California, State Bailouts, and Term Limits
The federal government should not bail out California. In the long-run, a bailout would be very harmful.
States have always balanced their budgets. When they have dug holes for themselves, they have been forced to pull themselves out. If California now is bailed out of a bad situation, that practice will end. Because states legally are on an equal footing with each other, a bailout for California would have to mean a bailout for each state when it foolishly overspends and lacks the will/talent to cut.
The time for sound fiscal planning in case of downturns is before the downturn hits. States get themselves in trouble during the good times, by funding everything, as if economic downturns have been outlawed. Foolishness should not be rewarded. (But, past being prologue, I’m not about to bet it won’t be; lots of electoral votes at stake).
Each state is a laboratory, largely free to pass laws and budgets as it sees fit. By analyzing the results of each experiment, other States and the federal government can determine what works best. California ran a big-government experiment, with lots of entitlement programs and with high taxes and debt loads to pay for those programs. (That, by the way, is the model the federal government is utilizing; that course clearly predates the Obama Administration, but the pedal is now to the floor). The fiscal effectiveness of that plan is illustrated by California’s current situation.
During the good times, California extravagantly funded everything and over-utilized debt, while it neglected basic (unsexy) maintenance programs. It was the M.C. Hammer of states. A simple drive along its deteriorating, once-great highways quickly showed that California was poorly positioned to face the next downturn. California made its bed; now it should sleep in it. It’s their experiment. It’s their problem.
California can dig out, (1) if it chooses and (2) if it knows how. Issue one – willpower – is not unique to California. Issue two – lack of political ability – is unique, or at least new, to California. Bluntly, California’s elected officials lack the experience and skill necessary to avoid/address an economic crisis.
Gov. Schwarzenegger brought to office a wealth of experience in body building and film making. And the legislative branch is even worse off. Since 1990, Assembly members have been term-limited after 6 years; Senate members after 8 years.
Those short limits mean that members of Assembly leadership are elected with only 0- to 4-years experience. Senate leadership members would have 0- to 6-years experience (and, likely, some years in the Assembly). That’s not enough time to gain the knowledge and experience necessary to run the show. (See Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, positing that people who are great at something aren’t freaks of nature but, instead, have put in 10,000 hours doing that thing). As a result, the elected officials don’t run the show in California. Rather, the knowledge and experience necessary to govern are held by staff and special interests.
Legislative bodies are tremendous problem-solving groups. By design, we toss society’s most complex issues into legislative bodies, and, usually, workable solutions emerge. However, that process is being frustrated in California, since the requisite knowledge base and the decision makers aren’t actually in the Legislature but, rather, are behind the veil.
Even without term limits, Utah’s legislators have short legislative life spans (averaging just over 4 years for House members and 6 years for Senate members). Thank heavens, though, we have members of leadership who have been around long enough to gain valuable experience and weather an economic cycle or two. All 7 members of House majority leadership have been serving for more than 6 years. Senate majority leadership averages well-over a decade of legislative experience. (Sen. Dayton has 2 years in the Senate and a prior decade in the House; Sen. Killpack and Sen. Bell each have 6-years of Senate experience; Sen. Jenkins has 8-years in the Senate; Sen. Knudson and President Waddoups blister my fingers, as I work the abacus to figure out how long they’ve been serving; and Sen. Hillyard, I believe, was first appointed by Brigham Young).
Newer members can add to leadership teams. I think of now-Speaker Clark serving as House appropriations vice-chair, and now-Senate Majority Leader Killpack serving as Senate Assistant Whip, both after only 4 years. Those roles, however, were supporting positions on experienced leadership teams. By their participation, younger classes were more directly involved. But, as I’m sure Dave and Sheldon would quickly agree, they likely weren’t ready to run the show after such a short time.
It will be interesting to watch the ultimate fate of term limits. I doubt that enough people will see the inside-politics of legislatures, to understand the danger of term limits that are too short. And, given the obvious failings of California’s legislature, it is extremely counterintuitive that the people would rise up and say, “These guys simply need more time to work their magic.”
States have always balanced their budgets. When they have dug holes for themselves, they have been forced to pull themselves out. If California now is bailed out of a bad situation, that practice will end. Because states legally are on an equal footing with each other, a bailout for California would have to mean a bailout for each state when it foolishly overspends and lacks the will/talent to cut.
The time for sound fiscal planning in case of downturns is before the downturn hits. States get themselves in trouble during the good times, by funding everything, as if economic downturns have been outlawed. Foolishness should not be rewarded. (But, past being prologue, I’m not about to bet it won’t be; lots of electoral votes at stake).
Each state is a laboratory, largely free to pass laws and budgets as it sees fit. By analyzing the results of each experiment, other States and the federal government can determine what works best. California ran a big-government experiment, with lots of entitlement programs and with high taxes and debt loads to pay for those programs. (That, by the way, is the model the federal government is utilizing; that course clearly predates the Obama Administration, but the pedal is now to the floor). The fiscal effectiveness of that plan is illustrated by California’s current situation.
During the good times, California extravagantly funded everything and over-utilized debt, while it neglected basic (unsexy) maintenance programs. It was the M.C. Hammer of states. A simple drive along its deteriorating, once-great highways quickly showed that California was poorly positioned to face the next downturn. California made its bed; now it should sleep in it. It’s their experiment. It’s their problem.
California can dig out, (1) if it chooses and (2) if it knows how. Issue one – willpower – is not unique to California. Issue two – lack of political ability – is unique, or at least new, to California. Bluntly, California’s elected officials lack the experience and skill necessary to avoid/address an economic crisis.
Gov. Schwarzenegger brought to office a wealth of experience in body building and film making. And the legislative branch is even worse off. Since 1990, Assembly members have been term-limited after 6 years; Senate members after 8 years.
Those short limits mean that members of Assembly leadership are elected with only 0- to 4-years experience. Senate leadership members would have 0- to 6-years experience (and, likely, some years in the Assembly). That’s not enough time to gain the knowledge and experience necessary to run the show. (See Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, positing that people who are great at something aren’t freaks of nature but, instead, have put in 10,000 hours doing that thing). As a result, the elected officials don’t run the show in California. Rather, the knowledge and experience necessary to govern are held by staff and special interests.
Legislative bodies are tremendous problem-solving groups. By design, we toss society’s most complex issues into legislative bodies, and, usually, workable solutions emerge. However, that process is being frustrated in California, since the requisite knowledge base and the decision makers aren’t actually in the Legislature but, rather, are behind the veil.
Even without term limits, Utah’s legislators have short legislative life spans (averaging just over 4 years for House members and 6 years for Senate members). Thank heavens, though, we have members of leadership who have been around long enough to gain valuable experience and weather an economic cycle or two. All 7 members of House majority leadership have been serving for more than 6 years. Senate majority leadership averages well-over a decade of legislative experience. (Sen. Dayton has 2 years in the Senate and a prior decade in the House; Sen. Killpack and Sen. Bell each have 6-years of Senate experience; Sen. Jenkins has 8-years in the Senate; Sen. Knudson and President Waddoups blister my fingers, as I work the abacus to figure out how long they’ve been serving; and Sen. Hillyard, I believe, was first appointed by Brigham Young).
Newer members can add to leadership teams. I think of now-Speaker Clark serving as House appropriations vice-chair, and now-Senate Majority Leader Killpack serving as Senate Assistant Whip, both after only 4 years. Those roles, however, were supporting positions on experienced leadership teams. By their participation, younger classes were more directly involved. But, as I’m sure Dave and Sheldon would quickly agree, they likely weren’t ready to run the show after such a short time.
It will be interesting to watch the ultimate fate of term limits. I doubt that enough people will see the inside-politics of legislatures, to understand the danger of term limits that are too short. And, given the obvious failings of California’s legislature, it is extremely counterintuitive that the people would rise up and say, “These guys simply need more time to work their magic.”
posted by steve u. at 5/25/2009
Subscribe
6 Comments:
Wow Steve - you managed to turn the excesses of California government into an argument against term limits. Unfortunately I'm not ready to make that logical leap.
I agree that they should not be bailed out and I agree that they have set some exceptionally short term limits. Where I disagree is that I think that even with those short term limits they could be fiscally responsible. In fact, with their term limits they need not shy away from making tough choices based on the response of the electorate.
I have not served any time as an elected official and I already know the importance of living within my means and planning for the long term - and there are many other people like me. It's not term limits that make it so that "California’s elected officials lack the experience and skill necessary to avoid/address an economic crisis."
California, the MC Hammer of States.
Best. Line. Ever.
I for one cannot wait to see the California promoting Cash4gold.com at this next years super bowl.
From my brief exposure with California politics, I think most people serving in the legislature have years of exposure and experience with how the government works. Jerry Brown for example has served all over the place. Governor, attorney general, he is planning to run for governor again next year. I'm not sure why anyone would elect him, again.
The problem with term limits in Cali is that the great politicians and poor legislators have to make their careers in several positions. So they get to screw lots of things up, not just a single position.
I think you do make a sound argument for making term limits more reasonable, but eliminating them altogether just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
David,
I agreed 100% that California should be living within its means. But, I do stand by my point that, even were its leaders willing to make tough decisions, they lack a core of experienced members who could lead the charge. The issues of a state budget and all the laws and requirements that apply to those issues tend to be more complex than most family or business budgets.
Salem,
I don't think the term limits need to be eliminated. But, they should be extended a bit, so that the body can develop a bit of institutional knowledge and stability.
The Utah Legislature also has a good share of former mayors, city council members, and county commissioner types. As a result of that grassroots involvement, they bring skills and perspective to the job that I don't (but really wish I did). Though I'm probably leaving some out, that includes Sens. Jenkins, Bell and Knudson (former mayors), Christensen (former council member), Okerlund (county commissioner), and Stowell (mayor and county commissioner). But, even with that often-extensive service, they still face a learning curve in the Legislature that takes years to master.
Now, please don't get me wrong. Time served doesn't directly equate to effectiveness or, of course, philosophical correctness (however voters might want to define that). Legislators can have immediate and significant impact. For great examples of that, Sen. Morgan and I could point you to our fellow-freshman Senators who entered the Legislature for the first time just this year. Sens. Robles, Hinkins, Okerlund, and Liljenquist are second to none; but, with all of their skills, it is simply a truism that they're not yet as good as they will be in a few years with more legislative experience under their belts.
The California Assembly used to be a de facto oligarchy of perpetual office holders. The leeches that fed off of that became a well-entrenched structure. Then the perpetual politician disappeared. The unelected feeders did not automatically disappear.
That the leech structure remains is not evidence that term limits is not a good idea, or that terms need to be extended. One need only look to other states that have successfully transitioned. California's difficulties with the transition is only one data point.
The problem is not that people require 10,000 hours of experience to become useful. Seasoned CEOs don't need five years at the helm of a new company to start being effective. They brought that prior seasoning to the table. Rather, there needs to be a culture within the legislature whereby the replacement leadership is always being trained. If the permanent staff and other government employees have inadvertent power (leading the legislators around by the nose), that speaks to a legislature that needs to reinvent their culture and take control. It's not a condemnation of term limits.
Looking from the outside, the Utah legislature has some of this culture of preparing the next generation. We're not perfect, and we have plenty who should have been replaced long ago.
Additionally, the Californian legislature speaks to the quality of people that have entered politics. Speaking generally, if those who seek office are fiscally incompetent, then it's up to the people of California to step up to the plate. California is overflowing with people who possess skill well refined through the trials of their daily business. The parties and those organizations that seek to perpetuate their government teat are not friendly to those who suggest real reform must happen. That ancient problem is not new to human society. Californians can get surmount that obstacle. Surely they're not an inferior breed of human.
The Founders intended for short terms, not a de facto oligarchy. The most respected members of the community were to be elected, serve a small handful of terms, and return home. That we have to impose term limits in our modern age speaks to the general foibles of the political class. It's a problem for we the people to tackle.
I don't think it's the specific issue of term limits so much as the general abuse of the initiative system that has made the legislature ineffective. California voters over the last 30 years have passed referenda that basically locked in a governing plan based on limited taxes, unlimited spending, and a balanced budget. At this point, I don't think it even matters who is in the legislature or the governor's chair, which party they belong to, or how much experience they have. These three things the voters want are not possible simultaneously. It's possible to be low tax/low spend/balanced budget (Utah) or high tax/high spend/balanced budget. (Massachusetts) It's also possible to do what DC does and cut taxes on 95% of the population, increase spending to obsene levels and not care about the budget being in balance. But you can't have all 3 things.
Now it may be that the voters of the other 49 states would also prove themselves to be idiots if given the chance. But most of the other states have some constraints on the initiative process to make it somewhat idiot proof--constraints that don't exist in California.
Congress is full of lifetime members who are running this country into the ground. It is clear that even 50 years in the Senate is not enough to get people to do the right thing. Seniority merely makes one able to pull the levers of government more effectively to benefit oneself and one's constituents, to the detriment of everyone else (e.g. Jack Murtha).
I don't buy your term-limits argument. To take it to its logical conclusion, should we extend legislative terms to 10 years each to give everyone experience? It is the lack of accountability that comes from the excessive number of safe districts in the US and in CA that leads to problems, in my view.
<< Home