Co-authored by Douglas Jeffe. Originally published at Politico.

When
you analyze the dysfunctional politics in Washington and Sacramento you can
clearly see that a real problem is that there just aren’t enough Republicans –
moderate Republicans. As with most trends – good and bad – you can point to
California as the place where the demise of moderate GOP lawmakers took root.

What
difference does it make? Plenty.

Today’s
dominant strain of Republicanism views government as the enemy, something to be
shrunk and defeated, not to be fixed. Democrats, with their dependence on the
political largesse of public-employee unions, are constrained by the status quo
and lack the bipartisan partners necessary to pursue constructive improvements
in the way services are delivered and to tackle the economic realities.

Business
has no place to go to push for a positive agenda. In Washington, as well as in
Sacramento and other state capitals across the country, hyper partisanship reigns
and gridlock persists.

There’s an old Swiss saying: every time the referendum bell
rings, an angel gets its wings.

OK, there’s
not really an old Swiss saying like that.

But there
should be.

The
referendum is the low-fat yogurt of direct democracy: pleasurable but
guilt-free. You’re not tearing some guy out of office mid-term, like in a
recall. (You might call that firing squad democracy). You’re not circumventing
budgets and legislative checks and all semblance of accountability, as you are
with a California initiative. (You might call that drunk-in-a-bar democracy)

A
referendum is nothing but direct democracy. Someone objects to something the
legislature does, and so the people step in to pass judgment. It doesn’t get
any more direct than that — the people communicating directly with those they
elect. No intermediaries. (The initiative, which is a way for the people to
circumvent those they elect, is in this way quite indirect). 

In
1990, the proponents of Prop. 140 (Term Limits) viewed
legislators as entrenched officials, serving their own interests and striving
to stay in the legislature for decades. They dreamed of a state capitol filled
with "citizen legislators," who would enter office with fresh ideas, beholden
to no one, and then, after a few years in the legislature, return to the
private sector.  That dream has
not been realized.

Our
latest CGS report found that, in 2010, the majority of state legislators remained
in government after being termed out-obtaining new offices at the federal,
statewide or local levels. In fact, about the same percentage of politicians
remain in government today after being termed-out as did their predecessors in
the 1980s, long before the term limit "reforms" went into effect in
the mid-1990s.

You have to wonder at the attention the American Lung
Association sponsored study
on tobacco company contributions to California politics got in the press. There
was no surprise that tobacco companies donate to protect their interests just
as unions do, just as Indian tribes do and just as other interests do. However,
only in rare cases in the stories was the tobacco spending put in perspective.

Tobacco is not the largest donor to California politics – not
by a long shot.

During a recent California Energy Commission proceeding on our clean energy goals, it was recommended that job creation be included as a metric for measuring the success of clean energy policies. This will only be meaningful if we count all the jobs that will be lost as a result of a policy. Therefore our job creation goal, and the metric to measure it, should only count net new jobs.

This prompted us to look at the Brookings Institution’s recently released report on green jobs — Sizing the Clean Economy. The report stated that California leads the country in the "green" sector, boasting 332,000 jobs.  To put things in perspective, that number accounts for only two percent of the state’s entire job base and about one job for every 115 people. Further it doesn’t make up for the state’s overall jobs loss, nor does it make up for the state’s high wage job losses.

Green job definitions vary widely, depending on who you talk to.  For instance, the Brookings report maintained that public mass transit operators are in fact "green".  Regardless, even with the broadest definitions, the green economy on its own will not catapult California into its next greatest economic boom.  The emerging sector is just another important part of the overall economy that will only grow if it — just like our coveted high wage sectors — can compete and invest here in California.

Cross-posted at CalWatchdog.

Last week, I was a witness on a mock trial at Freedom Fest, in which public employee unions were in the dock over the detrimental effect of their pensions on the public treasury. It was a fun event, designed to debate and discuss the role of public employee unions in the current fiscal situation, but the union officials who questioned me and made their case kept coming back to the same argument.

Wall Street is evil. That’s what they say, basically. They deny that the routine six-figure pensions have anything to do with any fiscal problems suffered by cities and states. They deny that pensions are too high. They insist that public employees remain underpaid. They deny the obvious numbers about unfunded pension liabilities. The whole problem is in their view due to Wall Street greed, which sunk the economy and reduced the rates of return that kept sustaining the pensions their members receive.

Now, the unions are crowing over new reports that CalPERS and CalSTRS have recorded huge gains in the last fiscal year based on their stock-market investments. They now claim that there is no pension crisis and that we can go back to business as usual. But even the Bee report shows the following: “Yet the two systems, like many public pensions around the country, remain underfunded and are still feeling the effects of the market crash of 2008. Officials said it will be difficult to duplicate the latest investment results in the coming years, and both funds are likely to continue looking to taxpayers for higher contributions.”

Senator Loni Hancock has proposed an amendment to Proposition 13, SCA 15, that would allow an alternative method to raise state taxes. In a press release, the Senator calls the measure a "Double Majority" tax vote because it allows the legislature to put a tax on the ballot with a simple majority vote and then the people must pass the tax in a statewide election with a majority vote.

The press release states: "It does not make it easier to raise taxes by removing the two-thirds vote requirement. It simply creates a viable alternative to legislative gridlock."

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino should stop complaining – and start counting his blessings. He’s lucky he’s not being treated more harshly by his Democratic colleagues than he already is.

Portantino was informed that his office budget would be cut – and that his staff might have to spend a month on unpaid leave in the fall. The assemblyman sees this as punishment for his vote against the budget passed by his own party. In response, legislative Democrats have accused Portantino of mismanaging his office expenses.

I don’t know why Portantino’s being punished. But I know this: his treatment should be considered a warning to present or future Democratic legislators who might stray from the party line.

A very gentle warning.

Because if Portantino thinks this is harsh, imagine how a wayward Democrat might be treated in 2013 if the party wins control of 2/3 of the legislature, as some analysts are now predicting.

While the legislature is in session, the National Federation of Independent Business/California will be profiling anti-small business bills and the adverse effect they would have on California’s job creators. This is the fifth column of the 2011 series.

Even though the Legislature is technically on summer recess, bad bills still linger in the Capitol halls. Senate Bill 568 is one of those bills and would prohibit food vendors from using polystyrene foam food service containers (known by the brand name Styrofoam) in their establishments, increasing their costs and lowering the quality of their food products. Is now really the time to add additional mandates to the job creators in our state?