Do not let the sun go down on your anger.
Ephesians 4:26
I do my best to follow the biblical injunctions of the Christian New Testament, but when it comes to the state of California and letting the sun go down on my anger, I am, in this and other regards, a failed disciple.
How could any rational, thoughtful, informed person be anything other than angry at the condition of California government? How could it come to this? How could the most populous and wealthiest state in the union by every standard of comparison, from natural beauty to intellectual property, be reduced to such pathetic circumstances? (If we were a nation we would be the seventh wealthiest in the world.)
How, in the name of whatever deity you invoke, or none, how could this happen?
Let me in the order of culpability count the ways:
1) Citizens
2) Arnold Schwarzenegger
3) State Legislature
4) Business
5) Unions
When Governor Gray Davis was recalled and Schwarzenegger was elected as his successor there was palpable relief that the dismal days of Davis were over and hope that the Golden State would enter a new age. Having once before entrusted the governance of California to an actor without great consequences (some people reasoned), why not try again?
Schwarzenegger was overwhelmingly elected for one reason, and one alone: he was a movie star. His personal story, a uniquely American story (Austrian born or not), was compelling narrative. And we, the citizens, being the saps we are fell for it. We actually thought an actor known as the "Terminator" could terminate our problems. What idiocy!
In the beginning of Schwarzenegger's reign there was great excitement because he, unlike Ronald Reagan, was at the top of the movie fame game (when Reagan was elected he was known primarily as the TV host of "Death Valley Days"). Schwarzenegger was the center of adulation; everyone, whether state legislator or fawning Rotarian, seemingly wanted his or her picture taken with Arnold. Not least in the adulatory line was the media, many of whom promptly forgot Peter Finely Dunne's admonition on the calling of their profession, "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
Looking back I find it amazing how many otherwise truly smart people, including not a few Democrats, signed on to the Schwarzenegger "mystique." Duped by his fame into thinking he could set straight the Golden State.
In a 43-year run I've gotten a few things right about politics, but I was ingloriously wrong about Schwarzenegger. Before his election I told inquiring friends in other places he stood no chance. I was in error about that but right in believing he would fail as governor - and fail he has!
But, out of a sense of Christian charity and fidelity to truth telling, it would be wrong to blame Arnold and only Arnold for what's happened. This is a collective failure, and next in line for justifiable blame, after you and me and Arnold, is the State Legislature.
Before the people of this state voted in term limits, another act of monumental stupidity, California actually had extraordinarily able legislative leaders -- Jesse Unruh, Bob Monagan, Leo McCarthy, and Willie Brown in the assembly (and Jim Mills in the state senate). From 1961 to 1995, a 34-year stretch, the state assembly had four speakers. In the past 14 years we've had six, not one of whom I would count as memorable. (Karen Bass, the current "speaker" attempted to raise Assembly staff salaries while the state's budget was being slashed. I mean, seriously, by what means of conjectural logic did she think that would slide by unnoticed?)
The only thing term limits gets you is bad government. You end up, as end up we have, with neither continuity of governance nor institutional memory. In the absence of strong legislative leadership, which term limits deny, you get government by permanent bureaucrats and lobbyists.
As long as we permit term limits, do not think change will come to Sacramento. It won't - and we will continue to unravel.
But, since I'm a liberal Kennedy Democrat, you may not trust what I say about the evils of term limits. So maybe you will accept the wisdom of one of conservatism's patron saints, George Will, who wisely said, "We have term limits. It's called the ballot box." That's right, the ballot box! What is there about that you don't understand?
Next, in the descending order of culpability, is the business "community."
There are remarkable business leaders in this state. Men and women of vision and competence, from Silicon Valley to San Diego - individuals who have created wealth and jobs, while demonstrating extraordinary philanthropy, but many of whom have evidence a marked distaste, if not a deep disdain, for government itself. Yes, they have legitimately sought to protect their interests by bankrolling candidates and hiring lobbyists, but they have done so out of a protective mindset rather than a deep commitment to good governance.
It is this scorn for the process of governance that damns the business community. They have this seemingly fatal idea, that what works in business works in government. No, they are vastly different animals (as eBay founder and gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman may or may not discover).
That notwithstanding, men and women of accomplishment in the business world have an obligation to involve themselves in helping California find a way out of our chaotic and perilous state. Business must embrace what it otherwise seeks to avoid - the lending of expertise and involvement in the affairs of state.
Lastly, in the blame game, are the unions.
Oh, how some people love attacking unions, including Blue Dog Democrats (I will here spare them public indignity by the citation of their names). It's shameful, really, the idea it's acceptable to lay California's collective ills at the door of union shops. Puleeeeeeez!
For every union offense against the welfare of society there have been multitudes by business; for every rapacious act by union officials against the general welfare there have been acts beyond number by many in the business community.
But unions are not blameless. They have in many instances overreached. It is immoral to be paid more in retirement than while working, and if this state cannot adjust the giveaways and stop early retirement, California's fiscal future is doomed. The law may not permit the state's bankruptcy, but it will in every other way be bankrupt!
Well, that's the indictment. How do we fix our sorry state?
There are four critical steps that must be taken:
1) The repeal of Proposition 13.
2) The repeal of term limits.
3) The repeal of the two/thirds vote requirement.
4) The repeal of the initiative system.
Do I actually believe such sweeping changes can be accomplished? I do, but only when politicians, business and union leaders, start telling the truth about the dire circumstances of our state (it is infinitely worse than they admit). For it will take truth telling to awaken that element within our somnolent population, those who desperately need to be told they can no longer avoid the consequences of what's happening around them - for they are about to enter a world of hurt.
If that is done, if truth telling becomes the moral dedication of our leaders, and We The People begin to take seriously our sacred franchise as voters, and proceed to act, not in the expediency of the moment, but in the long term interest of California, then, and only then, can we rightfully reclaim our standing as the greatest American state.
Californians, at least southern Californians, are among the dumbest and least knowledgeable people in this country. It's no surprise that they cannot govern themselves.
I repeat: isolationist, liberarian governor Hiram Johnson.
Amendment 22 allows anyone who can, within 150 days, get the the number of signatures of registered voters equivalent to 5% (8% for amendments of the vote cast for the governor in the last election to put an initiative or act (or amendment) to a vote by the public. Before 1911, initiatives and acts had to be placed on the ballot by the legislature. With the passage of amendment 22, any snake oil salesman with enough money and backing has the opportunity to con the voting public.
If you had your pay cut in half, got no raises for 30 years and at the same time were forced to pay for, your own supplies and your boss's share of the power bill and rent, and you were not allowed to get a second job, how would you feel if, when you asked for a raise, your boss told you: "You obviously don't know how to control your spending; that's not my fault," Would you think your boss was fair or a rip-off con artist?
Welcome to California after Proposition 13. Cities and counties are forbidden by law to raise or create new taxes. And since the state is required to cover certain mandatory costs (i.e., you gotta have schools and you gotta have roads) that local govts can't pay because their income has been frozen, all the money that used to go to the state now goes to local governments to make up those shortfalls. And now the state has been bled dry for 30 years and there are no reserves to tide it over in a recession.
To all my fellow Californians who are screaming bloody murder: did you vote for Prop 13? Then the flea-ridden, sagging, pestilential bed you're lying in is of your own making.
The State of California needs a constitutional convention, and it needs it now.
".....all the money that used to go to the state now goes to local governments to make up those shortfalls."
State spending has doubled over the last ten years because city and county government costs have increased, and the state now has to cover those costs because city and county governments cannot, by law, because of Propsition 13, cannot raise their tax rates.
Do you understand? Cities and counties have no money. They are prohibited, by law, from increasing their revenue stream by any other means than bond issues, which do nothing but put them further in debt. So they have to go begging to the state.
The state of California is covering the costs of local governments because Proposition 13 prohibits local governments from increasing revenue needed to provide legally required services and infrastructure maintenance.
NOW do you get it?
Making it easier for the legislature to pass increases in taxes only makes it easier for them to spend.
Please explain why this would be a good thing and would solve our problems?
" [N]ew revenue estimates released by the Department of Finance this week place the state’s general fund revenues at $85.9 billion—nearly $4 billion higher than they were just five years ago.
Even with the depleted funds caused by plunging home prices and a global economic slowdown, Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget is still larger than his first budget in the 2004-05 budget year.
But in that first budget year, state spending was at $79.8 billion. Over the next two years, state spending jumped by more than 21 percent, to more than $101.4 billion in the 2006-07 budget year."
So it's not a revenue problem, and is DEFINITELY not a Prop 13 problem. IT"S A SPENDING PROBLEM! The only thing that eliminating a 2/3rds majority would be that our worthless legislature would pass more taxes. We are currently top 3 in highest taxed states in the U.S. after passage of the largest state tax in the history of the U.S. earlier this year and we are still way in debt.
Prop 13 is about property tax, isn't it?
I believe it allows someone who has owned a home for a long time to pay less in tax when compared to a new home owner even if the homes are of equivalent value.
The long time home owner is not being taxed on the rise of their home value over the time of the ownership.
To me, this sounds a bit screwy. Is there anywhere else in the country that this occurs?
It certainly isn't very democratic.
I understand that there are plenty of people who have hardships because their home increased in value in the 20 - 30 yrs that they have lived there. I understand that people on fixed incomes (retirees/people on disability) may not be able to taxes on the increased value of their homes. That is an issue everywhere.
Personally, I think that money for schools should come out of general revenue taxes and not property taxes but who knows when that may happen.
From the posters here, I don't see people wanting to repeal prop 13. Who would?
But I do believe it may be a good option.
Another option may be changing the ways schools are funded.
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/034048.html
We do not live within our means here in CA and haven't been for quite some time.
So no, it's not specifically Arnold's fault... but he did, and does, empower the GOP to keep playing their games with the state.