A California Republican

Is California too big to govern? Should the constitution be changed because of the way California has grown?

People who answer these have come up with the following solutin: Having a constitutional convention to change the constitution of California to make it more governable.

California has had two previous constitutional conventions: in 1849 and in 1878, which produced our current system. In 1962, the constitution had grown to 75,000 words, which at that time was longer than any other state constitution but Louisiana. That year, the electorate approved the creation of a “California Constitution Revision Commission,” which worked on the constitution from 1964 to 1976. The legislature placed revisions emanating from the Commission on the ballot. The electorate ratified the Commission’s revisions in 1966, 1970, 1972, and 1974. In the end, the Commission managed to remove about 40,000 words from the constitution, but otherwise made only minor changes.

There is no authority, in California, for limiting the scope of a constitutional convention. There have been other state courts that recognize a constitutional convention is limited to the reasons that the people agree it is needed. However, there is no authority for the guarantee in California. A constitutional convention could turn into a free-for-all where nothing will be decided.

The Bay Area Council is the main group pushing for a constitutional convention. They have said there are four areas that need to be addressed in the convention:

• Governance, including the structure of the legislative and executive branches of government, with the latter to include State agencies and commissions.
• Elections, including the initiative and referenda processes, campaign finance, and term limits.
• The Budget, including the budget process and related requirements, such as the 2/3rds legislative vote required to pass a budget, the term and balancing of a budget, and mandated spending.
• Revenue distribution, including the revenue relationship between local and state government.

These aren’t small areas of the law. These are huge, sweeping areas. In fact, the four areas cover almost all the laws in California. There might be some penal code laws that are not included, but even those could be tied to the budget and prison spending. This type of elaborate plan means that the convention would be a madhouse; it would be a crazy situation where everyone is trying to get their piece into the constitution.

Interest groups will try and get tehir protections in place. The CTA (teachers union) will try and get teacher tenure and funding in place so that it cannot be changed. Labor will try and get favorable positions in the constitution, and so will conservatives. This clash between the big players in California politics ensures that a new constitution is a pie-in-the-sky idea, and not a concrete reality.

However, what will relaly doom the California constitution is the issue of marriage. Either the new constitution will say that marriage is legal between any consenting adults, or that marriage is limited to a man and a woman. In either case, the constitution will not be able to get the 2/3 vote of the people that it needs to be adopted. There is not 2/3 of Californians who support either position on marriage. This means, more than any other reason, that there will be no new California constitution.

The scholars say that there are ways to prevent these issues from coming up, and there are ways to control the interest groups. The realist says, “yeah right.”

So while a constitutional convention may sound like a new, and nifty, solution to many of California’s problems; it is not. It is simply a random idea, and needs to be eneded because it is not practical.

The Governor released his new plan to balance the state budget. It is cuts, all cuts.

The cuts are not a bad thing. The state will only fund $7000 to UCSF Hastings law school; the bare minimum required under their promise to the Hastings family. The state will cut Cal Grants for new applicants and phase out current grant receivers. This simply means the state won’t give people money for college. There are grants and scholarships and loans from the federal government, and private programs out there. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

The Governor plans to cut $1.6 billion from CalWorks, the welfare program which provides subsidies for children. This cut leads to a $4+ billion dollar loss in federal funds. This may seem like a ridiculous cut, but CalWorks is one program which is discretionary. There isn’t a lot of discretionary funding in the state budget, and these are some of the discretionary program where the Governor can cut, and not be in violation of state law.

The state parks would also lose their General Fund money. In a time when people are poorer, the state parks offer cheap vacations that people can afford. The state parks offer cheaper recreation than going to an amusement park of a day, the water slide, or even a movie. It stinks that the parks are going to get their General Fund cut, but it doesn’t mean they get no state support. They still receive money from the cigarrette tax and other Special Funds. It simply means that state parks are going to have to scale back.

There are already law suits. The SEIU has filed in federal court alleging that the state is engaging in discrimination by cutting programs to the elderly and disabled. The state is simply engaging in responsible fiscal spending by requiring that expenditures not exceed income. They aren’t discriminating, they are cutting where possible.

Overall, it is a plan with deep cuts. But it is a plan that is needed.

You can find out more about the plan at www.dof.ca.gov

What is a compromise? It is a situation where the parties to the argument both change their stances in order to reach a middle ground. It is not a situaiton where one party must compromise all their principles to agree with the other party. A compromise also offers a solution to a problem, and doesn’t merely put the problem off to the voters, or to another year.

The Legislature needs to take notice of this definition, and think about it when discussing what they are going to do to make the budget work.

A compromise is not changing the law, or working around the law, to try and get your way. Democrats are, once again, reviving the majority vote proposal. This is a proposal which would allow the Democrats to pass a budget package, with tax increase, so long as the total tax burdern doesn’t change. This means they can change the gas tax to a “fee” and then raise a new tax in place of the gas tax. Theoretically, this wouldn’t change the tax burden because one tax was eliminated while another was added - never mind that the onld tax got replaced with a fee.

The Legislature should look at the results of the special election in May and realize that voters don’t want to make the choices. Voters elect representatives, and it is the job of those representatives - our legislators - to make those decisions. They need to stop passing the buck to voters, or to the next fiscal year. Fancy borrowing schemes are over. Stop the nonsense, and create solutions.

The Republican leaders in both houses, the Assembly and the Senate, lost their positions over their stance on taxes. The Republican leaders agreed to new taxes, in order to get a spending cap put in place on the ballot. Instead of seeing this as a compromise, the leaders lost their position because they made a gamble on the ballot - and lost. This makes it highly unlikely that the Republicans will go for anything like this in the future.

So what are the leigslators going to do in order to come up with the 2/3 votes needed to make a budget package to fix the deficit that California is currently in? Below is a list of ideas from the Sacramento Bee - notice that not one of them includes eliminating Prop. 98 (rigid education funding formula) which takes up approximately half of the budget. That is certainly an option that needs to be explored, although it would likely copy the fate of Prop. 13 (see below). A compromise is needed, but how are they going to reach it?

Ideas for fixing the state budget

There are many people who believe that illegal immigrants are the problem with California’s budget.

Granted, there is a lot of spending on illegal immigrants. The schools they attend are funded with state money. They go to state universities and pay in-state tuition (if they graduated from a CA high school), and the state funds the universities. They use health care, they are in prisons. They use the law enforcement resources, water and energy, and the state spends millions on their care in emergency rooms and clinics.

The state does spend a lot of money on illegal immigrants. But it is no where near the amount people think. The money spent on illegal immigration isn’t the $21+ billion that is needed to fix the budget. No one knows how much it is. This is because schools don’t ask about immigration status. Health care is provided regardless of immigration status. It is insane that these services are provided regardless of immigration status. No one knows how much stopping these services would save, because there is no current way to track them.

Illegal immigrants can come to California and get kidney transplants, they can get multiple kidney transplants. Illegla immigrants take away spots in colleges that residents could use. Illegal immigrants take spots in elementary and high schools that could otherwise be used to make smaller classes for legal residents and citizens.

Some say to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants? Why? They broke the law, and knew they broke the law when they did it. There is no issue of these people not knowing they were breaking the law.

One of the arguments in support of illegal immigration is that the illegals perform jobs that citizens wouldn’t do, and at a lower wage. This argument says that it is okay to exploit illegal immigrants. However, wouldn’t the man that just lost his construction job be willing to provide for his family by taking a dishwasher job? Shouldn’t the companies be forced to pay minimum wage to their employees and provide them with the protection of the law?

The 14 million people that are un-employed would take the jobs that the illegals are holding. Wouldn’t it be better for people to come off social services and be placed in these jobs? Why should illegals get the benefits of having a job when there are legal residents who do not have one?

Illegal immigrants don’t provide a benefit to California, or anywhere. They provide a drain. They are law-breaking people who think they can simply take what they want. They don’t respect the laws of this state, or this country. If they did, they wouldn’t be here illegally. What’s more, they don’t want to be American. They want to hold onto their culture, language, nationality and flag; they just want to live here. So why grant them legal status simply because they broke the law and managed to avoid deportation? It is a ridiculous sentiment.

However, they aren’t the solution to the budget problem. Banning illegals from services won’t solve the whole budget problem, but it would solve a portion of it.

Are taxes in California too high?

Certainly someone who is struggling to make ends meet, and now has to pay extra sales tax would say yes. As would most people in California who pay their taxes (for those of you who don’t pay taxes - maybe you should).

California might not appear to have a huge tax burden. But the issue is the taxes as a percentage of your income, and how far the income can stretch after taxes. With the new vehicle license tax increase, the new sales tax, and the ever skyrocketing personal income tax, California is becoming a place that few can afford to live.

What do Californians get in return for their taxes? Failing schools, bad roads, shoddy fire and police services, a huge prison population, and social services that fail to get people into jobs. This is the true measure of when taxes are too high - it is when you are paying them and getting a horrid return on them.

There is nothing good about California schools (most of them). Most California schools have fialing students. The students care more about athletics than learning, classes are too big, the high school dropout rate is too high, and learning is too structured. Some charter schools are making a difference, and doing better, but those schools are far fewer than the public schools, which is where the bulk of the money goes. Anyone who pays attention to California schools knows that we have funded them at a high level, and no matter how much money is poured in, the schools are still failing. This is not a good return on our tax money.

We pay a gas tax everytime we fill up our car or truck with gas. Despite this high, and persistent, tax Californians are still driving on badly paved roads, and roads with bad markings and which need construction work done on them. The tax we pay at the pump should be going to fix these things. Instead, who knows where it is truely going. It certainly isn’t going to keep the road up, as most California drivers can tell you. This is one of the worst states to have a sensative suspension in, because our roads are so bad it will get dinged up fairly quickly.

Our social services are failing. Rather than being a safety net, they have become a way of life. The social services don’t get people into jobs. Instead, they continue to provide income and services for those who will not provide for themselves. There are some people who need social services for a while, and then come off of them, but the majority of people on social services are there for a lifestyle, not for a brief period of time and certainly they are not using it as the safety net it was designed to be. At some point, people need to recognize that flipping burgers is a job. It brings in money. It may not be your dream job, but it provides income while you get where you want to be. The state is not, should not be, the provider of your income - you should be.

Our prison population is huge, and simply gets larger every day. Prisons aren’t doing any rehabilitation - they are spending the money paying the guards and building clinics that the federal Reciever wants to build. They are expending large sums of money complying with court orders that give inmates better health care than they would get on medi-cal or medicare. That is ridiculous.

Mainly, Californians aren’t getting anything for their taxes. The average person doesn’t see a return on their investment. If California was a business, the investors would pull out, the CEO would be fired, and the company would go through an overhaul, or go out of business. Taxes are too high for the returns we are getting. The Leiglsature needs to realize this and fix the problem before they ask for any more of our money.

In California, the higher education advocates are always having a hard time. They complain that the money to the universities is always getting cut, and that community colleges aren’t funded at a high enough level.

This is a bunch of hogwash. Higher education has never been a right of people, and people should stop thinking that it is. Higher education is a privilege. Additionally, people should have to pay for higher education. It isn’t a free ride anymore. And if you cannot pay for it, truely cannot pay for it, there is help out there for you.

However, if community colleges are concerned that they aren’t getting enough funding for re-training programs, then maybe they should switch what classes they offer. Instead of offering classing in the Art Department, maybe they should trade those classes to Accounting or Engineering classes. The community college is given the same amount of money, per unit, for an art or drama class as a computer or technical skills class. So why not switch the classes to focus there? Or do the smart thing and make more classes available via the internet. If writing and composition classes, along with history classes, were offered over the internet - the community college classes could cut down on how many classes they have to offer in their limited space, and could expand their professors to include part-timers who don’t mind teaching over the internt. The internet is the way to go, and community colleges are behind the curve.

Speaking of saving costs, the California State University system could use some overhauls. It is a four-year university, so I am not going to say stop offering art classes. However, the larger classes - like Governmetn 1, or Econ 1, could be taught over the internet and use graduate students as T.A.’s - which is far cheaper than asking professors to teach sections. This could cut down on some costs. Additionally, the students can pick up more of their share. The CSU’s are very cheap and affordable. However, they cut services while increasing fees - instead they should increase services and fees.

The CSU’s and UC systems feel it is the state’s responsibility to pay for their costs. However, it is the students’ responsibility and the responsibility of the university to fund itself. Being dependent on the state is ridiculous, and the universities know it. Additionally, the UC had a policy where professors didn’t have to pay into the retirement systen - which is also absurd. If you want retirement benefits, you pay for them while working. That is a common thing, and the UC was ridiculous for letting their system go on for so long.

The higher education community knows that they can raise fees and charge enough to cover what the state isn’t funding. However, instead of doing that, or making hard choices on what to offer, or modernizing their education so they can do it over the internet, the schools are demanding the state pay.

Let’s all enter reality and function with the real-world knowledge that the state doesn’t pay, and that higher education is a privilege not a right.

President Obama has been in office for four months, so it is time to evaluate what we really know about him from his actions.

People who voted for him thought they knew him. Either they were reading his books, and liked the man they saw there, or wanted a change from Bush, so they voted for the man they thought was the farthest from Bush. Did the voters get what they wanted? The jury is still out, but here is what we know:

He talks with big words. Ever listen to one of his press conferences? He uses phrases like “cap and trade” and “ruthless pragmatism” to describe his positions or plans. The truth is, the vast majority of people don’t understand what these phrases mean. He is aloof and composed in his press conferences. He speaks a language that encourages you to trust him, without ever telling you what he is doing. Cap and trade can mean a lot of different things to different people, depending on their world view. Where does President Obama stand? No idea. His speeches are filled with big words and phrases that don’t say a whole lot. But this is the type of speaker that he has always been. Never committing to anything, other than general principles.

He is ruthless. He even describes his economic position as “ruthless pragmatism.” When he seeks something, he gets what he wants. If you are a helpful advisor, you can stick around. If you are not helpful, or smack of scandal (except tax scandals, those he likes), you are shown the door irregardless of loyalty issues.

He has elevated listening to a high moral position. Listening is a good skill, but it isn’t the high moral ground. The high moral ground involves making decisions based on principles, not listening to debates and all sides. He wants to be a mediator, and so he listens. But what else does he do? He lets the parties battle it out, but claims to be a mediator because he listens to both sides. That’s not a mediator. That’s a spectator. Presidents cannot be spectators in domestic politics, they have to be participants.

He is also over-confidant. The word from the inside is that he revels in personally directing the futures of GM and Chrystler. Presidents are not CEOs of companies while they are in office, but this President sees himself as able to juggle not only his daily duties, but the CEO responsibilities of GM and Chrystler.

It is unlikely that the President can stand alone on the issues of foriegn relations (where he has no experience) and other issues. While he might be able to try and make the future decisions of GM and Chrystler, he cannot stand alone on other areas. His self-acknowledged brilliance makes him over-confident and unwilling to give up the position of leader and performer to anyone else. People at the White House either play no role (think Jim Jones) or play a different role from what they are supposed to play (think Larry Summers). This means President Obama is being the director of the play, as well as the star actor. No one can do that for long without making mistakes.

Here’s the really interesting thing we’ve seen about the President: he’s almost cruel and is self-congratulatory. At the White House Correspondent’s Dinner his jokes about others bordered on cruel, rather than funny. However, his jokes about himself were all about how much people like him, or want to be him. That really is a telling moment. Let’s hope his overconfidence doesn’t doom America to bad decisions.

Today is the special election.

Predictions are that not many people will vote. In fact, some areas don’t even have polling stations and are making people vote by absentee ballot. Why are people not voting? Generally people don’t vote because they don’t think their vote matters. This decision is often made based on polling data that “tells” people who look at the polls, what the predicted outcome of the election will be.

In California, people also don’t vote because they are tired of voting every few months, or because they are tired of being asked to do what the Governor and Legislature should be doing.

This special election asks voters to approve various ballot measures that would “fix” the problems with the 2009-10 budget - which is now estimated to have a $20+ billion dollar hole if the ballot measures don’t pass, and a $15+ billion hole if they do pass. So regardless of votes, the budget is still unbalanced. It is easy to see why California voters think that the special election doesn’t matter, and so they won’t vote.

However, consider this: You still have the opportunity to vote. You can send a message with your vote, instead of letting others do it for you. A message from 1 million people is less effective than a message from 13 million people. If everyone in California went to the ballot box and voted no, imagine the message that would send. If these ballot measures are defeated soundly, that sends a message to the Governor and Legislature: Stop your tricks and do your work.

Knowing that there is a huge budget deficit hasn’t prevented legislators from passing bills that require money, and from passing some bills that would be considered “mandates” and require the state to backfill the funds to the locals later. It is good to know that even in tough times the Legisature can pass bills that make the budget even more unbalanced by requiring more spending.

Hopefully, the election results will be done by 11 o’clock tonight.

The Governor is leaving town on Tuesday - the day of his special election. He won’t be in California - he’s going to be back east. Why?

Someone from the Governor’s office let it slip that President Obama is going to announce, tommorow, that the federal government is adopting the same clean air standards that California is using. Of course, the Governor of California wants to be there for that. Why not? It is media attention for California, for the Governor, and it is media attention with the President.

Never mind that California is having huge problems complying with their own standards. Or that every state in the nation might not have the same ability to function as California, when these standards are in place. Instead, avoid the hard work of having to decide a national policy, and simply adopt California’s. Not a bad solution for the Presidential workload, but a horrible one for the nation.

After looking at the Governor’s May Revision, both of his proposals (which can be found at www.dof.ca.gov) California voters should be appalled. Really, everyone in California should be appalled.

Instead of making tough decisions, the Governor is resorting to scare tactics. He is proposing closure of fire stations and elimination of some firefighting positions. This is a tough decision, but one that needs to be made. The state is responsible for fighting fires in SRAs - state responsibility areas. The Board of Forestry decides what areas in California are SRA, but there are various ways they can do it, and one is to look at the purpose of the land. The biggest firefighting costs have come from the San Diego area, most of the outskirts are still considered SRA - even though they have full fledged communities. San Diego doesn’t have county fire fighters, so if the area isn’t incorporated into San Diego city, then the area isn’t protected. Great. So people are making choices to move into the SRA - which is a designation that is supposed to mean wildlands, not lands where there are communities - and then the state is responsible for firefighting, and these people don’t even have to pay for fire protection. Most every person in California pays for fire protection through local taxes. These people ride on other state taxpayers to provide fire protection for them.

But these cuts won’t hurt the fire fighters. When more fire fighters are needed, Cal Fire hires them under their “emergency” authorization. So in effect, we will still be paying for these fire fighters, whether the actual positions are eliminated or not.

The federal government is mandating that education funding levels be no lower than the 2005-06 levels. This constrains how much the Governor could cut from education. However, K-12 education is still funded at $1 billion over the 2005-06 levels. Higher education is funded at $150 million more than those levels.

Nothing in the May Revision signals that the Governor is willing to reduce benefits to those that the federal government requires. Instead, California is still going to hand out benefits to everyone that are far in excess of what the federal government has.

Additionally, there is $6 billion of borrowing from special funds - and in some cases there is just a raiding of the special fund with no intent to pay it back. Great, let’s make future budgets even harder to balance because of deficit payments.

Here’s the new position that people should take - No on all the ballot measures. The Governor isn’t taking any hard steps, and the Legislature is signaling that it won’t take hard steps either. Assembly leader Karen Bass (D) said that the gap cannot be closed with cuts alone. No, it could, but the cuts would be hard to make and require people to take cuts to pet projects and programs.

If the leaders aren’t willing to take the next steps - say NO to all their requests and make them re-do their plans, and make them lead, not let the voters lead.