Let’s return for a moment to those thrilling days of yesteryear, all the way back to, well, last year’s governor’s race.

For month after month, Republican Meg Whitman slammed Jerry Brown and the Democrats for what she argued was California’s dreadful business climate (Sure, the state had had a GOP governor for the previous seven years, but details, details).

Echoing Republican grumblings of years past, Whitman argued that California was bleeding jobs to business-friendly states like Arizona, Texas and Nevada, states with lower taxes, less environmental regulation, lower costs and generally better treatment of business types, both tycoons and entrepreneurs.

To hear Whitman and other Republicans talk, those states were the Promised Land for business, virtual Gardens of Eden for those American dreamers who wanted to create jobs and move this country back into a Golden Age of prosperity.

David Broder inscribed my copy of his book on the initiative process, Democracy Derailed, to someone “who makes the system work.” The thing is, Broder did not like the system that he occasionally talked to me about — the initiative process. Broder, the national political writer for the Washington Post and dean of the Washington press corps, passed away at age 81 yesterday.

Broder was fascinated with the initiative process enough to write his book about it, which focused greatly on California. He was not a fan of the process. He chose to report the San Francisco Chronicle’s headline on the 20th anniversary of Proposition 13: DEMOCRACY GONE AWRY, instead of the Los Angeles Times’ 20th anniversary editorial comment: “Proposition 13 is 20 years old and it’s time to proclaim the tax-cutting measure a stunning success.”

He followed up a number of times with me listening to arguments about the process. One time sitting down with Los Angeles businessman and civic activist, David Abel and I, in Abel’s office after Abel chaired and I served on a state commission on the initiative process. But hearing the debate, he never wavered in his opposition to the initiative.

I do not think anyone will disagree that California has been experiencing a pretty bad run for the pass few years and it looks like it will continue into 2013. Unless there are major changes, we’ll have deficits hovering at over $25 billion and unemployment at slightly above12% (nearly 20% in the Central Valley) for the next few years at least. Not suprisignly, there’s not a lot of confidence in the Legislature, so why is it that California’s legislators continue to encourage lawsuits that hurt job creation and business growth? California is one of the most litigious states in the country. More than 1.2 million civil lawsuits were filed in this state just last year.

No matter where you look- from our courts to our state legislature to the office of our attorney general – California chooses to create obstacles for employers and small businesses owners by encouraging more lawsuits. Other states like Nevada and Arizona are adopting policies that make their business climates more attractive. Abusive and predatory lawsuits are seriously impacting or forcing businesses out of this state.

As part of the budget negotiations, Republicans have asked that a spending limit be part of the ballot package to reduce future runaway spending. You would think they would get a sympathetic ear from Governor Jerry Brown.

Listen to what he had to say … a while ago, sure, but all the following are excerpts from his Second Inaugural Address, delivered January 8, 1979.

Why the anti-government mood? I asked this same question four years ago and now I believe I understand. Simply put, the citizens are revolting against a decade of political leaders who righteously spoke against inflation and excessive government spending but who in practice pursued the opposite course.

Brown echoed a theme we hear today: Live Within Our Means.

Government, no less than the individual, must live within limits. It is time to bring our accounts into balance. Government, as exemplar and teacher, must manifest a self-discipline that spreads across the other institutions in our society, so that we can begin to work for the future, not just consume the present.

Gov. Jerry Brown has played the politics of this particular
budget about as well as possible – getting buy in from public employee unions,
bringing business groups to the table, putting Republicans in the difficult
position of denying voters a chance to weigh in on his plan.

But Brown, because of California’s
bizarre governing system, still hasn’t gotten his plan passed. And it may be
that the GOP blockade remains in tact. Or that any concessions he makes to
Republicans cost him critical support from unions and Democrats.

And in the process, he may be doing
serious damage to his future ability to move the state forward.

The core of
Brown’s political problem is this: he is being defined as a status quo
politician in a state with an unsustainable status quo.

They’re at it again.

Lawmakers in California, in a desperate attempt to generate revenues are again seeking to force out-of-state retailers to collect taxes for online purchases made by California shoppers. If they are successful in passing this legislation, not only will they fail to raise even one more nickel in tax revenue, they will cost the state thousands of jobs.

It’s a bit complicated, but allow me to explain: California has a cutting edge industry of internet entrepreneurs called “affiliates.” You’ve seen “affiliates” while surfing the web: blogs and websites that provide “click through” ads to online retailers. If you click through and make a purchase, the affiliate gets a small percentage in payment from the retailer.

According to the Performance Marketing Association, there are nearly 25,000 California-based affiliate businesses that provide information to California consumers and improve the ease and thrift of their shopping experience online or with remote retailers and their catalogs.

In the City of Los Angeles, the budget deficit for 2011-12 begins at $350 million fueled in large part by the rapidly growing cost of pensions and health care for retirees. Last week, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called for two significant reforms to keep the problem from getting worse. He called for raising the retirement age for non-sworn city employees to 65 and he urged the members of the Fire and Police Pensions Board to reject a 7 percent increase in the health care subsidy given to public safety retirees. The current health care subsidy for fire and police retirees is $1,025 per month and the 7 percent monthly increase would add another $4.8 million dollars to the City’s budget deficit. The Chamber and other business and community organizations joined the mayor in support of both proposals.

On Friday, the Fire and Police Pensions Board ignored Mayor Villaraigosa’s plea and thus added another $4.8 million to the City budget deficit. Put another way, the Fire and Police Pension Board forced the mayor and City Council to cut another $4.8 million in city services like street maintenance, libraries, parks and police and fire protection.

The City of Los Angeles has more than 30,000 retirees, nearly equal to the 32,000 employees on the active payroll. The City’s current pension plan coupled with annual cost of living increases for pensions and health care, make it impossible for the City to overcome its structural budget deficit without eliminating the public services that citizens pay taxes to provide.

In trying to determine if
a deal to put a spending limit and pension reforms on the ballot in exchange
for placing tax extensions on the ballot were possible, I spoke with a few
people knowledgeable in California politics on my flight to Sacramento
yesterday. The answer I received: the public unions would not let it happen.

Hours later, five Senate Republicans (Tom Berryhill, Sam Blakeslee, Anthony
Cannella, Bill Emmerson and Tom Harman) issued a letter sent to Governor Jerry
Brown saying that budget negotiations were at an impasse. The senators were
seeking the type of reforms that are needed to move the state past perennial
budget deficits: spending limits, pension reform and business reforms.

The latter is important because as Capitol veteran and author of California’s
Tax Machine, Dave Doerr, reminded me later in the day, more money is
brought into the treasury from economic growth than has ever come by way of a
tax increase.

While Governor Brown put off his deadline for qualifying a measure for the
ballot to see if he can get the votes he needs, it appears those interests that
support increased spending do not want the people to vote on specific reforms.
The senators addressed this in their letter to the governor when they stated:
"We have therefore concluded that you are unable to compel other stakeholders
to accept real reform."

Cross-posted at RonKayeLA.

Taking their contempt for the public and the law to new heights, Los Angeles city leaders will carry out an election day theft of nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money, jeopardizing the governor’s budget-balancing plan and running roughshod over even the pretense of deliberative processes.

The CRA Board — at a special meeting called with just 24 hours notice — unanimously approved Monday some $100 million in projects and deals to cement them in stone just three days in advance of Gov. Jerry Brown’s deadline for the Legislature to put his budget plan — spending cuts, tax extensions and abolishing the 400 community redevelopment agencies across California.

At the same time, State Controller John Chiang released a scathing audit of the LA CRA and 17 other CRAs in the state finding "reporting flaws, substandard audits, questionable payment practices
and an inappropriate use of affordable housing funds, according to the Sacramento Bee.

The report also
found no clear methodology or data to measure claims of job creation or other economic benefits to the state.