California Needs a New Constitution
In his most recent piece in the New York Times Paul Krugman asks: "Who would have thought that America's largest state, a state whose economy is larger than that of all but a few nations, could so easily become a banana republic?" Here in Sacramento I've watched the disaster unfold before my eyes like a slow motion train wreck. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been an unmitigated disaster for my home state. I always thought it was a bad sign that he was meeting with "Kenny Boy" Lay when Enron was stealing billions of dollars from California's energy grid. Now the "Terminator" is living up to his self-promoted moniker; he aims to "terminate" just about everything I held dear about California.
On the maternal side of my family we go back four generations in the Golden State. My great-grandmother was born in San Francisco in 1879 and my grandmother was born in Sunnyvale in 1910. My mother was born in San Jose in 1930. I grew up in Santa Clara valley, which had been one of California's original 27 counties founded in 1850 and named after Mission Santa Clara in honor of Saint Clara of Assisi, Italy. The Santa Clara valley I knew growing up was a farming region blessed with some of the most fertile soil found anywhere in the world and a Mediterranean climate perfect for growing everything from tangerines to avocados. I used to pick plums during the summer at family-owned orchards that were within walking distance from our home. I watched Santa Clara valley, once filled with apricot, plum, and citrus orchards, become paved-over "Silicon Valley." I saw Los Gatos change from a foothill hippie town into an affluent bedroom community on par with Beverly Hills. You should hear my mother describe the changes she saw from her childhood years in that same valley.
Liberal Democrats ran the state for many years and under the leadership of Governor Edmund "Pat" Brown California invested heavily in public education. I attended California's public schools and community college, transferred to a University of California, and then pursued graduate studies at a California State University. Today, after receiving my doctorate, I'm a member of the faculty of CSU, Sacramento. The point here is that when I was in college the public system of higher education in California was first rate, the campus facilities were up-to-date and aesthetically pleasing, and the cost of an education was taken care of with modest student fees. It was this top-notch education system that produced the extraordinary technological innovations that ultimately changed how people all over the world work and process information. It used to be "common sense" that investing in education would pay future dividends for the state. And without these investments in California's education system you might not be reading this right now on a PC and I might not be sending it -- whizz-bang! -- over a global computer network. All I'm trying to say is that California is important, and not just for the United States.
Two weekends ago my wife and I visited wineries in the foothills of Amador County and while the hot sun beat down on us we could see the snow-capped peaks of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Last weekend we were in Point Reyes where we showed our daughter rare bird species and an incredible shoreline on the edge of a continent. What other state has this kind of topography? California's state parks are among the most treasured in the world.
And what are the proposals of the Republican governor and our legislative "leaders" to deal with the state's fiscal crisis -- a crisis of their own creation? They want to declare war on California's public institutions. The governor and his extremist minority, working hand-in-glove with spineless and inept Democrats, are aiming to privatize or abolish the public works that millions of people built up over decades. They want to cut out the heart of state services aimed at health care and child protection and schools and libraries and fisheries and community centers and parks and education and everything else they can get their filthy hands on. Earlier generations of Californians painstakingly put in place a vibrant public sector that was the envy of the world. And it was tremendously successful. But today, in 2009, an ignorant movie star governor along with a gaggle of nihilistic right-wingers and fearful Democrats, who have neither imagination nor "vision," are turning California into a fifth-rate banana republic.
And I ask you: Is this the kind of governance we elected these people to pursue?
Once these draconian cuts are enacted it will be far more difficult to reverse them.
So we better stop them now.
California needs a Constitutional Convention before any of these miserable budget cuts can be carried out. If Arnold and the Spineless Democrats can waste state money holding failed ballot initiatives and "special elections" they can set aside a little cash for a Constitutional Convention. An extremist, nihilistic minority that does not value government in any form (unless it is doling out contracts or waivers to private corporations) has hijacked our state government. The state would be in much better shape with the following reforms:
1. Double the number of State Assembly members and State Senators. The current numbers, 80 Assembly members and 40 Senators, means that State Senators represent more constituents than Congressional Representatives. It's predicted that California is going to have 40 million people over the next decade. Doubling the numbers to 160 Assembly members and 80 Senators would increase the representation of the state and provide for smaller districts. It would do far more for "democracy" than a thousand ballot initiatives, "special elections," or recalls. (It would have the added benefit of pulling down from their high horses many of these useless legislators who are drunk on their own self-importance.)
2. End the term limit requirement. The Republican minority loves term limits because it puts the state firmly in the hands of corporate lobbyists and big financial interests and provides an endless conveyor belt of inexperienced "leaders" in the Assembly and Senate. The United States Congress has no term limits and neither should the United States' most populated state. Term limits are why the Democrats have "leaders" like Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, two of the worst "negotiators" in the state's political history. What haven't these two ham-handed amateurs forked over to the Republicans? The open primary? Caps on legislative salaries? Pointless ballot initiatives? Selling off state assets? What else is there to give away? When are they going to stand up for their own Democratic constituencies? Arnold's got a dismal 30 percent approval rating and Democrats far outnumber Republicans in the state. But they keep capitulating to him. Sometimes I think they're among the last people in the state who are still star-struck over Arnold's celebrity.
3. End the "supermajority" rule that gives the far-right minority veto power over the state's budget. The Republican minority has been triangulating with Arnold to block passing any budget that has a semblance of sanity to it. Only two other states have such a retrograde rule and they're backwaters with a fraction of California's population. This two-thirds requirement has caused more damage to California than all the wildfires, earthquakes, and floods combined.
4. End all state tax exemptions for extractive industries (especially oil) and big agribusiness. Most Californians don't know that huge oil conglomerates that have made windfall profits off the hundreds of thousands of motorists in our state walk away for the most part without paying a dime in state taxes.
5. Triple the number of signatures needed for propositions or recalls and forbid any group or organization from paying people to acquire signatures. Shadowy "astro-turf" groups have been financing bogus initiatives for decades in California, much of it financed with cash from outside the state. Corporations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars manipulating California voters with propositions that either enact some regressive give-away or nullify legitimate propositions that had grassroots support and were put on the ballot in the spirit of public service.
6. Place strict limits on out-of-state money coming into California to influence elections and impose even stricter spending caps on all political money spent in Sacramento either on lobbying or campaign contributions. As Arnold's cigar-smoking tent "caucuses" prove, Sacramento is every bit as corrupt as Washington, D.C.
We have more creative people in this state than any place on Earth. I think we can come up with a far better system than the one we are saddled with now. Let's have a convention and write a new Constitution that can move California into the 21st Century. And when Arnold and the other Philistines in the State Capitol resist our call we should gather together all the state's employees, all the unions, along with everyone else who wants to protect California's future, and stage a general strike to remind them who they were elected to serve!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
HUGE DEMONSTRATIONS IN SAN LUIS OBISPO JUNE 17 AND JUNE 18! COME JOIN US! TELL THE LEGISLATORS HOW TO FIX THE MESS!
> Term limits are why the Democrats have "leaders" like Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, two of the worst "negotiators" in the state's political history. What haven't these two ham-handed amateurs forked over to the Republicans? The open primary? Caps on legislative salaries? Pointless ballot initiatives? Selling off state assets? What else is there to give away? When are they going to stand up for their own Democratic constituencies? Arnold's got a dismal 30 percent approval rating and Democrats far outnumber Republicans in the state. But they keep capitulating to him.
If Boss Feinstein did not want this sort of capitulation, it would not happem. Either Bass or Steinberg would have more spine or be replaced by leaders who DO have more spine. But Boss Feinstein WANTS Medical replaced by something more beneficial to her big pharma/HMO friends
The Democrats in this state answer to Dianne "Boss" Feinstein, who ain't a Democrat. She is pro-prison guard union and pro-pharma. She will pick a candidate to endorse for Governor in 2010 and , in exchange for control over his or her administration, will give said candidate all the campaign funds needed to win the Governorship.
YET Senator Boss Feinstein remains the most popular politician in the state.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Thanks for the comments -- anything is better than what we have now in California's govt. I think baboons could have done a better job
The author seems to be bemoaning the 'paving over' of former idyllic agricultural land and the emergence of "affluent bedroom communities".
With the real-world population increases in his state, what are his real-world solutions that would have changed those oucomes?
Densification and in-fill housing. People do not have a God-given right to 4,000 square feet of living space and a water-guzzling green lawn in a climate that cannot support it.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
Actually, there's a lot of horrible sprawl because greedy developers (loved by all Republicans) didn't care about the valley at all, only about making $$$$$$$$$$$$ -- that's what I mean, unless you find Home Depot architecturally and aesthetically appealing.
This may be the time to demote Ca & other bankrupt states to the status of a US territory. When a former state is reorganized as a Territory it would no longer be able to send Senators or Representatives to the US Congress. If & when a Territory again became worthy of Statehood, the US Congress could choose to readmit as former state to the Union as a state. The US Congress may have a right to direct a Territory to take steps which would make a Territory worthy of becoming a state again. Who told the Utah Territory what it had to do to be admitted to the Union as a state? A bankrupt former state demoted to a Territory would have to present compelling evidence that it was again worthy of becoming a stage before the Congress granted the Territory readmitted it as a state. A Territory could split itself into new Territories if the Congress saw fit to authorize the step. This will be necessary because of the growing, current, recession/depression. The remedy is harsh but necessary.
Excuse me are u loco? concentration of wealth so that under 1 percent owns over 50 percent of all resources - and don't pay hardly any taxes? knock them folks back, not hard-working slavery wage people
Part 1
"basement frog" I understand your ire as concerns the status quo, and in reference to the particular points mentioned, you have a good case, it's the implementation I have some problem with.
Point by point;
1) Although the two party system, as it exists right now, leaves MUCH to be desired, outlawing them all together would be impossible. The idea of 535 individual thoughts running around on The Hill would be chaos to the max. More political parties with more divergent views, to my mind, would be more sensible.
2) Now here you have an EXCELLENT idea. I've said this myself, more than once. What should be done, on this count, would be to revisit the 1886 Supreme Court decision; [ Santa Clara County vs. The Southern Pacific Railroad ] in which "law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate.
This, I believe, is the underlining evil to most all the points you bring up.
Something else, that could be considered would be a pay scale, for these people, that would be more in line with professional remunerations. As long as all outside gratuities can be eliminated, high value people could be attracted.
There are parts 3 and 4, they're just all out of sync,sorry.
I am a 56 year old, second-generation native California who now calls Iowa home. I saw the fiscal and legislative trainwreck coming earlier this decade and made plans to leave my beloved state before it went completely over the cliff. I truly wish I had been wrong but every news cycle confirms the wisdom of my decision to leave.
California's problems started with Reagan and now there's Schwarzenegger. (What is the fascination with third-rate actors as politicians anyway??)
I was educated in the 50's and 60's in what was then the finest public education system in the United States. This was a legacy and promise that should be in place today were it not for the short-sighted and downright stupid policies of the right-wing.
Mr. Palermo says in eloquent terms what is in my heart and mind as well. I shake my head and my heart weeps for what once was the greatest place in the country to live.
RIP California.
The people in your age cohort have been running California for the last 20 years or so.
What went wrong with their 'finest public education"?
Many years ago the politicians (both parties share culpability by the way) in California decided to abdicate their role as representative legislators and defer to the "ballot initiative" instead. That process of "governing" has been an unmitigated disaster for California. Unless and until the state gets a new constitution it will continue its downward spiral. Starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 (Howard Jarvis was NOT in my age bracket by the way) things have gotten progressively worse.
Conservatives, Franklin D. Roosevelt once noted, are people with two perfectly good legs who don't know how to walk forward. Conservative politics bred from fear and ignorance have been the ruin of California.
Dr. Palermo knows whereof he speaks.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
It's true -- you should see the sprawl out here near Sac, ugh! And no water source either
Joe you are reporting only half the story, yes the minority party is responsible for catering to "big" business, just as the majority party caters to "big" union. Both business and unions have financed initiatives and ballot measures that have done more for them than the tax-payers. We continue to fund education at higher than national averages, but, to what end? The glory days in this state and nation are only memories, we have and continue to be our own worst enemies. In my opinion, term limits should be extended to Congress as well, career politicians have been bought and paid for many times over, and generally, are only interested in getting re-elected and expanding government. Our governments are corrupt beyond belief, free speech and the pursuit of happiness are endangered species as our "leaders" give us the double-talk of hope and change.
Equating businesses with Unions is a no go logically. You might as well equate doctors and undertakers. And term limits only help make sure we don't have competent people running government.
Without business there would be no unions.
SO DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SIX ESSENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES. part 3
5) One bill, One issue: Earmarks and other forms of pork barrel politics must end now. No pork barrel tactics allowed, period. Each law or bill must stand on its own merits and no other issues can be attached to it. Each bill, law, etc., must be submitted on its own to the Executive Branch. This will end pork barrel spending (which is legalized corruption where politicians pay back their big business pals with taxpayer dollars). A Line Item Veto amendment to the Constitution at a minimum is needed.
6) Term Limits: No one can serve more than two terms in any government body as an elected (or appointed) official whether it’s congressional, judicial or presidential. After being re-elected a person cannot run for office in the same government branch: two-term maximum for anyone any branch of government, but a talented individual can run for congress twice, president twice, and be appointed as a judge twice in their lifetime. Entrenched officials, the longer they are in government, the less they serve the people who elect them and the more they serve the powerful who buy them. This is the great negative influence on out government today.
So does the federal government . 6 changes to the US constitution PART 2
3) Limit campaign contributions to $1000 per registered voter, no corporations allowed: No corporation can make donations to a politician’s run for office, that includes planes, renting facilities, etc., Open two public, national TV stations, one for the federal level and one for the state paid for by the Federal government. Alternative hours are provided for each politician running for office or when submitting a new bill for a vote to get opinions. Keep these limited to two channels, with time equally split between the candidates.
4) Divide Congressional /Representative bodies in quarters: One quarter professionals like lawyers, doctors, etc; one quarter teachers, college and lower lever; one quarter business leaders and managers, small or large; and one quarter workers that is non-managers, family farmers, etc. Any change to the constitution is submitted to the people of the United States for a vote, who are the only ones with the authority to make such changes. This would have prevented the interpretation of the Constitution that said giving money (common bribery) is equal to free speech.
SO DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SIX ESSENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES. part 1
1) Outlaw political parties: Make politicians stand on their own ideas. George Washington, one of our founding fathers and the first president, never supported having political parties and saw the potential for party controlled “king” making or destroying free thinking. Politicians must represent their own ideas, not those of a domineering party controlled by corporations. Get rid of the second most corrupting and undemocratic practice in our system: illegalize political parties corrupting the political process and decision making. Politicians are not in office to serve a party, but the people.
2) Outlaw lobbyists’ money: Money does not equal speech, imprison violators. For CEO’s and lobbyist, any corporation caught giving money or favors (even tickets to ball games or a drink in a bar) to buy influence or lobbyist caught writing bills for any government committee or representative will face years of imprisonment and Multi-million dollar fines. Future sales of stocks or bonds on any U.S. market will be forbidden to corporations that violate this restriction. No corporation with government contracts can hire a politician or retired military for a period of ten years after term of wervice ended. Any politician caught violating the lobbyist law will be immediately imprisoned for 10 years, no parole. Lobbyists are restricted to speaking with elected officials in the elected persons capital office.
Part 3
5) In essence, I'm in agreement with you. But the biggest part of this problem is not so much the earmarks, than how they are attached to a bill,and why. Piggy backing, the way it is done, with the assigned change not having anything at all to do with the bill itself, and the fact that so many times they are added at the 11th hour in the dead of night, (so to speak or in fact) many times with the influence of corporate interests, sullies the whole process. Besides, couldn't you just hear the scorched cat response of the Congress? Heavy modification, would be hard enough. Banning altogether would be nye on impossible.
6) Going on thew premise that all the discussed changes could be made, or at least the most important among them, I think the necessity of term limits would be less necessary. I have no real problem with professional legislators, just so long as they are kept honest and out of the influence of corporate entities, the way they are now. Experience is a necessary component to be a competent legislator. To have to constantly re-train people to do such a job would not serve the purpose of having knowledgeable representatives. Once the nefarious influences are removed, I think, the desired result is more attainable.
Thanks for your comment. I hope you understand my ideas. We're on the same track. Better representation for all.
Part 2
3) If the a fore mentioned changes can be made workable, regarding corporate donations, the $1000 idea can work if at the same time we have government campaign funding, and reform. Also with that should be a strict guideline for the length of the campaign season (6 mos., max).
As far as the media is concerned, this could get prickly. Those that have Federal licensing are one thing. The cable aspect could present some problems. Having said that, if the will is there to do what I,and you, have stated thus far, I believe something can be mandated to level the playing field.
4) This one is a total non-starter. There are just way too many constituencies to be able to work out this idea. Once the corporations are excluded, campaign financing is worked out, media access is made more equitable, and a pay scale is large enough to attract "the best and the brightest",(as they may say), I think what you are trying to accomplish here would be more equitably served.
"basement frog" I understand your ire as concerns the status quo, and in reference to the particular points mentioned, you have a good case, it's the implementation I have some problem with.
Point by point;
1) Although the two party system, as it exists right now, leaves MUCH to be desired, outlawing them all together would be impossible. The idea of 535 individual thoughts running around on The Hill would be chaos to the max. More political parties with more divergent views, to my mind, would be more sensible.
2) Now here you have an EXCELLENT idea. I've said this myself, more than once. What should be done, on this count, would be to revisit the 1886 Supreme Court decision; [ Santa Clara County vs. The Southern Pacific Railroad ] in which "law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate.
This, I believe, is the underlining evil to most all the points you bring up.
Something else, that could be considered would be a pay scale, for these people, that would be more in line with professional remunerations. As long as all outside gratuities can be eliminated, high value people could be attracted.
Considering the government in California, how would we accomplish holding a Constitutional Convention? Who makes that decision? Could the people make it happen? I am concerned that there is not time. Wouldn't the process of a new Constitution (which I agree, we need desperately) take years?
I have lived in California all my life, and have always been very proud of the State, (except when Reagan was Governor :) and all of a sudden I find that people are pitying and making fun of California. This is not acceptable!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
