Government Reform: Is a Change in the Weather Coming?

Reforming government is a lot like the weather. “Everyone talks about the weather,” Mark Twain is credited with saying, “but no one does anything about it.” The same with making government more efficient and responsible. The difference is there’s a group out there trying to do something about it and they may have the political and financial heft to actually make a difference.

California Forward is a bi-partisan group of activist moderates with as firm a grounding in real world politics as they have ambitions for reforming California’s politics. Oh yes, they have the cash to make a difference, too. The five foundations — the California Endowment, The Evelyn and Walter Hass Jr. Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation — kicked in $16 million to support the group through three years of work  — and have apparently promised more if the reforms it generates in that time promise meaningful results.

Among those leading California Forward is Leon Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and a former Democratic congressman from California who is the organization’s co-chair. The other co-chair is Thomas McKernan, the chief executive of the Automobile Club of Southern California and a major Republican fundraiser. They and others on the California Leadership Council, which includes former members of Congress and the legislature as well as partisan activists and former member of the California Supreme Court, believe California’s current way of governing is dysfunctional.

Case study #1: the state’s budget process. Which means it’s no surprise their first project, as described in a press release launching the effort, is to develop “new budget-making tools that could lead to better long-term fiscal management, improved results in the quality and efficiency of programs, and greater understanding and accountability regarding public expenditures.” OK, like most groups of their kind they speak in a lofty gibberish accepted among policy wonks. But to put it simply: they want to fix California’s broken budget process that has helped generate the state’s stupefying deficits.

As the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters and the Los Angeles Time’s George Skelton have both noted, other groups at other times have tried to reform California’s government. The proof of their failure is on display in Sacramento, today. They also point out, however, that the money behind the group and the stature of its leadership make this effort unique.

You can’t change the weather through legislation or initiatives. But you can change how government operates through those tools. But getting anything done in the state, whether through the ballot box or the Capitol, requires smarts, money and a commitment for the long haul. California Forward appears to have what it takes. At the very least, they’ll be an interesting group to watch. And who knows? After fixing California’s government maybe they can tackle something simple, like global warming.

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Party Power — Maybe

Imagine what a California legislature would look like if the general election actually mattered. Would there be less deadlock? Would the extremes of each party rule or would power accrue to the center? Given the dysfunction in Sacramento today, it’s an interesting potential tomorrow. And thanks to the United States Supreme Court, it could actually happen.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court voted to uphold Washington State’s “Top Two” primary structure. This system allows voters to vote for any candidate on the primary ballot, regardless of the party affiliation of the voter or the candidate. The two candidates with the most votes compete in the general election — even if they’re both members of the same party. The seattlepi web site has a thorough history of how Washington came to adopt this approach.

California’s currently has what’s called a “closed primary.” Voters cast ballots based on their party affiliation. Those candidates finishing first in their primary advance to the general election. Because of legitimate communities of interest and a substantial dose of political gerrymandering, the primary results usually decides the eventual winner. Districts are either heavily Democratic or heavily Republican.

With primaries being the center of the political universe, partisans gain the upper hand. Candidates don’t need to appeal to the broader electorate, but they desperately need to court their parties’ core constituents. This tends to result in Democrats being more liberal and Republicans more conservative than might otherwise be the case. Moderates in Sacramento are few and far between.

The result is a state government that at best works poorly and at worst doesn’t work at all. As Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters points out, “The state’s ongoing budget crisis and lack of progress on issues such as water and education reform attest to the dysfunction – and to the disgust and alienation that Californians increasingly express toward politics.”

Partisan politics wouldn’t go away if California were to take this route. The Washington State approach, which is a “blanket primary” with “Top Two” result, still allows the parties to recommend candidates to the voters. It just prevents them from controlling what candidates are on the November ballot.

This doesn’t mean liberals and conservatives would never be elected, but it does mean more moderates would make it to Sacramento. Because in many districts, the Republican who could best appeal to independents and Democrats and the Democrat who could best appeal to independents and Republicans would have the best odds of winning the general election. This shift, along with, as Mr. Walters notes, “thoughtful reform of redistricting, and perhaps term limits, could restore some of the Legislature’s legitimacy and relevance.”

The Top Two system might be a boon for statewide offices, as well, for the same reasons it would benefit the legislature. Instead of politicans jockeying for partisan advantage, we might have state officials focused on solving problems.  And that requires compromise, something a more moderate environment in Sacramento would facilitate.

The Legislature, however, is unlikely to change the current election system. Lawmakers won under the current rules and have little motivation to reform a game they’ve mastered. Change would require a ballot initiative. Fortunately, it’s likely the Supreme Court decision has sparked ideas among moderates in both parties. After all, championing an issue like this would be very appealing to centrist candidates. It would increase their chances of getting through to the general election, appeal to independents and crossover voters, and would certainly increase a sponsor’s visibility.

So here’s an interesting scenario: Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner (a Republican) and former Controller Steve Westly (a Democrat) both want to be elected Governor in 2010. Both are moderates, which puts them at a disadvantage under today’s system, but would be a strength under a blanket primary system. Better still, both made fortunes in the Silicon Valley and have proven their willingness to invest large amounts in campaigns. Imagine the impact of them coming together to qualify and pass a Top Two ballot initiative. Who knows, California might not get a functional legislature and the chance to choose between Commissioner Poizner and Controller Westley for governor.

It could happen.

Is GOP Trying to Remain the Minority Party in California?

The Democrats in California have it way too easy. Keeping their majority in the legislature is simple — all they have to do is show up and read the newspaper. The GOP will have done something to communicate to the state’s voters that they’re out-of-step, out-of-bounds or out-of-their-minds.

Two stories in today’s Sacramento Bee illustrate the point. The first involves a bible study course sponsored by Assembly Minority Leader Mike Villines. Studying scripture isn’t the problem. If lawmakers want to study the bible or Shakespeare or Orson Scott Card, I don’t really care. The intolerance of the leader of those study sessions, however, is reminding independent minded voters, however, of how exclusionary the GOP can be sometimes.

Ralph Drollinger, who teaches these weekly bible classes, attacked lawmakers attending a rival bible fellowship class that embraced people of all faiths without insisting that they accept Jesus Christ as Messiah. Writing on his Capitol Ministries web site, he labeled this approach as “more than disgusting to our Lord and Savior.” His basic message is that you either accept in a manner that meets Mr. Drollinger’s criteria or your spiritual beliefs are meaningless. To believe in Jesus Christ as anything other than the messiah “is a deadly lie,” according to Mr. Drollinger.

People can believe what they want. If Mr. Drollinger believes his way is the only heavenly highway, well good for him. I think he’s wrong. So do the Catholics he once described as practicing a “false religion” according to the Bee. But then, my guess is we disagree on lots of things. The Bee also quotes him as saying that it is “sinful for a woman lawmaker to be away from her children four days a week while in Sacramento.”

What’s harmful to Republicans is not the specific rantings of this zealot. It’s that it belies their claim to being the party of the “Big Tent.” Mr. Drollinger’s views, presumably, reflect the perspective of those attending his GOP sponsored classes. Inviting a religious  bigot into the capitol, one who vilifies and literally damns those who disagree with him as “sinful” and an “affront to God” could explain why the tent isn’t as big as the GOP claim, and why it’s doomed to get even smaller in the state over time.

The second article in today’s Sacramento Bee concerns efforts to tighten up a tax loophole that allows wealthy Californians to purchase yachts, RVs and other big ticket items, park them out-of-state for 90 days, and avoid paying Califonria state sales and use taxes on the purchase. Republicans refuse to close this tax dodge, some of them claiming they are protecting the job of the “immigrant who sprays fiberglass on a boat …” according to the Bee.

Compared to the state’s multi-billion dollar deficit, there’s not a lot of money at stake here: about $21 million. But every dollar counts. So Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrats in the legislature want to extend how long the purchased item needs to remain outside of California from 90-days to one year. Republicans are blocking the measure. The highly regarded and bi-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said the change would not detrimentally impact the state’s economy. Many of the Republicans, apparently blessed with information from a higher source, disagrees.

Apparently GOP lawmakers believe that the tax code they inherited upon taking office is sacrosanct, flawless and untouchable. Never mind logic. Never mind the facts. Never mind fairness. Republicans oppose tax increases. Period. That means the tax code cannot be changed, even if that means defending indefensible tax loopholes.

These two stories point out an absolutism among Republicans that make most Californians uncomfortable. Why should independents, Democrats and moderate Republicans support a party who considers them damned by God? Who would rather take medical care away from poor children than force the rich to pay a sales tax on the RVs and yachts they buy?

Republicans hold just 15 seats in the 40-member Senate. Two of those seats are vulnerable. If they go to challengers the Democrats would have the two-thirds vote they need in the upper house to pass anything they want.

In the Assembly, Republicans hold only 32 of the state’s 80 Assembly seats. That’s only five seats away from complete irrelevancy. The state would be better served by a more balanced legislature. One in which pragmatism is acknowledged as a virtue, not a sin. One where seeking solutions is more important than blindly adhering to the strict construction of campaign platitudes. Republicans who long for the days of Ronald Reagan should remember he was one of the most pragmatic governors in the state’s history. He was also one of the most tolerant.

But the California Republican party of Ronald Reagan is gone. The GOP now seems to be in the hands of politicians out-of-step with the majority of Californians. And the Democrats proclaim, “Hallelujah!”

The Value of Schwarzenegger’s McCain Endorsement

Among the remaining Republican presidential contenders, Senator John McCain is certainly the most compatible with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. They both relish their role as political mavericks who are willing to speak bluntly and carry a bi-partisan stick. While Senator McCain has never referred to opponents as “girly men,” he’s probably wanted to — and has earned his reputation as being a bit on the testy side. Senator McCain is a real war hero and Governor Schwarzenegger has played the role in movies. And they’re personal friends. So it’s not surprising that, with the departure from the race by the other Friend of Arnold, former Mayor Giuliani, Governor Schwarzenegger endorsed the Senator prior to the February 5th primary in California.

Some have questioned whether the endorsement will help much. True, Governor Schwarzenegger’s approval rate among Republicans in the state hovers around 70 percent. However, it’s no doubt much lower among the GOP lawmakers in Sacramento he has effectively marginalized. For example, the compromise health care reform plan the Govenor pushed for the past 13 months (and which died in a State Senate Committee just last week) was negotiated with Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. No legislative Republicans were at the table. (Ironically, you could replace Senator Hillary Clinton’s health care reform proposal with Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan and it would be weeks before anyone noticed; he dismissed out-of-hand proposals similar to what Senator McCain is offering).

Of course, it’s voters who matter in the primary, not legislators. And in his current budget the Governor has sought to address the state’s $14.5 billion deficit almost entirely with spending cuts. No new taxes are on the table. This has great appeal to the GOP base in the state.

However, the Governor’s ability to transfer his personal popularity into support for his ballot initiatives has been mixed. He’s had more than his share of defeats in those battles — and there’s a good chance he’ll experience another on February 5th. He recently endorsed a change to California’s term limits law. Polls show it currently is supported by well below 50 percent of likely voters with many still undecided. If the historical tendency of undecided voters to break against ballot measures holds true in this case, the initiative is going to fail.

Interestingly, the Governor’s endorsement could have greater influence with voters outside of California whose opinions are unsullied by news coverage of his problems with other Republicans back home. 

Yet the greatest value may have nothing to do with voters casting their ballot based on Governor Schwarzenegger’s recommendation. Instead it may stem from the Oscar-worthy coverage the endorsement has generated. And when you’re running against a well funded opponent like former Governor Mitt Romney, that of kind nationwide free publicity is worth millions.

Previous Political Posts

As described on the “About” page, this blog has been created so I can avoid cluttering up my other blog, The Alan Katz Health Care Reform Blog, with posts that deal purely with politics.

Since this is the first post in the new blog, I thought it might be helpful (or at least easy) to link to some of the posts over there that, had this existed, might have shown up here.

Election Results:
I offered my take on the impact of the Iowa Caucuses and then, after the New Hampshire primary I separately posted my thoughts on what the results meant for Republicans and Democrats. In between these two campaign milestones was the first Alan Katz Health Care Reform Blog Unscientific Presidential Survey. The second survey (coming soon) will be conducted on this blog. (Please note, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tied in this survey, making it more accurate than most of the scientific ones!)

Presidential Candidates:
Former-Senator John Edwards talks of change, but promises to continue the harsh, unproductive partisan foolishness that permeates Washington today. This is not only foolish, but, can be dangerous. Then there was the post that described how Senator Clinton’s attack on Senator Obama’s health care reform package, among other issues, could undermine her “inevitability strategy.”

California’s Budget Woes
The state budget is a mess. Obviously, what happens to the budget has a tremendous impact on health care in California. This post pointed out the connection, but focused more on the need for lawmakers in both parties to rise above their usual positions on spending and taxing if the state if the budget crisis is to be successfully resolved.

Health Care Reform and Politics
Part of the problem California has had in fashioning comprehensive health care reform is that the first nine months of the debate focused more on politics than policy. Not surprisingly, then, a number of posts on the Alan Katz Health Care Reform Blog could just as easily have been posted here — if this blog had existed. For example, this post discussed what lessons the California debate might hold for national health care reformers. This one dealt with how the health care reform issue was impacting the presidential primaries. While this post reported on where health care reform stands as an issue in the presidential campaigns.

There were other political posts, but you get the idea.

I want to thank all of you who are regular readers of the original blog. Your comments, posted, emailed and phoned, led to that blog evolving in unanticipated ways. I hope you’ll do the same with this one, too.