Schwarzenegger transition team reveals right-wing agenda

[joefree1]

By Don Knowland
21 October 2003

On October 6, California governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a 65-person transition team to advise him on initial policy decisions and on filling administration positions. Schwarzenegger touted the team as reflecting a “wide range” of the political spectrum, from Bill Simon on the Republican right, who lost to Gray Davis in the 2002 election, to San Francisco mayor Willie Brown “on the left.” Despite such claims, dutifully parroted by the mass media, the essence of the team and Schwarzenegger’s polices are clear for all to see.
Heading up the team is California congressman David Dreier, a Newt Gingrich/Tom DeLay acolyte, and close Bush ally. Other prominent Republican businessmen and politicos include Gerald Parsky, the investment banker who heads up Bush’s political operations in California; Hewlett-Packard head Carly Fiorina; former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan; former California Republican governor Pete Wilson; billionaire Eli Broad; and executive Bob Grady from the Carlyle Group, the defense industry investment fund in which the Bush family has major holdings.
Team member George Schultz, from the board of the Bechtel Corporation (a former Reagan and Ford administration official), summed up where Schwarzenegger is heading: “He is going to solve the budget problem by cutting spending and not by raising taxes. The whole tone of Sacramento is going to turn 180 degrees, from being anti-business to being pro-business.”
More ...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/schw-o21.shtml

Schwarzenegger team heavy on business, tax conservatives

By JIM WASSERMAN AND TOM CHORNEAU
Associated Press Writers
Edit ...
Cain also suggested that Schwarzenegger's high-profile inclusion of alternate views during the transition follows a similar move made by President Bush in late 2000.
"With Bush, he faked left and went right," said Cain. "California Democrats are likely to wait and see if this is a repeat of the Bush strategy or whether it's something different."
More ...
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031019/APN/310190570
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Get over it?"

"It's not over 'till Arnold gropes the fat lady" —Bill Press, on MSNBC

http://www.recallarnoldwatch.org

[Shigley]

1. And to think that people thought Gray was bad...

n/t

[otohara]

2. How Much Is He Paying These 65

right-wingers? This is so Bush, everyone was cheering his decission to "surround" himself with "really smart" people, the adults were in charge finally. Look at the mess we're in now.

[theivoryqueen]

3. There goes the neighborhood

[joefree1]

4. My optimistic view sees a recall by March next year

I really think Californias will wake up and see that instead of a "protest" candidate they just got a Bush retread.

But then I'm a "the glass is half full" kind of guy.



"It's not over 'till Arnold gropes the fat lady" —Bill Press, on MSNBC

http://www.recallarnoldwatch.org

[Gin]

7. Good campaign slogan...

"With Bush, he faked left and went right"

How true is that?

[elfwitch]

10. good one !

The problem is that a whole lot of people fall for this exact move every time. And then it becomes too late.

[dfong63]

5. does this change anyone's mind?

OK, sound off all you DUers who said before the election that Arnie was some kind of "liberal" repub or even a "moderate" repub who was really a dem in disguise... does this change your mind?

[shanti]

16. i, for one, never had any problem

seeing the groper for what he was/is, and i surely wouldn't have been STOOPID enough to vote for the jerk. were there really DU'ers who supported him here? i never saw any such animals, but could be wrong...

[JHB]

6. Bait & Switch! What a surprise!

What's that jingle from that movie?

:nopity:"Recall, Recall, Recall":nopity:

[Art_from_Ark]

8. Well, duh

Some of us could see this coming from 5000 miles away.

[BigMacAttack]

9. We are a conservative caricature?

We are anti-business, pro-spending, and pro-tax?

BMA

[salin]

12. er.... no.

Different views of how to get from point a to point b are not "anti business; pro spending; pro tax".

Different views (and less simplistic ones) about what is good for business. For example, the manufacturing, agricultural and other business interests were exceptionally hard hit by the energy crisis in California. With less protection suddenly many businesses saw costs for necessary power - sky rocket. Billions were extracted from the economy. Many believe that this is what tipped a slowing economy into recession.

We know now a great deal more about the root causes of that crisis. It was not a lack of power generation (plants) going up due to environmental concerns (there was increased generation capacity). It was not increased demand (it was a steady demand and within the existing capacity). It was a series of shennanigans - from pulling power plants off line; to creating false spikes - and diverting california generated energy out of the state and reimporting it as "nonCalifornia energy" and thus being able to jack the price up; it was 'even trades' between power traders (trading back and forth at escalating prices - no energy trades but the "fair market price" got vastly artificially inflated). And more.

Thus the solution is not to go back to looser power deregulation as being promoted by Arnold. That is NOT a business friendly proposition. It puts consumers at risk, and it puts big energy consumers (BUSINESS) at greater risk.

This is just one of many issues.

The truth is that California did not see the same rate of exodus of jobs and businesses in the past two years that was the national average. Many of the 'protections' in California are desirable for businesses.

Point is that between republicans and democrats there are different views of what is "probusiness" - and many policies promoted by Democrats are much better for businesses in the long run. Regardless of what the GOP spin is.

Another truth about spending - at the federal level at least - is that since the time of Reagan that the smallest spending budgets (there are generally three proposals - the WH, the House and the Senate) have been from the bodies of government controlled by the democrats. Why? When the repubs spend big... they spend VERY BIG - and they do it on things like BIG TICKET (nonaccountable) weapons spending (remember the overspending of contractors in the 1980s? the several hundred dollar hammers... those days with NO accountability on spending... are BACK). Increases in defense spending under republicans rarely focus on basics (pay for those in the service, support for those in the service, improvements on basic housing and the like) - generally for very big - often unneeded (check out the congressional hearings on various items - often new systems needs are challenged from multiple directions) in terms of redundancy systems. The republicans also love to dole out big corporate welfare - but in nontargeted ways. The dems give out breaks tied to programs with some percieved public good (e.g., targeted jobs creation) where the repubs give it out with no strings - that is no benefit back to the people. The BIG SPENDERS are the republicans.

The financial mismanagement from the republican side is also often underdiscussed. WHile they escalate spending, the cut taxes (generally a the top end), and make it harder to collect legal taxes (eg going after illegal tax shelters, closing loopholes), so bottom and middle tier tax payers end up paying about the same (after increases in state, local and even federal "user" taxes occur to offset the big ticket cuts), over all revenues drop (with little advantage to middle or lower income tax payers) and costs escalate. The net effect is a growing debt service fee that eats up more and more of each tax dollar making that which we do pay serve US (eg return on our money) have less and less value.

Meanwhile their theories of 'boosting the economy' through these cuts, just haven't materialized. Time and time again.

So where are the characatures? Apparently alive and well in rw propoganda, repeated adnaseum by the rw talkculture (tv/radio) to the point that reality is just inverted. Go figure. Orwell lives.

[BigMacAttack]

14. In large part that is my point.

And yet look at how the poster framed the debate.

BMA

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Conservatives Are Anything But Anti-Spending

One of the canards that really gets under my skin is the notion that conservatives are fiscally prudent.

If one looks at the budgets of Republican presidents, even when one of the houses was in Republican majority, there is ZERO indication that spending gets cut. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, 41 and 43 all had ENORMOUS spending plans.

Republicans do not conserve financial prudence by reducing spending. They are even more spendthrift than Dems. They just do it with borrowed money, and are good at reducing revenues. (Don't believe the "Reagan tax cuts increased revenue" lie. That is also untrue.)

But, conservatives do NOT cut spending, so just by saying this, these folks are lying. It's that simple.
The Professor

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

11. Come on guys

He's for the people, not big business. He said so.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. I don't think Arnold realizes what he's getting into.

And if he does, I wonder if there will be a backlash against the Kennedys?