Home › Opinion › Opinion
Howry: Legislature spends like there's no shortage of funds
Got any spare change, pal?
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionIf there is one thing the California Legislature does well — consistently well — it's spend money. Put a dollar in front of a legislator and he'll find a way to spend it faster than the next gasoline price hike. Our legislators spend money like someone on a Friday-night drinking binge, with about the same amount of concern about what will happen the next day when they're broke and hung over.
The $16 billion-plus budget shortfall the state is facing is as much a result of its binge spending as it is the economic downturn. Given the opportunity when the good times were rolling to put some money away for a rainy day, let alone the cloudburst we're facing, the folks up in Sacramento went shopping.
And what do we have to show for their shopping sprees? Well, we've got a lot of programs that were funded with one-time monies but now are permanent fixtures in the state budget. Which leads to another thing the Legislature does extremely well: Pass the buck.
It is a long-standing California tradition that when state legislators, as well as the governor, run out of money to pay for their many shiny new programs, they simply put the squeeze on money allocated to the cities, counties and other local entities, such as schools. That way, they pass along to local officials the chore of making the tough decisions. Local officials also get to bear the brunt of local citizens' anger because they were forced either to eliminate or reduce programs and services local residents had come to rely upon.
It's a sweet deal up in Sacramento as our legislators posture and strut, feign anguish over budget woes and vow they will never back down on their principles. And that leads to the annual rite of summer in California: the budget impasse. Then, somewhere along late August or early September, months after the start of the new fiscal year and with state government on the brink of being shut down and thousands of state employees facing the prospect of not being paid, they get down to business.
Of course, getting down to business means heading to the back rooms. You see, our Legislature when it enacted the state's open-meeting laws somehow forgot to include itself. So, while all other governments and public agencies in the state must conduct their business publicly, state legislators are free to bargain, cut deals and generally do the public's business in secret.
To say that California state government is dysfunctional is to put a good light on it. Some of the shenanigans it is able to pull off is almost comical were it not for the impact it has on the state. What is truly sobering, though, is that we'll be looking to our leaders in Sacramento to guide us through the economic challenges that lie ahead. The logic simply doesn't work. If they can't govern us well during the good times, what makes us think they can do it when times turn tough?
Californians have been aware of the dysfunctional Legislature for some time and even tried to enact some remedies. Term limits were thought to be the solution to breaking up the good ol' boy network and bring new faces and ideas to state government. They might have worked, too, had the Legislature not managed to gerrymander the state in such a way that people may come and go but, heaven forbid, the two political parties ever cede their claimed territories.
It's nothing to be proud of that not one district in all of California in the last election changed hands. So tight are the controls in the districts that termed-out legislators are passing their seats on to relatives, sort of like an inheritance. We've seen that close to home with Audra Strickland assuming the 37th Assembly District seat previously held by her husband, Tony. Somehow that doesn't seem to meet the spirit of what term limits were about.
Until such time as Californians rise up and break this gerrymandered stranglehold on state government, we'll continue to stumble along, riding the boom-and-bust cycles of the economy.
We won't be governed as much as we'll be herded along like cattle with no end of the trail in mind.
California desperately needs to redistrict if it ever hopes to have a Legislature that is reliable, responsible and acts not in its own self-interest but in the interests of the citizens it represents.
— Joe R. Howry is editor of The Star. He can be reached at 437-0200 or by e-mail at jhowry@VenturaCountyStar.com.
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 9, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The California legislature is a disgrace. Until people wise up (if ever) these characters will continue to play their same games, keeping the state in debt until there is no credit rating at all. The only way to get rid of them is for Californians to bite the bullet (might take at least two election cycles)and elect any alternative. We have to get rid of these irresponsible hacks who are in there now.
Posted by KatieTeague on March 9, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent Column Mr. Howry!! It is an embarassment the way we have gerry mandered districts and no turnover during the elections. No wonder the citizens aren't being served. Time for a change.
Posted by live_for_purpose on March 9, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Real redistricting needs to happen. You people who are voting in these big spenders (usually Democrats) need to vote for other people. Try a Republican majority for once to hold the line on taxes and spending. Besides spending money they have lots of time to craft up bills like AB 777, etc. Perhaps new legislators won't have as many entitlement programs for poor constituents. The government is not your nanny. Take care of yourself!
Unfortunately there is a net migration out of California when it comes to legal U.S. citizens. Who's coming in is poor, uneducated illegal aliens from other countries. We are paying for their anchor babies left and right. That doesn't bode well for California's future. Last one out turn off the lights!
Posted by jw1000 on March 9, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Republicans have their own set of big spending desires and historically have been even bigger spenders than the democrats. Just look at the 200 billion a year they waste on Iraq for example. And that is big spending that people like right wing extremist Mike consistently support.
Posted by KatieTeague on March 9, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Both Democratic and Republican leglislators are spending too much. It is part of the incumbent mentality - save my job at any cost to the taxpayer. And fellow party member, don't dare challenge my seat. Ventura County deserves better locally, in Sacramento and DC.
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 9, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw---kindly stick your thick head in a pail of water. How do you know what I support or don't support? For the record, I do not support the way money has been spent in Iraq, mostly because until last year, the war was very poorly managed.
I do support the troops being there. For those who don't know or won't admit it, Al Qaeda does not only exist in Saudi Arabia or the Middle East They are all over. If we can get more of them in one spot and eliminate them, so much the better. We are in a war, folks. If we don't fight, we don't win. Anyone who does not think the terrorists' objective is to sink the West is only kidding himself.
If you haven't seen the below link, it presents a good picture of bipartisan backing for Bush's War. It also proves Washington, D.C. is heavily populated by skunks.
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-w...
Defend that one, jw --- if you can comprehend it.
Posted by jw1000 on March 9, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike: The bottom line is that you SUPPORT 200 billion a year for Iraq because that is the amount it cost to "manage the war" as it is being fought now. Most of the Al Quada that are there now are there because WE are there. If we leave the Iraqi goverment with its massive oil revenue can easily afford to fight the few hundred Al Quada that will be left after we leave. Guys like you that actually believe what they see on Faux News never fail to make me laugh. Quit getting "information" from extremist sources and please please go out and get a job.
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 9, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw--you are an idiot. Back to the original subject if you can handle it, can you defend the spending, election dynamics, and policies in general of the California legislature?
Posted by jw1000 on March 9, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wrong Mike. You are a hypocrite for complaining about Democrats spending while you support the biggest dollar waste in American history - Iraq at over 2 TRILLION dollars estimated.
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 9, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Haven't seen a defense from you yet, jw. Just can't seem to get you on track. You, ol' buddy are a rock. My back-and-forth with you is over. As usual, anything you have is a waste of time and pixels. Have a great day, maybe grab a vine and swing from tree to tree, stopping every once in a while to scratch yourself and giggle.
Posted by live_for_purpose on March 9, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We are talking about the amount of money the Democratic-dominated California Assembly and Senate spend. This has nothing to do with the Democratic-controlled Congress in Washington, D.C. Understand?
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 9, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Understand live_for
And sure do agree with your comments!
Posted by marketrealist on March 10, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Latest release on the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan - $4.95 trillion! Yes, let that sink in my fellow citizens. Please see attached.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p1...
At that price, we could have restructured our economy to wean ourselves off the oil we were after in the first place and probably started on health care reform too. Collectively, we let our politicians take us down this wrong path.
Al Qaeda are the foreign fighters in the Taliban, which are the Mujaheedin we armed in Afhganistan to overthrow the Soviets. Remember Reagan naming a shuttle flight after these freedom fighters? Saddam, that's the guy we armed to fight the Iranians. Youtube the videos of Rumsfeld sipping tea with Saddam as we negotiated major arms sales to him. And Islamic fundamentalism - well Iraq is one of the most secular countries in the Middle East. Its Saudi Arabia that is the home of Islamic fundamentalism. Whom do we supply the most arms to in the Middle East after Israel - Islamic, undemocratic, Saudi Arabia.
This administration tells us black is white, up is down, right is left. Why/what/who are we fighting anyway......?
Posted by live_for_purpose on March 10, 2008 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We were talking about how much money the Democrats in SACRAMENTO spend! But, now that you mention it, let's get rid of all of them--vote against every incumbent if all of California and America is so upset about what's going on up North and back East! Do you agree? Vote out every incumbent?
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 10, 2008 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
live_for --- I agree wholeheartedly!
Posted by horsespinner on March 11, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dump them both, donkeys and GOP's. They are the same flavor. Until you take back your elections you will always get the 31 flavors, all vanilla. Vote for anyone except those two parties. It worked with the Gubvenator until he was neutered. Dump the junk. Shake up Sacramento. You really have nothing to loose. Or not; and loose more freedom and your money too....
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 11, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
horsespinner--you're right!
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.