# Schwarzenegger end run to cut public transit funds



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 9, 2010)

Eliminates the state's obligation to use a portion of gas tax revenues for local transit.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 9, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Eliminates the state's obligation to use a portion of gas tax revenues for local transit.


Question: I know he's "The Terminator" but how can a Governor overturn a Supreme Court decision? I know California has wierd stuff that goes on

but thought the Supremes were "The Law"??? :blink:


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 9, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > Eliminates the state's obligation to use a portion of gas tax revenues for local transit.
> ...


I don't think he did overturn it. The court ruled he couldn't divert _gas tax_ funds. So, he eliminates the gas tax, and charges an excise tax instead. Poof! Problem solved.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 9, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > PetalumaLoco said:
> ...


OK, that 'splains that!The old smoke and mirrors routine! Guess when Arnies gone and yall reelect Gov. Moonbeam (suddenly it's 1968) maybe things can return to normal! If it wasnt so damn expensive California would have 250,000,000 people since it's still such a cool place!


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (Jan 9, 2010)

Prediction: Legislature and Governor deadlocked over budget, take the state government to the brink of shutting down again, and then ask the voters to fix the problem in a ballot measure....

Winners: no one. Losers: students, poor, disabled, elderly and transit riders.

Been there, done that, seen the movie, got the T-shirt.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 9, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


I don't know when things will ever get better here financially. The gov't is busted. None of the gubernatorial candidates have a solution as far as I can see, same old rhetoric. Need to throw everyone and everything out in Sac and start over. :angry:


----------



## DET63 (Jan 12, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > PetalumaLoco said:
> ...


I thought that was supposed to happen on a regular basis with term limits.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 12, 2010)

DET63 said:


> I thought that was supposed to happen on a regular basis with term limits.


That's the "throw everything out" bit about my remark. Redistrict, and change the constitution so it doesn't take a super-majority to pass anything. Every year we go thru a delayed budget process, and we never do the things that may hurt to get the finances straightened out. It's no way to run a government. And toss the ballot initiatives (propositions) and make the politicians do their jobs. There are 28 initiatives under consideration for the next ballot - and that's not a record, there's been more.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 12, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that was supposed to happen on a regular basis with term limits.
> ...


I disagree with getting rid of the supermajority requirement. That is often the only defense against politically popular but fiscally irresponsible spending.

There's absolutely no way to get rid of the ballot-initiative process; sometimes it's the only way to undo dangerous and irresponsible legislative decisions.

People do need to be much better informed about what the politicians are doing however—especially their own legislators, who often get a pass after passing irresponsible bills by bringing home lots of pork to their home districts.


----------



## tp49 (Jan 12, 2010)

Term limits have led us into many of the problems we have now. The legislature is afraid to make hard and politically unpopular decisions because many are too focused on their next stop in the revolving door of California state political offices.



DET63 said:


> There's absolutely no way to get rid of the ballot-initiative process; sometimes it's the only way to undo dangerous and irresponsible legislative decisions.


Yes there is. It's called a Constitutional convention which is something this state sorely needs.

Figuring that both you guys live in California (I can tell Petaluma does) are you guys willing to put your vote where your ire is starting with your incumbent Assembly member and Senator? I know I'm not voting for anyone running for statewide office or the legislature who is an incumbent or a "revolving door" Constitutional officer type.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 12, 2010)

tp49 said:


> Term limits have led us into many of the problems we have now. The legislature is afraid to make hard and politically unpopular decisions because many are too focused on their next stop in the revolving door of California state political offices.
> 
> 
> DET63 said:
> ...


Good point. Might as well walk the talk.

BTW I've sworn off signing those ballot initiatives, except for redistricting and changing the state constitution. It's a sure bet the politicians won't do anything about those 2 issues.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 17, 2010)

I almost never vote for incumbents; unfortunately, most of them run unopposed or with only token opposition, at least where I live.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 17, 2010)

DET63 said:


> I almost never vote for incumbents; unfortunately, most of them run unopposed or with only token opposition, at least where I live.


True here too.


----------



## DET63 (Jan 19, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > I almost never vote for incumbents; unfortunately, most of them run unopposed or with only token opposition, at least where I live.
> ...


I live in the Bay Area (don't want to get too specific :lol: ), so I'm not too far from you.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 19, 2010)

DET63 said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > DET63 said:
> ...


Yeah I gathered that.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 13, 2010)

Geee...a Terminator that actually terminates something. A disgrace to true politicians who would rather talk something to death :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: !!!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 13, 2010)

DET63 said:


> There's absolutely no way to get rid of the ballot-initiative process; sometimes it's the only way to undo dangerous and irresponsible legislative decisions.


Massachusetts has a ballot initiative process, but we also allow our legislature to modify and overturn things that have been passed via the ballot initiative process. The advantage of the Massachusetts system over the California system is that it is easier to change laws that were passed long ago by the ballot initiative process that no longer make so much sense.


----------

