Civil War
Is California in a “civil war”? In his state of the state speech, the governor said, “I think you would agree that in recent years California’s legislature has been engaged in civil war.”
Have the two sides gone to war over their ideologies? Dictionary.com defines “civil war” as a war between political factions or regions within the same country. How can you not argue that we are witnessing a war between political factions, as long as we define war in this instance as intractable rhetorical battles sans bloodshed?
Yet, the term troubles me. It conjures up images of America’s Civil War and the battlefields I have visited where blood soaked the ground and seeped into America’s soul. Differences were settled not by diplomacy but by battle. Perhaps, with the issue of slavery that was inevitable.
But, is war necessary over budget issues? Diplomacy has been found wanting in the budget debate, as well. It has been tried. There have been countless meetings over the three special sessions called by the governor to settle the budget crisis. No “negotiated” settlement has come about as yet.
The ‘I Got Nothing’ Speech
Watching Gov. Schwarzenegger brief state-of-the-state speech Thursday morning, only one question came to mind. (The speech wasn’t long enough for more than one). Why did he bother making the speech at all?
Perhaps it was merely tradition. But tradition had been blown when the speech was scheduled for a morning in mid-January. It’s usually early evening a week earlier. The timing alone – during the workday, at a moment when those who follow government and politics are focused on President-Elect Obama and his incoming administration –offers plenty of evidence that the governor didn’t want much public attention on what he had to say.
And perhaps it was out of some sense of constitutional duty, though a state of the state speech is not a constitutional requirement. Article V, Sec. 3 of the California constitution says only: “The Governor shall report to the Legislature each calendar year on the condition of the State and may make recommendations.” There’s nothing there about a speech. By my reading of the constitution, Schwarzenegger could have sent Tom Arnold over to the Assembly with a bugle, take-out from Frank Fat’s, and suggestions for preventing a Screen Actors Guild walkout. A state of the state message like that would have been entertaining, at least — and it might have even qualified as economic stimulus.
Kudos to Benoit, Feurer and Adams!
These three legislators and a whole host of co-authors have truly started off the new year on the right footing by trying to restore common sense through the Good Samaritan Act.
It seems that once again our California Supreme Court has gotten it wrong in its recent majority opinion stating that the good samaritan law should only apply to emergency medical care providers. The opinion is based on a Los Angeles case involving a “friend” who pulled another friend out of a crashed car that she thought might catch fire. The friend filed a suit claiming the other’s actions were negligent and rendered her a paraplegic. The court should have also ruled on the definition of a friend.
An Urgent Need for Legislative Reform
The crisis our state faces in Sacramento highlights the need for structural reform. That includes a 2-year budget, a part-time legislature, an end to legislation that costs more to pass than the recipient receives – as well as an end to term limits.
A two-year budget provides local government a consistent funding stream for it to prepare its own financial agenda for public safety, schools, libraries and parks.
In addition, a part-time legislature would enable citizen lawmakers to bring valuable professional experience to the legislative process. Term limits have created instability to the process and an inexperienced legislature that is unable to govern effectively.