Don't ever vote an entertainer to politics

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/09/BAHA115GAP.DTL&type=printable
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/03/MN2S111RJT.DTL&type=printable

Arnold is such a spineless hypocrite. He spends a good chunk of his governorship campaigning all over the world for green reforms to combat climate change, but now that he has failed to control one of the worst state budget crises in US history (now over $17B in the red), he totally reverses his platform. I know CA has to cut costs, but where is the logic in cutting $1.4B in funding for our public transit system that has much room for improvement, especially when gas is so expensive and more people are depending on it to get around? To be more precise, Arnold plans to keep the state public transit budget fixed, but CA voters had previously approved a supplemental $1.4B for various upgrades, which Arnold and the Legislature will probably cancel.

"Even with California's massive deficit, scaling back the state's support for public transportation makes no sense environmentally or economically," said Nathaniel Ford, who runs the San Francisco Municipal Railway. "Every dollar spent on transit helps clean the air by getting people out of their cars. And with gas prices continuing to escalate, we should be doing everything we can to encourage, not discourage, transit use."

The American Public Transportation Administration estimates that national ridership is on pace to be at its highest level in 50 years (another "positive" consequence of high fuel prices, as we alluded to in our previous oil discussion). For a Bay Area example, Arnold is planning to withdraw hundreds of millions that were promised to improve our deficient BART, Caltrain, and muni rail systems (despite their age and other shortcomings, they all had over 4% jumps in ridership so far this year). He's also cutting $19M to the AC Transit bus system (servicing some of the poorest areas in the Bay), even though higher fuel prices are causing millions in cost overruns for them. The timing is horrible, since AC Transit has seen overall ridership increase 3%, with some cross-bay routes increasing 50%. So if Sacramento wants to cut public transit budgets, yet demand is still high, of course the transit authorities will boost fares to stay solvent. This will mostly impact the lower-income urban people who are dependent on public transit, and the least able to weather a price hike.

Only a moron politician would reduce access or stunt growth to a service that is becoming increasingly necessary to the people due to conditions out of our control. If Californians can take advantage of affordable, functional public transit, then they'll waste less money on individual transport, and will have more money to contribute to the economy in other ways and improve revenues for the state. In addition, they'll be polluting less and wasting less time/stress/accidents in traffic, which also saves state resources in the long run. If Arnold really cared about balancing the budget and protecting the environment, then maybe he should cut the salaries to his cabinet and the Legislature, since they can't ever seem to pass a budget on time! Maybe he should lay off some of his bodyguards (who can kill The Terminator anyway?) and reduce trips in the state jet. Maybe he should tax wasteful luxury vehicles (the kind he and his wife drive, SUVs in fact!), as well as large homes that consume more utilities.