Can California be Saved?

There are those who would place all the blame on Hiram Johnson. It was Johnson, as Governor, and the Progressives who brought the great reforms of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (along with direct election of US Senators) to California nearly 100 years ago to break the monopoly on power held by the State Legislature and the corporate interests who owned the individual members of that body.*

The legacy of a century of Initiatives and Referendums is a state Constitution with over 500 amendments (often conflicting with or negating each other) that is the world's third longest (eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution), a practice of budgeting through the ballot box that has left the Governor and Legislature very little authority in dealing with fiscal emergencies, and a state that is considered by many on both the right and the left as being virtually un-governable.

Far from being a tool for the people to self-govern when leaders fail, it has become accepted that to pass any statewide ballot measure requires the backing of the same large monied interests that the Progressives sought to silence. And yet, we still cling to the progressive reforms. While nearly all see the need for reform in how our state is governed, virtually nobody is suggesting an overhaul of the Initiative and Referendum process.

In fact, a year from now, in November 2010, we are likely to have at least half-a-dozen reform efforts using the Initiative process to cure us of the problems caused by abuse of the Initiative process. Can Alanis Morissette write a verse about that irony?

Yesterday I went to a lunch meeting of the American Leadership Forum, Silicon Valley, to hear about the history of some of these reform movements, previous efforts to save our state, and to discuss whether too many reform efforts on the same ballot will doom them all. The guest speaker was Don Benninghoven, a former Executive Director of the League of California Cities, and the vice-chair of the Constitutional Revision Commission (1996-98) appointed by Governor Pete Wilson.

That Commission actually did recommend some changes to the Initiative process, including adding a requirement that the Legislature review all submitted initiatives and have the opportunity to amend them before being submitted to the voters. This was suggested as a way of cutting down on the law suits that inevitably follow most initiatives by having them conform to certain standards of Constitutional review. They also recommended that rather than be set in stone and require another costly initiative to amend once an initiative is passed, that there be a set time frame (five years?) after which the Legislature could amend initiatives without putting it before the people. By the time their report was finalized, however, a new Republican majority had taken over the Legislature and they shelved the entire project.

But on to November of 2010... Several organizations have submitted Initiative language to the State, and will likely soon receive approval to start collecting signatures for ballot access. They include...

The League of California Cities will have their "Save our Cities... Again" Initiative. Basically, their aim is to protect local jurisdictions (the only level of government that most citizens still trust) from having their funds grabbed by the State each time the State is in trouble. The League has been successful with this type of Initiative before.

California Forward has their 2010 Reform Plan as well. This will likely be on the ballot in two (or three?) different measures, including such reforms as changing the vote needed to pass a state budget from 2/3 majority to simple majority, holding legislators personally responsible for failing to pass a budget on time, and protection of local government, similar to the League of California Cities effort.

And then there's the biggie: Repair California's call for a new State Constitutional Convention (Repair California was initiated by the Bay Area Council, but has grown to be a statewide coalition). Rather than work piecemeal around this problem or that problem and just add to the clutter of our unworkable governing document, they want to start fresh. Of course, that fresh start requires two Initiatives to set in motion: One to amend the current state Constitution to allow for citizens to call for a convention, and the second one to actually make that call.

Of course, this is the Initiative (or two) that has me the most fascinated and interested. It could be the greatest thing to happen to this state politically since 1911, or it could be total chaos. Or both. Either way, it could be a lot of fun and something I want to take a part in, either as an official delegate or just as an observer.

And, of course, even if all goes well, and they come up with the greatest state constitution of all time, it will still need to be approved by the people. After all that work, if it contains too many changes to current law, or anything even remotely controversial, it could fail miserably, leaving us right where we are now. It is for this reason that many of the participants in yesterday's meeting did not want to support Repair California's plan. But for me, even with all the potential pitfalls, I'm drawn to it and feel we have to give a try.

Soon the signature gathering will begin, and assuming all of the above qualify for the ballot, it will be up to the good people of this state (and many of the bad ones) to decide which way to go. Personally, I see no conflict between them. We can amend the budget process (CA Forward) and protect local government (League of CA Cities) today, and work on a new Constitution for tomorrow.

* While Johnson was a forward thinking and progressive leader on domestic issues for the first half of the 20th century, first as Governor then as US Senator, he was also an isolationist and xenophobe who supported the California Alien Land Act, prohibiting Asians from purchasing property, and was the only US Senator to vote against both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Starbucks VIA Ready Brew - Thanks, but no thanks

Dear Starbucks,

Thank you very much for the free cup of coffee this morning, and the opportunity to taste test your new VIA Ready Brew instant coffee. While I didn't care for the VIA (more on that in a minute), your staff was helpful and nice, and I enjoyed the cup of real coffee.

First, a bit of background on what type of coffee drinker I am. I'm not a daily, gotta-have-it kind of guy. It takes an effort sometimes, but I try to keep it down to no more than a couple of times a week. I'd prefer to have an occasional cup of really good coffee than to be constantly swilling bad coffee. When I drink it, I like it dark and strong - same as I like my whiskey or my beer.

I have no patience for Miller Lite, and will pass on beer if that's all that's offered (Guinness, please!). Same with coffee; if Denny's Swill is all that's available, I'll have a Diet Coke, thank you. And, frankly, when it comes to the chains, I usually prefer Peet's over Starbucks, and when there's a locally owned and fresh roasted coffee shop around, I'll take that over any chain.

So, back to the VIA taste test... Your barista prepared the two cups for me, one of the VIA Ready Brew and one of your Pikes Peek and set them out for me. On sight alone, I could not tell which was which, and I was hopeful. Then I sniffed them.

One smelled like fresh coffee should, and warmed me right up. The other was, well, kind of rancid smelling. On second sniff I identified it as cleaning chemicals following a sewage spill. That was enough to identify it as the instant coffee, but in the interest of science I went forward with the taste test.

The taste of the one I'd identified as the instant was not as bad as the smell, but certainly not as satisfying as the taste of the real coffee. The instant was thin and weak, and lacking in any body. The Pikes Peak was quite satisfying.

The barista confirmed my suspicion of which was the Pikes Peak and which was the VIA Ready Brew.

I suppose if somebody is already drinking instant coffee, or doesn't care about flavor and only wants a hot drink with a caffeine jolt, it might be a good product if drunk from a lidded cup (to hide the odor). But it isn't for serious coffee drinkers, and should probably be kept out of serious coffee stores.

So, sorry about the failed product launch, but thanks again for the free cup of coffee.

Best,

- Ken

Another Annoying iPhone User is Born

I have joined the ranks of annoying iPhone users. You know, those people who can't stop playing with their phones because they're so cool and do so many things, and they're really happy about it, and the rest of world wishes they'd just shut the heck up already. I know. I know because last week I was one of you.

Here's how it went: For many years I was a Sprint customer for my cell phones. I was never thrilled with Sprint, but the service usually seemed decent enough. I was also pretty sure I only wanted a phone to be a phone, and not to be a camera and an organizer and a game unit.

But, as time went on, I became more and more annoyed by Sprint's problems. Large areas where they claim to have service where there's no signal at all, and calls that I never receive until I get the notification that somebody left me a voice mail (sometimes hours later). I also got used to the idea that having several uses to a single gadget could be a benefit. But I still wasn't convinced that I wanted to go with AT&T, the only "legal" carrier for the iPhone.

So I decided to seriously study which cell services were the best. I asked everybody I work with. I posted the question on Twitter and Facebook. I also checked articles on CNet and elsewhere for reviews of the services from the "professionals." I only found one other person who still used (and liked) Sprint. The AT&T and Verizon supporters were pretty much split, with Verizon coming out slightly ahead in the reviews.

AT&T (and I believe the others as well) will allow you to cancel an account within 30 days without penalty and return a phone for a refund, less a 10% restocking fee. I figured that fee would be worth it to take the iPhone for test drive and see if AT&T service would suffice. If it failed, I could always go to Verizon. So I picked up an iPhone a little over a week ago.

I tested the phone from the Santa Cruz pier, to my home in the mountains, to Los Gatos and Sunnyvale, and up to the Stanford Mall in Palo Alto. The only place I had no signal was in the dead center of the Ikea store (but it worked closer to the entrance). I can't say that AT&T is vastly superior to Sprint, but it's certainly no worse.

Beyond finding the service acceptable, I've been loving the device itself. I love that the calendar and address book on my Mac automatically syncs with the calendar and address book on the iPhone using the MobileMe service. I love having my email with me, wherever I am. I love the camera - far better than any other in-phone camera I've seen. And I love the apps (checking movie times while out and about, posting to Twitter whenever I like, and, yes, the games).

And so, this last Friday, I returned to the AT&T store and had them re-assign my Sprint number to the iPhone, picked up a new phone for the wife, and canceled our Sprint account. Like there was any possible way I was going to return the iPhone once I had it in my hands.

Term Limits? No, thank you.

Back in May, I wrote here of my fantasy of repealing California's Term Limits. Term limits, I wrote:

... only help [the politicians] escape the blame. If any of them had a long-term interest in keeping their seats, they'd work out a budget compromise, as they did in the days before term limits. Now, they are on to the next position before the full estimate of the damage they've done currently is in. Musical chairs may be fun to watch and keep score, but it has left the lobbyists and political consultants in charge of neophyte electeds. It has failed the people and bankrupted our state.

Yesterday, one of my YouTube buddies, Frank (aka Ockteby), made a vlog reviewing the problems of entrenched politicians; representatives who no longer represent. I agree completely on the problem, but not on the solution. Here's my response to Frank:

The Myth of Health Care Rationing

Of all the idiocy being spewed against any attempted reform of our health care system in an attempt to cover all Americans is the myth that any government provision of health insurance (not care, mind you, but just the payment for it) will lead to rationing.

Contrary to what some idiots on the right will tell you, all properly functioning free markets lead to rationing... by design!

If this were not true - if we could all easily afford anything we wanted without work, saving, or sacrifice - we'd all be driving Porche's to our weekend homes in Aspen before hopping on our private jets for dinner in Paris.

It's called supply and demand and for most products and services it functions well and gives us an incentive to work harder. Freely functioning, self-rationing markets, lead to innovation, competition, and economic growth. God bless America.

Then there are those few things we deem necessities and so we allow government tinkering to make sure rationing doesn't occur. Public education (that helps us all by providing a [minimally] literate workforce), housing subsidies (not just HUD, but development incentives, mortgage interest deductions, etc.), and food subsidies (from Food Stamps to agriculture supports, etc.) are a few items that spring to mind.

At this stage in US development, however, we've done more to ensure that everybody can afford a pint of milk and a loaf of bread than a visit to the doctor. I'm pleased that we consider hunger unacceptable (at least, for those with dependent children), but I'm horrified that we still consider a basic level of good health to be a perk of success.

Leaving the provision of health care coverage entirely to the private sector and market forces has - as it is designed to do - left us with a situation where health care is currently being rationed, with tens of millions of Americans - many with good jobs and families - left out, unable to pay for their own or their loved ones' medical needs.

Now, I'm not 100% thrilled with the current Obama plan or the way it's been handled politically, but I still say that overall, it's about damn time we step in to stop the rationing of health care that our free market has left us with.

(Oh, and thanks to Phil aka "Fantastic Babblings" for inspiring this post)

Behind the Orange Curtain

This morning I left the liberal comfort of the Bay Area to take the 90 minute flight into John Wayne Airport in Orange County, then grabbed a taxi to just outside of the Disneyland Resort, where I'll be spending the next five days participating in Indie Fest USA, where my short film Gravehunting With Steve: A Journey Beneath Los Angeles will have its theatrical premiere Wednesday night.

Today was about getting here, getting settled at the hotel, and checking in with the Festival folks to pick up my "VIP Filmmaker" passes. The Festival is taking place at the AMC Theaters in Downtown Disney® - a place that did not exist the last time I went to Disneyland, well over 20 years ago.

Downtown Disney® is an outdoor mall/restaurant district placed between Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure on one end and the hotels of the Disneyland Resort on the other, featuring such restaurants and shops as House of Blues, Rain Forest Cafe, Sephora, and at least three different Disney stores that I could count.

If bad haircuts, inappropriate shorts, and fanny packs are in this year, then this is definitely where all the cool people are hanging out. I was also warned ahead of time that the rules of conduct on all Disney property is quite strict, so I checked ahead on the FAQ of What items are not permitted within the Downtown Disney® District.

On that FAQ I was surprised to see "Cremated remains (e.g., urn, vase, box)" included on the forbidden list. Luckily, my friend Bill enlightened me at to why it was necessary. According to the Mice Age website, there's quite a problem with people wanting to spread their loved one's cremains around the Happiest Place on Earth (scroll down to "A Pirate's (After) Life For Me"). The Haunted Mansion is the top choice, followed by the Pirates of the Caribbean, but some tone-deaf Disneyphiles actually choose to spend the rest of eternity listening to It's a Small World.

Of course, not only do they not spend eternity at Disneyland, but they rarely spend more than a few hours on their favorite ride as Disney "cast members," armed with special vacuums with HEPA filters, quickly dispatch them to their true final resting place - somewhere decidedly less campy, and certainly without the animatrons and constant music.

Anyway, Indie Fest starts in earnest tomorrow, and I'll spend the next several days watching movies non-stop - a favorite activity I haven't indulged in like this for several decades.

If you're in Southern California, and are willing to brave Downtown Disney®, please consider joining me Wednesday night for Gravehunting With Steve. Click here for ticket information....

Happy [Fiscal] New Year?

July 1 is the start of the fiscal year for many businesses, as well as the state of California and our neighbor, Arizona. Besides a border and fiscal year, CA and AZ share another thing in common: they will each begin issuing IOUs to their employees, vendors, contractors, and others due to the inability of our elected representatives to agree on a state budget. In fact, 19 states are on the verge of such financial calamity.

Some cheer this as a bit of political anarchy and showmanship. I, however, am not alone in finding this grandstanding mockery of the democratic process to be an irresponsible dereliction of duty.

My friend in Arizona, JR Snyder, Jr., has blogged about his thoughts on the state government shutdown. Although from the opposite side of the political spectrum on many issues, JR and I are agreed on this fact. From JR's blog:

If you choose to take the position that the state needs a shutdown to get it's house in order, know the consequences no matter which side you're on. Social services may be distasteful but the answer is not abruptly halting them without some thoughtful unwinding. The chaos ensuing affects all citizens, because the ripple of destruction will run through the state economy on all levels.

Destruction is not the same as Disruption.

There are good reasons why even a partial shutdown is a very bad idea right now. A shutdown will destroy the state's credit rating. We are already insolvent and any money borrowed to operate will have to be paid back at higher interest rates due to bad credit. The entire state economy is in a precarious position and even a 24 hour shutdown will have a negative impact and far worse if protracted. The law suits against the state alone will hinder us for decades.

Many find these state shutdowns to acceptable because of the assumption that it will only hurt either "welfare queens" or faceless bureaucrats. And wouldn't it be fun to think of this as our way of getting revenge on that idiot at the DMV who kept me waiting in line for three hours?

But, as I commented on JR's blog, the IOUs will be going to more than just these usual political scapegoats. They'll be going to suppliers and contractors to all sorts of state run or funded institutions and offices. The companies that supply food to the prisons, or who have maintenance contracts with the universities, or provide linens to hospitals (etc., etc.).

Those suppliers, in turn, cannot pay their staff with IOUs; they need money. Many of them are small, local businesses that will be forced to lay off staff, and possibly shut their doors for good, if the budget impasse continues for more than a couple of weeks. This will slow down local spending and hurt the economy in communities up and down each of the 19 budgetless states, and far beyond the state capitals or the homes of bureaucrats from the other party.

Demand your representatives do their jobs and pass a budget! Whichever side of the political fence you're on, our legislators have a duty to run their states in a responsible manner. Political grandstanding that costs regular citizens their livelihood is wrong, from the left or the right.