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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.
His willingness to take things to the people, bypassing the legislature, speaks well of his priorities.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
That was the premise. Actually he’s IIRC done more fund raising than even Grey Davis.
That’s been his only success so far. People feel like there is more of a bipartisan atmosphere in Sacramento. Whee.
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?
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}.
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.
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).
