Posted on 09/18/2004 4:10:14 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Siding with his business allies, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed bills Saturday that would have raised the minimum wage to $7.75 an hour and required economic impact reports before local governments approve Wal-Mart-like mega-stores.
The Republican governor also turned down legislation that would have limited drug testing of students.
He contended the minimum wage and super-store legislation would have hurt the state's economy and said drug testing policies should be left up to school officials.
"I cannot support legislation that eliminates the ability of local school districts to make decisions based on the needs and values of their community," he said in a veto message.
The bill, by Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, would have allowed random drug testing of students only if the program was voluntary on the part of students and parents and not funded by state or local taxes.
The measure also would have barred requiring students to agree to random testing to participate in extracurricular activities.
It would have allowed nonrandom testing only if school officials had reasonable suspicion that a particular student was using alcohol or illegal drugs.
The bill's supporters called random testing a costly program that creates distrust among students, parents and school officials and distracts from the "core educational mission of the public schools."
The minimum wage bill, by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Santa Clara, would have raised California's minimum wage from $6.75 to $7.25 next Jan. 1 and to $7.75 on Jan. 1, 2006.
Bill supporters said the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, adding to a "dramatically rising level of poverty" and greater reliance on taxpayer-funded social programs.
Schwarzenegger said Lieber's bill would have made California's minimum wage the highest in the nation. Washington and Oregon currently have higher minimum wages that increase with inflation and conceivably could have remained higher than California's.
Schwarzenegger also said the bill would have discouraged economic growth.
"Now is not the time to create barriers to our economic recovery or reverse the momentum we have generated," he said. "I want to create more jobs and make every California job more secure."
The California Chamber of Commerce praised the veto, saying the legislation would have created a "huge disincentive for employers looking for locations to expand operations or locate new jobs."
The super-store bill, by Sen. Richard Alarcon, D-Van Nuys, would have required cities and counties to complete economic impact reports before ruling on proposals to build retail stores with more than 130,000 square feet and that devote more than 10 percent of their space to selling food.
The reports would have had to include an assessment of the stores' impact on other businesses, wages, public services and traffic.
The state Chamber of Commerce, Costco, Wal-Mart, the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the League of California Cities opposed the bill.
Supporters said such stores can drive out other business and result in lower wages, more part-time jobs and traffic congestion, but opponents said the legislation was aimed at keeping out nonunion operations.
Schwarzenegger said the bill would have imposed "unnecessary, burdensome restrictions on businesses attempting to expand in California."
"The declared intent of this bill is 'to promote market competition and economic development,' but instead it would stifle market competition and expansion of employment within California," he said.
The bill was supported by the California Independent Grocers Association and several labor unions.
---
On the Net:
www.governor.ca.gov, www.senate.ca.gov and www.assembly.ca.gov
He's got muscles AND brains. Definitely not a girlie-man.
Good. But he's still a gun grabber.
This VETO is gratifying to this out-of-state-for-now Californian.
See? That's why a RINO is preferable to a Democrat. Yep Arnold's a social liberal but when it comes to the economy, he's to the RIGHT of the Democrats. Look for Walt-mart Super Centers near you and look for thousands of new small businesses thanks to the veto of the minimum wage increase. Trust me, this makes him a lot better than Gray Davis.
Businesses have a set amount of money that they can devote to wages. They are going to devote the most money to high skilled jobs that require a lot of education and capability. This is sensible, because those people are the ones whose decisions and mistakes can be the most crucial, therefore you want to attract the best and the brightest. They are going to devote less money to the worker bees, because these jobs require the lowest level of skill and education, and it is easy to attract people to fill these positions. Minimum wage laws cost jobs. The entire pie of money allocated for entry level positions will now be divided among fewer employees.
The government has no business telling an employer how much he pays his employees. Supply and demand should determine the wage level. It is the responsibility of individual workers to make themselves marketable by acquiring more job skills, more education, and more experience, in order to work their way up the wage scale. If you force employers to pay more for a job than that job is worth, then the employer will respond by hiring fewer employees. It's as simple as that. Nobody has a right to any job, or any certain amount of pay. You are paid what your individual labor is worth.
Yes he's a social liberal. So are Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. The only way Pubbies can get elected in states with lots of Democrats is to run to the left on social issues and then move rightwards on the economy when in office. Its a balance many Blue State voters seem to like.
Guns don't sell in urban California. Few of us there give a damn one way or the other. It is a waste of time. Just move on.
Go Governator!
I know this is off topic, but I'm really concerned about what anti-gun legislation will get pushed through the legislature and signed by Arnold in future years. It doesn't look like he's going to provide any check on the legislature's gun-grabbing spree. I've been called a "one-issue" voter for that, but then I think that a government that feels free to severely infringe the second won't feel any constraints on infringing any of our other rights.
Gee, thanks. What other rights do you think should be infringed next?
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) speaks in favor of Proposition 1a during a rally Wednesday, Sept. 15, 2004, in Los Angeles. Even in California, the land of direct democracy, the list of major ballot initiatives facing voters this November is staggering - 16. The votes will also test the political clout of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who owes his own election to a voter recall. (AP Photo/Ric Francis)
Gun owners should move to get the California State Constitution amended to ensure shall carry CCW. We're not going to get it from a RINO Governor and a Democratic run State Legislature. There's the initiative.
The right to subsidized water. Cheers.
There has been some effort in that direction and it will continue, but too many gun owners are divided into the hunter and "other" category. Too many hunters don't feel threatened as long as they can have their deer rifles and shotguns, so don't bother with the intiatives, legislation, and contacting their legislators. This discussion is really for a different thread. I'm happy that Arnold has vetoed this legislation.
I don't see the right to subsidized water in the Constitution. I do, however, see the right not to be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law, and the property forfeiture laws that have been passed make an absolute mockery of that one. But I guess that's another single issue.
What's your point? California actually has a high number of gun owners (although still not a majority percentage), it's a huge market for the retailers. And, I had always been taught that our system of government is supposed to provide the minority protection from tyranny of the majority. I should just "deal" with having my rights trampled on? Cool. Thanks again for your support.
Propositions that are on the
November 2, 2004, General Election Ballot
Proposition 1A
SCA 4 (Resolution Chapter 133, Statutes of 2004). Torlakson. Protection of Local Government Revenues.
Proposition 59
SCA 1 (Resolution Chapter 1, Statutes of 2004). Burton. Public Records, Open Meetings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 60
SCA 18 (Resolution Chapter 103, Statutes of 2004). Johnson. Election Rights of Political Parties. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 60A
SCA 18 (Resolution Chapter 103, Statutes of 2004). Johnson. Surplus Property. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 61
1003. (SA03RF0033, Amdt. #1-S). Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 62
1005. (SA03RF0031, Amdt. #1-S). Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 63
1007. (SA03RF0036). Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 64
1016. (SA03RF0051). Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 65
1031. (SA03RF0067). Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 66
1015. (SA03RF0047, Amdt. #1-S). Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 67
1010. (SA03RF0043). Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 68
1027. (SA03RF0059). Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendements. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendments and Statute.
Proposition 69
1029. (SA03RF0065). DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 70
1046. (SA04RF0005, Amdt. #1-NS). Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 71
1021. (SA03RF0055, Amdt. #1-NS). Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 72
1008. (SA03RF0049). Health Care Coverage Requirements. Referendum.
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.