What post-partisanship?

In spite of all the press fanfare last week over Schwarzenegger's proposal to insure all children in CA, I was skeptical that it signalled a move towards real healthcare reform, or that it could possibly be anything more than a political gesture. After all--

"It's the low-hanging fruit of the health-care reform debate," said Dr. Bob Ross, president of the California Endowment, a private foundation in Los Angeles that was created to push for expanded access to health care.

Now on the day before his address to the state, Schwarzenegger reveals his true colors:

Gov. to seek cuts in aid to families on welfare

"It's ironic that the governor is proposing healthcare for poor kids while taking away their breakfasts," state Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) said of the cuts, which would affect more than 40,000 families. "Even Republican Gov. [Pete] Wilson, at the time he negotiated welfare reform, agreed that children should not suffer for the behavior of their parents."

Calitics highlights this absurd contradiction:

So they can go to the doctor for a check-up, but they can't eat and they can't have a roof over their heads? I really don't get this. If this is "post-partisan cooperation", then I'm not particularly impressed.

Schwarzenegger's alienating people across the spectrum. Even though his welfare proposal proves his policies remain decidedly right-leaning, we're told the governor's loudest critics are Republican hardliners who feel betrayed by the governor's centrist self-styling. Their protest would seem to enable the governor to swing right and appease his base the moment they accuse him of "surrender" or "weakness" for supposed compromise. Meanwhile, the media pay far less attention to critics of the governor's disingenuous calls for cooperation on the left.

Centrism is worthless when the balance is tipped so radically in one direction.

UPDATE: CNA critiques the gov's overall healthcare plan. Here's the bottom line--

A market-based system always puts increased revenues and profits over the health and well-being of those patients it is supposed to serve. As was the clear intent of a number of the free-market architects of the plan, it reinforces and expands the role of the market in health care, the very source of the present crisis. If the governor's goal is truly universal health coverage, improved quality and effective cost controls, the state should embark on the same tried-and-true course taken by every other industrialized nation, either a national health system, or a single-payer approach as embodied in the single-payer bill, SB840 authored by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl. Kuehl's bill was vetoed by the governor last year. It will be reintroduced this year.