised progressive he vowed to be in 1974.

A true leader doesn't have to accept artificial constraints.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

29. only to be recalled or over-ruled by ballot initiative

California doesn't want an uncompromising progressive, we want somebody to tell us fairy tales.

[Ken Burch]

30. So you're basically saying Brown is right to give up.

That's the only alternative to fighting for something better.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

34. California is ungovernable

One can't rule from a bully pulpit as you imagine he should,

[Ken Burch]

35. There was no point even bothering to elect him then, was there?

Nothing short of standing up and challenging the status quo is worth doing if you're going to claim to be a Democratic governor.

Just saying "California is ungovernable" means giving up.

It isn't possible to do anything non-Republican if you accept the constraints.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

37. I don't think one could argue Republicans have been successful either.

Ahnuld didn't exactly hammer his agenda through either - more often than not he was just ignored.

[bluestate10]

33. Explain "better".

Throw away lines are easy to speak. But let's talk specifics. If Brown does not bring down California's budget deficit the state will pay more for bonds and daily public services. I reject republican solutions for reducing deficits, but Brown's mix of responsible spending and taxation is what California need, short of California getting tax money back that it sends to red states.

[Raine]

10. Brown is hard to peg, he's kind of all over the map

unpredictable. I would say though he's more left than right.

On edit: actually he has done some right wing things but this is the state that put in Raygun and a string of thugs. I don't really trust him but given the choice, he got my vote.

[Ken Burch]

13. Whatever you can say about Brown, he's clearly a man without compassion

OR anything remotely resembling a social conscience in any of the elected positions he actually held. His only progressive gestures were when he was OUT of office. In office, he was just another soulless hack.

Brown forgot everything Bobby Kennedy stood for.

[Raine]

18. I edited my response

because I actually had forgotten some of what he did. You make some real points, sad but true.

[Ken Burch]

19. I don't mean to be a total drag

It's just that Brown is the greatest betrayer of progressive voters in California history. I can't understand why ANY California Dem backed him for president after all his right-wing shit as governor.

[Raine]

23. Well it's important to remember the past

gives insight into the future and what to expect whether is depressing or not.

[FreakinDJ]

12. Couldn't be further from the mark if yoy tried

[Ken Burch]

14. Prop 13, three strikes, the status quo on drug laws, the prison-building fetish

You can't be right-wing on all that and still be progressive on anything else.

And anyone who imposes cuts in social services joins the right.

Nothing at all would be different if Whitman had won.

You never HAD to settle for "it's enough for OUR guy to be the one inflicting the pain".

Brown never gave a damn about the poor.

[Retrograde]

38. and the 10% plus unemployment rate

My CA county went from a less than 2% unemployment rate in 2000 to its current more than 10%. That's had a big impact on the state's income, even if everything else stayed the same. The money's just not coming in, and those stones don't have much blood left in them.

People do pay tax on unemployment benefits, as I can attest from experience, but it's at a lower rate than those good-paying former jobs we used to have here.

[DCBob]

15. Even Jerry Brown is a "right-winger" to you... ??

unfckingbelievable. How can anyone take you seriously?

[Ken Burch]

17. What else can you call a person who

...backs "three strikes" when we all know it's a bogus law enforcement policy?

...opposed pot legalization in 2010 when he had NOTHING to lose by taking the humane, progressive, decent stance and backing it(almost no "no on legalization" people ever voted Democratic)

...backed the whole prison-building fetish of the Eighties, when he already knew that was no solution to crime?

...gets elected as a Democrat and cuts social services first?

What can you still be progressive on when you're right wing on all of that?

The guy isn't even pro-labor(as he's about to prove by leading the fight to break the public-sector unions).

You don't have to back all those horrible things just to get elected.

Anything he's good on after all that ugliness would have to be trivlal.

I mean...what the hell is left after being right-wing on all of the above?

Why are you willing to settle for "it's enough to have a governor who calls himself a Democrat"?

Obviously, he couldn't care about the poor or the environment after being right-wing on all of the above either.

[DCBob]

20. His liberal side dwarfs your list of so-called "right wing" positions.

Get a grip dude.. you're turning on your best allys.

[Ken Burch]

21. What liberal side?

And there's no way you could describe his pro-prison, pro-three strikes, pro-status quo on drugs positions as anything BUT right-wing. NO non right-wing people agree with him on them.

His last liberal position was backing the farmworkers in the Eighties.

Being vaguely pro-gay doesn't count, since that's a no-risk position in Cali.

You can't name any other RECENT liberal positions.

And there can't be any liberal policies put in place WHILE you're cutting the budget.

You have no liberalism if you are willing to cut social programs.

(I noticed that, in your response, you didn't mention any actual liberalism in Brown's current views).

If you want more prisons and back the fascist status quo on drug policy, you can't be liberal. End of discussion.

[DCBob]

22. Never mind.

[Ken Burch]

24. You just admitted he doesn't have a liberal side.

If he had one, you'd have posted evidence of it.

It's simple...if you're pro-massive prison construction, pro-budget austerity, pro-status quo on drug policy, pro-Prop 13, what issues could you still be NON right-wing on?

There's nothing left after that.

He never showed any guts on green issues and he never fought for the poor.

[Hannah Bell]

25. can't support your claim?

[Ken Burch]

27. Of course he couldn't.

DC Bob(who was one of the champions of the campaign to back a right-wing Republican running as an independent in the Florida Senate race) doesn't have any genuine liberal positions of his own, Hannah. His politics are elitist and "insider", based on a "know your place" attitude towards actual progressives.

[Ken Burch]

26. Prove that there's stuff that's still liberal about Brown!

Find me something.

And no, being blandly, vaguely pro-gay doesn't count. There was no risk in that.

[Hannah Bell]

28. i think meg whitman is ok with gays too. so i guess she's a lib.

being pro-abortion & ok with gays seem to be the only defing points these days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Here is the problem he is running into

as much as he'd love to fund oh the CSU system... Californians do not want to pay the taxes... period. Until that changes... where do you want him to raise the money? Faerie dust?

California actually is a warning to this god of no taxes we have running amok.

Oh and Jerry warned the state about Prop 13. The state ignored it... so we pay the piper.

[Ken Burch]

36. After Prop 13 passed, Brown EMBRACED it.

He SHOULD have felt obligated to lead the fight to repeal it. Once he decided to just live with it, Brown made it impossible for himself to do anything distinguishable from Republicanism.

No good ever comes from accepting right-wing victories and trying to work within the constraints they impose. That's always just surrender and it always leads to defeat in the end(like the landslide pasting Brown took in the Senate race in 1982, a race he WOULD have been able to win had he made himself the leader of the progressive opposition to Jarvis and Co.)

All of this proves that, if Brown had ever been elected president, he'd have actually ended up to the RIGHT of Carter and Clinton. That's what happens if you accept austerity and "police uber alles" crime policies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. You do realize how popular it was, right?

I do. I wish politicians would stand against the public, but pols follow the people and that was a popular train.

[madrchsod]

5. at least quinn and the dems here had the guts to raise taxes...

we might not pull it off but at least we tried to keep our services.

i guess you never know someone until things gets tough

[rpannier]

16. Maybe if the voters in California would stop voting to limit the government's ability to raise

revenue he wouldn't have to make those cuts.
If the people in California don't like the cuts maybe they should stop voting for idiotic propositions.
Two decades ago I left the state and am glad I did.

[bluestate10]

32. Makes sense.

Democrats in Massachusetts bit that bullet during the late 80s. The Bay State has been at the top of the nation in high paying job growth since. Higher pay produces more tax revenue, even without raising tax rates. Brown is a realist, there is nothing rightish about Brown or how he is dealing with an enormous problem..