I spammed my friends and relatives with this screed against Arnold Schwarzenegger last night. Basically, the more I read about the guy, the more strongly I dislike him. He has no experience, no solid ideas about how to turn things around, and he's a condescending, bullying jackass to boot. (OK, I guess I should say how I really feel.) In an election in which there seem to be no good choices, Arnold is a particularly horrendous one. But don't just take my word for it — I got mad citations from such raving mad liberals like the Public Policy Institute of California, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Jose Mercury News, and the Los Angeles Times.
Hi,I don't usually like to spam my friends and family, but this recall thing is making me break all my rules. Sorry. Wade through as much of it as you can. If you find any of this information useful, PLEASE pass it on, especially the article links.
I'm planning to vote against the recall, and (reluctantly) for Bustamante. No, I don't love our governor or lieutenant governor particularly. Great leaders they are not. However, I believe that the only good reason to recall an elected official is if he did something illegal and/or we learned something about him after the election that was concealed beforehand.
In this case, we knew that Davis was icky and that the state economy was bad before Davis was reelected, and — shock — the economy is still doing poorly and Davis is still Grey. Can we really say we weren't warned?And what kind of an alternative does the leading alternative candidate, Arnold Schwarzenegger, offer? He's admitted that he's not going to study the budget in detail until he's elected, assuming that happens. He's never so much as served on a school board, and he has no experience with the process of forming laws, passing budgets, or any of the other kinds of negotiations and compromising that are necessary in any system, and particularly so in California.
In his opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, he makes a number of assertions that don't hold up under scrutiny. He makes a big point of blaming Davis for the toll of this recession, but forgets to mention that the last major recession here occurred under the watch of his chief advisor, Pete Wilson, and that the boom years were in the mid to late 1990s — while Davis was governor.
Does that mean Wilson destroyed the California economy and Davis was entirely responsible for it roaring back to life? Not so much. This is closer to the truth:
"...Constraints have been placed on the process that leave both the governor and the legislature with less room for setting policy and more demands to meet ``minimum conditions'' regardless of the health of the state's economy... The combination of rapid and continuing population growth, a fiscally conservative populace, a tax base that is highly vulnerable to swings in the overall economy, and 25 years of voter initiatives designed to constrain public spending have made managing the state's budget extraordinarily difficult. It is not surprising that we witness pendulum-like swings from feast to famine. During down times, it is difficult to set spending targets and stick to them. During good times, it is tempting to raise spending targets and go beyond them. Voters want more spending on K-12 education, and yet they don't want to pay the extra taxes to keep the spending up. Politicians want to meet voters' demands for services but haven't the funds to pay the bills. This is a recipe for deficits -- whether you are a Democrat or a Republican." (Public Policy Institute of California)
In the face of these realities we have Arnold's big ideas for turning things around:
-Reverse the car tax hike
(This will cost the state $4 billion dollars that is supposed to go to police and emergency services)-Don't cut school spending
(That's great! Er, where is the money going to come from?)-Renegotiate agreements with Indian tribes who run casinos, and contracts with state employee unions.
(The key word there is "negotiate". He's pretty much been talking about going in there and DEMANDING concessions. Doesn't work that way. Guess nobody told him that Indian tribes are basically sovereign nations.)-Streamline bureaucracy, audit the state and cut budget waste (Riiiiiiight. Nobody thought of that before! Oh yeah. By the way, Davis has already frozen a lot of spending by California State Agencies -- contractors, business travel, etc.)
What Arnold is NOT going to tell you is that, according to the San Jose Mercury News, "Many of the specific proposals he has mentioned would actually increase the projected $8 billion budget shortfall next year by between $2.5 billion and $6.5 billion, while his plans to reduce the deficit are short on detail, relying on cutting unspecified waste and helping the economy grow."
Finally, if this wasn't all reason enough, there's today's "revelations". I thought the Oui magazine interview was a big fuss over nothing, but it sounds like he's been harassing women more recently -- up until 2000, if the allegations are true.
Anybody who has ever been bullied in their life or been the recipient of hostile "teasing" knows that there's a different between being playful and throwing your weight around.
This is not a man who knows how to work with people. How could he run a state?
SOURCES:
"My Economic Policy / California needs someone to terminate taxes",
Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2003
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004058"Schwarzenegger offers ambitious 10-point agenda / BUT CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE, INDIAN GROUPS LIKELY TO RESIST", San Jose Mercury News,
October 2, 2003
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6913644.htm"Budget Figures Questioned", San Diego Union-Tribune, October 2, 2003
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/recall/20031002-9999_1n2budget.html"Analysis: Car tax raises bar for Arnold", UPI, October 2, 2003
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031002-041845-1831r"Fifty Reasons Not to Vote for Arnold", Alternet, October 2, 2003
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16840"California's Deficit Defies Partisan Blame: Budget's Pendulum-Like Swings are Hard to Manage", Public Policy Institute of California, June 2002,
http://www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=255"Schwarzenegger Acknowledges 'Offensive' Behavior", Associated Press, October 2, 2003,
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/national/02WIRE-CALI.html?hp"Women Say Schwarzenegger Groped, Humiliated Them", Los Angeles Times,
October 2, 2003,
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1001arnoldwomen-ON.html(Note, some of these websites require registration. I'd be more than happy to forward on copies of the articles in question.)
