Let’s get down to it:

• Asm. Mike Davis has released a get to know you video in his race for the 26th Senate seat, the seat vacated by Mark Ridley-Thomas when he won the LA County Supervisor’s race over Bernard Parks. His main opponent is Asm. Curren Price.  The election is tomorrow.

• Local governments who took losses during the dissolution of Lehman Brothers want a bailout of their own.  Apparently caveat emptor no longer applies as we head toward a slippery slope of bailouts for everyone.  Yes, multiple investors lost their shirts on Lehman, through no fault of their own, but I fail to see how that demands a cash transfer from the Treasury.

• A new study links student obesity and proximity between schools and fast-food restaurants.  I hope that study didn’t cost too much, because it’s completely intuitive.  And I have no problem with urban planners who take this information into account when zoning areas around schools.  There’s a public health responsibility for government here.

• California is going to try to sell about $4 billion of bonds this week. It’s not a particularly huge sale, but the response should be telling. Joel Fox notes that if we have problems selling these, don’t hold your breath on the lottery securitization.  With the recent bond rating decrease, they won’t be an easy sell.  Although, first-day sales yielded about $2.4 billion, almost half of the overall goal.  John Myers examines why.  I’d guess that investors know they’ll get a great yield because they’re demanding a high interest rate because of the state’s fiscal troubles.  With interest rates near zero, these are some of the best deals out there.  But more bonds sold means more future payouts that hit taxpayers’ bottom line.

• Arnold is very sad about raising taxes. Poor Arnold, can I get you a tissue?

• Finally, our condolences go out to the families of the Oakland Police officers gunned down this weekend.  The incident is a profound tragedy for the City of Oakland and the entire state.

We’ve mentioned California’s crashing bond rating several times over the last year or so.  That’s mostly because we keep getting downgraded. Well, yesterday was no different. We have now broke that tie with Louisiana, and we now stand alone with the worst credit rating amongst the 50 states:

Fitch Ratings downgraded California’s general-obligation bond rating Thursday due to concerns about the state’s economy and ongoing budget problems, likely raising costs for taxpayers and dampening demand for $4 billion in bonds the state intends to sell next week. California’s bond rating now ranks worst among the 50 states, according to Fitch.

The announcement came days before State Treasurer Bill Lockyer plans a bond sale starting next Wednesday to replenish the state’s Pooled Money Investment Account and enable California to begin paying out $500 million to projects that desperately need public funding to continue.

Fitch Ratings downgraded California’s general-obligation bond rating from A+ to A, which likely means the state will have to offer more attractive rates and could preclude some investors from purchasing the bonds, said Alex Anderson, portfolio manager of Los Angeles-based Envision Capital Management. Fitch had California on a negative ratings watch since early last year.(SacBee 3/20/09)

Well, there you go, there’s a few more millions out the window. Which program do you think will get the axe this time? Maybe we can just cut out the 12th grade entirely. I mean, we don’t really need Californians to know advanced math skills do we? Literature, Schmiterature.

With the bonds scheduled to go to market next week, the cost of this is going to be quite real, and will add substantially to the $8 Billion number being tossed around now. Unfortunately, the only real way to address the bond rating is to actually resolve the budget crisis, and apparently the bond agencies aren’t inclined to believe that the latest round of budget “solutions” has actually achieved a long-term solution.

I suppose their assessment is valid, but it’s sure a fine time for the rating agencies to start paying attention.  Too bad they weren’t this vigilant with the mortgage backed securities.

Crossposted from the California High Speed Rail Blog

All the way back in March I opined that the biggest threat to the passage of the high speed rail bonds was the state budget. If the budget was still in deficit, folks might vote against HSR bonds even though the two are unrelated.

That may well be happening. We haven’t seen new polls on Prop 1A in some time, but when we do I expect it to show a very close race.

The problem is that this thinking is deeply flawed. The state budget’s problems do not – at all – mean that Prop 1A is a bad idea. Prop 1A is not the reason why the state is in deficit. It will not worsen that deficit. Instead Prop 1A is absolutely necessary to getting us OUT of deficit. Anyone telling you otherwise is simply demonstrating their ignorance of economics.

Let’s look at this more closely. First, the state budget deficit. Deficits are NOT a product of natural forces but instead of bad decisions. California’s current deficit stems from two major sources:

1. $12 billion in tax giveaways since 1993. This includes a $6 billion hole Arnold blew in the budget when he unilaterally cut the vehicle license fee upon coming to office in 2003. That is an annual cost of $6 billion, by the way, since Arnold has since been backfilling the revenues. Restoring that $6 billion would alone close the projected deficit. Prop 1A will create 160,000 infrastructure jobs that will pump income and sales tax revenue into the state’s general fund. We badly need that revenue. We cannot afford to leave that money on the table.

   (Note: California has also cut nearly $10 billion in spending since early 2007. Those who claim that this is a spending problem clearly have no knowledge of the details of the state budget.)

2. The weakening economy. As I have been arguing almost every day this month, that is an argument FOR Prop 1A. Infrastructure projects are a tried and true part of stabilizing and growing the economy during rough times. The Golden Gate Bridge, Shasta Dam, and the California Aqueduct were all built with voter-approved bonds during a recession, the first two during the deepest part of the Great Depression. Prop 1A will do the same today. We need jobs. Now. California would be crazy to turn down 160,000 jobs right now.

Further, as a recent PBS documentary explained, it was high gas prices that burst the housing bubble. Yes, gas prices have been falling – but that is only because of demand destruction. In other words, people drive less, so the price falls. The ONLY way that can be sustained over the long-term is by building alternatives to oil. If we don’t, demand WILL rise – and so will gas prices.

Finally, numerous economists have argued strongly for infrastructure spending right now as both economic stimulus and a way to ease the financial crisis – which after all is happening because of underlying insolvency here in the United States. These economists include Lawrence Summers, Nouriel Roubini, Duncan Black, Dean Baker and Brad DeLong, and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman.

Those who claim otherwise – that the state budget deficit means we must reject Prop 1A – are lying to you. They’re trying to prevent a revival of the New Deal. These groups, like the oil company funded, far-right Reason Foundation, or the anti-government Howard Jarvis Association, are primarily interested in drowning government in a bathtub. Their opposition to HSR is part of a broader ideological agenda designed to prevent California from addressing its economic crisis by providing sustainable, non-oil based transportation that we badly need.

If you want to help ease our budget deficit and grow the economy, vote for Prop 1A. If you want to prolong the pain and do nothing to resolve the deficit, vote against Prop 1A. A no vote on Prop 1A is like punching the wall to cure starvation. It’s only going to leave you in more pain and do nothing to solve the immediate problem.

UPDATE: David Dayen makes a similar point, on a much broader scale, about the need to go Keynesian on this crisis and reject neo-Hooverism.

One of the few constants in California history is fighting about water. And in this, the worst drought since recordkeeping began in the 1880s, the fight is shaping up to be a big one. On Tuesday Arnold went to San Luis Reservoir and announced plans for a $6 billion water bond for the November 2008 election. It is based on building 2 new dams in the Sierra and reviving the old Peripheral Canal, one of the most contentious infrastructure projects in our state’s history, going down to defeat in the 1982 election.

Dems have blocked his bill so far, and Don Perata has offered a $5 billion bond plan that steers clear of either new dams or a Peripheral Canal. But Arnold’s interest in new water storage is clear, and so it is worth examining for a moment exactly why this is not the best way to respond to a drought, to climate change.

Over the last 30 years California has repeatedly experienced drought conditions. The longest was the 1986-93 drought, which any of us who lived here or grew up then remember clearly, from dead lawns and 3-minute showers; one of the worst was in 1976-77, when Marin County had to run a hose across the Richmond Bridge to get water from East Bay MUD and SoCal pools went dry, to the delight of skateboarders.

But these are a drop in the bucket compared to megadroughts that hit this state several centuries ago. As Mike Davis recounts in his crucial environmental history of Southern California, Ecology of Fear, researchers have discovered a 200-year period of drought hit the state around the 1200s, and suspect many more exist in the historical climate record. (This is the same drought believed to have forced the dispersal of the Anasazi culture in Arizona.)

Climate change in California is expected to produce a hotter and drier climate, with a reduced snowpack. Precipitation in the Sierra is expected to fall as rain more often than snow, forcing significant shifts in how water is stored.

But the problem isn’t just that the Sierra will see less snow and more rain, but that it will see less water, period. And the problem isn’t limited to the Sierra – as anyone who’s been to the Southwest recently knows, the whole region is suffering from reduced rainfall. Some experts suggest we may be on the verge of a 90 year drought in the US Southwest, and that Lakes Powell and Mead may never return to their previous levels.

Faced with the prospect of prolonged drought, it seems foolish for California to assume it can solve its problem merely through added storage – why build more storage for less rain?

Further, as Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, of Restore the Delta, notes at the California Progress Report, the dams and especially the Peripheral Canal will likely only cause further damage to the Delta, and Arnold’s water spending priorities do absolutely nothing to address the critical need to repair obsolete and vulnerable Delta levees.

No, the solution to our worsening water woes is not to assume that we can just add storage and continue our usual ways. As with energy consumption, reduction in demand – conservation – is THE vital piece of the puzzle.

Friends of the River, a statewide water advocacy group, points out that the state’s own water assessment plan shows that conservation can eliminate the “need” for these new dams.

Some might argue that Californians are too wedded to regular carwashes and hosing down their sidewalks and taking 20 minute showers to actually reduce their water usage. But this is not so. Here in Monterey County we have successfully met water conservation goals. Californians rose to the occasion during the drought of the late ’80s and early ’90s, as they had during the ’76-’77 drought. Explain to Californians the truth of the matter, that we are facing reduced supply and may be facing it for some time to come, and they will act.

Right now California, like the rest of the country, stands at a tipping point. We now agree that climate change is real. We know it is happening and we have a pretty clear idea of what its consequences will be. And we know what we can do to help us survive it without catastrophic disruption. Californians have shown that they can conserve. Will Sacramento fully embrace that ethic, or will Arnold’s “party on, dudes” attitude prevail?

So, let me start this out with a caveat, I’ve been, well, less than a Bill Lockyer fan after he said he voted for Arnold in the recall. Either he believed the hype, disliked Bustamante (well, he’s not alone there), or a combination of both. And what’s with announcing that you voted for a Republican?

That being said, BuyCaliforniaBonds.com is a genuinely cool idea.  It’s scheduled for wider release when bonds go up for sale in about a week, but here’s what they have up there now:

California voters have approved more than $60 billion of bonds to construct schools, roads, housing, parks, flood protection and other crucial infrastructure projects.  Over the next few years, the state will be selling these voter-authorized bonds to investors to raise the money to build these projects.  The state pays the principal and interest on the bonds, known as general obligation (GO) bonds, from the state’s general fund.

State GO bonds historically have been purchased by both individual investors and sophisticated “institutional investors” such as insurance companies and mutual funds.  Individual investors, however, often have found it difficult to buy the bonds and to purchase them on the same terms as large institutional investors.  State Treasurer Bill Lockyer wants to make it easier for individual Californians to invest in their own future by buying the state’s bonds.  Buy California Bonds will be the site to visit to learn about California bonds and how to acquire them.  Our next general obligation bond sale is scheduled for late June.  Come back to this site on June 11 to learn more.

Hey, that’s today, so we might learn more soon, but as I understand it, this site is just an advertising component and they won’t be actually selling the bonds there.  But, I think that they  will  be making the bonds available to individuals before institutional investors, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the traditional arrangement.  Now, these bonds aren’t exactly an IPO and won’t make anybody rich, but this is a cool move by Senator, Atty General Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

You see, this is one thing that governments back in the day knew. If you are going to float debt, better to a) float it at home and b) get the citizens involved in their government.  So, like say the old Liberty Bonds in the WWII days. They got people to understand the shared sense of sacrifice. This is a good idea to be brought back, so that people understand the issues of debt financing. It’s clear that Californians aren’t really comfortable with the workings of the government, so why not reach out in tangible ways, like this bond issue, to help reconnect government to its citizens. Good work, Treasurer Lockyer.

From Dan Weintraub’s California Insider, a portion of Moody’s report describing the increase of California’s bond rating to A1:

California’s rating remains low compared to other states due to its ongoing fiscal challenges. The most immediate challenge is the state’s stubborn structural budget gap. Although moderate in size on its face — at less than 4% in the fiscal 2007 budget proposal — the gap remains a concern for three reasons: (i) its persistence after several years of good economic performance; (ii) the state’s still relatively narrow budget reserves; and (iii) the state’s high degree of reliance on tax revenue from volatile sources such as corporate net income, capital gains, exercised stock options, and high-income taxpayers generally. Although the conditions do not appear to be in place for a sharp high-end income decline in the near-term, this represents a significant area of potential exposure for the state. Any significant revenue underperformance in the near term would directly lead to a swelling of the structural imbalance and cause difficult budgeting challenges.(California Insider 5/22/06)

The upgrade, along with the similar move by Standard and Poor’s, will make the bonds substantially cheaper.  For a quick history of our credit rating, see the Treasurer’s website.  This is a really great thing for the state, it will save us millions of dollars on both outstanding and upcoming bond issuances.  However, the cynicism showed is probably something that should be taken to heart by those in Sacramento.  The windfall is not something that we should be counting on next year.  We still have yet to really fix the structural deficit. 

And the phrase “difficult budgeting challenges”, that’s a laugher huh?  Every year has difficult budgetary challenges.  Every year we hash out some sort of bizarre plan that makes nobody happy, but is required by the damn supermajority rules.  If push comes to shove and there is a real revenue crunch we end up imploding (see: Davis, Gray).

In the past we sought to use the extra revenue in fashions that bought us peace in Sacramento.  but that’s not necessarily what we need most.  What we need most is a workable budget that kowtows to nobody, but succeeds in following a vision of long-term stability.  The windfall should be used to ensure that the state can sustain economic hardships without resorting to political rarities.

In my very long post over the weekend, I said that that the Democrats of the Legislature should be very careful about campaigning with Arnold Schwarzenegger for the bond measures.  I just think that the bonds will likely pass without joint campaign events, and we don’t need to give Schwarzenegger his patina of bipartisanship back.

Over at FlashReport, they agree with me.  Huh?  Well yes, they feel that the Democrats shouldn’t be campaigning with the Governator.  First, well, Jon is skeptical of any government spending at all.  He would prefer the levees continue to age, the roads continue to be unmanageable, and are schools continue to have poor physical plants.  But to the more political aspect of why Jon doesn’t want them on the tour:

In my humble opinion, inviting enemies of freedom and liberty to fly on his airplane is not the best start.  Especially given that Perata and Nunez probably don’t believe that any single person should be morally allowed to accumulate enough wealth to own their own plane(FR 5/8/06)

Ah, yes, those enemies of liberty.  On my list of enemies of liberty, I have Osama, Zarqawi, Hamas, Colombian drug runners, and Don Perata.  Huh?  Fleischman needs to grow up and knock it off with this kind of bullshit rhetoric.  There are only a few true enemies of liberty and freedom and none of them are in the California Legislature.  This trash talk is beneficial to nobody and creates an even more hostile atmosphere.

There aren’t that many progressive bloggers focusing exclusively on California politics.  But, pretty much all of us have noted something about how this bond package will affect the governor’s race.  Julia at BetterCA has her opinion, Frank at CPR has his, and Randy at Bayne of Blog has his.  I know Bradley doesn’t like it when you call him a blogger, but he’s got his thoughts too.  And from the other side, Dan Schnur, a Rep operative, posted on FlashReport yesterday that this all but locked up the governorship for another 4 years.

The infrastructure bonds that the legislature put on the November ballot this morning will re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger. Already armed with advantages over either of his Democratic opponents on taxes, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, and Jessica’s Law, the presence of bonds providing money for road, school and levee construction gives Schwarzenegger an issues arsenal that will be almost impossible for either Steve Westly or Phil Angelides to defeat.(FlashReport 5/5/06)

Now many of us would argue with parts of his logic.  I have a HUGE quibble with his belief that anything to do with immigration is a good issue for him.  But, that being said, I think if you nibble around the corners of the analysis from both sides, you get to an overall consensus this was a win for the Governator.

Until today, all he had to run on was the Worker’s Comp “De-form”. (See this BetterCA post about it.) I don’t intend on getting bogged down on Worker’s Comp, but you could get bogged down quickly.  In short form, the Worker’s Comp Reform has had much smaller of an impact than Arnold would have you believe.  In fact, Fabian Nunez called for another round of reform  on it just last month.  Suffice it to say that Worker’s Comp and the failed “Year of Reform” was not the greatest platform from which to run.

But Schwarzenegger found a winning issue in the infrastructure bonds.  It’s a sore spot of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Republican alike.  Who can vote against better roads?  More accessible housing?  Flood protection?  Well, in the end, the Democrats couldn’t stand up to this populist message.  Poll numbers for a bond package were just too high.

But the Dems did a good job on reining this one in.  Arnold had proposed a $222 Billion dollar infrastructure package.  It has now shrunk to under $38Billion.  Not chump change, but not quite $222 billion either.  But at any rate, it’s enough for Arnold to proclaim that he is the “Let’s Build It Governor.”  True, it’s Bullshit.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is no Pat Brown.  Pat Brown revolutionized not only the state, but the entire nation.  He provided a model of how to build infrastructure.  He built the incredible higher education system through his Master Plan for Higher Education.  He provided a water plan that is still, although clinging to life at this point, still the basis for our water delivery.  These bonds do not approach Brown’s broad vision.  By the way, if you are interested in Pat Brown, check out Ethan Rarick’s Pat Brown book, it’s a good read.

See the flip for more analysis

These bonds are broadly popular.  In April’s Field Poll (PDF), 57% of Californians approved of Arnold’s bonds package, with just 30% disapproving.  This includes a net approval of 11 point amongst Dems.  This is all during a time when he was at 39% overall approval, 47% disapproval.  And Dems had a 42% net disapproval.  So with Dems, Arnold had a net 53% swing from overall approval to the bonds.  This is a very, very good issue for him.  A real winner.

And the thing that is going to be even harder to overcome is the fact that there will be Democrats campaigning for this package.  Sen. Perata and Speaker Nunez worked hard on this package, and I’m sure they would genuinely like to see it pass.  A failure on the bond deal would not be a good thing for them politically.

And in addition to those considerations, add in the fact that both Angelides are almost forced to support the package.  And today they both announced that they support the plan – in principle.  Angelides has been a long proponent of bonds to improve infrastructure, dating from before Arnold’s plan.  So he has to come out in favor of “Arnold’s plan”:

“The agreement by legislative leaders on a $37 billion infrastructure bond package is a victory for our State and for future generations of Californians. This is a realistic infrastructure investment package that – when combined with a responsible and truly balanced budget that fully funds our schools – will help build California’s future.

“I’ve been a forceful and consistent advocate for using bonds to invest in an environmentally sustainable future. I’m pleased that this new plan draws from those values, adding a housing and transit component to promote smart growth, providing funds to secure our levees and enhance our educational resources.

“I applaud Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez for fighting for an infrastructure plan that will put California on the high road to a sustainable future and a strong economy.”(NewWestNotes 5/5/6)

Phil’s campaign does a good job emphasizing the fact that the legislature designed this package.  Also, he pumps a few areas that he’s fond of: smart growth, levees, and levees.  In general this does a good job tying this package to his values.

And Westly?  Well, he has a track record of supporting Arnold’s bonds.  Is he going to change now?  Hardly: he can’t logically not support these bonds.  And so he does:

“I applaud the Democratic leadership for reaching across party lines to ensure that California can begin rebuilding its crumbling infrastructure.

“We must move past the partisanship that has paralyzed this State and work together to tackle the tough issues facing California.

“This $37 billion investment is vital to California’s future. We must protect those funds from waste, fraud and abuse. I am calling upon the Governor and the Legislature to put tough fiscal controls in place to ensure this bond is a boon – not a boondoggle – for California.”(NewWestNotes 5/5/6)

Again, this is a well-crafted release.  I like that Westly rolls his audit and clean government ideas into the mix.  Westly’s been all over the government efficiency thing recently, and this message just reinforces that.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not unstoppable.  First thing that I would point out is that I am in favor of this bond package.  However, the Dems who helped to work out this package should not appear with the Governator.  He wins if he can regain the bipartisan/moderate patina.  Having Dems at his side at campaign events would do just that and give him a big boost.  Angelides is running as the anti-Arnold and would be harmed if all of a sudden Arnold wasn’t that bad.  Westly, well, he’s getting pegged as a kindler, gentler Arnold.  If the real one is already seen as kind and gentle, he’s in a world of trouble.

Next: repeat this mantra: “One good idea does not a good governor make.”  He has had one, I repeat one, success since he has been elected.  This bond package is his ticket.  Oh sure, he was maneuvered into signing some other good bills, but this is really all he’s got.  You really think he’s going to start campaigning about immigration?  He’s going to start playing Arnold the Nativist.  I think not.  And education?  Hardly!  He can’t say one word without a throng of CTA teachers surrounding him and calling him on his bullshit.  Sure he could say that he was going to use the extra revenue this year to repay the looted Prop 98 funds, but you, I and about 12 million California voters know that this is not true.  And the teachers will make sure that they don’t forget.

So, how do we win on two fronts – the bonds and the governor’s race?  We change the subject as much as possible.  The bonds will practically approve themselves.  At this point, who is out there to protest them? McClintock – he voted against all but flood control?  Well, now that he’s Arnold’s running mate, that would be very poorly viewed upon.  So let the bonds do their own work.

And what should we talk about? 

1) Education.  The looted Prop 98 funds have still yet to be returned, regardless of whatever Dan Schnur has to say. 
2) Special Interests Arnold: The governor who vowed to crush the special interests, and called teachers girly men…yup, this is still him.  Now he is ok with taking special interest money, as long as it is a Grover Norquist-approved special interest.  In summary: Indjuns: bad.  Slave labor supporting, anti-tax wingnuts: good!
3) Prop 73 Redux.  2/3 of the state is pro-choice.  These are the people that are going to vote for a Dem governor.  Arnold endorsed 73 last time.  Let’s not tip-toe around this issue.  We need to take a stand on this issue.  Voters on the left will appreciate it, and pro-choice voters who are waivering will be attracted to a firm stance.
4) The Environment: Arnold tasked a committee to come up with a plan to reduce greenhouse emissions.  Then when he gets the report and Grover doesn’t like it, he hacks it to bits in his proposal to the legislature (Dianne Feinstein: “my heart fell when I saw that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had backed away from a strong position on global warming.” (SacBee 4/13/06)

And finally, on the day of the primary, as soon as we know the nominee, we rally around him.  Whether it’s Westly or Angelides, it doesn’t matter if you are luke-warm on him now.  If your guy doesn’t win the primary, well switch on over.  If Westly wins, Angelides, Nancy Pelosi and the 2 senators need to do a press conference the next day saying how much they support him.  If Angelides wins, Steve Westly, and his rainbow of supporters should do exactly the same.  Because in the end, what’s important is that Arnold returns to his acting career and Brutal Deluxe comes out in 2008, not 2012.

Looks like we have a bond deal for a $37.3 billion package.  They went late…very late into the night to get this deal done.  It will go to the voters in the November gubenatorial general election.

The Senate moved the four-piece infrastructure package – $19.925 billion for transportation projects, $10.416 billion for K-12 education and colleges, $4.09 billion for flood protection and $2.85 billion for affordable housing – on separate, two-thirds votes that were completed at 12:30 a.m.

The Assembly followed by approving the same package of bonds, the largest in state history, by 3:30 a.m.(SacBee 5/5/06)

Self-congratulatory comments were being tossed all around.  There was even talk of bipartisanship *gasp*.

“It’s nice to get something accomplished,” said state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. “This is probably the biggest accomplishment certainly I’ve seen in this building in quite awhile, just in terms of our commitment to the future of the state’s economy and its infrastructure.

“It’s also a textbook example of what bipartisanship can look like.”
***
“I’ve been up here for 11 years, I’ve been involved in a lot of bonds and bond negotiations, and this probably has one of the best balances among interests that are important to Republicans and interests that are important to Democrats,” said Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine. “Somebody asked me earlier who lost and who won. I don’t think either side. If you have a good bond, you can have everybody be winners.”

Well there are some words which you don’t hear bandied about too often in Sacramento.  It looks as if in the end, when the Governor cleared out, the Legislators were able to get this done.  Yes, I know Arnold will take as much credit as possible, but I think the real credit should go to the legislators who worked tirelessly for several months to get this done for the people of California.  Arnold’s grand plan was changed and sculpted by the legislature. 

Will he run as the “new Pat Brown”?  Yes. 

Does he deserve that title? Hell no.