My take on Schwarzenegger and the Props
 

The people elected Schwarzeneggar to improve California. He took the job with the State being in at a level of overspending, inadequate funding, increased taxation - an overall pretty bad political environment. He had big ideas of change. Either the people believed in his ideas and a plan to get the State back on tract and out of the hands of politicians.

Schwazenegger, like anyone else, can only act out his plan with the appropriate tools. He placed several propositions in a special election asking the people provide him the tools necessary to get the job done. After all, you wouldn't take you car to a mechanic and expect him to use only a hammer and screwdriver to overhal the engine. Nonethelss, the people refused to provide the gov with the tools he requested.

I see little hope now the Governors plan to get the State back on tract. The people have denied him the tools he needs to impliment the changes he promised. The people still expect him to live up to his promises.

It seems that the majority of Californians want the politics of California changed but want to see these changes overnight and without any impact to the bloated spending and corupt politicians. Can these two polar opposites co-exist?

Arnie will now be blamed, and is being blamed, for the failure to live up to his promises. Can we really blame him or do we blame the people of Calfiornia for wanting change and their refusal to support the governor while he is in office? Providing little support does nothing. If it didn't work out, then get a new governor in the next election.

i hear talk of people just not trusting him anymore. tools or no tools.

Because the propositions did not pass, Arnold is absolved of all responsibility for future failures?

Perhaps his hand was a little heavy this time and he needs to have the people see the seriousness of their situation - in the same light he sees it in.

I'm sure he did his best, and I'm sure he will try again (for change).

Better luck next time.

I don't know about Arnie but yes, The People have been told by their am radio talk show hosts that they should expect more and better services from Gubmint, while taxes are reduced. Loads of brilliant folks right here who subscribe to that same notion. I assume they also expect their cars to increase in horsepower and mileage without having to do any work to the cars or add parts, and while their car payments are lowered by the bank. After all, banks are private enterprizes, right?

Re: My take on Schwarzenegger and the Props
 

How is a sneak-attack on abortion rights a tool to fix the state?

How is neutering unions by taking away a significant source of their funding a tool to fix the state?

How is a pharma-company initiative, introduced to obfuscate another initiative they didn't like, a tool to fix the state?

How is an initiative to make it easier to fire teachers a tool to fix the state?

The re-districting initiative was too blantant of an attempt to re-draw the lines favorable to his party.

Re: Re: My take on Schwarzenegger and the Props
 

Well, the unions seem to be the primary opponents to all and any change.

Why do teachers enjoy a special privelege that the rest of us don't? This hasn't ruined private business, why will it ruin public education?

I didn't know that a panel of independent judges could be considered a power-grab. California has already been gerrymandered to ensure a Democratic majority in state and federal elections.

Arnold has mostly himself to blame. He came into office with huge popularity, a direct line to voters, the Legislature running scared, and a sense of crisis in the State.

His first mistake was that he blatantly lied during the recall campaign. He told voters that he would balance the budget and solve the state's problems, all through eliminating "fraud and waste", innovative new ideas, and no tax increases. As it turns out, his predecessors weren't idiots who overlooked a magic bullet. CA has a big budget problem that has to be solved the old-fashioned, painful way - spending cuts and tax increases.

His second mistake was that he tried to hold on to his first mistake. His budgets were just as full of smoke and mirrors as the budgets of his predecessors. He used huge bond issues, took money from local governments, cut budget deals and then reneged on them. This made people realize that Ahnold didn't really have "the answer" after all.

His third mistake was that he behaved like a arrogant Hollywood he-man jerk. He called the Legislature "girlie-men" and "losers, addicts, and stooges". He said he was going to "kick the butts" of the state's nurses. He attacked all of the state's public employee unions. Basically his approach to anyone who wasn't with him was "the voters love me, so I'm going to squash you". Naturally this galvanized a huge amount of well-organized political opposition.

His fourth mistake was that he over-estimated his star power. Calling the special election was his "nuclear option". You don't use your nuclear option unless you are positive it will work. Well, he used it when his poll numbers were already falling, and when the time came he fired all blanks.

I'm sorry some of his propositions failed, I voted YES on 74 (teachers) and 77 (redistricting). But he shot himself in the foot.

So is Arnold making the same mistakes that Jessie Ventura and Ronald Reagan made when entering politics?

Is he just too raw?

Reagan was the head of the actors union before political office, right?

You must be mistaken, John. Public policy is really really simple. Just ask Mul or Fint.

Re: Re: My take on Schwarzenegger and the Props
 

Yeah. The districts we have now were drawn without regard to party affiliations, right?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1131660058.jpg

Re: Re: Re: My take on Schwarzenegger and the Props
 

Never said they weren't, but it was clear as day that Ah-nold wanted them re-drawn more to his liking. If there was even the remotest chance that this would have favored Dems, it wouldn't have been proposed.

1) Tax cuts/increases were not the subject of any of the propositions. And under Arnold, the state's structural deficit has decreased. But you may not understand that because you're from a different state, so we'll let that go.

2) The "am radio talk show hosts" you speak of are, I'm guessing, the conservative ones. Well, the AM-radio-listening conservatives were out voting FOR Arnold's reforms. They were the ones willing to deal with some pain, to shake things up. I know, I know, reforms only hurt Democrats, and the Republicans in the state get off scott free.... If that were true, state Republican legislators would have supported redistricting. They didn't. But Republican voters did.

Re: Re: Re: Re: My take on Schwarzenegger and the Props
 

State Repub. legislators did NOT support the measure, because it WAS fair. There was an equal chance of Rs losing their seats. Look at how the proposal would have selected the redistricting committee (3 retired judges) and you will see that it was quite fair.

You are correct in assuming that I don't have the slightest notion of what's happening in California. I was simply responding to the original post, and in fact I had mis-read it a bit. Here in Washington, there is a significant proportion of the electorate that seems to have the expectation that roads and bridges get fixed, new lanes get built, schools improve and many and various taxes get sliced all at the same time. And yes, to large degree there are opportunistic political critics out there who are creating this perception by making as much money as they can bashing and blaming gubmint and its supporters. And what would you call someone who bashes gubmint? What would you call someone who bashes the armed forces branch of gumbint? Are they different terms? Does it make sense to call a gubmint basher a patriot, but an armed forces basher a traitor?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My take on Schwarzenegger and the Props
 

It wasn't a fair setup at all - but I suppose it is perspective.

My biggest beef with it was that it did the redistricting out of season.

We do redistricting based on census results every 10 years.

Now a Republican Governor wants to do it on a whim based on what numbers?

No, pass - propose this at the 10 year mark and you'll have better favor I'm sure.

Re: Re: Re: My take on Schwarzenegger and the Props
 

He has come out of his corner swinging against the unions and blaming them for the ills of the entire state since he started his recall bid. That doesn't seem fair or accurate - they have clout but they aren't the key to blame.

Teachers have a longer probationary period than almost anyone in the private sector - every job I've ever worked until entering the public sector has been 90 days tops. Here for regulars it is 6 months, for management it is a year and for teachers it is 2.

The problem is not the probationary period - it is the fairness of the firing process after that probationary period is over.

Make a law that fixes that and I'll be on your side if it is fair to the teach and fair to the organization.

Redistricting out of season is just a political ploy - redistricting on the 10 year mark would have been more fair and seen as fair.

A great deal of Arnie's agenda was to re-create a pro-business environment in California. Jobs and production in our state have been lost to neighboring states and overseas. Our businesses labor under a high cost of living, high state tax rates and ridiculous workers comp rates. Schwarzenegger wanted to make the state more business friendly and competetive. His agenda has been rejected. The people of our state are not ready for reform. If I were Arnie I would consider resigning. The patient clearly does not want his medicine.

Ding ding ding :D

Then why did the people elect him in the first place?

Because the previous governor, Gray Davis, was a putz of biblical proportions. He was fired.