| One side effect of Leon Panetta's nomination to head the CIA is a growing lament from some quarters about the impact on reform in California. Panetta was the co-chair and leading public voice of California Forward, a centrist group dominated by business interests (there are two labor people on the board) and promoting Broderist attempts to fix California's problems that, by and large, avoided the core issues.
Joe Mathews of the excellent Blockbuster Democracy blog lamented that "losing Panetta is not good news. He can't be easily replaced." And as David Dayen mentioned this morning, in today's LA Times George Skelton pours on the love:
Unfortunately, Panetta's crusade as a reformer of California's dysfunctional government had only just begun. And his departure will leave a large void very difficult to fill, if not impossible....
[California Forward]'s early and outspoken support for Prop. 11 was particularly important because Panetta is a Democrat. Most of the Democratic establishment opposed the reform, fighting to keep the party's gerrymandering power in the California Legislature that it almost always controls.
As we tried to explain many times here, Prop 11 was a solution in search of a problem. Legislatively-drawn districts weren't the reason for the state's budget crisis, since most Californians have chosen to self-segregate by party. Nor does Prop 11 deal with the Republican extremism that is inherent to their movement. Funny how none of these "reformers" ever seem to call out Republicans who bear the primary responsibility for the budget crisis.
Panetta's other proposals follow this model, and espouse a centrism that veers at times into neo-Hooverism, a bipartisanship that in practice means implementing a Republican agenda. It's precisely the opposite of what California needs at this time. As Skelton described it back in June Panetta's plans included:
* Requiring new or expanded programs -- whether created by the Legislature or ballot initiative -- to contain a specific funding source. That could be either new taxes or money gleaned from another program that is eliminated.
* Regularly examining spending programs to determine whether they should be revised, reduced or rubbed out.
Skelton also mentions California Forward's support of open primaries, which courts have persistently ruled as unconstitutional and seem designed to weaken Democrats' ability to block Republican shock doctrines, not provide better reforms for the state.
What California really needs is loosened term limits, an end to the 2/3rds rule, and new tax revenues that solve the structural revenue shortfall. The centrist reforms Panetta championed won't get us where we need to go.
None of this is to say Leon Panetta is a bad guy - although I've not met him, I have known many people affiliated with his Panetta Institute of Public Policy at CSUMB who attest to his devotion to good government. I don't doubt that he was genuinely trying to improve the state. But his proposals were wide of the mark and were designed to satisfy a centrist ideology, not to make this state work again.
I hope Panetta is a success at the CIA - god knows that place needs reform. But his departure from the California reform movement may not be a disaster. Instead it may enable more fundamental changes, that get at the true problems we face, to get a wider audience. |
