“Schwarzenegger says his `Terminator’ might be back”

Schwarzenegger confirmed in a Webcast interview that his image might appear in next month’s “Terminator: Salvation,” the fourth movie in the franchise about a showdown between humanity and machines.

The governor says he made it clear he had no time to shoot new footage but that the filmmakers are playing with technology to insert his image from the earlier “Terminator” movies.

The movie is released May 21. Shoot, too late for him to use his appearance to urge Californians to join him in voting for the $16 billion in tax increases on the May 19th statewide ballot.

But maybe there’s a PR angle if the measure passes: “California’s economy has been terminated. Now see the movie. That’s the only salvation you’ll get.”

With state leaders driving California into the ground, how soon will it be before businesses pack up and move their operations? As Jennifer Rubin notes at Commentary, “As Goes California“:

Governor Schwarzenegger is trying to bully the legislature into a package which includes $14B more in new taxes. That move, if it gets through, plus the general deterioration in the quality of life is likely to increase the outflow of people, and, with it, high earners and businesses whose revenue the state needs. In short, the state is a basket case.

Those in the other 49 should take note. This is what a high tax, overregulated, union dominated economy looks like. And in the information age it is increasingly easy to relocate businesses — to another state or another country. So as we look to the federal government it might be a good idea to keep the California experience front and center.

So, north to Oregon? Oh, no, not a clement direction.

Well into 2010, Oregon’s overall economy will shrink more rapidly than the nation’s as a whole, notes UCSB forecaster Bill Watkins. He traces a sharp downturn there to many factors, including one of the toughest regulatory regimes in North America.

In tough times, companies generally expand in localities that are are friendly to commerce–say, states like Texas or nearby Idaho. Few would rate Oregon highly in that regard.

“Oregon is mostly a place that focuses on the enjoyment of its space, and that makes [it] very vulnerable in these conditions,” Watkins says.

That’s Joel Kotkin in a Forbes piece, “Oregon Fail.” He also reports that Oregon’s economy suffers from a structural imbalance, following the policy decision made in the 1980s to kill off the timber industry. (Your correspondent was a reporter and editorial page editor in Oregon and now feels safe in saying, two decades later, “Told you. The tourism sector did not replace timber as an economic pillar.”) High-tech kept things cooking for a while, but business costs and regulations and an increasingly left-leaning, green-minded polity eventually drove businesses away. Housing kept the economy going for a while, and we all know what has happened to housing.

So, two models for guaranteed economic hard times in the states, Oregon and California, both models based on creating an environment that’s hostile to business investment.

The latest from the global leader in green technology, environmental protection, responsive regulation and we should all be more like them:

• Orange County Register, “State offices closed across state Friday as furloughs begin
• Sacramento Bee, “In budget crisis, counties plot tax revolt against California“
• Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Calif. counties threaten to keep taxes from state“
• KABC, Sacramento, “‘State has not gotten its act together’“
• KCRA, Sacramento, “California Stops Paying Many Bills“
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat, “Economic train wreck slams schools, hospital“
• La Canada Valley Sun, “‘Governor Bankrupt’ needs to act, says Sen. Liu“

Commentary from last week, when President Obama instructed the EPA to reconsider California’s request to be allowed to regulate tailpipe emissions. (Via Fox News)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts, we will be guided by them. We cannot afford to pass the buck or push the burden on to the states.

GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, R-CALIF.: For too long Washington has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the environment. Now California finally has a partner and an ally in Washington at the White House.

Why would the federal government embrace the Californian model for anything?

Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute makes a critical point about infrastructure serving as economic stimulus. From NRO’s The Corner:

Re: Obama and the Keynesian Revival [Iain Murray]

One important thing to bear in mind amongst all the talk of massive new infrastructure projects is that existing Federal regulation actually threatens to block or greatly delay many of them. That’s why Gov. Schwarzenegger recently wrote to the President-elect asking him, among other things, to “[w]aive or greatly streamline National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements.” Environmental groups reacted with horror, of course, saying that, “If such safeguards are removed at federal and state levels, billions of dollars of new, polluting projects could receive federal funding priority over approved clean projects that are designed to protect public health and natural resources.” One of the silver linings of the recession is that it is revealing quite how much of a burden environmental regulations are on the economy, something that tends to be masked in good times. Something, either environmental regulation or infrastructure spending, has to give here. Obama’s reaction to the letter will reveal which it is.

01/13 11:08 AM

There is good reason to fear that any significant project that promotes both quick economic investment and long-term competitiveness — say, modernizing and expanding the nation’s electrical grid — will immediately be hit by litigation lasting years and years and years. In which case the only thing being stimulated is the fundraising drives of alarmist, anti-growth environmental groups.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s letter to President-elect Obama is available here. His specific requests:

• Waive or greatly streamline National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements consistent with our statutory proposals to modify the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) for transportation projects
• Increase funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and modify the program’s rules to fund major levee evaluations, repairs and rehabilitation.  Regulatory streamlining should accompany this funding to allow CEQA to satisfy NEPA requirements for all levee projects that receive federal funding
• Shorten federal permitting turnaround times and allow negotiations with permitting agencies over mitigation to occur during construction
• Structure funding for infrastructure projects in a way that encourages design-build approaches
• Encourage more public-private partnerships to attract more capital to these projects, improve efficiencies and lower costs.

At the California Manufacturers and Technology Association blog, MPowered, Greg Hines reacts to all the talk of getting people to pay their “fair share” to counter the state’s latest budget crisis. Of course, “fair share” always means higher-income taxpayers and business pay more, even though in a state of more than 34 million people, fewer than 150,000 people contribute approximately 27.5 percent of the state’s entire general fund, while corporate and franchise taxes account for another 11 percent of the general fund budget.

The problem is that we have slowly sent signals to businesses and individuals that California will tax success more than any other State.  Why would any business leader operating in today’s global marketplace make a decision to expand or invest in California?  Ask Intel why they no longer manufacture in the state they were founded, or try to talk to Tiger Woods, the Southern California native golfer, about moving to Florida after turning pro.   Simple answers: Less taxes for the former and $9.6 million less taxes for the latter.

Elsewhere, historian Vincent Davis Hanson, a Californian, includes the state’s errors in a list of 10 random, politically incorrect thoughts.

5. California is now a valuable touchstone to the country, a warning of what not to do. Rarely has a single generation inherited so much natural wealth and bounty from the investment and hard work of those more noble now resting in our cemeteries—and squandered that gift within a generation. Compare the vast gulf from old Governor Pat Brown to Gray Davis or Arnold Schwarzenegger. We did not invest in many dams, canals, rails, and airports (though we use them all to excess); we sued each other rather than planned; wrote impact statements rather than left behind infrastructure; we redistributed, indulged, blamed, and so managed all at once to create a state with about the highest income and sales taxes and the worst schools, roads, hospitals, and airports. A walk through downtown San Francisco, a stroll up the Fresno downtown mall, a drive along highway 101 (yes, in many places it is still a four-lane, pot-holed highway), an afternoon at LAX, a glance at the catalogue of Cal State Monterey, a visit to the park in Parlier—all that would make our forefathers weep. We can’t build a new nuclear plant; can’t drill a new offshore oil well; can’t build an all-weather road across the Sierra; can’t build a few tracts of new affordable houses in the Bay Area; can’t build a dam for a water-short state; and can’t create even a mediocre passenger rail system. Everything else—well, we do that well.

From Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, “State may need total fiscal overhaul“:

Schwarzenegger’s centerpiece is a 1.5-cent sales tax boost for three years. Another important piece is borrowing $15 billion against the state lottery’s profits to provide $5 billion a year for three years. Many of his spending cuts also are limited in term.

Schwarzenegger’s approach conflicts with forecasts of potentially immense deficits for many years due to economic uncertainty and the underlying structural deficit and because so many recent fiscal moves are short-term gimmicks. It could leave his successor with a big mess.

Causing the biggest ruckus? Schwarzenegger’s proposed tax on veterinarian services. In attempts to broaden the sales tax to services, you always encounter one targeted group that has passion and organization on its side. Pet owners fit the bill this time. Never go up against pet owners.

Meanwhile…San Francisco Chronicle, “California’s clout in Congress grows.”