Readers concur, 'Six Californias' don't add up

SACRAMENTO—Judging by your emails, many readers agree with me that a proposed ballot measure to split California into six states is crazy. "Ridiculous." "Laughable."

Also, you concur that this bird will never fly.

Not only would the plan need to be approved by California voters, Congress and the president would have to sign off, too.

"Do you really think Democrats would ever allow anything to disrupt the 55-electoral-vote advantage they get every four years?" from California, reader Kurt wrote.

Very good point. California has been solid blue for the Democratic presidential candidate in the past six elections. Split the state six ways and perhaps half those electoral votes would turn Republican red.

And this from Todd: "The drawing of these lines will mean a huge boom in Republican U.S. Senators…which I probably don't want to share with GOP voters if this qualifies for the ballot. That's bad news from where this progressive Santa Monican sits."

Yes, by my calculation, the 12 senators produced by the new states very likely would be split half Democrat, half Republican. Today, both senators are Democrats.

Looking at voter registrations, three states—West California, Silicon Valley and North California—would favor Democrats. Three—South California, Central California and Jefferson—would side Republican.

Specifically, West California would include Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. Silicon Valley: San Francisco, most of the Bay Area and Monterey County. North California: Marin County and the Napa-Sonoma wine country, east through Sacramento to Lake Tahoe.

Color the rest red. South California: Orange, San Diego, Imperial, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Central California: the San Joaquin Valley east to Nevada. Jefferson: thirteen small counties north to the Oregon line.

All this is the craftsmanship of super-rich Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, who has poured nearly $2 million into a signature-gathering drive to qualify his "Six Californias" initiative for the state ballot. He has until mid-May to turn in 808,000 valid voter signatures to place the proposition on the November ballot. He says he's "close."

Draper, registered independent of any party, contends that California is too big, too ungovernable and too insensitive to local problems. "These states have very, very different interests," he says.

"People in the far south are worried about immigration law. Silicon Valley has different immigration interests and wants a state more in touch with technology. Hollywood is concerned about copyright laws and retaining movie production. The [San Joaquin] Valley is worried about water and losing jobs. People up north are concerned about taxation without representation. It's all legitimate."

"The state needs a refresh," he concludes.

Not all the emailers—perhaps some with tongue in cheek—believe Draper is chasing a losing cause. One sees potential strong political support.

"There would be five more governorships and 10 more U.S. Senate seats available," Edward wrote. "There must be many politicians who realize that in the current California they have no chance of being a governor or a senator, but in one of the six states they might have a good chance."

Heck, after he's termed out in 2018 at age 80, Gov. Jerry Brown—already California's longest-serving governor ever—could keep on running in another state.

Reader Michael predicted that the California crackup would be approved by South California voters "because they think everyone in L.A. is nuts." It certainly would pass in Central California, he continued, "because we KNOW everyone else is nuts." And it would be endorsed in Silicon Valley "because they want to keep all the tax revenue from high wage earners for themselves."

Michael may be on to something, although he's overlooking an ugly truth about his proposed new state of Central California. It would be poorer than dirt—the poorest state in the nation, in fact, poorer even than Mississippi.

The legislative analyst's office conducted an in-depth study of Draper's proposal.

View the original article here

California's economic stability leaves Gov. Brown a new challenge

Gov. Jerry Brown, center, at a 2012 rally for Proposition 30, a temporary tax increase that voters approved. On his watch, the state’s finances have greatly improved, but big challenges remain. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times / October 30, 2012)

SACRAMENTO — Soon after Jerry Brown was elected governor in 2010, he invited the state's top budget official, Ana Matosantos, to lunch at his office. He had just two months to prepare his first plan for tackling California's $26-billion deficit.

He asked his assistant to fetch the budget director a sandwich. Then, Matosantos said, the incoming governor of one of the world's largest economies ate a single hard-boiled egg, sprinkled with salt.

Brown's dietary discipline was a hint of the regimented approach he would take to California's staggering financial problems, which he had promised to fix by pushing the state back into the black.

"I don't go to the theater. I don't golf. This is what I do," Brown told Matosantos.

For previous governors, California's budget was quicksand. Gray Davis, a fellow Democrat, was recalled by voters as state finances imploded following an energy crisis. Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger limped out of office with rock-bottom poll numbers, leaving a pile of debt.

But on Brown's watch, deficits have become surpluses, helped along by tax hikes the governor persuaded voters to approve. More money is being pumped into schools.

University tuition has stabilized.

Budget standoffs that once dragged through the summer are now wrapped up by the June deadline, lending the Capitol a new sense of orderliness. And on Wednesday, the governor called a special legislative session to prod lawmakers to pass his plan for saving money and paying off debt.

That record, which will be a major part of Brown's reelection campaign, is due partly to good fortune. California is benefiting from a nationwide economic recovery that has helped flood the state with revenue. Brown is also blessed with a Capitol dominated by fellow Democrats and a 2010 rule change that lowered the number of votes needed to pass a spending plan.

"Somehow he managed to get all the stars aligned," said Norton Francis, who studies state finances at the Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

But California's finances remain vulnerable in some ways, as Brown's main challengers in the June primary — Republicans Neel Kashkari, a former U.S. Treasury official, and state Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of Twin Peaks in San Bernardino County — have noted.

Brown keeps pushing for a $68-billion bullet train whose funding is in dispute. And although some debts are being repaid, others are growing as the state fails to allocate enough money for long-term funding of teacher pensions and healthcare for retired state workers.

The governor has acknowledged the gap. "By no means are we out of the wilderness yet," he said in January, although he has not detailed any plans to address those ballooning costs.

When Brown was inaugurated in January 2011, California was a punch line for jokes about government dysfunction. The state had $35 billion in debt — equivalent to more than one-third of general fund spending — that it had accumulated by borrowing money and delaying payments when it was short on cash.

Brown warned then that there would be more pain ahead.

"Choices have to be made and difficult decisions taken," the septuagenarian governor said in a speech when he was sworn in. "At this stage of my life, I have not come here to embrace delay or denial."

Unlike Schwarzenegger, Brown did not convene blue-ribbon panels to recommend ways to overhaul California's finances — ideas that mostly went nowhere. But like his predecessor, he cut aid to the needy.

Providers in the state's healthcare program for the poor are now paid less. Welfare payments are lower, and fewer families receive state-subsidized child care.

The governor's decisions paved the way for his 2012 tax-hike campaign, a defining moment of his term.

Brown had promised to seek voters' blessing before raising taxes, but he failed to win the needed Republican support to put the issue on the ballot. So he used the initiative process, asking Californians to increase income taxes on high earners for seven years and raise the sales tax for four years.

View the original article here

California's lopsided politics yield little election intrigue

SACRAMENTO — It has come to this: California politics have become so one-sided that the only half-way intriguing statewide races this spring are for two largely ministerial jobs.

One is secretary of state.

The other is state controller.

Both are pretty mundane.

The secretary of state oversees elections and maintains public databases on campaign contributions and lobbyists' spending. The office also processes a lot of business-related stuff.

Sounds simple. But under termed-out Democrat Debra Bowen, few things seemingly have been simple. There have been glitches galore, mainly involving web technology.

"It has had more headaches than the Obamacare rollout," says Allan Hoffenblum, frequent user of the state campaign finance database called Cal-Access. "They [the feds] at least got their web fixed."

Hoffenblum publishes the California Target Book, which closely follows legislative races, and says he has been frequently frustrated trying to track how much money candidates are raising and where they're getting it.

Bowen has blamed her problems on a shortage of funds caused by budget cutbacks during the recession.

As for the controller, he or she writes the state's checks and has the power — not used enough — to audit how money is spent. The office also holds seats on some potent tax and regulatory boards.

The sexy offices — governor and attorney general — are considered slam-dunks this year for the Democratic incumbents, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris.

Blame the pathetic Republican Party, which received more bad news Tuesday. Since the last gubernatorial election in 2010, the GOP's share of the California electorate has dropped another 2 percentage points and is down to 28.6%.

Democrats lost 1 percentage point, but their share is 43.5%, giving them a huge advantage in statewide elections. Voters with no party preference increased by 1 point to 21.1%.

Under California's new "top two" open primary system — with the first and second place finishers advancing to the general election, regardless of party — there's no assurance a Republican will even be in every statewide runoff.

In the secretary of state contest, most political pros believe that Democratic state Sen. Alex Padilla, a former Los Angeles city councilman, will make it into the top two.

As a sitting legislator, Padilla has more name-ID — at least in vote-heavy L.A. — and can raise a lot more campaign money than his main Democratic rival, Derek Cressman, a former official of the political reform group Common Cause.

The big primary tussle for the other top two spot seems to be between Republican Pete Peterson, who heads the Davenport public policy institute at Pepperdine University, and no-party candidate Dan Schnur, who's on leave from the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC.

Schnur, a former GOP operative, is trying to become the first nonpartisan elected to statewide partisan office in California. If he can raise enough money, he'll go after Republican voters, trying to cut into Peterson's natural support.

Also on the ballot, although he has withdrawn from the race, is disgraced state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), recently suspended by the Senate after being indicted on federal corruption charges.

A recent Field Poll found Peterson leading among likely voters at 30%, followed by Padilla with 17%. Trailing far behind were Green Party architectural designer David Curtis at 5%; Schnur, 4%; and Cressman, 3%.

View the original article here