CA: Governor's popularity fuels higher expenses

Sac Bee ^ | 3/30/04 | Gary Delsohn

[NormsRevenge]

For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is his celebrity status as a Hollywood icon, Schwarzenegger's job is boosting state security costs, siphoning cash from political donors and draining dollars from his own wallet.

He's too popular, aides said, to fly on commercial airlines, as predecessor Gov. Gray Davis did, so he uses private jets. So far, he's not sought reimbursement - aides said that may change - and air travel is costing him tens of thousands of dollars.

[NormsRevenge]

The 2006 committee recently spent $16,000 to buy 1,000 official "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger" pens he hands out at bill-signing ceremonies. Schwarzenegger also uses the committee to pay for cigars he hands out to legislators and other visitors to his office.

---

Maybe Tiparillos and Sharpie's are in order as a gesture of FRugality. just a thought.

Could we have a commission formed to study that proposal? ;-)

[kellynla]

Norm, where's the BARF ALERT?
Too popular to fly commercial?
And we're supposed to pick up the tab for this muscle head to fly charter? I don't think so...
If he wants to charter let him pay for it himself!

And I won't even get into the corporate donations to live on... and from his 2006 campaign??? He's being a little optimistic don't cha think... Every day that goes by I regret more and more that this clown ever entered the governor's race!!!

We get rid of one incompetent liberal and we gain a narcissistic RINO! Gotta go, I'm getting a migraine!

[mrs tiggywinkle]

***He's too popular, aides said, to fly on commercial airlines, as predecessor Gov. Gray Davis did, so he uses private jets. So far, he's not sought reimbursement - aides said that may change - and air travel is costing him tens of thousands of dollars. ***

He *is* paying for travel himself. This article is attempting to create outcomes/fear/contempt that are purely speculation. Schwarzenegger isn't receiving a paycheck, he's paying for his own travel and paying for other expenses out of his pocket as well. The fact he lives at the Hyatt when in town is necessary because the Gov's house is not available. Perhaps he'll purchase a home in the Sacramento area out of his own pocket as well.

[waverna]

Right, I think the real story is that he refused his salary and pays for his own travel, but I guess that spin wouldn't be very popular on the left coast!

[mrs tiggywinkle]

***Right, I think the real story is that he refused his salary and pays for his own travel, but I guess that spin wouldn't be very popular on the left coast!***

bump

[kellynla]

I am paying for the CHP for security for Mr. Popular and it clearly states in the article that the cost of charters and hotels(private donations are paying for now which Rinold said he wouldn't accept when he was running for the office) are getting too expensive, insinuating that they think someone else should to have to pay for it. My point is THAT I REFUSE TO PAY FOR CHARTERS AND HOTEL RESIDENCY!
Rinold volunteered for this job...nobody had a gun in his back...if he doesn't like the travel and accommodations he can get out!!!

[ClearCase_guy]

I hear that California has a $40 Billion deficit. And its all Arnold's fault. He's been governor for less than 6 months and he's apparently burned through $40 billion in personal expenses. If he had a more frugal lifestyle, the state would be rolling in dough!

[BurbankKarl]

this is all about Brand Arnold.

[mrs tiggywinkle]

Former Gov Davis had security, as did Former Gov Reagan. Are you upset to have had a $ part in their governorships?

If Bustamonte or McClintock would have won the governor's seat they would have to secure housing in Sacramento, regardless of their current residences in Elk Grove. The house used during Wilson and Davis's administration is now being used for other purposes, leaving NO governors residence. Gov Brown refused the Gov Mansion (now a museum) and chose to live in a rinky dink apartment in downtown Sac. The State of California has paid for the governors residence in the past. Since our Gov is Schwarzenegger he should pay for his own, in your views.

Methinks you have hatred in your heart for our current Governor...period. So...no matter *what* he does, you'll have something nasty to say about it. Seeing that this article was written by a rabid leftist, I'm surprised a conservative would take to heart a leftist rag article rather than sorting through and determining the *whole* story, backed up with fact. But...I wonder if you'd change your tune...because of your seeming hatred for Schwarzenegger.

[mrs tiggywinkle]

amazing, aint it?

[kellynla]

Hate RINOld? You obviously don't know me...Ahnold and I were neighbors for years...hate him? I don't have time for hatred and I sure don't have time for the likes of the Kool-Aid drinkers who worship at the altar of RINOld! LMAO

But I will continue to keep a very hot flame on your boy's feet to make sure that he doesn't totally screw up this state while he's in Sacramento, thank you.

For I have to pay for the mistakes of the likes of the Dimwit Davis and RINOld long after they are history!!!

[kellynla]

btw I don't recall having to discuss the possibility of having to pay for charter planes and hotel residencies with any previous governors, thank you.
Driver's licenses for illegals and more debt with more bonds???
For all RINOld has accomplished, all talk and no action... I would gladly pay his way back to LA and give him two weeks severance pay.

[mrs tiggywinkle]

It is totally unnecessary for you to be rude and nasty to me. Can you carry on a discussion w/o attitude? Is decency, logic and consideration not part of your make-up? Based on your acidic tone, I wonder.

Perhaps we can discuss the history Governors expenses. Perhaps we can discuss the history of Governors security.

Perhaps you can learn the *whole* story rather than taking the words of a leftist to your bosom.

If you cannot discuss the article in a decent way, then we have nothing to discuss.

[mrs tiggywinkle]

***btw I don't recall having to discuss the possibility of having to pay for charter planes and hotel residencies with any previous governors, thank you.

Please read my earlier post showing basic history on this issue.

***Driver's licenses for illegals and more debt with more bonds???

Schwarzenegger has not mandated licenses for illegals. In fact, he *knows* it wouldn't pass so is letting it die.

More debt with more bonds? Please share...with bond measure #'s and explanation.

***For all RINOld has accomplished, all talk and no action... I would gladly pay his way back to LA and give him two weeks severance pay.

sigh...

Who would you have preferred in the Governor's seat, kellynla? Would he/she have been able to produce perfection in all phases of government?

[wattsmag2]

Did you fail reading comprehension? So far, Arnold is paying for his own stuff. And your problem with that is?

There are tons of what-ifs that anyone can bring up. But if that is all you rely on to make your argument, then that is rather specious reasoning.

[mrs tiggywinkle]

ping (bring your own bag)

[kellynla]

Let me know when you move to California.
Until then try minding your own business.
Unless you want to pay my state income taxes.

[kellynla]

I guess it's time for you to educate yourself on what you apparently are not aware of.

State $6.5 Billion More In Red


Published in the Sacramento Bee - March 7, 2004

By conventional analysis, the stunning and overwhelming passage of Propositions 57 and 58 has placed California on the road to fiscal recovery.

The unprecedented $15 billion bond gives the Legislature and the administration the time they need to put the state's finances in order. The stern spending limits in Proposition 58 will give the governor added tools to restrain state spending. The stunning margin of victory greatly enhances the governor's political clout with the Legislature to win tough reforms. As those reforms take effect and the economy responds, state revenues will grow quickly to absorb the $1.5 billion in annual debt repayments that Proposition 57 will require.

On paper anyway, that's how California intends to borrow its way out of debt. But just beneath the surface festivities should lurk a high level of anxiety.

The first assumption is that the bond now gives the governor and the Legislature breathing room to make the tough and unpopular decisions necessary to straighten out their fiscal problems. But experience should warn us that tough and unpopular decisions are only made under intense political pressure produced by urgent necessity. Now that the prospect of impending insolvency has vanished and legislators' pockets are overflowing with an extra $15 billion of borrowed money - is the prospect of significant and painful reform (in an election year, no less) improved or diminished?

The second assumption is that Proposition 58 "tears up the credit cards" to assure the state never borrows to balance its budget again.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. Proposition 58 made no practical change in current law beyond suspending the oldest provision of the state constitution that for 154 years has prevented exactly the kind of borrowing that Proposition 57 now begins.

Under the "Balanced Budget Amendment," a balanced budget is whatever the Legislature says it is. Every one of the budgets that got California into financial difficulty was defined by the Legislature as "balanced." California's budget deficits are the result of uncontrolled spending and dishonest accounting - and the short-term borrowing to cover them - and Proposition 58 does nothing to change that.

Consider the budget now pending before the Legislature. It spends at least $5 billion more than the state expects to receive in revenue; it contains a reserve of less than 1 percent and it comprises an 11 percent increase in general fund spending over what Gray Davis actually approved just seven months ago. These defects are all perfectly compatible with Proposition 58.

The third assumption is that Democratic legislators have now been stunned by the magnitude of the governor's ballot victories and will be much more deferential to his policy reforms. Perhaps. Or perhaps they will now begin to cash in political chits for wholeheartedly supporting the twin propositions upon which the governor defined his success or failure. It would appear that the highest of civic virtues in Sacramento today is "bipartisanship" - and Democrats may well be salivating at the concessions that have already been made to proclaim it.

Voters have been sold these ballot propositions as the "cornerstone" of California's fiscal recovery plan. They have every right to conclude that by supporting them - against their earlier judgment - the state's financial picture will now begin to improve. But so far only two certainties arise from their passage: California's budget problems just got worse by $6.5 billion of interest costs, and this generation has become the first in California's history to pass on its daily expenses to its children.

Governor Schwarzenegger was correct when he observed that California suffers a spending problem - not a revenue problem. Until the tough fiscal reforms are undertaken to reduce spending, California's budget problems are unlikely to improve.

Tom McClintock

[mrs tiggywinkle]

Must you carry an acidic attitude in your every post, kelly? For pity sake. There is NO reason for your slams. I have NOT been unkind to you. Please treat me with the same respect.

I need to take my daughter to her art class. When I return I'll gladly read the Tom McClintock article you've shared. In the meantime, could you please respond to my earlier questions? Thank you kindly.