The Arn for Governor of California

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Peter Ueberroth, former Baseball Commish and fomer US Olympic President, may also run from the Republican side. He doesn't seem to have a bad resume for this job at all. He turned around the '84 LA Olympics, earning him "Time's Man of the Year" and headed "Rebuild LA", designed to rebuild economically depressed areas of Los Angeles.

Should be interesting.

I can only hope for the Republican Party that Peter Uberroth does not run. We do not need Republican votes split between two very good candidates. This can only hand the state back to the Democrats.

[Ned]

DP

[Ted Striker]

.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by OPD


Unless they get Gary Coleman to play the Terminator.

Now that is scary.

[Dis]

Was Arnold's father really a nazi?

I had never heard of that before. But Katie Couric mentioned something about that.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Second California is the worst run state in terms of the buget in the nation. We also have a buget deficit larger then the all the other 47 other states that are in debt.
Thrid the Buget he signed in to law does not solve the under lying problems, and everyone on wallstreet says as much, and Gray admitted as well when he sign the buget.

Originally posted by mindseye
I think maybe you need to examine the role of the Republicans in the state congress, if you are looking for someone to blame the current budget on.

Originally posted by Sikander
Yea, if it weren't for the people who are far in the minority and don't hold the governorship we wouldn't be in this mess.

Originally posted by JohnT
Hmmm. Democrats hold the 8 State Constitutionally mandated offices in the state, 25 out of 40 Senate seats (63%) and 48 of 80 seats in the House (60%). Perhaps these sort of figures aren't available in China???

Originally posted by MtG
Any tax increase of any kind has to be approved by a supermajority, so Republicans do have a lot of influence in the state budget process.

Originally posted by John T
Define "supermajority." 60%? 75%?

Sikander and JohnT:
As MtG noted, California law requires a supermajority - of 2/3 - in both houses for approval of any tax increase. This gave the Republican minority the ability to derail Davis' budget. Paul Krugman sums it up better than I could:

But California's Constitution requires that budgets be passed in the State Legislature by a two-thirds' margin - which gives the Republican minority blocking power. And that minority has refused either to vote for any tax increase, or to make realistic proposals for spending cuts. (...) This time Governor Davis proposed (tax increases similar to those of former Republican governor Pete Wilson) - but Senate Republicans refused to go along. Their counterproposal relied entirely on spending cuts - but, tellingly, offered no specifics about what, exactly, should be cut.
http://truthout.org/docs_03/080203C.shtml

Originally posted by JohnT
Perhaps these sort of figures aren't available in China???

I lived in California for over 18 years prior to moving to China.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by mindseye

Originally posted by Jack_www
Second California is the worst run state in terms of the buget in the nation. We also have a buget deficit larger then the all the other 47 other states that are in debt.
Thrid the Buget he signed in to law does not solve the under lying problems, and everyone on wallstreet says as much, and Gray admitted as well when he sign the buget.

Originally posted by mindseye
I think maybe you need to examine the role of the Republicans in the state congress, if you are looking for someone to blame the current budget on.

Originally posted by Sikander
Yea, if it weren't for the people who are far in the minority and don't hold the governorship we wouldn't be in this mess.

Originally posted by JohnT
Hmmm. Democrats hold the 8 State Constitutionally mandated offices in the state, 25 out of 40 Senate seats (63%) and 48 of 80 seats in the House (60%). Perhaps these sort of figures aren't available in China???

Originally posted by MtG
Any tax increase of any kind has to be approved by a supermajority, so Republicans do have a lot of influence in the state budget process.

Originally posted by John T
Define "supermajority." 60%? 75%?

Sikander and JohnT:
As MtG noted, California law requires a supermajority - of 2/3 - in both houses for approval of any tax increase. This gave the Republican minority the ability to derail Davis' budget. Paul Krugman sums it up better than I could:

But California's Constitution requires that budgets be passed in the State Legislature by a two-thirds' margin - which gives the Republican minority blocking power. And that minority has refused either to vote for any tax increase, or to make realistic proposals for spending cuts. (...) This time Governor Davis proposed (tax increases similar to those of former Republican governor Pete Wilson) - but Senate Republicans refused to go along. Their counterproposal relied entirely on spending cuts - but, tellingly, offered no specifics about what, exactly, should be cut.
http://truthout.org/docs_03/080203C.shtml

Originally posted by JohnT
Perhaps these sort of figures aren't available in China???

I lived in California for over 18 years prior to moving to China.

I was aware of this actually. The reason that the Repubs are acting up is that they have a rare chance to have some say in a state that is heavily gerrymandered against them. In other words they are holding out for a better deal, but one that the dems aren't willing to offer. The only reason that this annual game is any different this year is that the dems (especially Davis) are in political trouble now, and the price of poker has gone up. They know full well that it is the dems who will take most of the blame if they can't put together a compromise, and the dems should take most of the blame, as the vast majority of the state budget consists of decades worth of democrat programs and payoffs to various democrat constituencies. It's ugly, but it's also how things always work in the statehouse. My dad lives in one of the few republican bastians in the state. It's the only area in greater LA which hasn't received any money for its roads or other local manifestations of state largesse. It's being starved for voting the "wrong" way, literally for decades.

IIRC there has been a tentative deal on the budget reached in the last several days, so apparantly one or both sides has moved a bit.

Btw, Krugman isn't the world's greatest source. He's very partisan, and often intellectually dishonest, which is quite disconcerting given his credentials. But the crux of this information is accurate AFAICT.

[JohnT]

or to make realistic proposals for spending cuts...

(From the Krugman editorial piece quoted by mindseye.)

1. Editorial/Opinion pieces are not evidence. This is just a general opinion I hold, after all, I don't debate by quoting Thomas Sewell.

2. Define "realistic."

So what you're telling me is that the Republicans won't raise taxes in an already-heavily taxed state, and the Dems won't cut the budget.

To be honest about it, this doesn't seem a problem of either party, but a structural problem in regards to the "Supermajority" needed to raise taxes. When was the supermajority passed, who signed it into law, and which party controlled the House/Senate when passed?

[JohnT]

Nevermind, I found it:

A constitutional provision dating back to 1879 requires a two-thirds vote for general fund appropriations for purposes other than public schools (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 12). Because the Legislature typically passes one main budget bill, the requirement has effectively applied to the whole budget bill.

1879!

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/lbsupmaj.htm

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yeah, they are going to come out in force just like they came out in force to stop the recall movement.

Um, how could they stop the recall movement again? Considering getting a recall vote is simply a matter of collecting a enough signatures (and a really small percentage of the voting population, to boot), this is a pretty pointless remark. Regardless, the fact that Davis is unpopular even with Democrats doesnt' seem to be having any effect on Bustamante's popularity, despite your (unsubstantiated) claims.

Exactly my point. I just said that. What they DO care about is that they have seen him politically at work in the past and recognize him for what he has done.

You're saying his work on Prop 49 will somehow help him, I'm saying it won't make a bit of difference to the voters. Unless Arnie can create a real strategy for the budget mess (seen one yet?), then he's just one of several celebrity candidates with no credentials.

YEAH RIGHT

That's the main reason everyone is pissed off at Davis in the first place! When sh1t hits the fan he starts finger pointing! People are sick and tired of it! They want leadership, someone to take responsibility and not just act like a damn weasel.

Finger pointing to Enron isn't going to work. Sorry.

Wait and see. Ken Lay will make a great bogeyman.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Wait and see. Ken Lay will make a great bogeyman.

It hasn't helped Davis.

[chequita guevara]

Voldemort for California Govenor!

[DinoDoc]

He's not a resident of California.

[Verto]

I don't live in California, so I won't have any say on who wins the election. I think Arnold could do as good a job as anyone - isn't this a government "of the people"? Don't write him off just because he's an actor, and don't vote for him just because he's the Terminator.

Davis sounds like a guy who should've been thrown out just for letting the illegal immigrant problem to continue draining California. He refused to sign a lot of 'bills' that would have cut back on all the benefits illegal immigrants could take, because he wanted the Mexican-American votes later on.

[Ted Striker]

.