Governor Schwarzenegger: Please Don’t Declare 2009 the Year of Anything

Frank,

You said here, "The Governor has been unable to deliver a single Republican vote for budget solutions. It’s time for him to take on a performance with a high degree of difficulty and to spend some time getting to know legislators, especially Republicans, personally".

Obviously, you, like Cavala and others on your side of the aisle put a LOT of creedence into Arnold's stated party of affiliation (Republican) and beat him up between a little bit or a lot for not getting/keeping his party-mates in line.

Please consider:

-Republicans don't really consider him a fellow party member due to his actions, etc., as Governor. (The RINO conundrum)

-Democrats haven't embraced him either even with Arnold doing quite often just what they want him to do. The environment comes to mind quite easily.

Perhaps the dems should EMBRACE Arnold as one of their own as he quite often acts as if he is a democrat. Heck, you suggest he be a "mediator" yet the dems hold him in little or no regard themselves as evidence by the articles you read here.

Again with the 2/3 vote angle...(forced compromise via mediation perhaps?)

Why can't a majority party work with one of the minority and COMPROMISE? Are not the Speaker and Pro Tem positions (and leaders of comittess) defacto-leaders and positions of mediation responsibilities themselves?

Just wanting one party "rule" rather than work out issues with a minority party (with or without the 2/3 rule) is "easy" for those in the majority to support...and one party rule hasn't ever worked out where it was tried (or rather instituted/maintained by force).

Which is sorta in conflict with the mindset of Prop 8 being devisive (politically speaking only); A majority of voters of all political labels, sexes, races, etc., passed it yet a minority now "needs protection". Isn't what the majority wants "right"?

Who would "protect" the republican/conservative/right leaning voter from a majority rule without a 2/3 vote requirement if the democrat/liberal/left just does whatever it wants to do?

Good morning, Jay.

Where to begin? Arnold Schwarzenegger supported John McCain, George Bush, and Republicans running for President as far back in time as I can remember, back to Richard Nixon. Despite some protestations that he would be open to supporting a Democrat for office, and statement to that effect when running for Governor in 2006, he has yet to endorse a single Democrat for any partisan office since he became Governor--and I don't believe he supported a Democrat for any non partisan office either. The is and has been for over 40 yeara s registered Republican. he's raised a good deal of money for the Republican Party. He has appointed a number of Democrats to positions including some in his own inner circle.

We could bat this shuttlecock back and forth and debate whether he is a real Republican--to the liking of the small crowd on the right--or a closet Democrat. Instead of picking apart parts of the article you don't like and elevating it to an art form, take a look at what I also said in the article. If he's not willing to take on this role, then perhaps we need a mediator.

Seems to me he gets precious little for his support of the necrotic California Republican Party.

The problem plainly here has been the faillure of Republican legislators to compromise and agree to solutions based in part on budget cuts and in part on taxes or other revenue increases. and it sin't the failure of the Democratic leadership or Democrats in the legislature when those who get elected as Republicans almost universally take a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstances. This makes persuasion on this point difficult for others who are not Republican legislators and hence makes it nigh impossible to get the two-thirds vote for action that is needed.

How would it be if the Democrats signed a similar blood oath not to vote for any cuts no matter what?

What you don't realize, my friend, is the the Democrats elected to the state legislature represent not the liberal or left in this state, but also the middle. That's how they have achieved success in getting almost--but not quite two-thirds in both houses. That's how they have gotten the votes of not only registered Democrats but also decline-to-state voters. That's relfective of what polls have shown--the Califonria voters--Democrats and independents--want budget solutions that contain a combination of budget cuts and increased revenues--not a cuts only approach.

I remember a time when there was such a thing as bipartisanship in the California legislature--when Republicans worked with Democrats to reach a consensus. As the Republican Party in this state loses not only its share in percentages of California voters registerd but in the raw numbers despite an overall increase in registration, it saddens me to see this inflexibility.

Not enough credit is being given to the high gas prices this past year and it's serious damage on our economy and society. That one factor alone has caused serious stress in both individuals and businesses. A record number of homes and jobs have been lost as a direct result. And, while we are doing the happy dance around the lower prices at the pumps OPEC is announcing cuts to manipulate the prices upward again. We must get on with becoming energy independent.We can't take another year like this past. There is a wonderful new book out about the energy crisis and what it would take for America to become energy independent. It covers every aspect of oil, what it's uses are besides gasoline, our reserves, our depletion of it. Every type of alternative energy is covered and it's potential to replace oil. He even has proposed legislative agenda's that would be necessary to implement these changes along with time frames. This book is profoundly informative and our country needs to become more informed and move forward with becoming energy independent. Green technology would not only provide clean cheap energy it would create millions of badly needed new jobs. The Book is called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW. Our politicians all need to read this book. www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

The Democrats lost their best opportunity for fundamental change in California by not opposing Prop 11 (with money, not words). Two-thirds were available in both houses, particularly given Republican behavior, which loses them party registration every year.

That being said, Democrats now need to qualify for the ballot two initiatives--one, a tax increase on the top 1%, restoring the Wilson era tax brackets, and two, a majority vote in the legislature for passing the budget. The idea that 1 can veto the wishes of 2 on basic governmental operations is ludicrous. These initiatives, if started now, would come to the ballot for the inevitable special election next June.

It is time for Democrats to wake up to who we are dealing with. Nordquist and his ilk are idealogues who will destroy the state and return us to the 19th (or 18th) century. It is they who control the Republican legislators, not the districts they reside in. Compromise means surrender, as the Republicans want to create a society where most individuals are hewers of wood and indentured to the few elect (thanks a lot, Calvin). This is why cuts in education don't bother them--there will be more serfs.

Frank,

Thanks once again for the quality dialog. I think your read on Arnold is pretty good. He is kinda stuck party due to how he is and partly to whom he is dealing with on both sides. I think he lost his way after his special election initiatives failed. I hoped they would pass, but the special interests/unions still reign in SAC to this day...

Moving on,I recall your direction to a budget proposal by Laird last June where democrat budget "cuts" were proposed. There were none of any significance plus it then had state funding to support the LA Coluseum, which should be a CITY burden methinks...(Just like Prop 1A's financial support of San Fran's cable cars should be a CITY, not STATE burden).

You must admit, the state, via the democrats, has increased it spending by leaps & bounds over the past few years. A LARGER than should be deficit is a beacon to that. Sure, the economy today engenders a deficit potential, but one of such a LARGE magnitude? That is due to spending sprees of the near past.

Which the republicans have drawn a line on in an attempt to stop. Chicken or the egg: which came first; large democrat spending budgets or the republican "blood oath" not to increase taxes?

Is there a list of democrat proposed budget cuts as part of today's deficit problem, which is 2-3 times larger than last summer's projection? I haven't seen it...

Frank, you didn't go after the 2/3 vote issue. Publius did for you(?) with his "one party" rule approach with a touch of class warfare included. (Some folks LIKE to cut wood publius and don't wish to stay in school. Besides, just how many business and journalism graduates does a society need?)

If the majority passed Prop 8, should the 2/3 rule be eliminated as well? Does the majority "rule" all the time? (What about the majority passing Prop's 22 and 187 while your considering...)

Publius, when the CSU system administrators get their salaries cut, I'll know the system is more about students, lower income too, getting an education over their administrators "selfishness". It should be their patriotic duty to take a pay cut, especially as education is over 50% of the state budget. Some $100-300K salaries out there to do WHAT? Raise tuitions?

Frank, as a new capital staffer, did you get the new pay raise too as the Bee covered today? ;)

Hey publius,

Did you check out the article from Mr. Schrag a couple of weeks back about UC Berekley? Seems they want to raise tuition by $2000 a student uniulaterally as the stature of "their" university calls for it, more so than any other UC campus in the state...

So how can you make "education" equally available to all when some places managed by the state think they are "more equal" than others?

Gould complains about government spending. Gould fails to realize that the reason the US is number one in the world is because of our spending on basic infrastructure and R & D. We call R & D "defense" spending but it really is R & D (the internet, the transistor, etc).

Government spending can always be cut, but the question is the consequences. 100 to 300K a year is not that much for adminstrating a system which has billions in expenditures. The Republican desire is to cut government so much that it performs ineffectively, thus fulfilling the Republican mantra that government is the problem (self-fulfilling prophecy). In fact, this gutting of government by Republicans is the problem (as the current financial crisis, one not caused by any external shock but rather lax and corrupt regulation).

The Republicans have spent the last 28 years attempting to destroy the concept of tradeoffs, an elementary ecnomic principle (supply-side economics, tax cuts for the wealthy without any corresponding spending cuts). It has brought us the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

publius, the one party ideolog, continues his misguided view of how government, in a free society mind you, should impact it's citizens...or better stated how it should NOT impact it's citizens.

CA has the highest taxes in the country. Yet we get little "return" in comparison to other states. Education is more than 50% of our state budget...(and the overall budget has had an accelerated increse in spending over time, or don't you recall that?)

Publius, LEADERSHIP, by example in this case would be applicaple government action: CSU administrators and our legislators plus their staffs should take unilateral pay cuts NOW.So what if it is a drop in the bucket. It's a start. And would end the hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do" that today's "leaders" are so good at.

So would a critical look in the mirror: Publius said here, "In fact, this gutting of government by Republicans is the problem (as the current financial crisis, one not caused by any external shock but rather lax and corrupt regulation)."

Publius, would you admit that democrats "own" a large share of this economic mess? Lax and corrupt regulation, oversight= Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Frank Rains, Johnson, etc., all were part of the Fannie/Freddie debacle. Do you agree? Or is it easier to say "Republicans are the problem" all the time?

Who was that guy who said a big lie often repeated becomes truth, publius? Oh yea, one of those one party types...

Funny, you didn't want to take on the UC Berekely item from before did you? Or the "tyranny of the majority/minority" item either...anti-republican diatribes are so much easier to perform than any attempt at comprehension & dialog associated with more complex issues, no?

(Ps: I lost you on our earlier chat on LBJ...Too bad).

There's too much to answer, but I will comment on this:

Publius, would you admit that democrats "own" a large share of this economic mess? Lax and corrupt regulation, oversight= Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Frank Rains, Johnson, etc., all were part of the Fannie/Freddie debacle. Do you agree? Or is it easier to say "Republicans are the problem" all the time?

Republicans controlled Congress from 1995-2007 (with a tie in 2001-2002 in the Senate). Members of the minority had almost no power, and cannot
be held responsible. Furthermore, blaming Fannie/Freddie is a false right-wing talk radio point. Fannie/Freddie made a relatively small portion of subprime loans. In addition, it wasn't the subprime loans per se that were the problem but the fact that they were rated AAA by
unregulated rating agencies. These are the toxic loans which have wreaked havoc on the banking system.

publius,

Too much or too hard to answer? Typical answer when the facts get in the way of propaganda...

-If it's "Bush's Fault" that 9-11 happened on his watch...(disregarding 6 plus years of Clinton's ignoring al queda)...

If it is "Bush's fault" that the economy tanked on his watch in 2008...

Then it is also the Fault of a democrat majority Congress, who HAD OVERSIGHT in 2007-2008 not doing something about the economic mess despite hearings with the red flag waving that the economic train wreck was coming...and that Congress was run by a majority of democrats.

Chris Dodd got a "sweet mortgage" from subprime loaner Countrywide and won't release details when asked. He and Barney Frank were COMITTEE CHAIRS, responsible for oversight of the banks, (not just Fannie/Freddie), the banks who made subprime loans as "asked to do so" by the same dems in Congress to give everyone, even those who couldn't afford them, a home, the American Dream.

I guess you didn't see the Comittee Hearing on Cspan with Maxine Waters & Barney Frank saying nothing wrong at Fannie/Freddie and that Frank Rains was doing "excellent". Even Mccain said this was a disaster in the making. A short time later, it all fell apart.He saw that thing fail and took his Enron-like $90 million in pay over 5-6 yeats with him.

Where is the proof that the government, specifically the democrats had a large share of the blame for the economic meltdown???

How about there will be NO investigation by Congress as to why it happened! The "worst economic crisis since the depression!", a left wing media talking point, won't be investigated. Obama isn't calling for one either. They would be putting themselves on report if they did...yet they have no problem handing out $700 billion more taxpayer dollars to cover up their incompetence.

And publius, it is always reasoned away by you along party lines...fancy that!

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.