A Design Flaw In California Government

During the evening rush hour on August 1, 2007 the eight-lane steel truss arch bridge that carried Interstate 35W across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed into the river and onto the riverbanks beneath, killing thirteen people and injuring 145. The likely cause of the collapse bridge was determined to be a “catastrophic design flaw.”

California’s existing method of operation is like the I35W bridge prior to that tragic day in 2007. The most recent economic pressure on our state has exposed potentially catastrophic structural flaws in the current form of state governance. It is clear to any objective observer that the state is about to fail – and fail catastrophically – in the foreseeable future. As with the I35W bridge, the result of such a failure will be remembered in terms of it’s impact on human lives. A generation of California’s young people will be deprived of decent childhood development programs, quality educations and affordable, accessible health care.

Both the social and physical infrastructure of California is deficient and continues to degrade. It is no exaggeration to say that the health, welfare and safety of our society are endangered.

“California has become ungovernable” has evolved from an observation to a cliché. A package of initiatives that allegedly would have put a two or three year patch over the state’s structural budget flaw was put on the May 19^th ballot by the Governor and legislative leaders. Almost 70% of Californians who bothered to vote cast their ballots against the thinly veiled gimmick. Those who did not vote showed their disapproval, or more likely, disbelief, by not even participating.

The state now stares into a $24.5 billion budget hole. As the Governor and the legislature play more political games, California faces the possibility of literally going broke. This is the same California that once had the 6^th highest gross domestic product in the world. It is a sad state of affairs.

With yearly budget shortfalls that result in annual program cuts and elected officials who are either inept or worse, there is a growing movement advocating the revision of California’s Constitution to fix the state’s existing structural failings. To make substantive changes to the Constitution, a Constitutional Convention must be convened. That’s where rational thought meets political reality.

The California Constitution specifies a Constitutional Convention be called by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature and submitting the question to the voters. Making the unlikely assumption that a majority of voters agree that the Constitutional Convention is a good idea, the legislature is then required to provide for the Convention within six months. “Provide for” includes adequate funding for the operation of the Convention. In 1962, the electorate approved the creation of a California Constitution Revision Commission, which worked on a comprehensive revision of the constitution from 1964 to 1976. There is no chance that a legislature that seems genetically incapable of producing a balanced budget would provide adequate funding to overhaul a system that benefits only the existing interests that gain from a continued stalemate.

The structural dysfunction in Sacramento permeates every aspect of governance and will likely preclude any prospect of the State Legislature acting on a Constitutional Convention or any other meaningful reform. Our elected officials appear to have lost the ability to balance the competing interests of this diverse state. Further, given a status quo that benefits only them, there is no motivation for reform, even when faced with the collapse of government.

Returning to the I35W analogy, it is as if the engineers have inspected the bridge and have determined that failure is imminent. The bolts are rusted through, the gussets are loose and the bridge shudders with each passing vehicle. To close the bridge now and make the necessary repairs will cost money and require a difficult detour. To delay will cost many times more. Unfortunately, those with the obligation to fix things are more occupied with what they can obtain from the last few vehicles that will cross the bridge before it fails than they are with doing what it takes to prevent an entirely avoidable disaster.

Since there is no chance that a Constitutional Convention will be convened or funded as stipulated in the State Constitution, the only possibility of repairing this broken system is to circumvent it. Ironically, it is the often-criticized initiative and referendum process included in the state’s unwieldy constitution that is the most likely avenue for reform it.

Already, an organization called Repair California is working to establish a broad-based grass-roots coalition to create what they claim is a workable initiative and Constitutional Convention process. Let’s hope that the damage is not yet irreparable, because the bridge is beginning to collapse and it’s rush hour for California residents.

---------------------------------------------

Tom Murray contributed to this piece. Tom is a member of the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission, a Board Member of SLO GreenBuild and has worked with Crotty Consulting Inc. on a range of issues, including public infrastructure and resource conservation.

Hunger can be a positive motivator ...

News Release: Summer Food Service

Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis, 19^th District

Press Release	Rep. Davis’ Commentary
Current economic woes make Summer Food Service Program more important than ever Program provides nutritious meals to young people throughout the state	The implication suggests that during a recession, parents don’t give their children nutritious food. The reverse may be true. During hard times, many families find it even more important to pull together. Families may economize by choosing to not waste hard earned dollars on potato chips, ice cream, or Twinkies. Perhaps some families will buy more beans and chicken and less sweets.
School’s out, but the need for children to get nutritious meals doesn’t take a summer break.	Is school the only place a child can get a nutritious meal? Parents have good reason to dispute the idea that their children will not receive a nutritious meal if they are not in a government institution. Who should be the one to pass judgment on what defines a nutritious meal? I represent many fine families in District 19 and I am proud of all of them for doing what is best for their children.
With the current economic downturn, Missouri’s Summer Food Service Program will be needed more than ever this year, state health officials say.	They are using a “crisis” to create an expansion of a government program. Parents naturally love their children and enjoy caring for their children just as much as ever during an economic downturn. Most parents put their children first, even ahead of themselves no matter what. If parents are laid off, that doesn’t mean they stop feeding their children, at least not any of the parents I know. Laid off parents could adapt by preparing more home cooked meals rather than going out to eat.
The program, coordinated by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, provides food during the summer for thousands of low-income Missouri children who rely on the school cafeteria for free or reduced-price meals during the regular school year.	This is not a discussion of how to handle the public orphanage. These are children who have parents already providing meals for their children. This program could have an unintended consequence of diminishing parental involvement. Why have meals at home with your loved ones if you can go to the government soup kitchen and get one for free? This could have the effect of breaking apart more families.
Hundreds of local community organizations throughout the state will offer lunch, as well as breakfast, during the summer months to eligible children. The meals will be served at approximately 700 locations in Missouri, including schools, parks, YMCA facilities, Boys and Girls Clubs, churches and other places where children gather in the summertime.	Who’s buying dinner? Who is getting paid to serve the meal? Churches and other non-profits can do this at no cost to the taxpayer if it is warranted. That is what they did when Louisiana had a hurricane. The estimated expense for all of these “free” meals for 2009 summer months is $9.8 million. The cost of each lunch meal is $3.1825, the cost of each breakfast is $1.8150, and the cost of each supplement is $0.7525. (They call a snack a “supplement”.) (Source: USDA Food and Nutrition Service/ Summer Food Service Program/ Reimbursement Rates for 2009). That money is coming from us. In 2008 this program cost taxpayers ten million dollars. This is also an entitlement program with no cap on how much can be spent. In the early 1900’s the average family paid about $20.00 per person per year for taxes. That left a great deal for our citizens to engage in acts of charity and helping poor neighbors who needed a meal. When churches offer a meal, they can serve the individual with a sense of love and caring for those less fortunate. Government cannot match that. Bigger governmental programs take away our connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for one another.
“Children need nutritious food to grow and learn all year long,” said Ann McCormack, chief of the health department’s Bureau of Community Food and Nutrition Assistance. “Thousands of children across Missouri will benefit from the meals provided through the Summer Food Service Program.”	While nobody is disputing the benefits of nutritious food, why the presumption that parents are not providing nutritious food for their children? Even if they are not, who created a new rule that says government must make up for any lack at home? The problem of childhood obesity has been cited as one of the most rapidly growing health problems in America. People who are struggling with lack of food usually do not have an obesity problem. Click here to read about obesity.
Meals will be served at designated sites to children age 18 and under. Meals also are available to individuals’ age 18 to 21 that are determined by a state or local educational agency to be mentally or physically disabled and who participate during the school year in an established school program for the mentally or physically disabled.	Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can’t they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals? Tip: If you work for McDonald’s, they will feed you for free during your break.

It really is all about increasing government spending, which means an increase in taxes for us to buy more free lunches and breakfasts. Parents get the same food stamp allotment regardless of how many extra meals are being provided to their children over the summer. This equates to an increase in taxpayer funded food programs.

Parents want to give their children nutritious meals. This is an important part of nurturing their children. We need to give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume most families are pathologically neglectful.

While I have not seen this as a problem in my district, it is entirely possible that this program is designed to address problems that exist in other parts of Missouri. The right way to solve this is with more education. If the problem is that parents do not know how to serve nutritious meals, let’s help them learn how to do that. Additionally, once you start a program, it is virtually impossible to ever stop it. Currently, our public knows how to feed themselves. Once we get this program up and running, if it is ever suspended, I am concerned that people won’t know what to do. If you feed a man a fish, you have fed him for one day. If you teach him how to fish, you have fed him for the rest of his life.

Your thoughts are important to me, so please let me know what you think. You can send me your opinion at cynthia.davis@house.mo.gov.

Don’t Let the State Shut Down On Me

Now that voters resoundingly said "no" to Governor Schwarzenegger's plan to fix California, he has decided to get back at us by slashing $24 billion in program cuts, including the elimination of healthcare for poor children, the elimination of scholarships for poor students to the state's public universities, shutting down 80% of our parks and much more.  If the Legislature does not give him what he wants by June 30, he claims that he will simply shut down the state. Perhaps he will also hold his breath until he turns blue.

The Legislature has been reduced to hearing desperate appeals from deserving individuals, groups and organizations.  We need healthcare, scholarships, parks and dozens of other vital programs. We realize that there will be cuts, but we should demand that these programs we want be cut less.

Here are a few things the legislature should do immediately to lessen the pain. The Governor will not like them. The out-of-touch, “anti-tax,” Neanderthal Republicans in the Legislature will hate them.  Finally, conservative Democrats or, to modify a term from the Republicans, DINOs (Democrats In Name Only), will worry that they may not get re-elected in their right leaning Districts next year.

If most politicians oppose it or are afraid it, it must be a good start on substantive change.

In September 2008 and again in February 2009, the Democratic leadership bought off Republican support for their budget package by offering up tax breaks for certain Republican friendly businesses.  These tax breaks allow corporations to share credits with affiliated companies.  Next, the corporations were permitted to use losses incurred this year in exchange for rebates on previous year taxes. Finally, multi-state and multinational corporations were allowed to choose which tax formula was applied to them, with the obvious result of reducing most of the taxes the corporations owe in California.

We have near unanimity among the populace and the politicians that we do not want to drill for oil off California’s coast.  What some forget is that California has more than a dozen of the United States' largest oil fields, including the Midway-Sunset Oil Field, the second largest oil field in the contiguous United States.  However, unlike other oil-producing states, California does not impose an oil extraction fee or tax. Almost all other oil producing states impose some sort of fee or tax on oil extraction, which is then spent on a variety of public services. With oil prices rising rapidly, the state is giving away literally billions of dollars that could pay for any number of public services that other states are using to help weather the economic storm.

The administrative rules that govern the assessment of commercial property in California are archaic. These rules were written for situations that existed before Proposition 13 passed in 1978. They allow companies that own commercial real estate to get around updating property values except under certain, unusual circumstances. Commercial property undervaluation has shifted the burden of property taxes from businesses to homeowners — certainly not what voters had in mind when the voted to enact Proposition 13.

California voters made medicinal marijuana legal in 1996.  Today, with a doctor's prescription, Californians are purchasing hundreds of millions of dollars of marijuana for medical purposes.  Unfortunately, the state has never gotten around to requiring that sales tax be charged in transactions involving medical marijuana. Other medicines are taxed when sold.  Regardless of how one feels about the legality of medicinal marijuana, we should all agree that it is sold and when sold, it should be taxed.

As I have argued previously, the state has a “rainy day” fund of $4.5 billion to be used in an emergency.  The Governor and the legislature should agree that the current budget crisis is an emergency and access those reserve funds to help resolve the emergency, save lives and preserve services until the economy gets better or state government begins to get a handle on the crippled budget crisis.

 

It’s a Downpour!

When Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued in favor of multiple statewide ballot propositions on the ballot in May, he often referred to the creation of a “rainy day” fund for times the state needed money due to some unforeseen crisis. 

Governor, it’s raining cats and dogs.  And, there is a “rainy day” fund. 

The ballot argument for Proposition 58 in March 2004 concluded with “… join Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, State Controller Steve Westly, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Taxpayers' Association, and all 80 members of the California State Assembly—both Republicans and Democrats—and support Proposition 58.”  

Proposition 58, dubbed the “California Balanced Budget Act," was approved overwhelmingly by 71% of California voters.

The Governor, every member of the state Assembly – both Democrats and Republicans, the state’s Taxpayer Association, other elected officials and voters mandated the creation and implementation of both a mandatory balanced budget as well as a “$8 billion reserve” that “could be used to smooth state spending over the course of an economic cycle” in early 2004.

The state’s independent legislative budget analyst determined that the fiscal impact of the approval and implementation of Proposition 58 could have “a variety of fiscal effects, depending on future budget circumstances and future actions taken by Governors and Legislatures.” For about five years, there has existed a requirement that Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature – both Democrats and Republicans – balance the budget and maintain an $8 billion “rainy day” fund.

Again, according to the ballot argument that the Governor signed, the mandated balanced budget would restrict borrowing money to assure that the state’s credit rating remained strong. However, in March 2009, voters were asked to approve borrowing, among other fiscal tricks, and create a “rainy day” fund that would tide us over in difficult economic times.

It appears that what was supposed to happen in 2004 was recycled by the Governor and the legislature in 2009 to balance a budget that was already required to be balanced.  Further, the Governor and the Legislature argued that a “rainy day” reserve fund of about $12 billion be created while an $8 billion reserve was already supposed to be in place. 

Of course, it’s no surprise that politicians in Sacramento didn’t do what they were told.  However, because the politicians could not agree on a budget for last year and placed the burden of raising taxes and shifting resources onto voters in May, the state is back in the red by more than $24 billion. That means we are back to where we started almost two years ago.

The Proposition 58 mandated balanced budget isn’t balanced and it’s unclear, but appears that the $8 billion “rainy day” fund is only about $4.5 billion.  Now, $4.5 billion is nothing to sneeze at, especially when we are looking into the chasm of a $24.3 billion budget gap.

Whether it is $8 billion or $4.5 billion, it’s called a “rainy day” fund for a reason.  Although the Governor and the legislature created the crisis and it certainly was foreseeable, it is a crisis nevertheless. 

Throw the “rainy day” fund into balancing the budget. Starting at $19.8 billion is a great deal better than $24.3 billion.

In fact, the Governor wants to take about $2 billion away from local governments to fix the hole in the state budget.  Allow local governments to keep their $2 billion and state is still $2.5 billion closer to a balanced budget and a budget agreement.