I see how this is going to work – it is going to be the love/hate month where it comes to Arnold Schwarzenegger and pen — whether he uses it to sign a bad bill, or uses it to veto one. I am still trying hard to discern the ideology and principles that he is applying when reviewing bills so that I can try to have an accurate anticipation of what he will do.
Assembly Bill 172 by Democrat Assemblywoman Wilma Chan of Oakland was a veto waiting to happen. This legislation clearly puts the State of California further into the business of operating preschools (you’ll recall that the voters soundly rejected an attempt by ultra-liberal Rob Reiner to pass a tax increase to do just this). As a matter of fact, this bill was an end-run around the voters who rejected that plan. The clear lesson of that rejection was that voters do not want their tax dollars going into government pre-school. But, of course, someone is trying to take as the lesson that the objection was not to the government schooling, but just to raising taxes on smokers to do it.
Anyways, about a half-dozen moderate Republicans voted for this bill — and there was an odd and very disappointing vote for the bill from conservative Assemblyman Mark Wyland (shame on him, he KNOWS better).
It is also interesting to watch which bill signings and vetoes end up getting a high profile on the Governor’s official website. Clearly the Governor is proud of this particular lefty bill signing — it is featured with a ‘live webcast’ of the signing. I didn’t see a live webcast of his speech rejecting socialized health care for California?
Well, I guess we’ll all hold on for the ride — and you can join me in watching the Worst of the Worst list, and see how the Governor does on those. Perhaps we should have put AB 172 on that list, it’s really bad, too.
The Governor did veto SB 1437 yesterday, for which he should be commended. This bad bill by liberal Sheila Kuehl merited the veto that it got, and was the first official action by the Governator on one of our ‘ranked’ 20 bills. Kuehl’s bill would have prohibited in public schools the instruction, or the adoption of any instructional material, that reflects adversely on persons due to sexual orientation. The reason for the veto was clear: The Education Code already prohibits discrimination against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender individuals and this bill is designed to silence the opinions of those who have a different view.
My neck already feels like I’ve spent a day at Wimbleton — left, right, left, right.