Schwarzenegger blinks in budget confrontation with Democrats

Sac Bee ^ | 12/12/03 | Dan Walters

[NormsRevenge]

Arnold Schwarzenegger promised Californians that if elected governor, he'd grab the Capitol's politicians by their necks and force them to change their ways, often alluding to his robot-hero figure from the "Terminator" movie series.

Given the Legislature's chaotic and often juvenile ambience, however, one might think that "Kindergarten Cop" would have been a more appropriate cinematic reference -- tough-guy cop finds himself trying to manage a classroom full of rambunctious children.

[NormsRevenge]

Movie analogies ... hmm?

Dan, I can think of a couple more apt for this whole mess.

[NormsRevenge]

.

[11th Earl of Mar]

This guy obviously spends too much time watching late night cable TV.

[B Knotts]

Wow. Never saw this coming. </sarcasm>

[LS]

Hmm. All this baloney from this fellow and what really happened? All along, we knew Schwartzenegger was going to restructure CA's loans. Did that.

We knew he would cancel the car tax. Did that.

We knew he would advance the balanced budget agenda. Did that. "No enforcement mechanism?" Excuse me, but there is NEVER an "enforcement mechanism," and wasn't even with the GOP balanced budget amendment, because you can always declare an emergency . . . and sometimes, that's actually good (as in wars).

So I read this as a big hit piece on Arnold, despite the fact that I can't find a single higher tax in here.

[Cicero]

All true. But where Arnold has flinched is in immediately cutting spending by a realistic amount. It would have been easier to do that now, while he has the momentum and a large popular vote behind him. Failing to cut spending now essentially leaves Gray Davis's budget practices still in place.

We know Arnold is a loser on the social issues, such as confronting the abortionists and the homosexual pressure groups. If he can't deal with the fiscal issues either, then what good is he?

[LS]

I wouldn't equate an unwillingness to cut spending immediately with any kind of "surrender." For one thing, as it did with Reagan, it takes a while to mobilize public opinion and for the legislators to feel the heat.

[LS]

I wouldn't equate an unwillingness to cut spending immediately with any kind of "surrender." For one thing, as it did with Reagan, it takes a while to mobilize public opinion and for the legislators to feel the heat.

[goldstategop]

Yep. I read it differently from Dan Walters. The Democrats were the ones who blinked. They wanted a package of tax increases but didn't get it along with a proviso to increase spending based on this year or last year's baseline. Arnold had to do a deal that didn't give him everything he wanted and in real life no one gets everything they want. Republicans in the Senate still have leverage on the spending cap issue and in the event they don't get one, they can put one on the November ballot. (If the Legislature balks, go the initiative route.) So its a little too early to proclaim this a political victory for the Democrats.

[NormsRevenge]

A major factor in the Republican drive for a spending cap is a March ballot measure that would, if enacted, lower the legislative voting requirements for spending and tax measures from two-thirds to 55 percent, thereby eliminating the minority party's fiscal leverage. A spending cap would partially negate the impact of the 55 percent measure, while the balanced-budget provision to which Schwarzenegger agreed might make tax increases even more likely. And that's why it represents a setback for the anti-tax activists such as Uhler and a tactical win for those on the other side of the Capitol's perennial tax-and-spending debate.