Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold vs. Walters on 'One-Time Solutions'

Joe Mathews — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:31:00 -0400

Here's a funny little exchange between Gov. Schwarzenegger and Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters during a budget press conference in a Capitol hallway yesterday.

GOVERNOR:...I think that Democrats and Republicans are working together on this. And the key thing is now to just really make sure they don't come up with one-time solutions, because even if you go and withhold your taxes, it's a one-time solution. Or if you go and move the date of paying your paychecks from June 30th to July 1st, to kick it over to the next fiscal year, that's a one-time solution. It doesn't help you in the out years. And so what we have to think about is, how do we make sure that we get rid of the structural deficit once and for all? I think this is what the people expect us to do, to solve this crisis, to solve these problems. Then our credit rating will be good again, people will want to do business with us, people will get money to us. So all good things will happen if we solve this problem and solve it, solve the entire $24 billion.
WALTERS: Governor, don't you have one-time solutions yourself? You have the accelerated withholding. Isn't that a one-time solution?
GOVERNOR: Absolutely correct. And what we don't want to do is add to those, because we make --
WALTERS: So it's all right if you do it but no all right if they do it?
GOVERNOR: No, not to add onto it. Very good point, Daniel. (Laughter) I mean, we don't want to add onto the problem.

Palin Builds Comeback With Ballot Initiative

Joe Mathews — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:19:00 -0400

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, attempting to recover from various political wounds, is backing a ballot initiative in her state that would require notification of a parent or guardian before a minor may obtain an abortion.

This may prove to be a smart political strategy. What's not smart -- or justified -- are attempts to attack Palin for involving herself in a ballot initiative campaign. Governors all over the country --- both Democrats (Ritter of Colorado and Napolitano of Arizona most recently) and Republicans (Schwarzenegger) -- have led such campaigns, even drafting and sponsoring initiatives themselves. But the left in and out of Alaska has tried to accuse Palin of ethical transgressions for supporting measures. Their argument is that a governor, by involving herself in a campaign, is using the resources of her government office for politics. While I have concerns about governors creating plebiscites, Palin's strategy is hardly out of line, or unusual. And her opponents are allowing her to pose as a champion of free speech by attacking her in this way. It'd be wiser to go after Palin for her views on issues and her less-than-distinguished record as governor.

IN THE STATES: Governors Who Have Walked the Walk

Micah Weinberg — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:27:00 -0400

Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Christine Gregoire of Washington co-hosted the fifth of President Obama's health care forums in Los Angeles earlier this week.

As the Los Angeles Times wrote, "A wide array of forum participants, including hospital and insurance company executives and the mother of a teenager who died from a preventable hospital-acquired infection, gave voice to the growing desire for change." The director of New America's Health Policy Program, Len Nichols, participated in the discussion, as did representatives from Health CEOs for Health Reform.

The White House live-blogged the event, as did the California Endowment, which helped host the discussion. Video of the event will be available here soon and a partial transcript of the forum is posted here.

The issues raised during the forum should be all too familiar to the followers of health reform. One mother told the story of her son who died from a preventable staph infection. Another participant recounted how the cost of insurance broke his family financially saying: "I grew up in this country that I knew I had the right to an education, and if I got in trouble with the law I had a right to a defense. Why don't I have a right to have health care?"

Their stories are the reason, as Governor Schwarzenegger asserted, that "We've got to act and we've got to create the action, and this is the year where we can do it." Because as Governor Gregiore said "Every governor—Republican or Democrat—would tell you it's not only a moral imperative, it is an economic imperative."

And while these Governors can talk the talk of health reform, there is no question that they have also walked the walk of health reform. Actions taken during California's year of reform have served as the blueprint for many of the proposals currently under consideration in the nation's capital. And programs already in place in a majority of states, including Washington and California, may act as a model of policy innovation that will allow us to find a solution to one of the thorniest questions of this round of reform.

The issue, quite familiar to readers of this blog and followers of this round of reform in the nation's capital, is whether Americans should be offered the choice of a public health insurance plan. As Len Nichols and John Bertko pointed out in their "Modest Proposal for a Competing Public Plan," more than 30 states offer state employees the option to choose between traditional private insurance plans and a plan or plans self-insured by the state. For more information about why such plans can serve as models for future reforms, read my piece in the Sacramento Bee last Sunday

California has plenty of experience with navigating this polarizing debate. We will reflect in days to come on lessons from California's year of reform, but there is no question that executive leadership from Governor Schwarzenegger was instrumental in getting the state as far down the road as it did, despite all the mitigating and complicating factors of state-level reform. And the paths blazed by States such as California, Washington, and Massachusetts are currently being traveled by members of Congress. As such, Governors Schwarzenegger and Gregoire were ideal conveners for this event. Their experiences and their voices should continue to inform the national debate.

Department of Self Promotion: Central Valley Radio

Joe Mathews — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:01:00 -0400

I'm scheduled to be interviewed tonight (shortly after 8 p.m.) on Inga Barks' radio show on KMJ 580, the big AM talk radio station in Fresno. Possible topics: the special election, California politics, and the governor. You can listen live by clicking here.

Arnold Hearts Constitutional Convention

Joe Mathews — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:38:00 -0500

He explains why to George Skelton. The governor is interested in looking at changes to the requirement of a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass a budget. But he also wants to transform the executive branch, which wasn't on the agenda of many folks attending this week's summit in Sacramento on the idea. Schwarzenegger wants to get rid of the independently elected constitutional officers -- the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the controller, the treasurer -- who sometimes make it hard for him to administer the government.

As a policy matter, Schwarzenegger has a point. There'd be more accountability if the governor could appoint the people in those roles. As a political matter, Schwarzenegger may have hurt the convention effort by saying that. Opponents of the idea will deride the convention as a power grab by a governor whose approval rating is at 33 percent in a new poll.

It's What Governors Say, Not What They Do

Joe Mathews — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:42:00 -0500

Gov. Schwarzenegger largely punted in describing the state of the state. So others have picked up the slack. The Sacramento Bee's Dan Weintraub explains how we're doing. There's a little good news, and some bad.

Even more interesting is this extraordinary piece by New America's Micah Weinberg. He puts Schwarzenegger's speech in context, comparing it to the rhetoric of other governors. This is part of an extensively analysis Weinberg did of the words governors across the country use. The results are startling: it's what you say, not what you do.

I conducted an analysis of the rhetoric of 97 governors that compared the language in their speeches to that of national party platforms. It showed that approval ratings were higher, chances of re-election greater and margins of victory larger if governors used partisan language that appealed to the political majority in their states. On the other hand, the actual fiscal policy changes they presided over had no discernable effect on their political fortunes.

So if you're a governor in a Republican state, it is not necessary to actually cut taxes in order to be successful, but you'd better talk about cutting taxes as frequently as you can. And in a Democratic state, you need not succeed in expanding state programs, but you had better say that you're planning on doing so.

This reminded me of a passage from Lou Cannon's book, Governor Reagan:

Through tax increases and sundyr compromises, Ronald Reagan retained his high standing with mainstream conservatives, some of whom began boosting him as the next president even before he learned the ropes as governor. Conservatives were not blind to Reagan's pragmatism. They liked what he said, even when it required ignoring what he did, because Reagan had a perspective that William F. Buckley described as "essentially undoubting."

This begs the question: Would Schwarzenegger have been more effective if he had shut up about post-partisanship and instead simply practiced it silently, while keeping up conservative, red-meat rhetoric in public? The answer might be yes.

California Puts New Rules On Ballot Committees Controlled by Pols

Joe Mathews — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:25:00 -0500

In California's blockbuster democracy, it's now commonplace for politicians to establish their own political committee to raise money for and spend money on ballot measures (as opposed to the committees they use for their own election campaigns). This tactic, most aggressively advanced by Gov. Schwarzenegger, makes sense in an era when most issues of significance end up on the ballot.

But some believe that ballot measure committees, which may accept a contribution of any limit, are a way around the legal limits on how much one can give a politician. And several politicians have used the ballot measure funds for political spending that had nothing to do with an initiative or referendum.

On Thursday, the state's Fair Political Practices Commission made a stab at limiting the power of ballot measure committees that are controlled by politicians. Such committees will no have to show that they are devoted to a particular ballot measure. What does this mean? Even more such committees, as politicians open multiple accounts to comply with the regulation. So who's the winner in this scenario? Election lawyers.

Only One Way Out Of California Mess: The People

Joe Mathews — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:12:00 -0500

It has become obvious that Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders of both parties simply won't be able to reach a compromise that comes anywhere close to closing California's rapidly growing budget deficit, now estimated at some $40 billion over two years. The state government is running low on cash. Within weeks, it may have to start paying people in IOUs.

Democrats simply won't agree to enough cuts. Republicans won't agree to tax increases, and they can block that because of the state's requirement for a two-thirds vote. The Democrats' convoluted (if politically smart) attempt to do an end run around two thirds and raise taxes by majority vote isn't going anywhere; even if it's revived and signed into law, it's all but certain to get struck down in the courts or overturned by referendum. The governor you ask? Schwarzenegger has little credibility with lawmakers of either party. When it comes to big deals, he simply can't close.

For anyone who still held out hope that our state's leaders could fashion a way out of this mess by themselves, the legislature's very own analyst offered an answer today: no way. The legislature's failure to act over the last two months has added $12 billion to the problem, according to a report from the legislative analyst's office and comments by its chief Mac Taylor. So what to do? The voters, via the ballot measure, are the only ones who can resolve the crisis.

That's my reading of the LAO report, at least. The LAO explicitly suggests that the legislature and governor seize on the idea of a special election (talked about for June or later) and move it up to April. What would be on the ballot? Well, first there would be two ballot measures that were sent to the people as part of last year's budget agreement --the $5 billion in lottery borrowing and the establishment of a stronger rainy day fund for the state. To that, the LAO would add measures, suggested by Schwarzenegger, that would ask voters to redirect money previously set aside by ballot initiatives (Prop 10 for early childhood, Prop 63 for mental health) to the state's general fund.

The LAO and Taylor don't stop with just these four measures. The legislative analyst actually proposes new measures to add to the ballot. What are they?

1. Two new measures that would also grab money apportioned by initiative to help with the current state budget crisis. One of the measures targeted would be Prop 49, the after-school initiative sponsored by Schwarzenegger himself in 2002

2. A measure that would permit the state to issue gas tax bonds -- that is to securitize future gas tax revenues -- and use the money to accelerate the building of current transportation projects.

3. A measure that would ask voters to approve massive short-term borrowing in order to put such borrowing on a stronger legal footing if it is challenged in court. The LAO suggests one method might be to seek more "economic recovery bonds" -- that is general fund bonds to cover the deficits -- like the $15 billion in bonding authority in Prop 57, which was approved by voters in the last major budget crisis, in early 2004.

4. A package of tax increases would be placed before voters as ballot measures. These are tax proposals that Republicans won't support. The LAO, bowing to political reality, says the legislature should let the people decide. Given the number of tax proposals on the table, it's possible this could produce a half-dozen different measures.

All told, the legislative analyst -- yes, these folks work for the legislature, which is supposed to handle the budget -- are arguing that the only way out of the fiscal mess is an April election in which voters would cast ballots on, by my count, between 9 and 15 complicated and important measures. (The LAO report is titled, "Overview of the Governor's Budget." It would have been more honestly titled: "You Know That Question About Whether the State Is Governable? It Isn't. Even Those of Us Who Work in the Legislature Know This"). Clearly, California has reached a point where it is no longer a true republic. Ballot measures are the coin of the realm. We are truly a blockbuster democracy.

And if the voters don't approve most of these budget measures in the special election the LAO wants?

Well, then, there may be no way out.

Did Arnold Jump the Gun On Budget?

Joe Mathews — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:56:00 -0500

The holiday surprise in California this year was that Gov. Schwarzenegger didn't wait to the usual date -- often January 9 or 10 -- to release his budget proposal for the 2009-10 fiscal year. Instead, the proposal was released on Dec. 31. And in another departure from protocol, the governor wasn't there to do the releasing. He was at his vacation home in Idaho with his family. Finance director Mike Genest handled the chore.

The release seems to be a way to accomplish two political goals: 1) to show urgency (we're releasing the budget early) while 2) burying the news of a horrible budget proposal that includes big spending cuts, borrowing and tax increases, many of which represent a reversal from previous Schwarzenegger positions. Shaking things up is a good thing, but I'm not sure if this early budget release accomplished much. The proposal itself is unlikely to spark fast action by a dysfunctional legislature. But it's not clear if there's any force in the universe that can force consensus in the California legislature.

I also have a more technical question: was Schwarzenegger's budget so early that it violates the state constitution. According to Article IV, Section 12, clause A, the governor shall submit his budget "within the first 10 days of each calendar year." Dec. 31 doesn't make it. But Genest, in his press conference on New Year's Eve, clarified that slightly, by saying that the official budget with budget bills will be formally delivered to the legislature on Jan. 9.

It's a fine point, sure. But it's just another way that California's leaders seem to be frustrated with the current constitutional structure, at least when it comes to the budget. Lawmakers are pushing the constitutional limits on borrowing. Democrats are plotting ways around the two-thirds requirement for passing budgets or raising taxes. The governor and his aides have never been fond of the current set of budget deadlines. I remember talk back in 2004 about whether the governor should even bother with submitting a revised budget in May. The legislature seemed to wait until then to do any real negotiating, so why not ignore that custom?

Arnold: Feds 'Shouldn't Give Us a Penny'

Joe Mathews — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:59:00 -0500

At a press conference now concluding in downtown LA, Gov. Schwarzenegger said the federal government should not bail out his state -- at least until the state itself adopts a more fiscally responsible budget. In doing so, he appears to have boxed himself in. With Democrats in the legislature resisting deeper spending cuts and Republicans refusing to raise taxes, a federal bailout was seen as a way to address, at least in the short term, the state's persistent and growing budget shortfall.

Schwarzenegger called the press conference to announce his declaration of a state fiscal emergency. This provision of the constitution, enacted by voters as part of Prop 58 in 2004, gives the legislature 45 days to act to bring the budget back into balance. The provision is not seen as having the teeth necessary to force the legislature to fill the budget shortfall.