Matt Welch | December 26, 2008
Reason Contributing Editor and confirmed Californicator Tim Cavanaugh has a long declamation of Arnold Schwarzenegger's "lost year" in the latest LA Weekly. I'll spoil the ending:
[M]arveling at Arnold Schwarzenegger’s career isn’t as fun as it used to be. Most Californians are too preoccupied with rising taxes and “fees,” uncontrolled spending, lousy services, and broken state politics to care about a superman who turned out to be a flash in the pan.
Reason on Schwarzenegger here, including a post-recall piece by Cavanaugh asking, "Is Arnold good for the libertarians?"
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Ahnold's biggest problem is that he chickens out so often. That's the difference between a pretend tough-guy and a real tough-guy.
As I recall, the governor of California has a line item veto - a power which Ahnold has apparently never seen fit to exercise.
Here in Connecticut, during two hours of TV watching last night, I saw seven commercials exhorting me to eat "Real California Cheese." I wonder how much the state is spending on THAT?
As I recall, the governor of California has a line item veto - a power which Ahnold has apparently never seen fit to exercise.
A historian friend of mine looked at the effect of the line item
veto on budgets and concluded that it just made the governor (a
necessary) party to the all the backroom deals, but didn't
significantly effect levels of pork barrel spending and rent
seeking.
Too bad.
I blame it on the Kennedys. Everyone thought that Arnold would corrupt Maria, but she clipped his balls before anyone could prevent it. Is there nothing that evil, toothy clan can't destroy?
It isn't a brighter shade of gray and there were several of us
who pointed out that Arnold wasn't going to be good for
libertarians simply because he doesn't care if gays get married.
The man is, without a doubt, the worst governor Californicate© has
ever had. Bar none.
He didn't even have the courage to mention that tax hikes he vetoed
were unconstitutional. When asked about that by the press he said:
No es me trabajo, that is for someone else to argue about.
After all, I'm only the governor and cannot be expected to
understand that tax increases require a two thirds majority
vote.
His (Arnie's) workers' comp reform was historic....
Utter bullshit. Comp is no better than it was before. It costs more
than all other insurances combined. It is a huge business cost and
the fraud rate remains as high as ever at 50% plus of all
claims.
It is a huge business cost and the fraud rate remains as
high as ever at 50% plus of all claims.
I've always wondered about statistical claims like this one.
Another one of my favorites is "x% of rapes go unreported". Well,
if they go unreported, how do you know how many there are? For this
one, presumably if the fraudster was getting caught, they wouldn't
pay out and it wouldn't be a problem. So, they are not getting
caught...hence they are not getting detected.
So...from what orifice did that 50% number come from?
I saw seven commercials exhorting me to eat "Real California
Cheese." I wonder how much the state is spending on
THAT?
That's not a state agency. That's the California Milk Marketing
board, which is an association of dairy operations in the state.
It's mostly a lobbying group.
It's the same kind of group as the people who were running all
those "California raisins" ads a couple of years back.
-jcr
So, they are not getting caught...hence they are not getting
detected.
So...from what orifice did that 50% number come from?
Well, my sister is a work comp administrator for a major carrier
and her direct quote is that "half of all comp claims are
fraudulent".
The problem is that they are easily detected but the rules of
evidence in comp cases are extremely lax in Ca. Anything and
everything is admissible. For instance, I know a girl who broke her
ankle on the steps of her office building on her way to lunch.
That's a comp claim. It may not be a fraudulent claim, but it
certainly bears only the most tenuous connection to being
work-related.
Second issue is cost. It is far simpler to pay off a fraudulent
claim for a few thousand dollars than it is to fight it through the
bureaucracy.
WC, you're feisty as always, but do you really think he's the
worst ever?
He's vetoed a lot of stuff Gray woulnd'ta done kiboshed. There was
a corporate income bill, also some cockamamie green building
standards. Then again he vetoed a hemp farming bill and gay
marriage, as you note: Even his wins are really pushes.
Still, while I hesitate to push the charisma button, Californians
do take a lot of pride that Arnold Schwarzenegger is their
governor; technically that is a value that Davis didn't
bring.
I think he's a distinctly non-disastrous governor, having so far
(not always willingly) avoided doing more harm than would have been
done anyway and enjoying a reasonable probability of avoiding any
career-enders for the next two years.
And the one thing we know is that Arnold ain't d-u-m. More power to
him if he chose to duck out as a likable ex-governor rather than
burn himself alive in unwinnable fights.
It's just jawdroppingly shirtrending that this amiable stroll
through fiscal catastrophe is what California voters have to show
for launching an electoral convulsion that was unique in California
history (though it probably won't remain so for long).
And the beauty part is that this is just what California voters
deserve: You recall a chump a year after you elect him, then you
hamstring the palooka what follows him up? Where's the logic?
Gray Davis should get a public apology to go with that ovation. And
Arnold should quit politics, not go back into the movies, and
instead go to a place where he can get more respect, adulation and
instant feedback than Hollywood or Sacramento could ever offer: the
Great White Way.
I'd pay my kids' college tuition to see Arnold do Lear. I can't be
the only one!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245