Arnie’s Economic Happy Talk Won’t Help Budget
Ring the church bells and start the parade! The worst is over for the California economy!
And how do we know this? Simple. That’s what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
Of course that “happy days are here again” chatter is going to leave the governor facing a major league sales job when it comes to convincing already-skeptical Democrats in the Legislature that they need to make even deeper cuts to California’s social services.
After all, who needs the grief – and nasty floor battles – a debate over those cuts is sure to bring when at least some of California’s current fiscal problems may simply go away if the Legislature waits long enough?
Justices Take Aim at Initiative Process
On separate occasions last week, two justices of the California Supreme Court criticized the initiative process. One critique charged that the process could deny citizens basic rights; the second fingered initiatives as a key reason for California’s dysfunctional government. Both arguments are off-base and, to use court terminology, need to be appealed.
Early last week, Justice Carlos Moreno charged that certain basic rights could be subject to change by simple majority votes under the initiative process. Moreno’s remarks were delivered in reference to the gay marriage initiative. What’s odd about the comment is that the Justice ignores the role of our courts in the governing process.
If a law is indeed unconstitutional – if rights are being taken away – then it is the role of the court to overturn the offending law. In the case of the gay marriage initiative, that legal test is going-on right now. Laws passed by legislative bodies face the same scrutiny. Courts are not shy about declaring laws unconstitutional, it happens all the time.
Has California Become a Liability for Global Democracy?
The world has been watching California’s political and fiscal troubles, and the world is blaming our direct democracy.
So wherever there’s talk of expanding the rights of people to decide on laws or constitutional amendments, a new criticism ring: Let’s not let our country/province/city become another California.
I’ve been traveling around the country for the past week with Bruno Kaufmann, a Swiss-Swede journalist who is president of the Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe, a think tank on direct democracy based at the University of Marburg in Germany. He’s shared with me how California’s name is taken in vain in direct democracy debates around the world, particularly in Europe, where a new citizen’s initiative process is beginning to take shape. Bruno, political strategist Gale Kaufman, and I will talk more about this at a public event today in Sacramento.
Recently, the Peterson Institute for International Economics opined of the European initiative: “ Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should look across the globe to California, which has nearly a century’s experience with direct democracy and citizens’ initiatives, and which is lurching from one fiscal crisis to another and is probably the most ungovernable state in America.
Arizona’s Loss, California’s Gain?
Arizona made
a colossal blunder last month, one that provides a cautionary tale for
California. As a result of
legislative raids on its funds in order to fill gaps elsewhere, the Arizona
Parks Board voted to shut down two-thirds of Arizona’s state parks. Four have already been shuttered. Thirteen more are slated for closure
between now and June. If
additional funds aren’t found by then, the remainder of the system will also be
padlocked. Sound familiar?
California’s
state parks dodged that bullet last year.
A cut to the Department of Parks and Recreation’s $140 million general
fund allocation was initially expected to lead the full closure of close to 100
state parks. The outcry was great
enough, though, that the administration ultimately indicated that the savings
could be realized through other means such as adding to a deferred maintenance backlog
already over one billion dollars, delaying the purchase of new equipment, and
reductions in park operations instead of outright closures.