California Deserves Better Than What Sacramento Gives

Bernard Madoff stood in front of the judge just before receiving his sentence of 150 years for conducting the largest Ponzi scheme in history and read a personal statement. As he concluded, Madoff reportedly turned to the courtroom crowd, and said, "I am sorry," adding: "I know that doesn't help you."

The closing line from Madoff's soliloquy could also apply to the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

For decades, a bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers along with past and present governors has put off difficult choices, using one-time gimmicks, while claiming balanced budgets. In retrospect, it was nothing more than the state engaging in its own version of a Ponzi scheme.

The governor and every member of the Legislature should now hold a joint press conference stating:

We realize the state is $24 billion in the hole. Furloughs are forthcoming, IOUs will soon go out, but we can't get a deal done; we're sorry, we know that doesn't help you.

Hamstrung by institutionalized impediments that make a budget deal difficult, along with a governor who has seemingly taken a blood oath to veto any tax increase, conveniently allows everyone working on the budget to miss the fact California's deficit has national implications.

California is roughly 12 percent of the nation's gross domestic product and possesses the largest share of retail sales of any state. As Associated Press reporter Juliet Williams noted in a recent article, for every dollar California sends to the federal government, it get backs 80 cents -- which means the Golden State keeps a number of social programs afloat across the country.

The dysfunctional manner that has been systematically institutionalized into the state's operations has been well chronicled, but that does not mean our elected officials should receive a pass for adding to the chaos.

Last week, Assembly Democrats put up legislation that would have cut roughly $10 billion to $12 billion in state spending, but was defeated because Republican members wanted a comprehensive budget solution. Then Controller John Chiang stated he would begin issuing IOUs on July 2 to students expecting college grants, those with disabilities, those who receive public aid, as well as private companies that have contracts with the state, if there is no budget deal.

The next day, the Assembly agreed on three deficit bills through deferrals on educations payments that would have saved approximately $5 billion -- avoiding the need to issue IOUs. But before they reached the Senate floor, the governor said he would veto the bills.

On Friday, the Assembly adjourned in memory of pop star Michael Jackson. I realize Jackson's death has global ramifications, but so does California's $24 billion deficit.

I recognize it was unlikely the Assembly would have reached a budget agreement on Friday. But California has its highest jobless rate (11.5 percent) in some time; personal income has declined statewide for the first time since the Great Depression, and personal income tax revenue coming to the state declined 34 percent for the first five months of 2009.

What is the message sent to state workers, those on the margins whose social safety net potentially hangs in the balance, and to the electorate in general by adjourning early for any reason short of a national or state emergency?

Then, on Sunday evening, Democratic leaders in the state Assembly, in an attempt to circumvent the two-thirds vote for a tax increase, pushed through a proposal using a series of legal maneuvers to put higher levies without any Republican votes. As expected, the governor vowed to veto the bill because it includes a tax increase.

Failing to agree on at least $3 billion of education spending by the midnight deadline could increase the deficit, triggered by Proposition 98 funding.

It is difficult to watch the state's elected officials allegedly standing on principle when they've passed on the opportunity for years. One cannot be obligated to a political ideology or principle during a crisis; that's not a luxury available to elected officials.

To stand on principle during a crisis suggests that one is either unable think outside of the box or one is simply playing politics. Either way, the people of California and the nation deserve better. Finger-pointing, drawing lines in the sand and constitutional deadlines have proven ineffective. California's dysfunctional process lives to see another day.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at [e-mail] or visit his website: byronspeaks.com

Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks

Comments

[Kalifornika]

Given the current 2/3 requirement for the passage of either a budget or a tax increase, the State of California is run by the tyranny of the minority -- the Republicans.

In a recently filed petition for extraordinary writ, the petitioner raises this claim before the California Supreme Court, seeking to have the Court declare the amendments to the California Constitution that enacted the 2/3 requirement to pass a state budget (Prop 1, 1933) and the later amendment requiring 2/3 vote to raise taxes (Prop 13, 1978) unconstitutional. The Petition is based on a claim similar to the attack made on Prop 8, but it actually has at least some chance of success in this case. The Petition alleges that by enacting the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget and raise taxes, Props 1 and 13 fundamentally altered the nature of the legislative and executive branches of state government in California.

See the petition here:- http://www.scribd.com/doc/17273338/Writ-PetitionYoung-v-Schmidt.

Court info is available here: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1913534&doc_no=S174540

If the California Supreme Court can summon up the courage to do the right thing, the Court will declare these 2/3 requirements are unconstitutional. Then, the state can function as a representative democracy once again.

[JoeyP]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/the-republicans-win-big-i_b_242016.html

[dragn1]

I must say that I think California is getting just what it deserves. It has taxed people to make sure every illegal child in California can go to school. It has made sure all of the state employees are mostly unionized because only unions can get good jobs and retirement plans. No illegal is illegal in California. The last number I saw was that illegal’s cost California 8 billion dollars from the state accounting office. Unions are making spending some of the jobless stimulus money difficult because it cannot go to jobs because they were not paying union’s favorable wages. You have people thrown out of homes living in tent cities and so far no major riots. You have had leaders in California in the last 3 decades who wanted to cover everything on the backs of the workers so now let them stew when those jobs are gone. I wish California gets all that is coming to it. I am sitting back waiting to see a march on Sacramento.

[nee]

According to the LA Times (which I hate to quote) CA is #1 in the nation in personal income tax rate and sales tax rate. We are #6 in overall taxes. What about this screams WE NEED TO BE TAXED MORE?

[WASanford]

Let me say just this; Our budget problems are NOT the fault of our legislature. The governor has had two budgets on his desk, both of which he vetoed. Arnold also has the power of the line item veto. If he wanted a budget, he had it, and he could have altered it to suit his whims.

It is clear to me that we have an element in our state that wants it to fail and that it's being lead by "our?" governor. Ok, California is going to have it tougher than any other state as our country goes thorough this next depression. Let's just make sure those who deserve the credit for that, get it.

[nee]

So you are saying that before Arnold the budget was balanced? Are you kidding? We need to CUT SPENDING! This is something that they NEVER do! They have plenty of OUR money - they need to use that money wisely because they aren't getting any more!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jimrs6]

California is a great 'test case for all the programs that Obama wants to implement federally. It'll be either a major cut in so-called services or a major tax increase for all the residents (except the ilegals).

[HeadCheese]

Byron,

I appreciate much that you point to, but in the name of balance you jettison the facts of the standoff. Schwarzenegger is playing a dangerous game that only the House Republicans could love. The truth is that he knows the media will straddle the issue in much the same frame as you choose here.

The half-balance that you choose to highlight makes you look like an upstanding journalist at the expense of the truth. To throw a quote back at you: "One cannot be obligated to a political ideology or principle during a crisis; that's not a luxury available to ."

Schwarzenegger's play is not about "no" to taxes. You need to uncover the principles he embodies in this operatic passage of political upsmanship to truly understand his character. When you peel away all of these moves, you will notice there is a pattern to Schwarzenegger's actions, and it does not rest upon a strictly 'no to taxes' footing. The negotiations have elements of Scharzenegger attempting to circumvent the will of the people, shades of Schwarzenegger building credibility within his party for larger political windfall, and one enormous opportunistic ego trying not to look bad while stinking up the place.

[Lori Bowles]

After re-reading a majority of the posts written from Californians it seems like people are for cutting social services, education and parks. It also seems that what Arnold is proposing is not to far off what these people want, I can't believe I'm writing this but read what they are stating. No wonder the Dem's can't win the argument.

[nee]

CA is #! in income tax and sales tax and #6 in overall taxes nation wide. Why do they need more money? I think there isn't a problem of not enough money it's a problem of SPENDING TOO MUCH!

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/arnold-schwarzenegger-and_b_223658.html

[larmarch5]

Not if they don't inform themselves and vote. Right now this state is hobbled by Prop 13, the war on drugs (prison industries and guard union), and tripple dipper pensions (city, county, state).

[AnnfromCA]

Good article, and I couldn't agree more. Sacramento is completely ignoring the voters and refusing to do their jobs.

Frankly, they need to go home and find a different job.

[Teh Yang]

Stop providing services to illegal immigrants. That will save 8 billion a year. After 3 years, there will be no deficit problem.

[nee]

And if we heavily fine and or jail those who hire illegals they would self-deport.

[stevi]

thank-you

[iblogleft]

I was born and raised in California, 41 years ago. I have lived in nine U.S. states.

The issues we have in California are the same issues we have in many states. There are fundamental problems brought upon by people with fundamental differences of opinion on what exactly works, and what does not.

Almost every State needs to completely rethink education, health care, taxes, entitlements, criminal justice and a plethora of smaller issues.

All of these issues have fundamental flaws, not fixable through compromise on current systems. We can look for middle ground when choosing how the new system works, not what the new system is.

Americans are going to have to start to understand that there are very few options in running a successful society, and one of the foundations in a healthy, financially stable, well fed and well educated population. Promoting a system that allows profits on anything and everything under the sun, can only lead to the destruction of the society as a whole.

We need to decided what should be profited on in a free-market system, and what should be invested in by Americans, run for Americans, and returns that directly benefit society.

Will it mean higher taxes for most? Yes. Will it mean less expendable income for the boat or car? Nope. It will however, fix California.

[LiberalDemIda]

It would help a GREAT deal if California stopped sending money to pay for social services in other states where a lot of people here are complaining from. The top ten are, not surprisingly, the most whiny of red states:

1) New Mexico, 2) Mississippi 3) "You betcha!" Alaska 4) Louisiana 5) West Virginia 6) North Dakota 7) Alabama 8) South Dakota 9) Kentucky 10) Viginia.

Texas ranks 36th in this report, getting .94 cents for every dollar they give. California ranks 43rd! We only get $.78 for every $1.00 in this 2005 report.

Here a link : http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

Can't find the fiscal year 2007 or 08, but according to Chris Matthews, today, California gets 62 cents for every dollar we send to Washington while New Mexico still gets a whopping $2.00 for every dollar they send, and Alaska gets $1.50 for every dollar they "send" in.

Why don't all the States just fend for their own? Then we'll see how long they'll float without CA dollars.

[S1m0n]

California doesn't send ANY money to pay for social services elsewhere. California pays no federal tax at all.

Taxes are paid by citizens, not by states.

[larmarch5]

She's talking about redistribution of wealth. CA residents' federal taxes get redistributed as federal payments to other states.

[RaderBarbarian]

You can blame the Governor and the Assembly and Senate all you want, but that does not excuse the VOTERS of California - and that includes you, sir - who were so, so stingy that you totally bamboozled yourselves into cutting off your noses. And guess whose faces are now spited? Tough love is a-coming for you, easy-going Californians who want it all but do not want to pay for it. Tough love and a tougher break! Now go get a second job - passing around yet another petition that will permit you to continue to avoid all civic responsibilities. Sorry, you are getting what you deserve.

[Egghead]

You know, I live in a state where EVERYBODY does not vote the same way, and when they do, they don't always do it for the same reasons. You don't have a clue how the author of this article voted.