Crossposted from OC Progressive

This has been another eventful week for me and I wanted to share something I wrote for our new local blog, I think it’s universal and true for many here so that is why I share it.

Orange County, California is still a solidly red County but those of us living in “The OC”, who are proud progressives, want to find a public space to voice our ideas and to push our agenda locally and eventually on the state and federal levels.  Not only that but we want to encourage our fellow progressives to run in local elections and support them up that harrowing climb to higher office.

As we all know, none of this can happen though until many things are fixed about our election financing process and so on, but the progressive blogosphere has somewhat leveled the playing field but supporting such candidates and generously funding their runs for office.

Anyone Can Blog?

I thought of Ratatouille and the line that “Anyone can cook” when I read Paul Anderson’s piece Blogging Done Right…

In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau’s famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.

Source

So, just because anyone can blog does not mean the product put before you will be the highest of journalistic standards, it doesn’t have to be.  There is a reason that Freedom of Speech is in the First Amendment, anyone can blog.

I think there is a misnomer about bloggers in general.  I don’t think many of them feel they are creating news or reporting on news in an original way but I do think they are taking what’s out there and attempting to make sense of it.

The past eight years has been filled with a lot of misery for progressives.  It was a bitter fight in 2000 and many felt cheated and that the “system” failed them miserably.  The media was not doing its job to ask the right questions, if it had been, maybe there might have been a different outcome.

You see the blogosphere in many ways thinks the Fourth Estate failed Americans by not asking enough questions, they felt that they were not doing their jobs either.  

Too many blogs these days just deconstruct some news organization’s content and spew out a bunch of conspiracy theories. Most of the time I think, who cares what you think? And that’s because a lot of the bloggers aren’t very informed. I like the Atlantic bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, because they’re journalists and they have informed opinions when they comment on someone else’s work. That’s called perspective.

Source

This is true, I read it often on the Daily Kos but because blogs like this are on the “rating” system, the readers are able to separate the wheat from the chafe and those diaries rarely make their way to the Recommend list.  Usually when they do, the comments themselves are far better than the gaggle of quotes from other news sources and the sorry excuse for commentary.

But blogs have become more than just this, they’ve become a place to gather and collectively scratch our heads.  There are so many who felt completely ostracized by our last Administration that this was what was needed to fill that gapping maw of information or any really intelligent questioning of flawed policy.

But that’s just it.  The news, those “journalists” have an obligation to remain impartial, yes?  Isn’t that the point?  It’s really not that they didn’t comment on what was happening; they just didn’t ask enough questions.

Bloggers don’t have the obligation to keep their point of view a secret.  There is no unspoken vow of impartiality (which, if you’ve read the content of the Register, you’d realize that it’s non existent in some places) to the subject matter.  We are able to rail against the questions asked, the answers and the disappointing outcome of the whole ordeal.

Blogging was born out of a need to fill in the gaps and those “conspiracy theories” such as torture is illegal and the war in Iraq was a mistake, those aren’t theories, those are realities that many on the right refuse to recognize.

Universal Health Care?  The stories we share about young girls dying because they’ve been denied treatment from their insurance company and those who can’t get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, those stories are meant to push people into action.  Those stories are put into a context to where many can understand that a Country such as ours should not allow anyone to die because the free market deems it a necessary loss.  

I could go on and on about the topics of concern to bloggers who have, through their tenacity, made voices like mine relevant.  Elected officials pay attention to the blogosphere because they know that there is a knowledgeable voting block behind the stoic lines and blocked in quotes.  They know that the power of these free media outlets has driven the most important issues to the headlines and to the chambers of Congress.  

And when the local means of news gathering refuses to recognize an entire voting populace then that “free market” will create an alternative such as the OC Progressive. Concerned citizens believe it’s time that the right questions were asked of those who represent us and that our opinions, even if in the minority (Although I’m starting to think that’s not the case either) are valid and just as important as those of the editorial board at the OC Register.

And I’m honored to be included in the same breath as Joe Shaw and Gus Ayer as fellow bloggers.  Both showed tremendous support for Gary, my husband, when he ran for State Senate (As did hundreds of others, to us that election was a huge win)and have encouraged me to keep writing and pushing my own unique point of view.  I just hope with my limited time (Working parent) I can contribute, just a bit, to this new community and encourage others to do the same.

U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. has ruled against the Prop 8 campaign in their attempt to hide their donors from public disclosure. I don’t yet have a copy of the decision, but I’ll hunt it down and get a more detailed analysis.

You can find a great rundown of the case at Melissa’s place. She went to the hearing today, so I expect she’ll be providing more information on the hearing soon. Basically, the campaign alleged that their donors’ first amendment rights were being violated by the disclosure requirement.  Their argument was that the potential harassment and boycotts chilled the donors expression via money to the campaign.

To wit, the Judge said:

The court finds that the state is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure.

Of course, all of this was quite funny, and massively hypocritical, given the context of the Prop 8 campaign’s attempted blackmail of equality minded donors. Well, what’s good for the goose must surely be good for the gander.  We should be getting that full list of campaign donors any day now.  I sort of doubt that we’ll see anything too major on there.

One more note on Prop 8 disclosure. A Late Contribution document has already been filed, and the Mormon Church itself (not Mormon people, but the actual Church) gave over $30,000 ($30,354.85 to be exact) in the last few days of the campaign. (Downloadable PDF here) Not the huge mega-donation they have used in some other states, but people should know just how instrumental one religious movement was to the passage of this discriminatory measure.

Not sure where the LA Times is pulling this figure from.

A $5-million plan to replace 78 wood piles that support the pier is among the hundreds of California projects that stand to benefit from the federal stimulus measure. In fact, the first major initiative of the Obama administration could deliver as much as $63 billion to the state.

Some of the money would help ease California’s budget crisis, although officials in Sacramento say it would cover only one-quarter of the nearly $42-billion deficit […]

The $63-billion projection for California — provided by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with ties to President Obama — includes about $44 billion to help pay for things such as infrastructure projects, healthcare for the poor and increased unemployment benefits.

The remaining $19 billion would cover the cost of the individual tax cuts to Californians.

To be fair, the story does make clear that state and local government relief would only directly impact about 1/4 of the budget hole.  But I think it’s dangerous to throw around $63 billion when there’s still going to be a need for tough solutions on revenues and cuts in the budget.  That number throws in the kitchen sink – it includes tax cuts to individuals and businesses, unemployment insurance extension, food stamp benefits, everything.  The fact that more people have money to spend may positively impact the bottom line if California catches some of that cash in sales taxes, but the story – and really the projection by CAP – makes it sound like California will be handed a $63 billion dollar oversized novelty check.  This will only serve to aid the radical Yacht Party agenda, allowing them to say that California just got a bailout so there’s no need for tax increases.  Every sane person knows that the federal windfall will help but not fix the budget, and talk of $63 billion like it’s a sugar plum fairy really hurts the ability to make that fix happen.

For example, when citizens all over the state don’t get their tax refunds in the coming months, with taxpayers on the low end of the income scale feeling the greatest effect, and they read stories about $63 billion flowing to the state, who do you think they’re going to blame?  And I’m sure the Yacht Party will be around to direct that blame, too.

It’s fairly irresponsible to headline “$63 BILLION!” when we know only $10 billion of that will directly hit the budget.

There was a very large elephant in the L.A. City Council chamber on Jan. 28th, but unlike the proverbial pachyderm, everyone was talking about him. His name is Billy, and he’s a 23-year old Asian elephant who has lived many years in a 0.6-acre, concrete enclosure at the L.A. Zoo. For 2 years, he has been alone; since the Zoo (under public pressure) sent their female elephant Ruby to a sanctuary when her mental and physical health was declining. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has said “elephants should be in sanctuaries and not in zoos”, requested a review of the exhibit. The subsequent Dec. 2005 report advised expanding the yard space to 3.0 acres and getting softer substrate. On April 19, 2006 the Council approved a massive building project, meant for several elephants, called “the Pachyderm Forest.” But in Dec. 2008, they halted construction to consider Councilmember Tony Cardenas’ new motion to close the exhibit and send Billy to roam a spacious elephant sanctuary instead (i.e. P.A.W.S., in San Andreas, where Ruby is.) Cardenas made the motion in Nov. because he felt that when the Council approved the project, they did not have all the information. “This city can’t afford to build a $40 million elephant mortuary,” he said in Nov.

On Weds., L.A. City Hall’s council chamber was so packed it was standing-room only (with spillover encouraged to go to another room, and watch on closed-circuit TV). Animal lovers came out en masse both for and against the proposal, both sides seemingly convinced that the other side doesn’t care about animals. Passions were intense, and many of the over-40 public comments made (20 on each side) were full of vitriol against their opponents. A further 60-plus requests to speak, (about 30 pro and 30 con) had to go unfulfilled. Council President Eric Garcetti warned those assembled three times not to boo during speakers’ remarks (it was the L.A. Zoo crowd booing). There was cheering, clapping, groaning, jeering, and some speaking out of turn. You could even say “it was a zoo”. But meanwhile, back at the actual zoo, solitary Billy probably spent much of the time bobbing his head up and down, in the unnatural repetitive motion called “stereotypy”, which is a sign of schizophrenia in humans and something close to it in zoo animals. The L.A. Zoo has claimed it isn’t a sign of mental illness at all, but apparently they didn’t look up ‘stereotypy’ in that kooky radical troublemaking book: Webster’s Dictionary.

See my Jan. 24th video of Billy’s head-bobbing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Or another user’s video of it, with voice-over explanation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Cardenas’ motion failed 11 to 4; the expansion of the elephant exhibit will continue and Billy has to wait for it. One way of looking at this is that the “Free Billy” movement picked up 2 votes from the original 13 to 2 vote approving the “Pachyderm Forest.” But they also lost progressive Councilmember Bill Rosendahl’s expected vote. He has explicitly stated before he’s “not for elephants in the zoo,” but Rosendahl voted to keep building because the report from City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna convinced him that it would cost more to discontinue the project now than to finish it.  (Similarly, an L.A. Times editorial last weekend recommended continuing even though it had opposed the project in 2006 for fear it might not be large enough. The Zoo touts the new Times op-ed even though it’s the kind of lukewarm endorsement we heard at the beginning of the Iraq War: well, it’s a terrible idea, but we’re in it now, so we can’t pull out.)

In any case, the Council vote is not very surprising in the face of busloads of personnel and supporters co-opted by the Zoo; 27,000 signatures the Zoo gathered (they have a little advantage there, since their rivals don’t have an established, 113-acre entertainment attraction of their own in which to gather signatures); and a Fairbank & associates opinion survey reporting that Los Angelenos, 3 to 1, favor the completion of the exhibit. Councilmembers faced with all that are, in the end, politicians, and almost half of them are up for re-election on March 3rd.

But this Fairbank poll is interesting. It was likely commissioned by the L.A. Zoo, which issued a Jan. 26th press release about the results. If you ask me, it looks like a push poll, since the questions match many L.A. Zoo talking points, asking: whether respondents “agreed that closing the habitat and shipping Billy to a distant location will deprive schoolchildren and their families of the opportunity to learn about the threat of extinction facing Asian elephants”; whether they favored the Zoo “teaching wildlife conservation, breeding additional Asian elephants and helping prevent the extinction of the species” by building a new habitat; and whether they minded “hundreds of job losses that would result from shutting down the project in the middle of a deep economic downturn.” I’m not sure if that was exact poll wording, but that’s how the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association (GLAZA) relayed it. It’s amazing, actually, that in each of those cases 30% did resist the way the Zoo wanted them to answer. Apparently, the survey also made a point of reminding respondents that voters had passed a Zoo Bond Measure to improve animal exhibits. (Which many “Free Billy” types seem to think is a fabulous idea, actually; several of those commenting at the meeting remarked there are other inadequate exhibits at the zoo.)

What GLAZA doesn’t say is whether those surveyed were asked: if they knew that 13 elephants have died at the L.A. Zoo in 30 years; whether they knew that half of those had never reached age 20; whether they knew that all but one of those 13 showed “various states of degenerative joint disease and fatal orthopedic disabilities associated with lack of mobility due to close captivity”, per Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s letter to L.A. City Council urging closure of the exhibit. (Yes, I know, he’s not from here, but he speaks against injustice and cruelty everywhere.) I also wonder if the survey mentioned that it was after years of condemnation, and new American Zoo Association rules for elephant management, that GLAZA proposed to expand its elephant enclosure.

As an L.A. Zoo member and a PETA member, I was getting emails from both camps. So I compared the arguments made by both sides in advance of the City Council meeting. The Zoo had trotted out animal TV show host Jack Hanna, who spoke in generalities in a video on their site. He exclaimed that the L.A. Zoo had “phenomenal habitats from day one”. Really? It would seem even the zoo would disagree, considering how much money they put into reforming their three great apes exhibits and now their Pachyderm Forest. He estimated that the new exhibit’s design is 10% of their total area. Well, actually the proposed 6 acre site is 5% of their total 113 acres. And only 3.6 of those will be roaming areas for the elephants. Incidentally, Kucinich’s Nov. 2008 letter noted that the home range of a male Asian Elephant in its natural state is 200 sq. km. – 235 sq. km. The smaller number of those two is 8,237 times the outer perimeter of the new exhibit.

Hanna went on to make the kind of illogical comment one used to hear at the height of the Bush Administration: i.e. what are you protesting in the streets for, things can’t really be as bad as you say, or people would be out in the streets! In the video Hanna admits how bad zoos used to be in past decades, but assures viewers “that’s no longer the case,” because “people in their communities are demanding the best for the animals.” His thesis being; so ignore those people in the community demanding the best for Billy!

Sounding alarmingly like Fox News, the video asked Hanna what are the “intentions” of the activists who want Billy removed from the zoo. (Asking the favored ‘A’ side what the disfavored ‘B’ side is all about is a patented Fox News propaganda device.) Hanna didn’t worry about putting words in the opponents’ mouths, though, and speculated that they want to “put everything back out in the wild”. Granted, some elephant advocacy groups cite how elephants live in the wild, but obviously, that’s for comparison, to illustrate how far off their needs are from a typical captivity. And to show that being able to roam on sanctuary acreage and bond with other elephants is at least closer to that state than the current or planned L.A. Zoo exhibit.

Amusingly, Hanna borrowed another favorite Fox News angle: dismissing “celebrities” for involvement in a political cause. What do you call Jack Hanna if not a celebrity? And moreover, musician Slash and actress Betty White have also leapt to GLAZA’s defense.

Zoo Trustee Betty White claims that those concerned that Billy might die a premature death at the zoo “would rather see species die out than to thrive in accredited zoos.” Now, is that fair? Her two-page message in the zoo’s winter newsletter goes into detail about “animal activists” (it must be ‘activist’ that’s a dirty word, because she likes the word ‘animal’). She accuses them of wanting “to remove all elephants from all zoos. And let’s not kid ourselves, folks, it will not stop with elephants. Giraffes will be next. If they win this battle, they will not stop until zoos themselves are extinct.”

That kind of alarmist rhetoric sounds like the Prop 8 campaign: if you allow gay marriage, then next it’ll be polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality! They’ll be teaching our children to be gay in schools! Run for your lives!

White is no fool and I applaud her decades-long activism, even if she doesn’t applaud others’, but could we have a rational argument, please? Clearly, zoos are in no danger of disappearing. Maybe we can eventually get rid of the substandard ones – the roadside zoos, the ones with wholly ignorant staff, the ones that don’t breed their animals or have any conservation aims – but White and GLAZA reject such zoos anyway. Merely asking the L.A. Zoo to prove they have the ability or expertise, in light of their elephant track record, ought to be seen as completely reasonable and no nefarious motives necessary. A zoo is like a hospital, or a university. Some departments might be brilliantly successful; others might be total failures. You should look at them case-by-case. I think the Zoo has done quite well for its great apes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Also, one often sees happy family units there (koala bears, snow leopards, various lemurs, etc.). See baby koala here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… .

But not all animal exhibits are created equal — meerkats, for instance, one of which was depicted in The Lion King, live in colonies of 20-50 in the wild. They have such a sense of social responsibility that they rotate guard duty. The L.A. Zoo exhibit now has one meerkat, because all the others have died.

It is totally fair game for the general public to scrutinize how well different areas of the zoo are working, just like they do their police or school board. And the institution has the right to defend itself. But they don’t get to say only their opinion is valid. Hospitals screw up in services to humans, and you don’t necessarily have to be a neurosurgeon to notice it. At the meeting, as in their publicity, GLAZA frequently claimed that they were the only proper authority as to whether their animals were thriving as they should. Not cool.

The zoo brought out longtime staffers, and some fired-up volunteers, to be mightily offended, offended I tell you, by the accusations of past cruelty in curbing elephant behavior and of negligence in the deaths of a dozen elephants. But they did not provide an alternative explanation. It would be so much more reassuring if the L.A. Zoo admitted that the elephants didn’t just die because of bad luck. One would have more faith that they have learned what to do and that, going forward, they will understand and be able to meet the needs of elephants (for exercise, soft substrate, stimulation, social bonds).

I was not initially sure which side to be on regarding this Pachyderm Forest. But the Zoo has talked me into it, or rather, out of it. Though I’m a dues-paying member – and you’d think, as such, owed a straight answer – I have been sent emotional appeals that vilify their critics and skirt the basic issues, which ought to be simple enough to lay out. Is the projected exhibit large enough? How much space will each elephant have and how much do they need according to AZA? Is there evidence that it’s even possible to breed elephants in captivity? Instead, we get red herrings.

At City Council on Weds., several witnesses from the Zoo side derided the involvement of “celebrities” sitting across the aisle from them and urging Billy’s release: Cher, Lily Tomlin, Kathryn Joosten (“Desperate Housewives”, “The West Wing”), Bob Barker (who offered to pay $1.5 million to transfer Billy to P.A.W.S. near Sacramento), Kevin Nealon, Robert Culp (who a year ago tried unsuccessfully to sue the City and Zoo Director John Lewis), and I also thought I saw Anjelica Huston. The Zoo crowd was able to scoff because their own publicity gimmicks — Betty White, Jack Hanna, and Slash — did not show up that day. But the Zoo staff who spoke also put down their opponents as uninformed busybodies, despite the expert witnesses present who are critical of the Zoo and its plans. Since the mainstream media narrative of the elephant exhibit pits celeb amateurs against L.A. Zoo professionals, we should look at some of those on the “Free Billy” side:

1.) Dr. Joyce Poole: a wild elephant biologist and author of Coming of Age with Elephants, Poole made the crucial discovery that male elephants experience “musth” (regular sexual periods of extreme aggression). In 2005, she discovered that elephants learn to make sounds by imitating each other – the only land mammals besides primates to do so. She has worked with Cynthia Moss, the animal behaviorist at the center of two PBS Nature films on African elephants. And Poole was named the director of elephant conservation and management for the Kenya Wildlife Service.

2.) David Hancocks: a zoo architect and zoo director for thirty years, Hancocks wrote the book A Different Nature, an analytical and comparative history of zoos. He is an expert on evaluating the design of different species’ exhibits. He is not “anti-zoo”, he values the potential of zoos to do good; but he is an advocate for habitats and programs that serve the animals.

3.) Dr. Jennifer Conrad: a former L.A. Zoo vet who treated animals on five continents, including elephants in Asia and Africa, Conrad was also head veterinarian at a wildlife sanctuary. As a result, she created “The Paw Project” in Los Angeles to rehabilitate big cats’ paws which had been damaged by the discredited practice of declawing; she led teams of surgeons in operations on circus tigers and the like to help reverse their crippling. She also works as an on-set vet for films.

These are impressively credentialed people who think the L.A. Zoo is not doing right by its current, past, or future elephants. Others urging the Council to remove elephants from the L.A. Zoo included two spokespeople from the Shambala Elephant Reserve, and Will Travers (Jr.) of Born Free USA, this country’s legislative advocacy arm of the famous wilderness reserve in Africa.

Their theme is not some abstract notion that zoos are evil, but the very practical concern that Billy’s health and life are in danger. On Weds. a large blow-up photo of Billy’s foot was presented by Councilmember Rosendahl to the L.A. Zoo vet seated with Zoo Director John Lewis in the Council’s inner circle; when the vet was asked if this meant Billy may be developing foot problems, like the zoo’s elephants Gita and Tara who died at the zoo in the last 4 years, the vet couldn’t say. It seemed he had no updates on the condition of Billy’s feet, despite all the firestorm and all the publicity effort by the zoo about their excellent elephant management. But we heard assurances that the keepers give him daily foot care.

Rosendahl requested that Dr. Conrad be allowed to give a contrasting opinion; she answered that she doubted the zoo staff were even able to give Billy foot care right now, since he had been in musth, “in rut”, since Nov., and was too dangerous to work with. She told the Council he’s “in musth an abnormally long time”. (Indeed, whenever I visit, no matter what time of year, he seems to be in musth: it’s evident by the liquid streaming from his eyes and the urine that dribbles down his leg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… )

Conrad asserted that the reason for his long musth is that “he’s fat, because he can’t exercise.”

Bizarrely, the Council did not discuss what one might think would be at least a compromise: ship Billy out temporarily to P.A.W.S. while the exhibit is being built, thus letting him run around on acres and acres of grass instead of a hard surface and, hopefully, protect his feet from dangerous infections, give him exercise, and help him get a break from musth. The Zoo cheerleaders (who filled rows of the chamber, attired in green T-shirts, with a pep rally energy) were insistent that Billy belonged in “the only home he’s ever known”, and that “he loves his family.” It’s a little like saying Steve McQueen’s character in Papillon enjoyed his cell, right in the middle of the scene of him  going crazy in solitary.

In what is known as a “tentative ruling”, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlett stated that Gov. Schwarzenegger did not exceed his authority by issuing the furlough order.  A tentative ruling can be changed after the oral arguments are heard, but strongly indicates how the judge is feeling on the case based upon the briefs. Judge Marlett has a bit of time after the arguments to either change his opinion or make the tentative ruling final.

Obviously, this is a blow to the state’s workers.  In the Bee’s article, a spokesman for SEIU Local 1000 makes this clear:

“We’ve been bargaining continuously with the state for the past week and we hope that we can mitigate this at the bargaining table,” Zamora said. “We think we can help the governor achieve his cost savings goals but also cause minimum disruption to the lives of 95,000 state workers that we represent and continue to provide quality public services,” (SacBee 1/29/09)

The unions can appeal the decision once it goes final, but this is likely to settle at the bargaining table and in the legislature with a budget plan.

Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

The key to California’s successful business environment are education and infrastructure.  It is not an accident that our semiconductor and computer and Internet industries, and biotechnology and pharmaceutical and genetic engineering and our other world-class competitive industries developed in California instead of in “low tax” states like Mississippi and Alabama.  These industries thrived here because of our well-educated people and our modern, well-maintained infrastructure.

There has been a dramatic wealth-building return on our investment in education and infrastructure.  Investors could count on California as a good place to start and grow a business, and it has paid off.

But how much would it cost if businesses had to pay fair market value for use of the infrastructure that We, the People built?  What would it cost if companies had to pay the full education cost every time they hire someone who was educated at a California public school or state college or university?

What would it cost if companies had to pay to be provided with police and fire protection?  Should companies pay a fee to have the police investigate, catch the perpetrators, and then put them through the criminal justice system?

What would it cost if companies had to pay fair value to use our roads and air- and seaports.

What would it cost if companies had to pay for access to the legal system that We, the People set up.  We passed the laws and paid for the courts.  We set up the entire legal structure.  

We, the People pay to regulate (and apparently bail out) the banking and financial system.  What would it cost if businesses had to pay us for setting up this system that (used to) keeps our money sound?

This is what government and taxes are for.  We, the People built up California’s comprehensive physical, legal, cultural, education and societal infrastructure.  Businesses rely on that infrastructure, and we want them to thrive.  This benefits us all.  Many, many people became wealthy by betting on California as a great place to do business, and we are proud of that.  Now it is tome to give something back.

Building and maintaining that infrastructure does cost money, and that is where taxes come in.  For several years California has been cutting taxes and cutting back on our investment in education and infrastructure.  Businesses cannot continue to thrive as they have if we continue along this path.  We have reached a point where the tax-cutting has brought our state’s education spending to the second-lowest per-pupil of all the states!  We have been and are deferring maintenance on roads and other infrastructure.  We are cutting back on all essential services and we still have a $40 billion budget shortfall!  

Our companies are getting a good deal.  If we charged fees that were based on the actual value of the service that the infrastructure provides businesses would have to pay much, much more than any level of increased taxes companies and wealthy individuals might be asked to pay to help California meet the budget shortfall.  The businesses and individuals who thrived because of the infrastructure we built need to contribute to the future by agreeing to pay taxes to help invest in rebuilding that infrastructure.

The payoff is clear.  As I wrote above, there is a reason that Silicon Valley and genetic engineering and other wealth-creating industries developed in states like California and Massachusetts instead of “low tax” states like Mississippi and Alabama.

Click through to Speak Out California.

I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 to discuss this and other topics in California politics

George Skelton runs hot and cold in terms of the usefulness of his observations, but today he starts to get closer to the truth by exposing Arnold Schwarzenegger’s complete failure of leadership on the budget mess. As the state moves to the edge of total meltdown, it’s becoming undeniable even to California’s centrist Villagers that instead of being some post-partisan strong leader, Arnold is just a failure:

Californians haven’t been prepared by their political leaders for the one-two punch. Sure, the public has a vague idea of what’s coming, but too many people aren’t certain it’s necessary — especially the tax hikes during a deep recession.

That’s not just my view. It’s also the observation of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s predecessor, the governor he ousted in the 2003 recall election: Gray Davis.

Gray Davis told me: “People are going to get hit with major tax increases and program reductions and no one is preparing them. Part of leadership is not just doing the job, but explaining to the public why a certain action needs to be taken. Why it needs to happen and how long it will remain.

“You have to bring people along with you. President Obama is a master of selling the public on why his programs make sense — in contrast to the deafening silence coming out of Sacramento.”

Of course, Davis isn’t quite right here – there has been more than “deafening silence” coming out of Sacramento. Arnold and his Yacht Party allies have been pretty vocal about the crisis – they believe government is the problem, and have been telling the public that at almost every opportunity. “Economic stimulus” is defined by them not as job creation (which is how Obama, the Congress, and virtually every economist see it) but as rolling back environmental and labor regulations and gutting spending.

Arnold has been consistent in pushing an anti-government message, so is it any wonder that is what the likely outcome of all this will be? Democrats speak of the 2/3 rule, as do we on the blogs, but the media centrists like Skelton rarely see fit to mention it. The public then looks at Sacramento and says “you suck” without really understanding what the problem is – a Republican filibuster intended to cram Grover Norquist’s agenda down our throats. Like Rush Limbaugh, these wingnuts weaned on talk radio want California to fail.

Arnold spent the first 5 years of his time as governor telling Californians they could have it all – a growing economy, the public services they want, and the low taxes they feel are a birthright. He sold that message so well that when he tries to turn around and say that tax hikes are necessary, nobody is listening to him.

This budget and economic crisis has many fathers, but none more prominent than Arnold Schwarzenegger himself. When the state issues IOUs next week they will be his true legacy to California – a governor who failed so completely that the state had to print funny money to meet its obligations. The honorable thing to do would be to admit failure and resign. Unfortunately we’re stuck with him for two more years.