|
With its dysfunction, will California's next governor really matter? |
|
|
|
|
Written by Byron Williams
|
|
Sunday, 15 August 2010 |
 Being governor of California is one of the most coveted elective offices in the country. In my estimation, it is second only to president of the United States.
After seven years, it is clear the Arnold Schwarzenegger experiment failed. Not because of the governor's job performance per se, but more the manner in which he was swept into office through the recall of Gray Davis. It hardly produced the fruit that many frustrated Californians were hoping.
California, with a rich and colorful political history, has the opportunity to elect its oldest governor (who is already the youngest governor ever elected) or the wealthiest and first female governor.
Either way, based on the campaign rhetoric of Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman, whatever historic choice Californians make, it will fall extremely short of what the state requires.
California remains in dire need of reform that goes beyond laying off state workers, closing existing loopholes or cutting wasteful spending.
It is doubtful, however, that anyone could be elected to the state's highest office on a reform manifesto.
California is the only state that requires a two-thirds majority in the Legislature for budget approval and to raise revenues. We've grown accustom to the state missing its constitutionally mandated budget deadline (28 out of 33 years).
We expect annual deficits. Moreover, in January, most knew that in August the budget stalemate would have Republicans eschewing any tax increases and Democrats opposing further cuts to those on society's margin.
It's natural, and I dare say expected, to watch protests of those who want to maintain the state's social safety net like those parents in front of the state building in Oakland in an attempt to stop the closing of seven child care centers in the city.
One of the few unknown variables in this annual debacle is whether the Schwarzenegger administration will successfully appeal a judge's ruling that prohibited the governor from forcing thousands of state employees to take three unpaid days off per month due to the state's $19 billion deficit.
We bemoan the so-called fat cats in Sacramento not doing their job, more interested in special interest (which is anyone who lobbies Sacramento) than the business of the people who elected them. But recent attempts to reform how the state conducts its business have effectively been rendered non-starters.
Nonpartisan organizations like Bay Area Council and California Forward have tried in vain to convene a state constitutional convention. There is something about the dysfunction we find tolerable.
Where is that groundswell of Californians with the requisite courage to close the Proposition 13 loopholes that requires a two-thirds majority to increase taxes and the benefit that many corporations enjoy that allows for purchasing property while maintaining pre-Prop. 13 tax rates?
Who is ready to repeal term limits? The sanctimonious Prop. 140, billed as putting an end to career politicians, essentially threw the baby out with the bath water. Sure, it met its intended goal, which was to get rid of then-Speaker Willie Brown, but it also severely hampered the legislative branch of state government.
It created musical chairs with elected officials, it disregarded the importance of institutional memory within the Legislature -- that was transferred to special interest and nonelected staff members. And it reduced the importance of members from opposing parties to building relationships.
Without trust, there can be no compromise, an indispensable element to politics.
We cling to the fool's gold of the initiative process, which fuels our contempt for the Legislature. We vote up or down based largely on a combination of 30-second sound bites, examining who supports or opposes the initiative, and the few sentences provided on the sample ballot without any consideration for the unintended consequences of our actions.
For decades, California has methodically painted itself into a corner, the victim of its own self-inflicted wounds. Succumbing to the dark side of populism, it has in isolation supported policies that have systematically created the existing intractable quagmire.
There is nothing Brown or Whitman proposes that will change the existing political climate. Brown doesn't have enough experience to get a budget deal done by the constitutionally mandated deadline and Whitman doesn't have enough money.
Until we the people grow weary of the conditions that created California's fiscal "Groundhog Day," with the possible exception of appointing judges and a few special interests, how much will it really matter who's elected California's next governor?
 |
|
 Post a Comment.
We want to hear what you think!
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality -- Dante
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
