My Response to Would-Be Senator Garvey

On February 27 I received an email from the Republican California US Senate candidate, Steve Garvey. Titled "We Can Win in California Again," it asked for a contribution to help Garvey defeat "radical Adam Schiff." The text of the email spent most of its verbiage castigating supposedly terrible conditions in America today. Here was my response to his email.

The dystopian picture you paint is so wrong it's comical. You were my favorite baseball player back in the 1970s, but not so good a candidate for the US Senate. The stock market is at an all-time high. Unemployment is at a 60-year low. Growth is at a 60-year high. More jobs have been created in the three years of Biden's presidency than in the eight years ofd any two-term president. Almost every economist predicted a recession in order to get inflation under control, and it hasn't happened. And now inflation is back under 3%. 

The Democrats take climate change seriously while the Republicans deny it. Biden got infrastructure done (bipartisanly), which the previous Republican administration utterly failed to do. The Democrats want to take common sense measures like keeping military assault rifles off the streets while Republicans want to make sure every would-be mass murderer has one. Republicans are denying women and gay people equal rights. The Democrats want to give essential aid to the heroic Ukrainian military resisting tyrannical Russian aggression, while the Republicans are holding it up. Republicans say they are for securing the border, but when a bipartisan committee of senators forged a compromise to do that, the Republicans in the House cravenly refused to put it up for a vote because the utterly corrupt former Republican president didn't want the issue to be solved while Biden was president. 

Republicans are so morally bankrupt they are about to nominate for president a man who has been convicted of bank fraud, insurance fraud, consumer fraud, tax fraud, embezzlement from a charity, and even rape, along with defamation of the woman he raped. His companies have been convicted of massive tax fraud, for which the CFO went to prison, and his former chief attorney was convicted of making illegal hush money payments to a porn star and went to prison. The attorney did this on Trump's orders and was reimbursed for the illegal payment by a check written byTrump himself. And I understand that you, Steve, voted for this career criminal twice. Anyone who has no more political courage or integrity than to do that is unworthy to represent me in the US Senate. I will remember fondly your exploits for my beloved Dodgers, but can only hope that you are trounced by an immense margin in your campaign for Senator.

Sincerely,

Steve Natoli

Newsom Tabs Alex Padilla for Senator

Governor Gavin Newsom has appointed Secretary of State Alex Padilla for US Senator, to fill the unexpected term of Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris. This is who I was thinking it would likely be, and his selection pleases me. I've met him several times at state conventions. He's always there and accessible to the party activists, which is a good thing. He's from Socal instead of Norcal, which is some geographic balance the state can use. The Dem brass has been topheavy with Bay Area people, so that is a good thing. Most importantly, Padilla has been tremendously competent as Secretary of State. He's been terrifically proactive in terms of digitizing everything and incorporating online registration and the massive increase in vote by mail. He's put in the infrastructure and training that's made it work seamlessly in California. He's kept a low profile as SOS, just the right stance for someone whose job has been to non-partisanly and fairly administer the state's elections. And, as you know, he's Latino, California's plurality ethnicity. A major office holder of his background is long overdue. My plaudits to Governor Newsom; Alex Padilla is an excellent choice.

Louie Campos for Congress

There is no doubt the people of Tulare and Fresno Counties have been poorly served by their current Representative in Congress. In office for 14 years, Rep. Devin Nunes has failed conspicuously to alleviate the area's water problems, bring jobs to his constituents, or even get the 99 Freeway widened to three lanes. Brave Gnu Whirled sat down with a new and different kind of candidate who is challenging Mr. Nunes by running for the position this year. I sat down with Louie Campos for an interview recently, which is printed below. His insight and vision represent the kind of responsive and proactive leadership the people of Tulare and Fresno Counties have needed for a long time. Louie is running as a Democrat in the 22nd Congressional District of California. I have known Louie for a long time and have seen his energy, commitment and intelligence first hand. He has my full and complete support and endorsement.




BRAVE GNU WHIRLED: What is your basic philosophy of politics and government?
LOUIE CAMPOS: I'm a liberal. I believe in equality, and it starts with the individual. I believe in empowering people. We are often under the authority of institutions, but people have the power to reverse that relationship and assume the authority themselves. Therefore I believe in the power of democracy.

BGW: What are some of the primary responsibilities you believe a congressional representative should keep in mind?
LOUIE CAMPOS: You have to balance the national interest and your constituents' interests. Primarily you do serve your district, but you have to keep in mind America as a whole.

BGW: What are the major issues you want to address?
LOUIE CAMPOS: The most important thing for our area is jobs. Then come national security and safety. That means an effective policy on the Middle East. Specifically, if we are going to increase our footprint there then congress needs to take a vote. We've seen a lot of congress second-guessing the President but then they won't take a vote. We need to modernize our 1950s infrastructure and update it for the twenty-first century. That would mean a lot of jobs. Water is a critical need here. We can address that and that means jobs too. Climate change needs to be addressed as well. The current drought could be a result of it. We have communities here with bad water or even none. That is not acceptable, and neither is the air quality. I believe in a comprehensive immigration policy with a pathway to citizenship. It is against American values to split up families. It isn't right for people to contribute labor and money to a system that doesn't benefit them.

BGW: Why are you particularly suited to be a good representative?
LOUIE CAMPOS: For the past several years I've spent time on the ground with the people who live here. I've been involved and gone door to door. I've worked in the culinary industry, in the Department of Corrections and am a Board Agua member, a group advocating for water quality. I have a better sense of what the people are going through here. I take a logical, reasoned approach to problem solving. I have no problem challenging my party or anyone for a better way. We need to plant the seed for a new generation to help democracy to succeed.

BGW: What is your critique of the current incumbent in California's 22nd Congressional District, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)?
LOUIE CAMPOS: I've researched his record and can't find anything he's authored. He hasn't really done anything. His constituents can't name a single thing he's done. I think he's been absent, listening to only a limited circle of people, and no one who challenges his view, no one who wants him to do anything. He's like the guy on the couch with a remote in his hand.

BGW: Thank you for the interview. Is there anything you would like to add?
LOUIE CAMPOS: I don't want to understate the value of input. I want to hear what people want and need. I have always been approachable by anybody. If need be I will go to wherever they are. You can't always satisfy everything people want, but I promise to listen and consider any serious need or idea.

New California Laws for 2016

Near the end of each year I like to do a feature on new California laws that will take effect the following January. Here are some noteworthy ones that have passed the legislature, been signed by Governor Brown and will come into force in 2016.

1. Right to Die. Patients who have less than six months to live as determined by two physicians will be able to ask for life-ending drugs. Open and private meetings are required, the patient must be capable of making an informed medical decision and of self-administering the drugs.

2. Vaccinations. All school-age children must have vaccinations in order to attend public school. Additionally, day care centers and homes must maintain records to show their staff members have been vaccinated for flu, pertussis and measles. Tuberculosis screening had already been required.

3. Antibiotics in Livestock. SB 27 will curb the use of low doses of antibiotics in livestock to promote faster growth. The practice is a major contributor to the evolution of drug resistant germs
4. Voter Registration. AB 1461 will direct the Department of Motor Vehicles to automatically register everyone who is an eligible citizen to vote when they come into contact with them. The person will be able to opt out if they wish.
5. Wage Theft: The State Labor Commissioner will have expanded authority to collect unpaid wages on behalf of workers who have been cheated by their employer, thanks to the passage of SB 588.
6. Ride-Sharing: State employees will be able to use ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft and rental services like Airbnb on state business.
7. Smokeless Tobacco: AB 768 bans possession or use of smokeless tobacco on professional baseball fields. AB 216 forbids the sale of vapor products to anyone under 18, even if they contain no nicotine.
8. Franchisee  Rights: AB 525 will give franchise owners greater scope to resist mandates from their corporate franchisers   
9. Concealed Weapons: SB 707 prohibits concealed weapons permit holders from bringing their weapons onto school property. Retired law enforcement is exempt, and police chiefs and school districts could set their own policies on this.
10. Disclosure: Under SB 21 nonprofit organizations have to disclose the names of donors who pay for travel gifts for elected officials. 

California Democrats Pass Open-Campaign Bills

The California Legislature passed two bills this week designed to promote campaign transparency.  The bills have passed both houses and will now go to Governor Brown's desk, where he is expected to sign them into law.  Both are welcome, particularly considering what is happening on the federal level.  As usual when it comes to open campaign legislation, Democrats sponsored and voted for open processes while Republicans voted to keep pertinent information from the electorate.

Assemblyman Paul Fong of Cupertino introduced Assembly Bill 400.  It requires any initiative, referendum and recall petitions being circulated among the voters for signatures "to clearly state the top five donors who contributed more than $10,000 to fund the campaign."  The final version passed Thursday by a vote of 53-24, with 24 Republicans in opposition.  One of voters' best tools for sniffing out whose special interest is being served by prospective initiatives is if they know who is paying for them.  That's the main reason two recent self-serving insurance initiatives sponsored by Mercury Insurance have gone down to defeat.  People are savvy enough to be suspicious when an insurance company wants to directly write legislation, claiming it is only in the general public interest.  It's understandable why such interests and the politicians whose campaigns they fund would not want this information public.  But that's about to become a bit harder for them now, at least in California.  Thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010, most federal backing from "independent groups" will still be able to be concealed form the public.     

Assemblyman Tom Amiano of San Francisco sponsored AB 510.  It mandates campaign commercials "to disclose when paid actors appear in ads as doctors, teachers or other professionals."  The assembly passed this bill 54-17, again with only Republicans voting to keep the electorate in the dark.  It's certainly an advantage to have authoritative and official looking people to pitch your candidate or issue to the voters on television, implying that a respected and trusted institution favors you.  But if if they are just actors playing that role, from now on that will have to be announced.      

    

California Disclose Act, SB 52

There's good news for the cause of cleaner, more transparent politics in California.  The State Senate just passed the Disclose Act, Senate Bill (SB) 52.  Now it goes to the Assembly for its consideration.  I urge everyone reading to communicate your support for this positive legislation to your State Assembly representative.  

The Disclose Act would require what its name implies, that the real backers of campaign advertising reveal who they are.  The disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010 has opened up the political process to unlimited and secret corporate and other spending on campaigns.  In the absence of laws making specific requirements, voters may have no idea of who is trying to influence elections and the political process for their own special interests.  Last year $475 million was spent in the state on advertising for ballot propositions alone, most of it unrevealed or under the misleading guise of euphemistic-sounding committee names. 

The Disclose Act mandates that political ads in California have to prominently identify the top three contributors, and do so on the ads themselves.  "Follow the money" requirements would make it illegal to hide the real funder or funders behind innocuous sounding front groups like "Citizens for a Wonderful Future," and would force disclosure of the original sources.  There would be no more shell games.  It applies to all types of political advertising, whether television, radio, print or web-based.    

SB 52 was introduced by Senators Mark Leno and Jerry Hill. and is sponsored by the California Clean Money Campaign.  Go to their website here.  You can sign the petition urging support here.  After passing the Senate by an overwhelming 28-11 vote, it now goes to the 80-member Assembly.  The Disclose Act is endorsed by a host of bipartisan and nonpartisan groups such as the League of Women Voters.  To find your State Assembly representative to let them know of your support, click here.

2012: A Good Year for Progressives

There always seems to be plenty of bad news burdening people's spirits, so I thought it might be a good idea to counteract that and help put Democrats and progressives in a positive frame of mind for the new year by highlighting some of the many electoral successes achieved in 2012.

First and biggest of all, of course, was President Barack Obama's decisive re-election victory on November 6.  The final outcome wasn't as close as many expected, with the President running up margins of 332-206 in the Electoral College, nearly 4 million in the popular vote, and 4% in the popular vote percentage.  The Obama-Biden ticket pulled in over 51% of the total vote, while, in delicious irony, Republican challenger Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan garnered...you guessed it...47%!  See all the final results here. 

Congress will be more friendly this session too.  Democrats had to defend 23 Senate seats to only 10 for the GOP.  Democrats annihilated the opposition, winning 25 seats to only 8 for the GOP.  Consequently, the Democratic majority in the Senate will expand by two, to 55-45.  In the House, Democrats prevailed too, taking 1% more of the people's votes nationally than the Republicans.  GOP monkey business with District "gerrymandering" kept Democrats from taking control of the House, but they still picked up 8 seats, 4 of them here in California.

Here in California, Democrats set the table in 2010 by winning every statewide office from Governor down to Secretary of State.  Thanks to the people's nonpartisan reapportionment commission and the Republicans' increasingly out of touch stands on the issues, Democrats finished the job in 2012 by rolling to 2/3 majorities in both the State Assembly (55-25) and State Senate (30-10).  These super majorities mean the Republicans will no longer be able to block the budget as they have been doing for years now, returning state government to functionality for the first time in years.

Progressivism also prevailed in the balloting for state initiatives.  The schools were saved from additional devastating cuts courtesy of the voters' solid approval of Proposition 30.  The public also saw through and turned down repugnant special interest efforts to silence the political voice of workers while leaving those of corporations and the wealthy untouched (Prop 32, the Koch brothers) and to fleece auto insurance customers (Prop 33, Mercury Insurance).   

What's more, around the country there were other important progressive victories in direct democracy.  For the first time, same-sex marriage was approved by the voters.  The first states to share the distinction of voting for marriage equality are Maine, Maryland and Wisconsin.  In addition, Minnesota turned down an initiative that would have prohibited gay marriage. 

There were also successful ballot measures in Montana, Colorado and the city of Chicago to declare that corporations do not have the rights of people and to direct their states to draft a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. 

All in all, it was a satisfying year at the ballot box for progressives in 2012, making it all the easier to keep a positive and optimistic attitude for the coming year.  A Happy New Year to one and all!     

National Tide Dissolves at California Border

Unlike the national results, Democrats did exceptionally well in California. They captured every statewide office from Governor to Insurance Commissioner and dominate the state legislature. Democrats control the Assembly 52-28 and the Senate 25-15. What is more, by voting for Proposition 25, California's electorate has given Sacramento the power to pass a budget with a simple majority vote instead of the two-thirds requirement that has produced gridlock in recent years.

The new dynamic will give the California Democratic Party a golden opportunity to stand as a national example. With Jerry Brown in the governor's chair and Democrats fully in charge of both houses they will be able to work their will without having to cater to Republican sensibilities at all. If they solve the state's budget mess and help usher in a recovery in the country's most populous state their example will be held up by liberals nationally as a blueprint for the rest of the country to follow. If they fail, of course, you can have no doubt it will be picked up by conservative media as validation of their criticisms elsewhere and across the U.S.A.

A problem exists, however, in other ballot propositions passed by California's voters as well, measures that severely restrict the state government's options for dealing with the current difficulties. The 2/3 requirement is still in effect for any tax increases, and now also for fees, thanks to Prop 26. The state cannot borrow from funds earlier committed to transportation or local government, thanks to Proposition 22. And it isn't getting back some $1.5 billion in corporate taxes, cut as the Republican price for agreeing to last year's budget, thanks to the failure of Proposition 24. So without the ability to increase revenues at all, the Democratic prerogative will consist mainly of making the cuts they prefer instead of the ones Republicans would have favored.

Still, it's a start. They will be held accountable now, as they should be. And with a Redistricting Commission now in charge of drawing election districts instead of the legislature itself, there are certain to be more competitive state legislative races than in the past. So between that and the national implications of the publicity generated by their success or failure, the Democrats who will now chart the Golden State's course will have a strong impact on whether the party will quickly recover nationally--or whether another lengthy period of Republican dominance is before us.

California Budget Challenge

I'd like to invite you to the next public forum at 210 Connect, the monthly public affairs presentation that's sponsored by the Visalia Times-Delta and held at the 210 Center in downtown Visalia. I'll be on the panel. It's called "The California Budget Challenge: The People Show the Politicians How." Times-Delta Opinion Editor Paul Hurley will emcee the event that goes from 7:00 P.M. to 8:30 on Monday, October 11 at 210 Center Street. Also on the panel with me will be fellow COS Historian Stephen Tootle, COS Economist Christian Anderson and Tea Party member Deanna Martin-Soares.

A California budget program will be projected on the big screen. You can preview it and try to balance the budget yourself by going to ww.next10org/budgettool/site/thesim/flashcheck.html. There will be audience discussion and the people will vote on things, item by item. We panelists may be asked to comment from time. As the simulation makes clear, balancing the state budget is not an easy task. Try it yourself and see. Still, it is possible and I've done it a couple of different ways.

The important thing to me is to think long term instead of short term. For instance, Governor Schwarzenegger is reportedly going ahead with his shortsighted plan to sell an estimated $1.3 billion in state-owned buildings to help bridge the current deficit. The plan is foolish because state agencies would then need to lease them back from the private owners, and the 20-year cost has been estimated to be $5.2 billion in rent. Source. That's what I mean by short-term thinking winning out over responsible long-term planning. Sometimes you need to spend or invest now to save in the long run. It seems few look at things that way any more.

Anyway, come on out if you're free Monday night and we'll have a stimulating and hopefully instructive evening.

November 2010 Propositions

People are getting their sample ballots and vote by mail ballots this week, so now is a good time to shed some light on the California propositions for this fall. Here's how I'm voting.

Proposition 19 Marijuana: No
I'm voting no on the marijuana initiative. Call me old fashioned. I just don't think more intoxicants is a good thing.

Proposition 20 Congressional Redistricting: Yes
This extends the mandate of the redistricting commission to draw the lines for Congressional Districts in addition to State Legislature seats as already enacted by Proposition 11. The panel of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 of neither party and acceptable to both is a good idea. We have a much better chance of getting more moderate and competitive districts than under the current system in which the legislature draws the lines to protect incumbents. At least three of each group has to vote yes on a plan.

Proposition 21 State Parks Funding: Yes
Adds a surcharge of $18 to vehicle licensing to raise $500 million a year to fund state parks. I love and support our state parks but would rather they were simply properly supported than set up a new revenue-expenditure link. Yet the vehicle registration fee's cut by Schwarzenegger takes $6 billion out of the budget. This would restore half a billion. A little is better than nothing, so I'm voting yes.

Proposition 22 Transportation or Local Government Funds: No
This would prohibit the state from "taking" transportation or local funds for state uses. Unfortunately, when the budget is out of whack and needs balancing it is not wise to restrict the ways it might have to be done. I'm therefore against this requirement.

Proposition 23 Suspends Air Pollution Laws Based on Unemployment Figures: No
This Texas oil-industry bankrolled initiative is as self-serving as the insurance and electric company special interest propositions that voters rejected in June. It is specious to suggest that meeting clean air standards causes unemployment. To the contrary, this could hold back the state's burgeoning solar and wind industry.

Proposition 24 Repeals Special Tax Breaks for Big Business: Yes
Would provide about $1.7 billion by closing loopholes enacted to get Republican votes to pass previously stalemated budgets.

Proposition 25 Simple Majority Budget: YES, YES, YES!
This allows the legislature to pass a budget by a simple majority vote instead of two-thirds. By passing this the era of budget gridlock and late budgets will end. This is the most important proposition on the ballot.

Proposition 26 Mandates 2/3 Vote to pass fees: No
This ties the legislature's hands more than already.

Proposition 27 Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting: No
This is a last-ditch proposal by the politicians to let them keep drawing their own district lines. It is transparently self-serving.

If you are voting by mail be sure to mail it in time to be received by Tuesday, November 2. If you miss that, take the ballot to any polling place on election day. There is a list of local polling place addresses in your voting materials.

Special Note: If you want to make a comment you may have to use Mozilla Firefox as your browswer. When using Internet Explorer some readers report it does not show the security password you need to type in.

Yes on Proposition 25

The most important election race in California this November is not the hotly contested contest for Governor between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman. No, it isn't Carly Fiorina's attempt to unseat U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, either. In fact, it doesn't even concern a candidate. Instead, it's Proposition 25. If you want to end the state's recent budget pattern of deficit and delay, vote yes.

The passage of 25 will do more to resolve the state's now-chronic budget woes than the victory of any candidate possibly can. Residents of the Golden State will remember that former Governor Gray Davis was recalled in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003. One of Arnold's popular tag lines was that he would "fix the crazy budget in Sacramento." Davis faced a $6 billion debt his last year. At this the Governator has failed miserably. Every budget has been late, most of them out of balance by over $20 billion. A current budget is already a month late with no resolution in sight, and faces a $19 billion shortfall between revenues and expenditures.

The sad fact is that it isn't really Schwarzenegger's fault. It's the state's budget process. Specifically, it's because California is one of only three states to require a two-thirds vote to pass its budget. The other two are Rhode Island and Nebraska. This doesn't cause a problem in the Rhode Island legislature because that state is so overwhelmingly Democratic. In the General Assembly there are 69 Democrats and only 6 Republicans. In the State Senate they dominate 33 to 4 with 1 independent. It doesn't cause a problem in Nebraska's unicameral legislature because that state is so decisively Republican.

In California the Democrats are in the heavy majority but they don't have two-thirds. This allows 14 Republicans to block action in the 40-seat Senate and 27 to do so in the 80-member Assembly. The result is constant gridlock. When a deal is finally worked out, long after IOU's have been issued and money has been borrowed at interest, the Republican price is usually new tax reductions for business that ensures the next year's revenue will be short even more. No one is accountable. It's not a Democratic budget or a Republican one. The Republicans say the budget is a mess because the Democrats spent too much. The Democrats say it is a mess because the Republicans slashed revenue too much.

If Proposition 25 passes that will change. The Democrats will be able to pass their budget. They will pass it easily and on time. It will be the will of the solid majority. If it works they can claim all the credit. If it doesn't the Republicans will be able to assign them all the blame. The voters will have a clear record and choice upon which to base their votes for the next election, not a muddled situation in which each side can justifiably point fingers at the other. It's time to end the gridlock, restore majority rule (also known as democracy) and establish accountability. Vote yes on Prop 25 this November.

California Proposition Recommendations

California holds its Primary Election Tuesday, June 8, and most of the state's voters got their sample ballot or vote by mail materials this week. There are five propositions up for consideration this time, and they represent both the highest aspirations and worst abuses of direct democracy. Here are my recommendations.

Proposition 13, Property Taxes and Earthquake Safety. YES
Proposition 14, Primary Elections NO
Proposition 15, Public Funding of Campaigns YES
Proposition 16, Local Public Electricity NO
Proposition 17, Auto Insurance NO

Prop 13 is a good idea. Under it, if a property owner pays for an earthquake safety upgrade (seismic retrofitting) the property will not be reassessed for property taxes until it is sold. Currently, a structure built of unreinforced masonry is reassessed after 15 years, providing a disincentive for the owner to make such a building, the very type most at risk of collapse in an earthquake, more safe. This proposition deserves your support.

Prop 14, also called the "Open Primary," may seem like a good idea, but it isn't. It passed the legislature in 2009 as part of a political deal to get a budget agreement. State Senator Abel Maldonado (now Lieutenant Governor) demanded its inclusion as his price for voting for the budget. Prop 14 would pertain to all statewide offices, congressional and state legislative races and state board of equalization members. In the primary, all candidates from every party would be on the same ballot. Then the top two vote-getters in the primary would be on the ballot in the general election in November.

This proposition is bad for several reasons. First, the Second Section part D allows candidates to choose either to declare their parties or keep them secret. Candidates could run stealth campaigns, pretending to be Republican in Republican majority areas or Democrats in Democratic majority areas without having to divulge their true affiliations. Second, this would freeze the minor parties completely out of the general election, since they practically never would finish in the top two in the June Primary. Their voters would be shut out of their choice in November. Third, it could frequently result in two Democrats or two Republicans running against each in the general elections. Not only minor party supporters, but in those districts, even Democrats and Republicans would have no choice to vote for a candidate of their own party in the election. Finally, there is no provision for allowing write-ins, thus forcing everyone to vote for one of the two (or even one) party that got through the primary. Prop 14 is not friendly to free choice among the voters and ought to be defeated.

Prop 15 would establish the office of Secretary of State as a test case for public financing of campaigns in California in the elections of 2014 and 2018. It follows on the lines of systems in place in Arizona, Maine and North Carolina. I think it's a good idea and we should try it. The office of Secretary of State is a good beginning because its main function is to make sure elections in the state are run fairly and impartially. Its other main task is to monitor the activities of lobbyists. Taking special interest money out of this campaign is an excellent pace to start.

To qualify for the funding, a major party candidate would need to get 7,500 $5 contributions. A minor party candidate would need to get 3,750 such contributions. Then they would qualify for state funding. The funding would come from increasing the fees on lobbyists from $25 every two years to $700. The legislative analyst says this would raise more than $6 million every four years. If a candidate was self-funding or getting help from outside groups and going over the public financing amounts, the fund would send matching funds to the qualified candidates.

You can see from the arguments in the voter information guide who is for and against this measure. Impartial groups concerned about good government like the League of Women Voters and Common Cause support it. Interest groups who want to buy and control politicians such as the Manufacturers Association, unions and interest lobbies are opposed. Get the picture? Vote yes on 15.

Proposition 16 is a blatant special interest grab by Pacific Gas & Electric to solidify their monopoly control. Vote no. If a city or county wanted to join Los Angeles or Sacramento in running their own power sources they would need not only a vote of their elected representatives but a 2/3 vote of the electorate. They don't need to do this to pave a road or staff a park, but only would for this purpose. PG & E would be able to overwhelm the jurisdiction with misleading advertising and get only 1/3 of the people afraid in order to defeat such efforts. LA and Sacramento, for instance, did not suffer through the 2001 blackouts and rate gouges the rest of the state did. Do you trust PG & E to watch out for your interests? If you are astute enough to read this blog I would imagine not.

Similarly, Prop 17 is a special interest grab by the auto insurance industry. Mercury Insurance is bankrolling this effort, and if you feel they have the best interest of consumers at heart, I have some Florida swamp land you are probably interested in. While this sneaky scam permits car insurers to give you a discount if you have had insurance with another company for the past five years, it allows them to jack up your rates in other cases. The proponents' own argument in the voter information guide says it could save customers $250, while the respected nonpartisan watchdog Consumers Union says it will hit customers with surcharges over $1000, and points out that states with this type of law have rates ranging from 73% to 227% higher than California. Don't fall for it. Vote no on 17.

If you are voting by mail be sure to send it in so it is received by June 8. If you miss that, you can take your ballot in to a polling place on Election Day. Locations are included in an insert in the voting materials envelope you received. For more material that tries to offer unbiased information, go to http://www.easyvoter.org/ or http://www.smartvoter.org/.

Henry T. Perea

I went to an interesting sit down with California 31st Assembly District candidate Henry T. Perea last night. The Tulare County Democratic Women's Club invited Henry to the Methodist Church in the town of Dinuba (population 21,006). The setting was intimate. Eleven of us sat around a table with Henry, who told us about himself and his ideas for serving our Central Valley area and California as a whole and answered questions for about an hour and a half. It was pretty remarkable that a fellow running for such an important position would spend so much time with such a small number of people. He left a very good impression.

Like many area Latinos, his family started out working in agriculture. His grandmother was in the bracero program in World War II canning peaches. She instilled an ethic of service into her children, and Henry was brought up in a political family. His father was the first Latino on the Fresno City Board of Education and the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. His mother was a union negotiator.

While a student at Fresno State Henry interned in the office of Democratic Congressman Cal Dooley. He ran for the Fresno City Council at the age of only 23 and won an upset victory over a wealthy and well connected Republican opponent mainly by sheer determination and hard work. The opponent was endorsed by the Fresno Bee and practically the entire establishment of power people. But he was lazy. For Henry's part, he found an issue, the lack of equal infrastructure in his south area of the city (many streets didn't even have gutters and sidewalks). Henry outworked the opposition, personally knocking on every door in his district an amazing five times. Finally, unlike his competitor, he showed up extremely well-prepared for the debate. He won the seat and has been a Fresno City Council for 7 1/2 years. As for the infrastructure issue, he is proud to report that it was completed under budget and a year ahead of schedule. Last year he lost a hard-fought campaign for Fresno mayor.

Now Henry is endorsed by most of the movers and shakers, including, almost all the district's mayors, the termed-out incumbent and State Senator Dean Florez, a local power and a leading candidate for lieutenant governor. The 31st AD is an interesting mix of a district. It is 51% Fresno city urban and 49% rural. For those who are unaware, Fresno is hardly small potatoes. It has an estimated 2009 population of 500,017, making it number 36 in the nation. But the composition of the district makes it essential to be responsive to issues of both types. This Henry certainly is. He is intelligent, personable, still young at 31, and well-spoken. He is not afraid to state his views, but is considerate and listens well to the concerns people brought up. He had some interesting and attractive takes on the issues.

Major area issues to him include water, transportation and air quality. He is for conservation and environmental protection, but feels we simply must build new dams in the nearby Sierras and a peripheral canal for more water for the valley. He said he sat down with the Sierra Club the day before and knew they weren't going to like that but he told them anyway. Any candidate in this area must be for developing more water sources. I am a Sierra Club member myself and agree with Henry on this! We have the second worst air quality in the nation and suffer high childhood asthma rates as a result. He is for extending Fresno's banning of wood burning fireplaces in new homes area wide, the commencement of two new solar energy projects and the state high-speed rail system through the valley to cut down on car traffic. As a side benefit, he'll fight for the construction of its primary maintenance facility to be located in the Valley near its midpoint. That could mean 1,000 jobs to this badly depressed economy.

Speaking of the economy, he understands the importance of diversifying the region from its traditional over-reliance on the ups and downs of agriculture. Both vocational and degree-producing educational opportunities must be greatly expanded in the valley to remediate its chronically high unemployment, now standing at upwards of 15%. A better qualified workforce will encourage more employers to locate here, he reasonably maintains. He feels the way to begin making serious headway against gangs is with job training and creation. I couldn't agree more.

In terms of California's well-known governmental dysfunction, Henry has come to the point where he favors some of the ideas of California Forward, including holding a state constitutional convention, limited to prescribed issues. He thinks we absolutely has to get rid of the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget but favors keeping that 2/3 threshold for increasing taxes. He feels that as the recently-passed redistricting proposition takes effect beginning in 2012, there will be more competitive legislative and congressional races, but the sharpest dividing line will be less Republican versus Democrat than urban versus rural. I'm not so sure about that, but time will tell.

I was quite impressed with his characterization of public service. He said those who put down politicians and say, "Get a real job!" have no idea how hard you have to work. The most work isn't done on the floor in session, it is behind the scenes reading mountains of reports and bills and meeting with allies and opponents, frequently long after regular work hours to craft solutions and forge common ground enough to move improvements forward. That is, of course, in addition to all the time one has to put in to get and keep the job itself.

There is no doubt you have to be incredibly committed and energetic to do what he is doing. On service, he also quoted the late Senator Ted Kennedy, "We believe in public service as an honorable path, to be a voice for those who have none." If the people of the 31st Assembly District, which leans Democratic, elect Henry T. Perea to represent them, they will have done themselves a favor. He is a moderate progressive, suited for the area. Most of all, he will be a sincere and dedicated public servant.

Cuts to Your Locality

For you California residents, here's an informative link to a source that will tell you how much the recent state budget resolution will be taking away from your locality. This Sacramento Bee database gives you the skinny. Find the name of your county in the drop down menu. It will show you how much the state is "borrowing" from the county, from all the cities in the county and from all other entities, primarily redevelopment agencies.

In my own case, for example, the county of Tulare will fork over $7.2 million to the state, the city of Visalia will yield up $1.9 million and the Visalia Redevelopment Agency will get raided for another $2.2 million. That works out to about $49 per Visalia resident the state of California is borrowing from local government. These reductions will mean big cuts to things like health, fire and law enforcement. That means, a lot of county and city employees will get laid off, adding to recessionary pressures and conditions in my own area and throughout the state. This is in addition to the state budget cuts in education, parks and throughout the system.

This is what happens when we are governed by the rule of the minority, as the California Constitution permits if legislative Republicans stick together as they did in this process. One friend of mine perceptively remarked that the Visigoths were the ones who pulled down Rome's libraries, schools and aqueducts and ushered in the Dark Ages. In the Golden State, however, we moderns are doing it to ourselves.

Schwarzenegger and California Misgovernance

Sometimes I find an analysis that states the points I have been trying to make so well that I simply marvel. I found such a piece by Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik in the paper's May 21 edition. You can go to the original and read it here. Written the day after the crushing defeats of the budget propositions Governor Schwarzenegger helped broker through the legislature, Hiltzik's piece details the lies that have brought the state's fortunes to their current point and the opportunity the governor had to fix things but squandered. Hiltzik's opening is right on the money:

Schwarzenegger had the kind of voter support in 2003 that would have allowed him to tell the voters the harsh but necessary truths about California governance and force real reforms down their throats. Instead, he uttered the same lies about state government and proposed many of the same nostrums as many of his predecessors: Californians are overtaxed and underserved, the budget can be balanced by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, etc. Like everyone else who has made these claims, he never delivered on his promise. His cut on the car tax cost the state $3.6 billion per year, making him directly responsible for pretty much all of today's $21 billion deficit.

He then goes on to demolish the, "lie that Californians are burdened by the highest state taxes in the nation." He cites U.S. Census figures from 2006 to show the state ranks 18th, and that, despite continual bleating from the Chamber of Commerce, Schwarzenegger and others, the burden on the rich is extremely light. "The top 1 percent of California income earners (average 2007 income $2.3 million) paid 7.4 percent of their income in various state taxes, counting the federal deduction for state taxes." In contrast, "the highest rate was paid by the poorest residents. Those earning $20,000 or less, with average income of $12,600, forked over 10.2 percent of their income."

As rational observers (including me) have long noted, "California's voters have been trained for too long to think they can have roads, schools, universities, clean air and other amenities without paying their true cost." Afraid to tax people as much as it would take, yet afraid to cut the services they expect and demand, politicians have refused to level with the people or make the realistic tough choices involved. So services deteriorate, especially at the local level, and "Voters get more cynical, more convinced that government is expensive and useless. It's a vicious cycle." By virtue of his early popularity, Schwarzenegger had a "golden opportunity" to correct these sophistries, but chickened out and failed to live up to his action hero image. He turned out to be a "girly man" himself.

Hiltzik's remedies are some of the same ones you have been reading here for quite some time: 1) "Eliminate, or at least seriously loosen the two-thirds legislative requirement to pass a budget or raise taxes." It gives the extremists at both ends the balance of power. 2) "Remove legislative term limits." They ensure inexperienced legislators. As Hiltzik asks of the years since 1995, "You want to tell me that government in Sacramento has improved since then?" 3) "Revise Proposition 13." It makes it impossible for localities to control their own revenue and leaves them at the mercy of Sacramento, which robs them to fund itself.

Schwarzenegger has lost his chance, his reputation now tattered beyond repair. It remains to be seen if anyone in the current crop of hopefuls will have the intestinal fortitude to tell the people how it really is. Or for that matter, if the electorate, fed on placating fairy tales for so long, will be able to accept the truth if someone ever does give it to them.

Proposition 8 Ruling

The California Supreme Court turned in a disappointing but predictable and legally coherent ruling on Proposition 8, the ballot measure that overruled gay marriage in California last November. The Court, presented with a narrow argument, decided by a 6-1 vote that the State Constitution gives the majority of voters extensive powers to rewrite the Constitution, and that therefore their will should stand. The decision was about a technical or structural issue, not about equality in the broad sense.

The Court showed what it really thinks about marriage equality by ruling in the same decision that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between July and November of 2008 will remain valid and recognized by the State of California. So in terms of equal rights, the Court feels same-sex marriage is justified. It also appears to validate an ex post facto concept by ruling that something that was legal when it took place cannot then be made illegal by a law or even a constitutional revision passed after the fact.

If those bringing suit against Prop 8 had based their argument on equal protection they might have gotten a favorable ruling. By instead focusing on the technical issue of whether Prop 8 was a sweeping or narrow change in the California Constitution they instead got a ruling on that narrow and technical issue.

In the long run, though, this may turn out for the benefit of the proponents of gay marriage. If it had been reimposed by court order after losing at the polls it would have sparked extreme anger among the opponents of same-sex marriage, who would have felt the will of the people was being subverted by "judicial activism." Such a development would have strongly energized the religious right and older traditionalists.

Instead, now the equal rights supporters are the ones with the cause and momentum on their side. Gay marriage was opposed by 41 points, 68% to 27% according to Gallup in 1996. In 2000 when Californians voted on Proposition 22, which defined marriage as only between one man and one woman, it passed by 22 points, 61% to 39%. The anti-gay marriage position had already yielded 19 points of its margin. Just seven years later that margin had shrunk by another 18 points, down to 4, as Proposition 8 passed in 2008 by just 52% to 48%.

Both Democratic Senator Feinstein and Republican Governor Schwarzenegger released statements Tuesday saying it was only a matter of time before California legalizes same-sex marriage by the will of the people. Given the trend since 1996 and exit polling that indicates under-30 voters opposed Prop 8 63-37%, these are clear signals that time is on the side of marriage equality for gays and lesbians. When it does come it will almost certainly be by the decision of the voters rather than the judges, and that will confer greater legitimacy to the public at large.

But that still should not, in this view, give the courts a pass for ducking tough questions. Constitutional rights are not at the whim of the voters. If it had been up to the voters alone many states would still be racially segregated to this day. For now, we will have a strange mixture in the Golden State. There are 18,000 same sex-couples with recognized marriages. But many thousands more who might wish to do likewise will not be allowed to. And what will happen when the first of these 18,000 files for divorce? In 2010 or 2012 the question will be on the ballot again. And sooner or later it is going to win.

Compromise Talk Is Just That

There has been much talk over the past few years about how tired the American people are with excessive partisanship. Surveys have shown people are fed up with it and would like to see more problems solved in a collegial manner. That had a lot to do with Barack Obama's appeal in the recent presidential election. It similarly had a lot to do here in California with the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor in 2003.

But when it comes down to it, there are a lot of indications that while many welcome a tone of civility, they really aren't much interested in compromising to get things done. They want their way on things. A lot of the talk about compromise appears to be just that, talk.

As a case in point, a new poll released today shows the California budget propositions 1A through 1E all losing, by 9 to 14 points. You can read about it here. These propositions are a quintessential compromise. They came after eight months of wrangling and gridlock in the California Senate and Assembly. They were made necessary only because the state's 2/3 requirement to pass a budget gives the Republican minority an effective veto.

Both sides had to agree to some things they hated in order to reach a bargain. Democrats, who would rather have preserved programs and raised taxes, agreed to $15 billion in cuts. Republicans, or at least a handful of them, who would rather have cut much more deeply and not raised taxes, agreed to $12 billion in tax hikes. It reads like a primer in the art of political compromise, and theoretically appears to represent what the voters have been asking for. Governor Schwarzenegger and the powerful California Teachers Association are supporting the deal, have raised six times the money of the no advocates and have been running ads in favor of the propositions. All to no avail, if the polls are right.

The Democratic Party convention could only muster the votes to endorse two of the five structural initiatives. Republican organizations are nearly unanimous in their rejection of all five. Too many Democratic activists and partisans would rather have no deal than agree to cuts in programs they feel are worthy. Too many Republicans would rather have no deal than agree to raise any taxes. The people are, in short, acting just like the politicians they purport to disdain. Make no mistake, if the propositions fail there will be blood. You don't fall 30% short of balancing a budget without repercussions. Prime conservative favorites like police, fire and prisons will have to lay off thousands, release convicts and so on. Major liberal favorites like schools, environment and children's health will have to be drastically slashed as well.

People are mad and of a mood to cut off their noses to spite their faces. An old saw tells us, "People generally get the kind of government they deserve." That seems as true now as ever.

Villines Out, Slash and Burn In

California State Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines resigned his post yesterday and will be replaced by Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo effective June 1. Villines wrote his GOP political epitaph by agreeing to the budget compromise with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats in February that broke an eight-month impasse. You can read the Fresno Bee story on it here.

Staying true to form, the heavy majority of Republicans would rather shut down the state and gut its economy than settle for less than their entire way on anything. So Villines is out. Villines hails from Clovis, a wealthy suburb of Fresno and a place where Republican candidates typically come to pad their war chests at campaign time. His apostasy came from his realization that, in his own words,

There's no doubt about it - the budget we passed was a compromise in every sense of the word. It included many things that were abhorrent to Democrats and Republicans. For me, I profoundly disagreed with the taxes.

But the consequences of not passing this budget compromise were significant. Californians would go without over a billion dollars in tax refunds for the foreseeable future, our credit rating would drop to junk bond status increasing borrowing costs, counties and small businesses that work for the state would go unpaid, forcing many to declare bankruptcy and triggering mass layoffs. Not to mention the loss of services to seniors, children and those with special needs

.

You can read his entire statement on the compromise here.

The compromise includes $15 billion in cuts and $12 billion in tax increases to solve most of a projected $42 billion budget shortfall. The rest is to come from borrowing against future state lottery revenues, the federal stimulus and a couple of other fixes. Democrats hated the cuts as much as Republicans hated the tax hikes, but the leaders of the respective parties finally came to the rational conclusion that both sides would have to give some to close such a huge gap. The fact that Republican legislators had any say at all in the matter only owes to California's idiotic 2/3 requirement to pass a budget. The GOP holds only 29 seats in the 80-member Assembly and 15 in the 40-member Senate.

Senate Democratic leader Darell Steinberg said Villines, "courageously transcended party politics to do what was right for the state during a true economic crisis." But Villines was roasted in Republican circles and in the conservative blogosphere for deviating from the ideological line. Jon Fleischman's FlashPoint conservative blog, for instance, said, "He damaged the brand name of Republicans and he made it very difficult to say we are the party of lower taxes." These folks place rigid obeisance to ideological orthodoxy over any practical consideration whatever. They seem to have no awareness that even their icon Ronald Reagan agreed to a hefty tax hike in California as governor and another on Social Security as president when the books couldn't be balanced any other way.

It seems the proponents of slash and burn governance are about to get their way, too. The ballot Propositions necessary to activate the compromise all appear heading to defeat, according to a poll done by the Public Policy Institute of California. Read a complete article on that here. With Republicans angry at the tax hikes and Democrats upset over the cuts, the compromise settlement is in real jeopardy of being rejected by the voters. If that happens, does anyone think Villines, fellow Republican Assemblymen Roger Niello and Anthony Adams, and Senators Dave Cogdill and Roy Ashburn, who have all been raked over the coals for supporting the compromise last time, will be more amenable to compromise next time around?

Not bloody likely. Instead, what we're likely to see is a government shutdown, the layoffs of tens of thousands of state and local workers and the cancellation of state projects resulting in layoffs for tens of thousands more in the private sector as well. This is precisely what the economy does not need during a recession. The Titanic may be going down, but the band plays on and the deck chairs are nicely arranged.

CA State Convention

I went to the California State Democratic convention as a delegate for the first time this past weekend. It was a fascinating kaleidoscope of speeches, events, issues, meet and greets, caucuses and votes. There are a myriad of booths for various causes, groups and candidates. I went with a colleague, Government Professor Amy Pritchett, and 12 students from our Young Democrats club. Three of them were official Convention Delegates too. Our Central Committee delegation was also there.

Upon arrival Friday my most interesting session was with the Progressive Caucus. It was a massive gathering of perhaps 1,500 people. Progressives are definitely in the driver's seat in the party these days, at least at the state convention level. There were many reports. I joined and paid the $10 so I could vote for Karen Bernal in the election for chair. The caucus took so long I wasn't able to attend the CTA or Labor Caucuses. Amy went to CTA for both of us.

Saturday was packed. The morning session featured speeches by prominent people such as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Gubernatorial Candidate San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General and possible gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown. Newsom gave a very polished speech. Brown spoke extemporaneously and was impressive. The guy has still got it. He clearly sees how seemingly disparate items are all part of an integrated whole.

I'd paid $60 to go to the leadership lunch. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Congressional Delegation Chair Zoe Lofgren were the headline speakers over chicken and pasta. The eight people at my table were most interesting to talk to. They were all veteran activists. One was a former mayor of Palo Alto, where Stanford University is located. These folks had a great deal of interesting experience.

After lunch was our regional election meeting. Only three of 21 state regions were having contested elections for Regional Director. Our region 11 was one of those. It was fairly contentious between some of their supporters. The challenger Paul Scott outpolled the incumbent Bob Conaway 40-29.

Saturday afternoon featured the treat of hearing some more interesting speakers. among these was a joint appearance by a nephew of Harvey Milk, also gay, and Harvey's campaign manager. But the big splash was Nancy Pelosi. She is the prime Republican target these days, but of course was received warmly at this event. She extolled the achievements so far of the Congress and Obama administration, such as equal pay for women, children's health, banning torture, passing the stimulus and budget and getting ready to focus on energy, health and education. Having one of the state's own as Speaker of the House is unprecedented. Many delegates I talked to marvelled about living to see the amazing sight of a woman Speaker and black President. After Pelosi's speech I and a couple of our YD's hustled into a line to get the Speaker's autograph on our copies of her book "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters" that had been included in our materials. She was most gracious to me when my turn came up, spending a bit more time than she needed to in exchanging pleasantries. The glowering secret service types flanking her behind the table did not seem to be having much of a fun day at all.

Next it was on to the old Governor's Mansion for a tour and a meet and greet with Jerry Brown. After dinner in Old Twon with some friends it was back to the Convention Center to drop in at the Hospitality Suites. The Raoul Wallenbeerg Jewish Democratic Club had great ice cream sundaes. Gavin Newsom and Darrell Steinberg showed up to shake hands and schmooze. Amy and I got our picture taken with Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell. He mentioned he had gotten the 55% budget requirement for community colleges passed.

We didn't go to the dinner for outgoing state chair Art Torres, which cost $125. Our Young Dems earned their floor passes by putting John Burton for State Chair signs on every seat in the hall.

Sunday opened with a few more speakers before getting down to business. The star of these was former National Chair Howard Dean. This brilliant fellow was certainly instrumental in the Democrats' tremendous electoral successes in 2006 and 2008. His organizing acumen and "50-state strategy" was certainly vindicated by the congressional, presidential and state government results across the country. Listening to his intellect was an invigorating experience.

The Convention ended with voting on endorsements for the California ballot propositions for the May 19 election, and the platform planks. The Propositions are part of the budget settlement that ended an 8-month deadlock in the legislature. Because of the state's idiotic requirement of a 2/3 vote to pass a budget, a handful of Republicans can hold everything up. The two sides finally made a settlement that needed voter approval for provisions of the final package. Party leaders such as Sen. Steinberg argued strongly for endorsement of all six Props, 1 A-F. Some activists argued against. The majority of delegates voted in favor of all six, but since a 60% vote was required for endorsement only three overcame that threshold and secured party endorsement. They were 1B, 1C and 1F. 1A, 1D and 1E fell short. This is because the mostly liberal activists who make up the convention do not like to compromise and felt the settlement was not good enough. I supported the leadership on the grounds that if we scuttled the deal there is no guarantee the GOP legislators will be willing to compromise again. There is every reason to expect them to dig in their heels, provoke a crisis until the money runs out, and then watch Governor Schwarzenegger mandate draconian cuts unilaterally in the absence of a budget. That is just what the Republicans would love to see. Then next year the party could try to pass an initiative to get rid of the 2/3 requirement. I tried to get the debate coordinator to see that this argument was made to the floor, but she brushed me off. "We have it covered." Uh huh. Then 1A went down. Now it will be up primarily to CTA to appeal to the voters to pass the Props anyway.

Finally, the platform items. Every recommended resolution was passd, though some only after debate. The most prominent were to oppose an open primary system, and in favor of a moratorium on the death penalty, the repeal of Prop 8 that denied same-sex marriage, an oil severance tax used to support higher education, requiring only a majority legislative vote to pass a budget, single payer health coverage, and a call for impeachment investigations of "Judge Jay Bybee and Others for Their Role in Allowing Torture as Part of 'Enhanced Interrogation.'"

All in all the Democratic Convention was a fascinating spectacle and experience. I talked to several old timers who said it was a far cry from the old days when a few party insiders pretty much controlled everything. The rank and file majority is much more driving the bus these days, they all seemed to agree. It's not that hard to attend. Those interested in the process ought to give it a try in their states if they get a chance.

California Budget Dreamin'

Now that the California budget is at long last passed it is a good idea to take stock of the state's dysfunctional system. It took about $12.5 billion in tax increases, $15 billion in spending cuts and $11 billion in borrowing against future lottery revenues to patch things up for now. Some $26 billion in federal stimulus money may take much of the sting out of it this time, but that cannot be counted on as anything but a one-time windfall.

There is plenty of blame to point at. By passing Proposition 13 back in 1978, Californians guaranteed that revenues would fluctuate a lot. When the economy is good, sales and income tax revenues soar. When recession hits, they plummet.

Californians have also tied up large amounts of state spending through passing propositions. Items from school funding to children's programs to highway and prison construction have received set-asides. Such formulas restrict flexibility, especially when times get tough.

Gerrymandering the state Assembly and Senate districts into safe seats to protect the incumbents in both parties has resulted in a state legislature dominated by politicians from the far left and far right. They find it ideologically extremely difficult to compromise, and the voters of such districts also want true believers who will not compromise.

Legislatures and governors have too often spent all the revenues in good years (Democrats) or returned it all in tax refunds (Republicans), leaving no reserve to cover deficits when the economy inevitably slumps.

Term limits have ensured that inexperienced legislators are running the show, leaving lobbyists, aides, bureaucrats and the governor's office staffers in the driver's seat rather than the representatives of the people.

Finally, the absurd 2/3 requirement to pass a budget makes it all but impossible to secure agreement. It only happened this time when a couple of holdout Republicans held the rest of the state up for ransom to their particular pet concerns. See the LA Times on this.

In terms of solutions, the passage last year of Proposition 11 may help to elect more moderates to the legislature. This would put redistricting in the hands of a commission instead of the lawmakers themselves, beginning in 2012. There are safeguards to try to make the commission balanced between partisans and independents. Hopefully it will work out. No one knows for sure.

Part of this year's settlement is Proposition 1A, which would require spending stay in line with inflation and economic growth, and put surplus revenues in good years into a "rainy day fund." I hate to see mandatory formulas, but it could be that something like this is necessary. We'll see if the voters approve it on May 19. You can find this and some other reform ideas in an article by George Skelton here.

And last, there appears to be a serious effort afoot to qualify an initiative to allow the budget to be passed by a majority, or a 55% majority at worst. Arkansas and Rhode Island are the only other two states needing a supermajority to enact a budget. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass of Los Angeles has announced support for a 55% requirement, and Sacramento Democratic activists will likely soon be busy gathering qualifying signatures.

Republicans, in the minority in California, are understandably strongly opposed. But that is what a democracy is. If the Democrats could pass a budget with their votes alone they would own it. Their record would stand or fall on its success. That, combined with the redistricting reform, could give the Republicans an opportunity to gain a majority in a competitive election. As it is, the legislature is frozen into a 60-40 party ratio. The Democrats do not have the votes to pass a budget without being held up by a handful of renegade Republicans, and the Republicans can only stop a budget or leverage a few items in exchange for a couple of votes. The people deserve better.