by Katelyn Luebben-halvorson
This governor of California has a huge job, he is “the chief executive officer of a mega-state with nearly 36 million people and a $90 billion-plus annual budget that by itself id the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world.” The governor of California has to appeal to such a geographically and sociologically diverse culture, that he has to do a
lot of different advertising and the money to be able to appeal to so many different people. The governor sets policy and directs the state’s bureaucracy to implement the policy. The governor also develops a budget but also just as important, he signs or vetoes legislation approved by both the state Assembly and Senate. The governor’s most important source of power is the bully pulpit, “the platform the governor has to set the political and policy agenda for the state and to command attention from media, state legislators, and elites. The governor of California probably
has the hardest job out of any governor in the country. California is known for having lots of natural and man-made disasters or emergencies; such as earthquakes, fires, floods, droughts, infestations, or riots. When these disasters happen, the governor has to be ready to make very important decisions. The governor has the power to make things happen that needs to get done. California throughout the years has really gone downhill politically; we have the worst budget deficit in the country.
When Schwarzenegger came into office he knew what he was getting into and right off the bat; he fulfilled his most prominent campaign promise which was a rollback of the car tax, which added $4 billion to the states debt.
Arnold has been trying to get the state out of debt by rejecting anything that would result in a tax increase. I feel Arnold is trying to help this state out of its troubles but I also feel that he is trying to help his image. Just like Jacobs and Block said, “…his challenge was to comport himself in ways that would move his image away from that of a
one-dimensional hulk and to wrap it in an aura of statesmanship and credibility.” I feel that since Arnold never really played any real serious roles in any of his movies he is maybe trying to prove the he can be a serious man and he is just not all about muscles and blowing up things. I feel that Arnold did start off in the right direction but then
the crazy life of politics got to him and now throughout both of his terms he has been inconsistent and difficult to predict. I think it will be very interesting to see where our state ends up with all of its troubles.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Devan Conroy's Questions
Question #1: The book states that California is like a Mega-state. The
state contains nearly 36 million people and a budget of $90 billion
dollars which is ranked the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world.
The book continues with how California has had a great track record for
sending Governors to the National Election. Out of the past ten national
elections, all but two years a Californian was on the national ballot. Is
California's population too large for one states assembly or congress?
Would splitting California into two states help avoid budget problems and
create less power to Californian Legislature? Could California be split
into Southern California including: San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles,
San Fernando, Santa Barbara, Santa Clarita and Ventura, leaving Northern
California with: Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, San Fransisco,
San Jose, Santa Cruz and Stockton? Why or Why not?
Question #2: Should California consider running a party ticket in order to
create a better relationship between Governor and Lieutenant Governor? Or
Should the ballot system remain as is, so that the top two men can keep
one another in check?
state contains nearly 36 million people and a budget of $90 billion
dollars which is ranked the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world.
The book continues with how California has had a great track record for
sending Governors to the National Election. Out of the past ten national
elections, all but two years a Californian was on the national ballot. Is
California's population too large for one states assembly or congress?
Would splitting California into two states help avoid budget problems and
create less power to Californian Legislature? Could California be split
into Southern California including: San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles,
San Fernando, Santa Barbara, Santa Clarita and Ventura, leaving Northern
California with: Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, San Fransisco,
San Jose, Santa Cruz and Stockton? Why or Why not?
Question #2: Should California consider running a party ticket in order to
create a better relationship between Governor and Lieutenant Governor? Or
Should the ballot system remain as is, so that the top two men can keep
one another in check?
Kaitlyn Luebben-Halvorson 's Questions
1. Do you think Schwarzenegger is a good governor? Do you think he was
better in his first term or second term? Why? Do you think that he has had
this much success because he is a famous actor or by the way he has ran
California?
2. In this chapter it says, “Anyone elected governor of California
automatically joins the short list of people routinely mentioned as
potential candidates for president or vice president of the United
States.” Do you think that is the best thing to have the governor of the
most in debt state of the country run for president of the United States?
Do you think Arnold should be able to run for President or Vice President?
If the governor is supposed to submit a state budget within the first 12
days of the New Year, why did it take so long for this past budget to be
made? Do you think Arnold is to blame? Or is all of the initiatives on the
ballot the cause of this?
better in his first term or second term? Why? Do you think that he has had
this much success because he is a famous actor or by the way he has ran
California?
2. In this chapter it says, “Anyone elected governor of California
automatically joins the short list of people routinely mentioned as
potential candidates for president or vice president of the United
States.” Do you think that is the best thing to have the governor of the
most in debt state of the country run for president of the United States?
Do you think Arnold should be able to run for President or Vice President?
If the governor is supposed to submit a state budget within the first 12
days of the New Year, why did it take so long for this past budget to be
made? Do you think Arnold is to blame? Or is all of the initiatives on the
ballot the cause of this?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Alissa Milne's Blog Entry
I agree with the reading when the author states that the media greatly
influences public opinion and that campaign debates are especially a large
part of how the public learns about issues. We talked a little bit in
class previously about how people tend to use the media as a primary
resource for learning about politics and candidates/issues because it is
simple and very accessible in our busy lives.
However, the reading focuses on the media's interpretation of these
debates and how the press and television actually influence voters more
than the debates themselves. This doesn't surprise me too much since it
seems like people seem to learn a lot from the headlines and TV news after
the debates. Yet, depending on the election, I would think people would
want to see the debates for themselves and form their own opinions. As the
book stated, the debates are the time for the public to learn firsthand
about how the candidates feel about certain issues in their own words.
However, it seems that voters still trust how other people, as presented
on the television or in the newspaper, interpret the debates instead of
coming to their own conclusions.
I thought it was interesting how the author broke down the debate
discussions into categories, such as issues, personality, qualification,
etc. The study presented in this chapter was very, very specific, almost a
little too much so, in my opinion. Nevertheless, it clearly presented
certain results, like that candidates attacked each other on issues more
than on personality or qualifications. I also thought it was interesting
that candidates who attacked other candidates, like Huffington did, got
more press coverage. She was not talked about very much before the
debates, but afterwards she and her issues were discussed in more detail
in the media.
influences public opinion and that campaign debates are especially a large
part of how the public learns about issues. We talked a little bit in
class previously about how people tend to use the media as a primary
resource for learning about politics and candidates/issues because it is
simple and very accessible in our busy lives.
However, the reading focuses on the media's interpretation of these
debates and how the press and television actually influence voters more
than the debates themselves. This doesn't surprise me too much since it
seems like people seem to learn a lot from the headlines and TV news after
the debates. Yet, depending on the election, I would think people would
want to see the debates for themselves and form their own opinions. As the
book stated, the debates are the time for the public to learn firsthand
about how the candidates feel about certain issues in their own words.
However, it seems that voters still trust how other people, as presented
on the television or in the newspaper, interpret the debates instead of
coming to their own conclusions.
I thought it was interesting how the author broke down the debate
discussions into categories, such as issues, personality, qualification,
etc. The study presented in this chapter was very, very specific, almost a
little too much so, in my opinion. Nevertheless, it clearly presented
certain results, like that candidates attacked each other on issues more
than on personality or qualifications. I also thought it was interesting
that candidates who attacked other candidates, like Huffington did, got
more press coverage. She was not talked about very much before the
debates, but afterwards she and her issues were discussed in more detail
in the media.
Alissa Milne's Two Questions
1) After reading the chapter and how it discusses the effectiveness of
debates on the outcome of the election, how important do you think debates
are? Do you follow the issues or are you swayed by the candidate's
eloquence or how he/she attacks the other candidate? Is the debate usually
the first time you have heard about the candidate's stance on certain
issues or do you try to learn about them ahead of time?
2) How do you think the 2003 recall election was different than the 2008
presidential election in terms of debates? Think about the number of
candidates: last year's being debates between two people and the reading
showing debates for governor between seven people. How would this
influence voters, interest in all these different peoples' policies, etc?
Do you think people went with Arnold out of name recognition among all
those people running for governor?
debates on the outcome of the election, how important do you think debates
are? Do you follow the issues or are you swayed by the candidate's
eloquence or how he/she attacks the other candidate? Is the debate usually
the first time you have heard about the candidate's stance on certain
issues or do you try to learn about them ahead of time?
2) How do you think the 2003 recall election was different than the 2008
presidential election in terms of debates? Think about the number of
candidates: last year's being debates between two people and the reading
showing debates for governor between seven people. How would this
influence voters, interest in all these different peoples' policies, etc?
Do you think people went with Arnold out of name recognition among all
those people running for governor?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Redistricting is Unfair to Minorities
by Missy Bain
I have always been familiar with the idea of redistricting, but I never really knew how unfair it can be. I guess I just never realized the extent to which redistricting affects minorities. I believe that regardless of the way you think this person will vote because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background, you should never ensure that their vote is suppressed. After reading more on the topic, I discovered that the entire process is flawed and basically corrupt and it almost made me feel cheated out of my vote, since the line-drawers already know how the district will vote. It really made me think about our so-called Democracy and I began to think that maybe the citizens have never even actually chosen their representatives, that it was always decided by default. Even through personal experiences working with candidates, it seems that they already know how their constituents will vote and they aren’t too worried about the outcome. Ok, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but basically I feel betrayed! And I can’t even imagine how someone who is considered a minority must feel. They must feel not only betrayed, but cheated. I understand that there needs to be lines drawn for districts, but can’t people put their partisanship and petty selfishness behind them to ensure a fair election with an unknown result? I thought people went in to politics with the desire of helping other people and making a difference in their community or in the nation. When did it turn into a selfish race for undeserved votes?
I have always been familiar with the idea of redistricting, but I never really knew how unfair it can be. I guess I just never realized the extent to which redistricting affects minorities. I believe that regardless of the way you think this person will vote because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background, you should never ensure that their vote is suppressed. After reading more on the topic, I discovered that the entire process is flawed and basically corrupt and it almost made me feel cheated out of my vote, since the line-drawers already know how the district will vote. It really made me think about our so-called Democracy and I began to think that maybe the citizens have never even actually chosen their representatives, that it was always decided by default. Even through personal experiences working with candidates, it seems that they already know how their constituents will vote and they aren’t too worried about the outcome. Ok, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but basically I feel betrayed! And I can’t even imagine how someone who is considered a minority must feel. They must feel not only betrayed, but cheated. I understand that there needs to be lines drawn for districts, but can’t people put their partisanship and petty selfishness behind them to ensure a fair election with an unknown result? I thought people went in to politics with the desire of helping other people and making a difference in their community or in the nation. When did it turn into a selfish race for undeserved votes?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
MIssy Bain's Two Questions
1) In the 1970's the Democrats atempted to increase ethnic minority representation in their reapportionment plans for the State of California. Minorities have been known to vote more with the Democrats and the Republicans knew this, hence why they fought so hard for a new reapportionment plan. Do you think that the Democrats were right in gerrymandering the way that they did in order for minorities to be more equally represented? Or, do you think that their claims of wanting to give equal representation to all are trumped by the fact that it gives them a distinct advantage over their counterparts?
2)
It has been said that essentially, through the gerrymandering process, the voters do not choose their politicians, but the politicians choose them. In fact, in the 2004 election - out of 153 seats, not one incumbent was defeated because of the way California was districted. Do you think that the lack of competition for seats is helping (i.e. giving politicians a "safe seat" enables them to focus more on their constituents' needs, instead of party re-election tactics) or hurting (i.e. allowing the politicians to choose their voters may not fully represent what the constituency as a whole) the "average" California voter?
2)
It has been said that essentially, through the gerrymandering process, the voters do not choose their politicians, but the politicians choose them. In fact, in the 2004 election - out of 153 seats, not one incumbent was defeated because of the way California was districted. Do you think that the lack of competition for seats is helping (i.e. giving politicians a "safe seat" enables them to focus more on their constituents' needs, instead of party re-election tactics) or hurting (i.e. allowing the politicians to choose their voters may not fully represent what the constituency as a whole) the "average" California voter?
Friday, February 6, 2009
California's Woes
By Samantha Frank
California seems to be going through an extended midlife crisis, and is unable to find a sports car that is fast enough to satisfy. Our roads and public amenities are falling apart, our schools are among the worst in the nation, yet this is not the way that California used to be. Once upon a time in the 1940’s and 50’s, after the Second World War and before the impending midlife crisis, California was on top in all of the aforementioned areas. It is slightly shocking to think that this state has fallen so far in 60 years. It seems, however, that a large portion of the blame lies with us. We are the ones who elect the officials we end up hating into office, and we are the ones who vote propositions into law, such as prop 13. The enacting of prop 13 left California with quite a conundrum, our staunch attitude against taxes means that there is clearly less money to be brought in to maintain all of our once great public systems—yet we expect them to be maintained anyway. On top of it the funding that schools and transportation do receive seems to be misallocated so often that it is hard to get our states citizens to even consider putting money aside for them. For example, the high school I attended instead of using their state funding to hire good teachers or even use the money to keep the ones that they have, decided to use their “extra” funds to paint hideous (and expensive) murals on the sides of their buildings. Soon after they were forced to downsize their staff which caused classroom overcrowding and the overall quality of education to go down. It is easy to see why people would be hesitant to give more money. The chances, however, of pulling our state out of this mess without having to pay seem slim to none.
The citizens of California also seem to be in some state of denial in regards to the situation we are in. Peter Schrag points this out in Paradise Lost saying, “But no state has lived with such extraordinary expectations of social perfection or been subject to such large gaps between what its people once thought they ought, almost as a matter of right, to have, and the burdens they are willing to bear to get it.” The attitude of the people here, no matter what their walk of life it seems, is that the ease of the stereotypical “California lifestyle” should be handed to them while as little work as possible is done. We have also neglected to check our politicians. Our State Government has become as corrupt in its lawmaking as any other, allowing lobbyists and special interest groups to push measures onto ballots (sometimes sneakily attached to other bills), and we, as “the people” of the state pass them into law. Why are we not second guessing the motives behind what we are voting on and how is it that special interest groups can squeeze money out of this states citizens for their needs, but our educational and transportation systems cant? Have we become so jaded as a state that we have given up on its future and are willing to let things fall into irreversible decay?
California seems to be going through an extended midlife crisis, and is unable to find a sports car that is fast enough to satisfy. Our roads and public amenities are falling apart, our schools are among the worst in the nation, yet this is not the way that California used to be. Once upon a time in the 1940’s and 50’s, after the Second World War and before the impending midlife crisis, California was on top in all of the aforementioned areas. It is slightly shocking to think that this state has fallen so far in 60 years. It seems, however, that a large portion of the blame lies with us. We are the ones who elect the officials we end up hating into office, and we are the ones who vote propositions into law, such as prop 13. The enacting of prop 13 left California with quite a conundrum, our staunch attitude against taxes means that there is clearly less money to be brought in to maintain all of our once great public systems—yet we expect them to be maintained anyway. On top of it the funding that schools and transportation do receive seems to be misallocated so often that it is hard to get our states citizens to even consider putting money aside for them. For example, the high school I attended instead of using their state funding to hire good teachers or even use the money to keep the ones that they have, decided to use their “extra” funds to paint hideous (and expensive) murals on the sides of their buildings. Soon after they were forced to downsize their staff which caused classroom overcrowding and the overall quality of education to go down. It is easy to see why people would be hesitant to give more money. The chances, however, of pulling our state out of this mess without having to pay seem slim to none.
The citizens of California also seem to be in some state of denial in regards to the situation we are in. Peter Schrag points this out in Paradise Lost saying, “But no state has lived with such extraordinary expectations of social perfection or been subject to such large gaps between what its people once thought they ought, almost as a matter of right, to have, and the burdens they are willing to bear to get it.” The attitude of the people here, no matter what their walk of life it seems, is that the ease of the stereotypical “California lifestyle” should be handed to them while as little work as possible is done. We have also neglected to check our politicians. Our State Government has become as corrupt in its lawmaking as any other, allowing lobbyists and special interest groups to push measures onto ballots (sometimes sneakily attached to other bills), and we, as “the people” of the state pass them into law. Why are we not second guessing the motives behind what we are voting on and how is it that special interest groups can squeeze money out of this states citizens for their needs, but our educational and transportation systems cant? Have we become so jaded as a state that we have given up on its future and are willing to let things fall into irreversible decay?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Samantha Frank's Two Questions
Californians’ set the bar to go against taxes, yet we complain about the
lack of funding for schools, roads, etc. How can we expect to pay for
these things when we refuse to put the money out to do so?
What should our state do to correct the accountability problem brought on
by prop 13?
lack of funding for schools, roads, etc. How can we expect to pay for
these things when we refuse to put the money out to do so?
What should our state do to correct the accountability problem brought on
by prop 13?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
