News & Views from 465 California Street
Repair California
22
2009
The 2010 California governor’s race is just around the corner. Barring a dramatic change, Jerry Brown has already clinched the Democratic nomination. And unless Steve Poizner gets his act together or Tom Campbell comes into an unexpected trove of cash, Meg Whitman will be the GOP nominee.
The stage will then be set for a high-stakes November showdown between two Northern California celebrities to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But another issue on the same ballot may have a greater impact on California’s future than who is elected governor. If enough valid signatures are collected to qualify, California voters could be calling a constitutional convention to reform state government.
God knows the Capitol desperately needs reform. I certainly think so. That’s why I recently signed on to help lead a citizen’s movement to change it. I left my quiet niche on the sidelines and joined a campaign to allow California citizens to rewrite the Golden State’s outmoded and archaic constitution. You can help too, by signing up at www.repaircalifornia.org.
Have you noticed that it doesn’t seem to matter who is elected because the system they are called upon to manage is dysfunctional, broken down or corrupt?
Californians thought they were electing a true independent when they recalled Gray Davis and installed Schwarzenegger as governor.
Disgusted with his handling of the state budget, voters rode Davis out of town on a rail. But the star that displaced him on the political marquee has headlined in multiple billion-dollar budget dramas that far outpace anything Californians endured during the Davis years.
In truth, Schwarzenegger is a hard-working, intelligent, charismatic public servant trapped in a Sacramento sinkhole; it would swallow up even George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers.
California is no ordinary state. The frontier region of the 1870s has matriculated into America’s largest state, the world’s entertainment capital, high-tech epicenter and agricultural bread basket. We are a virtual nation-state, boasting the world’s eighth largest economy.
And yet we’re operating with a constitution written in 1878 that has been hacked and distorted beyond recognition. Our constitution is the third longest in the world and has been amended more than 500 times. Why does California’s constitution require 75,000 words when the finest such document ever written – the United States Constitution – contains only 4,500?
We can send the best people to Sacramento, but if the system they work within is inherently dysfunctional, how can we expect to enjoy a functional government?
After years of annual budget shortfalls and budget melodrama, 2009 brought a $20-plus billion gap between revenues and projected expenditures. For months, the state that once symbolized opportunity, invention and a spirit of enterprise became an international symbol of bloated government and failed promise.
Now comes the dark sequel: a $36 billion deficit forecast over the next 18 months, which will add to the pain of a 12 percent unemployment rate and stall the recovery of America’s most important regional economy.
But the budget would only be one item on the agenda of a constitutional convention.
Why are legislators less important than lobbyists in Sacramento? The iconic early 20th century editorial cartoon showing lobbyist Artie Samish dangling the legislature by puppet strings is still true. The convention would take a hard look at this institutional scandal.
Talk to your local city council member or your elected county supervisor and chances are they’re both fuming at Sacramento for balancing the state budget by stealing money from schools, police, fire and other locally funded services. The constitutional convention could rebalance power between state and local government so vital services cannot be held hostage.
Do we really need more than 4,000 governmental jurisdictions in California? It’s time to hit the reset button. Only constitutional change can rewrite the rules and impose discipline.
Every election features candidates spouting the same stale messages in their quest for office. Next year, however, Californians will have the opportunity to empower themselves. With a vote for the constitutional convention, citizens can take back their government, restore sanity to Sacramento and renew the fading California Dream.
Comments (10)
A constitutional convention. It sounds like a feast for the lobbyists. They will outnumber the delegates 10 to 1. The first thing the big government crowd will go after is Proposition 13. Repealing that will open a new spigot of money for them to spend.
Posted by: Banjo | December 22nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Bravo Clint
Posted by: Michael Mulcahy | December 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Clint:
Excellent column in Mercury News. I always read them. Wishing you all the
best,
Pat B
Posted by: Pat B. | December 25th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Hello Mr Reilly
I read your article of today concerning the subject, and I agree with your
assessment of the current condition of the State.
However, it seems to me that by merely telling us the constitution
consist of 75000 words and that it should be completely rewritten is insufficient
for us to commit to a favorable vote.
I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent, but I haven’t the slightest
idea what’s wrong with our constitution. Even if I read it diligently, I
don’t think I could understand the evils that lurk. I’m sure that its
been so convoluted and confused that even a Philadelphia lawyer wouldn’t be
able to comprehend its meaning. What we need are some specifics and not just
generalities. What the heck is it that needs to be eliminated? If we
created a new Constitution, what should be precisely included. Shouldn’t we
just limit it to
the basics?
I believe that the taxpayers are afraid that to give the legislators
additional latitude, as their solution to all of California’s problems are to
continually raise taxes. They can’t stop blaming proposition 13 for all of
the State’s ills. I can remember when the voters were coerced and lied to
by getting us to vote for a 5 cent per gallon of gas sold. This was to
provide funds for all the repairs to our roads and highways. What a joke.
The roads and bridges are barely usable.
And, who would be involved in the creation of a new constitution? I
certainly don’t believe that it should involve existing legislators or lawyers,
who usually tend to “screw” up most ideas or programs so that things are
worse after they get their “greedy hands” into anything. Perhaps retired
individuals who have nothing to personally gain and who have in mind only
the interest of the State and its future
Perhaps we could get the people of the state behind this by publishing a
list of things that are seriously wrong with the current constitution, and
getting the average resident to understand the problems and demand
solutions.
What do you think, Mr Reilly?
Best regards,
Dan
Posted by: Dan | December 25th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Good morning Clint:
I would like to compliment you on your fine articles on California
politics.
If only we had politicians who thought as clearly, intelligently, and
from a non-self serving prospective as you do, we would have a much
better state.
I have lived in California for over 30 years. Over the years I have
accumulated thousands of reasons why “I love California” but I must
admit that the additions to my list seem to come more and more
infrequently these days.
I have gotten caught in the economic downturn and have decided that
part of my own rescue package is to sell our beautiful home here in
Marin County and move to Austin Texas. Some people call Austin the
“San Francisco of Texas” so we are hopeful that we can find happiness
there without the craziness of modern day California.
Please keep up your good work and maybe in time you and others with
your vision can turn California into the Golden State of my youthful
dreams (from Pittsburgh PA) again.
Sincerely,
Jack (and Judy) W
Posted by: Jack & Judy | December 25th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Clint:
I enjoyed your column about the need for a Constitutional Convention to
reform the way our state government works.
How does this work? Who are the delegates to such convention and how
are the delegates selected? I could foresee a situation where the self-same
dysfunctionals who compose our Legislature now could become the
delegates to a convention meant to change things.
Perhaps a future column of yours could spell out the process for a
Constitutional Convention, or direct us to a source for such information?
Keep up the good work!
Best,
Bob F
Posted by: Bob F. | December 25th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Mr. Reilly, While I generally find your columns intriguing, I must take
issue with several statements in your last column. One is the notion
that California’s governance issues are due to “bloated” government.
Facts and statistics do not support your contentions here. In fact,
California is among the lowest states in the country in terms of the
number of state employees as a proportion of the overall population.
The source of much of our troubles lies in the initiative process which
has effectively guaranteed gridlock in Sacramento. The 2/3 vote
requirement and Proposition 13′s limitations on property taxation has
been an enormous windfall to the state’s business community while
essentially consigning the state to continued fiscal misery.
State employees are not the source of the state’s fiscal woes. Our
salaries have largely been fixed (or even diminished) since 2006.
Pension costs and retiree health benefits are a source of substantial
liabilities, however, for a significant period during the bull market in
the 1990′s and (to a lesser extent) during the Bush years the state did
not have to make any independent contribution to pension expenses
because of how well Calpers’s investment portfolio was performing.
I agree that the state’s constitution is is drastic need of reform.
Perhaps one measure that should be considered is eliminating initiatives
as a vehicle for amending the constitution.
Posted by: Jason Z | December 25th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Yes, I concur it is time to hit the reset button. We do not need more than 4000
governmental jurisdictions. Many of agencies could and should merge.
I remember when I served for 14 years on the Concord City Council that many of these
agencies were constantly raising their fees and expanding their budgets. The public
had very little access or knowledge of what was going on. Most of their public
meetings were held at 3:00 in the afternoon while most people were working, or today
looking for employment. East bay Sanitary District, East Bay Mosquito District,
Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Mudd, and so on…
When I walked precincts throughout our city in the 80′s and 90′s most resident
believed that the City Council was responsible for the School District’s
budget. I tried to explain that although we served the same families we were
separate entities I left their doorstep with puzzling, confused looks. Currently, I
teach a Pittsburgh High, Government of course. I want a speker to come to my
classroom and clearly identify why our outdated constitution is broken and most
importantly their is an opportunity to change it. Their are thousands of seniors
whose energies could be mobolized to get involved for community service credits.
Our classes all resume statewide in January and our 2nd semester begins at the end
of Januray. These students all have a big stake in this state and their futures.
They are all watchin’ everything fall apart. Let ‘s get moblized and movin’. We
got the resouces sitting in high school campuses thoughout the state. Colleen C
Posted by: Colleen C. | December 25th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Jason Z up there is an example of how when you are part of the problem there is a good chance you don’t even know there is a problem.
Posted by: Banjo | December 26th, 2009 at 5:00 am
Mr. Reilly,
I have been watching the Constitutional Conventions effort with some
interest now. I have read much of the Founders Convention in 1787 through
the records of Max Farrand. I read the 1849 Convention for California as
well as the records for 1878-9. I am well versed in this method of reform.
I do agree with you assessment of the problems in this state. At the same
time, I would like to see more people talk about some solutions. I do
believe that is the duty of the convention, to be sure. At the same time, I
have been analyzing the issues at hand as well as the problems and
solutions. I have come to realize that the biggest problem that we have in
California is lack of representation.
We have 40 Senators and 80 Assembly members for 38,000,000 people. We have
the worst representation in the Nation!
This is why the budgets are so out of balance, this is why none of the
incumbents ever lose and its why we are in the mess we are in.
I have a case on the topic. It is detailed here on my website:
http://californiacommonwealth.com/
I like how people like yourself can openly come out and say our system is
“broken” and are even further willing to even say it is “Corrupt” because it
is! It is generally not politic to say this, but I think we need to be
“Candid” about our current system of dis-order.
In any event, In my research and my case, I argue that representation does
need to advance with the population. The more people our representatives do
represent, the less valuable each of our votes become.
Our elections have become more and more compromised. Once elected, there is
a greater chance that you lose office due to a sexual indiscretion than you
are likely to be voted out! Incumbents do not lose.
I have been a life long Republican. I just finished working on an election
down in Santa Barbara and in some of my work, I deal directly with lots of
citizens, so I get to hear lots of ideas and feedback from various people.
One Gentleman said something that I think I have heard before, but have
never really thought through. He said, “You should always hope for a strong
opposition because it keeps your candidates honest!”
The California Assembly began with 36 reps in 1850, the population was
92,000. It was increased to 63 in 1852 for a population of 150,000. It was
increased to its final size of 80 in 1854 for a population of 207,000. The
Senate Started at 16 Members in 1850 and went through several increases
until it was frozen at 40 when the population was about 500,000. The State
now has 38,000,000!
40 Senators for 38,000,000 is not adequate!
80 Assembly members for 38,000,000 is not adequate!
This absolutely needs to be looked at. It is the key issue that is breaking
our State!
Anyway, I have said enough. I hope it is food for thought!
Michael W
Posted by: Michael W. | December 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Add a Comment