 |
 |
|
Posted on 06/24/2004 12:15:06 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
|
The skeptics are about to get their answer.
Just days before the June 30 end of California's budget year, the actor-turned-Republican-governor looks as if he is going to extract most of what he wants from the Democratic-controlled Legislature and pass his $103 billion spending plan on time.
Using dealmaking skills many lawmakers didn't know he had, Schwarzenegger has reached agreements with a variety of interest groups to help eliminate a $17 billion deficit.
So far, teachers, school officials, state universities and local government leaders have all agreed to accept short-term spending cuts in return for improvements in the future. And on Monday, Schwarzenegger reached a deal with five Indian tribes for a major expansion of casino gambling that would bring the state $1 billion this budget year.
"You've got to believe that the governor is setting himself up very well as the dominant individual in state politics," said Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State University. "The shadow he is casting right now is so long you can hardly see the Capitol."
While Schwarzenegger has been helped by an improving economy, if he gets a budget passed before the June 30 deadline, he will have accomplished something California has done only twice in the past decade because of bitter partisan gridlock. The man Schwarzenegger ousted in a recall election last fall, Democrat Gray Davis, could not meet the deadline in his last three years in office.
"He is moving the process the only way possible, with much dexterity and determination," said Democratic former Gov. Jerry Brown, now mayor of Oakland.
Schwarzenegger's spending plan does not raise taxes. But it uses billions of dollars in borrowing, accounting gimmicks and one-time savings to get through another year. Most of the big reforms he promised during the election remain on his to-do list.
"This year is all about stopping the hemorrhaging," said Allan Hoffenblum, a GOP consultant in Los Angeles. "He's only been in office a few months. Give him another year."
Since his election in October, Schwarzenegger has claimed several victories that have enhanced his power. Upon taking office, he repealed an unpopular increase in the car tax and forced lawmakers to repeal a law allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.
In March, he persuaded voters to approve the nation's largest state bond issue - $15 billion in borrowing. He also brokered a deal to reform the state's costly workers' compensation system.
Schwarzenegger moved early to gather support for his budget proposal, even before the final version had been released to lawmakers in May. He outflanked the Democrats by negotiating a series of side agreements with key interest groups.
Some Democrats are worried about the governor's growing clout and may try to hold up the budget if only to remind their constituents that they are still California's majority party.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez said lifting a cap on freshman enrollment at state universities is his No. 1 priority. He also wants to rescind a wage cut for home health care workers. And some Democrats want to provide a cost-of-living increase in welfare checks.
All together, the Democratic list would add less than $500 million to the Schwarzenegger spending plan - less than 1 percent of the overall budget.
Gerston said that while many of the governor's solutions simply push problems off into the future, the Democrats appear to be putting up only token resistance.
"Democrats either go ahead and look the other way or they fight it," he said. "Clearly they appear to be going with the flow."
---
On the Net:
Governor's Home Page: http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov-homepage.jsp
California Assembly: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/defaulttext.asp
California Senate: http://www.sen.ca.gov
AP-ES-06-24-04 1352EDT
100% irrelevent considering the fact Tom McClintock was unelectable.
Schwarzenegger -- 3,743,431 votes
Bustamante -- 2,432,463 votes
McClintock -- 1,026,492 votes
Tom brought in less than 1/2 that of Bustamante. Arnold brought in more than Tom and Bustamante combined. That outcome would not have changed even had every California Freeper voted for McC. But don't that little reality bother you; you keep on living in your fantasy world.
They're not only here they're here bemoaning the FACT that McC wold have made a better governor.
McC is an intelligent guy, but he's an isolated egghead (and I mean that in a good way). He has all the answers, but none of the political skills to implement them. So, any discussion about what McC would have done, is pointless. Arnold has the Dems on the run at the present time, and that's OK by me; the possibility is that he could change the political environment in Calif. such that both Bush and Jones have a shot in the state is a bonus.
Well, I'm sure that in some parallel universe, McC is governor. They can console themselves with that thought.
My point is there are some who still are living in a "had Tom McClintock only won" fantasy world. It means nothing. Arnold was elected and he's 100% better than the racist Mexican cruz bustamante.
Not only that, Arnold will be bulletproof on the campaign trail with President Bush. Bush will not be put on the defensive by the media hollering about Arnold's "massive budget cuts." What is wrong with that?
Let them eat their hearts out. They are wrong. In the unlikely event that Bush were ever to take California it would be solely due to Arnold.
It reminds me of the way dims are hoping the economy tanks, the war in Iraq goes badly, and other for misgivings, all so they can say I told you so.
That means there is also a parallel universe where Gore is President!
Just because there are a lot of 'Rats who are completely divorced from reality is no reason for any of us to join them.
Ah... ok. Basically we're in agreement then, sorry for my misunderstanding :)
The truth is that I too, like the fantasizers, voted for Tom McClintock (out of principle), but I also like Schwarzy, don't have a real problem with him, think he's doing a fine job, think he will have been a very good governor, etc. I allowed myself to vote McC only because it seemed pretty clear that Schwarzy was going to win anyway without my vote; had the polls been closer making it seem like a real risk that Cruz would win, obviously I'd have voted for Schwarzy.
None of that - i.e. just because I didn't vote for him - means I feel the need to denigrate what are obviously real accomplishments by Schwarzy. Or to deny political realities such as that a full-on McC-like 13% solution would be a political non-starter.
Frankly I don't see what the point of any of this in-fighting could possibly be. Bad-mouthing the most popular CA governor since, presumably, Reagan (or more!) just seems like such a political boneheaded move to me. But what do I know.
We are indeed in agreement.
And there is no point in badmouthing a Republican governor. It's just a classic case of sour grapes.
Hey, when your whole career depends solely on promises made to raid the treasury, you'd better do just that.
Republican Rocker was just responding to a post by
OldFriend, it just wasn't clear which were the parts he quoted from OF< and which were the RR's refutations.
RR seems to understand well what Arnold achieved.
My apologies.
Which is why he would have failed miserably.
surprise! surprise! surprise!As Gomer would say. Go Arnie.
There's an old saying that goes "The harder I work, the luckier I get."
How much is the deficit in this $103 billion budget?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.