|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Gov: GOP 'dying at the box office'Schwarzenegger warns against weakening the party with a bunker mentality so that its only remaining power is to say 'no.'By Evan Halper and Scott Martelle, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers September 8, 2007 INDIAN WELLS, Calif. -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a warning to his fellow California Republicans on Friday: Their party is doomed if it does not move to the political center.
In a speech before 1,200 delegates to a semiannual state party convention, Schwarzenegger said the group's failure to reach out to independent and moderate voters -- and embrace politicians who, like him, govern from the middle -- is causing membership to plummet.
"In movie terms, . . . we are dying at the box office," he said. "We are not filling the seats."
The speech, which drew a mixed response, comes at a time of strained relations between the governor and the conservative activists who control the party. Schwarzenegger's policies on the environment, healthcare and state spending have led some party leaders to call him a Democrat masquerading as a Republican.
Yet in welcoming Schwarzenegger, party Chairman Ron Nehring described him as "the single greatest asset of the California Republican Party." Anticipating the speech to come, Nehring said the governor had been "bold" in taking the lead on healthcare and the environment -- traditionally Democratic issues.
Schwarzenegger, armed with poll numbers and invoking the names of "pragmatic conservatives" Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt, told a nearly full ballroom at the Renaissance Esmeralda Resort and Spa that on the issues, most Republican voters agree with him -- not party activists.
"Our party has lost the middle, and we will not regain true political power in California until we get it back," he said. "I am of the Reagan view that we should not go off the cliff with flags flying."
"I did that in 2005; trust me," Schwarzenegger said in a reference to his failed special election, when voters rejected each one of the conservative ballot measures he championed.
Cautioning against an incipient "bunker mentality," he urged the party to follow the lead of Democrats and invite independents to vote in primaries. Otherwise, he said in a clear reference to the summer's prolonged budget standoff, the party will deteriorate to such an extent that "our only remaining power is to say no."
"This very savvy audience here today understands that saying no is not the basis for a healthy political party," he said. "If our party doesn't address the needs of the people -- the needs of Republicans themselves -- the voters, registered Republicans included, will look elsewhere for their political affiliation."
While some Republicans sat quietly during the speech, others interrupted Schwarzenegger more than a dozen times with applause. At the end of the 17-minute address, he received a sustained but not unanimous standing ovation -- highlighting the split within the party itself.
"He's got it right," said Lynn Daucher, a former Assembly member and current director of the California Department of Aging. "He spoke for many of us who have felt that way for years. For many of us who have watched other Republicans desert our party."
Others dissented.
"The Republican Party should stick to its core principles," said Mark Zappa, 48, a promotional business owner from Gilroy who said he was "very disturbed" by the governor's call to open the Republican Party to independent voters as the Democrats do.
"If you have to sway your beliefs just to satisfy society, you don't have a moral basis," Zappa said. "Does that mean you're marginalized? Possibly."
Conservative Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who followed Schwarzenegger to the stage, received a more enthusiastic reception with a liberal-baiting speech.
"Since when did the field of science become the sole purview of left-wing politicians?" Perry said. He added, to loud applause and laughter, that he has heard Al Gore talk about global warming so often, "I'm starting to think his mouth may be the lead cause."
Most Republicans in the California Legislature are also at odds with Schwarzenegger's vision. Republicans in the state Senate refused for 51 days to pass a budget this year that was virtually a carbon copy of the one drafted by the administration.
The global warming bill the governor signed last year did not receive a single Republican vote. His healthcare plan this year appears to be destined for the same fate.
The governor confronted his Republican critics head-on.
He called the attacks on his work to curb global warming shortsighted, saying that polls show nearly three-quarters of registered Republicans support the legislation he signed last year.
"They want this party to do something more about climate change than simply doubt it," he said. "If it is the policy of the Republican Party to ignore the great majority of the world's scientists . . . then that is a party at odds with the future."
Schwarzenegger also said voters "want us to work for comprehensive healthcare, not stand in its way."
"We will be on the losing end of history unless we realize that healthcare must be addressed," he said.
Activists who control the party have long battled with more moderate GOP officeholders. They burned then-Gov. Pete Wilson in effigy after he raised taxes as part of a plan to erase a multibillion-dollar deficit.
The speech Schwarzenegger delivered Friday, in fact, echoed one that Reagan gave decades ago after party members charged that as governor, he was too willing to compromise the party's values.
The state party's fortunes have dwindled of late. Its coffers are empty. Members have questioned the competence of party leadership after some dubious hiring decisions. California's Republican congressional delegation has been embarrassed by ethics investigations. And the number of registered Republicans in California has dropped by 370,000 since 2005.
"The road to our comeback is clear," Schwarzenegger said. "The California Republican Party should be a right-of-the-center party that occupies the broad middle of California. That is a lush, green, abandoned political space that can be ours."
The governor closed with a personal anecdote about losing his first American bodybuilding competition, an event in Miami.
When he didn't win, he said, "I cried all night long. I vowed to myself I would work as hard as I could to be strong. . . .
"I pledge to you that I will work hard to make the Republican Party strong," Schwarzenegger said. " But for the sake of California and its people, I ask you to join me. I cannot do it alone."evan.halper@latimes.com scott.martelle@latimes.com Sounds a lot like Reagan's I didn't leave the [Republican] party, the [Republican] party left me. Goldwater, towards the end of his life also bemoaned the fact that the GOP had turned into the party of extremists, both religious and otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 747
I Feel Pretty, So NeoCon Pretty 500+ posts
|
|
I Feel Pretty, So NeoCon Pretty 500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 747 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Right on Arnold! Gov. sues U.S. over clean-air standardsSchwarzenegger, backed by Brown, says he's frustrated waiting for federal approval for the state to impose its own tough emissions limits on automakers.By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer November 9, 2007 SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday sued the Bush administration and said he was prepared to "sue again and sue again" until California gets permission to impose its own tough standards on automakers to curb global warming.
The governor, backed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, said he is frustrated to be waiting for nearly two years for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to waive federal regulations and give the state's plan a green light.
"We are now ready to implement the nation's cleanest standards for vehicle emissions, and we cannot do that, of course, until the federal government gives us a waiver," Schwarzenegger said at a Capitol news conference. "Our health and our environment are too important to delay any longer."
At issue for California is the 2009 model year and the state's desire to get prompt action from the EPA so automakers will have time to redesign their passenger cars and light vehicles, including SUVs.
Over the last four decades, the EPA has granted more than 50 requests from California to force automakers to meet tougher anti-pollution standards than imposed nationally. The state used the mechanism to pioneer such requirements as catalytic converters to reduce tailpipe emissions and on-board computers to alert drivers if their smog-control equipment malfunctions.
Thursday's move was a major assault on the federal government's response to global warming and what critics perceive to be a slow and environmentally questionable response to what many national and world leaders consider the No. 1 threat to the planet.
The U.S. Supreme Court this summer turned down the Bush administration's effort to fight the state regulation of global warming as it cleared the way for the EPA to approve California's regulations.
The justices ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change should be considered pollutants under the U.S. Clean Air Act.
The high court's decision "clearly bolsters California's case and should make it more difficult for the EPA to deny the waiver," said Ann E. Carlson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA. Carlson noted that the EPA never denied a California request for new tools to deal with local smog conditions. But the agency could balk at allowing California to set the national agenda when it comes to tackling a global problem such as climate change, she said.
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has promised to act on California's request by year's end. But California officials said they were pressing ahead with their lawsuit out of fear that the White House could order Johnson to postpone his decision.
"There's no legal basis for Washington to stand in our way," said Schwarzenegger.
Under the Clean Air Act, California has special rights to chart its own course in crafting more stringent pollution controls, and other states can choose to follow the California model. So far, 14 states have passed laws incorporating California's greenhouse gas tailpipe standards. Together with California, they represent 40% of the U.S. population.
The coalition of states "is filling the void left by the Bush administration's refusal to protect the environment," said New York state Atty. Gen. Andrew M. Cuomo, the group's leader. The group has filed legal papers making it a party to California's suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. California also filed a related lawsuit against the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.
The California regulations, which were approved by the Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Gray Davis in 2002, are a key component of a landmark global warming law signed last year by Schwarzenegger.
The law aims to cut California's carbon emissions by one-fourth over the next 12 years. Such a reduction is the equivalent of taking 6.5 million vehicles off California roads, Schwarzenegger said.
"Under the Clean Air Act, California is recognized as an innovator," said Brown, noting that the federal government has approved at least 50 such requests from California since the early 1970s. The lawsuit, Brown added, "is not about politics. It's about science, it's about human well-being and it's about innovation."
The Bush administration is ignoring that science, charged Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board. "They are running out the clock in hopes somebody else will deal with this problem," she said.
California can't afford to wait, the lawsuit says, because considerable evidence exists that "global warming is making California's climate worse." Increasing greenhouse gas emissions are raising average temperatures, reducing snowfall in the mountains, shifting northward the prevailing storm track and worsening air quality, the suit contends.
An altered climate has contributed to a record drought in 2006 and 2007 in Southern California and record rains two years earlier in Los Angeles, the suit says.
Automakers, though not a party to the California complaint against the EPA, want to do their part to combat global warming but don't favor states creating "a patchwork quilt of regulations at the state level," said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
The Washington-based trade group, which represents the Big Three U.S. automakers and a number of foreign firms, is supporting a bill in Congress that would increase auto fuel economy by up to 40% by 2022, he said.
Automakers have filed their own suit in federal court in Fresno to overturn California's greenhouse regulations. They recently lost a similar case in Vermont, where a federal judge upheld state regulations based on the California standards.
Automakers should call off their lawyers and join California and the other states in using available expertise to meet the new emission standards, said Nichols of the Air Resources Board.
"We're talking about cars with more efficient drivetrains, with more efficient steering mechanisms. We're talking about cars that are about 18% more efficient on average than what's available today but with completely known technology," she said.
"Those cars should be coming onto the roads beginning in 2009." At least there is one prominent Republican thats living in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
|
|
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353 |
And he's showing true conservatism by espousing state solutions, not federal ones! Good for him.
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
All hail King Snarf!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
state solutions are good stuff. here's hoping it's not just political posturing coming up on an election year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
And he's showing true conservatism by espousing state solutions, not federal ones! Good for him. I guess you never heard of the "Interstate Commerce" clause. Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, not the states. The reason for this was the need to allow goods and services to travel freely between the states, prevent local "protectionism" and keep one state from forcing others to bend to that state's policies. After all, if one state can impose its will on the other 49, then there really is no local control after all. The problem with the CA emission requirements would be that the economics of motor vehicle manufacturing make it fiscally impossible for the auto companies to design cars that have to cater individual state requirements. Accordingly, the auto makers would have to design their cars to meet all state requirements at once, holding to the most stringent, regardless of the wishes of people in other states. Therefore, the CA standards, if imposed, have the effect of regulating interstate commerce, in contravention of the US Constitution. Accordingly, this is hardly "true conservatism" as it runs counter to the framers' original intent and/or the concept of federalism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
The U.S. Supreme Court this summer turned down the Bush administration's effort to fight the state regulation of global warming as it cleared the way for the EPA to approve California's regulations.
The justices ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change should be considered pollutants under the U.S. Clean Air Act.
The high court's decision "clearly bolsters California's case and should make it more difficult for the EPA to deny the waiver," said Ann E. Carlson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA. Carlson noted that the EPA never denied a California request for new tools to deal with local smog conditions. But the agency could balk at allowing California to set the national agenda when it comes to tackling a global problem such as climate change, she said.
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has promised to act on California's request by year's end. But California officials said they were pressing ahead with their lawsuit out of fear that the White House could order Johnson to postpone his decision.
"There's no legal basis for Washington to stand in our way," said Schwarzenegger.
Under the Clean Air Act, California has special rights to chart its own course in crafting more stringent pollution controls, and other states can choose to follow the California model. So far, 14 states have passed laws incorporating California's greenhouse gas tailpipe standards. Together with California, they represent 40% of the U.S. population.
Well the conservative Supreme Court disagreed with the Administration. Now all we need is for his Environmental Protection Agency to actually ... y'know.. protect the environment? It seems drag their feet is all Bush and his agencies do. And i'm not going to hold my breath for anything to change until this disaster of a President is out of office. Right now our Government is at the service of the people these agencies are supposed to be regulating. As far as the economic pain and job loss the auto industries are being spared from by the goodness of George W. Bush, we've heard that tired line over and over again in the past when it's come to both pollution controls and safety features on automobiles. Can you not understand why people are pretty much skeptical that this interstate Commerce clause is the reason for the foot dragging? You'd think they'd want to do it to help save the planet for their children and grandchildren.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
The case whomod cited does not contradict what I wrote about interstate commerce. As noted in his own source: Under the [federal] Clean Air Act, California has special rights to chart its own course in crafting more stringent pollution controls.... As I pointed, the federal government has the final say in interstate commerce. In this case, the federal government has chosen to delegate some of that regulatory power to a state. This means that it is a federal solution, not a state one. Further, that delegation is neither permanent nor applicable to every situation. If Congress were to repeal that provision of the federal act, CA would likely be powerless to act, due to the US Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
At least there is one prominent Republican thats living in reality. I remember so clearly that you, once upon a time, were so willing to label this man a "puppet." Now, with him flip-flopping so severely, I'm the one who's ready to consider him as such while you, now, are glorifying him as a "prominent republican."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
The case whomod cited does not contradict what I wrote about interstate commerce. As noted in his own source: Under the [federal] Clean Air Act, California has special rights to chart its own course in crafting more stringent pollution controls.... As I pointed, the federal government has the final say in interstate commerce. In this case, the federal government has chosen to delegate some of that regulatory power to a state. This means that it is a federal solution, not a state one. Further, that delegation is neither permanent nor applicable to every situation. If Congress were to repeal that provision of the federal act, CA would likely be powerless to act, due to the US Constitution. so now you support the American Government making choices over the states? flip flop
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
At least there is one prominent Republican thats living in reality. I remember so clearly that you, once upon a time, were so willing to label this man a "puppet." Now, with him flip-flopping so severely, I'm the one who's ready to consider him as such while you, now, are glorifying him as a "prominent republican." Yes. And Schwarzenegger even comments on this in my 1st post: "Our party has lost the middle, and we will not regain true political power in California until we get it back," he said. "I am of the Reagan view that we should not go off the cliff with flags flying."
"I did that in 2005; trust me," Schwarzenegger said in a reference to his failed special election, when voters rejected each one of the conservative ballot measures he championed. Back then he pitched his tent with the unyielding extremist ideologues of the California gOP, thinking that Bush's popularity and success with that kind of polarizing attitude would not only last indefinitely, but work in California. Now he's more of a pragmatist and a realist. Which I can get behind. Just like I was behind L.A. mayor Richard Riordan, also a Republican. You really need to go back to that 1st post and read what he has to say about global warming and the gOP's relevance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
The case whomod cited does not contradict what I wrote about interstate commerce. As noted in his own source: Under the [federal] Clean Air Act, California has special rights to chart its own course in crafting more stringent pollution controls.... As I pointed, the federal government has the final say in interstate commerce. In this case, the federal government has chosen to delegate some of that regulatory power to a state. This means that it is a federal solution, not a state one. Further, that delegation is neither permanent nor applicable to every situation. If Congress were to repeal that provision of the federal act, CA would likely be powerless to act, due to the US Constitution. so now you support the American Government making choices over the states? flip flop Usually, when someone applies for a waiver of some legislation, it’s because they are unable to comply with the standards set. Not so when it comes to the EPA air quality standards and the state of California. California has been on the forefront of combatting smog since the 70s when we had nearly daily smog alerts. And since 1975, California has requested and received a waiver from federal EPA standards, because our standards were stricter. But then we got the Bush administration. The Environmental Protection Agency today denied a waiver that would have allowed California and at least a dozen other states to impose their own stricter vehicle tailpipe emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.
“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution — not a confusing patchwork of state rules — to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles,” EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said in a statement.
The decision is a victory of sorts for auto makers, who opposed state-by-state regulations.
In November, California sued to force the Environmental Protection Agency to rule whether the state can put its strict vehicle tailpipe emissions standards into effect.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state would “sue again and sue again and sue again” in order to get approval to put in place tough new fuel economy regulations. Why is it that Republicans trumpet “states’ rights” until it actually benefits the states? Of course Cheney's corrupt evil hand happens to be behind this......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Before EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson “answered the pleas of industry executives” by announcing his “decision to deny California the right to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles,” auto executives directly appealed to Vice President Cheney. EPA staffers told the LA Times that Johnson “made his decision” only after Cheney met with the executives. On multiple occasions in October and November, Cheney and White House staff members met with industry executives, including the CEOs of Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler. At the meetings, the executives objected to California’s proposed fuel economy standards: In meetings in October with Mr. Cheney and sessions with White House staff members, auto executives made clear that they were concerned not just about the fuel economy measures in the bill but also about the California proposal for stricter emissions standards. Johnson explained his decision to thwart California by saying that the new energy bill, which the auto industry supported and President Bush signed into law on Wednesday, “made the proposed California standards unnecessary.” One EPA staffer says Johnson’s decision was part of Cheney’s deal with the industry execs brokered at the meetings: “Clearly the White House said, ‘We’re going to get EPA out of the way and get California out of the way. If you give us this energy bill, then we’re done, the deal is done,’” said one staffer. Since taking office, Cheney has taken “a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business” while undermining any real action to combat climate change. For example, he stacked the Committee on Environmental Quality with industry heavyweights, killing Bush’s 2000 campaign promise to place caps on carbon emissions. In 2001, his infamous energy task force also ordered the EPA to “reconsider” a rule requiring stricter pollution controls on power and oil refinery plants. More recently, since February, Cheney has also quietly maneuvered to exert increased control over environmental policy by federal agencies — particularly the regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
At least there is one prominent Republican thats living in reality. I remember so clearly that you, once upon a time, were so willing to label this man a "puppet." Now, with him flip-flopping so severely, I'm the one who's ready to consider him as such while you, now, are glorifying him as a "prominent republican." Yes. And Schwarzenegger even comments on this in my 1st post: "Our party has lost the middle, and we will not regain true political power in California until we get it back," he said. "I am of the Reagan view that we should not go off the cliff with flags flying."
"I did that in 2005; trust me," Schwarzenegger said in a reference to his failed special election, when voters rejected each one of the conservative ballot measures he championed. Back then he pitched his tent with the unyielding extremist ideologues of the California gOP, thinking that Bush's popularity and success with that kind of polarizing attitude would not only last indefinitely, but work in California. Now he's more of a pragmatist and a realist. Which I can get behind. Just like I was behind L.A. mayor Richard Riordan, also a Republican. You really need to go back to that 1st post and read what he has to say about global warming and the gOP's relevance. Realist? Pragmatist? The only reason he's pulled a 180 is because none of his propositions passed. He'd officially turn DEM if he thought he could get away with it and not look like an even bigger asshole.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Benedict Arnold?
If the governor goes through with his proposed tax hikes, it will be even harder to tell him from a Democrat.
By Ethan Rarick
December 23, 2007
The next few months should determine whether Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can, in any reasonable sense, continue to be considered a Republican.
Until now, the socially liberal governor has shared the GOP's anti-tax mania, which was essentially the lone bond he maintained with his party. In fact, the most interesting thing about Schwarzenegger's political career has been the degree to which it has highlighted the GOP's true credo: Dissent can be tolerated on abortion, gay rights and gun control, but even a mega-celebrity such as Schwarzenegger toes the line on taxes.
But today the governor faces twin challenges that could stretch to the limit the relationship of politician and party. Schwarzenegger wants to reform healthcare and has to fill a huge budget deficit, both of which will take lots of money. He already teamed up with Democrats and agreed to increases in payroll and tobacco taxes (subject to voter approval) to help pay for his healthcare deal, riling his fellow Republicans. If he also agrees to broader-based tax increases to close the budget hole, estimated at $14 billion, it will be hard to tease out even the thinnest ideological connection between Schwarzenegger and the GOP.
On almost everything save taxes, Schwarzenegger puts a finger in the eye of Republican dogma. He is flatly pro-choice. He favors gun control and the legalization of medical marijuana. He is more sympathetic to gay rights and environmental concerns than the vast majority of his fellow Republicans. Yet despite all this, Schwarzenegger has been embraced by the national party. In 2004, he spoke at the Republican National Convention, and he campaigned for President Bush in Ohio. He has certainly been criticized by those on his right, but usually it is Schwarzenegger holding the national party at arm's length rather than the other way around.
Why the party's affection for this dissident? Partly it's his celebrity, charisma and ability to win votes. But it's also because he has stood by the party's no-new-taxes mantra. That has been one of the few consistent hallmarks of his time in politics. When Schwarzenegger first took office in 2003 and the state was awash in red ink, he rolled back an earlier increase in the vehicle license fee and then rejected a Democratic proposal to hike income taxes for the rich even though the result was to shortchange public schools. Mind you, the nonpartisan California Budget Project calculated at the time that the increase would have affected less than 2% of California taxpayers, and 95% of the increase would have been paid by the top 1%, a group that then had an average annual income of $1.3 million. Still, Schwarzenegger said no.
Then when the governor ran for reelection in 2006, he ridiculed challenger Phil Angelides as a man who took glee in raising people's taxes, although Angelides' proposal was also limited to high-rollers.
Schwarzenegger has been immovable, in other words, even about increasing taxes only on those who could afford it and even when the state desperately needed the money. On this issue, he isn't the Terminator, he's Dr. No.
At least until now. Looking to hit a public-policy home run and secure his legacy, Schwarzenegger negotiated a healthcare reform package with Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) that, at first blush, seems to break the no-new-taxes mold. To cover the cost of extending medical coverage to virtually all Californians, the plan would create a payroll tax for employers, increase the cigarette levy and slap a new tax on hospitals.
Republicans in the Legislature immediately protested that the governor has gone down the wrong fiscal road. When the plan passed the Assembly last week, not a single GOP member voted for what they denounced as the biggest proposed tax increase on business in state history.
Schwarzenegger, of course, has an explanation. He argues that the new taxes and fees won't go into effect unless they're approved by voters in an initiative on the November ballot. In other words, Californians, if they approve the ballot measure, would be raising their own taxes rather than having politicians do it to them.
But while that's a nice rhetorical twist, the real reason the plan is headed for the ballot is that a tax increase requires a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, and with Republican opposition solid, the bill would never have enough votes. By stripping out the tax increases and referring them to the ballot, a simple (all-Democratic) majority will be all that's needed in the Legislature.
Anyway, the whole episode may be for show. Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) is reluctant to act on the healthcare package until the state's budget deficit is addressed, and without Senate action, the Schwarzenegger- Nuñez deal is an empty gesture.
In trying to close the budget deficit, Schwarzenegger's anti-tax credentials will be even more sternly put to the test because he really can't pass the ball to voters again. Nor can the shortfall of $14 billion simply be eliminated through trimming wasteful spending. Even closing every state prison in California and releasing all the criminals wouldn't produce $14 billion in savings. It would seem that some form of tax increase must be part of the solution.
Would that really be such a bad thing? If Schwarzenegger were to propose a tax increase, he would be following footsteps he should like. Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan -- Schwarzenegger's model governor and his personal hero, respectively -- both pushed big tax increases through the Legislature. Brown and Reagan each faced a looming budget hole on taking office, and both responded by raising income tax rates for people, corporations and banks. In today's dollars, the Brown proposal totaled almost $2 billion, Reagan's about $6 billion. The money staved off the kind of horrific budget cuts the state may now have to consider.
The problem for Schwarzenegger is that no modern Republican could get away with such a wild transgression, or perhaps it's better to say that none would dare want to. The GOP may seem like a party that would use its self-proclaimed big tent solely for a revival meeting, but it is economic issues, rather than social ones, that actually knit the party together -- and none is more important than taxes.
Opposition to tax increases is certainly terrific politics. Nobody likes paying taxes, and voters reward politicians who promise them they don't have to pay for anything. A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California says voters oppose tax increases as a solution to the budget problem by almost a 2-1 margin. I sympathize, but then I also wish I could avoid paying bar tabs. Alas, consumption has costs, whether we're talking beer or public services.
Perhaps Schwarzenegger will stay the anti-tax course and come up with enough alternatives to close the budget deficit. The administration's spokesman on budget issues has said Schwarzenegger will consider a range of options -- except new or increased taxes.
If so -- if the governor won't budge even in this kind of crisis -- it will be the plainest proof yet that he shares his party's obsession with taxes.
But if not -- if instead he bows to fiscal reality and acknowledges that Californians must pay more for the public services they use -- he will have broken the final intellectual cord lashing him to the GOP.
Ethan Rarick is the author of "California Rising: The Life and Times of Pat Brown" and the forthcoming "Desperate Passage: The Donner Party's Perilous Journey West." I think the funniest part of that article was the fact that all the proof he needs for Arnold to be a Democrat is if he raises taxes and yet in the same piece, he mentions Reagan doing the very same thing. My take on Arnold has always been that he's exactly the shallow himbo that used to be parodied on SNL. He gravitates towards da winnah's and shuns dah loosurs. So in a sense he's a sort of barometer on the political climate. Back when he ran for Governator, the gOP was riding high, Bush's approval ratings were high and there was talk of Rove's permanent Republican majority. A few years later and a complete 360 took place, his polarizing right wing initiatives all tanked and he saw the handwriting on the wall. So he's a man with little conviction save for being seen around winners. I predict that if the gop fortunes continue to dwindle next year, he'll jump party as he's just that type of person. Better for me and for California regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
while you, now, are glorifying him as a "prominent republican." Isn't he? Or do they let just anyone speak at the GOP convention?  Just because he pisses you off now doesn't mean that the Republican party didn't embrace him enthusiastically back in '04 and still does to a lesser extent now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Since taking office, Cheney has taken “a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business” while undermining any real action to combat climate change. For example, he stacked the Committee on Environmental Quality with industry heavyweights, killing Bush’s 2000 campaign promise to place caps on carbon emissions. In 2001, his infamous energy task force also ordered the EPA to “reconsider” a rule requiring stricter pollution controls on power and oil refinery plants.
More recently, since February, Cheney has also quietly maneuvered to exert increased control over environmental policy by federal agencies — particularly the regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Thank goodness we have someone like Dick Cheney looking out for us against the environmentalist wackjobs who want to destroy the American economy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
while you, now, are glorifying him as a "prominent republican." he's a former movie star, household name around the world, and governor of the most populous and economically productive state in the country. I think that alone qualifies him as prominent.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
To some extent, I have to roll with Ray and whomod on this. The GOP was quick to embrace Arnold as a "prominent Republican" when it looked like he was the savior of California (if not the party). You even had a few Republicans speculating on how we ought to repeal the Constitutional prohibition on foreign-born citizens serving as President.
With that being said, however, the fact that a prominent Republican is, for whatever reason (genuine conversion of belief or simple political expediency), adopting a bad policy does not, on any level, transform it into a good policy.
As I said before, thank goodness that Cheney has kept this sort of foolishness in check for so long.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Being a prominent movie star and prominent political figure are two different things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Being a prominent movie star and prominent political figure are two different things. prominent 1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable: Her eyes are her most prominent feature. 2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting. 3. leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen. do you really think Arnold just fades into the background?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,365 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,365 Likes: 38 |
To some extent, I have to roll with Ray and whomod on this. The GOP was quick to embrace Arnold as a "prominent Republican" when it looked like he was the savior of California (if not the party). You even had a few Republicans speculating on how we ought to repeal the Constitutional prohibition on foreign-born citizens serving as President.
With that being said, however, the fact that a prominent Republican is, for whatever reason (genuine conversion of belief or simple political expediency), adopting a bad policy does not, on any level, transform it into a good policy.
I agree that Schwarzenneger is both prominent, and a Republican (in name, at least, although caving in to political pressure on illegal immigration is not true republican ideology, or defense of U.S. national interests).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Being a prominent movie star and prominent political figure are two different things. prominent 1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable: Her eyes are her most prominent feature. 2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting. 3. leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen. do you really think Arnold just fades into the background? My point is that he's not known for being the Terminator more than he's known for being a Republican.
Last edited by Pariah; 2007-12-28 5:48 AM. Reason: Opposite day I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,365 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,365 Likes: 38 |
Actually, looking at Schwarzenneger's record, while he is quite liberal for a Republican on gay rights and social issues, I was surprised to see this: so on immigration anyway, it looks like he's on the side of the angels after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Actually, looking at Schwarzenneger's record, while he is quite liberal for a Republican on gay rights and social issues, I was surprised to see this: so on immigration anyway, it looks like he's on the side of the angels after all. no one's saying they shouldn't obey the laws, and obviously their lives would be better here if they could communicate. i doubt however that he feels as you do that they should assimilate and act white. he just doesn't strike me as the insecure xenophobe that you are, though his dad was like a Nazi or something....
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
My point is that he's not known for being a Republican more than he's known for being the Terminator.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Thank goodness we have someone like Dick Cheney looking out for us against the environmentalist wackjobs who want to destroy the American economy.
As a family man, does it make you feel better knowing that you put the greedy concerns of Dick Cheney and his energy industry cronies ahead of a better planet for you and your own?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
My point is that he's not known for being a Republican more than he's known for being the Terminator.
Erm...Yeah. This time, imagine I said exactly that, but in reverse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
My point is that he's not known for being a Republican more than he's known for being the Terminator.
Erm...Yeah. This time, imagine I said exactly that, but in reverse. if he did that wouldn't he crash his bike?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
*sigh*
I meant that I misplaced my words you insensitive jerk!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,153
Unbreakable 3000+ posts
|
|
Unbreakable 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,153 |
Since taking office, Cheney has taken “a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business” while undermining any real action to combat climate change. For example, he stacked the Committee on Environmental Quality with industry heavyweights, killing Bush’s 2000 campaign promise to place caps on carbon emissions. In 2001, his infamous energy task force also ordered the EPA to “reconsider” a rule requiring stricter pollution controls on power and oil refinery plants.
More recently, since February, Cheney has also quietly maneuvered to exert increased control over environmental policy by federal agencies — particularly the regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Thank goodness we have someone like Dick Cheney looking out for us against the environmentalist wackjobs who want to destroy the American economy. Obviously, Americans and the rest of the world buy Japanese cars because Japan's auto industry doesn't care about pollution or gasoline consumption. 
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?"
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!"
-Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah."
-Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents."
-Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise."
-Prometheus
Rack MisterJLA!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,153
Unbreakable 3000+ posts
|
|
Unbreakable 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,153 |
*sigh* I meant that I misplaced my words you insensitive jerk!  Fixed it for ya. 
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?"
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!"
-Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah."
-Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents."
-Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise."
-Prometheus
Rack MisterJLA!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 120
Bacontwat!! 100+ posts
|
|
Bacontwat!! 100+ posts
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 120 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
California files lawsuit against Bush EPA . The better news is that up to 15 other states will be joining. Only a kooky Republican administration could manage to turn the EPA into an extension of the pro-pollution lobby. You can't even make this stuff up any more. Well, not unless another kooky Republican administration wins next year. California sues EPA over greenhouse gas rules15 other states expected to join challenge of limits on their powerSACRAMENTO, Calif. - California sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday for denying its first-in-the-nation greenhouse gas limits on cars, trucks and SUVs, challenging the Bush administration's conclusion that states have no business setting emission standards.
Other states are expected to join the lawsuit, which was anticipated after the EPA on Dec. 19 denied California's request for a waiver, required under the federal Clean Air Act. The lawsuit was filed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson denied California a waiver that it needs under the federal Clean Air Act to move forward with regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks. At least 16 other states had been expected to follow California's lead and adopt the state's tougher emission limits........
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
but I thought you liked when the federal government told states what to do! or does that depend on which federal government?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
but I thought you liked when the federal government told states what to do! or does that depend on which federal government? To me it's not an ideological thing. The point of the Federal Government stepping in, as in the case of school integration, is on account of when states REFUSE to comply to better the lives of it's citizens. In California's case, it adopted even more stringent regulations to better the lives of it's citizens and it's environment. It's not a case of the state refusing to do something. This is simply a case of California doing what it's done for DECADES to better it's air. Above and beyond federal standards. And Cheney stepped in to help out his industry cronies at the expense of the quality of life of the citizens of California. If it's going to be ideological, then try to squeeze ideology out of my belief that Government power should be used to better ones lot in life, not worsen it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
government power should be used to keep other people from killing us and keep everyone here from killing each other and otherwise stay the hell outta the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Yes but you ignore the fact that almost every aspect of your daily life is better because Government stepped in and regulated it. From the food you eat, the car you drive to the medicines you take.
Expecting industry to do that on it's own has proven to be a pipe dream.
|
|
|
|
|
