Schwarzenegger For President!*
(*Of the cigar club.) That, it seems, is about the only office he's qualified for. I voted for him, lapping up his message of fiscal conservatism. Matt Welch, in reason, shows how I -- and we all -- have been had by the Milton Freedman-quoting spendthrift:
Schwarzenegger blew into office decrying California's bloated budget, vowing to "blow up the boxes" of Sacramento's bureaucracy, and promising to never again let the Golden State go near Gray Davis' record-setting $38 billion deficit. Five years into the Schwarzenegger era, the budget has ballooned from $100 billion to $145 billion, and the state's legislative analyst announced in November that California was facing a deficit of $28 billion. Bond market ratings assess the state as a bigger lending risk than Slovakia. And those bureaucratic boxes have remained largely intact.How does Schwarzenegger defend this sorry record? In part, by blaming Republicans. "I think the important thing for the Republican Party is now to also look at other issues that are very important for this country and not to get stuck in ideology," he said on CNN five days after the election. "Let's go and talk about health care reform. Let's go and...fund programs if they're necessary programs and not get stuck just on the fiscal responsibility."
What are some of these "necessary programs"? How about a $9.9 billion bond for a long-dreamed-of high-speed rail project between Los Angeles and San Francisco that is expected to cost at least $45 billion, which even supporters such as the Los Angeles Times editorial board think will require "many billions more" in subsidies? Then there's the $3 billion bond from 2004 to put California bureaucrats in the stem cell research business, mostly as a poke in the eye of George W. Bush.
How to pay for all this during what the governor has declared a "financial emergency"? Partly by rattling the tin cup outside the White House. Schwarzenegger was one of the first governors to hit up Washington for some of that fat bailout money gushing from the Oval Office.
But the spending splurge also requires new taxes, according to the governor: a "temporary" 1.5-percentage-point increase in the 7.25 percent sales tax, an increase in the number of services covered by the sales tax, higher taxes for alcohol and oil production, and so on. Many analysts believe that the governor who quickly fulfilled his recall-campaign promise to cut the state's vehicle license fees will soon resort to restoring those charges to at least Gray Davis levels.
Even on social issues, where Schwarzenegger's more libertarian approach was supposed to avoid the Republican trap of freedom constricting politics, the governor instead has embraced the freedom-constricting policies of the left. To cite one particularly ironic example, in 2004 he signed a law requiring every California employer with more than 50 workers to force upon its managers state-approved sexual harassment training.
Republicans in 2009 are in a mess of their own making. If they interpret the Democrats' sweeping victory as a clarion call to foray further into religiously inspired, Terry Schiavo-style politics that uses government as a lever to manipulate and control other people's lives, then they will deserve their exile from power.
But it will take more than just eschewing cultural conservatism and adopting the Democrats' interventionist economic approach to refresh the Republican brand. There is room right now for an opposition party that emphasizes what the governing party does not: freedom, as both the ultimate goal and the means to achieve it.
Back when he was taping testimonials for Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, Arnold Schwarzenegger looked like the kind of person who would indeed choose freedom if given a chance to govern. Instead, he punted on the radical, government-reducing reforms offered to him by his own box-exploding California Performance Review and learned to love--or at least perpetuate--the very bureaucracy he was elected to confront. That's not a blueprint for 21st-century Republicanism. It's just George W. Bush's big-government conservatism with a Hollywood face.
Anybody seen any actual fiscal conservatives out there? Jeff Flake spoke at reason's 40th. He sounds pretty good. Other than that...?
Sincere question for all of you who live in California: If you were governor for 4 years and were given the special right to pass whatever bills you want, what steps would you take to get California out of debt?
Robert W. at January 6, 2009 12:34 AM
Californians have their heads up their asses. The state is out of money and people here voted in countless idiotic and costly measures. I voted only for redistricting and veteran's housing. The majority of the electorate behaved like 14-year-olds with a trust fund and a big credit line, only they actually have neither.
P.S. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't exactly hurt the economy.
Amy Alkon at January 6, 2009 12:42 AM
In a chose between Flake and Shadegg dems and independants would vote for Flake. Too many shady dealings surrounding Shadegg.
I think Flake would make a far better govener for Az than Jan Brewer, that that woman still has a job is a testement to the stupididty of the average arizonian
lujlp at January 6, 2009 7:13 AM
Arnold is in charge of the 6th largest economy in the world. It is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Yet a few weeks ago, Scott Pelley on 60 minutes spent a whole segment gushing about how great Arnold was for being "green". It was a wonder he could even speak what with Arnold's Dick in his mouth. California will be bankrupt but that's OK. Arnolds Hummer runs on vegetable oil.
Sean at January 6, 2009 8:21 AM
"The majority of the electorate behaved like 14-year-olds with a trust fund and a big credit line, only they actually have neither."
It's not just California - it's everywhere. Look around at other people. For every smart person who lives within his means, pays his bills on time, limits his family size to what he can afford, and has some basic semblance of literacy when it comes to current events, there are ten mouth-breathing dullards with none of the above. I can't remember what astonishingly small percentage of the population has even read a book since high school. It's a complete disgrace.
But we do have government by the people, and this is what the people want. What's the average household credit card debt? It's some ungodly amount, tens of thousands of dollars. But it should give you some idea of the lack of financial sense people have when it comes to running their personal lives. They just want something, and as long as the credit is available, they have no understanding of (or interest in) whether they can actually afford it - let alone the ambition to get themselves in that position before buying. They just stick it on the card. The bill comes every month and they pay the minimum. When that card gets full, they get another card. Should it really surprise us that most people don't view the big picture any differently than they do the small, close-up version?
Pirate Jo at January 6, 2009 8:51 AM
Here's a "for instance" -
A couple of years ago, I was sitting and listening to a group of people who were talking about politics, and the subject of Social Security came up. One gal, who I'm thinking is around 50 years of age, was completely surprised to discover that her SSI contributions are not put in an account in her name, like her 401K. Because after all, she gets that statement every year that tells what her benefits will be. She had absolutely no idea whatsoever that current contributions are being paid to current retirees, and that past beneficiaries (most of whom are dead now) received many times more than the amount they paid in. She's actually counting on it being there when she's 65.
Another guy in the group said SSI is one of the best government programs that has ever existed. He held it up as "proof" that the limited-government, libertarian types are "wrong." I asked him why he felt that way, and he said because "it has kept so many old people out of poverty."
What do you do when confronted with such sheer, mindnumbing stupidity?
The schools would be a good place to start, I guess, but the minute you suggest that anyone other than the government should be running them, people's heads start to spin around and they call you a eugenicist. Don't you want all children to learn how to read?
Pirate Jo at January 6, 2009 9:09 AM
Yes. Which is why I don't want them in government schools.
brian at January 6, 2009 9:42 AM
Right on, brian
lujlp at January 6, 2009 10:20 AM
Jo, your story about the woman and SSI is mind-boggling. I remember hearing, at least 10 years ago, that SSI would be broke by 2030. At the time, I thought "it figures" as if I worked until 65, that would be the EXACT year I'd get it paid out. Since then, it's been obvious to me that number is way off. I'm not counting on getting anything from SSI, and now my 401k just tanked...
Monica at January 6, 2009 10:25 AM
That comment about SSI keeping people out of poverty is pretty funny. Take a look at the average monthly benefit and ask yourself if you could live on that.
As for all the dire predictions of SSI not being around in the future, that's nonsense. Old people vote. There are more + more old people every year. Any politician who doesn't "save" SSI will be unemployed very quickly. Who knows how they'll do it(Bailout?) but they'll do it. It's the young people who will pay through the nose.
Sean at January 6, 2009 10:48 AM
"Take a look at the average monthly benefit and ask yourself if you could live on that."
Well, yes I could, actually. I live in a small city in the midwest, though - it doesn't cost much to live here.
I think SSI probably has kept a handful of old people out of poverty. But age is the biggest correlator of wealth in the USA, so in general (even if not always in specific) old people here are wealthy. I think the comment about SSI keeping them out of poverty is funny, because most of them have never been anywhere close to poverty to begin with.
"It's the young people who will pay through the nose."
It might be part of the reason why age is the biggest correlator of wealth in the first place.
Pirate Jo at January 6, 2009 11:16 AM
Wow, very chilling stories about the future. And most likely realistic too. Scary.
For any who have not yet read the infamous Knox Letter, I've posted it here.
Robert W. at January 6, 2009 2:02 PM
"The majority of the electorate behaved like 14-year-olds with a trust fund and a big credit line, only they actually have neither."
It's not just California - it's everywhere.
I think this nails it. I generally think of politicians as scumbags, but there's no use complaining about them when they are essentially doing what their voters want.
My reading of the trends is that the US is well on its way to becoming a social democracy like most western European countries. Hopefully I will still be able to make enough money to live a good life under that kind of system. If I have kids, I hope they have the opportunity for something better, either here (not likely) or somewhere else.
Shawn at January 6, 2009 5:02 PM
The problem is, the government (and people) think "Oh, but X IS a good idea". And it might be. It might be nice for planetariums to have projectors, and to have a high speed rail between cities. The problem is, government has no business paying for these good ideas. If enough people want the projector, they will pay for it. Ditto the rail. Otherwise, it's really not needed, is it?
momof3 at January 6, 2009 5:21 PM
"The problem is, government has no business paying for these good ideas."
If we need the government to pay for them, maybe they're not such good ideas.
Pirate Jo at January 6, 2009 6:00 PM
Should have clarified: If enough people want the projector, the people will pay for it.
momof3 at January 7, 2009 10:34 AM
Leave a comment