Republicans Fighting Against Davis Recall

[Sava]

I'm leaning toward supporting the recall, but there should be an open election... not just switching to a Republican. Personally, I'd like to see someone in there who has a plan on fixing the problem. But I'm against recalling just for the sake of recalling.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But I'm against recalling just for the sake of recalling.

I'd think you'd be for that .

[GePap]

It is an open election: once Davs is recalled, anyone can run for the office, and when I mean anyone, i mean each party could have multiple candidates. You could in theory have 5 dems and 4 reps. running for governor after he is recalled, if recalled.

Of the reps, Riorden porbalby has the best chance, but who knows how many would put thier hat in the ring.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap

The real issues are that Davis presided over huge budget increases, while not focusing on improved quality of service - so state ineffiency went up, and the level of service improvement did not come close to matching the level of increased expenditure.

And the very public now signing those petitions went along with all of it, to the point that they elected davis yet again.

The Republicans sabotaged the election by putting up the farthest right of three candidates, who essentially ran on a social-conservative platform. People elected Davis not because they liked him, but because they liked Simon even less. Polls showed Riordan would have waxed Davis' ass, and Issa, much less known, would have run virtually in a dead heat. But the state Republican party went for Simon, who was clearly unelectable in this state.

And the state legislature went along as well, to all that Davis precided over.

Yes, a primarily liberal Democrat legislature. Most of the abuse and fiscal inefficiency is in the state executive and special purpose agencies (Government Code agencies), which are nominally under the executive branch.

Oh, and you forgot to mention that the budget back hole was also due to massive tax cuts, which i am sure the public backed as well.

Partisan bull****. There are no "massive tax cuts" unless you play Enron-Davis games. California still has by far the highest aggregate tax rates for businesses and individuals, and the highest marginal personal income tax rate comes in at a very low income point compared to other states.

By the state constitution, the state must run a balanced budget, so when revenues exceed expenditures, that money must be spent or returned to the taxpayers. Explain to me how when the 1997 budget was 67 billion, and the 2002 budget was 78 billion, after recognizing a 12 billion drop in revenue over the previous year, that a total tax relief of 4.3 billion for reduced motor vehicle registration fees (a primarily "working class" tax that had been raised constantly over the years, to be among the highest in the US, despite California's many other forms of taxation), and 126 million in tax cuts target towards the elderly and rurual poor constitute "massive" tax cuts that are major contributors to a potential 35-38 billion shortfall?

The "massive" 15% tax cut in corporate income tax and personal income tax actually increased revenue, since they were in absolute terms the highest in the US before being cut, and just one more impediment to businesses locating here. They also came into effect several years ago, and still leave California with the highest personal income tax (total exposure, not marginal rate), and 7th highest corporation income tax rate. That is, 7th, as long as you ignore the fact that California is the only jurisdiction that taxes Sub-S corporations (also taxed as a partnership), California has by far the highest worker's comp rates, and when you add on business property taxes, sales taxes, and California's taxing of income earned outside California, it's still the highest overall.

And now thatthere is this crisis, lets spend our time trying to kick Davis out, wih=thout thinking much about how the next governor will undo all that was done by davis, and the legislature, and the voters (who could have started a recall when Davis was doing all the things you said above, BUT didn't)

The voters didn't start a recall because they were misled. If the voters knew the truth at the time of the election, it's a good chance that a solid Democrat state might have elected a Republican social conservative. Davis was worried enough about that possibility that he lied, and the state executive branch played games with the budget numbers. That's one convenient prerogative of being in office. Now the voters know the truth, and they have a right to speak.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Davis sucks. Nobody's ever disputed that, and lots of Democrats have disliked him more than Republicans do.

But spewing BS, etc, (and from a politician of all people) doesn't fall into the same category as criminality. The Nixon analogy falls flat.

Davis' office is already under one criminal probe (unless it was quietly dropped) relating to staffers insider trading in energy companies dealing with the state during the energy crisis. A number of staffers resigned as a result.

There's no federal crime involved in a state officeholder committing fraud by having state staffers cook budget projections, and you can guarantee that there's no state level investigative authority that will examine the issue.

Maybe his recall would teach politicians something, but forcing Californians to put up with him for another 3-1/2 years might teach the voters something, as well.

"Forcing" the voters. How democratic of you. Go back to the USSR.

[Ted Striker]

CCCP

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
It is an open election: once Davs is recalled, anyone can run for the office, and when I mean anyone, i mean each party could have multiple candidates. You could in theory have 5 dems and 4 reps. running for governor after he is recalled, if recalled.

Of the reps, Riorden porbalby has the best chance, but who knows how many would put thier hat in the ring.

It's actually a single process, with two parts.

First is an up or down vote on the recall itself, then you vote for a candidate on the same ballot. Anyone who pays a filing fee, or anyone who gets 10,000 signatures, is on that ballot.

Even if you vote no on the recall, it's prudent to vote for a replacement.

If the majority of votes is in favor of the recall, whichever candidate has the most votes becomes governor-elect as soon as the result is certified by the Secretary of State, and is sworn in immediately thereafter.

[Shi Huangdi]

Terminator for California Governor!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Latest poll results show 51% in favor, 42% against, with Feinstein and Riordan the most popular candidates. Half of those in favor said they wouldn't vote for Arnold.

[uh Clem]

Whatever happens, California would never elect some stupid, right-wing actor as Governor.

Guy from LA Times being interviewed on NPR said Feinstein & Riordan are top choices. Riordan is sane, for a Repuke. Probably why he's never gone anywhere nationally.

Oh well, I don't live there...

[GePap]

I don;t see Feinstein running at this point: she is sitting pretty in the senate. As for the possible replacement: Do they fill out Davis's term, or do they get 4 years?