Author: SacBee — Opinion

He’s The One, all right.

The handsome, athletic pol with the comely wife and two lovely daughters who precipitously rose from the state Legislature to pull us all together.

The fresh face and disarming underdog America’s been waiting for, someone who suffered through his parents’ divorce, watched his mom go on welfare and survived some wayward youthful behavior to become disciplined and successful – a lawyer, a lawmaker and a devoted family guy who does dog duty.

Someone who’s always game for a game of pickup basketball, loves talking sports and even boasts beefcake photos. A pro-choice phenom propelled into higher office by conservatives, independents and Democrats, a surprise winner with a magical aura.

The New One is the shimmering vessel that we are pouring all our hopes and dreams into after the grave disappointment of the Last One, Barack Obama.

The only question left is: Why isn’t Scott Brown delivering the State of the Union? He’s the Epic One we want to hear from. All that inexperience can really be put to good use here.

Obama’s Oneness has been one-upped. Why settle for a faux populist when we can have a real one? Why settle for gloomy populism when we can have sunny populism? Why settle for Ivy League cool when we can have Cosmo hot? Why settle for a professor who favors banks, pharmaceutical companies and profligate Democrats when we can have an Everyman who favors banks, pharmaceutical companies and profligate Republicans? Why settle for a 48-year-old, 6-foot-1, organic arugula when we can have a 50-year-old, 6-foot-2, double waffle with bacon? Everyone in Washington now wants to touch the hem of President-elect Brown – known in the British press as “the former nude centrefold” – who has single-handedly revived the moribund Republican Party. It uncannily recalls the way they once jostled to piggyback on the powerful allure of One-Term Obama.

The capital is abuzz. What did Scott say about that? Has anybody checked with Scott? Let’s not make a move without consulting Scott! One of the most famous political figures of the age, John McCain, was thrilled (and no doubt envious) that a newbie unknown a week ago made robo-calls for him in his tightening Arizona re-election race.

Before the Senate rejected a debt-reduction commission on Tuesday, reporters pressed for Brown’s hypothetical intentions: Would he have voted yes if he had been seated? (Yes, his spokesman told The Politico’s David Rogers.)

The Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, has even christened Brown “41,” usurping Poppy Bush’s nickname. That’s because Brown, the only Republican in the Massachusetts congressional delegation, gives his party the needed 41st vote to filibuster unmolested.

Even some in the Obama White House secretly wonder if the wonder from Wrentham, Mass., is The One. Could he be a more authentic version of their guy, who also swept in as a long-shot outsider only 14 months ago?

Obama is coming across as plastic and hidden, rather than warm and accessibly all-American. (Brown has even been known to do his daughter’s laundry when she gets too busy.) Whereas Obama had to force himself to nibble French fries and drink beer (instead of his organic Black Forest Berry Honest Tea) during the Pennsylvania primary, Brown truly loves diners, Pepsi, waffle houses and the unwashed masses.

David Axelrod, Obama’s senior strategist, praised Brown for his “spectacular” campaign. And Obama aligned himself with the new symbolic force, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that “the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they’re frustrated.”

Even though Brown opposes Obama’s plan to tax big banks, the president tried to wrap himself in Brown populism: “And here in Washington – from their perspective – the only thing that happens is that we bail out the banks.” Stephanopoulos pointed out the obvious difference between Barry and Scotty, telling the president with the populist mask: “But you’re in charge now.” At the moment, President-elect Brown is a new blank slate in an old pickup truck. As the president scrambles to freeze some spending and unfreeze his persona, Obama strategists hope that, in some weird way, Brown will help revive the president’s fortunes.

They say that if Brown turns out to be as independent as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, he can help the president bypass the conservative troglodytes on the Hill and pull out of his slump.

It won’t be long before we see the New One and the Old One playing two-on-two – Brown with his basketball – and “American Idol”-star daughter, Ayla, and Obama, perhaps, with his 6-foot-5 body man Reggie Love – on the White House court.

Just a couple of messiahs shooting some hoops and swapping man-of-the-people stories.

Last week’s Supreme Court decision that substantially deregulates political speech has provoked an edifying torrent of hyperbole. Critics’ dismay reveals their conviction: Speech about the elections that determine the government’s composition is not a constitutional right but a mere privilege that exists at the sufferance of government.

How regulated did political speech become during the decades when the court was derelict in its duty to actively defend the Constitution? The Federal Election Commission, which administers the law that rations the quantity and regulates the content and timing of political speech, identifies 33 types of political speech and 71 kinds of “speakers.” The underlying statute and FEC regulations cover more than 800 pages, and FEC explanations of its decisions have filled more than 1,200 pages. The First Amendment requires 10 words for a sufficient stipulation: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Extending the logic of a 1976 decision, the court has now held that the dissemination of political speech requires money, so restricting money restricts speech. Bringing law into conformity with this 1976 precedent, the court has struck down only federal and state laws that forbid independent expenditures (those not made directly to, or coordinated with, candidates’ campaigns) by corporations and labor unions. Under the censorship regime the court has overturned, corporations were forbidden even to send political communications to all of their employees.

The New York Times calls the court’s decision, which enables political advocacy by (other) corporations, a “blow to democracy.” The Times, a corporate entity, can engage in political advocacy because Congress has granted “media corporations” an exemption from limits.

The Washington Post, also exempt, says the court’s decision, which overturned a previous ruling upholding restrictions on spending for political speech, shows insufficient “respect for precedent.” Does the Post think the court incorrectly overturned precedents that upheld racial segregation and warrantless wiretaps? Are the only sacrosanct precedents those that abridge (others’) right to speak? Alarmists say the court’s ruling will mean torrential spending by large for-profit corporations. Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union – it has spent $20 million on politics in the last five election cycles – says a corporation will “funnel its shareholders’ money straight to a campaign’s coffers.” Wrong. Corporate contributions to candidates’ campaigns remain proscribed.

Cleta Mitchell, Washington’s pre-eminent campaign finance attorney, rightly says that few for-profit corporations will jeopardize their commercial interests by engaging in partisan politics: Republicans, Democrats and independents buy Microsoft’s and Pepsi’s products. If for-profit corporations do plunge into politics, disclosure of their spending will enable voters to draw appropriate conclusions. Of course, political speech regulations radiate distrust of voters’ abilities to assess unfettered political advocacy.

Mitchell says the court’s decision primarily liberates nonprofit advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club, which the FEC fined $28,000 in 2006. The club’s sin was to distribute pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental views of the presidential and senatorial candidates, to the intended advantage of Democrats. FEC censors deemed this an illegal corporate contribution.

Barack “Pitchfork” Obama, in his post-Massachusetts populist mode, called the court’s ruling a victory for, among others, “big oil” and “Wall Street banks.” But opensecrets.org reports that in 2008 lawyers gave more money than either of those, and gave 78 percent of it to Democrats, who also received 64 percent of contributions from the financial sector.

Even if it were Congress’ business to decide that there is “too much” money in politics, that decision would be odd: In the 2007-08 election cycle, spending in all campaigns, for city council members up to the presidency, was $8.6 billion, about what Americans spend annually on potato chips.

Critics say raising such sums requires too much of candidates’ time. Well, then, let candidates receive unlimited – but fully disclosed – contributions, and trust voters to make appropriate inferences about the candidates.

Undaunted, advocates of government control of political speech want Congress to enact public financing of congressional campaigns.

Fortunately, this idea – “food stamps for politicians” – is wildly unpopular. Voluntary, cost-free participation, using the checkoff on the income tax form, had sagged to 8.3 percent by 2008.

This is redundant proof that the premise of campaign finance “reform” is false. The premise is that easily befuddled Americans need to be swaddled in regulations of political speech.

Does anyone feel safer because Alcohol Beverage Control Department agents busted the Super Bowl betting pool at the Valley Hi Country Club in Elk Grove and confiscated $1,800 in money wagered?

Judging by the public reaction to date, the answer is a resounding “no.” People are outraged and justifiably so. Clearly, there are more pressing enforcement actions that should deserve the attention of the ABC. If not, then ABC agents clearly don’t have enough to do.

Memo to state lawmakers: This could be one agency that deserves downsizing.

ABC spokesman John Carr says illegal sports betting pools are not an agency enforcement priority, but agents are required to respond to complaints and that is what they did in this case. But surely the law allows investigators to use common sense and discretion. Not every complaint merits an investigation or a citation.

For the record, ABC is empowered to enforce the law only in establishments it licenses, specifically places where liquor is sold.

So the millions in California who are illegally marking spots on Super Bowl betting sheets at barber shops, teachers lounges, offices and who knows – maybe even at the headquarters of the Alcohol and Beverage Control itself? – can rest easy. ABC has no jurisdiction over them, and we trust local police are too busy tracking real criminals to enforce this silly law.

The Legislature overwhelmingly approved a bill last year by Republican Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries of Riverside that reduced participation in sports betting pools from a felony or misdemeanor to an infraction and lowered penalties from a $5,000 fine and possible imprisonment to just $500.

Jeffries says he authored the bill after a 73-year-old grandmother in his district was detained by ABC agents for organizing a sports betting pool worth $50 at an Elks Lodge where she worked.

The recent Valley Hi Country Club bust shows that Jeffries’ law did not go far enough.

Last fall, the city of Sacramento signed contracts worth $3.5 million with Advantage Demolition & Engineering to install 3,300 water meters. Two weeks ago, the city abruptly terminated the contracts when it learned the company was not bonded, as it claimed when it submitted its bids. Apparently, disarray in the city’s long-troubled Utilities Department continues.

Because the problems surfaced early and the company apparently did the work it was paid to do, Sacramento may not be out any money.

Nonetheless, the incident should raise fresh alarms about city management. Two years ago, the Utilities Department lost track of 4,500 water meters, the result of bad record-keeping, an audit concluded. Most “missing” meters were eventually located.

More recently, the county grand jury warned that Sacramento may have used utility ratepayer funds improperly to pay for general government expenses, a violation of state law that could cost Sacramento $21 million. A taxpayers group has sued.

In the latest Utilities Department snafu involving Advantage Demolition, the city never bothered to verify if the company was bonded as it claimed. Incredibly, it did not do a background check. Had it done so, it would have learned that the company’s owner filed for bankruptcy protection for another company he owned in 2001 and that since then has had several tax liens filed against him, including three state tax liens totaling $46,000.

Because the water meter installation contract was funded in part by $22 million in federal stimulus money, the fraudulent bond certification has triggered both state and federal probes. That’s embarrassing.

The water meter installation is one of the city’s most high-profile infrastructure projects. It’s been mishandled repeatedly. Each mistake produces a new round of excuses from city management and promises to do better. The time is long past for the City Council to demand accountablity and take action to prevent further snafus.

Bruce Maiman

Some of you may feel like Claude Rains in “Casablanca”: You were shocked, shocked, that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s approval numbers in the latest Field Poll were at a personal-low 27 percent.

And yes, you were shocked that 59 percent of registered voters think he’ll leave California in worse shape than he found it.

I hope you’re happy, because his legacy, whatever that is, is not his alone. It’s yours, too.

And if the state is worse off now than it was under Gray Davis, maybe voters, too, deserve a 27 percent approval rating.

True, we have a state Legislature which, when not engaged in childish partisan bickering, plays hand puppet to unions, lobbyists and special interest groups. We don’t like that much, but we keep sending the same faces back to the statehouse only to complain about them. Again.

How many more clues do voters in even the most gerrymandered districts need? How many more speeches do we have to hear from California lawmakers before we finally face the music? The state is broken, ungovernable, unable to save itself. Democrats and Republicans failed, as did we.

Rather than demand that lawmakers address the systemic problems behind our dysfunctional government apparatus, voters turn to ballot measures which have, at best, been a placebo. The referendum process isn’t really ours; it’s in the hands of powerful interests with enough money to organize a petition drive and get something passed which is either flawed, like Proposition 13, unconstitutional, like Proposition 187, or poorly conceived and legally vulnerable like Proposition 8.

But we never learn. Today, Scott Brown in Massachusetts is the hope du jour. To Californians, that should be déjà vu all over again. The same reasons that drove voters there to elect a Republican to the Senate drove Californians to boot Davis: Angry voters, people splitting from party ranks, Democrats going independent saying, “No, I don’t like Davis and we’re gonna send a message!”

My question is: How come nobody got the message in 2003? Why are we sending a message again in Massachusetts when we just “sent a message” electing Barack Obama the year before?

You can’t just send a message to politicians; you have to stay on message, the heat turned up like a blast furnace. The recall was a fool’s errand, indicative of voter negligence. Short of a felony, there’s no reason to remove a duly elected person from office. You take responsibility for your choice. The plurality of Californians who cast a “yea” vote in that recall essentially cast a ballot for a vote of “no confidence” against their ability to responsibly govern themselves.

That’s why the state is broken. We’re not diligent, we’re not vigilant, we don’t pressure.

Lawmakers don’t fear us. We act as if they’re in charge. No: They work for us. But we’re lousy employers who make bad hires for a company so broken – California – that closing it down might be its best and only hope.

Maybe we should let California fail. I don’t mean governance; the state has already proven itself a failure on that front. I’m talking about insolvency – complete bankruptcy.

Sometimes I imagine all 38 million of us standing at the Nevada border, pushing until California breaks off and floats out to sea, and then dispatching a submarine from San Diego to torpedo the state and sink it into the Pacific.

Maybe letting the state collapse would wake up enough of us to stop being spectators, roll up our sleeves, and fix this mess rather than rely on political parlor tricks like recall elections or outsiders trying to buy an election by spending their millions telling us, “We need to create jobs.” Really? Wow, aren’t you the genius! California has a long list of problems that needs fixing, and we can all make a good list. But the solution isn’t in what things need to be done; it’s a question of who will do them. We voters blame the government but the problem is we voters are the government.

Democracy does not work unless you work it. Right now, the only ones I see working it are politicians and the special interest groups to which they are beholden. That can only end when we demand they end it.

When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin to ask, “What are we, are we a monarchy, an oligarchy, a democracy?”

Franklin replied, “We have given you a republic – if you can keep it.” We’re not very good keepers. We’re letting the inmates run the asylum.

With a drug-addicted mother and an ex-con for a father, Amariana Crenshaw had a troubled life from the beginning. She was only 2 when Sacramento County Child Protective Services removed her from her mother and placed her in Tracy Dossman’s foster home.

In January 2008, 2 1/2 years later, she would die, burned from head to toe.

Someone threw at least one Molotov cocktail into a rental home Dossman owned. Amariana, 4 1/2 years old, was alone, sleeping on the floor in the front of the empty house. She was allegedly hit by the device, which exploded. No one has ever been charged with the killing.

Sacramento city police say they’ve devoted “thousands of man-hours” in a “very thorough, very comprehensive” investigation. But how thorough was it, really?

Early on, foster parent Dossman was eliminated as a possible suspect. Why?

Evidence collected by The Bee’s Marjie Lundstrom suggests Amariana may have been dead before her body was burned. The chief forensic pathologist for Sacramento County who performed the autopsy said, “I cannot completely rule out that the decedent was not breathing when the firebombs exploded.”

Other pathologists who examined the report were more emphatic. “The child was dead before the fire,” one told The Bee. “The autopsy was not bad, but the conclusions are quite incorrect. There is no question in my mind that this child was already dead,” another said.

Several curious facts in the autopsy report raise suspicions about when and how Amariana died.

For one thing, she had a full stomach at the time of her death, about 3 a.m., meaning she would have eaten a large meal one to two hours earlier or around 1 in the morning, an odd meal time for a young child. Did police ask Dossman about that?

Also, the autopsy report says there was no soot in Amariana’s airways and no carbon monoxide in her blood. That indicates, experts told The Bee, that she was not breathing when the Molotov cocktail that was supposed to have killed her ignited.

Why was she sleeping alone on the floor of her foster parent’s empty rental house in the first place? Then there is the long history of injuries Amariana suffered while in Dossman’s home, a series of split, swollen and cut lips, a bruised eye, a leg injury that left the girl limping, all documented in the CPS file.

Finally, the general condition of Dossman’s household raises questions about its suitability. At the time of Amariana’s death, Dossman had two of her own children, ages 9 and 19, an 18-year-old nephew and six foster children, ages 4, 8, 15, 15, 16 and 17. State licensing records show that Dossman would leave the older foster children to care for the younger ones. A CPS adoptions supervisor said the home was in “chaos,” but no one removed the children. Why not?

Today, two years after Amariana’s death, Dossman is still a certified foster parent, with five children under her charge. The homicide investigation appears to have stalled. Amariana deserves better. Given the information disclosed in The Bee’s special report, Sacramento police should restart this investigation and not give up until whoever killed Amariana Crenshaw is behind bars.

California justifiably takes pride in being consistently among the top states in per-capita income. And while it can do better, it ranks in the middle of states for the share of people living below the poverty level. (It was 23rd nationwide, with 12.4 percent in poverty in 2007).

So when the governor and other California leaders go to Washington asking for a federal bailout, they ought to expect skepticism. They also might acknowledge that California is getting $85 billion in federal stimulus funds, more than any other state.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson’s column in The Bee on Tuesday made a case for federal help, but it reflected a tone of entitlement that is unlikely to wring a dime out of Washington.

Two issues stand out:

• Medicaid: Wilson and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger believe the formula for reimbursing states for providing health care to lower-income people – known as Medi-Cal in California – is flawed. States with higher per-capita income get less than states with lower per-capita income, they argue.

Mississippi, at the bottom in per-capita income, gets 75 cents for every dollar it spends. California, near the top in per-capita income, gets 50 cents.

What’s unfair about that?

The problem is not the formula itself, but the timing of it. The current reimbursement rate relies on income data for 2004, 2005 and 2006, when California’s per-capita income grew at above-average rates. The next update isn’t scheduled for three years, using 2007, 2008 and 2009.

California, and other states, should insist on an immediate update to the formula – to take into account the economic free fall. California’s per-capita income has dropped.

A speedy update would maintain the fairness principle.

• Undocumented criminals: California has long paid its prison guards far more than other states. Even so, it continues to gripe that the federal government doesn’t adequately reimburse the state for prison costs involved with incarcerating undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes in California.

These prisoners must serve their state prison sentences before being deported. For the 2009-2010 year, California will get $112.5 million from the federal government to cover prison guard costs for 19,000 inmates. That’s about $6,000 per inmate, only a small portion of the prison guard cost.

So California has a real complaint, up to a point. Wilson and Schwarzenegger believe California should get $970 million – or more than $51,000 per inmate to cover costs.

The question then becomes: To what extent should other states subsidize the cost of California’s out-of-whack prison guard contract – where most guards earn more than $73,000 a year in base salary, an average of $16,000 in overtime and retire as early as age 50 with 90 percent of their final pay?

California should get its prison guard contract in line with reality if it hopes to make a case for better federal reimbursement.

California is not the only state suffering budget woes. Schwarzenegger and lawmakers would do better to join forces with other states – rather than seeking special favors for California – in seeking federal aid to get on the road from economic downturn to recovery.

In Dan Morain’s column, “Casino-owning tribes are betting on Brown,” (Forum, Jan. 24), Morain displays a complete misunderstanding of the attorney general’s role with regard to the regulation of tribal casinos in California.

Under the tribal compacts negotiated by Gov. Gray Davis and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in accordance with federal and state law, the tribes are responsible for on-site gaming regulation and control. It is the state’s role to ensure the tribes carry out that responsibility by conducting compliance inspections of tribal casinos and ensuring that tribal regulators correct any deficiencies that turn up. Our special agents conduct investigations regarding any alleged criminal activities at tribal casinos, and we aggressively pursue any threats to the safety and honesty of gaming operations.

In our experience, tribal regulators are sophisticated and effective at ensuring that their casinos are fair and safe. It is telling that Morain does not cite any incidents or problems in the industry to indicate otherwise.

In October 2008, the attorney general’s Bureau of Gambling Control voted against the “minimum internal control standards” because the proposed regulations would have set back the cause of state regulation many years. Given that the proposed minimum internal control standards were subject to serious legal challenge, our “no” vote headed off years of litigation during which the state would have had no enforceable standards. Instead, we urged the parties to sit down and work out their differences, and through hard-fought negotiations, the state achieved a set of regulations that are tough and will, in fact, work.

Finally, Morain wrote that the tribes “largely wrote the new regs.” In fact, I drafted them based on the prior version done by the Gambling Control Commission with the input of the commission, the tribes and my staff.

Kevin Nida

As winter storms pound the state, Californians are alert of the hazards of wet roads, falling trees and power outages. But there is another very real safety risk that accompanies the stormy weather. And it’s a silent threat that catches its victims completely unaware.

Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless and tasteless gas, and the leading cause of accidental poisoning deaths in the United States. Carbon monoxide has many sources that can be found in California homes including faulty furnaces, generators, gas ranges and stoves, gas clothes dryers, portable heaters, fireplaces, blocked chimneys and wood-burning stoves, just to name a few. In fact, according to U.S. census data, 74 percent of California housing uses some form of fossil fuel-burning heating that can generate carbon monoxide.

At this time of year, the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning increases. During cold seasonal storms and power outages, more people turn to generators and space heaters to supply heat and electricity to their homes. If not properly used, these appliances can cause CO poisoning. In fact, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, improperly used generators cause more than 15 percent of CO poisoning deaths associated with fuel-powered appliances.

Sadly, just within the past few days, a Mount Shasta child was killed and 11 other area residents were sent to the hospital due to this type of poisoning. The victims were apparently using a gas generator to heat their home during a storm-related power outage and the appliance was not properly vented.

Because carbon monoxide has no smell or taste, without a carbon monoxide alarm, most people are left completely unaware of CO exposure. And because the initial symptoms of poisoning are often flu-like, including headache and nausea, victims have no idea that they could be poisoned to death.

The statistics for carbon monoxide poisoning are disturbing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that carbon monoxide poisoning kills more than 500 people in the United States every year, with most of those deaths occurring in a residential setting. In California, 232 people died of accidental CO poisoning between 2001 and 2006.

In addition to deaths, carbon monoxide poisoning causes grave and permanent injuries, including severe brain damage.

In California, the Air Resources Board estimates that CO poisoning accounts for 175-700 avoidable emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and hundreds to thousands of avoidable illnesses each year.

In the next few months Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will have the opportunity to sign a bill to help protect Californians from carbon monoxide poisoning. Senate Bill 183 calls for the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all single- and multi-dwelling homes in the state – providing the most effective line of defense against this silent killer. At half the cost of the average video game, carbon monoxide alarms are a small investment to help save lives.

Twenty-three other states have already passed legislation to protect residents by requiring CO alarms in homes. We strongly urge Schwarzenegger to join these states and sign SB 183 to help protect our residents from one more senseless death.

In the run-up to Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, the so-called narrative question is whether the president will be – pick a curtain – party leader, president, conciliator or fighter.

Depending on whose head is talking, the president’s problem is that he’s been: (a) playing party politics and not leading the nation; (b) stuck in community organizer mode, seeking consensus rather than fighting.

So agitated have SOTU speculators become that some have resorted to counting the number of times Obama uses the word “fight,” or some variation thereof, in recent gatherings and speeches.

At a Monday morning meeting of his Middle Class Task Force, Obama said: “We’re going to keep fighting to renew the American dream.” Later, he said, “Joe (Biden) and I are going to keep on fighting for what matters to middle-class families.” By one reporter’s count, Obama used the word “fight” or “fighting” four times in a seven-minute speech.

In Ohio last week, according to another tabulator, the president used fighting words more than 20 times: “I won’t stop fighting to open up government,” he said. “I won’t stop fighting to bring back jobs here.” And, “I’ll never stop fighting.” By Monday morning, Politico’s Mike Allen was quoting a White House official who said key themes of the SOTU would include “creating good jobs, addressing the deficit, changing Washington, and fighting for middle-class families.”

Not to leap to conclusions, but it would seem that Obama intends to fight. Like the Narrator in “Fight Club,” he has tired of hugging victims and wants to punch the daylights out of … somebody. But didn’t Obama run on just the opposite? We’re not a nation of red states or blue states, he told us. We are the United States of America.

Except we’re not – and that’s the problem Obama faces Wednesday night. The emergence of Obama’s heretofore-absent pugilist merely adds another layer to the real challenge before him. Is he trustworthy? For a year now, Obama’s visionary, unifying words haven’t matched the results. It isn’t entirely his fault, but his leftward agenda took him far from center field where he was when optimistic Americans watched his pregame warmup. Since last January, watching him has been like watching a movie where the soundtrack hasn’t been synchronized with the actors’ lips.

Meanwhile, we have become not a purple, but a Brown nation. As in Scott. Like Obama himself, Brown – an imperfect candidate under any other circumstances – was the right man in the right place at the right time.

Brown’s unlikely Senate election hinged most likely as much on the X-factor of trust as his promise to be the 41st vote against health care reform. Voters may not have known the finer points of his resume, but they “knew” him. They recognized him from the sandlot. They’d seen his truck. They trusted his regular guyness.

The Obama administration has taken note, and so the new war whoop is populism. Having noticed that Americans are most concerned about jobs and out-of-control government spending, the president is suddenly riveted by middle-class despair. And, of course, the anger.

Everybody’s ticked, if for different reasons. Tea party activists are enraged by expanding government, higher taxes (even though many of those in the throng received tax cuts as part of the stimulus package) and health care reform that, though comprehensive, managed to leave out tort reform. The left is angry because Obama wasn’t tough enough to push through legislation despite Democratic majorities in both houses.

Even Obama, the usually imperturbable sphinx – the man with the straight face and the light-switch smile – is getting hot under the collar. He doesn’t mind a good fight, he says. Perchance, to bring ’em on? It is traditional for presidents to paint a rosier picture of circumstances than reality warrants, and Obama won’t likely veer from that script. The hope and change agent can hardly wear a sad face as he appraises his first year. But neither can he portray himself as a slugger-in-chief.

Americans didn’t elect a fighter; they elected a visionary who promised a new spirit of cohesion, cooperation and community. While some now may view their romance with hope as a one-night stand, voters are reliably fickle. They can be courted and persuaded, but first they have to trust.

Regaining trust is Obama’s real challenge, and being true to his own character is fundamental to that end. Americans know a faux fighter when they see one. If Obama comes out swinging, he will likely lose.

When disaster strikes, Californians act at once to help. California’s experienced disaster response teams mobilize at a moment’s notice to fight fires in neighboring states and even in Mexico. Our specialized search-and-rescue teams raced to New Orleans in response to Hurricane Katrina and are right now feverishly searching through the rubble to rescue earthquake victims in Haiti.

Californians answer the call to duty in record numbers. In fact, one in eight of our brave men and women currently serving in our nation’s military call California home.

But right here at home, California is faced with a financial disaster that can’t be fought with fire hoses or axes. To stanch a financial drain of disastrous proportions, we must mobilize our elected representatives in Congress to demand and obtain fairness by reforming the way present federal law unfairly collects and spends the dollars of California taxpayers.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a delegation of top state officials went to Washington, D.C., last week to deliver a stark and urgent message: Our residents can no longer afford to have California tax dollars used to subsidize other states and cover federal responsibilities. We need relief from a financial nightmare that Congress alone holds the power to remedy.

California has been a victim of unfair federal funding formulas since before I was governor. These funding formulas are breaking our budget and forcing state and local governments to cut services to Californians sorely in need of them.

Our California leaders did not go to Washington asking for a bailout; they went to implore Congress and the administration to work with California’s representatives to enact long-term reforms that will change the way the most populous state and the federal government work together – reforms that will more equitably redefine our respective obligations so that our state budget reflects state needs and priorities rather than increasing federally mandated obligations.

It is time for our partners in the federal government to allow California to regain control of its finances and to make our state leaders responsible for deciding how to spend and how much of our state taxes to spend for a particular need, rather than spending what the feds mandate.

California should not be forced by federal courts or outdated medical coverage requirements to spend money our state doesn’t have. When I was chief executive this was manifestly unjust, but in today’s economy the burden of the state’s share of Medi-Cal is causing serious deterioration of important services Californians need and rely on.

California urgently needs to reduce its Medi-Cal costs to ensure that the most vulnerable continue to have access to the program. Currently, federal laws enforced by federal court rulings prevent the program from living within its means.

Congress pays California a lower rate for its share of the federal Medicaid program than it pays most other states. The federal government covers half the cost in California, while it pays 75 percent in Mississippi, 65 percent in Arizona and 71 percent in New Mexico, Utah and Arkansas. In fact, 38 states receive a higher reimbursement rate for Medicaid than California does. That means California taxpayers are spending $1.8 billion each year to subsidize the Medicaid program in 38 states. If Congress treated states equally, those California tax dollars could be spent here at home to balance our budget instead of subsidizing other states’ health care programs while we’re cutting our own.

Another issue that unfairly burdens Californians is the cost of federally mandated programs for illegal immigrants. An outrageous example is state incarceration of illegal immigrants in our prisons and jails. The federal government is solely responsible for controlling immigration and for securing our borders. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are crowding California prisons, costing California taxpayers nearly $1 billion every year.

It’s past time for Congress and the administration to accept what is clearly federal responsibility for these costs. California’s taxpayers can no longer sustain the cost, and it is flatly wrong that they have been compelled to do so.

California taxpayers should strongly support Schwarzenegger’s call for fiscal fairness.

Before the problem grows still worse, our congressional delegation must work with Schwarzenegger and other state leaders to reform the flawed federal policies that have produced such oppressive treatment for California’s taxpayers.

Historically, while other states have enjoyed unified support of their Congressional delegations to work for a common good benefiting all their constituents, California has not.

It is time that changed. Call or write your member of Congress and your senators and tell them so.

Congress created the problem. Tell them it is their responsibility to fix it, and to do so in this election year.Pete Wilson served as the 36th governor of California from 1991 to 1999.

Too many politicians think they live in a different world.

They regularly take “gifts” from lobbyists and others who curry their favor, and think it’s their right because of the office they hold. It’s not. And it is especially galling at a time when California’s unemployment rate remains above 12 percent.

Now, many are complaining because they are getting dinged by an increasingly aggressive Fair Political Practices Commission, which has concluded that they are failing to follow the law by neglecting to disclose in public filings that they’ve taken those “gifts” – things like tickets to concerts and Kings games, expensive dinners, preferred parking at airports and more.

According to the FPPC, Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, failed to disclose several “gifts” including a $160.21 dinner; $390 for food and lodging; and $1,077 for food and spa treatments for his wife. These “gifts” to Mr. and Mrs. Calderon were courtesy of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies.

Ask yourself when the last time was that you spent $160 on a dinner, or $1,077 for a spa and snack. When was the last time your insurance company comped you to a nice dinner?

Perhaps Calderon received the “gifts” because he is a great guy. Then again, maybe his committee assignment as chair of the Senate Bank, Finance and Insurance Committee had something to do with it. He had company. The Fair Political Practices Commission has sent letters to 38 legislators saying they failed to properly disclose “gifts.” They include Democrats and Republicans, among them outgoing Speaker Karen Bass and outgoing Senate Republican leader Dennis Hollingsworth, plus his replacement, Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga, and the newly elected Assembly Republican leader, Martin Garrick of Solano Beach.

Some of the legislators no doubt made honest mistakes by neglecting to disclose gifts, or underreporting the value of what they received. But lawmakers who take gifts and the lobbyists who hand them out ought to know better. It makes them all look dirty.

A Republican won in Massachusetts – and suddenly it’s not clear whether the Senate will confirm Ben Bernanke for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman. That’s not as strange as it sounds: Washington has suddenly noticed public rage over economic policies that bailed out big banks but failed to create jobs. And Bernanke has become a symbol of those policies.

Where do I stand? I deeply admire Bernanke, both as an economist and for his response to the financial crisis. (Full disclosure: Before going to the Fed he headed Princeton’s economics department, and hired me for my current position there.) Yet his critics have a strong case. In the end, I favor his reappointment, but only because rejecting him could make the Fed’s policies worse, not better.

How did we get to the point where that’s the most I can say? Bernanke is a superb research economist. And from the spring of 2008 to the spring of 2009 his academic expertise and his policy role meshed perfectly, as he used aggressive, unorthodox tactics to head off a second Great Depression.

Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story. Before the crisis struck, Bernanke was very much a conventional, mainstream Fed official, sharing fully in the institution’s complacency. Worse, after the acute phase of the crisis ended, he slipped right back into that mainstream. Once again, the Fed is dangerously complacent – and once again, Bernanke seems to share that complacency.

Consider two issues: financial reform and unemployment.

Back in July, Bernanke spoke out against a key reform proposal: the creation of a new consumer financial protection agency. He urged Congress to maintain the current situation, in which protection of consumers from unfair financial practices is the Fed’s responsibility.

But here’s the thing: During the run-up to the crisis, as financial abuses proliferated, the Fed did nothing. In particular, it ignored warnings about subprime lending. So it was striking that in his testimony Bernanke didn’t acknowledge that failure, didn’t explain why it happened, and gave no reason to believe that the Fed would behave differently in the future. His message boiled down to “We know what we’re doing – trust us.” As I said, the Fed has returned to a dangerous complacency.

And then there’s unemployment. The economy may not have collapsed, but it’s in terrible shape, with job-seekers outnumbering job openings six to one. Nor does Bernanke expect any quick improvement: Last month, while predicting that unemployment will fall, he conceded that the rate of decline will be “slower than we would like.” So what does he propose doing to create jobs? Nothing. Bernanke has offered no hint that he feels the need to adopt policies that might bring unemployment down faster. Instead, he has responded to suggestions for further Fed action with boilerplate about “the anchoring of inflation expectations.” It’s harsh but true to say that he’s acting as if it’s Mission Accomplished now that the big banks have been rescued.

What happened here? My sense is that Bernanke, like so many people who work closely with the financial sector, has ended up seeing the world through bankers’ eyes. The same can be said about Timothy Geithner, the Treasury secretary, and Larry Summers, the Obama administration’s top economist. But they’re not up before the Senate, while Bernanke is.

Given that, why not reject Bernanke? There are other people with the intellectual heft and policy savvy to take on his role: Among the possible choices would be my Princeton colleague Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chairman, and Janet Yellen, the president of the San Francisco Fed.

But – and here comes my defense of a Bernanke reappointment – any good alternative for the position would face a bruising fight in the Senate. And choosing a bad alternative would have truly dire consequences for the economy.

Furthermore, policy decisions at the Fed are made by committee vote. And while Bernanke seems insufficiently concerned about unemployment and too concerned about inflation, many of his colleagues are worse. Replacing him with someone less established, with less ability to sway the internal discussion, could end up strengthening the hands of the inflation hawks and doing even more damage to job creation.

That’s not a ringing endorsement, but it’s the best I can do.

If Bernanke is reappointed, he and his colleagues need to realize that what they consider a policy success is actually a policy failure. We have avoided a second Great Depression, but we are facing mass unemployment – unemployment that will blight the lives of millions of Americans – for years to come. And it’s the Fed’s responsibility to do all it can to end that blight.

Editor’s note: Below are some responses to last week’s Supreme Court decision on campaign spending – “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” – courtesy of the Washington Post.

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

Co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation.

The Massachusetts election Tuesday was the last one conducted under rules that had been in place for over a century to protect the right of the people to choose their government free from enormous expenditures of corporate wealth. Next time voters want to send us a message at the ballot box, they may find their voices drowned out by wealthy corporations with their own special-interest agendas.

This Supreme Court decision takes us back a century to a legal framework that fostered a golden era of corporate influence. While the core of the McCain-Feingold law – the ban on unlimited “soft money” contributions by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals directly to the political parties – remains intact for now, the reasoning of this decision undermines a host of laws enacted to strengthen our democracy.

This decision gives a green light to corporations to unleash their massive coffers on the political system. Oil companies, with virtually no harm to their balance sheets, can now try to “take out” members of Congress who don’t toe their company line. Foreign-owned companies are free to underwrite candidates of their choice.

Because of the scope of the Citizens United decision, it will take close examination to see what can be done to restore the voice of the average citizen in elections. We must not stand by as corporations threaten to dominate our democratic process. If the race in Massachusetts showed us anything, it’s the power of voters. In our democracy, that power – not the power of corporate wealth – should decide our elections.

Cleta Mitchell

Partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law; filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Citizens United on behalf of two organizations opposing the ban on corporate expenditures.

The Supreme Court has correctly eliminated a constitutionally flawed system that allowed media corporations to freely disseminate their opinions about candidates using corporate treasury funds while denying that constitutional privilege to Susie’s Flower Shop Inc.

New Populist in Chief Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are howling, pledging hearings and legislation to reverse the court’s decision. But don’t look for Coca-Cola television ads endorsing or opposing candidates. That isn’t the way business works, thinks or acts.

The real victims of the corporate expenditure ban have been nonprofit advocacy organizations across the political spectrum. After the 2004 election, the Sierra Club paid a $28,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission for distributing pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental records of the two presidential and U.S. Senate candidates. Because the Sierra Club is a corporation, the FEC accused it of making an illegal corporate expenditure.

What businesses, large and small, should do is spend time and money educating their employees, vendors and customers about candidates and officeholders whose philosophies and voting records would destroy or permanently damage America’s free enterprise system.

Why are Democrats afraid of that voice?

Kenneth Gross

Leads the political law practice at Skadden Arps; former associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.

Contrary to popular reports, the sky is not falling. The Citizens United decision will not profoundly affect the for-profit corporate community. Companies’ government affairs operations are based on the development of long-term relationships, supported by directly giving through PACs and personal contributions.

The rules regulating direct and PAC contributions have not changed one iota. Also, the requirement that political spending under this case be independent of a candidate is antithetical to the overarching mission of how a government affairs operation works. So, the “club” that the Supreme Court has given corporate America is an unwieldy one.

No doubt, trade associations will look for ways to raise funds to attract or support candidates, but they will not find many deep, willing pockets among corporate members. Budgets are tight and shareholders will be keeping an eye on them. Also, many corporations have already signed on to transparency agreements regarding political spending. So-called “front groups” trying to disguise their mission will be few and far between.

This may not be the prevailing view of the implications of the Citizens case – but it is likely to be at least the short-term reality.

In just six months, Californians have seen a welcome shift in the public education landscape. President Barack Obama’s Race to the Top challenge provided the impetus for California lawmakers, school superintendents and boards, parents, teachers and civic leaders to join forces in new ways to improve public education.

In coming months, a prime area for action at the local level will be getting the right teachers to the right schools and creating schedules that meet the needs of today’s students.

That includes getting beyond 19th-century farm economy scheduling to a longer school day and year. It also means challenging everybody to think differently about the role of unions in public education.

As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a speech last year, teachers unions are at a crossroads. Policies created over the past century, he said, “protect the rights of teachers, but they have produced an industrial factory model of education that treats all teachers like interchangeable widgets.”

He’s encouraging union-management partnerships “to develop better hiring, compensation, evaluation and turnaround strategies.”

Already, we’ve got some exciting local possibilities. A local group has proposed a Hmong-focused charter school in the Sacramento City Unified School District to better meet the needs of students and parents who believe traditional public schools aren’t achieving adequate results for them. This school seeks a year-round calendar (no long summer break), a four-day week (Monday through Thursday) and a longer day (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). It seeks a flexible hiring and transfer system unfettered by seniority.

This can happen in one of two ways:

• Using district teachers, but seeking waivers to the existing union contract.

• Going independent, without district teachers and without the union contract.

Superintendent Jonathan Raymond sees this as an opportunity to forge a new partnership with the teachers union, a “template for change.” With a public hearing Feb. 18 and a March deadline for a decision on the charter school, Raymond and the union begin talks next week on a list of waivers. If successful, it could set a tone for negotiations when the teachers’ contract ends in June 2011.

And it is not unprecedented. The Sacramento City Unified district, like many districts in our region, has negotiated waivers with teachers unions to gain flexibility for schools on assigning teachers, length of school day and year, and standards-based evaluations. The leverage is that if such negotiations are unsuccessful, charter school proposers can seek independent status.

As school districts across the state identify turnaround strategies for chronically underperforming schools and more options for struggling students at the best schools, they’ll need new partnerships with teachers. This is a chance for a fresh start, creating a culture of partnership and professionalism – and moving away from rigid, obsolete rules-based contracts.

And if educators don’t respond, lawmakers have given kids and parents new options for going around those stuck in old, ineffective ways of doing things. That’s a good thing.

Last summer, at my stores and at 7-Elevens across America, we did something we have never done before. We asked our customers to join us in standing up to the big banks and credit card companies who are raking in billions of dollars from all of us through unfair, hidden credit card transaction fees, known as “interchange.”

Our customers responded in force. Nearly 400,000 of them in California signed our in-store petition calling for reform of these fees. When they heard that the hidden fees charged every time they swipe their cards add up to more than annual fees, cash advance fees, over-the-limit fees and late fees combined, they said, “Enough is enough.”

I run three 7-Elevens in Southern California, and nearly 6,000 customers in my stores signed the petition. These hidden fees hurt consumers, hurt small businesses like mine, and hurt the California economy at a time when we’re already scraping rock-bottom. But so far, the response from our representatives in Washington has been silence.

Here in California, it’s time to make our voices even louder. Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, is holding a hearing today to investigate these hidden fees, which cost Californians almost $5 billion a year. I am proud to be standing up for my customers and my fellow small business owners by testifying at that hearing.

Californians deserve to know that they’re paying more on credit card transaction fees than people in any other country in the world. They deserve to know that Visa and MasterCard set these fees in secret, give my business no ability to negotiate them and make it impossible for me even to tell my customers about the true cost of swiping their cards.

They deserve to know that, in America, we are all paying three times more in transaction fees than we did just eight years ago – even though the cost for the banks to process the cards has gone down. The big banks and credit card companies are simply lining their pockets with these hidden fees, at the expense of consumers and small businesses like mine.

My customers and my community are the lifeblood of my business. I am grateful that we can stand together to call for action on this issue that hurts all of us. We have spoken in one voice, and now it is time for our leaders to respond.

Nava’s investigation is an admirable step in the right direction, but much more must be done.

In September 2009, I helped deliver all 400,000 petition signatures to our California members of Congress. The choice is now theirs. Will they stand with the big banks and credit card companies and do nothing? Or will they stand with my customers, my community and my small business, do the right thing and stop these unfair, hidden fees?

Sure, he’s got the jutting jaw and centerfold looks. He’s got the truck. But does Scott Brown kill his own meat?

Of late, it seems, Republicans are determined to demonstrate their political virility by displaying not just their hunting trophies but also their fearlessness in carving up a fresh kill for the family table.

It may not qualify as a trend yet – three’s the charm – but it is impossible to avert one’s gaze from the puddles of blood surfacing in certain politicians’ photo albums.

Anybody can be a champion of the Second Amendment, but if you want to project the kind of tough leadership needed to combat terrorists and Wall Street, you’d best know how to bring home the bacon without a vacuum seal.

“Show me the blood” seems to be the mantra in some quarters of the GOP.

It started with you-know-who from Alaska, who won carnivore hearts when it became known that she could field dress a moose. More than a mere governor and mother, Sarah Palin could take down a 1,500-pound beast with a precision shot to the heart and gut her harvest before sundown.

“We eat, therefore we hunt,” she proudly told those assembled as she retired from the governorship. And off she went, leaving a freezer full of wild game for a season of book-peddling, speaking and other indoorsy activities of the Eastern elite.

Then came Christmas greetings from Republican Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, who is in a primary battle against Gov. Charlie Crist for the U.S. Senate. We all have our version of the holiday dinner, but Rubio took us behind the scenes, tweeting photos of the 2009 Rubio family Christmas Eve pig.

Although it wasn’t clear whether Rubio had killed the animal or wielded the butcher knife himself, one photo shows a dead hog on a table as a man slices into its haunch. Another frame shows the creature gutted and suspended over a puddle of blood.

“Warning, picture not for the faint of heart,” Rubio graciously tweeted. Indeed.

Hunting isn’t a new activity for politicians to pursue in photo-friendly, public ways. President Teddy Roosevelt, who was also founder of the aptly named “Bull Moose” Party, popularized the image of the virile president-frontiersman.

Seeing the nation’s father figure toting a shotgun or rifle in the wild makes for good, masculine imagery that targets our lizard brains. Dutifully we process the message: He hunt food. He feed family. He good man.

A woman who can do it just as well pushes several buttons at once, appealing both to pride in our pioneering foremothers and to our modern multitasking sisters. There was Palin-the-mother with her five children in one frame; there was Palin-the-huntress admiring the kill that would fill her brood’s tummies in the next.

Tough and touching is no easy feat for a female politician, but Palin managed to pull it off, at the same time raising the ante on Republican iconography. The new coin of the realm was gore and the message was clear: The Democratic “mommy” party of swooning dependents can’t stand the sight of blood (and therefore can’t be trusted to protect America). The Republican “father” party of virile (and fertile) warriors is strong, self-sufficient and unafraid.

No one who eats meat suffers any illusions about what precedes the cuisine. Something has to die, as Palin noted, and animals humanely killed in the wild are preferable from nearly every standpoint to those factory-farmed. Gutting and gore are obviously part of the game, but must we be so proud?

In the spirit of self-defense, I am a veteran defender of hunters. Although I personally prefer flora to the flesh, my own freezer is full of game, thanks to the hunting faction of my household. And, as I’ve written previously, it is largely thanks to hunters, the majority of whom are passionate conservationists, that we can boast plentiful wildlife in this country.

There is to my mind, however, a clear ethical difference between hunting for nourishment and exploiting the hunted for political gain. We may be animals ourselves, but we are also enlightened creatures of conscience, for whom killing should be the necessary means to a respectful end.

If I may be so gutsy: The politician-as-hunter cliché has bloody well run its course. We get it. Real women may hunt moose, as the Palin sampler reads, but real leaders don’t strut their kill.

We are all feeling the consequences of massive budget deficits impacting nearly every city and county in our state. Police and sheriff’s departments are being slashed, emergency response times are getting longer and fire stations are being closed to help balance budgets. That’s why it’s so important to pass the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act on the June ballot. Voters should have the right to say if and when local governments choose to borrow or spend our money to get into the retail electricity business.

The Sacramento Sheriff’s Department laid off 122 deputies in 2009, and the local fire district, which had a $9 million deficit, voted to close three fire stations, adversely impacting emergency response times.

As local governments struggle to fund the most essential and basic services, local leaders in several communities are working to spend millions of public dollars or incur public debt to get into the retail electricity business. And they do not want the people to vote on it. In tough times like these, voters deserve a voice in this decision.

I was surprised when The Bee chose to side with the politicians. I would think every taxpayer – including The Bee – would want to ensure that politicians receive our approval before entering such risky and costly endeavors.

It is disappointing that The Bee chose to simply ignore our state’s long history of voter approval on major financial investments that could further indebt future generations. Voter approval has helped us hold politicians more accountable and has increased transparency. The Bee chose to prop up the special interests’ arguments. This is about closing a loophole that allows politicians to bypass voters.

The Bee is wrong to think this initiative stops local choice – it actually ensures it. California voters have consistently supported sound proposals brought before them. In fact, between 2002 and 2008, 286 local special tax and bond measures that required a two-thirds vote were approved.

Enough is enough. We cannot bear more cuts to our firefighters, police officers and sheriffs’ deputies, and we must have a say before politicians can commit us and our children to more spending and debt we cannot afford. That’s why I support the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act.

In his column on the death penalty, “Another nail in death penalty’s coffin” (Viewpoints, Jan. 8), Bruce Maiman cited increasing cost and the American Law Institute’s recent decision to oppose the death penalty as reasons for the state to abolish the death penalty in California.

Maiman argues that, according to the American Law Institute, California’s death penalty is capricious, racially unjust and unreliable. Therefore, he concludes, we should close San Quentin, abolish the death penalty and sell the Bay Area land on which the facility exists.

Admittedly, California’s death penalty is not perfect and probably could never be reformed to the extent that it could always be applied in a fair and just manner. The problem, however, with California’s death penalty is its inability to carry out executions following convictions and sentences. California leads the nation with more than 600 inmates on death row, but only 14 have been executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1978. A person sentenced to death in California is more likely to die of old age or natural causes than to be executed.

The opponents of the death penalty, in calling for its abolishment, ignore the victims of murderers and the right of society to protect itself from future crimes by convicted murderers. There have been cases in California of persons sentenced to death who were subsequently paroled only to murder again. I have personal knowledge of such cases.

As a result of highly publicized murders by murderers released on parole, California voters have consistently voted to support the death penalty. Originally restored by voters’ initiative in 1977, every subsequent measure to expand the provisions of the death penalty, most recently the gang-murder special circumstance in March 2000, has been overwhelmingly approved by the voters.

Because of the judicial system’s failure to approve executions, the death penalty in California has become a de facto life-without-possibility-of-parole sentence. While California’s death penalty is far from perfect, there are some crimes that are so egregious that any punishment less than death would be inadequate as a matter of basic justice. There are also certain situations where the death penalty may be morally required to prevent the taking of an innocent life.

Thomas W.
Hiltachk

The road to achieving government reform is always difficult. History has proven that those in power rarely choose to reform themselves. It is that very historical fact that led to the progressive reforms enacted in California in the early 20th century, which gave the people the power to reform their own government via the initiative process.

The recent court decision to remove the charter reform initiative from the June ballot is an assault on the people of Sacramento’s legal and democratic right to reform their city government and hold it more accountable. In this ruling, Judge Loren McMaster failed to protect the people against the forces of entrenched bureaucracy and special interests who will stop at nothing to prevent reform.

Sacramentans are fed up with the current gridlock and waste at City Hall, so much so that more than 50,000 residents signed a petition to support the placement of the Charter Reform Initiative on the ballot. This is more than enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. Residents are tired of the antiquated council-manager form of government that worked back in 1921 when it was adopted, but has since rendered our City Hall unresponsive to the needs of a growing city.

An appeal will be filed swiftly and confidently in the 3rd District Court of Appeal, asking the court to grant the people of Sacramento their right to decide the direction of their city.

In a case that has profound implications, our California Supreme Court has spoken directly on this issue. Term limits for state legislators and statewide officers were enacted by initiative over the strenuous objections of those in power at the time.

After Proposition 140 was approved by the people, the Legislature asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the initiative on the grounds that it was a “revision” to our state constitution instead of an “amendment” and thus could not be enacted by the people via the initiative process. This is the same argument used by the opponents of the charter reform initiative.

The Supreme Court sided with the will of the people and upheld the democratic process. In the term limits case, the Supreme Court made the important point that is equally applicable to the charter reform case: The court stated that its role was to protect the interest of the people, not the government.

By removing the charter reform initiative from the ballot, thus preventing the voters from having any voice, the superior court did not uphold its solemn duty to protect the people’s power to determine the future of Sacramento.

In Sacramento, our City Council has made it perfectly clear it has no interest in reforming city government and is quite happy with the status quo. The council was previously urged to place its own reform proposal on the ballot to compete with the charter reform initiative, and it refused. Last summer, the Charter Review Commission, created by the City Council, met to consider government reform ideas; it proposed nothing. The only road to reform in Sacramento is to let the people of Sacramento vote on the charter reform initiative.

The fact is that the opponents are simply wrong about the purpose, intent and effect of the charter reform initiative. Sacramento is not the same city it was more than 80 years ago when the current council-manager form of government was enacted.

Times are different and cities evolve. McMaster’s decision was merely a bump in the road. I am confident that the appellate court will uphold the will and rights of the citizens who put the initiative on the ballot. Voters of Sacramento will be allowed to speak. The voice of reform is too loud to ignore.