Posted on 09/24/2005 3:53:28 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday sided with drug companies and energy producers on three initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot, and formally backed another requiring parental notification on abortions for minors.
Of the two competing measures on the Nov. 8 ballot regarding prescription drugs, the Republican governor backed Proposition 78, which is supported by the pharmaceutical industry. It would seek voluntary cooperation from drug companies to participate in a state plan discounting drugs for the poor.
A short release from his campaign office said he opposes a rival discount measure, Proposition 79, which is backed by health and consumer advocates. It would punish drug companies, if they didn't give discounts, by dropping their products from the state's preferred list for Medi-Cal patients.
Schwarzenegger is also opposing Proposition 80, a consumer group's measure to re-regulate electricity in the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at montereyherald.com ...
You think a virtually bankrupt state, set to borrow ANOTHER $10 billion next year just to stay afloat, should be supplying a new prescription drug program?
Enhanced welfare--all part of the new big tent GOP.
He is backing Prop. 78, which is a VOLUNTARY cooperation by the drug companies, and is AGAINST Prop 79, which is the one that has is a socialized drug program.
It is still a redistributionist plan that will make up for the losses on the poor with HIGHER PRICES for middle and upper classes, effectively a tax collected and distributed by corporations with State cover.
Agreed.
And, it is not coincidental that he is seeking re-election, and could have a challenge from the right in the Republican primaries.
He better move right, or he will be PULP. Even if he survives the primaries, in the general, no pubbie will come out and vote for him.
He pissed off 1/2 the conservatives.
Good moves lately to shore up some of the lost base.
Oh, goodie, so our fine conservatives prefer a leftist Democrat... again.
No! They should not. But, we live a socialist state.
So, when the choice is between proposition 78 and 79, you end up taking 78.
Get it? :-))
When you live in California with a moribund Republican party, you will take anything other than Grey Davis, Phil Angel..., and others.
When you live in California with a moribund Republican party, you will take anything other than Grey Davis, Phil Angel..., and others.
-----
True -- right now, Arnie is all we have going for us -- those of us Californians who care about RESTORING this state to when it was great. God, if Arnie had not gotten in, we would have had a radical, leftist, La Raza Mexican running California...worse than Davis even, in many ways.
Something is better than "WORSE THAN NOTHING"...
>>So, when the choice is between proposition 78 and 79, you end up taking 78.
Socialized medicine lite and socialized medicine.
Why take either?
Vote NO on both.
Hmmmm....you forget that the state legislature is of the communist kind. Better take 78 than risk them passing a law that makes prop 79 look like it was written by Forbes.
Exactly.
Of course, the GOP Big Tent RINOs, liberals and moderates will be unable to bring themselves to vote NO on both 78 and 79.
I personally will be voting NO on both (if I had a vote) from a policy standpoint. I would also strongly advocate the defeat of the two and fund for their defeat.
But, it will be difficult. Golden Staters are largely liberal.
The choice is to nix them both.
Unlikely, although the true believers like me will try.
Even if both go down, the communist legilature of California will give us a Castro style bill ignoring the people.
Well, you won't understand our pain. We live in California. :-)))
My family has been in California for five generations. My grandfather graduated from El Cajon High School in a class of five students.
I understand perfectly.
Which is it?
Your post #2: "So, when the choice is between proposition 78 and 79, you end up taking 78."
Your post #12: "Better take 78 than risk them passing a law that makes prop 79 look like it was written by Forbes"
Your post #14: "I personally will be voting NO on both (if I had a vote) from a policy standpoint."
What the hell kind of strategy is that? Voting both of them down will tell the legislature that the public isn't in the mood for any of that kind of nonsense. Voting for one of them will tell the legislature that the public is in a mood to "compromise".
Did you hear about the "Gay Marriage" bill that the Legislature passed? Did you also know that the voters said marriage is only between a "Man and a Woman"?
You are dealing with communists. Not legislators.
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.