FLASHREPORT

When  he took over the Fair Political Practices chairmanship from Ross Johnson, Dan Schnur promised he would focus the efforts of the Commission to root out corruption in the Capitol and enforce legislative ethics.  These are noble goals for any government agency, goals which would take the time and effort of the enforcement personnel in the agency, and would also make them work very hard at rooting out corruption, and discovering unethical behavior.  Government employees, however, tend to be lazy, and are not always interested in working hard, so they pick easy targets.

I expect this week to be hit with an accusation from the FPPC.  My crime - I forgot to terminate one of my five election committees, and didn't file campaign reports for that committee.  Of course, the committee didn't collect for the periods when I thought it was terminated (and hasn't collected any money from anyone other than me for four years), but the FPPC thought I was such a criminal that I should pay a $4000 fine for these "serious" violations of the law.  Oh yeah, and I gave a $2000 contribution to Guy Houston (which I disclosed) from the wrong bank account.  I had the money in other committees, but FPPC rules about when committees can spend money have gotten so complicated that if you give money that you have collected legally, and could give legally if it were in the right bank account, you have still broken the law, because you gave it from the wrong bank account.

I refused to pay their extortionate demand of $6000 for these so-called "serious" violations, so now they are asking for $15,000.00 in fines from me by way of an accusation against me. 

Let me explain how we got here.  I have been in politics almost 30 years.  I have ran for office a lot, and collected and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in those efforts.  I have been investigated by the FPPC 3 or 4 times, the last time starting about 2 years after I left office.  No investigation has led to any charges filed against me, but the last one lasted over a year, and was an investigation that would make a lot of proctologists (and several space aliens) proud.  It was comprehensive to say the least, requiring that I give them every piece of paper I had for the last four years I was in office.  After all of that, I received a letter saying I violated all of these laws, and demanding I pay the FPPC money.  I said no, because I knew I didn't violate the law.  They then filed a notice that they were going to pursue me, and gave me the actual accusation, which had these three paperwork violations, violations which would generate maybe $1000 in fines if the FPPC were being reasonable.

But they couldn't be reasonable.  They had spent a lot of money trying to find me guilty of something, and they couldn't.  So, now they had to find a way to recover their investigation costs, and justify their phoney baloney jobs.  So this is the way.  I showed up at the probable cause hearing to see if they were willing to be a little more reasonable.  When I got there, there were four FPPC employees there, whose salaries totaled over $300,000.00, and me.  The Chief Legal Counsel, who was the boss of the Chief of the Enforcement Unit, claimed to be an unbiased participant in the proceeding, then demanded to know just "why are you here?" of me.  I got up and walked out, feeling a little like Arlo Guthrie in Alice's Restaurant, as they sat there with "their 27 8 by 10 colored glossy pictures with the pictures and arrows and the paragraph on the back of each one explaining what it was about."

So much for rooting out corruption.  They deemed these three violations to be serious violations of the Fair Political Practices Act.  A committee that hasn't collected money from anyone in several years and a small contribution that would be legal if the law wasn't so complicated.  Meanwhile, the Mayor of Los Angeles gets hundreds of thousands of dollars in free stuff, and newspaper stories are filled with facts about legislators who receive money from lobbyist while they carry that lobbyists legislation.

Yes, forms should be filed, they disclose whether the law has been broken, and inform the public.  If, however, once the form has been filed, there really is no law violated, except the failure to file the right form, pursuing that violation is an exercise in futility.  No one benefits substantively from that action.

The problem of bureaucracy is that bureaucrats take the easy route, taking on technical violations of the law, instead of enforcing the law, because technical violations are easy to pursue.  Proving corruption is a noble goal, but one that is difficult to pursue.  It is easier to build the statistics of the bureaucracy on the backs of those missed a deadline or failed to file the right form, even if they didn't violate any law of substance.  I violated no law of substance, I did nothing that in the real world would be considered corrupt.  I have been out of office 4 years.  Only a bureaucrat interested in building their statistics instead of enforcing the law would think the public would be benefited by pursuing some minor paperwork violations.

Someday, these same bureaucrats will claim they just don't have enough people on staff to enforce the law, and will ask to grow their bureaucracy.  Will anyone ask them just why they spent time, money and effort to go after some small technical violation of the law?  Probably not, and their bureaucracy will be expanded.  That is why it should be called the Kommittee to Grow Bureaucracy.  That more befits their mission, rather than rooting out corruption and enforcing ethics.

Today, I am the victim of big government.  I will fight them, but if anyone wants to know why I am a conservative, this is it.  This happens to thousands of others every day, through the thousands of other bureaucrats in hundreds of other bureaucracies.  Mine just happened to be the FPPC.

There was a lot of talk about the effect of Proposition 14 in the last election, and its effect on the legislative and congressional elections.  The stated reason for enacting the "top two vote getters" idea for determining who gets to run in the general election was to "moderate" the caucuses, the idea being that if a moderate and an ideologue advance to the general election as the top two vote getters in the primary, the moderate is more likely to be elected, as members of the party whose candidates lost in the primary would be more likely to vote for the moderate of the other party.

While this idea is untested in practice anywhere in the country, interestingly enough, if Prop 14 was in effect in this election, it would not have accomplished its stated goal, at least on the Republican side of things.  Of the 153 Congressional and Legislative elections held in the recent primary, only 10 would have sent two of the same primary to the general election.  There would be 7 Democrat districts with two Democrats running in November, and 3 Republican districts with two Republicans.  The Republican districts would have been Assembly District 25, and Congressional Districts 19 and 42.

Assembly District 25 would only have two Republicans because there was no Democrat at all in the primary.  The two Republicans who would have ended up on the November ballot would have been Kristen Olsen and Bill Conrad.  Neither of these candidates are moderate in any sense of the word.  The same in Congressional District 19, where Jeff Denham would have faced Jim Patterson, or in District 42 where Gary Miller would have faced Phil Liberatore.  All of these candidates campaigned as solid conservatives.  Not a moderate among them.  I don't know the ideological bent of the Democrats, but many of the districts where the Democrats would have the top two general election candidates were in districts where no Republican at all ran.

When the open primary was in place, it had a little effect on the elections, but that was usually in places where conservatives didn't strategize ahead of the election to ensure the election of a conservative.  Don't rely on the courts to eliminate Prop 14 before the next election.  Start working now on strategies to undercut the effect of the initiative. 

The lessons?  If conservatives don't want Democrats playing around with two Republicans in the general election, they need to work a little harder, but it is not hard to thwart the RINO's intentions in enacting Prop 14.  Here are some rules

(1)  Do all you can to ensure there is 1 Democrat in the race.  If there is more than one Democrat in the race, it could split the vote and have advance two Republicans to general.  However if there are no Democrats, two Republicans will always go forward.  It is not hard to recruit a sympathetic Democrat.  I did it before under the open primary system, and helped advance Dennis Hollingsworth to the general against a well funded moderate Republican (in that race, we wanted two Democrats to keep Democrats from voting for the moderate in the primary.  I recruited the Democrat, then announced that he was my candidate, and I wanted to take over the Democrat Central Committee.  That made sure activist Democrats voted in their own primary, and not in the Republican primary.  They didn't want a Haynes spy in their midst.  The strategy worked).

(2)  Be careful about getting too many Conservatives in the race.  Do everything legally and ethically possible to keep the number of conservatives in the race to a minimum.  Hard to do in a free country yes, but there are legal ways to do it.  If you can't, find candidates who will run as moderates.  Be careful though, not to get too many Republicans in the race.  It is conceivable that if there 8, 9, or 10 Republicans, and only two Democrats, the Republicans could split the vote so severely that the top two vote getters in that Republican district would be Democrats.  Rare, yest, but not impossible.  The Democrats, by the way, have the same problem.

(3) In the next redistricting, if the Democrats want to make sure they have fewer "two Democrat" races, they are going to have to limit the number of 60, 70, or 80 per cent Democrat districts.  There would be fewer two R races in this election, because no Republican district exceeds 60 per cent Republican registration.  There are several districts on the Democrat side, in some cases exceeding 70 per cent.  The more of these types of districts there are the more likely it is to get a two D race.

By and large, the effect to "moderate" the caucuses that the promoters of Prop 14 touted as its "raison d'etre" would not have occurred in this election.  Will it in the future?  Well, if the states in which it is in effect are any indication, no.  But who knows?  California is its own political culture.  My moderate friends are usually brain dead when it comes to political strategy, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Maybe the moderates will be right this time.

California's Republican Party looks good.  Of course, it never really matters how it looks, just what it does, but it does look good.  Three women, one African American, one Hispanic, and a couple of white guys.  We couldn't have done better if we had set quotas.  In addition, at a time when Democrats appear to be in a full melt down nationally, a new and interesting Republican Party is necessary.

One of the biggest problems of the 1994 election was that Republicans didn't win that election, Democrats lost.  Republicans didn't have a mandate, and they took no action to convince voters that what they wanted for California was what was best for people.  In defense of the Republicans at that time, they spend a year fighting to get a governing majority, but still in many ways the Republicans started acting like a bunch of kids in a candy store.  They didn't think about building a long term majority in California, they just thought about indulging all of their pent up desires for legislation.  It was a heady time, for sure, but Republicans did not exercise much self control.

2010 could be another 1994.  Based on the primary election results, Republicans should pick up seats.  The statewide slate of candidates is a good one.  Lots of strong candidates.  The legislative primaries had some real interesting results, and the Democrats are in trouble.  How much trouble remains to be seen, but it looks good.

Whatever happens this time, Republicans need to act like winners.  We should never be excited that we win elections or pick up seats.  We should be excited that we are advancing a policy agenda that is good for Californians.  The end of politics is not obtaining power.  Obtaining power is only a means to an end, that end being making life better for as many people as possible in California.  The purpose of the political process is to persuade people to entrust you with power, and the way you earn that trust is by convincing people your ideas will make their life better.

That is the challenge of the next 5 months.  Convincing Californians that Republicans, if entrusted with power, will make their life better.  They already know that Democrats will make their life worse.  They are just not yet convinced that we will do any better if they give us that power.  It is up to us to earn that trust.

I received a number of emails yesterday about the case where Steve Cooley's District Attorney office refused to charge a criminal under three strikes (which would have put this criminal, whose prior felonies were for rape and residential burglary, away for life), and instead charged him in such a way that he would only serve 32 months in jail.  The criminal got, and four days later killed a young girl.

The criminal had sold $5.00 worth of marijuana to an undercover cop.  He had previous raped a woman, and broke into someone's home.  Had Cooley pursued three strikes vigorously, he would have been attacked by the left for giving a life sentence a relatively minor crime.  But had he pursued three strikes, a homeless girl would be alive today, instead of the victim of a brutal murder by a hardened criminal.

Remember the so-called pizza thief, the guy who got a life sentence for stealing pizza from a ten year old boy?  The left screamed about how unfair this was.  What they did not tell you was that this thug had been convicted of armed robbery, aggravated assault, mayhem, and a series of other really ugly crimes.  He stole the pizza from the boy by threatening to go to the boy's home and kill his mother if the boy didn't give him the pizza.  That criminal deserved the sentence he got.

How about the controversy over the fellow who was let out of prison years after he cut off the arms and legs of a young woman.  The only reason he didn't go to prison for life was that the girl didn't die.  No one wanted this guy in their neighborhood, so California shipped him off to Florida.  About a year later, he stole a $10 camera and a baseball cap.  In California, he would have been eligible for three strikes treatment, and could have gone to jail for the rest of his life.  Florida let him go after charging him with theft.  A week later he killed a woman.

This is the point of three strikes.  Someone who has committed two serious or violent felonies, and then goes out and commits a third felony has to go to prison until he or she dies.  That is it.  Prison isn't for rehabilitation.  Prison isn't for punishment.  Prison is to take bad people away from the rest of us, and keep them there long enough so that they won't do us any harm.  Someone who is habitually bad needs to be put away forever, so that we never have to worry about them again.

Those who think otherwise, like Steve Cooley, are fools.  Three Strikes is not about punishing bad guys, it is about removing them from society so that we are all safer.  Who cares if there is a little bad publicity?  The criminal knows what will happen to him or her if he or she commits a third felony.  They just don't care.  And that is what makes them dangerous.  They don't care if they might go to jail forever, and the more they get away with it, the worse they get, until someone dies.

One young homeless woman died so that Steve Cooley wouldn't get a bad headline in the LA Times.  That is not foolish, that is reprehensible.  I haven't taken a position in the Attorney General race, but I can say that a prosecutor, any prosecutor, who is afraid to put a bad guy in jail because it might hurt his reputation, doesn't deserve the job of being a prosecutor, either in LA County or Sacramento.  Three Strikes makes sense on a policy level, but more important, it makes us all safer.  And that is why we have these kind of laws.  Cooley is wrong on three strikes, and people have died because of his foolishness.

I don't watch Dr. Phil, but I have been told that one of his favorite sayings is that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.  If I have his saying wrong, I apologize in advance.  But I like the sentiment, because it is absolutely true.  One of the best ways of predicting what a politician will do in the future is what he or she has done in the past.  That is not an absolute test, but it is not a bad one.  Look at what someone has done, and that will tell you what they will do.

That is one of my problems with Meg Whitman.  I have no idea what she would do in office, because I have no indication of what she has done in the past.  The last politician I took at face value without a history was Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Now, I will admit, I didn't endorse Schwarzenegger because I thought he would be a great conservative.  However, at the time I endorsed him, He was in a dead heat with Cruz Bustamante.  Since conservatives had started the recall, I believed that a recall that ended with a Cruz Bustamante governorship would be a disaster for the movement.  I know that Tom McClintock never forgave me for what I did, but I didn't do it for him or for anyone else, I did it for the movement's future.

Schwarzenegger promised me (when he spoke at the Mission Inn in Riverside in August of 2003), however, that he wouldn't pass any more laws to ban guns (he did), that he would appoint judges that I would like on the pro-life side of things (he didn't), and that he would never raise taxes (he did).  I didn't think he would do those things, so I endorsed him.  In retrospect, I still think I did the right thing, the conservative movement succeeded in the recall, but I have had to explain to my conservative friends over and over again why I did the right thing.  Schwarzenegger didn't make it easy.

Poizner has not been a great conservative in the past.  To claim otherwise would be engaging in a chemically induced delusion.  He has however engaged conservatives.  He talks to them, he listens to them, he learns from his political mistakes (most of which have to do with his flirtations with his politically liberal friends).  Yes, he has done some stupid things in the past, and, quite frankly, he will do stupid things in the future (as we all do), but in the past, he has not run away from conservatives just because they push the envelope of political acceptability.  He accepts conservatives as an important part of the Republican coalition.

That is important to my conservative friends.  We win in politics by addition, by allying with people with whom we may not think are like us, but who will help us advance our agenda.  The hard part about building coalitions is how do you add coalition partners without sacrificing principle.  I don't care what they say in their commercials, I care about what they do.  Poizner has demonstrated his allegiance to conservatives when he really didn't have to.  I honor that.

Whitman may do that.  I just have no history on which to judge her.  As I said before, she wants to run as a conservative, I just hope she governs as one.  I don't expect 100 per cent, but I do expect a lot better than Schwarzenegger.  If either candidate actually governs as a conservative, they will build a record on which they can be proud.  That will be better for them, and better for California

In today's column in the LA Times, George Skelton points to Governor Schwarzenegger's decision to cut the car tax in his first day in office in 2003 "forced [Governor Schwarzenegger] into the budget box he found himself in Friday."  Skelton also cited borrowing $15 billion to pay off the accumulated Gray Davis debt as another reason.  He later cites other things, which I will address later, but I wanted to address these two first.

Let's look at the numbers again, just to reiterate the impact of the car tax cut on state revenues.  The day the car tax was first cut in 1998, total state revenues were $57 billion (Schwarzeneggger's cut restored the rate to its 1998 level).  Today, those revenues are $84 billion, a $27 billion increase in revenues.  The total amount of the car tax cut, even assuming the cut had no positive impact on state revenues (by increasing private sector growth, and therefore increasing revenue) was $5 billion.  It is simply illogical to conclude this $5 billion reduction in taxes, and not the huge increases in welfare, education, state government and government health care spending, from $57 billion to over $102 billion, caused the state budget crises.

In Schwarzenegger's first full year's budget, the 04-05 budget, revenues jumped from $76.7 billion (in 03-04) to $82.2 billion in 04-05, then to $93.4 billion in 05-06, $95.4 billion in 06-07, and $101.2 billion in 06-07.  When the car tax was cut in 1998, revenues increased from $57 billion to $79 billion in 2000-01.  In all, as long as the car tax was cut, revenues increased over $44 billion.  When the car tax was increased in the current budget, revenues drop precipitously, from the $102 billion in 08-09 to an estimated $84 billion this year and $88 billion next year.  What "choices" caused the Governor's current dilemma?  I would argue the car tax increase in this year's budget, not the car tax cut in 1998, and the restoration of the cut in 2003, caused the current crisis, and the numbers bear me out.

As for the borrowing in 2004, I would tend to agree with Skelton, but not for the reason he would think.  In the 03-04 budget year, to avoid $11 billion in spending reductions, the state borrowed money on a short term (one year) basis to get through that difficult time.  Schwarzenegger simply renegotiated that loan to a long term loan, so rather than pay off that $11 billion in the 03-04 budget year, the loan could be paid off over the next 20 or 30 years.  I voted in favor of that renegotiation, but in retrospect, I should not have.  If the state had used the revenue increases of the next 3 years to pay off the Gray Davis debt, it would not have increased spending on the various state programs as it did.  That was the choice Pete Wilson made in 1995, pay off the debt out of current revenues, a decision that limited spending on programs over the next three years.  Schwarzenegger chose differently.  In Schwarzenegger's defense, no one could have predicted in 2004 that revenues would increase by over $23 billion in the next five years, and more than pay off that $11 billion debt, but had Schwarzenegger made that choice, Skelton, along with his Democrat friends in the Legislature would have screamed bloody murder at the thought of using current revenue to pay off past debt.

Skelton has, over the years, been one of the chief cheerleaders of the Democrats spend and tax policies.  He has never met a tax he didn't like or a spending program that didn't deserve to be fully funded.  It has been this mindset that has led to the current budget collapse, not the Republicans' anti-tax attitude or the car tax cut, or, quite frankly, even the Governor's failed 2005 initiative drive.  The Governor's major problem has been his timid approach to dealing with the Democrats, who would drive this state into bankruptcy to serve their government employee union masters.  Schwarzenegger figured out, too late it is now evident, that the Democrats care little about the fiscal soundness of the state.  He got suckered into feeding the government beast, by aides and others who counseled him to "be reasonable."  His reasonableness cost him his good name.

That is truly unfortunate.  Schwarzenegger started out right, and then got lost in the political rhetoric, which he allowed to cloud his own good judgment.  That is what cost him his legacy.

This is May Revise week.  For those of you who don't spend your time being a budget wonk, the May revise is the part of the budget process where the bureaucrats finally put together the numbers from the revenues from last year's tax returns (remember when you filed those returns last month, and sent money to that major taxasaurus, yeah, that thing that devours your money and gives back what you would usually expect from an animal that eats constantly).  This week is when the bureaucrats and budget staff have to face the realities of the budget, and then try to lie to the legislators to get them to pass a budget out of balance.  Of course, when a budget is out of balance, it is never because the government is taking in more money than it is spending.  It is always because the tax consumers consume more than than the taxpayers pay.

This is also an election year, and there are a lot of Republicans running for office all over this state that voted for budgets in the past, created this current budget mess, and are now trying to hide their responsibility for the current budget crisis.  This crisis was not created in the 2010-11 budget (this year's budget), or the 2009-10 budget, or even the 2008-09 budget.  Those budgets were when the current budget crisis became obvious.  The crisis was created in the years of denial.  Go on line to the Governor's budget, take a look at Schedule 6 of the Governor's budget, it shows the spending patterns over the past 60 years.  The key years for the current budget are the 06-07 and the 07-08 budgets.

I have already addressed 06-07.  As critical to the current crisis, however, is the 07-08 budget.  A legislator, or former legislator that voted for 07-08 budget, and who is now running for office, who claims to be a fiscal conservative, is deceiving Republican voters.  It takes an act of courage to stand up against the big spenders in Sacramento when times are good.  It is easy to vote for a budget when money is plenty, and budget dogs are howling at the legislator's door, begging for their money.  But those are the years that create budget crises in bad years.  When there is plenty of money, Governors cave and try to end the budget negotiations by giving the spending lobbies everything they want.  Republican Legislators with courage are needed to stop that "pragmatism" so that the next time the economy slows down, the budget doesn't collapse.

Our budget system is not broken.  It is filled with spineless Republicans who collapse in the negotiations when times are good, and whine when times are bad.  Follow the elections.  Find the legislators who stood up to the government unions and big Sacramento spenders in the 07-08 budget.  Those are the Republicans of courage, Republicans you can trust in the next budget cycle, and the one after that.  Those who know that limiting government spending has to be done in the easy times, so that the pressure to raise taxes in the hard times will be nonexistent.

Who do I vote for?  Those who have courage when it is unpopular.  It is easy to stand up to the spending lobby when money is short, that is when everyone is looking.  Courage is doing the right thing when everyone is criticizing you for "being intransigent," or being hard headed, or being just too "unreasonable."  Pick the unreasonable Republican, that will be the Republican you can trust, all the time.

I misspent my adolescence in the 1970's.  In the first part of that time, I went to public schools that were the best in the nation.  Ronald Reagan was Governor.  80% of the people could afford a median price home (about $25,000.00 at the time).  Freeways took about 5 years to build.  Gasoline was about 20 cents per gallon.  California had just finished to California Water Project.  It cost $300 a year to attend a UC school, and the total state budget was around $7 billion a year.  There were no government employee unions, and CalPERS was the example to the nation of the right way to run a pension system

Interesting time.  Recently my youngest daughter has hooked me on the television series "That '70's Show" which is rampant with sex, drugs, and rock and roll (which unfortunately the zeitgeist of the '70's), but really funny.  I had friends who were like the characters in that show.  I think that is what makes it so funny.  The show is set in Wisconsin, which is unfortunate, because it is so applicable to the State Capitol of California in the 1970's.

The Chamber just stopped its commercials on Jerry Brown, which I think is a good thing.  They were boring, typical political commercials.  Jerry Brown's a bad guy, he spent lots of money, yada, yada, yada.  Get some imagination.

Jerry Brown was that '70's Governor.  A loveable Kelso, caught up in the philosophy of the era, but not really smart.  By the time he left the Governor's office, housing was so expensive that only 18% of the people could afford a median price house.  Taxes rose so fast that Proposition 13 was born.  Government spending exploded, and government unions were born.  We stopped building freeways, dams and oil refineries, and traffic jams, water shortages, and gasoline shortages followed.  Just about every problem in state government today can be traced back to some policy implemented by Jerry Brown when he was Governor.

But why say it serious?  He is that '70's Governor.  We could show Jerry Brown in the circle, coming up with the crazy idea that he implemented as Governor (the circle on the show, by the way, is where the characters in the show smoke marijuana, come up with crazy ideas, and then realize when they sober up that they can't remember the ideas, or they are really stupid).  Most of the things Jerry Brown did had to be the product of some chemical alteration of his brain.  No sober person would do to California what Jerry Brown did.

And we should have fun pointing it out.  That '70's Governor, sitting around in the circle with Willie Brown, Gray Davis, and Rose Bird, smoking marijuana and saying "Hey, I know, let's protect endangered species by stopping people from building houses" then sobering up and saying "What, we were protecting rats, weeds, and flies, I didn't want that to happen." (The California Endangered Species Act as been used to protect the Stephens Kangaroo Rat, the Delhi flower loving Sand Fly, and several weeds in Riverside County).  People will get it, and we have lots of examples.  More important, it will make this election a little bit more fun, and remind Californians why we called him Governor Moonbeam

Budget time is coming again, and we are hearing more ominous reports about how bad the problem is.  Some of my conservative friends in the Legislature are worrying again that a tax increase is in the cards for this budget, and they believe Schwarzenegger is going to propose one again in the May revise.  To do so would be a disaster politically in a year that could be very good for Republicans, but more important, the economic damage that will occur from a tax increase in the midst of one of the worst recessions in recent memory is significant.  If Schwarzenegger did propose such an increase, or if enough Legislative Republicans went along with the proposal, the misery index in California would rise dramatically.  The harm to working Californians from such a proposal could be irreparable.  I hope the Republicans in the Governor's office, and in the Legislature are smart enough to see that, and to resist the temptation of a tax increase proposal.  Yes, $20 billion in additional spending reductions would be difficult, to be sure.  The alternative, however, would be devastating economically and politically.

But since this is a political year, with a new Governor on the way, it would be good to review how we got here as a government.  The year was 2005.  In his first budget, the 04-05 budget, Schwarzenegger performed brilliantly, holding spending down to a mere $100 million increase, from $78 billion general fund to $78.1 billion.  The recession of the early part of this decade was over, and revenue was growing.  It was the perfect to exercise fiscal restraint, to hold some of this money in reserve.  Democrats didn't want to do it, and Schwarzenegger caved.  He ultimately agreed to the largest dollar increase in spending in California history, from $78.1 billion to $92.3 billion general fund, a $13.2 billion increase.  It was that increase that led to the tax increase last year.  It was that budget that caused the current collapse.  Anyone in the Legislature today, who voted for that budget, is directly responsible for today's budget debacle.  Some will claim that they are a fiscal conservative because they voted against that last tax increase, but their arguments should fall on deaf ears.  The spending increase in the 05-06 budget led directly to the tax increase request in the 08-09 budget.  The vote for more spending led to the tax increase, pure and simple

And that is what the candidates for Governor and the Legislature need to understand.  Budget crises are not created when revenues drop.  Decreases in revenue will occur.  We know that.  It has happened three times in the last 20 years.  Each time there has been a large drop in revenue, however, it has been followed by a very large increase in revenue.  It is in the era of these large revenue increases that the seeds of the next budget collapse are sown.

Look at the Governor's Budget Summary, Schedule 6.  It shows that between 1986 and 1991, revenues nearly doubled in California, and spending increased accordingly.  When revenue dropped in 1991, Governor Wilson agreed to a tax increase, but that increase was made necessary by the increase in spending in the preceding five year period.  The same in the time between 1998 and 2001, a $22 billion increase in spending caused a near collapse in California's budget in the 01-02 and 02-03 budgets.  Only Republican unity against a Democrat governor caused the defeat of the tax increase demanded by that Governor (and that Governor's ultimate recall).  It wasn't the economic collapse of the early part of this decade that caused the budget problem, however, it was the spending spree of the latter part of the 90's that resulted in the collapse.

There are candidates today who voted to increase the spending in the 2005-06 budget, and they will claim to be fiscal conservatives in their election.  They are not.  If they voted to spend that money then, they caused the budget collapse.  Their opponents should look at their records, and point it out in the upcoming election.  Want to defeat Democrats running for statewide office?  Look at that vote, and call that Democrat to account for that vote.  Any Republican in a primary who voted for that budget should also be called to account for that vote.  Calling all of them to account for the worst yes vote of this decade will help ensure that the state will never be put in this kind of a situation again.

It is the primary season in a year of Republican ascendancy.  Conservatives have figured out that their fratricide of the last several years handed power over to the Democrats, and they have united (to a certain extent).  That means that candidates have "seen the light," they have experienced their election year conversions, and all Republicans candidates are conservatives.  They run commercials this time of year touting how conservative they are, how their opponents are not, and how they are going to implement [insert conservative agenda item here] when they get elected.

This year they will be elected.  Whether they are running for Governor, Senator, Member of Congress, Legislator or other, they will be elected.  As in 1994, they will suddenly have power.

However, for the last 16 years, many of these candidates have been sitting in their offices, their country clubs, their neighborhoods or in their homes, listening to the media, their friends, their office mates, or their business associates deride conservatives in office.  They have been told how unreasonable conservatives are, how unrealistic they are, how important it is to work with liberals, how being a centrist is the secret to good governance.  For the last year, they have been listening to their political consultants tell them they have to talk like conservatives now if they want to win, but they will have to "move to the center" when they get elected to govern.  They are talking like conservatives now, because they know that is what they have to do to get elected, but once elected, they believe that they will have to govern as centrists, because that is what all the "smart people" in politics have been telling them for so long.

And they will govern as centrists once they get elected, and all the people who voted for them will get angry at these would be conservatives for lying to them, and the fratricide will begin again, handing power over to the Democrats one more time.

Unless these candidates actually govern as conservatives.  Democrats campaign as centrists, but govern as liberals, that is why they lose power, but at least they get some of their agenda enacted.  Republican campaign as conservatives, but govern as centrists, and that is why they lose power.  However, when Republicans have power, they don't enact their agenda, and they don't repeal the Democrat advances, because they spend their time trying to look reasonable.

Let's try something new after this next election. It's high risk to be sure, but it has never been tried.  Let's run as conservatives, and then, once we get power, let's actually govern as conservatives.  Let's surprise the voters, and actually do what we promised to do.  Who knows, we might actually keep power this time.  More important, we might actually get something done

I always chuckle at my Democrat friends who attempt to influence Republican primaries.  The last time they tried to do it was to try and defeat Richard Riordan in the 2002 Republican primary.  The Democrats ran commercials that essentially accused Richard Riordan of being pro-life and pro-gun, in other words, the Democrats accused Riordan of being a Republican.  Interestingly enough, when the commercials ran, Riordan's poll numbers started to go up among Republicans.  Riordan then essentially went public and denied the commercials, that is, he told Republicans that he really wasn't the Republican that Democrats were accusing him of being.  Riordan lost the Republican primary because he denied to the Republican voters that he was a Republican.  With the latest rounds of commercials that the Dems are running against Whitman, the biggest mistake Whitman can make is to respond to them.  She should celebrate them.

I am a Poizner supporter.  I joined Poizner because I saw Poizner at work.  He actually talks to conservatives, and spent time with them.  At the 2006 CRA convention, Poizner stayed the whole weekend and talked to the delegates there.  They are a tough crowd, and they can try the patience of even the most conservative candidates.  Poizner talked to them, convinced them he was real, and won their support.  I was impressed, and still am.  It was that one event that told me Poizner had the ability to win the Governors race.  I may not always agree with him, but watching him at work with activists tells me he is a good candidate, that is important.

Which is why Whitman's current campaign strategy could backfire.  Politics in California is unique, to be sure.  A candidate cannot win unless that candidate gets on television, and that takes a lot of money.  However, a candidate that only stays on the media, and never gets out to talk to people, press, and activists takes a big risk.  That sort of "plastic" candidate never learns the skills necessary to win and maintain an election majority.  Dealing with activists, with obnoxious reporters, and with every day working people develops a trust that will serve that candidate well when the election, and governing, comes around.  A plastic candidate may win the election, but nothing else.  They will have no support, no trust, no "capital" with which to govern.

Yes, meeting with activists, the people and the press is high risk.  You may say something stupid, or alienate someone, but so what?  One of the reasons that having someone with political experience running for Governor is a good idea is that it is better to say the stupid things in low risk situations.  That is, when an Assemblyman, Senator, or down ticket statewide officer holder says something that can be harmful politically, it is not big news.  Those officeholders learn how to communicate with the press and the people in a way that sends the message without sounding foolish or inflammatory.  Developing those skills helps when running for Governor, and everyone in the press and in politics is listening to every little thing you say.

Whitman is hiding because she doesn't have those skills, and thinks that being public and approachable (while asking for a public and approachable job) can only hurt her chances of winning.  The problem is that she is increasing her chances of losing, even the primary, because people don't like plastic candidates (just ask Al Checci, or even my opponent in my first election, who spent 300% more than me, but never left his apartment), and should she win, she is increasing her chances of doing something that will cost her the general election, at a time when everyone is watching, because she didn't hone her skills in the primary.  I will admit I am not her consultant and I support her opponent, but I would actually like to win in November, whoever the candidate is.  Hiding from the press and from the people is a bad strategy, no matter what the situation.  A good candidate likes that exposure, and learns the skill to minimize the negative that can come from those appearances.  Whitman needs to come out from wherever she is, and meet people.  If she doesn't, she will become a liability in the fall, when the press will do everything they can to point out her flaws.  It doesn't matter where she is in the polls now, she needs to be a political candidate.  Political candidates don't hide.  It is just that simple.

I just got an email from the Republican Party about the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee trying to divide Republicans from activists.  The strategy is a real concern.  The Republican challenge?  How to respond to the concerns of activists without alienating them.  Let's be honest, many of the activists that are becoming engaged at this time have been alienated by both Republicans and Democrats.  They are closer to the Republicans in their "Leave Me Alone" approach to government, but they don't believe Republicans take them seriously.  It is very easy to turn them off, and Republicans, in their attempt to curry the favor with the media and intelligentsia, are quick to diss the activists who would, on the natural, support them.

There is a way to deal with their issues without alienating them, and it is important that Republicans learn these ways.  The activists are not hicks, they are not rubes, they are not unintelligent, no matter how much Democrats and the media wish to cast them in that light.  They are natural allies of Republicans, if Republicans treat them with respect and dignity.  Consultants will tell candidates to ignore or deny their concerns, to curry favor with the media and intelligentsia.  That will only rile the activists, turn them off, and leave them out of a political process in which they are absolutely critical to a Republican victory.  Addressing their concerns incorrectly can bring down media hell on any candidate.  These are my suggestions on the questions brought up by the DSCC:

1. Do you believe Obama is a US citizen?  There are a lot of activists who question his citizenship.  The response of the Obama people has been to assert his citizenship, and hide his birth certificate.  Why?  This is my suggested response when asked the question.  "Obama should just make his birth certificate public, and put this whole debate to rest.  Here is my birth certificate.  Where is his?"  Just stick to that.  The candidate is not agreeing with the birthers, nor is the candidate denying their point, which is a good one, why isn't he making his birth certificate public.

2.  Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care standards?  The question of the limits of federal power is an important one.  Congress and the Supreme Court have routinely ignored the constitutional balance struck by our founding fathers between the federal government and the states.  How to respond to this question?  "The 10th Amendment says very specifically that powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.  That is an important principle that needs to be preserved.  I will follow that principle in making my decisions based on the limits stated in the Constitution."  Who can argue with someone following the Constitution?  That is what the activists want to hear, and it is hard to argue with.  What would a Democrat say to that?  We shouldn't follow the Constitution?  We should ignore it?  We do think the First Amendment is important.  The 10th is just as important.

3.  Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and shouldn't have been created in the first place?  Here is the response "The problem of Social Security and Medicare is that they place our senior citizens at the mercy of politicians.  Look at Obamacare.  Politicians were going to hurt seniors to enact a single payer system.  Why is that right?  Why should our seniors be at the mercy of Washington politicians?  Our Social Security and Medicare systems should be set up to maximize freedom, and minimize the dependence of seniors on politicians.  Whether that is through tax credits, or defined benefit programs that protect seniors, or other methods of protecting seniors from the whims of politicians, we need to have a serious discussion before the politicians in Washington really hurt our seniors."  The problem of government run systems, whether you call them socialist or not, is that they leave the recipients of benefits at the mercy of politicians.  Stick to the language of government run, like the post office, or the DMV, emphasize individual freedom, and people will get it.

4. Do you think Obama is a socialist?  Ok, yes, so he is, but you will be ridiculed if you say that.  So stick to the language of a government run system.  Yes, a government run system is socialism by definition.  But if you use the "government run" language, people get it.  Once again, emphasize individualism, freedom, the "leave me alone" standard, and minimum government intervention, and you win the debate.  "Obama thinks government will solve all your problems, and I just don't think that is right."

5.  Do you think America should return to a gold standard?  These are the words "I agree with those economists who believe that our money should be stable and strong.  When the federal government tries to finance its big programs with borrowing, it simply increases inflation and hurts the middle class.  We need a monetary policy that protects the middle class."  Indeed the gold standard protects the middle class, but most of the media doesn't get it.  It doesn't help to get into a debate with a reporter, questioner, or opponent who is economically dense.  Stick to the "solid foundation" rhetoric, and no one can argue with you.

The most important thing is to make the activists understand that you respect them.  Democrats will call them extremists.  There is no need for Republicans, by words or actions, to call them extremists as well.  Keeping them happy does not require that you engage in an argument with those who wish to cast the opinions in the least favorable light.  Look for words and actions that give activists respect, but that don't engage in the argument on the Democrats' turf.  The biggest issue is respect.  Once activists believe that a candidate respects them, they will fight for that candidate no matter what.

These are some observations I have thought about writing down for quite some time.  It is by no means a complete listing of all the truths I have observed, but they are true, as far as they go.

Truth No. 1

Democrats win power by making promises to grow government, then alienate voters by keeping those promises.  Republicans win power by making promises to cut government, then alienate voters by breaking those promises.  So it doesn't matter who gets power, government always grows.

Truth No. 2

Democrats are intensely partisan when they enforce the law, and prove that partisanship by only prosecuting Republicans.  Republicans want to prove they are nonpartisan when they enforce the law, and prove that nonpartisanship by only prosecuting Republicans.  So it doesn't matter who gains control of the law enforcement mechanism, only Republicans get prosecuted.

Truth No. 3

Democrats are intensely partisan when it comes to drawing political lines during redistricting, and they prove that partisanship by drawing the lines to protect the Democrats' power.  Republicans want to prove they are nonpartisan when it comes to drawing political lines during redistricting, and they prove that nonpartisanship by protecting the Democrats' power.  So it doesn't matter who draws the lines, they always protect the Democrats power.

Truth No. 4

Democrats are intensely partisan when they wield political power, and they always use their power to benefit groups that contribute to Democrats, and punish groups that contribute to Republicans.  Republicans want to prove they are nonpartisan when they wield power, so they wield their power to benefit groups that contribute to Democrats, and punish groups that contribute to Republicans.  So, it doesn't matter who is in power, groups that support Democrats are rewarded, and groups that support Republicans are punished.

Truth No. 5

Whenever there are any allegations of any wrongdoing, Democrats will always protect Democrats, and attack Republicans.  Republicans will always protect Democrats and attack Republicans.  So, no matter what the wrongdoing, everyone protects the Democrats and attacks the Republicans.

Truth No. 6

The media will always believe Democrats no matter how wrong they are, and never believe Republicans no matter how right they are.  So the media will always run a story about Democrats without any criticism of the Democrats, but never run a story about Republicans unless it includes criticism of Republicans.

Truth No. 7

Whenever Democrats take power, they fire all of the Republican staff.  Whenever Republicans take power, they hire Democrat staff for their experience.  So it doesn't matter who is in power, the Democrat staff is always in charge.

Truth No. 8

Democrats will always vote to raise taxes, and never vote to cut taxes.  Republicans will sometimes vote to raise taxes, but rarely vote to cut taxes.  So it doesn't matter whose in charge, taxes usually go up, and rarely go down.

Truth No. 9

Moderate Democrats always vote with the Democrats to pass the Democrat agenda, and moderate Republicans always vote with the Democrats to pass the Democrat agenda, so it doesn't matter which party obtains power, Democrats always have the votes they need to pass their agenda.  As a corollary, Democrat executives (Governors and Presidents) will never sign bills that pass the Republican agenda, but Republican executives will ultimately give in and sign bills that pass the Democrat agenda, so it doesn't matter what party owns the executive, Democrats ultimately enact their agenda into law

and my favorite;

Truth No. 10

There are two parties in the United States, the Evil Party and the Stupid Party, and it is not hard to tell which one is which.

I welcome additions, or comments, but I believe these are pretty close to the truth

As the New Year begins, I have been reflecting on politics, my role in it, and the direction of the state.  About a year ago, right after the election of Obama, I was approached by a fellow who said he could make me President, and he asked for me to give me a plan to accomplish that.  I showed him the plan, and although he failed to meet the benchmarks I set for setting up a run (there goes my Presidential ambitions), a lot of the presumptions I made for such a run to work have been coming true.

First, I am convinced 2010 will be a Republican year IF (and I mean a really big IF) Republicans don't screw things up.  It will have nothing to do with the ascendancy of those principles that many Republicans espouse in office in American society (because sometimes it appears that Republican officeholders don't believe in those principles), it will be because Democrats overrreached.  I have a number of "truths of American politics" (which I should write down sometime), but one of them is this--Democrats really believe in the principles they espouse, and they alienate voters doing exactly what they promised they would do when they were trying to get elected.  The corollary to that truth is that Republican get elected when they espouse Republican principles, but most officeholders don't really believe in those principles, so Republicans alienate voters by never doing what they promised they would do when they were trying to get elected.  Republicans lost power in 2006 because they wouldn't do what they promised to do when they got elected in 1994.  Democrats will lose power in 2010 because they are doing exactly what they promised they would do in the last election.

2010 will be a Republican year no matter what.  It is very similar in many ways to 1994: (1) it is an nonpresidential election year, which tends to help Republicans; (2) Voters really dislike Democrats right now; (3) Republican leadership has been drowned out, just like it was in 1994, so voters are not angry with them yet; (4) Independents are realizing what a mistake they made with Obama, just like they did after they elected Bill Clinton in 1992; (5) Democrats are, once again, arrogantly pursuing an agenda that is out of touch with the electorate.  In California, we have a Governor's election coming up where all of the candidates (except for one) are strongly pursuing a conservative small government agenda, and they all have deep pockets.  The end result will be well financed campaigns, and, if the candidates remain focused on the right agenda, next year at this time could be a big party in Sacramento and Washington for Republicans.

That being said, there are still plenty of things that could go wrong. Republicans can still screw things up.  With that in mind, here are my predictions.

 Barbara Boxer will lose her seat this year.  In 1994, Michael Huffington almost beat Diane Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer is no Diane Feinstein.  Republicans only challenge in this case is that the candidates, Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina each have their own unique sets of issues.  Chuck is great on the principles that drive the activists in the party, but he lacks fundraising skill and, quite frankly, lacks "gravitas" as they call it in the media.  Fiorina, on the other hand, has absolutely no political identity at all.  Voters will not vote for someone they do not know, and activists will definitely not work for them.  My advice for each candidate-Chuck, shed your tendency towards nerdiness and raise money--Carly, do all you can to define yourself as a small government conservative, don't listen to those consultants who will be telling you to stay vanilla on the issues.  Step out and define yourself.  You can win if activists and voters are comfortable with who you are.

For Governor, it will come down to Poizner or Whitman (I like Tom Campbell on a personal level, but there are reasons why Democrats really want Tom to be our nominee.  Tom has always been one of those Republican officeholders who think that Republicans are wrong on the issues).  Poizner and Whitman have deep pockets, and can finance a solid media effort, as well as a well financed ground effort.  A well financed media effort will remind everyone that it really was Jerry Brown who screwed up this state, and we have been paying for it in our housing costs, our poor schools, our overcrowded freeways, our water costs, and our decaying prisons ever since.  The ground effort will lead a re-energized California Republican Party to victory in the election.  The only issue will be what kind of coattails they have on election day.  That will depend on whether they inspire the Republican rank and file, or whether they turn them off.  Consultants will do everything they can to turn off the Republican rank and file.  It will be up to the candidates to reject that bad advice, and lead the party to a conservative victory in November.

Congress--Republicans should regain control of Congress this year.  The blueprint?  1994.  Another Contract with America--only this time follow it.  Don't return to the spending sprees that occurred between 2000 and 2006.

Legislature--the 2001 redistricting plan makes getting a majority difficult, but it is possible.  The problem?  There are no Jim Brulte's in charge of the election operation.  Jim was a political mind without peer in Republican circles, his political instincts were always right.  I was there to help on policy initiatives, but Jim knew what to do in 1994 to get the majority.  We do not have that kind of insight in either our consultants or officeholders in Sacramento right now.  That is not to speak ill of those in charge, it is just the way it is.  A majority in the Assembly is a long shot, but it can be done.  3 or 4 seats should be automatic.

What will interfere with the historical certainty of a good Republican year?  Another tax increase proposal by Schwarzenegger.  Capitulation to the Obama agenda in Washington.  Any move by anyone at the top of the California ticket, or in leadership in Sacramento or Washington to alienate the major Republican constituency groups.  The pro-family, pro-gun, anti-tax, small government conservatives seem to be the first ones the party abandons when the press goes after them for actually having beliefs.  Look at Matt Fong.  According to insiders, Matt lost 18 points in 3 days (from 9 points ahead of Barbara Boxer to 9 points down) when he came out for the homosexual agenda.  The result?  A disaster for him and the entire Republican ticket in 1998 (Lungren might have done better if either he or Fong had been a better candidate).  This is the year to thank those Republican constituency groups by giving homage to the principles those groups hold dear.  Of course, that means those candidates should actually follow those principles when they are elected, but to reject those principles before the election is even held is certain defeat.

Those are my predictions this year.  I am encouraged by the mood of the electorate, and discouraged by those we elect to leadership.  The principles I hold dear are dissed everyday by the people Republicans elect to represent them in elections.  If those candidates actually took the time to persuade people that Republican principles were right, they would create a permanent Republican majority.  Unfortunately, Republican leaders spend their time distancing themselves from Republican principles.  As a result, the people who spend hours trying to get these leaders elected become disenchanted, and Republicans lose power.  People then get angry at Democrats, put the Republicans back in power, and then hope against hope that this time the Republicans will get it right.  Republicans will be back in power at this time next year.  This time, I hope they get it right too.

In 1999, the first year of the beginning of the Davis debacle, I was re-appointed as the Republican member of the Health and Human Services Budget Subcommittee (I had been the one Republican member of the three member committee before, but had been removed because I was "too difficult" to deal with).  When I returned, my consultant on that committee was Mike Genest.  For at least one budget cycle (maybe two), we sat in the committee watching then Committee Chair (later Congresswoman, and now Labor Secretary) Hilda Solis spend the state into oblivion.  During her time as the Committee Chair, Solis increased welfare spending by 42%, moving the state to its largest (by percentage) deficit in its history.

During that time, I learned more about the budget, how it works, and what works and what doesn't than I had in my first stint on the committee.  I had great consultants before and after that time, but I learned a lot from Genest, and learned how the budget worked.  A better budget technician you will never find.

He is now leaving the state, and I think the Governor will be worse off for it.  He is loyal, he is competent, he is smart, and he knows how to make the budget work.  I don't know all of the battles that took place behind closed doors in the Governor's office, but I know that the budget didn't grow out of control because Genest was at the helm.  He knew how to control spending, he knew how to say no.  He knew what he was doing, and he stayed around long after it became clear that his opinions were not driving the budget process.  That is a testament to his loyalty.

His voice will be missed in the Governor's office.  As time goes on, the Governor's greatest failure in office will be his failure to control spending, and keep the budget under control.  I know, had the Governor actually listened to Genest, rather than some of the other voices in his administration, the Governor would be feted as a hero of restraint in otherwise difficult times.  If Genest were not there, things would have been worse, I am sure.  Sorry to see you go, Mike, the State needs you.