Front Page  »  

Schwarzenegger fails to deliver on central promise

May 17, 2010

During the insanity that became California’s recall campaign of 2003, candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger promised that he would bring spending in line with tax revenues and enact long-term budget reform.

Now, serving out his final year in office, Schwarzenegger faces an easier crazier deficit problem than what he inherited and has none of the major budgeting reforms he promised in place. [Associated Press]

Last Friday, the governor released his final budget, revealing a deficit that is more than a quarter of all general fund spending–and reminding voters that Schwarzenegger failed to achieve the central promise of his campaign.

“The single greatest rationale of the recall election was reforming an out-of-control state government,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist. “Right now, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.”

Though observers argue that Schwarzenegger can not be blamed for the consequences of a recession,  had the governor implemented the changes he advocated, the state would be in far better financial shape.


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Until this state abolishes the unions, we will be at the mercy of them forever. Liberals are much to blame.” standup


The problem is actually not enough union membership. In the late 70″ with unions representing 25% of the workers plus the many who benefited directly from union involvement the middle and working classes were strong and the economy was bustling and growing. We were the largest creditor nation in the world and we made things. CEO’s made 20-30 times average worker pay and there were few billionaires. Now CEO’s make 350-900 times average worker pay and the US has the greatest income inequality and income disparity of any industrialized nation, plus we don’t make anything and we are the largest debtor nation.


That people have allowed themselves to be convinced that protecting and enriching the 1% at the top will somehow benefit them down the line is incredible. Dims and Repugs, not much of a difference other than to keep us all divided and under the illusion of democracy and choice rather than the inverted totalitarianism we really have.


0

The economy was bustling and strong because California had not yet start to tax the hell out of corparations, which when they did that, it started the great flight of business from Ca. to other states and overseas. Also it came out today that CalPers UNION, is asking the state of Ca. for an additional 600+ million in the coming year. That is on top of what they already have. Nope unions aren’t part of the problem. YEA RIGHT.


These WONDERFUL unions that you speak of (in Ca.) are mostly associated with the Gov. sector and not the private sector like the East coast. So like I have asked before, when you have a Gov. sector job siphoning off money out of the taxpayers and making no tangiable product to sell and make back a profit like the private sector, how in do you think that is going to benefit the state??


0

We always here about the negative aspects of unions doing this or that, and to be sure some unions do have their problems and should be changed. But we rarely hear about the improprieties of those at the top or corporations. We have been programed to focus on the bottom, always.


Some people who work for the govt. are probably paid too much, but most are merely making what eveyone should have been making if COLA and the assaults on the working class and corporations paying so little are taken into account.


Rather than a race to the bottom, it’s about time for a race to the top.


0

Very effective propaganda has convinced many to vote and act against their own best interests by supporting big business and corporations/politicians against We The People.

That people who make less than $200,000 continue to support what they are told by right wing think tanks is incredible.


0

Effective propaganda??? What that a company (Enron) long out of business, supported a Gov. that didn’t need it? I think you need to look in the mirror and see who is propagandizing.


0

The unions led the costly opposition to stuff Arnold tried in 2005. e.g.

“Proposition 76 was a ballot proposition in the state of California in the referendum election. It involves school funding, state spending, and is an initiative constitutional amendment.

[edit]Official summary (From the Attorney General)


Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth.

Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.

Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base.

Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.

Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.

Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.

Prohibits state special funds borrowing.

Requires payment of local government mandates.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:

The provisions creating an additional state spending limit and granting the Governor new power to reduce spending in most program areas would likely reduce expenditures relative to current law. These reductions also could apply to schools and shift costs to other local governments.

The new spending limit could result in a smoother pattern of state expenditures over time, especially to the extent that reserves are set aside in good times and available in bad times.

The provisions changing school funding formulas would make school and community college funding more subject to annual decisions of state policymakers and less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee.

Relative to current law, the measure could result in a change in the mix of state spending—that is, some programs could receive a larger share and others a smaller share of the total budget.

[edit]Results


The proposition was defeated with a 24.6% margin or about 1 876 383 voters rejecting it.”


Are there any who wished now they had voted differently?


0

Until this state abolishes the unions, we will be at the mercy of them forever. Liberals are much to blame. Liberals = Union Lovers = Spend Happy Monkeys = Sierra Club Supporters = The ruin of our society.


0

Arnold sealed his fate when he crawled into bed with the Enron boys to get elected. The sooner he is gone the better we will all be.


0

Boy you want to talk about the biggest BOLD FACE LIE I have seen here on CCN. You have got to be kidding??????????????


Enron was out of business at the end of 2001 when the stock plummeted to nothing. Hmm now Arnie didn’t come in till late 2003 a full two years later!!! How in the hell did Enron get him elected????? Please I would LOVE to hear this b.s. story. Oh and by the way I didn’t even vote for Arnie but I don’t like seeing things that are so FAR FETCHED!


0

Got thinking about another point. A reason that politicians are embedded with companies usually, is to get money for backing a canditdacy unless they have wealth and lets not go into buying election, that is another arguement. So Meg Whitman has just ponied up the due of around 53 mil. for her canditdacy. Now back to Arnie. If he has a net worth of over 900 mil., (personel planes, etc) do you REALLY think that he would have (if it had come up, which I say no way) had to get in bed with Enron??????


0

Far fetched?


Schwarzenegger Accused of Involvement in $9B California Swindle with Enron’s Ken Lay

Investigative reporter Greg Palast reveals how Republican gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger is part of a larger scheme to help Enron and other power companies avoid paying back $9 billion in illicit profits by replacing Gov. Gray Davis.

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/10/6/schwarzenegger_accused_of_involvement_in_9b


http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showConnection.php?id1=5&id2=6


http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/schwarzenegger-and-enron/


http://www.alternet.org/story/16902


http://www.paulkienitz.net/enron/


0

Excellent job ThomasPaine. I was formulating a response to that one myself, but you did a much more comprehensive one. Thanks.


0

Well I went and looked at your five posts and with the exception of the last one, the first four are all just regurgitation of opinions of Greg Palast (on the same subject may I ad)whos opinions, at best have, always been iffy. I have read him off and on for years and actually taken him to task in emails which he does respond to. Nice man but off base.


Second point I would make is that with the libeal media distain of everything Republican, if this thing had any basis in truth (I see seven year old accussations here) I would think that an expose on either ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN or Air America is LONG overdue. Yet zilch, nothing, noda. Yes he was at a speaking conference. Big f**cking deal. I use to drive by as a kid were the Mason Family lived before the murders, does that make me complicent?


We heard that same about Obama and meetings with questionable characters he meet in meetings with (Blago anyone) but told if no evidence big deal. Well what is different here? Hmm political partisonship? I think so. You are obviously a big lib., Republican and captilist hater. Fine. Just be honest about it.


0

Bottom line is this: Davis was recalled for the “Energy Crisis”. Which was actually not a crisis at all, but a lie fabricated by Enron (as evidenced by their demise and subsequent prison sentences for those responsible). That is not something that can be disputed. It’s a fact. Why that happened is up to you to figure out and research for yourself. Arnold’s popularity is what got Davis recalled. The special election ballot asked the question: “Shall Gray Davis be recalled (removed) from the office of the Governor?”, “YES” or “NO”? Ignorant people thinking it was funny to vote for the “Terminator” or the “Governator”, had to check the “YES” box for the recall in order to cast their vote for someone else. And to prove the ignorance even more, over 14,000 people voted for Gary Coleman, while over 11,000 people voted for Mary Carey, a second rate porn star. In my opinion that’s proof of over 25,000 ignorant people, as well as over 25,000 “YES” votes on the recall that should not have been cast. So thinking it would be neat, or funny to have Arnold as the governor, they voted to recall Davis, and in turn, voted in a person that had not one day of political experience. Does that make sense to all of you supporters of Arnold? The second leading Republican Candidate was Tom McClintock. Why didn’t Tom lead the recall?? Point being, had Arnold (or someone else of equal celebrity status) not been chosen to head up the recall, the recall would not have happened.

Arnold’s furlough idea was not well thought out at all and is not helping the economy. (see “The High Cost of Furloughs” dated October 2009 by the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/californiabudget/furloughs09.pdf). I am a state worker. I am in a union. I don’t like it. I don’t like unions, but I don’t have a choice. However, if and when the furlough ends in July 2010, I will have personally paid over $22,000 out of my own pocket to help this state with it’s crisis. Can y’all say the same??


0

I still laughing at the part about experence. Yes Arnold has and had none. Hence why he didn’t get my vote. I would pose this question to you though. If experence is what would make you dumb for voting for someone with lack of it, then we must have had a truckload in this last election for Obama? I mean common they voted in a guy with no experence over a Gov. from Alaska that did have it and no I am not a fan of Palin either. Just figure from your statement that you obiviouly then didn’t vote the Obama ticket now did you??


0

Oh and on paying out the 22k, yes I am paying from loss to my business like others and people that have lost their jobs to. At least you still have your job. Oh and if you don’t like it, don’t be a martyer, quit. You aren’t doing this for some noble jester you are doing it because there is NO place to go and you have no choise. Try again.


0

BeenThereDoneThat; I’m glad that I could provide you with some humor. The humorous part is that of all I said, you chose to compare Arnold’s lack of experience with Obama’s. For the record, I didn’t even vote for Obama, but that is definitely an unfair comparison, and a typical response from a hater. The real point of my comment was to explain why Enron and Arnold really are related. You specifically asked, “Please I would LOVE to hear this b.s. story.” So we gave you the story but your mind is closed off and therefore nothing we can say to you really matters.

As for you calling me a martyr (which you spelled wrong, along with a bunch of other words), it’s not about being a martyr at all. I take offense to what you said about me not having a choice, and having no other place to go. That’s b.s. We save people’s lives on a daily basis, and it’s definitely not for the money. You’re were out of line for saying that. And also, have you thought about the fact that the loss of revenue at your business is partly due to the fact that Arnold decided to illegally furlough over 300,000 workers that now don’t have any extra money to spend at your business??? Try to open your mind up a bit, and refrain from the personal attacks.


0

Personal attacks would be calling you names like hater. Others I have seen (and no you didn’t use but I still love) is neo cons, repugs, right wing etc. I love debating the left. When someone doesn’t agree with them they are all haters. O.k. haters of what? Ideas? Obama? Liberals? You use the word so generically to cover yourselfs because you can’t debate, that you have to go to key words that you have been given by higher ups, because you have no free thought. I don’t think in debating you I had to result to name calling. I did make suggestions as to what people are free to do in a free society job wise.


Second I just stated (job wise) that there are options. Most people sign on to business and Gov. jobs as the employer is an at will employer. So unless you signed a contract you can be let go at any time, pay cut at any time and you are free to leave at any time. If you are that thin skinned I don’t know what to say. I personally have left a few jobs over the years because I went two or three years without a raise or other things etc. I didn’t sit and complain to others I took care of business.


As for unfair comparison to Obama. He was in office for two years. About three quarters of the that time he was gone in campaign mode. So yes he had about six months more experience than Arnold. I didn’t realize that made him that much more qualified. Guess you are right and I am wrong.


As for the Arnold-Enron connection. I heard it. I went and read about it. If the fact that all there is, is accusations and no proof or convictions to the fact then I guess I am close minded. All they said is he was at meetings with questionable people and they thought it had to be something sinister. Nothing on paper or on tape of anything done wrong. So it is all based an hearsay. I just hope that you would NEVER sit on a jury or someone is going to get screwed.


Last. Ya you got me. The cardinal sin of all the bettter people to feel better about themselves or to make an arguement when they have nothing to say is to go after spelling. Yes I do misspell from time to time and typo from time to time. Guilty as charged. Don’t know how that invalidates one’s opinion but o.k. if that is your beliefs and the only way for you to debate or try and make a point you just go on doing that.


0

(the link above does not work, this one does) http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/californiabudget/furloughs09.pdf


0

I have a new name for you and Paine. The link boys. O.k. so I have read another of you guys links seeing as you have to have someone else form your arguements.


Alright taking to task Disruption of private business with longer waits etc. Well Calif. already disrupted private business before this but even with the present with business down in the private sector, there isn’t as much call for services mentioned, so that balances out. I know this as I have been in Gov. places sinse the economy tanked and it is actually quicker than when the economy was bustling. Nice try.


Caltrans wait. Again good times and bad, Caltrans doesn’t perform major road work, private companies do. Caltrans is maintainence and that again is disruptive good times and bad.


Next lower tax revenue. Here we have a chicken and egg syndrome.

O.k. leave someone on the payroll of the state to pay taxes but we pay more in wages, cut wages and save but loses taxes. Zero sum game here.


Greater turnover due to low moral. Yes I agree that moral will/would be low but turnnover is negated in a state economy with 12% unemployment. Where are they going to go and find a better paying job let alone a job.


No money for local economy. Well there hasn’t been much either from the private sector loss of jobs, so I don’t see where the loss of Gov. time (work hours) is going to change it that much more to make it any worse.


Sacramento bearing an unfair burdon. Yes probably true but that is going to happen any time you mess with an economy. If we wait for everything to be perfect we would never move forward. Bad argurment that you should wait around for a utopic factor to work.


Last here is the thing I find amazing. If the state would cuts workers (like most private business due during bad business cycles) the workers will bitch. If they furlough, they will bitch. IT IS A BAD ECONOMY for EVERYONE. Why should state workers be any different than the private sector? Are they someone special? There has been THOUSANDS of job loses in the private sector but half the bitching that you here coming from the state sector that at least still have a JOB. So what would you rather have. A furlough day and a job after the economy gets better or NO job and possibility that someone else will have that job when the economy gets better? Is it fair? No but as the old saying goes life isn’t fair. Get over it and deal with it like the rest of society.


0

The “link boys”… I love it!!! Okay, well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the banter.


0

ccole


I’ll have to reply under mine because it won’t go any further down page under your last post. Yes agree to disagree. At least I respect people like yourself and Paine that at least will debate rather than leave thumbs down and run. I also think we kept it pretty civil, which helps to at least listen to each others sides.


0

“You are obviously a big lib., Republican and capitalist hater. Fine. Just be honest about it.” BTDT


I’m actually a big progressive and have never hid the fact and actually call out DIMS and Repugs almost equally. Anti capitalist? Perhaps anti predatory capitalism and anti kleptocracy/plutocracy and corporate enrichment and pro people.


That people who make less than $300,000 (Or those who make more and have a conscience) continue to work on behalf of the 1% against their own interests is fascinating to observe.


Perhaps you should expand your paradigm of division from right vs left, Dim vs Repug, to the haves and the haves nots. We have all been played.


BTW, hard to fine a better investigative reporter than Greg Palast (Matt Taibi) comes to mind. His work on the stolen elections of 2000/2004 is excellent.


0

Yea Greg Palast on stolen elections? Maybe he (like MANY) should go back, READ AND LEARN how the electorial college works. I am so tired of that worn out LAME arguement. It is OVER, DONE and was done as to LAW as per electorial college. It has always been about that and NOT the popular vote. I wish people would have paid attention in Civics class in high school.


If Palast is your only journalist you read you might need help and fyi I read both sides of the ailse and arguements.


Last is captialism open to being gamed? Yes but it is still the best system I have seen on the plant. If you have a better one please enlighten me.


0

Arnie is obviously another one of those politicians who is not what he appears to be, not by a long shot. It’s funny how many such politicians there are. Other examples come to mind just now, such as Carlos Menem of Argentina, another very interesting character. I think Arnie has been a smaller-scale version of Obama, a spectacular failure who has his own, quite different agenda which can in no way be trusted by anyone who expects fiscal sanity or the rule of law to prevail in our once great state.


You might want to take a look at what Menem, et al. did to Argentina just a few years ago to get some insight in what Arnie is doing to CA and what Obama is doing to our country. Watch this most interesting and ominous video and see what happens when a nation becomes a “debt slave”:


http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.08/argentina.html


0

With the socialistic democratic majority in the legislature, there was absolutely no chance he could have implemented the changes he advocated. Don’t blame Schwarzenegger, blame the total lack of support from the democratic majority in the legislature. There is a lot of truth to the reason why democrats are called “tax and spend”. They have spent California into bankruptcy. Expect help from the Feds? Don’t hold your breath, just expect the same things that are happening in Greece to occur here: riots and demonstrations by employee unions.


0

Though observers argue that Schwarzenegger can not be blamed for the consequences of a recession, had the governor implemented the changes he advocated, the state would be in far better financial

shape. Funny how quick we are to turn on someone after we, the people voted this guy in office. Too bad people of today go by a persons personality and Hollywood status in life, rather then the qualifications that they really don’t have. The end result? Just another person to blame for California’s messed up budget woes.


0