Schwarzenegger | HealthyCal
 

Posts Tagged Schwarzenegger

  

Schwarzenegger’s legacy will likely improve with time

By Daniel Weintraub

As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prepares to end his second and final term as California’s chief executive Monday, his public approval ratings are at an all-time low, the media are beating him up for his record in office, and few if any of his fellow politicians are rising to his defense.

Schwarzenegger deserves much of the flogging that he’s been absorbing in his final days on the job. But the real story of his seven years as governor is more complex than it appears at first glance. And historians may view his tenure in a better light than those who are judging him based only on the condition of the state and its economy on the day he leaves office.

Schwarzenegger certainly can’t duck responsibility for leaving his successor a budget shortfall bigger than the one he inherited seven years ago. Back then, the Hollywood actor and novice politician belittled Sacramento’s lawmakers as incompetent boobs who couldn’t find a way to balance spending and revenues. But he discovered in office that the job was far more difficult than he had imagined.

Schwarzenegger also gets low marks for wasting an historic mandate that might have let him retool California’s government for the 21st Century.

He could have led a revolution embracing technology to boost productivity and save money – as the private sector has done — while creating a consumer-friendly culture within the government bureaucracy. But instead of giving California a government as good as the high-tech, Web 2.0 industries driving the latest growth in the Silicon Valley, Schwarzenegger promised to “blow up the boxes” on the organization chart, then commissioned a weighty study with hundreds of recommendations that mostly died on arrival in the Legislature. Then he lost interest in the project.

That’s the true tragedy of Schwarzenegger’s time as governor. Although he came into office as an outsider with no experience in elective office, his biggest fault was that he was too tame, too conventional, and too eager to fit in with the governing culture he was elected to upend. Before even taking office, Schwarzenegger attended a welcoming party in Sacramento where he was heard telling lobbyists not to believe all those nasty things he had said about their profession and its special interest patrons during the campaign. His transition team was packed with longtime Capitol insiders, all but ensuring that he would mostly play it safe as governor, to his detriment and the state’s.

But that’s only part of the story. Schwarzenegger, on balance, was probably a better governor than he has been given credit for. And he may look even better a few years from now.

He deserves a lot of credit for tackling big issues that many thought were insoluble, fighting doggedly for goals that others thought were out of reach, and for using executive power and his largely independent status to work, when he could, with members of both parties in the Legislature. For a governor who spent seven years in office without the benefit of a consistent set of allies in either party in the Legislature, he actually accomplished quite a bit.

He was sometimes moderate, trying to split the difference among the partisans on the far left and far right who dominate California’s Capitol. At other times he sided with the Democrats, most famously on a new law to fight global warming, or with the Republicans, on behalf of business interests and employers.

If you judge Schwarzenegger not on how well he achieved your goals, but on how he did reaching his own policy ambitions, he tends to score a lot higher. And several of his most important accomplishments might take years to bear fruit — an unusual kind of legacy in this era of instant gratification and term-limited, short-attention-span lawmaking.

His biggest failure, clearly, was on the budget. He inherited a mess but made it worse by cutting the state’s car tax, although in his defense, this was the signature issue of his first campaign and had he abandoned it, he also would have abandoned all of his credibility as a leader.

His next blunder was to embrace a $15 billion bond to pay off the state’s deficit with borrowed money. This idea might have worked had it been linked to an enforceable spending limit, even a temporary one, that slowed the growth in spending while economic growth allowed revenues to recover. But Schwarzenegger settled for a mostly phony “balanced budget amendment” and a rainy day fund that was riddled with loopholes. He took the two to the voters in an impressive campaign that was a short-term success. But he never lived down his dramatic vow to “cut up” the state’s credit cards, a promise he clearly could not, and did not, keep.

Even so, he almost got the budget balanced before the bottom dropped out of state revenues amid the financial panic of 2008 and the international economic recession that proved to be the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Tax revenues in the state’s general fund have dropped by $8 billion during the past three years, easily the largest and longest decline in tax receipts in the past 50 years, if not in the history of the state. Even California had entered that economic decline in good shape, the state’s budget still would have been plunged back into the red. Unfortunately, it was already there when the recession began.

In the face of that crisis, Schwarzenegger managed to cobble together bipartisan support for the earliest budget in recent memory, a February 2009 agreement that included historic spending cuts, temporary tax increases and budget reform. But the full plan required voter approval to take effect, and the voters rejected the final two years of the temporary taxes, dooming the reforms, which were linked to the higher revenues. Schwarzenegger did a good job designing that package but a terrible job communicating its worth and importance to a cynical public, and voters never understood that their involvement was required for any policy changes big enough to transform the state’s budget reality.

But Schwarzenegger kept pushing. In October, 2010, in his final budget, he won approval from the Legislature for yet another reform plan — a rainy day fund that would have teeth and could eventually build a reserve of 10 percent of the state’s general fund. The new plan also requires the Legislature to set aside unexpected spikes in revenue of the kind for which California has become famous.

In the same budget deal, Schwarzenegger persuaded the Democrats to agree to pension reform that will roll back richer benefits enacted in 1999, at the height of the dot-com boom. The rollback will save the state billions of dollars over the next several decades.

Along the way, he also got Democrats to repeal automatic cost-of-living increases that were built into many government grants. Even if you think the recipients need those increases to keep pace with rising prices, it makes sense for legislators to make that decision annually based on all of the state’s priorities rather than have the increases take effect automatically, adding to the government’s projected deficit.

Schwarzenegger was also a big supporter of new constitutional rules that will keep state lawmakers from shifting local tax revenue among the cities, counties and schools, and he supported other new laws to ensure that money set aside for transportation projects is not used for other purposes. These laws make it harder for the Legislature to balance the budget, but they are popular with voters who want to know where their tax dollars are going and prefer local control over decision-making in the Capitol.

Beyond the budget, Schwarzenegger will be remembered most for his advocacy of global warming legislation that requires the state to reduce its emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. Although Democrats and environmentalists complain that Schwarzenegger was a late-comer to this cause and then stole the credit for its passage, he actually used an executive order to put the state on course to reduce its emissions, brought the law international attention and then defended it fiercely in the face of a ballot initiative that sought to suspend its implementation. No one knows if the law, known as AB 32, will trigger a boom in green-energy jobs here or become another burden on the state’s fragile economy, but Schwarzenegger believed in the idea, made it happen and has implemented it faithfully.

But that was only of the fronts on which he was active and successful. Some of the others:

–Early in his term he used the threat of a ballot initiative to win changes in the state’s system that compensates workers injured on the job. California had some of the lowest benefits but the highest costs to business, and the bipartisan plan trimmed costs so much that many Democrats later regretted voting for it, trying to repeal a law they had once embraced.

–Schwarzenegger’s leadership prompted the Legislature to pass $37 billion in bond measures on the 2006 ballot, which the voters approved. Although the annual debt service on the bonds is expensive, they are paying for much needed improvements to roads, schools and other public works. Repairs to the weak levee system in the Sacramento River delta might prevent a Katrina-type flood in Northern California, a disaster averted that no politician, including Schwarzenegger, will ever get credit for.

–Schwarzenegger was a champion of political reform, and he helped pave the way for two big changes that should alter California politics over the next decade. One was the creation of an independent commission to draw new political boundaries after the census, taking that job out of the hands of incumbent legislators, who had an interest in skewing the lines to benefit themselves and their allies. The other reform was the open primary, which will allow California voters to choose among all candidates in the first round of the election, regardless of party, with the top two finishers moving on to the finals. The two changes combined might result in the addition of more moderates to the Legislature, giving future centrist governors a few more potential allies to work with.

–Although he never delivered on a promise of major education reforms, Schwarzenegger did accomplish two important goals he expressed during his first campaign for office. First, he loosened the strings on state money going to the schools, giving local districts more authority over how they spend their budgets. Second, he was a strong defender of parental choice, supporting independent charter schools and, in a move that got national attention, giving parents the right to convert low-performing schools into charter schools free of central district control.

–After years of badgering, he cajoled the Legislature into supporting a compromise that could improve the state’s water supply while also protecting the environment, especially the sensitive wetlands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. If it wins voter approval in 2012, the plan will produce the most significant change in the state’s water system since the construction of the state water project in the 1960s.

A common thread runs through most of these accomplishments: they favor the long term over short-run thinking and results. At some point during his tenure, Schwarzenegger realized that the annual budget fights with the Legislature, while perhaps necessary, were mostly futile. About the best a governor and lawmakers could do under the present circumstances is to tread water and try to avoid making things worse. The annual fights were mostly along the margins, how to spend, or cut, the last dollars in the treasury.

Although Schwarzenegger, by cutting the car tax and giving business billions in unnecessary tax breaks, definitely worsened the deficit, he also used the shortfalls to win important long-term reforms that should help keep future budgets balanced once the red ink finally stops flowing.

And on other issues, from flood control to water policy, political reform to prisons, Schwarzenegger overcame partisan polarization to fashion policies that will give him a lasting effect on the state long after he leaves the Capitol and returns to Hollywood and the international stage.

 

Judge stops child care cuts, for now

By Daniel Weintraub

An Alameda County superior court judge gave a short reprieve Friday to thousands of California families on the verge of losing state-subsidized child care.

But the judge — Wynne Carvill — made it clear in the order that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto of all funding for the program means that the benefits will eventually disappear unless the veto is reversed by the Legislature or new Gov. Jerry Brown. Failing that, only the timing of the end of the program, and the notice given to recipients, are at issue, the judge said.

The benefits — known in state jargon as “Stage 3 child care” — go to low-income working families who need child care assistance to allow the parents to work. The parents who take advantage of the program have transitioned from welfare to stable employment but still cannot afford child care. More than 50,000 children are cared for through the program.

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had a reasonable chance of winning their suit and that they would suffer irreparable harm if the child care benefits are eliminated. He set another hearing for Nov. 23 to hear the merits of the case.

The plaintiffs argued that the state Department of Education erred in telling recipients they could not appeal the decision to end their benefits, and in not telling them that they might be eligible for other child care programs.

Judge Carvill said the state laws and regulations calling for hearings when recipients lose their benefits were aimed at individual cases, not a situation where all the funding for the program was eliminated. But he did indicate that he thought the state constitution’s due process provisions might require the state to do more to help recipients find alternatives to the child care they will be losing.

Democratic lawmakers and state schools Supt. Jack O’Connell said they hoped to work with Gov.-elect Jerry Brown to restore the funding Schwarzenegger cut.

“These families have struggled over years to obtain employment that would allow them to leave the welfare system, and they have successfully continued to work and be self-sufficient and responsible for their families,” O’Connell said. “The Governor’s veto will result in these families making very difficult decisions about either continuing their employment or providing a safe environment for their children.”

To download the judge’s order, click here.

 

Schwarzenegger condemned for cutting nearly $1 billion from budget

By Daniel Weintraub

Democratic lawmakers and advocates for the poor harshly criticized Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over the weekend after he vetoed nearly $1 billion from the state budget, much of it from programs intended to aid low-income families.

Schwarzenegger sliced $962 million from the spending plan sent to him by the Legislature 100 days after the start of the fiscal year July 1.

In most cases, the governor explained his line-item vetoes with boilerplate language saying the cuts were necessary to “help bring ongoing expenditures in line with existing resources and to build a prudent reserve.” In some cases Schwarzenegger pointed out that alternative funding might be available to blunt the effect of his reductions, or suggested that California will seek federal money to offset the loss of state dollars.

But those explanations did not satisfy the governor’s many critics, some of whom felt betrayed by his actions.

Sarah Jimenez, communications director for the County Welfare Directors Association, released a statement from the group calling Schwarzenegger a “hypocrite.” She noted that just last week, the governor signed Assembly Bill 12, a bill extending services to youth in foster care until age 21, and spoke about his commitment to children.

“With the stroke of his pen today, the Governor is (complicit) in more abused and neglected children facing further injury and even death, hampering county social service departments’ ability to protect our most vulnerable children,” the statement said. “The loss of $133 million…federal matching) last year, and its continuation this year, means children in the foster care system face dire futures, and tens of thousands of foster children might never see the day when they can benefit from extended support under AB 12.”

The welfare directors said the deletion of $256 million from the CalWORKs budgets means “fewer working families will be able to continue work because of the loss of vital child care services, plunging more children into poverty, while completely undermining the Governor’s goals of administering the program with efficiency and integrity.”

Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, said the governor’s veto of money for AIDS assistance and community health clinics, among other cuts, would harm California families, the health system and the economy.

“These are the wrong cuts and the wrong time: an economic recession is exactly when we need funding for community clinics and public health programs, for the health of our communities and our economy,” Wright said.

Assembly Speaker John A. Perez said Schwarzenegger’s “final actions in office were directed at making life more difficult for California’s working parents and the poorest, sickest and most elderly Californians.”

Schwarzenegger, in a press conference in Fresno, said he cut nearly $1 billion from the budget in part to satisfy the state’s lenders, who, he said, would not advance the state money to operate without a prudent reserve. He said he was willing to take the heat for the cuts because he understood that legislators could not vote for them.

“I said to myself, ‘Whatever they can’t do, then I will do,’” Schwarzenegger said.

 

In final budget, Schwarzenegger wins pension change he pushed seven years ago

By Daniel Weintraub

Tucked away on page 227 of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first complete budget proposal seven years ago was a plan to rein in public employee pensions.

Benefit increases given to state workers at the height of the 1990s stock market boom could not be sustained, the new governor argued at the time. While it would not be right to take back those benefits from workers who were then relying on them for retirement, those employees should be asked to contribute more to their pension fund, and newly hired workers, Schwarzenegger proposed, should be returned to the pension plan that existed until 1999.

Like many things Schwarzenegger proposed in his first year in office, his pension proposal went nowhere. It was dead on arrival in a Legislature controlled by Democrats who were close allies with the state’s powerful public employee unions.

But seven years later, with the state facing perpetual deficits and teetering on the edge of insolvency, Schwarzenegger has finally achieved the goal he laid out in his first weeks on the job. As part of the budget deal lawmakers passed this week, most newly hired state workers will get pension benefits that were in place until the passage of a 1999 bill that boosted them with little debate and even less serious review.

For most state workers hired after Nov. 1 who stay for their entire careers, the change will come down to this: they will have to work until age 60, rather than 55, to be eligible for a pension equal to 2 percent of their final pay for each year they worked for the state. A person who works 30 years and ends with a salary of $60,000 will still get an annual pension of $36,000 a year at age 60, and $43,500 if they work until they are 63.

Pensions will also be reduced for many public safety employees, who got the biggest bump in 1999 and have been, until now, considered politically untouchable. Rather than being eligible for pensions of up to 90 percent of their salaries at age 50, they will have to work 30 years and until at least age 55 to get 75 percent of their pay in retirement.

These changes, however, will not apply to employees of the Highway Patrol or the state’s prison guards, at least for now. And local government employees, who in many cases got far bigger pension bumps than did state workers, were also left out of this reform, although cities and counties are free to reduce those benefits if they choose.

In addition, most current state employees will have to contribute three percent more of their paychecks to the retirement fund, a total of 8 percent of their earnings for many of them. And pensions will be based on an average of employees’ final three years salary rather than only the final year, preventing, in most cases, a practice known as “pension spiking,” when a worker gets a big pay boost in his or her final year and then uses that to increase their pension for life.

Schwarzenegger said Friday that the pension rollbacks and a budget reform that will go on the ballot in 2012 will put the state on a path to “long-term fiscal stability.”

It will take a lot more than these changes to accomplish that goal.

But Schwarzenegger will leave office knowing that he managed, after a seven-year campaign, to divert some of the state’s resources from public employees to the public they are hired to serve, including school children and low-income Californians who depend on the state for health care and social services.

 

Budget plans spares health, welfare programs from deep cuts governor proposed

By Daniel Weintraub

The state budget package laid out by legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger scales back the most drastic cuts to health and social service programs the governor proposed earlier this year.

Schwarzenegger’s proposal to eliminate the CalWorks welfare-to-work program and most of the state’s subsidized child care do not appear in the final agreement. His plan to eliminate community mental health programs and adult day care were also dropped from the final deal.

And Schwarzenegger’s proposal to eliminate services to many of the elderly and disabled people who get –in-home care to help with their daily living was drastically pared back.

The budget also includes money to restore cuts Schwarzenegger made last year to the Office of AIDS and child welfare services.

Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, dropped their proposals for an oil severance tax, stepped up sales tax enforcement, and the repeal or suspension of corporate tax breaks adopted as part of earlier budgets.

Instead, legislative leaders and the governor are banking on state revenues coming in higher than Schwarzenegger estimated earlier, more federal funds than the governor anticipated in May, and a variety of fund shifts and gimmicks, including the deferral into the next budget year of more than $1 billion in payments due the public schools.

The budget plan also includes $1.1 billion in planned cuts to state prisons, most from planned savings in inmate medical care, and $1.5 billion in reductions to state payrolls costs, which Schwarzenegger is expected to negotiate with the public employee labor unions.

We will be posting more details here as they become available.

 

Schwarzenegger: No budget til he leaves office?

By Daniel Weintraub

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger caused a stir in the Capitol Monday when he told reporters he wouldn’t sign a budget that didn’t include long-term reforms, even if it means the state goes without a new spending plan until he leaves office in January.

Schwarzenegger at first said he thought the state was “weeks away” from getting a budget because it would take that long to reach agreements on changes to public employee pension formulas, state budget rules and the tax system.

Then he added: “If I don’t get all of the things that we need in order to be fiscally responsible and to make the changes, the tax reforms, the budget reforms and the pension reforms, I will not sign a budget and it could actually drag out until the next governor gets into office.”

When a reporter questioned how the state could go that long without a budget, Schwarzenegger replied:

“It will be interesting, but I think that — I think that I, we, try to do everything we can do have a budget as quickly as possible. But at the same time I don’t want to hand this problem and this burden over to the next governor, so I am absolutely committed that I will not sign a budget if we don’t have all of those reforms in place and to do a budget that is fiscally responsible.”

Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg reacted harshly to the threat and issued one of his own. The Sacramento Democrat said his party was willing to wait for the next governor if that is what it takes to delay a set of business tax breaks approved in recent budget deals but not yet in effect.

“If the Governor continues to insist on granting billions in corporate tax cuts financed by drastic cuts to public education and programs for working mothers and their children, I am prepared to grant his wish by waiting for the next Governor,” Steinberg said in a statement released by his office.

State Controller John Chiang also jumped into the fray, reminding lawmakers and the governor that the state will run out of cash by October if no new budget is in place.

In that case, Chiang said, he would begin issuing IOUs by August or September in order to conserve cash to pay bills mandatged by the state Constitution and federal law.

 

Governor signs bill for borrowers, renewable projects

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed Senate Bill 401, which will extend a law that exempts homeowners who get mortgage debt relief from having to pay income tax on their savings as if it were a gift.

The law affects people who have been forced to sell their homes in “short sales,” where the bank holding the loan agrees to settle for the sales price rather than the full amount of the loan. Without this law, those borrowers would owe income tax on the difference between the sales price and the loan balance.

The bill, by Sen. Lois Wolk, also exempts from income taxes federal stimulus grants that are used for renewable energy projects.

 

What the fight over transit funding is really all about

You may be hearing or reading today that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will veto the Democrats’ plan to cut public transit funding. If that sounds odd, it’s because the real story is the reverse. The governor actually opposes to the bill because it gives too much to transit, in his view, not too little.

Both the governor and the Democrats agree that they should engineer some kind of complex gas tax swap in order to get around a decades-old law that has a formula that now requires the state to give hundreds of millions of dollars to transit. The state tried to circumvent this law in other ways in years past, but transit operators sued and won. If the law remains unchanged, transit is due a huge windfall at a time when the state is desperate for dollars.

So the latest idea is to simply repeal the sales tax on gas and replace it with an increase in the per-gallon excise tax that would generate close to the same amount of money. Why? Because revenue from the new tax would not be locked down for transit the way the sales tax is. The state then takes most of the money that would have gone to transit and uses it for other transportation purposes, mainly paying off construction bonds. This has the effect of freeing up unrestricted money in the general fund that would otherwise be used to pay off the bonds. That money can now be used for other programs, like education or health care or social services.

The governor wants to do all of this in a way that leaves gas taxes about 5 cents per gallon less than the are today. And his proposal would give nothing to transit.

Democrats argue, plausibly, that gas prices are set by the market, and if the state pulls out a nickel of tax, oil companies and gas stations will raise their prices by the same amount. If the the Democrats are right, consumers would still be spending the same amount on gas, but more of it would be going to the oil companies and less to the state, and to public transit.

The Democrats’ plan therefore is structured to leave the overall level of gas tax unchanged. They also throw in a shift in the sales tax on diesel. The end result is an immediate $400 million infusion for transit and a new, supposedly dedicated pot of money that would generate about $350 million a year for local transit operators in the future.

That’s a lot less than transit would get under the status quo. But it is more than the districts have received from the state for most of recent history. And the transit operators, recognizing that their legal options are limited, supported the bill.

The governor’s veto will send all sides back to the drawing board. And leave local transit in limbo, forced to plan for more cuts even as they hope for relief.

–Daniel Weintraub

 
 
 

Home | Cal Health Report | Community Report | Legislation | Ideas | Forums | About Us

©2013 HealthyCal.org