voiceofsandiego.org: James Goldsborough... On Repairing California

Thursday, Sept. 10, 2009 | Having just driven the state for the first time in a few years, conversed with Californians about all manner of problems and observed places I hadn't seen for a while, I return to San Diego in a dubious state of mind. I wrote recently that California's population in 1978, the year Proposition 13 was passed, was 21 million, about half what it is today. The state government we had in 1978 clearly no longer works in 2009.

I'll say this about a recession: It concentrates people's minds on the trees and makes the forest invisible. How can you think about big issues when you've lost your job, health coverage and can't pay the mortgage? The economic system we so recklessly constructed over the past generation, one based on cheap credit, self-regulation, low taxes, lax immigration and federal aid, is collapsing, and it's become each man for himself.

A few years ago I participated in a conference in Sacramento on breaking California in two, which, given our problems, is not as eccentric a notion as it might seem. Because nearly all the state's northern counties favor the idea (27 of 31 have supported it in advisory votes), the State Assembly long ago voted to put dividing California on a statewide ballot, though it so far has been blocked in the Senate.

Various plans for the division have been advanced over the years including an East-West split, but the most serious study, done by the Assembly's Office of Research, would divide the state at the Tehachapis, recreating the historic division of the Spanish era into "Alta" (given to the Franciscans) and "Baja" (to the Dominicans) California. A 75-page booklet entitled: "Two New Californias: An Equal Division," is available from the Assembly's Publications Office.

Dividing the state at the Tehachapis, says the study, is the best idea because it represents "a wash between revenues and costs." In other words, each half would have an equal share of revenue producing and revenue receiving counties. Alta California, with the very wealthy Marin, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (Marin, for example, pays 215 percent of the average per capita state income tax) would be balanced by the revenue-receivers, Fresno County, with the highest per capita welfare costs; Tulare, with the highest per capita Medi-Cal costs, and Kern, with the highest per capita crime costs.

Baja California would have the same balance, with wealthy counties like Orange and Los Angeles balanced by poorer counties such as Imperial (with the highest per capita education costs) and San Diego, (yes!), which pays just 87 percent of the average state per capita income tax.

The point of this little excursion into federalist fancy is that as California becomes ever more ungovernable, some people are thinking about solutions. California is increasingly looking like places such as Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, amalgams of incompatible interests that have outlived their historical purpose. Or, to choose another metaphor, we resemble a corporate conglomerate, jerry-rigged by an ambitious tycoon and in need of an equity raider who sees that the parts are worth more than the whole.

If nothing is done, my bet is that some day this century, Californians will decide to divide their state. Though Field polls show that support for division has never risen above 29 percent, they also show that Californians' perception of their state as "one of the best places to live" is down to 41 percent. Twenty years ago, 78 percent of our citizens still believed we had a great place to live. We are in serious decline.

The best current idea for addressing the state's problems comes from a group named Repair California, a non-partisan coalition of businessmen calling for a citizens' convention to write a new constitution. Launched a year ago by the Bay Area Council, which represents the Bay Area's top companies, and supported by Gov. Schwarzenegger, the council believes the state constitution is the main impediment to repairing our worst problems. It is gathering signatures to put the convention on the ballot next year.

Delegates to the convention would be randomly-selected to avoid the problems of electing them (lobbies, money, low turnout) and appointing them (lobbies, money, political influence). It would be a citizens' convention, with five delegates picked from each of the 80 Assembly districts to write a constitution for submission to public vote.

Short of splitting up, which would require writing two constitutions, such a convention is the best way for dealing with our central problem: how to pay for the services Californians demand from their government. The Legislature, paralyzed by Proposition 13, term limits, lobbyists, money and legislation by initiative, can't do it, and neither can the governor. The result is that we face crises in education, transportation, water, fire-fighting, prisons and social services to name just six. The ridiculous state constitution, amended 500 times and containing 75,000 words (the U.S. Constitution contains 8,000), had become an impediment to good government.

The central question about a constitutional convention is whether just-plain-folks (chosen from Assembly districts, they will reflect the state's population distribution), can do a better job than the mountains of lobbyists, politicians and experts who have created the constitutional straight-jacket that now binds us? I find it hard to believe just-plain-folks could do a worse job.

Schwarzenegger calls the idea "brilliant" for good reason. After all, he had the same idea in mind when he was elected. He was a non-professional, non-partisan, non-beholden, middle-of the road politician who believed he could break logjams and roadblocks and get the system going again. At every turn, he ran into an impediment of some kind: constitution, legislature, lobbyists, money, special interest groups.

How do you govern a state of 40 million people with a constitution written for 1.5 million; with an initiative system designed to defeat special interests that has come to be dominated by them? If we start from ground zero, California has a chance to remain cohesive. To that end, we are in need of change, and to achieve that change we need a new constitution.

James O. Goldsborough has written on foreign affairs for four decades, both from the United States and abroad, where he worked as a foreign correspondent for The New York Herald Tribune, International Herald Tribune and Newsweek magazine for 14 years, reporting from more than 40 countries. Visit his website here. Submit a letter to the editor here.

Gee, is this an admission that the ultra liberal policies that have been enacted in California are a failure? Special Interests, you mean with all of the promotion of multi-culturalism and diversity giving more credence to non-sovereign cultures over "our" (American) that we have become a fractured society unable to co-operate together for the good of our state? Lets not leave out all of the various organizations ( Unions, environmental etc) that only exist to make things better for those they serve. Possibly if our lawmakers acted in the best interest of their constiuents and, we actively applied the state and Federal constutions as they were written not "interpreted" we might be in a better place.

Posted by Thomas Paine | reply to this comment
September 10, 2009 8:36 am

Give it a rest "Thomas Paine". Every normal person here is for fixing the state. The last thing anyone needs is some psuedo "common sense" quack to start whining about illegals and liberals. We're all sick of the complaining by the useless, shiftless and lazy.

Posted by Emma Goldman | reply to this comment
September 11, 2009 8:42 am

Ah liberal name calling. A tip, assumptions are made either stupid people or bigots (or liberals!) For brevities sake I chose two points that are prominent and valid, Illegal immigration costs this state Billions of dollars that don't need to be spent, or, if it must be spent do it on infrastructure or the citizens. We are no longer united because of the deliberate effort to break the populace into factions fighting for "their" own interests.

Posted by thomas paine | reply to this comment
September 14, 2009 8:43 am

Quit complaining about the name calling. Especially when you're guilty of it yourself. All many of these right wing folks do is point and complain. Yet do nothing. They offer no solutions, none at all. Thats not an assumption. I repeat, that is not an assumption. btw, your comparison of liberals to bigots is funny as all hell!! I love it! Leave it to the right to start shouting nonsense with no real idea of the words coming out of their mouth. I think something more along the lines of comparing the Right to freedom hating terrorist sympathizing fascist is a bit closer to the truth. Unfortunately its so close to the truth its not even really that funny. Keep up the good work, we're all entertained.

Posted by Emma Goldman | reply to this comment
September 15, 2009 7:58 am

Let me suggest - strongly- that you need to go back and read the writings of your nom de plume.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
September 11, 2009 9:15 am

I point out that the current state of California is due to the past and present policies placed onto the citizenry by the predominant political affiliations by the majority of lawmakers and special interests (left wing, liberal etc). Not unlike Thomas Paine writing that the suffering of the colonies was due to King George III. I suggest you re-read his writings and try not to interpret them.

Posted by Thoma Paine | reply to this comment
September 14, 2009 8:56 am

I'm not at all surprised that California has issues. It's population is larger than that of Canada (33 million) - an entire country - and Canada is split up into 10 provinces and three territories, each with its own "state" government. Is it really a shock that our Governor is having issues? Good food for thought here. Thanks.

Posted by Maggie | reply to this comment
September 10, 2009 9:04 am

Splitting California is a non-starter. There is nothing to be gained and much to lose by fragmenting into some kind of half-pint status that would forever pit the fragments against each other and lose representation in the federal system, too. As for a Constitutional convention, one litmus test for delegates ought to be whether they listen to talk radio. Anyone who does should be sent back to the hovel they came from and replaced by those who have some understanding of federalism, the electoral process and the ideals under which we've governed ourselves since 1781.

Posted by Vic | reply to this comment
September 10, 2009 1:32 pm

"As for a Constitutional convention, one litmus test for delegates ought to be whether they listen to talk radio. Anyone who does should be sent back to the hovel they came from and replaced by those who have some understanding of federalism, the electoral process and the ideals under which we've governed ourselves since 1781."-------definit concur.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
September 11, 2009 9:17 am

This is just an end around of Prop 13. The liberals want to get rid of the 2/3rds vote in the legislature. They want to raise taxes to pay for all their programs. Don't be sucked by this ploy.

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
September 10, 2009 3:53 pm

The phony 'crisis' is created out of whole cloth each year so politicians can have their 15 minutes of fame. Politicians who proclaim California 'ungovernable' are lazy. Term limits are part of the problem, too much movement. California's constitution is outdated? By that measure doesn't the U.S. Constitution need to be scrapped and rewritten? Please!

Posted by Randolph Ortlieb | reply to this comment
September 10, 2009 8:29 pm

"such a convention is the best way for dealing with our central problem: how to pay for the services Californians demand from their government." The Bay Area Council proposal would actually prevent the convention from dealing with our central problem. As written, their circulated proposal would limit the convention to government organization, and specifically exclude any consideration of Prop. 13 or the 2/3 tax increase rules.

Posted by Vlad | reply to this comment
September 10, 2009 8:37 pm

Well James got his facts wrong. Only the two Initiatives I wrote are certified by the Secretary of State for the collection of signatures. link We ARE NOT Repair California, and we are not in any way affiliated with the Bay Area Council - the Big Business Group that includes Chevron, ATT, Bank of America, PG&E and the Pacific Maritime Association to name a few. That group has yet to even reveal the language of their propositions. All that BCA/Repair California will say is they will use a Grand Jury Selection of Delegates - which is NOT Democratic. The Election of Delegates is the way to go. Why? To remove Special Interests from the Drafting of our New Constitution. CAN provides that the California Supreme Court participate, and that the Convention has subpoena power to hear from everyone. Get your facts straight!

Posted by Paul Currier | reply to this comment
September 11, 2009 12:39 am

Ok, how about a larger question of governance? The population of the U.S in 1947 was 133 million and the House of Representatives numbered 435. The U.S. now has over 330 million people but the number of representatives is still the same(I don't count the 'extra' one given Utah). The Founding Fathers envisioned one Representative per 30,000 people and the Supreme Court has held that the President has the Right to order the Huse to reapportion itself. So why are there still only 435 Representatives? Especially in view of the technology that provides for visual and audio interaction over large geographical distances? Have to do another post to address CA.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
September 11, 2009 8:59 am

"Delegates to the convention would be randomly-selected to avoid the problems of electing them (lobbies, money, low turnout) and appointing them (lobbies, money, political influence). It would be a citizens' convention, with five delegates picked from each of the 80 Assembly districts to write a constitution for submission to public vote."---------the devil is in the details. How would one qualify to be a delegate eligible to be selected? What would be the standards by which the 400 would declare that such a Constitution be submitted to the voters? What rules would govern the meetings of these 400? If someone has a job and is selected to be a delegate, what happens to that persons job and compensation? Just too little details to make a case in favor of such a Constitutional Convention. Will need another post to complete the comments I wish to submit.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
September 11, 2009 9:06 am

What are these "services Californians demand from their government"? There is no lack of taxes collected from Californians, but the Legislature can't seem to say no to anything that starts off a new program with new union employees (who give their union dues for campaign contributions to Democrat politicians who start a new program...). First we need spending control. Sending the three million illegals home and the 17,000 felons who are also illegal immigrants who do a huge start at controlling spending. Reforming the state education system would be huge for controlling spending. We don't need the duplicative state systems for example. Reforming environmental regulations to consider impact on jobs and employment would also help.

Posted by Jim Dodd | reply to this comment
September 11, 2009 9:06 am

"After all, he had the same idea in mind when he was elected. He was a non-professional, non-partisan, non-beholden, middle-of the road politician who believed he could break logjams and roadblocks and get the system going again."-------- Glad you used the past tense of 'was' because he has shown that he is beholden to special interests and lobbyists that the Republican Party is in favor of. And he 'was' never 'middle of the road'; somebody got fooled big time.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
September 11, 2009 9:12 am

An element that sorely needs addressing is an open-governance law: Artie Samish, lobbyist extraordinaire in California, always said that any legislature was only as good as the lock on the door; meaning that once the lobbyist got the legislators alone, that lobbyist's client had a done deal. Public broadcast of all meetings of every legislature, coupled with very strict rules on registering lobbyists and limiting access, budgets and communications would restore the voice of the public to par with the voice of the corporate "people" who run the show.

Posted by Vic | reply to this comment
September 11, 2009 7:27 pm

The whimsical idea of splitting CA into two, three, even five states has been kicked around for decades. Ain't gonna happen. The problem is, no one wants LA. Slice and dice the state any way you want -- no one wants LA. One out of five in LA are on public assistance. Maybe we can sucker Hawaii into annexing LA as another island in their chain. Works for me!

Posted by Richard Rider - Chairman - San | reply to this comment
September 13, 2009 4:01 pm

In 1997, I was appointed as one of 22 commissioners on the 1990's California Constitution Revision Commission. I soon discovered that the underlying goal of this commission was unstated but obvious -- repeal supermajority requirements for raising taxes, approving bonds and passing the state budget. Central to this was the repeal of Prop 13's protections for homeowners. The other reforms discussed were all a smokescreen to hide this agenda from the public. Today, nothing has changed. The new constitution reformation movement has the exact same goals. The rest is all a subterfuge behind which to hide the real purpose of their state constitutional convention.

Posted by Richard Rider - Chairman - San | reply to this comment
September 13, 2009 4:06 pm

I'll tell you want fixes most things that are in a state of disarray. Honesty & Integrity Hard work Sacrifice Also what would help.... A balanced budget amendment that makes balancing the budget absolute. On top of that adding an amendment that requires 1 years worth of State GDP in liquid savings. Get rid of the public bonding initiatives for every project under the sun.... that ends up costing the state and taxpayer as much as 2 to 10 times as much as if we had just saved for the project ahead of time. Or am i just too good-ol-fashioned to make any sense????

Posted by BigDog | reply to this comment
September 13, 2009 4:14 pm

Thomas Paine says, "Gee, is this an admission that the ultra liberal policies that have been enacted in California are a failure?" Yes. Prop 13 has failed us (oh wait, was that one enacted by self-serving corporations?). As much as I dislike the legislature, they have done no where near the damage to our state that the ignorant masses have. Prop 98 is another example of flawed, selfish, and short-sighted thinking. The Constitution needs to be brief, concise, and protect the basic rights of its citizens. It should have nothing related to property taxes, education, research, etc. That is what laws are for. Direct democracy is a complete failure and we need a constitution that protects people and not special interests.

Posted by Derrick Davis | reply to this comment
September 14, 2009 3:38 pm

On Repairing California

By James O. Goldsborough