Who'd Want This Job?
A.J. Liebling once wrote that Louisiana, my home state, was the "northernmost of the banana republics." But this year, California has certainly earned that title, with a full-fledged revolution underway and a ballot of replacements that more closely resembles the bar scene from "Star Wars" than a field of candidates for political office.
The nation's economic downturn -- which has turned the federal budget from a surplus of $237 billion to a deficit of $455 billion today -- has resulted in dramatic decreases in federal, state and local tax revenues. Rising health-care costs, meanwhile, and increased demands on social spending -- also caused by the economic downturn -- have pummeled governments on every level.
Prior to the recently passed budget, California could have laid off every employee from the governor to the last custodian for three full years and still have had a general-fund shortfall.
But at least 45 states -- and some say every state but New Mexico and Wyoming -- are facing fiscal crises of one level or another. So why has fiscal crisis become a political crisis only in California, and what responsibility does Gov. Gray Davis have?
It is very difficult to feel much sympathy for Davis. Over his 28-year career in politics, he has earned a reputation for naked ambition and ruthlessness in fund-raising that leave veteran politicians with a mixture of awe and discomfort. He has allies but few friends, and even his allies back him with something short of affection and dedication, more out of obligation or perhaps fear.
Having said all that, the question remains: How much of California's woes can objectively be attributed to Davis' actions or inaction?
No doubt part of California's fiscal problems date back to significant increases in state spending during the high-tech boom, when taxes paid by Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires and their upstart companies poured into state and local government treasuries, far more than anywhere else. Budget decisions based on those revenues allowed increases in government spending, but when the high-tech bubble burst, the spending was unsustainable.
Should Davis have anticipated the bust? Could he have done something about it?
Though many speculated about the possibility of the high-tech collapse, few actually saw it coming, and what politician would have decreased spending in anticipation of a downturn that had not yet happened?
