SACRAMENTO, Calif., USA - As political campaigns heat up, so do the television advertisements that would seem to be even more wildly misleading than in the past.
Hard to believe? Probably not.
This TV ad - in the race for California State Treasurer, for Godsakes - is a good example of ugly, deliberately misleading campaigning:
What's wrong with that ad?
Well, to start, it's beyond a stretch to blame Bill Lockyer personally for problems with pension systems, issues with government accountability, that some businesses have left the state, that unemployment is up - and state spending might be 15 times higher than it was 37 years ago. (That number is very suspect, by the way.)
But if that number is arguably true, well, could it be that the 37 million people who live in California today, (compared to 20.8 million 37 years ago) live in a world that is more complex - and expensive?
Regardless, Bill Lockyer didn't pass all the state bond issues, impose expensive federal mandates or push the state to pay for more and more services (and solve problems). Check his record. Oh, that would uncover how he has really performed as a public servant. Oops, silly thought. Sorry.
The ad, of course, is simply part of an equally simple (or is it simpleton?) nationwide strategy that says throw out anyone who has any experience in government and replace them with anyone who doesn't. (Check the results in the U.S. Senate GOP primary in Delaware for confirmation.)
And if the person running has no experience but is really wealthy (think Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina), well, that's even better.
As a journalist/witness to what has happened to the collective effectiveness of the California State Legislature since term limits have been imposed (by voters), I would suggest that this strategy of throw out the bums is simply nuts.
Just plain old nuts. No need to embellish.
Perhaps after the elections some people will be able to fling their Tea Bags in the air and feel good about this. But will it be good for the public? Good for the state? Good for democracy?
Of course not.
But then we can blame the next batch of elected officials for all our troubles.
And that is just plain old nuts again.
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Education - and the CSU - are bullseye in budget wars
SACRAMENTO, Calif., USA - The budgets of all the segments of public education are squarely in the sights of the state government finance people as the state of California attempts to grapple with a state budget that is badly out of balance and getting more so by the day.
Among the many time bombs ticking are the ever-lowering estimates of what homes are worth (which translates into lower taxes - if tax assessors do their jobs) and the race-to-the-bottom spiral of sales tax revenues as state residents hunker down, spend less and thus cut the tax revenues that have already been counted by the state - but not collected.
In the California State University, there is the additional problem of a university chancellor who is all-too-willing to rollover on his own 23-campuses to curry favor with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
CSU Chancellor Charles Reed
Reed this week agreed voluntarily to give up $31.3 million dollars when the governor asked for various state-funded agencies to chip in to put sandbags in front of the budget-deficit flood.
That seems so reasonable, until you consider that the CSU has already taken a $288 million reduction this year. Originally, the governor said the CSU would have to reduce its budget by $386 million, later relenting and restoring the difference.
And now the governor has gone after a portion of that restoration money, with the likelihood he will come back and ask for more of what he "restored."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
The California Faculty Association - the labor union representing the faculty - is furious that Reed simply agreed to give up the money, indicating in a letter to the governor that cutting the additional $31 million (about $1.3 million per campus) will not hurt the instructional program.
That's bad enough - and arguably untrue - but the union is doubly furious because last year, when budget cuts were looming, the CFA, students, Reed and the CSU Board of Trustees all linked arms and sang a political kumbaya, forming the Alliance for the CSU to show the governor and legislators a united front, spending huge sums of money on public relations in the process, though they didn't gain any real traction with Schwarzenegger, apparently.
Part of that united front meant that the CFA would keep its criticism muted of administrative goings on, including earlier this year when the chancellor got called out for handing out a no-bid contract for more than $2.45 million several years back - a contract that he engaged in specifically to fight the union over its demands for higher wages for faculty.
In early October the university system and Reed got slapped with a $7.7 million lawsuit by the whistleblower in that case (fired by Reed in March) who had publicly raised questions about the propriety of the $4,000-per -day, no-bid contract with C. Richard Barnes & Associates, LLC, of Lawrenceville, Ga. for consulting services.
Whistleblower story
If anyone was surprised by the chancellor's actions this week, they haven't been paying attention.
Practically since the day he took over his job from outgoing Chancellor Barry Munitz (who annoited Reed and convinced the board of trustees to select Reed without a competitive search), Reed has kowtowed to the administrative branch of government while generally thumbing his nose at the legislature.
That thumbing this week has now grown to include the faculty and students who set aside their many earlier differences with Reed to form the "alliance."
And it was only a few years ago that Reed required nearly all the campuses of the CSU to install and operate a complicated computer system called the Common Management System, a software and hardware package that promised miracles but mostly delivered nightmares: cost overruns, technical glitches and conflicts of interest in the bidding process. It even got blistered - along with Reed and many of his staff - in a state audit and was the subject of legislative hearings.
The software in the system remains such a mess, that most campuses refer to it as a full-employment-for-consultants scheme.
The other portions of the Alliance for the CSU - the faculty and students - are regrouping, trying to see they can get back the $31.3 million that Reed turned over without a fuss.
But to do that, they need Reed to agree and tell governor that he has changed his mind and won't turn over the money so easily.
They might as well start singing kumbaya right now and put their energies into figuring out what to do when Reed says (sometime soon) that the CSU can turn over the rest of the 'restored' money without hurting the education of the university students.
Among the many time bombs ticking are the ever-lowering estimates of what homes are worth (which translates into lower taxes - if tax assessors do their jobs) and the race-to-the-bottom spiral of sales tax revenues as state residents hunker down, spend less and thus cut the tax revenues that have already been counted by the state - but not collected.
In the California State University, there is the additional problem of a university chancellor who is all-too-willing to rollover on his own 23-campuses to curry favor with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
CSU Chancellor Charles Reed
Reed this week agreed voluntarily to give up $31.3 million dollars when the governor asked for various state-funded agencies to chip in to put sandbags in front of the budget-deficit flood.
That seems so reasonable, until you consider that the CSU has already taken a $288 million reduction this year. Originally, the governor said the CSU would have to reduce its budget by $386 million, later relenting and restoring the difference.
And now the governor has gone after a portion of that restoration money, with the likelihood he will come back and ask for more of what he "restored."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
The California Faculty Association - the labor union representing the faculty - is furious that Reed simply agreed to give up the money, indicating in a letter to the governor that cutting the additional $31 million (about $1.3 million per campus) will not hurt the instructional program.
That's bad enough - and arguably untrue - but the union is doubly furious because last year, when budget cuts were looming, the CFA, students, Reed and the CSU Board of Trustees all linked arms and sang a political kumbaya, forming the Alliance for the CSU to show the governor and legislators a united front, spending huge sums of money on public relations in the process, though they didn't gain any real traction with Schwarzenegger, apparently.
Part of that united front meant that the CFA would keep its criticism muted of administrative goings on, including earlier this year when the chancellor got called out for handing out a no-bid contract for more than $2.45 million several years back - a contract that he engaged in specifically to fight the union over its demands for higher wages for faculty.
In early October the university system and Reed got slapped with a $7.7 million lawsuit by the whistleblower in that case (fired by Reed in March) who had publicly raised questions about the propriety of the $4,000-per -day, no-bid contract with C. Richard Barnes & Associates, LLC, of Lawrenceville, Ga. for consulting services.
If anyone was surprised by the chancellor's actions this week, they haven't been paying attention.
Practically since the day he took over his job from outgoing Chancellor Barry Munitz (who annoited Reed and convinced the board of trustees to select Reed without a competitive search), Reed has kowtowed to the administrative branch of government while generally thumbing his nose at the legislature.
That thumbing this week has now grown to include the faculty and students who set aside their many earlier differences with Reed to form the "alliance."
And it was only a few years ago that Reed required nearly all the campuses of the CSU to install and operate a complicated computer system called the Common Management System, a software and hardware package that promised miracles but mostly delivered nightmares: cost overruns, technical glitches and conflicts of interest in the bidding process. It even got blistered - along with Reed and many of his staff - in a state audit and was the subject of legislative hearings.
The software in the system remains such a mess, that most campuses refer to it as a full-employment-for-consultants scheme.
The other portions of the Alliance for the CSU - the faculty and students - are regrouping, trying to see they can get back the $31.3 million that Reed turned over without a fuss.
But to do that, they need Reed to agree and tell governor that he has changed his mind and won't turn over the money so easily.
They might as well start singing kumbaya right now and put their energies into figuring out what to do when Reed says (sometime soon) that the CSU can turn over the rest of the 'restored' money without hurting the education of the university students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)