You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar’ tag.
It is still early in liberal San Francisco, but it is acceptable to say that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will win her re-election. But at the same time, she will have to surrender her gavel, office and title to the Republican party…. presumably to John Boehner.
So, Nancy, will you be comfortable being named to the position of House Minority Leader? Or, as many of would like, will you notify the Governor that you will be resigning, going home to the vineyard? Now is the moment Nancy, to do the right thing…………………….Call it a day!!
Odds are California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger meant to deliver more than one message in a recent veto to the state Legislature, mathematicians say.
In the body of the message accompanying the veto, consisting of a four-line paragraph and a three-line paragraph, Mr. Schwarzenegger lamented that he was sent an “unnecessary” measure while “major issues are overlooked” in the cash-strapped state. But as the San Francisco Bay Guardian noted last week, the first letter of each of the seven lines spells out a profane rebuke that starts with “F” and ends with “you.”
Unlikely Message
Review Gov. Schwarzenegger’s statement.
The governor’s spokesman said the vertical vulgarity is a coincidence, which spurred mathematicians and statisticians to assess the probability that the coarse coded message could arise by chance. Their numbers were all over the map — “We’ve had half a dozen reporters call with half a dozen different stats,” Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear says — but most statistics show that a coincidence was highly unlikely.
see full article @ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125737663000529407.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel
With the State of California being effectively bankrupt, the prison system has had to face the legal challenges as a result of the prison overcrowding. The following is from the Los Angeles Times:
Judges back a one-third reduction in state prison population
Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press/File
A panel of federal judges today indicated they would order the state to reduce the state’s prison population by as many as 58,000.
Jurists issue tentative ruling in lawsuit brought by inmates, who say overcrowding in state prisons violates their right to adequate healthcare.
Reporting from Sacramento — A panel of three federal judges, saying overcrowding in state prisons has deprived inmates of their right to adequate healthcare, tentatively ruled Monday that the state must reduce the population in those lockups by as many as 57,000 people.
The judges issued the decisionafter a trial in two long-running cases brought by inmates to protest the state of medical and mental healthcare in the prisons.
Although their order is not final, U.S. District Court Judges Thelton Henderson and Lawrence Karlton and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt effectively told the state that it had lost the trial and would have to make dramatic changes in its prisons unless it could reach a settlement with inmates’ lawyers.
State officials immediately said they would appeal.
If the state is ordered to reduce the prison population, it would likely be able to do so over two or three years, so it would not have to release large numbers of inmates at once. Some methods of cutting the population include limiting new admissions, changing policies so parole violators return to prison less frequently, and giving prisoners more time off of their sentences for good behavior and rehabilitation efforts.
The judges said these types of measures could save the state more than $900 million a year in prison costs, money that could be used by cities and counties to put those who otherwise would have gone to prison into local jails or treatment programs.
The state’s 33 prisons were designed for 84,000 inmates, and they now hold 158,000, nearly double their designed capacity. The rest of the 170,000 in the correctional system are in out-of-state prisons and other facilities. The judges found that with inmates crammed into institutions, they could not receive the care to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution.
“There is . . . uncontroverted evidence that, because of overcrowding, there are not enough clinical facilities or resources to accommodate inmates with medical or mental health needs at the level of care they require,” the judges wrote in a 10-page decision.
They said that triple-bunking of inmates in prison gymnasiums has increased the risk of infectious disease and that a shortage of doctors, nurses and correctional officers has denied inmates access to treatment and a decent system to keep their medical records in order.
In the ruling, the judges said they believe the state’s prisons can safely operate at 120% to 145% of their designed capacity. Based on the current prison population, that would mean a potential reduction of 36,000 to 57,000 inmates. They reserved the right to change their numbers and did not say when their final order might come.
“It’s a pretty comprehensive victory for us,” said Michael Bien, a lawyer in San Francisco who has fought for mentally ill prisoners. “It was a message — a very loud, clear message — that it’s time that the public officials in California took responsibility for their own criminal justice system.”
Under federal law, judges cannot order the state to lock up fewer prisoners if such a move would endanger the public, and the panel said that would not be the case if reductions were done gradually.
But Matt Cate, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s corrections secretary, said the ruling “poses a significant threat to public safety” because it could prevent the state from incarcerating as many criminals as it now keeps in seven to 10 prisons.
“If this panel issues a final decision, we will appeal this matter to the United States Supreme Court,” Cate said tersely during a news conference in Sacramento.
State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown called the ruling “the latest intrusion” on California’s prison system by the federal courts. In a statement, he labeled the order “a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed.”
The judges oversaw the trial starting in November and completed it last week. In their decision, they referred to the testimony of Jeanne Woodford, a former corrections secretary under Schwarzenegger, who told them overcrowding made it impossible for prisoners to get mental health treatment and medical exams. They also cited experts from Texas, Pennsylvania, Maine and Washington.
And the judges used Schwarzenegger’s words and actions against him, citing the state of emergency the governor declared for the prisons in 2006 — still in effect — and quoting him as saying overcrowding had caused “substantial risk to the health and safety” of prison inmates and staff. They noted that Schwarzenegger has made budget-related proposals to reduce the prison population by 40,000 inmates, and that lawmakers have backed similar ideas.
“We cannot believe that such support would exist if the adoption of such measures would adversely affect public safety,” the judges wrote, although the proposals they referred to have not garnered enough support to go into effect.
The state nearly reached a settlement with the inmates last year that would have reduced the prison population by tens of thousands, largely by shifting low-level offenders to local jails and rehabilitation programs. But that deal fell apart when Republican state lawmakers and county prosecutors objected.
Since then, the state has hardened its stance. Schwarzenegger and Brown are now demanding that Henderson terminate court oversight of prison medical care, which he seized from the state in 2006. They say the situation has improved with the hiring of new medical and correctional personnel.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prisons10-2009feb10,0,815133.story
GM, Ford and Chrysler have taken their public lashings, returned to Detroit, sharpened the pencils, and are now HYBRID-driving themselves back to Washington DC, the tin cups in tow, for a piece of the bailout pie. Co-President Elect Barack H. Obama addressed the Governor’s Meeting in Pennsylvania this morning, first with cameras present, then behind closed doors so he could “listen” to the needs of the Governors. In 43 states, there is a budget shortfall, and the Governor’s appear poised to ask the Co-President Elect for $170 billion dollar bailout as well.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry
To their credit, and ultimately as a key focus in their possible bid for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina co-authored an OpEd piece in today’s Wall Street Journal in which they state that this bailout mentality IS NOT the American way. The two Governors wrote:
“As governors and citizens, we’ve grown increasingly concerned over the past weeks as Washington has thrown bailout after bailout at the national economy with little to show for it.
In the process, the federal government is not only burying future generations under mountains of debt. It is also taking our country in a very dangerous direction — toward a “bailout mentality” where we look to government rather than ourselves for solutions. We’re asking other governors from both sides of the political aisle to join with us in opposing further federal bailout intervention…
..
In a free-market system, competition and one’s own personal stake motivate people to do their best. In this process, the winners create wealth, jobs and new investment, while others go back to the drawing board better prepared to try again.To an unprecedented degree, government is currently picking winners and losers in the private marketplace, and throwing good money after bad. A prudent investor takes money from low-yield investments and puts them in those that yield better returns. Recent government intervention is doing the opposite — taking capital generated from productive activities and throwing it at enterprises that in many cases need to reorganize their business model.
…
In Texas and South Carolina, we’ve focused on improving “soil conditions” for businesses by cutting taxes, reforming our legal system and our workers’ compensation system. We’d humbly suggest that Congress take a page from those playbooks by focusing on targeted tax relief paid for by cutting spending, not by borrowing.In the rush to do “something” to help, federal leaders would be wise to take a line from the Hippocratic Oath, and pledge to do no (more) harm to our country’s finances. We can weather this storm if we commit to fiscal prudence and hold true to the values of individual freedom and responsibility that made our nation great.”
Wall Street Journal, Dec. 2, 2008
So. Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford
Even as the Governor’s convened their meeting, California’s Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a finincial state of emergency, an action that forces the legislature to address the state’s financial situation within the next 45 days. (On a humorous side note, do we think the Co-President Elect and the Governator discussed Obama’s fitness needs, in light of Arnold’s campaign comments about Obama’s policies needing some “meat”?)
Governator greets the “meatless” Co-President Elect
Co-President Elect Obama and his YesMan Biden have not been sworn in yet, and Co-President Hillary Clinton has not been confirmed by the Senate yet, and already the posturing for 2012 can be seen. It will be important to watch the key players, particularly the Republicans like Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Rick Perry, Gov. Mark Sanford, Gov. Sarah Palin, Rep. Paul Ryan, and Gov. Bobby Jindal during the next two years, and what effect that they will have on the midterm elections in 2010.
