This is an excellent point. It’s amazing how often the executive branch is blamed for things that, either partly or completely, are in the province of the legislature.
Of course, if Davis championed the increase, pushed to have it passed, traded favors to get votes, etc, then he does deserve a lion’s share of the blame, but even in that (unproven, as yet) case, the California legislators voted for it, dammit. They are not without responsibility.
Actually, there wasn’t. The opinion of the Davis Administration and the Democratic Caucus of the Legislature has been that the Governor has the authority to re-instate the Vehicle License Fee to its pre-1999 levels without further legislative action. The Democratic position is that their caucus would not have voted for AB 2797 (Cardoza) (1998), which cut the VLF significantly, without an understanding that certain threshholds in the state fiscal situation would result in the VLF automatically reverting to higher rates.
Thus, the Davis Administration has been portraying the re-instatement of the higher VLF as an entirely administrative issue. This interpretation is being seriously challenged in court, however, and it certainly isn’t very popular with the voters.
The Democratic Caucus is actually now trying to replace the higher VLF with increased taxes on high incomes and cigarettes, which seem to be much more acceptable to Californians.
I just wanted to add that I found the language in the California Revenue and Taxation Code that’s in question. It’s Section 10754(a)(3)©:
The Democratic position is that this is meant to be an automatic measure undertaken by the executive branch. Those challenging the measure in court have taken the position that the involvement of the Legislature would still be required.
Lexis/Nexis? Is that some secret service known only to members of the “vast right-wing conspiracy?” Heh.
Arnold becoming governor is analogous to Sony giving me 30 million to make a film because I make home videos with iMovie.
The endless vanity of actors, not to mention bodybuilders, is really quite tiresome.
No, it’s a legal document search tool available for a HEFTY subscription on a monthly basis. We pay big$$ to use it.
Arnold’s an idiot, he talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, all the while not saying a FUCKING THING. Has he done or said anything at all in this recall campaign? All I’ve seen him do thus far is insult the legislature, insult the governor and talk about a “unified california”, and increasing money for schools(decidedly un-Republican!).
I still don’t know what his platform, and between his hair-brained cabinet and ideas, and Cruz Bustamante’s tax plan I’m proud to be one of the few Californians who has seen this recall for what it is-a total joke(and a mighty expensive one!)
Sam
Dude, i think wakimika’s question might have been ironic, rather than serious. Although i could be wrong.
Huh. That uncited assertion would seem to fly in the face of this article which indicates that as of January of this year Gray Davis opposed increasing VLFs and this one which states he vetoed the increase when it was presented to him. Admittedly something may have happened between then and the order from the finance director’s being issued but I don’t see anything indicating that this was done without legislative approval (even if the legislative approval came as part of an earlier enactment by an earlier legislature; the current legislature is free to rescind the authority if it chooses).
I apologize for not providing a cite. If you’ll read your second cite a bit more closely, however, I believe it does indicate that the Davis Administration raised the VLF of its own accord:
I should note that Davis is very much trying to distance himself from the decision to raise the VLF, leaving the details to Mr. Peace and the Department of Finance (Sacramento Bee). Davis’ argument, and the argument of the Legislature’s Democratic caucuses, is that the reinstatement of the VLF is entirely automatic, and that the executive branch is morally bound to enact regardless of its feelings on the matter. However, many Californians either disagree with this interpretation or are unaware of it, so more recently Davis and the Assembly Democratic Caucus have thrown their support behind an alternative measure that would again roll back the VLF in exchange for increased income and cigarette taxes.
It is true that Davis vetoed an earlier Assembly proposal that would have included express permission for his finance director to triple the VLF. However, he did so in the early stages of the budget crisis in hopes of encouraging the Legislature’s Republicans to throw their necessary support behind an eventual budget (Sacramento Bee). The move was also reflective of Davis’ belief that he needs no special permission from the Legislature to reinstate the VLF. Indeed, it is important to keep in mind that the measure in question, ABX1 4 (Wesson), was intended only to clarify that existing law already grants the Governor and his administration to reinstate pre-1998 VLF levels, and not to reinstate such levels outright.
I also found an old Los Angeles Times article that discusses the Davis’ veto rather well. Regrettably, it’s only accessible via Google’s cache, but here’s the URL if you like:
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-davis05feb05,0,701300.story%3Fcoll%3Dla-headlines-california+february+5+davis+vehicle+license+fee&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:53Xa8FNi4RIJ:www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-davis05feb05,0,701300.story%3Fcoll%3Dla-headlines-california+february+5+davis+vehicle+license+fee&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
What exactly is this vehicle registration fee thing? Is it for the same little license plate sticker that I pay $20 every three years for in Louisiana or is it something entirely different?
Right now, I’d say the main thing to ridicule Ah-nold for is that with the election what, five? six? weeks away, he has essentially no platform, has not explained what he would do differently than Gray Davis to close California’s budget gap.
That he might have referred to what Nixon and Humphrey were doing in 1968 as ‘debating’ is about as much of a non-issue as I can think of, somewhere below a jaywalking ticket.
Wow, I am shocked, shocked, that BogieBlanca didn’t come back here to defend his P or, in the alternative, to apoligize for the mistake or the lie.
That sure is a puzzler.
Ain’t it just?
In all the forums in all the message boards in all the world, he had to driveby ours.
That’s a little uncharitable. He does have a few other dialogue options.
Personally I’m waiting for the press conference when he starts answering every question with “Fuck you, asshole.”
The second cite says he vetoed the increase? I got this quote from that article:
Did you mean to link to different article?
There was no veto. It was Davis’ decision.
From the second cite, paragraph 16:
A little, yes. I was relaying something I recently heard from a talk radio host in St. Louis. It seems he interviewed Ah-nold a while back and used Junior as a topic. I think the question was, “If it was possible for men to become pregnant, whose baby would you like to have?” He said Ah-nold’s reaction was inline with Hymie (from “Get Smart”) having a short circuit and hasn’t been able to interview Ah-nold since then.