The Winter of Arnolds Discontent
When Arnold Schwarzenegger visited Capitol Hill for the first time as California's governor in late 2003, he received warm welcomes from both Democrats and Republicans. But when he returns to Washington today the governor will get a chilly reception from California legislators who feel he hasnt delivered on his promises. During his gubernatorial campaign, Schwarzenegger said he would be the "Collectinator," using his relationships with the White House and Republicans in Congress to get more federal dollars to his state. California at the time received about 79 cents for every dollar it pays in taxes and so far that hasn't changed, even with the country's most famous Republican not named Bush in Sacramento. California Democrats are furious about proposed cuts in Medicaid and several grant programs in the Education Department that will take away more money from the state at time when it still has a huge budget deficit. The 33 Democrats in the House, along with Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, plan on asking Schwarzenegger why he isn't getting more from the White House, and why he isnt asking congressional Republicans, especially those from California, to amend the federal budget so the state gets more money. "We want to know if he is strong enough to really pull that weight for our state," says Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, the chair of California Democratic Delegation in Congress.
Democrats aren't Arnold's only problem. Frustrated by a strong Democratic state legislature that has stopped many of his initiatives, Schwarzenegger has proposed a plan to redraw California's district lines, many of which were created explicitly to protect incumbent legislators in both Sacramento and Washington. The goal would be to create not only geographically-accurate districts, but also ones who would elect more moderate (and perhaps Republican) members to the State Assembly. But in Congress, Republican members are openly worrying about the implications of Schwarzenegger's plan, because redrawing lines could put them in danger of losing seats. California Republican David Drier, who was one of the governor's biggest supporters during the recall, has already come out against the redistricting idea, and the Los Angeles Times estimated that only four of the state's 20-member Republican congressional delegation supports the idea.
Whos the Most Liberal?
Listening to her critics, you might have guessed Hillary Clinton is the farthest left of the Democrats that might run for President in 2008. In fact, Clinton wasn't even one of the top 10 most liberal Senators last year. But the true liberal of that group, according to rankings compiled by National Journal, a non-partisan public affairs magazine, is actually John Kerry. Because he was off campaigning last year, Kerry missed too many of 63 votes the magazine used to calculate its ratings for 2004. But his lifetime ranking, compiled from his entire Senate career, puts him at a 85.7 (out of 100) liberal rating, compared to a 80.7 for Clinton. While Kerry was attacked as being too far to the left in the 2004 general election, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh has the opposite problem. Bayh, with a liberal rating of only 61.7 was more conservative last year than Joe Lieberman, (69.8) who struggled to woo strong liberals in the Democratic primaries competing against Kerry and Howard Dean.
For Republicans, 2008 hopefuls Rick Santorum, Frist and Virginia Senator George Allen all had similar rankings, around 78 on the conservative scale through their Senate careers. But whatever popularity and name recognition John McCain has, being ranked the third-most liberal Republican (48.3) in the Senate last year probably won't help him in the Republican primaries. Asked about the rankings, McCain said "over 22 years, I've been far more on the conservative side" and blamed his ranking in part on his opposition to additional tax cuts that many in his party support but he thinks will add to the deficit. Allen said "I just vote my conscience, adding that he considers himself "a common-sense Jeffersonian conservative." (Never mind that the third president was a founder of today's Democratic Party.)
When a Plan is Not a Plan
While Democrats are criticizing President Bushs Social Security proposals, theyve yet to put forth a plan of their own. Thats because they havent had to; instead, theyve been able to have it both ways, bludgeoning what might be in Bush's plan, while at the same time claiming that they dont have to come up with one of their own because the President hasn't put out a plan at all. The White House has yet to issue a complete statement of what it would do to address the Social Security solvency problem, but Democrats have been able to successfully attack some of the ideas, like indexing benefits based on prices rather than wages, that have been leaked out.
Whether Bush's ideas on Social Security amount to a plan or not, many Congressional Republicans are increasingly skeptical of the whole issue. Asked about the chances of Social Security changes passing in the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist said "we'll see." Last month, House Republican leaders had told Bush that to get his Social Security reforms through Congress, he needed to present a plan with precise details. His ideas have been so unpopular with voters thus far that now Republican legislators have told the White House to keep its plan on Pennsylvania Ave. and let Congress try to craft a palatable proposal itself.