Thursday, November 26, 2009
Does California Need a Lieutenant Governor?
You'd think not. Six years ago in the Recall Election against Gray Davis, the Democratic Attorney General of the State, Bill Lockyear, opined that the Lieutenant Governor would not automatically become the new governor is the governor were to be removed or recalled from office. Hence, the recall election would also include candidates for the governorship which would be vacant if Gray Davis were recalled. Mr. Lockyear had his reasons for not wanting the Lieutenant Governor at the time, Cruz Bustamante, to succeed to the governorship. In keeping Mr. Bustamante from succeeding Gray Davis, Mr Lockyear established a precedent. I think it was a bad precedent.
The language of the recall law stipulates that the recall election shall include names of candidates to replace the official being recalled if appropriate. In most recall elections it would be appropriate because most elective offices in the State do not have a successor in waiting. However, the office of Governor is unique in that there is a designated elected official to assume the governorship if for any reason (including impeachment or recall!) the existing governor can not perform the duties of the office or is removed from office. Mr. Lockyear's precedent has changed the law.
Since Mr. Garamendi has resigned as Lieutenant Governor to assume his position as a Representative, there is talk about whether Mr. Schwarzenegger should appoint a replacement. His chosen replacement is a State Senator, Mr. Abel Maldonado. If Mr. Maldonado is confirmed as the new Lieutenant Governor, the vacant State Senate seat will have to be filled by a special election that will cost, say, two million dollars. Next year Mr. Maldonado would have to run for Lieutenant Governor if he wants to continue in the office.
Why do we need a Lieutenant Governor? In 1850, when California became a State, it made sense to designate someone to act as governor while the governor was out of the State and therefore not in rapid communication with the legislature and other State officials. The invention of the telephone, radio, cell phones, internet, and the like have removed that reason for having a temporary replacement governor.
I say, let's do away with the office, along with the 2/3 vote in the Legislature for taxes and budgets.
The language of the recall law stipulates that the recall election shall include names of candidates to replace the official being recalled if appropriate. In most recall elections it would be appropriate because most elective offices in the State do not have a successor in waiting. However, the office of Governor is unique in that there is a designated elected official to assume the governorship if for any reason (including impeachment or recall!) the existing governor can not perform the duties of the office or is removed from office. Mr. Lockyear's precedent has changed the law.
Since Mr. Garamendi has resigned as Lieutenant Governor to assume his position as a Representative, there is talk about whether Mr. Schwarzenegger should appoint a replacement. His chosen replacement is a State Senator, Mr. Abel Maldonado. If Mr. Maldonado is confirmed as the new Lieutenant Governor, the vacant State Senate seat will have to be filled by a special election that will cost, say, two million dollars. Next year Mr. Maldonado would have to run for Lieutenant Governor if he wants to continue in the office.
Why do we need a Lieutenant Governor? In 1850, when California became a State, it made sense to designate someone to act as governor while the governor was out of the State and therefore not in rapid communication with the legislature and other State officials. The invention of the telephone, radio, cell phones, internet, and the like have removed that reason for having a temporary replacement governor.
I say, let's do away with the office, along with the 2/3 vote in the Legislature for taxes and budgets.
Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Lockyear, Cruz Bustamante
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Budget Late? It's the Democrats' Fault
After 82 days, the California State Legislature has agreed on a budget for the year ending nine months and ten days from now. As usual there is the chorus of blaming someone for the long delay in enacting the budget. The Republican Governor blames the entire legislature. He would like to impose a more serious penalty for having a late budget than simply withholding the legislators' salaries until the budget is approved. The Democrats blame the minority Republicans for refusing to compromise on the issue of providing additional revenue to make up the chronic shortfall between the State's income and expenses. The Republican leader of the State Assembly has it right. The LOS ANGELES TIMES reports that "He said the delay could have been averted if Democrats had accepted earlier on that GOP members would not support any tax increases."
Well, lah dee dah dah! Tax increases should be subjects of negotiation along with reductions in payments for services. If the State is providing more services than the tax revenue will support, it makes sense to consider increasing taxes along with cutting back on services. The Republican minority in the legislature wanted to discuss only the cuts: how much less should the State pay for emergency health care; how much less should the State pay for police and fire protection; how many fewer miles of highways should be repaired; etc., etc., etc.
I can remember a time, not too many years ago, when there were reasonable Republicans. There still are some, but not in the California Legislature. In comparison with his "allies" in the State Legislature, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger seems pretty reasonable. I can think of several other "reasonable" Republicans. Unfortunately, none of them are holding office at present. I suddenly realize that, in comparison with the Republicans in our State Legislature, even George W. Bush seems reasonable. I need a stiff drink!
Well, lah dee dah dah! Tax increases should be subjects of negotiation along with reductions in payments for services. If the State is providing more services than the tax revenue will support, it makes sense to consider increasing taxes along with cutting back on services. The Republican minority in the legislature wanted to discuss only the cuts: how much less should the State pay for emergency health care; how much less should the State pay for police and fire protection; how many fewer miles of highways should be repaired; etc., etc., etc.
I can remember a time, not too many years ago, when there were reasonable Republicans. There still are some, but not in the California Legislature. In comparison with his "allies" in the State Legislature, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger seems pretty reasonable. I can think of several other "reasonable" Republicans. Unfortunately, none of them are holding office at present. I suddenly realize that, in comparison with the Republicans in our State Legislature, even George W. Bush seems reasonable. I need a stiff drink!
Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, California budget, George Bush, Republican intransigeance
Friday, February 29, 2008
I am a Grouch
I've decided I don't like any of the leading contenders for the Presidency of this nation. I don't like McCain because he will appoint more federal judges like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. We have too many conservative "federalist" judges now. I don't like Clinton or Obama because they won't be advocates for a universal health care plan that gets rid of the profit motive in deciding which medical procedures to pay for and which ones to deny. I also don't like them because recent polls indicate that neither of them can beat Senator McCain.
The only hope I see is that the Democrats will prevail in several Senatorial contests this coming November and get rid of several Republican obstacles to progress. Perhaps the country can tolerate President McCain if he has a Senate with fewer than 40 Republican supporters of his war and his judges. The Democrats may pick up a few House seats. However it's unlikely that they will pick up many because House districts have been gerrymandered to protect incumbents.
Another bit of cheerful news (I grasp at straws for this one) is that our Republican Governor here in California is now willing to talk about doing away with some tax loopholes to increase the State's revenue. I guess getting rid of a loophole doesn't count as increasing taxes, a phrase that Republicans choke on. Closing some loopholes, according to our governator, will raise an additional two billion dollars or so. The additional money can be used to reduce the proposed cut in the State's budget for schools.
Every little bit helps. I'm still a grouch this morning.
The only hope I see is that the Democrats will prevail in several Senatorial contests this coming November and get rid of several Republican obstacles to progress. Perhaps the country can tolerate President McCain if he has a Senate with fewer than 40 Republican supporters of his war and his judges. The Democrats may pick up a few House seats. However it's unlikely that they will pick up many because House districts have been gerrymandered to protect incumbents.
Another bit of cheerful news (I grasp at straws for this one) is that our Republican Governor here in California is now willing to talk about doing away with some tax loopholes to increase the State's revenue. I guess getting rid of a loophole doesn't count as increasing taxes, a phrase that Republicans choke on. Closing some loopholes, according to our governator, will raise an additional two billion dollars or so. The additional money can be used to reduce the proposed cut in the State's budget for schools.
Every little bit helps. I'm still a grouch this morning.
Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barack Obama, California budget, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Universal health care
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Half-measures for Universal Health Care
It has been written of President Franklin D. Roosevelt that he would first decide what he wanted to do or accomplish. Having decided that, he would then see how close he could come to accomplishing it. He was lauded for following the course of a realistic and practical politician.
There's another side to this approach to governing. If you can not achieve all of what you want to achieve, is it worth while working on something that achieves only a part of what you want? I apply this question to the health plans promoted by several Democratic and Republican politicians: Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Nunez, Romney, and others. These plans all amount to an effort to fix or improve our existing system of providing health care to Americans. Although the supporters of these plans are sincere in wanting to do something to improve a poorly functioning system, I think they are like applying band-aids to a severely injured individual who needs surgery to stop internal bleeding.
The essence of the Clinton-Schwarzenegger-Romney plan is to require all employers (of more than just a few employees) to provide subsidized health insurance for their employees. If an employer wishes, he can instead pay money to the State which will be used to subsidize health insurance to those individuals who are not covered by an employer. There are differences among them as to how much the non-insuring employers should pay, whether all persons are to be required to purchase insurance, and what coverage the insurers are required to provide. Basically, they are all attempts to make a system, originally designed by some employers to attract skilled and expensive workers, provide affordable health care for everyone. These plans are attempts to make a system which was never intended or designed to provide universal health care provide it.
In spite of my criticism, the C-S-R plan does amount to doing something. It won't provide universal health care. It may provide universal health insurance, which is not the same thing. Experience with private for-profit insurers shows that having insurance does not necessarily guarantee having adequate health and medical care. My question is, is it worth while doing?
One can argue that enacting a plan that provides good medical and health care to every American is not politically possible at present. Too many people will argue against it with arguments about "big government," bureaucratic control of medical decisions, inefficiency of government, and the like. I argue that, in spite of the difficulties, our political leaders should try for a universal health plan and not an almost universal insurance plan. The President should be committed to it and should use his press conferences and other unique opportunities to speak to the American People to explain why a universal health provider plan is better than any insurance plan. And that means that we need a President who is committed to the idea of universal health care. The candidates among the Democrats who are committed to this goal have been discarded by the primary voters. There is no hope, in this generation at least, that a Republican candidate would be so committed.
Perhaps, in the end, we will have to accept, for the time being, a half-measure or a band-aid. Winston Churchill once observed that the "American People will always to the right thing, but only after trying all the alternatives."
There's another side to this approach to governing. If you can not achieve all of what you want to achieve, is it worth while working on something that achieves only a part of what you want? I apply this question to the health plans promoted by several Democratic and Republican politicians: Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Nunez, Romney, and others. These plans all amount to an effort to fix or improve our existing system of providing health care to Americans. Although the supporters of these plans are sincere in wanting to do something to improve a poorly functioning system, I think they are like applying band-aids to a severely injured individual who needs surgery to stop internal bleeding.
The essence of the Clinton-Schwarzenegger-Romney plan is to require all employers (of more than just a few employees) to provide subsidized health insurance for their employees. If an employer wishes, he can instead pay money to the State which will be used to subsidize health insurance to those individuals who are not covered by an employer. There are differences among them as to how much the non-insuring employers should pay, whether all persons are to be required to purchase insurance, and what coverage the insurers are required to provide. Basically, they are all attempts to make a system, originally designed by some employers to attract skilled and expensive workers, provide affordable health care for everyone. These plans are attempts to make a system which was never intended or designed to provide universal health care provide it.
In spite of my criticism, the C-S-R plan does amount to doing something. It won't provide universal health care. It may provide universal health insurance, which is not the same thing. Experience with private for-profit insurers shows that having insurance does not necessarily guarantee having adequate health and medical care. My question is, is it worth while doing?
One can argue that enacting a plan that provides good medical and health care to every American is not politically possible at present. Too many people will argue against it with arguments about "big government," bureaucratic control of medical decisions, inefficiency of government, and the like. I argue that, in spite of the difficulties, our political leaders should try for a universal health plan and not an almost universal insurance plan. The President should be committed to it and should use his press conferences and other unique opportunities to speak to the American People to explain why a universal health provider plan is better than any insurance plan. And that means that we need a President who is committed to the idea of universal health care. The candidates among the Democrats who are committed to this goal have been discarded by the primary voters. There is no hope, in this generation at least, that a Republican candidate would be so committed.
Perhaps, in the end, we will have to accept, for the time being, a half-measure or a band-aid. Winston Churchill once observed that the "American People will always to the right thing, but only after trying all the alternatives."
Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Hillary Clinton, Massachusetts plan, Mitt Romney, univeral health insurance, Universal health care, Winston Churchill
Friday, November 02, 2007
Brownstein's Distortion
Ronald Brownstein writes today in the Los Angeles Times that California may upset the growing trend toward a national universal health care system. According to Mr. Brownstein, Organized Labor in California is trying to derail the system proposed by "centrist" Governor Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger's proposal, like the system enacted in Massachusetts and similar to proposals by Democratic candidates Clinton and Edwards, is essentially a bargain with the very powerful insurance industry. Schwarzenegger would require everyone to buy health insurance. In return, the insurance industry would sell insurance to everyone without regard to preexisting health conditions. A subsidy would be provided for people with low incomes to enable them to buy insurance. In other respects Schwarzenegger's proposal is similar to the system we now have in that employers would be required either to provide subsidized insurance for their employees or pay into a State fund that would provide the subsidies for low income residents.
Mr. Brownstein presents the idea that the Schwarzenegger plan is a centrist plan. I don't know what his idea of a conservative plan would be. It seems to me that the Schwarzenegger plaln is actually very conservative. It keeps all the elements of the present broken plan and applies both band-aids and force to make it work properly. The force is the requirement that everyone buy private insurance. The band-aid is the subsidy for people who can't afford insurance.
There is a liberal or progressive plan, advanced by State Senator Sheila Kuehl here in California and in the Congress by Representative John Conyers of Michigan. That plan gets rid of the private insurers by replacing them with a single-payer insurance pool that includes everyone. Everyone pays into the pool as part of their taxes. The profit-hungry insurers are deleted. Similar plans work well in Canada and in several European countries.
Mr. Brownstein presents a distorted account of reality. He implies that Schwarzenegger's plan is "liberal," and that the "liberal" labor unions are opposing it. Actually, the Schwarzenegger plan is a Republican plan. It was enacted in Massachusetts with the support of a Republican Governor and Republican (and Democratic) members of the legislature. Mr. Schwarzenegger's plan is like the plan proposed several years ago by a Republican member of the California Assembly. We liberals have little interest in it. We have our own "liberal" plan, a plan that has worked well in other parts of the world. To us, the Schwarzenegger-Massachusetts plan has not demonstrated that it is capable of providing good quality health care to all at a price that our society can afford.
Mr. Brownstein presents the idea that the Schwarzenegger plan is a centrist plan. I don't know what his idea of a conservative plan would be. It seems to me that the Schwarzenegger plaln is actually very conservative. It keeps all the elements of the present broken plan and applies both band-aids and force to make it work properly. The force is the requirement that everyone buy private insurance. The band-aid is the subsidy for people who can't afford insurance.
There is a liberal or progressive plan, advanced by State Senator Sheila Kuehl here in California and in the Congress by Representative John Conyers of Michigan. That plan gets rid of the private insurers by replacing them with a single-payer insurance pool that includes everyone. Everyone pays into the pool as part of their taxes. The profit-hungry insurers are deleted. Similar plans work well in Canada and in several European countries.
Mr. Brownstein presents a distorted account of reality. He implies that Schwarzenegger's plan is "liberal," and that the "liberal" labor unions are opposing it. Actually, the Schwarzenegger plan is a Republican plan. It was enacted in Massachusetts with the support of a Republican Governor and Republican (and Democratic) members of the legislature. Mr. Schwarzenegger's plan is like the plan proposed several years ago by a Republican member of the California Assembly. We liberals have little interest in it. We have our own "liberal" plan, a plan that has worked well in other parts of the world. To us, the Schwarzenegger-Massachusetts plan has not demonstrated that it is capable of providing good quality health care to all at a price that our society can afford.
Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Conyers, Massachusetts plan for universal health care, Ronald Brownstein, single-payer
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Role of the Attorney General in the Unitary Executive
Advisors to President Bush argue in favor of the “unitary executive” as the model for the American Presidency. There is some support in the federal constitution for such an interpretation. In contrast to a typical State constitution (e.g., the California State Constitution) the federal constitution gives the President the power to choose the various heads of Departments. In particular the Attorney General is chosen by the President. In California and most other States, the Attorney General is elected. The Attorney General of a State is not necessarily a member of the same Party as the Governor. We have an example today in California, with Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor and Democrat Jerry Brown, a former governor, as Attorney General.
Until the emergence of a possible scandal in the Bush Administration’s firing of several US attorneys, perhaps for political gain, I looked askance at States in which many of the heads of government departments were elected instead of appointed. Why shouldn’t States be more like our central government? Why, in California, should the Treasurer, the Controller, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and other officials be elected rather than appointed by the Governor?
Now, I know. A few weeks ago some pundit on television pointed out that the Attorney General of the United States is supposed to work for the American People and not for the political advisors to the President. I have learned that many career lawyers in the Department of Justice have resigned since the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General. It is reported (I can’t cite any references) that morale among the remaining career lawyers is low, due to the feeling that the department is being politicized and that the path to job safety lies in pleasing the political consultants of Mr. Bush rather than in impartial pursuit of justice. Gonzales apparently feels that his primary obligation is to George W. Bush rather than to the American People.
This is a situation up with which we should not put. Absent any change in the present procedure for choosing and confirming Attorney Generals, the Senate must be much more skeptical of Presidential nominees for the position. The Justice Department must not become a fruitful target for political appointees. The President’s personal political philosophy must not be imposed on the non-political career lawyers of the Department.
A desirable change would be to make the office of Attorney General non-partisan and permanent, like the director of the FBI. Because of the special nature of the Department of Justice, the leader should not be changed to suit the philosophical bent of a new Administration.
Until the emergence of a possible scandal in the Bush Administration’s firing of several US attorneys, perhaps for political gain, I looked askance at States in which many of the heads of government departments were elected instead of appointed. Why shouldn’t States be more like our central government? Why, in California, should the Treasurer, the Controller, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and other officials be elected rather than appointed by the Governor?
Now, I know. A few weeks ago some pundit on television pointed out that the Attorney General of the United States is supposed to work for the American People and not for the political advisors to the President. I have learned that many career lawyers in the Department of Justice have resigned since the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General. It is reported (I can’t cite any references) that morale among the remaining career lawyers is low, due to the feeling that the department is being politicized and that the path to job safety lies in pleasing the political consultants of Mr. Bush rather than in impartial pursuit of justice. Gonzales apparently feels that his primary obligation is to George W. Bush rather than to the American People.
This is a situation up with which we should not put. Absent any change in the present procedure for choosing and confirming Attorney Generals, the Senate must be much more skeptical of Presidential nominees for the position. The Justice Department must not become a fruitful target for political appointees. The President’s personal political philosophy must not be imposed on the non-political career lawyers of the Department.
A desirable change would be to make the office of Attorney General non-partisan and permanent, like the director of the FBI. Because of the special nature of the Department of Justice, the leader should not be changed to suit the philosophical bent of a new Administration.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Arnold Schwarzenegger, attorney general, career lawyers, firing US Attorneys, Jerry Brown, unitary executive
