|
Hearing a similar song from California's gubernatorial candidates |
|
|
|
|
Written by Byron Williams
|
|
Wednesday, 24 March 2010 |
 Now that all of California's gubernatorial candidates have officially declared, it is worth noting that while there are differences among them, the reality of the state's dysfunctional system makes them virtually indistinguishable.
The rhetoric on the Republican side by former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner differs from that of Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown on many issues.
But all three major candidates seem to coalesce into a single philosophy that attempts to convince the electorate that they are the best qualified to lead the eighth largest economy in the world while operating within the state's existing dysfunctional parameters.
Whitman and Poizner oppose any changes to the two-thirds majority requirement to pass the state budget, enacted in 1934, making California one of only three states operating under this Great Depression-era policy. Arkansas and Rhode Island are the other two.
It hardly requires clairvoyance to predict that in the current political climate the Legislature for the 24th consecutive year will miss it's constitutionally mandated date for passing a budget.
For his part, Brown has already stated tax increases are not an option. This is almost a redundant statement because of the two-thirds requirement to raise revenues as a result of Proposition 13's passage in 1978.
But Brown, who was governor when Prop. 13 passed, recently stated in an interview that the "third rail of California politics" has worked. One wonders to which part Brown was referring, the cap on individual property taxes, the two-thirds requirement for the Legislature to raise revenues, or the corporate loophole that allows corporations to receive the same property tax benefits as the individual homeowner in perpetuity?
Does Brown also consider, as do Republican members of the Legislature, that closing tax loopholes is tantamount to a tax increase? If so, the impoverished yacht owners can breath a sigh of relief having once again been spared from the evil clutches of the Democrats in the Legislature who wish to close such loopholes.
How can California's political climate be classified as anything other than dysfunctional when it is much easier to cut funds from higher education than to close a tax loophole on yacht owners?
That is not only immoral, it is fiscally irresponsible for the state's long-term future when, for example, studies consistently show that for every $1 invested in a California State University student, we see returns of $4 to the state economy.
How many state employees will have to be let go and additional services cut before we reach the predictable outcome that cuts alone will not solve what is ailing this state?
The severity of California's problems long ago passed party identification. If the Republicans were the majority in the Legislature instead of the Democrats, only the most politically naive would conclude that the state would fare better in the current climate.
While it would be easy to conclude that my criticisms are directed toward those who seek to replace Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the real culprit here is ultimately the electorate. Candidates for elective office tend to be microcosms of the voters.
The California voter appears better suited to complain about the existing problems than to embrace measures that will address our current predicament.
Nearly two years ago, Jim Wunderman, the CEO of the Bay Area Council, wrote an op-ed calling for a state constitutional convention.
Wunderman wrote: "California's government suffers from drastic dysfunction — our prisons overflow, our water system teeters on collapse, our once proud schools are criminally poor, our financing system is bankrupt, our democracy produces ideologically extreme legislators who can pass neither budget nor reforms, and we have no recourse in the system to right these wrongs."
I doubt few would disagree with Wunderman's assessment, but the inability to raise the requisite funds for an initiative campaign placed the constitutional convention idea on hold indefinitely.
As long as there remains a wide gap between those who recognize the problem and those willing to embrace the unavoidable tough solutions, California will remain in a quagmire of dysfunction.
In fairness to those running for governor, it's highly unlikely one could run a successful campaign based solely on reforming the state's problems. Moreover, there is something more appealing for the voter to hear a candidate say, "California's best days are ahead of it" rather than "California's best days could lie ahead, but here are the sobering tough choices that must be made."
If there were a pain-free solution, don't you think someone would have come up with it by now?
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
