As John Garamendi nears his coronation hard-fought election in CA-10, the Capitol is all abuzz over who will replace him as the political powerhouse known as Lite Guv.
If Democratic Lt. Gov. John Garamendi wins a special congressional election Tuesday in the Democrat-leaning 10th Congressional District, Schwarzenegger has the power to appoint Garamendi's replacement.
The Republican governor has not tipped his hand. He has the option of choosing a caretaker who will serve out Garamendi's last year. Or he could use the appointment to reward a Republican legislator for working on his behalf in recent years. (SacBee)
Sure, Arnold could nominate Sen. Maldonado, but guess who hates that? Jeff Denham and Sam Aanestad, who have been banking on opposing Arnold at every turn in order to get the LG nod. Now, the nominee only needs majorities in each house, so Democratic support alone could be enough, and a vacant Senate seat in Maldo's coastal district could be enough to satisfy Democrats. After all, would the Dems rather have an extra seat in the Senate or the LG position? Furthermore, it's not even clear that an incumbent Maldonado wins the primary in 2010.
Of course, Arnold sees this problem too. Hee might try to float some right-wing name to toss some red meat to the base, and might even nominate some winger. However, Arnold knows there's no way a right-wing republican gets through to replace Garamendi, so the pick will ultimately be somebody like former LA Mayor Richard Riordan, or a similar type who doesn't plan on seeking reelection.
But hey, Arnold, I double dog dare you to put Maldo up. C'mon...do it.
In an op-ed in today's LA Times, former LA Mayor Richard Riordan doesn't hold back against what he calls California's May ballot scam. Being a Republican, some of the arguments are of the familiar anti-tax stripe. But being a liberal Republican who endorsed Barack Obama for President, he makes some arguments from the Democratic side of things.
Then there's Proposition 1D, with its clunky and dishonest title: "Protects Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget." How does it "protect" children's services funding? By taking $1.6 billion currently committed to children's health services and preschool and throwing it into the budget maw.
Proposition 1E, "Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation," is another travesty. It simply grabs $450 million that voters specifically directed to mental health services.
The May ballot leaves me with some questions for my fellow Californians.
First, to my liberal friends: Can you really support propositions that will drastically cut services to the state's neediest -- especially after legislators increased the state sales tax, a regressive tax that places a larger burden on the poor?
He then makes the discredited argument that rich people will move elsewhere if their taxes become too high. And then he goes on about "restructuring state government," echoing the rhetoric of Mr. Blow Up The Boxes, the guy who, uh, didn't. So it's a mixed bag.
However, there's no question that many of the ballot propositions, particularly 1A, would drastically cut services to the state's neediest. In a new report, The California Budget Project shows that 1A would not impact the continuing revenue shortfall in the state budget, and would in fact exacerbate it:
Proposition 1A would not address California's existing structural shortfall - the gap between revenues and expenditures - that exists in all but the best budget years. The state's two long-term budget forecasts, issued by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) and the Department of Finance, both identify an ongoing gap between revenues and expenditures. Moreover, the Department of Finance's forecast projects a significant ongoing gap even taking into account the continuation of the spending reductions outlined by the Governor in his proposed 2009-10 budget.
The revenue forecast amount established by Proposition 1A, which limits spending from the state's existing tax base, would be significantly below the Governor's "baseline" spending forecast, a forecast that assumes that the cuts proposed by the Governor in his New Year's Eve budget release continue. For example, in 2010-11, the first year when the Director of Finance would be required to calculate whether the state has received "unanticipated revenues," the revenue cap would be an estimated $16 billion lower than the Governor's "baseline" spending estimate for the same year. The gap would widen in 2011-12 and 2012-13 to $17 billion and $21 billion, respectively.
By basing the new cap on a level of revenues that is insufficient to pay for the current level of programs and services, Proposition 1A would limit the state's ability to restore reductions made during the current downturn out of existing revenues. Had Proposition 1A been in effect during the late 1990s, for example, it would have diverted "unanticipated" revenues from the General Fund in 1995-96 and 1996-97, years when the "expenditure forecast" amount, the test used to trigger the shift of monies out of the General Fund, was below the LAO's 1995 "current services" forecast for the same fiscal year.
Even in years with budget shortfalls, the so-called "rainy day" fund would need to be enhanced. Considering that we have an aging population in California, with the age group 65 and older projected to grow the fastest over the next decade, anything that dramatically lowers state spending, and nullifies the ability to restore that spending even in a good budget year, will slash services which will only grow more needed in the years to come.
Then there are the other goodies in 1A, like the ability for the Governor to make unilateral mid-year spending cuts. And the fact that the spending formulas are based on estimated and not actual revenues (you've seen this year how they fluctuate wildly). Bet you won't see that on the ballot language.
The May 19 ballot will feature a tiny universe of the state's voters. If this small a subset of the population can make these kind of drastic changes to California's future, we should all be ashamed.
Former Los Angeles Mayor (and Republican) Dick Riordan attended a fundraiser for Democratic nominee Barack Obama for president. You can check the video here (h/t CA Faultline).
Riordan was the "post-partisan" Republican candidate of 2002, and he polled really well against incumbent Gov. Davis. The Davis team reached into the Republican primary, and in the end Riordan was defeated for the nomination by Bill Simon. I'm sure the GOP voters in California will hardly be shocked after tagging him as a "RINO".
However, this does speak to McCain's loss of the moderate vote. Riordan was able to win in LA, despite the strong Democratic tilt. While LA itself won't be at all determinative for the general election, the "independent" vote will be important. Sure, McCain did something to consolidate his base with the Palin pick, but now that the bloom is falling off that rose, where will he turn?
With the passing of Labor Day, we have entered the traditional campaign season: a time for politicians to go meet voters. Yet the reality is that -- even as you are reading this -- many candidates are locked in a small room as part of the daily ritual known as call time. Somewhere along the line, it became conventional wisdom that money equals ads which equals votes, with call-time seen as the most effective way to raise money and thus win elections.
An entire generation of politicians have been evaluated not by their leadership or ideas, but by their discipline when it comes to spending hours on end begging for big checks, one call after another after another after another. It is commitment to call-time that positions a politician as a contender during the primaries, it decides if a candidate is seen as viable in the general election, and it plays a major role in whether a legislator will rise through the ranks into "leadership". In short, call-time is seen as one of the most critical attributes in every stage of politics.
Wouldn't it be nice if politicians could spend the next two months listening to voters instead of talking at donors? The answer is public financing, it is working in other states, and this is the year when it can start working in California.
