Guvernør i California, Arnold Schwarzenegger stanser alle nye boreprosjekter utenfor kysten av delstaten.
De fleste fokuserer på tapet dette vil gi, Men Arnold er klar:
– Det er klart at vi må skaffe de 100 millionene. Men hvis jeg har valget mellom 100 millioner dollar og det jeg ser i Mexicogolfen, vil jeg heller fundere på andre måter å tjene 100 millioner på.
- Hvorfor skal vi ta risikoen? Risikoen er mye større enn det er verdt.
Investeringer i fornybar energi vil uansett på sikt gi like stor avkastning som investeringer i oljeindustri. Og uten risiko.
Miljøet, turistnæringen og utallige andre mindre næringer er når alt kommer til stykket langt mer verdifulle enn kortsiktig gevinst fra olje.
Måtte det en Actionhelt for å tenke ut dette?
Tillegg:
Arnold tør å si det som det er. Men det må selvsagt mer enn en Governator til for å røske opp i mafiaveldet som kjennetegner det meste av offentlig byråkrati:
An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that 13 states face shortfalls in the next fiscal year and another 11 states expect budget problems within the next two years. For example: Florida is forecasting a $1 billion shortfall, New York is projection a $4 billion deficit, but that pales in comparison to the $14 billion deficit projected in California. But California's problem isn't the lack of income. California State Senator Dick Ackerman said "Our problem is we've just been spending too much. Our income has gone up every year, but the rate of spending has gone up greater than the income." This is probably true with most of the cities, counties, and states facing a budget shortfall.
Since California leads the pack in fiscal mismanagement, it can be used as an example of what not to do. The California voters staged a coup several years ago by recalling the sitting Governor, Gray Davis. Davis had inherited a budget surplus but yielded to a spend-happy legislature and the state began to run up massive deficits. As a result, Davis was dumped and Arnold Schwarzenegger (the Governator) was elected to restore fiscal discipline to the state.
But replacing the governor did not replace all the spend-happy legislators.
Shortly after taking office, Schwarzenegger proposed several ballot propositions to solve the fiscal crisis. One was a Constitutional Amendment to limit spending and another was a Constitutional Amendment to control the budget. Unfortunately the politicians, bureaucrats, and unions spent millions to defeat the measures.
Why would anyone oppose fiscal stability? The answer is simple. The proposed spending cuts would cut off the pork and these special interest groups would no longer be able to feed at the public trough. When the votes were counted, the special interest money defeated fiscal sanity. After the humiliating defeat, the Governator was reduced to a political 'girlie man' and began to sign the budget busting spending legislation. As a candidate Schwarzenegger promised to make government more efficient, but in reality the General Fund spending has increased 44% since he took over.
Currently California is spending $400 million to $600 million more each month than it is collecting in revenues. Most families would recognize this as a problem, but big spending politicians are oblivious to such trivia. But Schwarzenegger woke-up from his 'girlie man' slumber and signaled - the Governator was back.
Governor Schwarzenegger said: "We do not have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem." To address the chronic boom-and-bust budget cycle and spending problem he proposed the 'Budget Stabilization Act' as a long term solution; and massive cuts to reduce the deficit as a short term solution. But on cue, the politicians, bureaucrats, and unions opposed the cuts spending and efforts that would restore California to a sound fiscal footing. For these big spending politicians, cutting spending is like sunlight to a vampire. Kilde
De fleste fokuserer på tapet dette vil gi, Men Arnold er klar:
– Det er klart at vi må skaffe de 100 millionene. Men hvis jeg har valget mellom 100 millioner dollar og det jeg ser i Mexicogolfen, vil jeg heller fundere på andre måter å tjene 100 millioner på.
- Hvorfor skal vi ta risikoen? Risikoen er mye større enn det er verdt.
Investeringer i fornybar energi vil uansett på sikt gi like stor avkastning som investeringer i oljeindustri. Og uten risiko.
Miljøet, turistnæringen og utallige andre mindre næringer er når alt kommer til stykket langt mer verdifulle enn kortsiktig gevinst fra olje.
Måtte det en Actionhelt for å tenke ut dette?
Tillegg:
Arnold tør å si det som det er. Men det må selvsagt mer enn en Governator til for å røske opp i mafiaveldet som kjennetegner det meste av offentlig byråkrati:
An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that 13 states face shortfalls in the next fiscal year and another 11 states expect budget problems within the next two years. For example: Florida is forecasting a $1 billion shortfall, New York is projection a $4 billion deficit, but that pales in comparison to the $14 billion deficit projected in California. But California's problem isn't the lack of income. California State Senator Dick Ackerman said "Our problem is we've just been spending too much. Our income has gone up every year, but the rate of spending has gone up greater than the income." This is probably true with most of the cities, counties, and states facing a budget shortfall.
Since California leads the pack in fiscal mismanagement, it can be used as an example of what not to do. The California voters staged a coup several years ago by recalling the sitting Governor, Gray Davis. Davis had inherited a budget surplus but yielded to a spend-happy legislature and the state began to run up massive deficits. As a result, Davis was dumped and Arnold Schwarzenegger (the Governator) was elected to restore fiscal discipline to the state.
But replacing the governor did not replace all the spend-happy legislators.
Shortly after taking office, Schwarzenegger proposed several ballot propositions to solve the fiscal crisis. One was a Constitutional Amendment to limit spending and another was a Constitutional Amendment to control the budget. Unfortunately the politicians, bureaucrats, and unions spent millions to defeat the measures.
Why would anyone oppose fiscal stability? The answer is simple. The proposed spending cuts would cut off the pork and these special interest groups would no longer be able to feed at the public trough. When the votes were counted, the special interest money defeated fiscal sanity. After the humiliating defeat, the Governator was reduced to a political 'girlie man' and began to sign the budget busting spending legislation. As a candidate Schwarzenegger promised to make government more efficient, but in reality the General Fund spending has increased 44% since he took over.
Currently California is spending $400 million to $600 million more each month than it is collecting in revenues. Most families would recognize this as a problem, but big spending politicians are oblivious to such trivia. But Schwarzenegger woke-up from his 'girlie man' slumber and signaled - the Governator was back.
Governor Schwarzenegger said: "We do not have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem." To address the chronic boom-and-bust budget cycle and spending problem he proposed the 'Budget Stabilization Act' as a long term solution; and massive cuts to reduce the deficit as a short term solution. But on cue, the politicians, bureaucrats, and unions opposed the cuts spending and efforts that would restore California to a sound fiscal footing. For these big spending politicians, cutting spending is like sunlight to a vampire. Kilde
1 kommentar:
Da man!
Legg inn en kommentar