So, how's Arnold Schwarzenegger doing?

[Cisco]

After all the fervor surrounding California's gubernatorial race last year, it seems to have been a relatively quiet administration so far.

Even though I like Arnold, I must admit that I was pretty afraid he would get everybody's support and then be a terrible govenor. However, I'm now starting to think that no news is good news.

What do Californians and other people who are following him closely think so far?

Also, I haven't heard him speak in awhile; is his English getting any better? I've been thinking that if he wants a longterm career in politics - especially that shot at the White House that everybody seems to think the constitution will be amended so he can get* - it could only help to drop the accent.


*Personally, I don't see this happening in our lifetimes but if so, hey, good for him.

[Ottoerotic]

Well not being a California resident, I don't have any first hand knowledge on the subject, but I asked my aunt and her family this same question a month or so ago and they seemed very pleased. I guess he has actually delivered on some of the things he's promised, and that most people down there are pretty much happy with him.

[OliverTwistofLime]

Arnold had a couple things in his favor when he took over as governor of California. He has plenty of money of his own and didn't have to be influenced by lobbyists.

And the rarest thing of all: He actually wanted to see if he could do good works for the people.

While not perfect, he has been able to cross both sides of the isle in his ideas. We Republicans are happy with him, and my democratic friends reluctantly admit that Arnold is doing a good job.......so far!

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

He's displaying distressing signs of foot-in-mouth disease. I thought the "girlie men" crack that made such a stir a few months back was funny, but dismissing the Democrats as "losers" last Thursday, at the same time the president was at least giving lip service to reaching out to the other side, was a pretty stupid and impolitic move.

[Governor Quinn]

In last Tuesday's elections, there was a mixed result.

On the one hand, the propositions went (for the most part) they way he wanted them to (open primaries being the major exception).

On the other hand, he failed to pick up any legislative seats from the Dems.

[Stuffy]

So far so good, but like Biffy said, his dismissive attitude towards the legislature is eventually going to start costing him politically. You can't work with people you're constantly dismissing as irrelevant. I'm also not quite sure Arnolds positions on the ballot initiatives had much to do with their non passage, but that Californians have finally realized that the ballot initiatives is what got us into the budget squeezes fo the last few years.

[silenus]

I think he is doing a fine job, but he hasn't had to deal with anything hard yet. Wait until the budget battle looms again, or we have another energy crisis. Then ask. :D

His willingness to take things to the people, bypassing the legislature, speaks well of his priorities.

[Bone]

So far so good, but like Biffy said, his dismissive attitude towards the legislature is eventually going to start costing him politically. You can't work with people you're constantly dismissing as irrelevant. I'm also not quite sure Arnolds positions on the ballot initiatives had much to do with their non passage, but that Californians have finally realized that the ballot initiatives is what got us into the budget squeezes fo the last few years.

I believe the recent proposition to weaken the CA 3 strikes law (I think it was prop 64) was leading in the polls about 3 weeks prior to the election by about 25-30 points. Arnold started running ads and promoting his position (NO on that prop), and in that time, about 3 weeks, polls moved those 25-30 points in the other direction and the prop was defeated.

One of the largest moves in that short a time, largley credited to Arnold's opposition and campainging against it. I'd say he has considerable influence in the state and with the electorate.

Living in CA, I'd say I have a generally favorable atittude towards him, maybe 60% or so.

[even sven]

I still can't get over him gutting our university system. California used to have the best public university system in the world, and I have no doubts that is part of our prosperity. Thanks to Arnold, fees have risen dramatically (I believe Jr. College tripled) and it has made college no longer a reality for many people. The colleges cannot afford to hire essential staff and our once-great facilities are already declining.

Besides that, he hasn't really done too much that is that offensive. But his platform amounted to little more than "I'm going to shake things up" and "fix the government" and it's kind of hard to actually do that. He's learning that there are politics for a reason- you can't just walk into the governor's chair and fix things. He's got a legislater and courts and various interests to worry about.

[Asylum]

I still can't get over him gutting our university system. California used to have the best public university system in the world, and I have no doubts that is part of our prosperity. Thanks to Arnold, fees have risen dramatically (I believe Jr. College tripled) and it has made college no longer a reality for many people. The colleges cannot afford to hire essential staff and our once-great facilities are already declining.I googled up some California junior college websites and see that all of them are now charging $26 a credit hour, $312 for full time, with one of them stating that it was an increase from $18 a credit hour ($216 full time) or a 50% increase.

I received an AA from a junior college back in the mid nineties and tuition then was then around $56 a credit hour ($672 full time) and after going to their website I see that it has increased since to $83 a credit hour ($996 full time).

None of the above is adding in other fees of course.

Even though ten years ago I was paying more than double what California junior college goers are expected to pay now I managed to earn my AA without tuition assistance of any kind.

While I might be willing to go with the argument that tuition in Maryland is too high I was surprised to see how low it was in California and shocked by all the complaints I heard when I was out there this summer about a rate increase that amounts to around a hundred dollars a semester. While I think that it is good that California keeps higher education so cheap the rate increase doesn't strike me as unreasonable, especially in light of readily available tuition assistance and tax breaks.

[TonyF]

I googled up some California junior college websites and see that all of them are now charging $26 a credit hour, $312 for full time, with one of them stating that it was an increase from $18 a credit hour ($216 full time) or a 50% increase.
I'm putting more fuel on the fire but it used to be $11 per unit two or so years ago; it may have been as low as $8 per unit back in 1998 when I started, but my memory is quite hazy.

...I was surprised to see how low it was in California and shocked by all the complaints I heard when I was out there this summer about a rate increase that amounts to around a hundred dollars a semester. While I think that it is good that California keeps higher education so cheap the rate increase doesn't strike me as unreasonable, especially in light of readily available tuition assistance and tax breaks.
The key principle here is - well it's probably the wrong term - equilibrium. The jump from $11 to $26 over the course of two years is not palatable because it was such a jump - it messed with the equilibrium we had going on. The intermediary $18/unit cost was only the result of a successful lobby campaign - but ultimately, it only slowed the increase.

Sure it's still quite affordable, but you'd be surprised at how that affected enrollment. I don't have anything but a useless citing of my own experiences, but even the $11-$18 jump knocked down enrollment. At my JC, we also experienced a pretty good cutback on classes and instructors, which meant classes were harder to get in to, which overall made JC less and less a useful option for everyone.

UC tuition has gone up fairly dramatically as well. I don't have the numbers but IIRC it's been increasing at a double-digit rate - in addition to stricter entrance standards being proposed, which are also result of the fiscal problems. IIRC, the governor was also in favor of imposing per-unit-costs should a UC student exceed a certain number of units, though this didn't go through.

So, I'd say that Arnold hasn't been too kind to higher education, or hasn't kept it well-protected in the financial crisis we have been facing.

Aside from education, I haven't felt his influence one bit. He seems to be getting stuff done - which I suppose is a good thing - though I don't care much for his "they're girly men" attitude.

[blowero]

Sorry, but Arnold lost me when he ran on a platform of balancing the budget entirely by "cutting waste" (which everyone knew was impossible), then instead deciding to mortgage the state's future with MORE borrowing. Boo!

I know people seem to love him, but what exactly has he done that has helped California? So they just love him because he's The Terminator?

[Malodorous]

While I think Arnold is a good politician, I think his popularity in Cal is gonna take a hit in the next few years. He was put into office to solve the budget crisis, promising not to raise taxes but instead to "audit the gov't" and eliminate waste. Of course, to waste enough money to have caused Cal.'s budget crisis, state employees would have had to be using goldleaf as toliet paper. So instead he just cut taxes and borrowed the difference, basically what Davis would've done, but more so (though Arnold of course did it with much more charisma).

What's more, Arnold has championed the referendum process, most lately in championing the stem cell amendment (cost, 3 billion). This referendum mandated spending is what has made Cal's fiscal difficulties so deep in the first place, and instead of solving the problem Arnold has encouraged it further.

So unless there is a major economic upturn in the near future to put Cal back in the black, Arnold will have to either raise taxes or run Cal's credit rating into the ground.

[Stuffy]

I believe the recent proposition to weaken the CA 3 strikes law (I think it was prop 64) was leading in the polls about 3 weeks prior to the election by about 25-30 points. Arnold started running ads and promoting his position (NO on that prop), and in that time, about 3 weeks, polls moved those 25-30 points in the other direction and the prop was defeated.

One of the largest moves in that short a time, largley credited to Arnold's opposition and campainging against it. I'd say he has considerable influence in the state and with the electorate.

Living in CA, I'd say I have a generally favorable atittude towards him, maybe 60% or so.


I'll give him partial credit for that, but he didn't do it alone. He campaigned with three former governors, accompanied by an advertising blitz.

[rjung]

MadSam's partisan enthusiasm excluded, I haven't heard of anyonewho thinks Arnie is doing a bang-up job. I think he's been mostly "below the radar" so far -- aside from popping up to lend his name recognition behind a proposition drive, he hasn't really done anything to either piss off or excite a large contingent of voters. His "foot in mouth" episodes are amusing, in a :wally way, but won't him any points except among the right-wingers who already think he walks on water.

As Malodorous said, things will probably get bumpier in the years ahead; then we'll see what kind of a pol he really is.

[emarkp]

He has plenty of money of his own and didn't have to be influenced by lobbyists.That was the premise. Actually he's IIRC done more fund raising than even Grey Davis.

While not perfect, he has been able to cross both sides of the isle in his ideas. We Republicans are happy with him, and my democratic friends reluctantly admit that Arnold is doing a good job.......so far!That's been his only success so far. People feel like there is more of a bipartisan atmosphere in Sacramento. Whee.

I believe the recent proposition to weaken the CA 3 strikes law (I think it was prop 64) was leading in the polls about 3 weeks prior to the election by about 25-30 points. Arnold started running ads and promoting his position (NO on that prop), and in that time, about 3 weeks, polls moved those 25-30 points in the other direction and the prop was defeated.Actually, it was Prop 66. And it was opposed by every living former CA governor as well. When Schwarzenegger, Pete Wilson, Deukmejian, and Jerry Brown all agree on something, it's worth listening to.

I'm disappointed that Schwarzenegger backed Prop 71, a bond issue (of $3Billion) to fund embryonic stem cell research. It was written by Wall Street lenders and biotech industry people to give a bunch of money to them without supervision and without open records. Yeah, that's a great idea for a state swamped in debt. I think Schwarzenegger saw that it was going to pass and joined the winning side. And I never EVER want to hear anyone in CA whine about "fiscal responsibility" after this behemoth got passed.

I'm also upset at how the Gov. is dealing with the Indian gaming issue. If they're a separate nation, then what leverage does the state have with them? How can we tax the revenue of another nation? If they're not a separate nation, how are they allowed to have gambling inside CA borders?

Yuck. I voted McClintock.

[Icarus]

I think the greatest measure is his re-electability, and for now he's a pretty strong candidate. Of course, he's got charisma to burn, but to the electorate in CA he's successful because of his upbeat can-do attitude. Similar to Reagan he presents a sunny face. And his political strategy of taking his issues to the people is very effective at knee-capping his opponents and the state legislature. While thoughtful people will surely find issues to focus on with the details, the general electorate is kinda enamored of him. Especially after {shudder} Gray Davis {shudder}.

[Stuffy]

I'm also upset at how the Gov. is dealing with the Indian gaming issue. If they're a separate nation, then what leverage does the state have with them? How can we tax the revenue of another nation? If they're not a separate nation, how are they allowed to have gambling inside CA borders?

Yuck. I voted McClintock.

You know I've been wrestling with this issue since the whole "let's tax the indians" thing came up. I held a position similar to yours until I thought about a few things. Who pays for the water, electricity and road infrastructure? ( I think the Feds cover schools) If it's California, then the State in fact does have some what of a legimate claim in holding it's hand out. Whether that is worth what the state is claiming is debateable. But claims they're a separate nation is also debateble when you put it in that perspective.

Disclaimer: I'll totally back off this position if someone can show me that the Tribes or the Feds are paying for these things.

[blowero]

I think the greatest measure is his re-electability, and for now he's a pretty strong candidate. Of course, he's got charisma to burn, but to the electorate in CA he's successful because of his upbeat can-do attitude. Similar to Reagan he presents a sunny face. And his political strategy of taking his issues to the people is very effective at knee-capping his opponents and the state legislature. While thoughtful people will surely find issues to focus on with the details, the general electorate is kinda enamored of him. Especially after {shudder} Gray Davis {shudder}.
In other words - politics as a popularity contest. {double shudder}

[Asylum]

TonyF, the criticism was that Schwarzenegger had "gutted" the university system in Cali and the specific example given was tuition hikes for junior college. I can see where the rate increases could be a deterrent for those used to the rates California had but it looks like to me that junior college tuition is still highly affordable to anyone and that in light of California's budget woes asking junior college students to increase their dollar contribution to their education is not unreasonable. After the sticker shock wears off I imagine that enrollment rates will rise to their earlier levels (assuming they have declined).

[blowero]

Except that Arnold specifically promised not to touch education.

[Asylum]

Except that Arnold specifically promised not to touch education.But the OP is about how Arnold is doing as Governer. If not keeping campaign promises automatically drops a politician into the poor job category then why have politicians? Wait...

[Apos]

He's my kind of Republican: or at least he thinks he is (dunno whether he really understands what his fiscal policy is really doing, and that borrowing is still basically like raising taxes: i.e. it's not any kind of success in shrinking government). But I can't stand his public personna: he's like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch that never ends. Can he please hire a speechwriter who doesn't think it the height of hilarity to repeat movie quips over and over? He's not a dumb guy by any means, but his speeches do not reveal any sort of depth: they reveal someone with the attitude of the "makin copies!" guy from... Saturday Night Live. Ok. It was funny the FIRST time. But after the 87th... it begins to wear...

[kimera]

I still can't get over him gutting our university system. California used to have the best public university system in the world, and I have no doubts that is part of our prosperity. Thanks to Arnold, fees have risen dramatically (I believe Jr. College tripled) and it has made college no longer a reality for many people. The colleges cannot afford to hire essential staff and our once-great facilities are already declining.

This is the only thing I am upset about, however, I am so upset about it that I would not vote for him again unless he fixes things.

Community Colleges here were $11/unit but have now risen to $26/hr, in less than two years. The cost of living here is already much too high so it makes going to college for those of us with very low incomes difficult. I realize that rates need to be raised, but I think it should have been done more slowly.

The UCs went from (I believe) about $5k and either are at or will be at $7k. (Unfortunately, none of my UC-going friends are on at the moment)

Another negative part of raising the rates was cutting back on scholarships. My ex-boyfriend who goes to a major UC system and is from the ghetto of LA had his scholarships cut AND the school rates rise at the same time. He almost had to drop out, but his parents valued his education so much they are now paying out of their retirement money. Several others of my friends had their funding cut and almost had to drop out.

I believe education is the most important thing and that it should be cut absolutely last.

[Malodorous]

So did raising the cost of education help? The bond he passed covered CA deficit for just this year, right? So how much did Arnold's cutting gov't expenditures do to balance the budget. Will CA be in the same place next year as it was last, or did the rising economy and the cutting of expenditures do enought to cover all the bills?

[blowero]

But the OP is about how Arnold is doing as Governer. If not keeping campaign promises automatically drops a politician into the poor job category then why have politicians? Wait...
I hope you're kidding, and that you're not really suggesting that breaking campaign promises shouldn't be a valid reason for criticism.

[even sven]

It's not just the rise in rates.

I don't think a non-Californian can understand the pride we take in our college system. It used to be that even a fast-food worker with three kids could still afford to get ahead in life at a junior college. My mother went to college while raising me as a single mom. When my uncle had to shut down his failing business, he started school mid-life to be a teacher. Immigrants could get degrees even if their high schools let them down and even the kid whose mom put all their money into drugs could afford school even without family support.

We used to have a system where everyone had a place. College was possible for everyone and for once all it took really was hard work and dedication. And often these were first-class facilities. Scholarships were abundant.

And this is a big part of California's prosperity. What do you think fueled the dot-com boom? Why do you think we have such a big economy in things like sciences and biotech? Do you know what it's like to know that every kid in even the poorest school district has a place in higher education? Our colleges were our promise to the future.

And in one fell swoop, one man is dismantling that.

Sure, the fee hikes don't sound that bad. But they do outprice many people, and serve to make getting an education even harder for poor and working people who want to improve their lives. The hikes to State University and University of California students was even worse- I think UCs went up $2000- or $8000 for the whole four years. Thats an undoable sum for the kid that worked his butt off to get in to Berkeley to suddenly have to cough up. Education is sliding back into the realm of the elite.

College budgets have been cut to the bone. They can't hire replacments for their workers that retire or move on. They can't afford essential staff. The staff they can hire is on part-time or seasonal duty. They can't maintain their facilities. Programs are closing left and right. Librairies cut hours. Councilers close shop. Labs can no longer afford the latest equiptment. We're watching our first-class facilities become little better than our beleagured public high schools.

Scholarships are cut. Less kids from the ghetto, less immigrants, less single-mothers and less of those for whom college is a dream they worked hard for are able to go to school. Many kids have to drop out mid-education because they can't afford the sudden new costs. More dreams die. More hard work goes unrewarded.

For the first time in history, California's colleges broke the promise that was made a hundred years ago when they were founded. They could not educate all the student who qualified. For once there was not a place in a University of California campus for all UC qualified people and not a place in a State University for every State University student. Our kids grew up with this promise, and they found out all of a sudden that it wasn't true. Bright kids who worked hard and thought they had a place got mailboxes full of rejection letters last year. This generation of high school students was shocked to find that the spots they were promised just arn't there. They are filling up the Junior Colleges- stunned that what would have gotten them a spot in a UC two years ago doesn't even get them into a CSU. Because of enrollment cutbacks, there just isn't room for them anymore.

Our colleges worked. They were part of the greatest public education system in America.

California is a great state- a huge economy and a good place to live. Our college system was our crowning jewel. But once it is destroyed, it's going to be hard to get back. I understand we are going through some financial difficulties, and we need to tighten the belt. Schwarzenegger told us he could do that without taking away from our colleges. But he lied to us. When the going got tough, he jumped straight to our colleges hoping that nobody would notice (after all, not that many people are in college at any time and the cuts wouldn't affect most his voter base directly). Instead of being untouched, our colleges were the hardest hit. We've already let down one generation of kids and it's going to be tough to undo the damage for future generations.

[even sven]

Maybe I should point our why I feel so strongly about this.

I graduated from college two years ago. If I had graduated one year later, I probably would not have been able to get my degree because of Schwarzenegger's policies. My family and I were crying with joy when we found out that the fees would barely miss me.

[Asylum]

I hope you're kidding, and that you're not really suggesting that breaking campaign promises shouldn't be a valid reason for criticism.Forget I said anything. Yes, an elected official breaking a campaign promise is a valid reason for criticism. For some reason I read your comment to mean that Arnie's doing a poor job just because he broke a campaign promise. I blame lack of sleep for reading too much into your comment. Sorry for the confusion.

Also, after reading this thread and doing some reading elsewhere online I agree that Schwarzenegger's handling of California higher education has been poor overall. I still think the whole junior college tuition thing is blown out of proportion, but that's just a nitpick.

[TonyF]

Also, after reading this thread and doing some reading elsewhere online I agree that Schwarzenegger's handling of California higher education has been poor overall. I still think the whole junior college tuition thing is blown out of proportion, but that's just a nitpick.
I'll agree with that to an extent. I was amazed to hear that junior college could cost hundreds per credit out of state, so I'll be the first to say that we're pretty spoiled around here! :)

Nonetheless, we were used to it... changing something we were banking on so quickly is what I fault him for, even though it amounted to a relatively small change.

I'll tell you a similar story. The transit system around here went through a lot of changes over the last few years. With little warning, the transfers went from printed paper to cards with a magnetic stripe. While they used to last 2.5-3 hours and for unlimited rides, they were set to a definite 2 hours, then it was 1.5 hours, then, they made it so the transfer could only be used once before it expired.

This really threw people off. First, people had to get used to the new electronic system; second, they realized probably they couldn't catch the bus, catch a movie or go shopping, and then head home on a transfer... then they realized that if you had to make more than one connection, you'd be paying at least twice. None of the transitions went particularly well for the first month, IMO.

The issue here wasn't so much the money, though a bus rider with the cash would be just fine. The issue was that a system we'd relied on for a number of years changed suddenly.

I guess we should toughen up. It's just nice to have that constancy. :)

A quick rant:
Both the transit system changes and the cc cost/unit hike occured while either system was upgrading while deteriorating. Now I don't mind paying $26 a unit, or $1.50 a bus ride, but when a) they're buying a new bus fleet while reducing service or b) building new state-of-the-art facilities while firing instructors and cutting classes, I can't help but be a bit bitter at the new costs I have to bear.