In a state that once was a national trendsetter, the 120-member Legislature has California going backward. The 2009 Legislature will be known as a group of self-absorbed politicians who made life more difficult for California's 38 million residents.
We would have been better off if the 80 Assembly members and 40 senators had decided to take the year off instead of showing up for a shameful legislative session. Gridlock would have been an improvement over the backsliding.Lawmakers couldn't balance the budget all year, and the budget reductions that were finally implemented were so severe because of the inaction that they needlessly hurt millions of California families. State worker pay was cut drastically, student tuition and fees at California's public universities skyrocketed, victims of domestic violence couldn't get into shelters that had been closed, the state's social safety net was shredded. All this occurred, and more. Then they topped it off by raising our taxes.If lawmakers had balanced the budget on time, those drastic cuts would not have had to be made because state leaders would have scaled back spending much earlier. There would have been cuts, but they wouldn't have approached what we saw by a panicked Legislature.The Democratic majority claims to look out for the poor and middle class, but the lawmakers turned out to be miserable enemies of those groups. The legislative session protected the wealthy and stuck it to everyone else.The public knows this, although voters don't seem ready to toss out their own representatives. A poll by the Public Policy Institute of California says 73% of residents believe the state is " pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves." I'm stunned that the other 27% of Californians don't know this.The Legislature's dysfunction also was apparent this year as it couldn't get anything significant accomplished on the biggest issues facing California. Lawmakers held hearings, called news conferences and told their constituents that they were working hard for them.They weren't. They were collecting checks at fundraisers and cozying up to special interests. In at least one high-profile case, they were reportedly sleeping with special interests -- for real.At this point, I'm compelled to renew my call for a part-time legislature. If lawmakers are going to only work occasionally, shouldn't we officially give them the status that they've earned?I'm a bit surprised by a PPIC poll that says most Californians don't support a part-time Legislature. This is from the PPIC on a part-time legislature: "44% say it would be a bad thing, 23% a good thing, and 27% say it would make no difference." Those numbers will change as a part-time legislature gets more traction in the reform debate and the merits of the change are explained. A part-time legislature would force lawmakers to go back to their districts and have other jobs so they understand how the laws they pass impact the places where they work.It would also shake up the system that only benefits the lawmakers and the special interests. Already Republican governor candidate Steve Poizner has taken up the part-time legislature issue and state Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, a lieutenant governor candidate, has introduced a constitutional amendment for a part-time legislature.The Legislature as it's currently constituted is not working. We need big changes in the government structure and better leaders to operate within that new structure.The 2009 legislative session shows that California government is badly broken. It won't get any better next year -- unless the public begins making big changes to the system. The politicians think they are untouchable, and that won't change until voters hold them accountable.