Latest
Arnie News,
AS PROMISED!
Schwarzenegger Flips Off Lawmakers in Hidden Message
California Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger is ticked off.
He’s tired of signing
bills that don’t address the pet causes he deems important.
So when another unworthy bill crossed his desk recently for
signing — addressing funding issues for the Port of San Francisco
— the guv vetoed it and sent lawmakers a little note saying
why. Only the note said a little more than lawmakers were expecting.
Buried in the text was a hidden message directed
at State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, author of the bill, according
to the
San Francisco Bay Guardian.
Ammiano had
strongly criticized
the governor
in early October and reportedly told Schwarzenegger at the time
to “kiss my gay ass.” Schwarzenegger’s veto letter, issued a
couple of days later, reads:
(Missed the hidden code? The
Bay Guardian
has
helpfully picked it out:)
"To the Members of the California
State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 1176
without my signature...
For
some time now I have lamented the fact that major issue are overlooked while
many
unnecessary
bills come to me for consideration. Water reform, prison reform, and health
care
are major issues my Administration has brought to the table, but the
Legislature just
kicks
the can down the alley.
Yet
another legislative year has come and gone without the majo reforms
Californians
overwhelmingly
deserve. In light of this, and after careful consideration, I believe it is
unnecessary
to sign this measure at this time."
When asked by the
Guardian
if the message was intentional, Schwarzenegger’s spokesman said
only, “what a strange coincidence.” The paper noted that he
was “clearly being sarcastic.”
A spokesman for the
governor told Threat Level that he’d been receiving a number
of calls about the letter and hadn’t yet decided whether they
were going to release a statement about it.
UPDATE 6:15 PST: The governor’s office decided
it would make a statement, of sorts, after all. Spokesman Aaron
McLear told Threat Level the hidden message was just “a strange
coincidence,” repeating the response given to the
Bay Guardian.
He added that the governor’s office had written other letters
that also had hidden words spelled out in them. When asked for
examples of what was spelled out in those letters, he replied
“soap,” “poet,” “ear.”
“When you do so many
veto messages that’s bound to happen,” he said.
He promised to send
examples of those other letters.
“Happy Cows” in California? Not with Schwarzenegger
Around…
Posted by:
alicia graef
September 7, 2009
Care2 Make a Difference
Last February, a bill
that would ban the practice of tail docking dairy cows, S.B. 135,
was introduced in California by Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez.
The bill has since passed through both the state Senate and the
California Assembly with bipartisan support.
However, the bill still needs to be signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger,
whose record on animal welfare is shady at best with his previous
proposals to
shorten shelter stays,
ignore puppy mills and tax veterinary care.
Tail docking is performed
to (supposedly) prevent the spread of leptospirosis to dairy workers,
along with promoting udder health of cows. Various procedures to
remove the tail are performed with no painkillers, and typically
involve severing the tail off, or using a band to cut off circulation,
causing the tail to fall off on its own.
However, the process
of removing up to two-thirds of the tail is considered cruel, inhumane
and unnecessary by many and has been banned in several European
countries.
Scientific findings have
also concluded that there is no benefit to cows having their tails
docked in regards to the health of cows or people and that docking
also causes additional stress for cows during fly season. Neuromas,
or growths of nerve tissue, may also appear, which indicate tail
docking can cause chronic pain, according to the AVMA.
The bill to end tail
docking is also supported by Humane Society of the United States,
the California Veterinary Medical Association, the American Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the California Farm Bureau
and the California Cattlemen's Association.
Despite having no arguments, Schwarzenegger has openly mocked this
bill on
his twitter page,
along with making a video to prove his point, with the stance that
no one should be bothering with cow tails when the economy is suffering.
I bet that the 1.8 million dairy cows in California would beg to
differ with the governator. It also seems
completely
inappropriate for someone in his position to blatantly ridicule
the suffering of animals and the work of animal welfare supporters.
Especially considering that the bill would end an inhumane practice,
while having no fiscal impact on the state whatsoever.
If signed into law, California
would be the first state to ban tail docking in dairy cattle.
You can contact the Governor’s office to urge him to sign the bill
by emailing
governor@governor.ca.gov
or by calling 916-445-2841.
Gov. Schwarzenegger Vetoes UFW's SB789
(from their newsletter
via
ufwofamer@aol.com)
We need
to share some very disappointing news with you. Late yesterday,
California Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB789.
We are disappointed,
but we are not surprised. It has unfortunately become very clear
that the governor has no idea what it is like to work in the fields
as a farm worker.
His decision to
veto SB789 emphasizes the deep disconnection between his words and
the reality that hundreds of thousands of farm workers have to endure
every day while harvesting the fruits and vegetables that feed America.
The governor says he knows that farm workers are subjected to sexual
harassment, heat illness, abuses and intimidation at the workplace.
He has acknowledged this problem and promised to change the situation.
Yet, again and again,
he has failed to protect farm workers. Instead, he continues to
support employers who are responsible for at least 95% of the reported
violations during union election campaigns.
Please take a moment and send a message to Governor Schwarzenegger
and let him know how disappointed you are.
http://www.ufwaction.org/campaign/sb789veto
Tell-A-Friend:
Every e-mail sent makes a difference. Forward this message
to at least 10 friends or family and ask them to send an e-mail
too.
Privacy Policy
UFW,
29700 Woodford-Tehachapi Rd., P.O. Box 62, Keene, CA 93531
Arnold Keeps "Conan" Sword in Office
By
JONATHAN LLOYD
August 28, 2009
One of Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's
Twitter followers asked Tuesday whether
he still has the sword from the movie "Conan
the Barbarian."
Not only did
the governor confirm he has the sword, he
provided
a picture.
"I do still
have the Conan sword @hidefnewscaps, and
I keep it in my office. Here's a picture,"
Schwarzenegger tweeted.
The question
came from a follower with
a blog devoted to screen captions ("the
VERY BEST and HIGHEST QUALITY," we're assured)
of television news anchors.
Here's a Tuesday
blog post from "shadow:"
"Yes...
the Conan sword from the original Conan
the Barbarian movie! I sent Arnold a
tweet recently asking him if he still
had it and he replied back today with
a photo he took just for me! Yes, that
was very cool of him to do. The photo
was taken August 25th, 2009 with a BlackBerry.
I remember seeing an interview with
him back in the 90's and I saw the sword
hanging on his office wall. I didn't
think he would actually have it in his
office, now, as the Governor of California."
The sword picture
generated comments such as, "AWESOME," "epic!"
and "rad :)." A commenter named Sipovic
asks, "And what about grenade Launcher from
T2? Is it around somewhere too)?"
Probably not,
but there's a large knife somewhere in Schwarzenegger's
arsenal. He showed that off last month in
a TwitVid (below).
The sword is
stored in a case behind the governor's desk,
and he's not afraid to use it. Before the
start of budget negotiations in January,
Schwarzenegger brought out the sword and
placed it on a conference table in front
of legislative leaders.
A series of
"budget cutting" references followed.
Throw the Babies Overboard…the Black
Ones First
By Carol McGruder
August 10, 2009
At the end of July, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed
California’s $84.5 billion state budget, a budget
of such huge proportions that if California were
a country it would be the eighth largest economy
in the world. And in America’s worst economy since
the Great Depression, this was no easy feat. Hard
compromises were made by Democrats and Republicans
alike.
But those compromises ended up not being enough
for the “Govenator,” who, before signing the negotiated
“done deal,” line item vetoed an additional $489
million worth of programs. Programs that serve the
most fragile amongst us – the young, the sick and
the old, the already hardest hit Californians, many
of whom have already been living on the edge for
some time, existing without the security of the
safety net of a civilized country. Speaker of the
Assembly Karen Bass said, “The governor’s actions
today have not just caused harm; his actions today
put lives in jeopardy.”
Humanitarians and civil servants throughout the
state of California literally wept as they considered
the bloody task before them. They knew the implementation
of these line item vetoes left them with no other
option but to start cutting lean muscle and body
parts because all of the fat was trimmed long ago.
Arnold’s veto list ran the gamut from education,
to HIV prevention and services, to home health care
for the disabled and elderly, and oh so much more,
so painfully much more. His cuts also included the
elimination of state funding for the Black Infant
Health Program, which will decimate and force many
programs to shut their doors.
It is hard to imagine our Super Hero Arnold Schwarzenegger,
a man elected to office certainly not for his political
expertise but in great part because he was a larger
than life action hero, a tough machine capable of
conquering any foe, a man who coldly and boldly
came back again and again and again fearlessly facing
down the unstoppable enemies sent from the future
to destroy life as we knew it. Even those who never
believed the Hollywood hype find it hard to ever
imagine that things are so bad in the Golden State
of California that Arnold Schwarzenegger would voluntarily
start throwing babies overboard, even the expendable
Black ones.
The state funded Black Infant Health Program was
created less than 20 years ago to address the alarming
number of Black babies that died every year in these
great United States of America. Programs are run
in 16 health jurisdictions and serve California
cities that have the greatest concentrations of
African Americans. Bay Area Black Infant Health
programs affected by these cuts include San Francisco,
San Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa.
America’s infant mortality rate is the highest of
all industrial countries. It is no secret that a
Black baby born in America has more than a two fold
greater chance than a white baby of dying before
its first birthday. No secret and actually a national
disgrace that a baby born in the much-lambasted
tiny poor communist island of Cuba has a better
chance of having a healthy infancy than a Black
baby born in America.
Initially this disparity was thought to be a problem
of access to healthcare, but further study revealed
that the infant mortality disparity between Blacks
and the mainstream population was much more complex
than that. It wasn’t quite as simple as just getting
a Black woman into care in her first trimester of
pregnancy. There were some historical factors that
had to be taken into consideration.
Historical factors like 400 years of chattel slavery,
another 100 years of Jim Crow segregation, no healthcare,
inadequate healthcare, indifferent healthcare –
lots of complex factors that communicated to any
Black woman birthing a baby in America, hostile
territory ahead. In fact so hostile and stressful
that a college educated married Black woman with
private health insurance has the same chance as
a poor uninsured white woman of having a premature
low birth weight baby.
Though no program can single handedly turn that
historical tide around, the Black Infant Health
program has more than earned its keep. It has demonstrated
its effectiveness; the program saves lives and taxpayer
dollars, period. Not only do they provide valuable
educational information, they help women navigate
through difficult and ever-changing systems, they
leverage community support, they help stabilize
families in that critical and fragile peri-natal
period. They provide safe harbor on a rough sea.
In addition, this program draws down a federal match;
every dollar the state spends is matched by the
feds. This match will be lost if not spent on Black
Infant Health.
Are things really so bad in our economy that we
are willing to push our Black babies and their families
out of the lifeboat? To let people sink or swim
according to their will to survive? What about the
City and County of San Francisco? Are we willing
to cut these programs for a small short-term savings?
A short-term savings that will be eaten up with
the costs of the births and the subsequent care
of the additional premature babies who are sure
to come? These shortsighted cuts will have immediate
and long-term economic and social repercussions?
Several years ago San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
created a task force to address the city’s ever
shrinking African American population. At this point
the remaining Blacks in San Francisco wouldn’t fill
Candlestick Park. It doesn’t take a task force to
figure out that if the City of San Francisco really
wants to help Black people stay in San Francisco,
finding the funding needed to help them come into
the world alive and healthy would be a good demonstration
of that commitment.
Carol McGruder can be
reached at (415) 777-3229, ext. 317, or
cmcgruder@usa.net.
Updated Textbooks Delayed as California's Budget Cut
By Seema Mehta
Los Angeles Times
Monday, August 10,
2009
History
textbooks in many California classrooms won’t mention the
election of President Barack Obama or the subprime mortgage
meltdown until at least 2016. Stem cell research and climate
change could be absent from science texts even longer. And
students will be using aging books for years longer than
planned because of California’s education budget cuts.
The state
budget that closed a $24 billion gap last month dramatically
reduced state spending for textbooks. The state Board of
Education won’t approve new books for kindergarten through
eighth grade until January 2016 at the earliest, and districts
have postponed approvals of new high school books as well.
A state requirement that districts purchase books within
two years of adoption has been waived until 2013.
Additionally,
state funding previously earmarked for textbooks — nearly
$334 million this year — can be spent by school districts
for other needs over the next four years, providing flexibility
that educators say is essential at a time of severe budget
reductions.
But the
state’s top educator fears these moves put students at a
competitive disadvantage.
“We need
modern, state-of-the-art textbooks, not outdated, antiquated
textbooks,” said state Superintendent of Public Instruction
Jack O’Connell. “It could be close to a generation before
we see new textbooks.”
Other people
say the decision by the state to postpone textbook adoption
and by districts to put off purchases is understandable,
although far from ideal.
“There is
no really good decision,” said David Sanchez, president
of the California Teachers Association, which represents
340,000 teachers and other school employees.
“For now
this is a good thing, to help preserve some programs and
certainly preserve some jobs. It’s certainly not something
we want to continue — eventually, we have to get new textbooks.”
Teachers
can still supplement aging books with other materials —
a routine practice — so students will learn about Obama’s
election and the worst recession in decades. But the policy
changes will dramatically affect districts’ book purchases
for the foreseeable future.
California
school districts spent at least $633 million on new books
in 2007, according to the Association of American Publishers.
More recent numbers are not available, but a representative
of one publishing house who asked not to be named because
of proprietary concerns said sales in the state — the nation’s
biggest textbook market — are off by 50 percent or more.
“We’re all
seeing a precipitous drop,” said John Sipe Jr., vice president
of K-12 sales in California for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Fewer than
200 California districts have bought reading/literature
texts this year, compared with publishers’ typical expectation
of 600 to 700, he said.
“This is
a staggering difference for our industry,” Sipe said.
Not all
districts are delaying purchases. Capistrano Unified School
District in south Orange County is buying nearly $2.5 million
worth of math textbooks and workbooks, in part because school
officials worked with the publishers to defer some payments
and because the workbooks that they need to buy annually
are less expensive under the new plan.
California Prisons Must Cut Inmate Population
Published: August
4, 2009
LOS ANGELES
— A panel of federal judges ordered the
California prison system on Tuesday to reduce
its inmate population of 150,000 by 40,000
— roughly 27 percent — within two years.
The judges said
that reducing prison
crowding in California
was the only way
to change what they
called an unconstitutional
prison health care
system that causes
one unnecessary
death a week.
In a scathing 184-page
order, the judges
said state officials
had failed to comply
with previous orders
to fix the prison
health care system
and reduce crowding.
The judges left
it to state officials
to come up with
a specific plan
within 45 days,
saying there was
“no need for the
state to release
presently incarcerated
inmates indiscriminately
in order to comply
with our order.”
They recommended
remedies including
imprisoning fewer
nonviolent criminals
and reducing the
number of technical
parole violators.
The order is the
largest state prison
reduction ever imposed
by a federal court
over the objection
of state officials,
legal experts said.
It comes as the
state has emerged
from a long battle
to close a $26 billion
budget gap. The
latest budget includes
severe cuts to social
welfare programs,
schools and health
care. The governor
planned to slash
spending by reducing
the prison population
by 27,000 inmates,
but law enforcement
and victims’ rights
groups stopped that.
Attorney General
Jerry Brown
said in a telephone
interview Tuesday
that he intended
to appeal the ruling.
“Eventually, we’re
going to have to
go to the
Supreme Court
because I think
the California prisons
are spending about
$14,000 per year
per inmate,” Mr.
Brown said, adding
that the changes
the judges ordered
would cost more
money, which the
state does not have.
The special three-judge
panel described
a chaotic system
where prisoners
were stacked in
triple bunk beds
in gymnasiums, hallways
and day rooms; where
single guards were
often forced to
monitor scores of
inmates at a time;
and where ill inmates
died for lack of
treatment.
“In these overcrowded
conditions, inmate-on-inmate
violence is almost
impossible to prevent,
infectious diseases
spread more easily,
and lockdowns are
sometimes the only
means by which to
maintain control,”
the panel wrote.
“In short, California’s
prisons are bursting
at the seams and
are impossible to
manage.”
Mr. Brown, who is
raising money for
a possible run for
governor, said that
some sort of settlement
might be negotiated,
but he added that
he did not believe
the court has the
authority to cap
the state’s prison
system.
“California is facing
real financial challenges
and at the same
time the court is
ordering standards
of care that exceed
the standard required
under the Constitution,”
he said.
The case began as
the result of class
action lawsuits
addressing inadequate
medical and mental
health care in the
prison system. Those
lawsuits were resolved
years ago. The medical
care case ended
up with a federal
receiver overseeing
the system, and
the mental health
care case with a
special master.
“It’s an extraordinary
form of federal
involvement,” Kara
P. Dansky, the executive
director of the
Stanford University
Criminal Justice
Center, said of
the ruling. “I’m
not aware of any
other case in which
a federal court
has entered a prison
release of this
magnitude over the
objection of a state
defendant.”
Such federal interventions
have become increasingly
rare under the Prison
Litigation Reform
Act, which restricts
inmates’ access
to courts and prohibits
federal courts from
imposing population
caps on prisons
except as a last
resort.
Prison reform advocates
said Tuesday that
the state would
probably lose any
appeal of the reduction
order.
“These are cases
that have been going
on for more than
15 years,” said
David Fathi, the
director of the
United States program
for
Human Rights Watch.
Mr. Fathi added,
“The record in regard
to constitutional
violations is massive,
and the judges have
tried other less
intrusive remedies
before.”
Although the state
spent millions of
dollars on court-ordered
changes, the judges
ruled Tuesday that
the system still
violates the Eighth
Amendment of the
Constitution, which
prohibits cruel
and unusual punishment.
Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
has shifted between
supporting the court-ordered
changes and, as
state deficits grew
and political pressures
intensified, fighting
them. In June, Mr.
Schwarzenegger reneged
on a deal with the
federal receiver
that would have
provided $3 billion
to build two prison
hospitals and renovate
other facilities
to create 5,000
beds for ill inmates.
An earlier plan
was for the state
to pay $8 billion
for 10,000 prison
hospital beds.
The governor has
also pushed his
own prison construction
plan and a parole
overhaul as ways
to reduce prison
crowding and to
fix inmate health
care services without
federal intrusion.
But the court pointed
out on Tuesday that
the state had not
committed enough
money toward the
governor’s prison
construction plan
and that even if
that money was provided,
it would take years
for the state to
build its way out
of the overpopulation
crisis.
The judges on the
panel were Stephen
Reinhardt of the
United States Court
of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit and
two Federal District
Court judges from
California, Lawrence
K. Karlton and
Thelton E. Henderson.
A version of this
article appeared
in print on August
5, 2009, on page
A10 of the New York
edition.
California Budget Trimmed Further
Published: July
28, 2009
The New York
Times
LOS ANGELES — The
day a governor signs
a budget bill into
law usually marks
the end of acrimony,
threats and political
dodge ball. But
this is broke, embattled,
politically crippled
California, and
so with the sweep
of his pen, Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
opened the door
Tuesday for more
fights.
Seeking to close
a final hole created
by a last-minute
rejection by lawmakers
of two large revenue-producing
measures, the governor
made a slew of line-item
cuts to programs
for children and
the poor to close
a roughly $24 billion
two-year gap.
His trims to programs
that legislators
took pains to protect
over these many
weeks prompted instant
screaming from lawmakers,
as well as implications
of lawsuits. The
Democratic-controlled
Legislature insisted
that Mr. Schwarzenegger
overstepped his
authority to veto
new appropriations
by editing out existing
funds and interfering
with items written
to avoid a veto.
“I am asking legislative
counsel for a definitive
opinion on the legality
of the governor’s
actions,” the Assembly
leader, Karen Bass,
said in a statement.
“The cuts the governor
made today will
have catastrophic
effects on children,
domestic abuse victims
and seniors.”
Legislators finalized
the document last
week after a series
of overnight sessions,
cutting billions
of dollars from
social service programs.
But in rejecting
plans to swipe local
governments’
gas tax money
and to drill off
Santa Barbara, the
final document left
the state $160 million
short. Additionally,
the governor insisted
that there be a
$500 million reserve.
As such, he made
$489 million in
line-item cuts.
“The legislators
have given me a
budget with a $156
million negative
reserve, so now
I had to go in over
this weekend and
work with my team
and make additional
cuts,” the governor
said as he signed
the bill, citing
parks, Child Welfare
Services, the Office
of AIDS Prevention
and Treatment and
other programs.
“That’s ugly, when
already we have
cut so much, and
then we had to make
additional cuts.”
The governor reduced
the Department of
Aging by $6.3 million,
to $4.1 million.
He cut the Department
of Public Health
by about $7 million,
to $47.4 million.
He slashed $80 million
from a program for
abused and neglected
children and $16
million from domestic-violence
programs. While
the Legislature
fought bitterly
to stave off Mr.
Schwarzenegger’s
stated desire to
eliminate health
insurance for poor
children, he reduced
that program — Healthy
Families — by $178.6
million, to $225.3
million, which will
be matched by $737.7
million in federal
money.
The state parks
will see a budget
reduction of about
$6 million, to $422,517,000.
About 100 parks
will likely be closed.
Lawmakers reacted
quickly, suggesting
that the vetoes
might not all be
legal. “The Senate
held the line and
passed a budget
revision package
with a sufficient
reserve that met
the governor’s test,”
Darrell Steinberg,
a Democrat and the
Senate president
pro tem, said in
a statement. “We
question whether
the majority of
these vetoes are
legal.” He added,
“This is not the
last word.”
Overriding the vetoes
would require a
two-thirds vote,
rather than a simple
majority, and there
would almost certainly
be no Republican
takers.
The budget deal
does not mean the
state will immediately
stop issuing i.o.u.’s
to creditors, the
most alarming —
and humiliating
— result of the
budget crisis. Officials
in the state controller’s
office will be crunching
numbers into next
week to determine
if there is enough
cash to pay people
the old-fashioned
way.
“If he thinks there
is enough cash,”
said Hallye Jordan,
a spokeswoman for
the controller,
“we will start before
the October maturity
date so that people
won’t have to wait
to have cold cash
in their hands,
and the state won’t
be charged interest.”
As of Monday, the
state had issued
209,000 i.o.u.’s
worth $1.08 billion.
A version of
this article appeared in print on July 29,
2009, on page A10 of the New York edition.
Meet the Hypocrites: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Sunday, July 12,
2009
Northwest Progressive
Institute Advocate
Back in 2003 in
the midst of the historic campaign to
recall California Governor Gray Davis, candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger,
much like the on-screen characters he plays, was full of bravado
and one-liners regarding the perceived failures of Davis and the
changes he (Schwarzenegger) intended to make. Schwarzenegger blasted
Davis on economic issues, blaming him for the stagnating economy
(among other things) and the seemingly-annual ritual of the governor
and legislature failing to pass a budget before the dawn of the
new fiscal year. Indeed,
on his campaign web site, Arnold wrote:
After taking
a close look at California’s budget, it’s hard to make any sense
out of it. California’s budget has become a patchwork of special
interest give-aways draining precious resources from core programs
such as education, public safety and health care. There are
also hundreds of millions of dollars-if not billions-of documented
waste, fraud and abuse in state spending. Our first order of
business is to get California’s operating deficit-estimated
at between $5 and $8 billion-under control. I will ensure that
California government lives within its means-something working
families manage to do everyday-and reins in spending to close
the operating deficit. I support a constitutional limit on annual
spending increases and an unambiguous constitutional requirement
that the state pass a balanced budget, so that California never
finds itself in this mess again. I will restructure our inherited
debt, estimated at between $12 & $20 billion.
Gray Davis was
recalled in the October 7, 2003 special election in California and
Schwarzenegger became governor. Fast forward to 2009, where Governor
Schwarzenegger has had nearly six years at the helm of California
state government. After years of talking about budgeting like families
have to and living within means, Governor Schwarzenegger sits staring
at a $26.3 billion shortfall. In addition, there is still no constitutional
amendment in California to require a balanced budget. And on top
of that, Governor Schwarzenegger
has become the first governor
since 1992
to issue IOUs instead of payments to vendors, taxpayers (California
has a state income tax), college students receiving state financial
aid (the state has a higher education financial aid program called
the Cal Grant) and local governments providing social services.
California issues
IOUs instead of payments for the first time in nearly two decades.
The state currently has a $26.3 billion shortfall. California
is ready to issue its first IOUs instead of money since 1992.
On top of that, many state workers have been ordered to take
an extra furlough day.
It's worth noting
that in 1992, when the state last issued IOUs, California's governor
was Pete Wilson, a Republican. Yes, Governor Schwarzenegger did
not create the economic downturn that has plagued his state and
our country, but he has failed to deliver what he promised. For
all of the talk of fiscal responsibility, Arnold Schwarzenegger's
promised economic reforms are much like the characters he plays
in movies: a work of fiction.
Living
Within Your Means: California Edition
“Annual income twenty
pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result
happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty
pounds ought and six, result misery.”
Charles Dickens
“Democracy is the theory
that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it
good and hard.”
H. L. Mencken
From "The Glittering Eye," May
21, 2009
Californians turned
down
their governor’s attempt to right the wreck that is California’s
state government:
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters)
- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers will likely
face the arduous task of closing a state budget gap in excess
of $21
billion with a clutch
of ballot measures aimed at bolstering the state’s finances
poised for defeat.
The Republican governor
last week said the government of the most populous U.S. state
faced a shortfall of $15.4 billion for its next fiscal year
even if the measures were approved — underscoring the severe
downturn in state revenues with personal income in California
shrinking for the first time since 1938 amid recession and double-digit
unemployment.
Without voter approval
for the measures, California would face a $21.3 billion deficit,
according to Schwarzenegger, who with the state’s Democrat-led
legislature put the measures to voters as part of a February
budget compromise to close a nearly $42 billion shortfall through
June 2010.
Initial results for
Tuesday’s special election posted by California’s secretary
of state showed voters soundly rejecting the five fiscal measures
on the ballot. A sixth measure barring pay increases for state
officials amid deficits was winning.
Some, like
Michael Finnegan, writing
in the LA Times
are quick to blame the voters:
Californians are
well known for periodic voter revolts, but on Tuesday they did
more than just lash out at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the
Legislature over the state’s fiscal debacle.
By rejecting five
budget measures, Californians also brought into stark relief
the fact that they, too, share blame for the political dysfunction
that has brought California to the brink of insolvency.
Rightly or wrongly,
voters in the special election refused either to extend new
tax hikes or to cap state spending. They also declined to unlock
funds that they had voted in better financial times to set aside
for special purposes.
Many are blaming only
the voters but IMO that’s a bum wrap. First and foremost in the
list of those to blame should be California’s governor and state
legislators. There’s more to leadership than doling out largesse.
Neither Gov. Schwarzenegger nor California’s state legislators succeeded
in making the case to the voters of California that the additional
taxes were necessary. That’s their job. Deciding to spend money
is easy. Paying is harder.
The idea California should
receive a federal bailout is poppycock. When somebody is in the
process of shooting themselves in the foot if we’re moved by pity
to do something about it the proper approach is to take the gun
away from them, not to let them fire away, then dress their wounds
and shoot them full of morphine.
Megan McArdle points
out
that letting California go bankrupt will have consequences:
I am not under the
illusion that this will be fun. For starters, the rest of you
sitting smugly out there in your snug homes, preparing to enjoy
the spectacle, should prepare to enjoy the higher taxes you’re
going to pay as a result. Your states and municipalities will
pay higher interest on their bonds if California is allowed
to default. Also, the default is going to result in a great
deal of personal misery, more than a little of which is going
to end up on the books of Federal unemployment insurance and
other such programs.
Ultimately, not just
Californians but all of us must learn to live within our means.
One of the things that means is that when there aren’t the tax revenues
to pay them government employees must not expect raises and, indeed,
may even face pay cuts. I’ve read California’s budget (which is
probably more than most Californians, even California legislators,
have). The state’s expenses aren’t just growing faster than revenues,
they’re growing faster than the streams on which the state’s revenues
depend: income, real estate values, retail sales. They’re growing
faster than the state’s population and faster than the rate of inflation.
And most of those expenses are wages, current or deferred.
Governor Threatens to Sell California Landmarks
San Quentin Prison
and L.A. Coliseum Get Swept Up in State's Widening Budget
Gap; $3 Billion in Cuts for Education Loom
U.S. News, Startup Journal
May 15, 2009
By
NICHOLAS CASEY and
STU WOO
California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger is threatening to make deep education cuts and auction
off some of state's most iconic properties -- from the San Quentin
state prison to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum -- in order to
close current and future budget shortfalls.
The plan, which was announced
Thursday in Sacramento as part of a revised state budget, faces
political and regulatory hurdles. However, it underscores the drastic
lengths the cash-strapped state is willing to consider to fix its
ongoing fiscal crisis.
Other properties on the
governor's list include a landmark concert hall called the Cow Palace
in Daly City, Calif., and fairgrounds in Sacramento and near San
Diego. It's unclear how much the proposal could actually raise...(read
the rest of this article by clicking on the link in the article's
title above.)
Calif. Wage Cuts May Threaten Billions in Fed Aid
By JUDY LIN
The Associated Press
May 8, 2009
SACRAMENTO:
State officials fear
California could lose billions needed to help fill the budget gap
after the Obama administration determined the state violated the
terms of the federal stimulus act.
A legal letter prepared
for a branch of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department said
California breached the terms of the act when lawmakers approved
a state wage cut for health care workers they said would save $74
million a year.
The health care workers'
union argued the cut violated the act because it would force counties
to make up the difference.
In a letter sent this
week to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
urged the administration not to withhold the money and disputed
the health department's claim.
Should the decision stand,
the governor warned it would undermine one of the main purposes
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to help fill state
deficits by jeopardizing at least $6.8 billion in stimulus funds.
"It is clear that California
is in dire need of the fiscal relief made available under (the recovery
act)," Schwarzenegger wrote. "As welcome as this federal aid is,
it represents just a fraction of California's deficits over the
next few years."
Nicholas Papas, a spokesman
for the Health and Human Services Department, affirmed the possibility
of withholding billions and said the agency is urging the state
to make changes so it can continue receiving stimulus money.
"We are working to ensure
the state can provide care to Californians and comply with the law,"
Papas said. "We have reached out to state officials and encouraged
them to take appropriate actions to ensure these federal resources
remain available."
Both sides said discussions
will continue.
Two affiliates of the
Service Employees International Union sought the opinion from the
Obama administration after the state lowered its contributions to
home health care worker wages from $12.10 per hour to $10.10 to
save $74 million.
The union represents
most of the workers who care for 440,000 low-income seniors and
disabled people in California. The cut is scheduled to take effect
July 1.
A legal opinion prepared
for a branch of the Health and Human Services Department determined
that California was in violation of the recovery act, which prohibits
states from pushing costs to counties.
The union is now hoping
to get Schwarzenegger and the state Legislature to rescind those
cuts.
"If they correct the
technical problem, then every cent from the federal government will
flow to the state," said Dave Regan, a spokesman for SEIU. "Counties
wouldn't bear a disproportionate burden. ... There's no need to
turn this into a theatrical political fight."
But reversing the reduction
will be difficult because it requires Republican support.
During last winter's
drawn-out budget fight to close a $42 billion hole, Democrats compromised
with Republicans by agreeing to lower the state's contributions
to home health care worker wages after fiscal conservatives sought
deeper cuts.
"Neither the Legislature
nor I make decisions to reduce wages or benefits lightly, but only
as a last resort in response to an unprecedented fiscal crisis,"
the governor wrote.
Schwarzenegger warned
that the Obama administration's decision could force California
taxpayers to pay health care workers more than the state agreed
to.
Published: Friday, May
8, 2009 17:11 PDT
© 2009 The Associated
Press. All rights reserved.
