Arnold's New Agenda - California politics.

[Technosoul]

Last night Aronold S. (gov. of california) gave his new years speech which was aired by most of our news stations.

After his reform the budget agenda got a no vote in his speical elelection attempt he said "message recieved". Then he switched his agenda to advocate massive spending programs that will total into the billions (or more).

He said we need more freeways and roadways so people do not get stuck in traffic.
He said "I say lets build it".

We need new schools to meet the demands of the future, and repair for existing schools, as we as our collages. He said "I say lets build it".

We need clean air and we have the technology to have clean air - our environment is important - he said "I say lets build it".

Most of the goods from Asia come through the ports in California - we need to spend money to improve those harbors - "I say lets build it".

We need more hospitals and emergeny care systems "I say lets build it".

He said "if we do not invest in our self then no one else will want to invest money here" (meaning private businessmen).

He proposed two new prisons to be built because and a number of new courts - we cannot turn criminals back on the streets because we our prisions and courts are overcrowded - I say lets build it.

He also wants to build more avenues to bring water to the farmers and cities.

His new "lets build it" agenda will be paid for with bonds without adding new taxes and he speculates each project will create many new jobs that will boost the states economy.

He then called upon the Democrats to bring him their best ideas for budget reform and for cutting out useless spending with a vow "to work together for the future of California".

We all came here from someplace else to be part of the California Dream. (and he wants to be our dreamweaver - I added that as my opinon).

Ever hear of a Kentucky dream? he added - no - it is all about Cailfornia dreaming (Aka the "Mamas and Papas" song).

It was a nice and inspirational lets have a dream speech. And hard to find much fault in it for debate.

[Zeebadee]

And I say, "Who's gonna pay for it??"

"His new "lets build it" agenda will be paid for with bonds without adding new taxes..."

Just exactly where does the money come from to pay off the bonds? (and the interest, of course). I guess all the new jobs that are created will generate enough new taxes to pay all the people actually doing those jobs. It's the old "We're all going to get rich doing each other's laundry" scheme.

I think Arnold is just pissed that the people of California didn't pass his initiatives so he's going to give them exactly what they deserve. He's going to finish off what Gray Davis started and totally bankrupt the state.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Technosoul "if we do not invest in our self then no one else will want to invest money here" (meaning private businessmen).

Guess who they'll be the slave labor for this? Yes, the private sector. Oh well, we already lost a ton of companies to other states/countries. Who cares if a few more leave?

Schwarzennegar is guity himself of helping this problem. Instead of truly making cuts after Gray Davis left, he encouraged people to override the California State Constitution and take out long term loans, at high interest rates as well. The California State government is bankrupt and once people realize they aren't getting their money back, there won't be any more suckers willing to pay to help support it. I'll be interested in seeing what happens when they simply stop being able to pay people with borrowed money. Likely they'll say it's an emergency and expect ever more resources be thrown into the black hole of Sacramento.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/press...5-12-08aa.html

"...

This locked California into obligations that were only sustainable with the tremendous tax-revenue growth of the late 1990s. Predictably, the influx dwindled after the dot-com bust but the obligations remained, leaving the state with massive annual deficits. Papering over these deficits with substantial borrowing was the second mistake.

Instead of making needed spending cuts to balance the budget, bonds were sold for fast cash. While Wall Street bailed California out, the state continued to sink in fiscal quicksand. By 2003, the $38 billion shortfall pushed the state to the brink of insolvency. Not surprisingly, creditors lowered the state’s bond rating to just above junk bonds. Though the credit rating has improved, it remains last among the 50 states. These poor ratings mean California must pay billions more in interest.

..."

I just saw another article claiming that the same idea of borrowing our way into prosperity is going to be attempted for these projects as well.

Quote by: Zeebadee I think Arnold is just pissed that the people of California didn't pass his initiatives so he's going to give them exactly what they deserve. He's going to finish off what Gray Davis started and totally bankrupt the state.

Ummm... what initiatives has he supported that didn't get passed? He's been given most everything he's asked for. Admittedly the legislators here might oppose him on many things but he's simply bypassed that and had initiatives passed to change the state constitution instead. I don't see how anyone can not blame a lot of this debt on Schwartzeneggar himself. He's the dang governor. He could simply veto everything the legislation hands him until they agree to cut spending but he hasn't done that. He was elected by popular forces to stop this spending spree and now he's the one proposing the stuff! The media jumped up in support of him as soon as it was realized that McClintok would likely have been governor if Schwartzeneggar hadn't jumped into the fray under the Republican banner.

I can't guarantee McClintok would have followed through on everything but he's been a strong proven fiscal conservative (but truly rather libertarian ... he supported decriminalizing marajuana for example) in the legislature for over 25 years and Republican support was consolidating around him quickly before the Schwartzennegar campaign blitz by media. You could hear the agonizing pain from many conservatives here for almost a month over whether or not to fall behind Arnold instead.

Something I thought that was extremely heartening though, was that McClintok, during a very large televised debate in CA that included Arnold, was seen as having very significantly won the debate by a large majority of viewers. Arnold simply hijacked his platform and said he'd leave McClintok as a consultant. I seriously doubt that after over 25 years battling it out in Sacramento that McClintok would have swung into proposing long term debt and new public programs like Arnold has.

(Yes, as is obvious, I'm still a bit upset over how the Davis recall turned out )

[lili462]

Who elected this numb nut? The rest of America has traffic problems, just like california....we need more freeways and roads too...Let's build it folks. The rest of America needs new and better schools, Lets build it. we need clean air, we need more hospitals. If he wants to make room for the real criminals in jails, lesser the sentences imposed on non-violent offenders. Like drunk drivers, drug addicts..instead of putting them in jail, put them into some sort of rehab or detox. Let's face it, Arnold was better left off as an actor. California should have elected someone with a political reputation to represent them, not an actor who just says "lets build it" and thinks that its just going to come that easy.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: SteveA Ummm... what initiatives has he supported that didn't get passed? He's been given most everything he's asked for. Admittedly the legislators here might oppose him on many things but he's simply bypassed that and had initiatives passed to change the state constitution instead.

Arnold had 4 propositions on the November ballot that would have reformed government in California. Prop 76 would have limited state spending. Another would have been a start to curbing the public employees unions. Public employee retirement packages alone are almost enough to break the state. The voters didn't pass any of the propositions. The voters say they want Arnie to get the budget under control, then they won't let him. So now Arnie's gonna give the people what they want. After all, bond issues are like free money - they won't raise taxes! I'll bet if you asked the average person on the street who does pay for them, they won't know.

[someguymp3]

Traffic jams - let's build more/widen roads

Crime - let's build more prisons

Two of the most illogical and regressive steps ever. Congrats

[kalel29]

Quote by: lili462 Who elected this numb nut? The rest of America has traffic problems, just like california....we need more freeways and roads too...Let's build it folks. The rest of America needs new and better schools, Lets build it. we need clean air, we need more hospitals. If he wants to make room for the real criminals in jails, lesser the sentences imposed on non-violent offenders. Like drunk drivers, drug addicts..instead of putting them in jail, put them into some sort of rehab or detox. Let's face it, Arnold was better left off as an actor. California should have elected someone with a political reputation to represent them, not an actor who just says "lets build it" and thinks that its just going to come that easy.

I'm sorry, but how much of his own money has Arnold pumped into the budget? Things were much better under the last guy, right? I commend Arnold for at least trying to get things done. It's when you have a bunch of whining liberals complaining about spending money to better society that's annoying.

[fushigi]

Yet more evidence that there is no longer any relationship between the words "Republican" and "fiscal conservative."

[kalel29]

Quote by: fushigi Yet more evidence that there is no longer any relationship between the words "Republican" and "fiscal conservative."

Which is why I wonder he ran as a Republican. Independent would have been more appropriate. Well, when they change the law concerning the Presidency and allowing all people to run, we'll see what pary he'll belong to in his campaign.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Zeebadee Arnold had 4 propositions on the November ballot that would have reformed government in California. Prop 76 would have limited state spending. Another would have been a start to curbing the public employees unions. Public employee retirement packages alone are almost enough to break the state. The voters didn't pass any of the propositions. The voters say they want Arnie to get the budget under control, then they won't let him. So now Arnie's gonna give the people what they want. After all, bond issues are like free money - they won't raise taxes! I'll bet if you asked the average person on the street who does pay for them, they won't know.

Thank you for this. I hadn't paid attention to this last November. I saw most the propositions he was pushing for before, pass and they hadn't lived up to claims of being tough on reforming things but were primarly more of the same, and a successful bypass of even prior state constitutional limitations on borrowing.

Well, maybe that means he should stop pressuring in a mixed fashion and simply stick to the key ones of cutting spending? It's sad that he waited until he blew his inertia sending mixed messages and having the bad ideas listened to.

My apologies though for not having paid closer attention to this November.

I found an interesting article that seems to see things in a rather similar view (he blew his chances by being tough and vocal on the bad ideas yet soft and quieter on the better ones... maybe this is something due to the media filter ... though when it comes to mainstream media, who's not more mainstream that a large movie star like Arnold, married to a Kennedy, with something like the second richest man in the world as his right hand advisor?) So the Propositions that got passed before were simply the 'compromises' that kept business as usual going on by acquiring greater debts. The claims of this being simply "borrowing more for the very last time simply to keep the books balanced during this crisis" seem to already have been tossed out in favor of "let's try doing it one last time, again".

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...aiaae.asp?pg=2

"...

When Schwarzenegger came into office, the voters were in a reformist mood. They had tired of business as usual. They had just recalled Gov. Davis, less than a year after returning him to office by a comfortable margin. They were excited by the seemingly authentic and genuine Schwarzenegger. They felt the state had been fiscally mismanaged, was in deep money trouble, and needed a big-time overhaul. This was Schwarzenegger's chance, and he blew it.

Influenced partly by his wife, Maria Shriver, and other Democrats, Schwarzenegger opted to paper over the problems. He twisted the arms of Republican legislators to support a $15 billion bond scheme, while refraining from any real fiscal reform to resolve budget problems or tackle the structural deficit. He believed he could separate a "recovery" phase his first year in office from a "reform" phase the second year. This was a strategic blunder. He should have put all his chips on the table when he had a winning hand.

In addition, the new governor was unfocused. He had pitched his "recovery" bonds by saying he would not ask for more borrowing. Yet mere months later, he endorsed a politically correct but ridiculous $3 billion bond issue to subsidize private companies going into the stem cell research business. It would dispense $300 million in tax money annually, without legislative oversight, and regardless of whether the stem cell research showed promise. Like the after-school ballot proposition before he became governor, the stem cell proposition showed Schwarzenegger's lack of rigor.

Once in office, having failed to confront the CTA and other key players at the optimum time, he gave them the advantage when he did take them on. Earlier, he had negotiated Hollywood-style (a deal is a deal, unless . . . ) with the teachers' union. The CTA agreed last fiscal year to a temporary legislative adjustment to Proposition 98, and the governor promised to "repay" the education budget this fiscal year. It was a bad deal, inherently difficult for him to keep, and it merely postponed the inevitable. When he eventually reneged, the blow to his credibility was devastating. It would frame the special election.

..."

People stopped listening to him after realizing he was mostly talk about reigning in government debts. (At least I did and that's why I didn't pay much attention to this last election) The fact that he's "caved in" already and instead after getting his new borrowing granted, he decides to blow it on even more of the same seem to follow these views closely.

Could he truly be trying to reign in things? I know he's been hounded by government unions for more money, and obviously large hungry and organized government unions aren't easy to keep fed - as the soviet union likely discovered. But truly it's difficult to believe he's truly trying to reform things when one of his first ideas was for more money to schools to turn them into afternoon daycare centers ... or his "Schools open after 6PM" idea, or whatever it was called. Sorry, it's difficult to see a bright side to California politics and of course whoever manages to become a figurehead for them seems doomed to be whacked around a lot in public opinions (Yes, it's likely to a large extent part of the way information gets filtered through the system).

[lili462]

Quote by: kalel29 I'm sorry, but how much of his own money has Arnold pumped into the budget? Things were much better under the last guy, right? I commend Arnold for at least trying to get things done. It's when you have a bunch of whining liberals complaining about spending money to better society that's annoying.

ok, but what did that have to do with my post. And i hope you weren't refering to me as the "whiny" liberal. I was just making an opinion, i could care less about what goes on in californina. I just think it wasn't a very bright Idea to elect a washed up actor and one who has no political background at that.

[underbear1]

Arnold you had a chance to improve California and you BLEW IT (so to speak.)
It wouldn't have been as expensive as harbors or roads, it was opening marriage for all Californians.
I think it also shows in your LACK of favorability ratings, LGBT and our friends are a force not to be dismissed in CA, and hiring one dyke assistant isn't going to win our admiration.

[Cephus]

Arnold was voted in on a platform that he wouldn't take any guff from the unions and special interests, he was going to fix the problems no matter what it took and he wouldn't run for re-election.

He's screwed up all of it. He spends all his time kissing the special interest asses, he's running for re-election and every promise he ever made, he broke. I voted for him the first time, based on what he promised he'd do. I won't make that mistake again.

[kalel29]

Quote by: lili462 ok, but what did that have to do with my post. And i hope you weren't refering to me as the "whiny" liberal. I was just making an opinion, i could care less about what goes on in californina. I just think it wasn't a very bright Idea to elect a washed up actor and one who has no political background at that.

I wasn't calling you one, I was referring to the followers of Gray. As for the no political background issue, I think that's probably best, as he hasn't been corrupted by corporate greed yet. :eek:

[SteveA]

Quote by: kalel29 ... As for the no political background issue, I think that's probably best, as he hasn't been corrupted by corporate greed yet. :eek:

Maybe having someone without a long political history is ok, but it's a tradeoff because you also have no real track record to go by. Overall I think it's better to support people who have a long and well known track record. At a minimum, if they renege on campaign promises, at least you can be thankful for work they'd already done in prior years.

For Arnold specifically, he's not really detached from politics and corporate interests. I think that was more of the salespitch during his campaign. He's married to a Kennedy (the other royal family in America outside the Bushs), has many ties with the media (obviously, as he's a movie star himself) and has Warren Buffet (the 2nd richest man in the world supposedly) as his right hand advisor. Schwartzeneggar also had prior business interests outside the movie industry (which in itself isn't bad).

I don't think there's anything wrong with (and it's likely almost unavoidable) being in office and having a lot of wealth, or at least access to it. Simply to get elected in the first place requires a lot of resources and connections. But for Schwartzeneggar it seems he's too connected and dependent on other even more powerful interests to likely be truly an independence voice in politics. But other than voters spending a lot of time and energy doing their own independent research, it seems the current system is pretty much doomed to continue electing the media favorites and expecting voters to devote this much time and energy into researching candidates is unrealistic and possibly even a waste of time ... "there's got to be a better way" seems an appropriate expression.

[Matt W]

As for the no political background issue, I think that's probably best, as he hasn't been corrupted by corporate greed yet.

*laughs* The man worked/works in Hollywood, for crying out loud!! How more corrupt a place can you get???

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zeebadee And I say, "Who's gonna pay for it??" "His new "lets build it" agenda will be paid for with bonds without adding new taxes..." Just exactly where does the money come from to pay off the bonds? (and the interest, of course). I guess all the new jobs that are created will generate enough new taxes to pay all the people actually doing those jobs. It's the old "We're all going to get rich doing each other's laundry" scheme. I think Arnold is just pissed that the people of California didn't pass his initiatives so he's going to give them exactly what they deserve. He's going to finish off what Gray Davis started and totally bankrupt the state.

First of all Gray Davis did not bankrupt the state, the problem is that the power companies that are not in the state created phoney reason to skyrocket the cost to this state for our energy bills - charging the state too much money. When Davis threatened to investigate and/or to place the energy supply under government control insteaded of private control then sent in a money man from (outside the state) to organize the re-call election, and they spent tons of money to make it look like Davis was fumbling the budgets.
Point is - it was the Texas power company that caused the budget problems here.
(AKA - supply and demand - only in this case very manipupated reasons for short supply and big demands).

I am not sure if he is doing this to "get even" but I think he might be a little serious at times about trying to honestly represent the will of the people. The only problem he had before was he picked the wrong group of people to represent. (getting to much say-so form x-govenor Pete Wilson for example).

So eather the bonds will generate more jobs to cover the interest of the loan or else somebody in the future will have to raise taxes (which would be after he has left office).

But the fact is we must have those new highways, schools, emergency networks (and so forth) and they must be paid for by people who live and work here in California - the inner-structure must be maintained and improved upon and the money cannot just magically appear - no free lunch - it comes from "we the people" section.

What is the other alternative? To allow the place to run down into one pot hole after another, until we have a gaint slum in all our major cities? The thing we should look at is in other areas of our personal spending - the cost of living area. The trumped-up cost at the gas stations, the overchaging for prescriptions and some everyday stuff used in the house. The massive ticket writing by the police "traffic control" departments. We need our prepresentives to do something about those issues then we could afford to pay a little extra money in taxes. The horrible cost of renting a place is bad enough. Then you got the insurance companies lurking at the womb to consume anyone economically that happens to be born in California.

Anorld also said he plans to raise the minimum wage by one dollar ( but a little at a time and so that total will not be recieved by workers until 2006).

And he is going to knock on Washington's Door concerning prescription drugs. He said that if we buy cars, TV sets, and just about everything else from other countries then why can't we buy prescription drugs from other countries? He called for a free-international market for drugs to counter the monopoly now enjoyed by local drug companies.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: lili462 Who elected this numb nut? The rest of America has traffic problems, just like california....we need more freeways and roads too...Let's build it folks. The rest of America needs new and better schools, Lets build it. we need clean air, we need more hospitals. If he wants to make room for the real criminals in jails, lesser the sentences imposed on non-violent offenders. Like drunk drivers, drug addicts..instead of putting them in jail, put them into some sort of rehab or detox. Let's face it, Arnold was better left off as an actor. California should have elected someone with a political reputation to represent them, not an actor who just says "lets build it" and thinks that its just going to come that easy.

So how much will it cost to build more rehab and detox centers? But the jails and courts are acturally one of the smaller projects on his agenda.

Now you say that most of the states also need all the things we need here in California. If we build it and they don't, where will the companies what to set up camp - in our rich looking place or in the "poor and run-down states"? If they want cheap labor then they might not care if the state looks like some poverty zone. And many of the old poverty zones (some places in Asia) are now no longer poor places and so they must move again to another cheap-o location to build a factory. But hey, that is not good for America.
Poverty should not be the magnet for bussiness here in the USA.

Now if the does "build it" here in California and meets the objective with success then he can go to Washington and do it for all the states - we can dump the Homeland Security over spending and create the new Innerstructure Department of Economic Defense.

So that is my proposal for the next term - a brand new I.D.E.D. Whatcha Think?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: underbear1 Arnold you had a chance to improve California and you BLEW IT (so to speak.) It wouldn't have been as expensive as harbors or roads, it was opening marriage for all Californians. I think it also shows in your LACK of favorability ratings, LGBT and our friends are a force not to be dismissed in CA, and hiring one dyke assistant isn't going to win our admiration.

And Arnold would say " ahhh, don't be a girlyman".

But you have a point and that is that we have a very large gay population here in Caifornia and, in fact, the gay culture has whole cities that they dominate by number count.

The gay culture, like the Mexican-American culture, cannot be snubbed by this states leadership, and that goes of Indians too.

Being that he worked in Hollywood movies for so long that he surely must have worked with many gays because they are very much in demand by Hollywood because of their creative skills. The problem arose due to a fact that a while back (not sure how long ago that was) the voters had already voted for a bill that would conflict with the gay-marrage proposals, which law is now on the books. So we cannot vote in a new law that is in conflict with one already on the books unless that law is somehow removed from the books, I am not sure how one goes about the "un-doing" process? But under current law he could not promptly sign a new "marrage rule" without being in conflict with an existing legal taboo.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: lili462 ok, but what did that have to do with my post. And i hope you weren't refering to me as the "whiny" liberal. I was just making an opinion, i could care less about what goes on in californina. I just think it wasn't a very bright Idea to elect a washed up actor and one who has no political background at that.

Liberals don't whine - they speak with wisdom about what needs to be done.

Ronald Reagan was a washed-up "B" movie actor. He ran the state of California and the USA as a president.

The thing is as an actor you can learn your speeches well and can play-the-part of a political leader with more ease then some guy with a political backgournd from Texas who says all kinds of goofy stuff - and who looks more like he should be selling used cars then leading a country.