Posted on 01/31/2005 9:59:52 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO — If this was a movie, this would be the scene where a bloodied but determined Arnold Schwarzenegger charges against impossible odds then, at the last minute, saves the day.
But far less certain is the outcome of the actor-turned-governor's sudden, sweeping moves against powerful foes on myriad, complex fronts in the unscripted real world, say analysts and political players.
Win, lose or draw, though, his bid to remake politics and state government — probably by going directly to voters this year on everything from state spending to changing lawmakers' district lines — will likely reverberate for decades, they say, potentially affecting 35 million Californians in ways they never dreamed.
It's even possible, pundits say, the year 2005 will figure prominently in California political history books a century from now.
The state is at a "critical crossroads" that will determine much about its future, said Barbara O'Connor of the Center for the Study of Politics in Sacramento.
The clashes between the Republican governor and his foes, particularly the Democrats who dominate statewide offices and Governor aspires to reform state the Legislature in a pre-election year, will also be a spectacle to remember, according to analysts.
It's all right for a "Hollywood character" to "shoot first and ask questions later," said Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres. But in Schwarzenegger's current job, that's "irresponsible."
Schwarzenegger was already wrestling a chronic, unprecedented, multibillion-dollar deficit when he tackled so many other issues this year that he's comparing himself to California's most famed reformer.
Hiram Johnson, of nearly a century ago, clashed with balky lawmakers and the ultimate special interest of the day — railroad barons who ruthlessly ran the state. Johnson engineered the ballot initiative system of direct democracy as an override.
"Hiram Johnson — we are back to that era again now," with special interests controlling lawmakers and the state, Schwarzenegger told the Sacramento Press Club.
But to some of the Republican's opponents, Schwarzenegger himself is a front for special interests such as big businesses that have contributed millions of dollars to his causes, not the bipartisan man of the people he claims to be.
Doug Heller, a spokesman for the nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights watchdog group, said he believes the governor is using the emotionally charged label "special interests" to dilute any kind of legitimate criticism from stakeholders.
It's the first time the public has been told special interests include "nurses, the blind and disabled," who are fighting deficit-triggered cuts in the governor's proposed budget and other Schwarzenegger administration moves, Heller said.
Schwarzenegger rejects such assertions, pointing to taxpayer groups and others that support his ideas.
The governor has vowed to bypass the Democrat-dominated Legislature, if necessary, and go directly to voters in a special November election, not only for deficit-related spending controls and politically charged redistricting changes, but also for public pension reform and merit-based pay for teachers.
Statewide officeholders, such as Treasurer Phil Angelides, a likely gubernatorial candidate next year, have pounced on the ideas as flawed.
The administration has discounted their comments as jockeying for position as the Democratic nominee next year.
But the moves also have been attacked by new critics — lawmakers of the governor's own party worried about redistricting changes. In criticizing aspects of the plan, they joined old GOP foes such as Democrat-allied public employee unions and the large, monied California Teachers Association.
CTA President Barbara Kerr said "it hurt" when the governor called the union a special interest.
Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, who has scheduled legislative hearings on higher public-employee pension costs, said the system "can be fixed" without Schwarzenegger's plan to essentially privatize it.
Instead of delving into the governor's reform plans, Democratic statewide officeholders are counterattacking the governor's proposed budget cuts to education and other sectors, his suggested constitutional changes and separate government streamlining plans.
Democratic lawmakers are scheduling a series of hearings throughout the state on proposed budget cuts.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuez, D-Los Angeles, said it's not lawmakers' job to throw complex ballot initiatives at voters.
"It's not our No. 1 priority as we deal with California's chronic budget deficit," he said.
Nuez, who said Democrats will offer their own proposed budget, called the governor's plan an "attack on middle class values" that was built on ideas from "right-wing think tanks."
President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, said that lawmakers will have their own ideas that will be as "bold or bolder" than those from the governor — such as closing corporate tax loopholes. And Bay Area lawmakers want to know the governor's plan for financing Bay Bridge work cost overruns.
The governor's $111.7 billion budget contains no new taxes but relies heavily on borrowing and spending limits to close a shortfall of about $9 billion. Deficits loom in future years, however.
Administration officials are defending the spending plan for the fiscal year beginning July 1 as a "common sense" approach, at this point. GOP lawmakers and taxpayer groups are among those who agree.
Underlying the crossfire is a new poll that shows support for the governor remains high among voters, but that he is losing his appeal among Democrats and independents.
"Californians still like Gov. Schwarzenegger, but they no longer view him as being above the fray," said Mark Baldassare, director of the Public Policy Institute poll. "This is problematic because politics-as-usual is not an option for the governor. His plan to take a bold reform agenda to the people this year still requires broad bipartisan support."
Thanks for posting this.
The truth will do that sometimes, hurt, that is
More whine (without substance) from the left.
We may, out of charity, want to give them that benefit, but that doesn't in any way change the fact that they're a "special interest."
Agree 100%.
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.