PDA

View Full Version : Schwarzenegger considering a mass veto?


gcvt
10-07-2009, 9:35 PM
Hmmmm....


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/06/MNL01A20EQ.DTL

Lawmakers slam Schwarzenegger over veto threat

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature could be headed for a high-stakes game of chicken as the deadline approaches at midnight Sunday for the governor to sign or veto more than 700 bills that are on his desk.

The governor has made a veiled threat to issue a mass veto unless lawmakers reach agreement on an overhaul of the state's water system. A mass veto, legislative leaders said, would be both "silly" and inexcusable, and it would effectively wipe out nearly all the work done by the Legislature the past 10 months.

"Water is an extremely important issue, but the ... bills from the Assembly that are on the governor's desk represent a multitude of issues that are very important to Californians," said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County), after a meeting with the governor and other legislative leaders Tuesday. She added, "A mass vetoing is never an appropriate use of his veto power."

Bills on the governor's desk range from mundane to massive - on subjects such as education, Harvey Milk Day and ammunition restrictions.

Bass and state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, both said they were optimistic that the governor would not issue a mass veto, and Steinberg called the threat "silly." But Aaron McLear, a Schwarzenegger spokesman, would not say flatly that it was off the table.

"We'll consider all the bills on their merits, but right now we're focused on pushing the Legislature toward an agreement on water," McLear said.

sharpie613
10-07-2009, 9:38 PM
it would effectively wipe out nearly all the work done by the Legislature the past 10 months.

The downside to this is what?

Blackhawk556
10-07-2009, 9:40 PM
At least AB962 will be vetoed :)

wildhawker
10-07-2009, 9:41 PM
Keep writing, calling, faxing until he have a VETO. Ignore the noise and press on, Calgunners!

lawnrevenge
10-07-2009, 9:42 PM
A mass veto, legislative leaders said, would be both "silly" and inexcusable, and it would effectively wipe out nearly all the work done by the Legislature the past 10 months.


So the governor has a backlog of 10 months?
Sounds like he needs to spend less time in his hot tub.

leverage
10-07-2009, 9:44 PM
700 bills?! In what, 30 days? I want a governor that promises to veto anything above 50 bills a year. The legislature needs to focus on the important.

Nxd9ar15xcrL
10-07-2009, 9:44 PM
Bring on the MASS VETO. The less this government does, the better.

yellowfin
10-07-2009, 9:44 PM
Quite honestly this would make me respect the guy a bit. That would be nothing short of admirable to tell the entire legislature to go wank themselves and veto that much legislation, quite possibly the biggest smack down ever doled out. I like it! He should do it to get in the record books!

Shotgun Man
10-07-2009, 9:52 PM
Bring on the MASS VETO. The less this government does, the better.

QFT.

Primum non nocere-- First, do no harm.

AndrewMendez
10-07-2009, 9:54 PM
Bring on the MASS VETO. The less this government does, the better.


Thats the same exact thing I was thinking!

yellowfin
10-07-2009, 10:05 PM
What is the current record for most bills vetoed, anyone know? It'd be interesting to see if this would break it.

Merc1138
10-07-2009, 10:06 PM
So the governor has a backlog of 10 months?
Sounds like he needs to spend less time in his hot tub.

Or maybe he wants our crappy legislature to stop screwing around with a bunch of silly wasteful bills and focus on something very important? The amount of money the state wastes on these people that get themselves elected as legislators is silly, they waste government money wasting time writing wasteful bills and then wasting even more money to campaign some more to get their bills passed.

Maybe the legislature should have spent the past 10 months trying to cut the budget instead of handing Arnold 10 months worth of bills in an attempt to inflate the budget even further? Or at least working so there wouldn't be a state mandated drought. The idea of farmers not being allowed to get water for crops is insane. It puts people out of work, kills a sector of the economy, and actually screws the state out of revenue.

While I may not agree 100% with some of Arnold's ideas, if he actually goes through with this and governates our crappy legislators and makes them do the job they're supposed to be doing, he'll be my hero(at least for a week).

sorensen440
10-07-2009, 10:13 PM
Republican democrat or libertarian I will vote for whomever vows to veto everything

Can'thavenuthingood
10-07-2009, 10:20 PM
700 Bills for this session?

My God, what could possibly be left to Legislate? They need to take the next few years off.

Vick

coolusername2007
10-07-2009, 10:24 PM
700 bills and still no water to the farmers! We really do need a part-time legislature...and a big wrench to turn the water on ourselves!

Merc1138
10-07-2009, 10:24 PM
700 Bills for this session?

My God, what could possibly be left to Legislate? They need to take the next few years off.

Vick

Yeah, think about that. 700 bills. Out of those 700, how many are you actually aware of that your "representatives" are trying to get passed? We're fighting over 2 bills on this forum, I'm sure plenty of other groups are fighting against lots of other idiotic attempts at legislation.

Palmaris
10-07-2009, 10:27 PM
700 Bills for this session?

My God, what could possibly be left to Legislate? They need to take the next few years off.

Vick

Why do we need legislators at all? They don't produce (manufacture, create ect) any products! they don't bring any good for community anything, just banch of new bills, which then they will change again and again and again, just to keep themself busy and good life.
Don't we have already milions of stupid bills and amedments to them? What a waist of peoples money!!!

BroncoBob
10-07-2009, 10:33 PM
Veto the whole load of crap *** bills. Send a message to the clowns, get it right or don't bother. I can only dream of such a action on his part. Put that greasy slimeball De Leon out of a job.

Merc1138
10-07-2009, 10:39 PM
Why do we need legislators at all? They don't produce (manufacture, create ect) any products! they don't bring any good for community anything, just banch of new bills, which then they will change again and again and again, just to keep themself busy and good life.
Don't we have already milions of stupid bills and amedments to them? What a waist of peoples money!!!

It's not that we don't need leglislators, we need legislators that listen to people and do their job. For example, the whole water issue. It's the job of legislators to propose a plan for proper distribution of water, and then the governor to sign off on it and get it enacted. That would be legislators doing their job, and working for the people that elected them. They can debate about how to go about fixing the problem, maybe propose different ideas and then vote on the one that sounds the best. That's why we elect legislators.

We don't elect legislators to make up holidays for public school, decide when to start taking away rights, decide who can put what where and from who they can buy it, etc.

Hell, I'm hoping SB400 gets vetod right along with AB962. SB400 bans electronic cigarettes, the things the FDA proved has as many carcinogens as the patches and gum they're ok with being on store shelves. Smoked nonstop for 15 years, haven't picked up a deathstick in 4 months, and our asshat legislators think it'd be a benefit to society if I were smoking normal cigarettes? They're insane, seriously they're insane.(I'm actually gradually cutting back on the e-cig as well, a whole lot easier than normal cigarettes to cut back on with a lot less cancer tar and stink).

Nevermore
10-07-2009, 10:41 PM
He's got, what, 4 days left? Stop the threats. Demand and expect results. When the Legislature doesn't deliver, break out the veto stamp and pound the desk until it breaks from all the stamping. All this political posturing is non-productive. To quote Morgan Freeman from Lean On Me: 'Don't f--k around, do it expeditiously!'

mcubed4130
10-07-2009, 10:58 PM
You know... if he does mass veto everything... I think I may start respecting the guy again.

-M3

Palmaris
10-07-2009, 11:03 PM
It's not that we don't need leglislators, we need legislators that listen to people and do their job. For example, the whole water issue. It's the job of legislators to propose a plan for proper distribution of water, and then the governor to sign off on it and get it enacted. That would be legislators doing their job, and working for the people that elected them. They can debate about how to go about fixing the problem, maybe propose different ideas and then vote on the one that sounds the best. That's why we elect legislators.

We don't elect legislators to make up holidays for public school, decide when to start taking away rights, decide who can put what where and from who they can buy it, etc.

Hell, I'm hoping SB400 gets vetod right along with AB962. SB400 bans electronic cigarettes, the things the FDA proved has as many carcinogens as the patches and gum they're ok with being on store shelves. Smoked nonstop for 15 years, haven't picked up a deathstick in 4 months, and our asshat legislators think it'd be a benefit to society if I were smoking normal cigarettes? They're insane, seriously they're insane.(I'm actually gradually cutting back on the e-cig as well, a whole lot easier than normal cigarettes to cut back on with a lot less cancer tar and stink).

It sounds like legislators do everything possible to don't do anything!!!
Water issue is good sample of their failure, e-sigs ban is another good sample, AB692 one more, and one more and one more, so never ended. We don't need legislators to decide what and how manage water supply, we need sciantists and engineers to fix issue. In private company running business, do we have ligislators (for business to be succsefull)? Nope, never seen one. There is possible board of directors which decided how and where to invest sources, but they never make rulls that light bulb in bathroom needs to be no more then 40 watts and toulet paper should be 6" wide ect. If legislator will be non-paid position (good pay) and good benefits, we will not find any of those. So how is California different from business?
Why California can't be run by wise people?

coolusername2007
10-07-2009, 11:06 PM
You know... if he does mass veto everything... I think I may start respecting the guy again.

-M3

You can if you want. I think its too little, too late. He's been a girly man governor. Overall, what a waste.

Merc1138
10-07-2009, 11:15 PM
It sounds like legislators do everything possible to don't do anything!!!
Water issue is good sample of their failure, e-sigs ban is another good sample, AB692 one more, and one more and one more, so never ended. We don't need legislators to decide what and how manage water supply, we need sciantists and engineers to fix issue. In private company running business, do we have ligislators (for business to be succsefull)? Nope, never seen one. There is possible board of directors which decided how and where to invest sources, but they never make rulls that light bulb in bathroom needs to be no more then 40 watts and toulet paper should be 6" wide ect. If legislator will be non-paid position (good pay) and good benefits, we will not find any of those. So how is California different from business?
Why California can't be run by wise people?

You missed my point. I'm not saying it's for legislators to decide how exactly to make the water situation work. It's their job to determine which proposals to go with, determine how much money to spend on it, etc. That's their job. I'm not saying they replace engineers, but they need to determine when to hire them, get the proposals from the engineers and developers, etc.

Hoop
10-07-2009, 11:19 PM
You can if you want. I think its too little, too late. He's been a girly man governor. Overall, what a waste.

The people of this state voted him in and then voted against every one of his bills. Seriously, WTF do people want?

Palmaris
10-07-2009, 11:25 PM
You missed my point. I'm not saying it's for legislators to decide how exactly to make the water situation work. It's their job to determine which proposals to go with, determine how much money to spend on it, etc. That's their job. I'm not saying they replace engineers, but they need to determine when to hire them, get the proposals from the engineers and developers, etc.

Here is bigger "can of worms" is open. What legislators can understand in engineering proposal? Most of them doesn't have engineering education. So what they will understand in proposal beside : "Total" and "Due Date"?
Still non-convincing that our legistrature is efficient. Just looked list of bills on coverner's web site-disaster from my understanding, what a waist of money a lot of those bills. Too big of goverment for nothing!

weezil_boi
10-07-2009, 11:33 PM
Bring on the MASS VETO. The less this government does, the better.

This is the truest thing I have heard in a very long time.

wildhawker
10-07-2009, 11:35 PM
Merc, legislators have little direct involvement with infrastructure programming, almost none with engineering/planning (with few exceptions, such as an extraordinarily large or sensitive project).

cbn620
10-07-2009, 11:49 PM
I would be glad to see at the very least 962 and 585 vetoed, no matter what the circumstances. Don't get me wrong. But that said, and I did say this in another thread, I do not approve of Arnie's cheap politics. This stuff needs to be shot down for being bad law, not as some stupid political ploy. All that would do is lessen the spirit, impact and very effect of the veto. If he does this, the bill gets vetoed not for being bad law, but to make some kind of point. In that case he is inviting the legislature to do as he tells them on water, in return for favorable votes on their other bills. It's dirty laundry, and it stinks.

This is a matter of principle and if Arnie feels as we do about these bills, he should veto them on that premise alone. And really, he should have vetoed them on day one. In fact I might go so far as to say he should have been threatening veto since this was proposed. It should not have come this far, and for him to draw it out into this is a slap in the face to any person who cares about the 2A.

Merc1138
10-07-2009, 11:58 PM
Merc, legislators have little direct involvement with infrastructure programming, almost none with engineering/planning (with few exceptions, such as an extraordinarily large or sensitive project).

/facepalm

I never said they did. They do however determine that x millions of dollars needs spent for whatever important project needs it. It seems that our legislators have been so terrible for so long, people seem to forget that there are actually useful things that they can and should be doing without Arnold having to threaten them.

wildhawker
10-08-2009, 12:23 AM
In some sense you are correct; however, public infrastructure funding typically isn't allocated to the project level by the legislature. Frankly, I don't want my legislators trying to play engineer or project manager. I'll agree with you that there are beneficial utilizations of our legislature beyond what we see today; I think you may have used an example that didn't further the point. :)

Merc1138
10-08-2009, 1:12 AM
In some sense you are correct; however, public infrastructure funding typically isn't allocated to the project level by the legislature. Frankly, I don't want my legislators trying to play engineer or project manager. I'll agree with you that there are beneficial utilizations of our legislature beyond what we see today; I think you may have used an example that didn't further the point. :)

No, you're not getting it. "Do we give that agency money for running a pipe from here to there, or to put a desalination plant over there instead?" THAT type of decision making over proposals and then picking one. Not the materials to make the thing out of. You guys just read way too far into what I was saying.

But yes, a legislature is a good thing, when they aren't wasting time trying to name every day of the year, or giving themselves pay raises.

Dwight K. Schrute
10-08-2009, 3:09 AM
700 bills?!?! That's barely short of 2 bills per day. That seems ridiculous. Mass veto sounds good.

CharlieK
10-08-2009, 6:49 AM
700 bills?! In what, 30 days? I want a governor that promises to veto anything above 50 bills a year. The legislature needs to focus on the important.

It's sickening, isn't it? Bet not one of those bills REDUCES government spending. We have thousands and thousands of laws on the books and we're broke. The solution? More laws! This madness must stop.

GrizzlyGuy
10-08-2009, 8:17 AM
Bring on the MASS VETO. The less this government does, the better.

Amen bruddah, amen.

Dr Rockso
10-08-2009, 9:05 AM
They should generate revenue by selling tickets to the MONSTER VETO. Maybe Arnie could borrow Gravedigger for the weekend and replace the tires with treads that say VETOEDVETOEDVETOED. Just need to find a massive ink pad somewhere.

bodger
10-08-2009, 9:14 AM
I heard one of Arnie's official talking heads on the radio yesterday stating that this "mass veto" rumor was false. And that Arnie is very concerned about the water issue and is urging the lawmakers to reach a viable solution as promptly as possible.

But it was clearly stated by the spokesperson that Arnie would not mass veto all legislation awaiting his sig due to the water issue.

Could just be the spin the Gov wants the public to hear, and he's threatening mass veto behind the scenes, but having now stated that the rumor was false, it doesn't seem likely that Arnie would then contradict that denial and then mass veto.

I just want the dumb-azz to veto AB 962 NOW.

sd_shooter
10-08-2009, 9:31 AM
But it was clearly stated by the spokesperson that Arnie would not mass veto all legislation awaiting his sig due to the water issue.

Yes, the 700 veto thing is just wishful thinking.

NineteenElev3n
10-08-2009, 9:32 AM
Bring on the MASS VETO. The less this government does, the better.

+1!

hill billy
10-08-2009, 9:32 AM
700 bills?!?! That's barely short of 2 bills per day. That seems ridiculous. Mass veto sounds good.

When you consider that the legislative session is much shorter than the year it's many more than 2 per day.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 9:36 AM
Signing or vetoing a bill because it is the right thing to do...is one thing.

Using a bill signing or vetoing as a threat...is wrong and childish.

ripcurlksm
10-08-2009, 9:41 AM
Quite honestly this would make me respect the guy a bit. That would be nothing short of admirable to tell the entire legislature to go wank themselves and veto that much legislation, quite possibly the biggest smack down ever doled out. I like it! He should do it to get in the record books!

I have to say the same. This would make be respect the guy a bit.

yellowfin
10-08-2009, 9:46 AM
Using a bill signing or vetoing as a threat...is wrong and childish. Most of the bills themselves are wrong and childish.

Shane916
10-08-2009, 11:06 AM
He should send the message to Legislators telling them they had better make sure the bills they attempt to pass are actually worth it and not a waste of everyones time. How bout, if your bill gets vetoed, you're fired because you suck.

Hahaha. Epic post! :D

bruss01
10-08-2009, 11:10 AM
I don't think it's wrong for a Governor to say "Look, we are in BIG TROUBLE here in this state regarding XYZ and I am frustrated that the legislature is wasting time on hair-tinting bills and jaywalking legislation, so I am putting a blanket VETO on anything passed until the legislature steps up and actually deals with the REAL problems. I'm sorry but you are wasting the state's and the people's time and money on inconsequential feel-good bills instead of dealing with the real problems, and it is my job as Governor to put a stop to that".

This makes it plain that it is not a partisan issue, it is a management issue. It sends the message, yes I am willing to work with you but there have to be priorities and the essential business HAS TO GET HANDLED.

Mitch
10-08-2009, 11:15 AM
Using a bill signing or vetoing as a threat...is wrong and childish.

You forget it is the California state Legislature he is dealing with.

loather
10-08-2009, 11:29 AM
This makes it plain that it is not a partisan issue, it is a management issue. It sends the message, yes I am willing to work with you but there have to be priorities and the essential business HAS TO GET HANDLED.

That's exactly what I get out of it. "Stop dicking around and actually do something that will have a positive impact on the state instead of wasting time with inconsequential nonsense."

I hope the talking head was wrong and that he actually *does* plan to veto all these bills. Maybe a part-time legislature *would* be a good idea. Only give them enough time to concentrate on the real issues, and the inconsequential stuff will go away. Hopefully. *sigh*

I despise the political machine in this state, but more and more I think about running for public office so I can at least attempt to make a change.

Swatter911
10-08-2009, 11:48 AM
Schwarzenegger says he'll veto bills without water deal
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today affirmed a looming threat to veto a large bulk of the bills that have been sent to his desk unless lawmakers can strike a deal on a package of water bills.

"I made it very clear to the legislators and to the leaders that if this does not get done then I will veto a lot of their legislation, a lot of their bills, so that should inspire them to go and get the job done," he said at the end of remarks to the Association of Community College Trustees' Leadership Congress, which is meeting in San Francisco today.

Legislative leaders are scheduled to meet with the governor at 11:30 today to continue to work toward a self-imposed Friday deadline for reaching an agreement on the bills. Schwarzenegger, who has until Sunday to act on more than 700 bills that were sent to his desk at the end of the session, has been withholding action on the bills during the ongoing water talks.

The Bee's Matt Weiser has more on the bills and what is at stake in the negotiations here.


http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/026062.html

"A lot" does not equal all.

Theseus
10-08-2009, 1:03 PM
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/026062.html

"A lot" does not equal all.

But certainly might include ones that will potentially negatively impact state revenues.

hoffmang
10-08-2009, 1:17 PM
Schwarzenegger says he'll veto bills without water deal

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today affirmed a looming threat to veto a large bulk of the bills that have been sent to his desk unless lawmakers can strike a deal on a package of water bills.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/026062.html

-Gene

n2k
10-08-2009, 1:20 PM
Schwarzenegger

Water is biggest crisis facing CA. 40% unemplymt in Cent Val. Delta close to collapse. Leg must deliver water Friday or see lots of vetoes.
about 1 hour ago from TwitterBerry

wildhawker
10-08-2009, 1:21 PM
PRESS ON!

TripleT
10-08-2009, 1:25 PM
Yup, got the same Tweet from the governator about an hour ago...

"Water is biggest crisis facing CA. 40% unemplymt in Cent Val. Delta close to collapse. Leg must deliver water Friday or see lots of vetoes."

That water problem is a bad deal but that fight can continue. The jig is up for AB962 with no veto, so for once I hope the stumblebums proceed status quo and don't get the water deal done...

yellowfin
10-08-2009, 1:30 PM
That's exactly what I get out of it. "Stop dicking around and actually do something that will have a positive impact on the state instead of wasting time with inconsequential nonsense." Something we could have used in force for the last 3 decades.

hoffmang
10-08-2009, 1:31 PM
Capitol Weekly is saying:

http://twitter.com/capitolweekly/status/4716024987

Governor also told the SF audience that he would veto hundreds of bills if there is no water deal
and http://twitter.com/capitolweekly/status/4716085074
The remarks were the first directly from the guv linking water deal and bills.His office has said bills will be considered "on their merits"

-Gene

Uriah02
10-08-2009, 1:33 PM
Quite honestly this would make me respect the guy a bit. That would be nothing short of admirable to tell the entire legislature to go wank themselves and veto that much legislation, quite possibly the biggest smack down ever doled out. I like it! He should do it to get in the record books!

:rockon:

m1aowner
10-08-2009, 1:36 PM
UGH! Over 700 bills! Really! I don't think congress even comes close to that!

OK, I'm pissed! Where do I download those petitions to make these clowns part time? They were on here somewhere.

MolonLabe2008
10-08-2009, 1:53 PM
So, if the State Legislature does what the Governor is asking (which is solving the state's water system problems), then the governor will not veto the other bills?

If he doesn't veto them, that means he will sign or they become law by default.

Does anyone else see a problem with this logic???

themethod
10-08-2009, 2:08 PM
Hopefully there are a few bills he's going to veto regardless. I've been hammering away on all fronts and getting friends to do the same.

Trying to stay optimistic.

coolusername2007
10-08-2009, 3:19 PM
The people of this state voted him in and then voted against every one of his bills. Seriously, WTF do people want?

So true! But then he didn't help any by switching sides either. He mistook being out spent with being unpopular...and what Hollyweird type can't live with being unpopular?!

coolusername2007
10-08-2009, 3:36 PM
I'll tell you what, if he gets the water turned on by tomorrow AND he VETOES ALL the bills ANYWAY...then I'll start respecting him again. Why? Because the water should never have been turned off to begin with, and because 700+ bills is just "wrong and childish." Maybe all of our calls to his office should have a new message...VETO ALL.

lioneaglegriffin
10-08-2009, 3:38 PM
DEW IT!

CalNRA
10-08-2009, 3:40 PM
700 bills?!?! That's barely short of 2 bills per day. That seems ridiculous. Mass veto sounds good.

that's the result of a bunch of full time legislators with generous salary and perks.

Everyone wants to make an impact to pad their resume, at any cost.:(

Go Conan Go!!!!!

coolusername2007
10-08-2009, 3:53 PM
Just called the Governor's office, pressed 1, then 0 for an operator and told the guy to VETO all of it! Got a bit of a giggle in response. Then followed up with "I want the water turned on and I want every bill vetoed anyway! Including the gun ban, the cow palace ban. Its ridiculous to pass 700+ bills and not be able to turn the water on! Veto all of it." He said thank you I'll pass this on to the Governor. I feel better now.

unusedusername
10-08-2009, 4:12 PM
Just called the Governor's office, pressed 1, then 0 for an operator and told the guy to VETO all of it! Got a bit of a giggle in response. Then followed up with "I want the water turned on and I want every bill vetoed anyway! Including the gun ban, the cow palace ban. Its ridiculous to pass 700+ bills and not be able to turn the water on! Veto all of it." He said thank you I'll pass this on to the Governor. I feel better now.

:D We should all do that

PS: Don't actually do this everyone, as the NRA bigwigs have strategies in place that require us to focus only on 962 and 585.

lioneaglegriffin
10-08-2009, 4:33 PM
:D We should all do that

PS: Don't actually do this everyone, as the NRA bigwigs have strategies in place that require us to focus only on 962 and 585.

whats that saying about ends and means? :whistling:

bigstick61
10-08-2009, 5:54 PM
I picked up a copy of the LA Times today and was reading that the deadline for the legislature to act on the water issue is tomorrow at midnight, whereupon he will veto all of the bills; the author stated he heard this from a staffer. An article in the Op-Ed section had its author opine that the governor may not carry through on his promise (it was of course critical of the tactic, whereas the other article praised it); he also mentoned that he thought that major progress on a bill by the legislature may be enough for the governor to not veto all the bills. I'm really hoping that either he vetoes everything (I would give hhim a bit more respect) or vetoes the particular bills in question. But really, there is no excuse for there being 700 bills, even less so when there are major issues that actually need attention (and where the government for once actually has a legitimate role). It illustrates part of the larger issue in this State, which goes well above and beyond the gun issue.

jumbopanda
10-08-2009, 6:20 PM
it would effectively wipe out nearly all the work done by the Legislature the past 10 months.


DEW IT!!!

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3020/1251269640607.jpg

lioneaglegriffin
10-08-2009, 6:36 PM
this is the equivalent of kicking someones sandcastle after they wasted so much time to build a crappy one.

dirtnap
10-08-2009, 6:40 PM
this is the equivalent of kicking someones sandcastle after they wasted so much time to build a crappy one.

Kick that mofo arnie!

loather
10-08-2009, 6:49 PM
this is the equivalent of kicking someones sandcastle after they wasted so much time to build a crappy one.

They shouldn't have built a crappy one in the first place.

Sometimes the best thing we can do with a crappy structure is to tear it down and start anew. This, I believe, would show the legislature that the governor means business. "When I tell you to concentrate your efforts on these pressing issues, you will deliberate until you come up with a reasonable solution. Wasting time on petty laws that I told you not to waste time on will not be tolerated."

I'd love to sign that petition to make the legislature in this state part-time.

vrand
10-08-2009, 7:04 PM
At least AB962 will be vetoed :)

:cheers2:

Tweak338
10-08-2009, 7:08 PM
700?

"This Is CALIFORNIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

lockandloadllc
10-08-2009, 7:26 PM
Look at what's on Arnold's twitter....

http://twitter.com/schwarzenegger

KylaGWolf
10-08-2009, 7:48 PM
UGH! Over 700 bills! Really! I don't think congress even comes close to that!

OK, I'm pissed! Where do I download those petitions to make these clowns part time? They were on here somewhere.

Instead of making them part time you would be better off making it if they pass garbage bills they are FINED out of their own pocket the amount of money they would cost the state. Just imagine how DeLeon would feel to have to pay the cost to implement his AB962....just think how long he and his family would have to work to pay 500 million :D

The Wingnut
10-08-2009, 7:55 PM
Ahnold would regain a huge amount of lost respect from me if he follows through. Not just on 585, 962, and HMD, but the fact that he's telling the whole of the California legislature to shape the hell up.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

vrand
10-08-2009, 8:02 PM
Ahnold would regain a huge amount of lost respect from me if he follows through. Not just on 585, 962, and HMD, but the fact that he's telling the whole of the California legislature to shape the hell up.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

:cheers2:

locosway
10-08-2009, 8:12 PM
Wow, they've made 700 bills? WTF!

They can't focus on the budget or anything important like the water system, but they can worry about BS ammo bills and the Cow Palace?

No wonder people hate legislatures.

ZRX61
10-08-2009, 9:17 PM
The downside to this is what?

That was also my first thought :)

bodger
10-08-2009, 9:19 PM
It is obsurd to think he will actually veto 700 bills. It's a political ploy to make people believe he "means business". When in actuality, he knows the water issue will be resolved.


Yeah, it's a smokescreen and a lot of empty posturing. He said he would veto
"a lot" of legislation if the assembly didn't stop dragging on the water issue.

That is probably an empty threat to begin with and who knows if "a lot" would include AB962.

DeLeon should be censured for wasting everyone's time when there are more important issues.

If Arnie was any kind of governor he would walk onto the floor of the assembly and veto AB962 with a giant red marker and tell DeLeon to either get better at his job of serving the people or GTF outta there.

hill billy
10-09-2009, 8:57 AM
If Arnie was any kind of governor he would walk onto the floor of the assembly and veto AB962 with a giant red marker and tell DeLeon to either get better at his job of serving the people or GTF outta there.

If he did that I would support an amendment allowing him to be President.

Not really but you get the idea.

locosway
10-09-2009, 10:10 AM
I find it hard to believe that if the Governor worked 12 hour days, he could actually look over each bill in a 30 minute window without distraction. Because that's what 700 bills amounts to. So, either he doesn't read them, or he has someone else read them and tell him which to sign. Either way, it's not good.

There should be a one bill limit for each legislator per month.

Gator Monroe
10-09-2009, 10:18 AM
Meg Whittman shoud call ahnold and ask him to do mass veto ? (JB would not)

Decoligny
10-09-2009, 11:24 AM
Republican democrat or libertarian I will vote for whomever vows to veto actually vetoes everything

Too many politician VOW to do all kinds of thing that would be great for their constituants. Too few follow through and actually uphold their vows.

1911su16b870
10-09-2009, 11:38 AM
Veto them all and let the legislators sort them out :)

Arnold will reedem his governorship if he veto's them and saves the taxpayers all that cost.

nicki
10-09-2009, 1:26 PM
I guess he want's to be the "Terminator" again.

Nicki

Neverfox
10-09-2009, 1:40 PM
I admit that I didn't read all 9 pages of this thread but glancing through the first 3 or 4, there seems to be something we are ignoring: the fact that if his threat works (which I assume he wants or else why do it?) and the water bill passes, then it could mean that he will not veto any of the bills as a way of holding up his end of the bargain. This means that 700 bills, including the ones we care about, will become law without the thoughtful consideration of the Gov. about whether they should be vetoed on their own merits. This actually seems to make matters worse since now the gun bills have been reduced to a single point of failure that isn't related to guns at all but rather water. It takes the debate off of the real issue and attaches it to something else. The only good I see in this is that there seems to be a low chance that this water bill will happen in time. But likewise, it also means that the Government is playing chicken with the deadline for bills that don't need a signature to become law.

elenius
10-09-2009, 2:17 PM
He said he will veto lots of bills if he doesn't get his way. He didn't say that he won't veto any bills if he does.

I admit that I didn't read all 9 pages of this thread but glancing through the first 3 or 4, there seems to be something we are ignoring: the fact that if his threat works (which I assume he wants or else why do it?) and the water bill passes, then it could mean that he will not veto any of the bills as a way of holding up his end of the bargain. This means that 700 bills, including the ones we care about, will become law without the thoughtful consideration of the Gov. about whether they should be vetoed on their own merits. This actually seems to make matters worse since now the gun bills have been reduced to a single point of failure that isn't related to guns at all but rather water. It takes the debate off of the real issue and attaches it to something else. The only good I see in this is that there seems to be a low chance that this water bill will happen in time. But likewise, it also means that the Government is playing chicken with the deadline for bills that don't need a signature to become law.

lockandloadllc
10-09-2009, 2:47 PM
any updates on Arnold getting his water to central CA?

loather
10-09-2009, 3:37 PM
The deadline is midnight tonight. We'll see tomorrow morning, I suppose.

7x57
10-09-2009, 3:43 PM
This weekend is opening weekend for deer season in D11. I guess I'll know Monday what new flavor of hell is going to be served up.

7x57

advocatusdiaboli
10-09-2009, 7:07 PM
The national media are playing up the story that the governor is engaging in brinksmanship with the state legislature over their inability to pass any meaningful water legislation of material impact in a state facing every increasing shortages yet plagued by poor usage habits. But, if true, I'll take a win on this issue any way I can get one.

It's not long until the new session of the Supreme Court and NPR was opining that the leaning of the court hasn't changed with Sotomayor replacing a moderate liberal--I hope, if anything, it leans a bit more right on 2A issues.

Californio
10-09-2009, 7:14 PM
So if he Veto's them all on on zero hour are they truly dead for this session per the California Constitution or can they kiss and makeup with a water bill and then wave a magic wand and bring them back to life?

advocatusdiaboli
10-09-2009, 7:30 PM
"So if he Veto's them all on on zero hour are they truly dead for this session per the California Constitution or can they kiss and makeup with a water bill and then wave a magic wand and bring them back to life?"

Not to my understanding. Once a bill is vetoed, that bill in that form is dead. Could they bring another up? Sure, but if it did not differ materially from the previous one, it's chances of re-veto would normally be very good. We are assuming that the governor, having vetoed similar legislation twice before is only doing it this time because of the water issue--I personally don't think that is the case. I think he planned to veto it anyway but left it hanging so the total of bills taken "hostage" was bigger and had more effect. And we poor embattled California gun owners are letting our fears (myself included) rule us a bit too much. Not saying don't call though--call, call, call, and then call some more. Never, ever give up until it's over.

vrand
10-09-2009, 8:21 PM
Schwarzenegger considering a mass veto

Do it


:cheers2:

natasha69
10-09-2009, 8:40 PM
so is the deadline tonight at midnight or sunday at midnight?

seems tonight is more realistic because they could play chicken if its sunday and he doesn't sign or submit the bill vetos in time and they all pass by his not vetoing in time...

bodger
10-09-2009, 9:23 PM
so is the deadline tonight at midnight or sunday at midnight?

seems tonight is more realistic because they could play chicken if its sunday and he doesn't sign or submit the bill vetos in time and they all pass by his not vetoing in time...

Would knowing if Arnie is in Sac for the weekend give us any clue? I think I read he goes home to LA every weekend.

Can he veto from home?

Sunday at midnight as I understand it is the last breath of hope we have for veto.

hoffmang
10-09-2009, 9:39 PM
Would knowing if Arnie is in Sac for the weekend give us any clue? I think I read he goes home to LA every weekend.

Can he veto from home?

Sunday at midnight as I understand it is the last breath of hope we have for veto.

The Governor's office will be open and working all weekend up to midnight Sunday. The Governor will be in Sacramento this weekend and he will deal with all 700 before the end of the day Sunday.

-Gene

Lone_Gunman
10-09-2009, 10:07 PM
Fox 40 just reported the legislators have gone home for the night without reaching a water deal. Also reported that the Gov gave them till midnight Sunday. IDK how accurate the last part is. Isn't midnight Sunday tge deadline to veto many of these bills? It would seem the deal would need to be made sooner.

CalNRA
10-09-2009, 10:09 PM
Fox 40 just reported the legislators have gone home for the night without reaching a water deal. Also reported that the Gov gave them till midnight Sunday. IDK how accurate the last part is. Isn't midnight Sunday tge deadline to veto many of these bills? It would seem the deal would need to be made sooner.

the legislators have worked hard all year(I just threw up a ltitle as I said that), time for them to take a break and enjoy the weekend.

The Governor has a lot of "No" to hand write. Leave him alone.

vrand
10-09-2009, 10:48 PM
the legislators have worked hard all year(I just threw up a ltitle as I said that), time for them to take a break and enjoy the weekend.

The Governor has a lot of "No" to hand write. Leave him alone.

:cheers2:

coolusername2007
10-09-2009, 11:52 PM
I admit that I didn't read all 9 pages of this thread but glancing through the first 3 or 4, there seems to be something we are ignoring: the fact that if his threat works (which I assume he wants or else why do it?) and the water bill passes, then it could mean that he will not veto any of the bills as a way of holding up his end of the bargain. This means that 700 bills, including the ones we care about, will become law without the thoughtful consideration of the Gov. about whether they should be vetoed on their own merits. This actually seems to make matters worse since now the gun bills have been reduced to a single point of failure that isn't related to guns at all but rather water. It takes the debate off of the real issue and attaches it to something else. The only good I see in this is that there seems to be a low chance that this water bill will happen in time. But likewise, it also means that the Government is playing chicken with the deadline for bills that don't need a signature to become law.

In a year with our biggest financial crisis, one where they weren't supposed to be working on anything until the budget got done, they somehow managed to pass 700+ bills all in the time AFTER the budget? Yeah right.

I for one haven't ignored the point you mentioned. And am already ahead by a move. The legislature is either extremely efficient, which I highly doubt on many levels, or they were just putting up a big front back during the budget crisis. The legislature has already called the Governor on his threats, they passed 700+ bills! And he's still two steps behind them with his "solve the water crisis or I'll veto everything" bit. Except for his first few days in office (since his failed initiatives), he's been playing catch up and has yet to actually do so. He's painted himself into another corner, the legislature has strung him along all this time and are still doing so. His only saving grace at this point is that his term is over and he can do pretty much whatever he wants. Now is the moment in time where his legacy will be formulated. Will he solve the water crisis AND punish one of this nation's most childish legislatures, or will he cower yet once again and be firmly cemented as the girly man governor he actually was?

chris
10-10-2009, 12:37 AM
it would effectively wipe out nearly all the work done by the Legislature the past 10 months.

The downside to this is what?

and what did the legislature do this year besides screw everyone in the state by calling it work.

gcvt
10-10-2009, 1:17 AM
and what did the legislature do this year besides screw everyone in the state by calling it work.

Zilch!

dchang0
10-10-2009, 2:54 AM
So the governor has a backlog of 10 months?
Sounds like he needs to spend less time in his hot tub.

Actually, if you keep up on the news, Schwarzenegger is one of the best governors we've had in a long time. The guy has been working his tail off trying to hold the slippery worms we call legislators to the fire for years. Previous governors were either completely on the same "left-wing" side as the legislators or too spineless to try to stop them.

Now, as for whether or not he's actually been successful at fending off the legislature, well, at least he's trying a lot harder than anyone else.

bodger
10-10-2009, 8:00 AM
the legislators have worked hard all year(I just threw up a ltitle as I said that), time for them to take a break and enjoy the weekend.

The Governor has a lot of "No" to hand write. Leave him alone.


I throw up a little every time I think of the fact that Arnie the RINO half-azz actor with the anti-gun wife actually has the power to decide how I buy my ammo.

And I have to sit here for another 36 hours and wonder what he'll do with this bill.

loather
10-10-2009, 8:08 AM
And I have to sit here for another 36 hours and wonder what he'll do with this bill.

It's disappointing that he extended his deadline to the legislature to Sunday.

Now, as you say, we're all stuck waiting :(