During the 2006 California gubernatorial campaign, pundits speculated, if elected, which Arnold would California get?
Would the electorate get the 2004/05 divisive version that referred to the Democratic-led legislature as "girlie men," who overreached with a needless waste of tax payer dollars by holding a special election with largely conservative initiatives that went down to defeat, or would voters get the 2006 model?
The 2006 version was much more like the Arnold promised in the 2003 recall election. He was bipartisan, reaching across party lines to get things done, lowering prescription drug cost and combating global warming.
If the early proposals are any indicator, the 2007 version will be a hybrid of both Arnolds. `The 2004/05 Arnold wants to cut nearly $500 million out of public assistance while the 2006 version wants to make universal healthcare possible.
The governor, who proclaimed during his second inaugural speech that he would lead California into an era free of partisan politics, is proposing in his state budget to eliminate a cost of living increase for welfare grants next year. He also wants to end the practice of providing welfare grants to children whose parents are chronically unemployed and failing to participate in return to work programs.
If the governor meant what he said at his inauguration, regarding an era free from partisan politics, he may not be off to the auspicious start that he had perhaps envisioned.
State Senator Don Perata has already made it clear that Democrats would not support the governor's proposal to cut welfare. According to Perata, "There is no one in a Democratic caucus that will support this," Adding, "It's a drop dead issue for Democrats, we will never vote for a budget if that's in it."
One day after the governor proposed cuts in welfare, he put forward that California become only the third state in the union to guarantee health coverage for all its residents. It stands to reason that the majority of the major opposition to the governor's plan will come from his own Republican party.
With nearly one in five Californians having no healthcare outside of expensive emergency care, the governor should be applauded for putting this issue on the table. With an estimated 47 million nationally lacking healthcare, if the governor is successful the number will drop by 14 percent.
The governor's plan would require everyone living in California -- even those who are undocumented -- to have health insurance, at an estimated cost of $12 billion. All businesses with 10 or more employees would have to offer coverage or pay a fee of 4 percent of their payroll into a fund to help the uninsured buy health insurance.
The governor also wants to expand the state's existing program for children's health insurance to families that earn less than three times the poverty level, or about $60,000 for a family of four.
By spreading the cost among businesses, individuals, hospitals, insurers and the government, the governor estimates his plan will save $10 billion a year by cutting costs and redirecting money already in the healthcare system.
As with most major public policy initiatives, the devil will be in the details. But on the surface, the governor's healthcare proposal is the type to bold idea not seen in the state since the days of Pat Brown. But should these two proposals be pitted against each other?
Within roughly a 24-hour period we saw the two faces of Arnold. We witnessed the 2004/05 version proposing cuts that will impact the most vulnerable members of society--cuts that could expand the rolls of foster care, or worse, juvenile hall. This makes the governor's plan more egregious than that of some of his recent Republican predecessors
Meanwhile, the 2006 version, which contributed greatly to his landslide reelection, seeks to place California on the vanguard of one of the nation's most pressing problems.
In these days of predictable partisan politics, it is not often that an elected official can offer proposals that draw the ire of opposing political camps. So which Arnold will we get? It depends on what day it is.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at (510) 208-6417