Who Should we Blame for California's Failure?

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.

Comments

[like-mind]

The No. One problem to change as swiftly as possible is the 2/3 Majority Rule, where so many compromises and inclusions get made, in order to garner the 2/3rds vote for any budget, that the result is a gobbledygook that doesn't work.

[oddjob1138]

I'll take the gobbledygook over giving either side a free hand. Especially people in power now who can't seem to think for themselves and grovel before far too powerful unions. And I'm a union employee who benefits from union representation. Just not a public employee union.

[PerryWhite]

When Howard Stern needs people of limited intelligence and knowledge (The Homeless Game) his crew seeks out homeless dropouts with obvious substance abuse problems in poor neighborhoods. When Jay Leno needs people of limited intelligence and knowledge (Jaywalking) he can go to any shopping area or amusement park and talk to (often) college graduates.

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.

[whitegayrepublican]

WOW, Not that was a sweeping generalization of us So. Cals.

[PerryWhite]

More evidence.

[Osusuki]

I agree totally with your suggested fixes for California's problems, but I seriously doubt if they will ever come to pass. For every person who realizes the need for your solutions, there are two like Zipowitz. Every year around budget time, the GOP brings California to a screeching halt with their incredible stupidity, and these loyal followers of Grover Norquist and Howard Jarvis keep voting for them to return to office. Try to recall them, and the newspapers cry foul. Try to reason with them, and they'll quote you drivel from some libertarian website. Mention their inability to think logically, and they whine that their feelings have been hurt. All in all, I think it may be a lot less stressful to let them have their way, then turn to them one and all when California ceases to be a viable political entity and say I TOLD YOU SO.

[oddjob1138]

I invite you to read and logically rebut my posts in this thread. :D

[Cacaoatl]

Why place blame? Why not just fix our problems without the need to scapegoat somone?

[PartyPartyParty]

Because nobody wants to do what is necessary to fix the problem, which is to hold a constitutional convention to, among other things, repeal Propositions 1A and 13 and the blankety-blank amendment 22 that was passed in a special election (special election!!!! gaaaah!!!) called by isolationist, libertarian governor Hiram Johnson in 1911.

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.

[TopProf]

You fail to emphasize properly the effect of the anti- tax initiatives. If the increase in property tax had been allowed to rise with the value of the real estate, CA would be better off. Concentrating on individuals obscures the truth that policies and regulations are mainly to blame. In CA we see the ultimate effect of conservative values = starving the beast of government. It worked just as it was intended.

[zipowitz]

You are completely and utterly incorrect on this one. Had property taxes increased with the rise in value we would have had tremendous amounts of defaults and displacement of people out of their homes. Get educated on Prop 13 first, look at history and tax revenues versus spending and you will see the light. Did you know that right after prop 13 passed CA experienced it's greatest boon ever with tax receipts skyrocketing. Also we have gone from a little over $6 billion in property tax in 1980 to a little over $43 billion in 2006, almost a 579% INCREASE!!! Property tax revenue in CA has been THE FASTEST growing source of tax revenue in the state. Nobody is starving with that sort of increase. The problem is we completely outspend what we take in, plain and simple, to think otherwise is just foolish.

[PartyPartyParty]

From whence does this hogwash come?

[mergina]

Mexico...B­ush...Enro­n...Halibu­rton...Arn­old...Holl­ywood...Ja­y Leno....All American Car Manufacturers...All Oil Companies...and on and on and on.

[jinjinpinti]

It's simple. Just like a manic homeowner going broke from inviting the whole neighborhood ,and then some, over to stay, and live and eat, etc, California has overextended itself too much for too long. Welcome. Y'all come on in, Need something? Here ya go. Oh, you, too? Help yourselves. Make yourselves at home. Mi casa, su casa; Come on down! There's more where that came from, etc., etc. etc.

[Rogan]

You sound like someone who's never attempted to be able to afford to move to California. Because the cost of moving to California (from somewhere less prosperous, anyway) is prohibitive, unless you are being well paid to make the move. And even if you get there, the cost of living in California is more than likely to send you off packing sooner than later (again, if you don't have enough money to solve all those expense-related problems). Moving to California is like moving to New York City: the place mangles people and sends them back to where they came from, as often as it welcomes them and offers them incentives to stay.

[cqyates]

Since I have moved out of California,. I have to admit that I am looking forward to people seeing Oakland to turn into a fiery hell hole. You people are gonna quickly find out that welfare is a necessary evil.

[PartyPartyParty]

For everyone who thinks spending is the problem:

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.

[oddjob1138]

Spending in the state doubled over the last 10 years from about $70 billion to $140 billion. Population didn't double. Inflation didn't double. There are 74000 less students enrolled in the school system over the last 10 years. Revenues HAVE increased. In fact if spending was kept tied to population and inflation CA would currently have a $15 billion surplus. This is a spending problem.

[PartyPartyParty]

Did you read what I just wrote? I quote:

".....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?

[Housewife]

The State spent their income with no eye toward difficult times. The stupid ballot initiative process enables uninformed spending and the voters of this state have to stop electing actors to run it. Get rid of the 2/3 majority rule and maybe we can get the state back on track,

[zipowitz]

How will getting rid of the 2/3rds majority reign in spending?

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?

[Housewife]

Because it causes pols to do what is politically expedient rather than what is right. A minority gets to stand in the way of moving forward because it is how they control the political landscape. If spending control is what you want, then that should be legislated in the form of balanced budget requirements and spending limits as it relates to the money the state takes in. Spend less than you earn.

[zipowitz]

Spending, spending and more spending. Also our pension system for the public unions is a HUGE drain our government. Guaranteed high returns on the pension system and juicy retirement packages drain the coffers. However spending is the issue. An excerpt from the political newspaper Capital Weekly

" [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.

[PartyPartyParty]

In the top three of exactly what taxes? Income tax? Not for the wealthy: they're at about 10%. And certainly not for property taxes. Thanks to Prop 13, the property tax rate in California is 1% of assessed value. You read that right: one percent.

[oddjob1138]

California is 2nd behind Hawaii for income tax. That's taxes levied by the state itself. And as part of the largest tax increase by a state in US history back in Feb they now charge us a 5% processing fee on whatever we pay on taxes basically raising the 2nd highest income tax in the US this year. I currently pay 9.75% sales tax where I live. Also part of that massive tax increase the 2/3 failed to stop. What do you pay in sales tax? Property tax is one of the few Ca isn't in the top 5 taxed.

[Eclipse-girl]

Forgive me, I have never lived in California.

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.

[oddjob1138]

Here's all you need to learn about Prop 13:

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/034048.html

[zipowitz]

Thanks for posting this link as I hope people realize that Prop 13 is not the nemesis they think it is. It's how the legislature wants to portray it so that they can do away with it and get even more of our money.

We do not live within our means here in CA and haven't been for quite some time.

[jsgaetano]

California's constitution allows a small, sidelined, disgraced group of people (hereafter refered to as "The GOP") to hold the state hostage, and block any kind of business from getting done.

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.

[zipowitz]

So I would assume that you are referring to the 2/3rds majority rule. And if I am correct then you would like that repealed so that our wonderful union beholden overspending legislature could just continually raise taxes. Would that be correct?

[jsgaetano]

Typical Republifundie. Cause all kinds of problems... them blame it on the unions.

[Pablo175]

Too much spending!!!!!!!!

[WorkingClass]

California is doomed unless it finds a way to restore majority rule in the legislature. The United States of America is similarly doomed unless it finds a way to restore majority rule in the Senate.