Effort to recall governor qualifies for California ballot: Gray Davis Will Face Recall Election

Associated Press ^ | 07-23-03

[Brian S]

Gov. Gray Davis became the nation's first governor in 82 years to face a recall election, as California's secretary of state announced Wednesday that a Republican-led campaign once discounted as improbable had qualified for the ballot.

Davis, a career Democratic politician who was elected in a landslide in 1998 before his popularity plunged amid California's energy crisis and budget deficit, must face the electorate in 60 to 80 days, according to state law.

[Brian S]

Drudge read it here first.

Of course he did! :)

[Brian S]

I went with what AP had but yours is better. AM, you up for some editing?

[DumpsterDiver]

I really don't know how far Cruz is willing to take this thing. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this fiasco unfolds. If I lived close to Sacramento I'd be attending rallies though.

On a really weird note, what happens if Davis doesn't get recalled? Do ya think we might have an unusually high turnout of non-English speaking voters?

[Pubbie]

Drudge has sources close to Arnold that say he's out of the recall:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951527/posts

Arnold is saying publicly that "He's weighing his options" but there are apparently private people close to him that are saying he won't run.

Also McClintock is getting ready to run, and there's no way he would be running if Arnold was running.

And frankly I suspected he wouldn't run just because the State is in such an unbelievable fiscal mess.

[Cultural Jihad]

So far the count on the ballot is Dem = 0, Greens = 1, and Rep = 1. That makes it a 50-50 chance?

[Dan from Michigan]

PLEASE NO RIORDAN!!!!

[Pubbie]

Riordan will only get votes from Democrats, not Republicans, which therefore helps a real conservative like McClintock win the election.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Arnold's spokeman on KFI radio shot down the story that Arnold had decided not to run. He is still mulling it over."

Just great.

"Vote for me if you want to live!"

[Pubbie]

I was under the impression that McClintock, or whoever is governor, could use the line item veto to cut as many social programs as they want, thus bringing the Budget back into line.

PS: Does anyone know if McClintock could resurrect Prop187 by appealing to the US Supreme Court?

[steveegg]

So far the count on the ballot is Dem = 0, Greens = 1, and Rep = 1. That makes it a 50-50 chance?

I think that unless Gray-Out resigns, he's automatically on the ballot (at least that would be the case in Wisconsin). I'd say that 50-50 under those circumstances sounds about right.

[Torie]

No Davis is barred from the ballot.

[truthkeeper]

Whoa...DO NOT TRUST those absentee ballots. For goodness' sake, this is California. Who knows where they'll get dumped???

[breakem]

Davis is on the ballot only in the first question: Should the governor be recalled YES or NO.

In the second question you are asked to vote for one of the following candidates (not including the gov) in case the voters choose YES on the first question.

[kellynla]

And for all those who have not read Tom McClintok's plan to end the budget crisis. Here is the article from the OC Register.Budget mess: Intractable it's not
Three basic steps - including a 9.5% cut in spending - would end crisis
By Tom McClintock
Republican state senator from Thousand Oaks

California's budget crisis is not complicated and it is not intractable and it is not mysterious. Over the last four years, population and inflation have grown at a combined rate of 21 percent. Revenue has grown 28 percent. Spending has grown 36 percent. Our distress is not for lack of revenue but for lack of discipline. And to restore that discipline, three simple acts are all that is needed to put California's financial crisis behind us.

First, the immediate budget shortfall requires policy makers to abide by the first law of holes: When you're in one, stop digging. Most of California's deficit is not the difference between what it is currently spending and what it is currently taking in. It is caused rather by the projected increases in state spending over the next 18 months. Most of the deficit is not a matter of cutting current spending - but rather arresting the growth in future spending.

That growth is driven by a variety of constitutional and statutory mandates. But virtually all of them can be suspended by the Legislature at any time by the same vote that it takes to enact the budget. The principal exception is service on the debt.

Thus, merely suspending these mandates and reducing current expenditures by 9.5 percent - and then holding at that level for 18 months - would eliminate the deficit without the tax increases, raids on local government, and pilfering of pension and special funds that the governor has proposed.

Could your family cut its spending by 9.5 percent in hard times? In this recession, many families are doing exactly that. Their state government, which is now spending a larger portion of their earnings than at any time in our history, could profit from their example.

Secondly, the discomfort of frugality could be eased dramatically if accompanied by a comprehensive review of every state agency and program now on the books. California state government spends roughly twice per person what Arizona spends, and yet Arizona delivers a vastly higher level of service in every category, including academic performance, electricity generation, water delivery, and highway and housing construction.

The difficulty in conducting such a review - and acting upon it - is that every program has a highly motivated constituency that jealously and expertly guards its budget. Faced with the long-overdue need to close obsolete military bases, the federal government confronted the same paralysis caused by interest group pressure. Ultimately, Congress broke the

gridlock when it took the task of reviewing bases out of the political arena and gave it to an independent panel of management experts that returned a comprehensive recommendation for a single up-or-down vote.

This mechanism prevented the political logrolling, mutual back-scratching and parochial grandstanding that had long blocked the consolidation and closure of obsolete bases. The same thing desperately needs to be done with California's bureaucracies.

Finally, with the state's fiscal affairs back in order, a constitutional spending limit must be restored. California had such a provision from 1979 to 1990, commonly called the Gann spending limit, restraining the growth of state expenditures to the combined growth of population and inflation. State spending still more than doubled during this period, but only as fast as the economy could sustain it. In 1990, the limit was blown into the stratosphere by Proposition 111.

If the Gann limit had been restored at the outset of the Davis administration, California's current budget would still be 21 percent larger than it was four years ago. But instead of a $35 billion deficit, California would enjoy a $5 billion surplus this year - and $30 billion cumulatively over the last four.

These three simple acts would solve California's current budget crisis and prevent future recurrences. Will they be enacted? Probably not. And that's the only reason why California's budget problem is intractable. It is not answers but action that is missing.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... PS: Does anyone know if McClintock could resurrect Prop187 by appealing to the US Supreme Court?"

I don't see why not. The USSC would have to hear it though.

[breakem]

The gov can rduc the budget (called blue pencilling), but not add to it. However, some programs are required by state or federal law and the dems will take all such cuts to court. The fight is just beginning.

[breakem]

rduc=reduce