Posted on 01/19/2005 1:08:46 PM PST by calcowgirl
Sometimes a cartoon says things better than thousands of words. So it was the other day when Bruce Tinsley's "Mallard Fillmore" spoof predictions for 2005 contained this zinger: "All agencies will be consolidated under the new 'agency of agencies,' which will oversee and coordinate the activities of the 'bureau of bureaus' and the 'department of departments.'" All, of course, would be ruled by the "czar of czars."
Ordinarily a fan of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Tinsley comic strip this time was perfectly timed to puncture a key part of Schwarzenegger's many-pronged plan for so-called reform in California government.
For the governor seeks to abolish nearly 100 state commissions (but not the state Film Commission, which he has populated with Hollywood pals like actor Danny DeVito) and place all their decision-making powers in the hands of the State and Consumer Affairs agency and its subsidiary Department of Consumer Affairs. If Schwarzenegger gets his way, they would become America's largest and most powerful agency of agencies and department of departments.
And if that happened, all functions of state bodies like the Medical Board, the Dental Board, the Pharmacy Board, the Physical Therapy Board, the Architects Board, the Veterinary Board and more would be subsumed by the new bureau of bureaus, as Tinsley's ever-sardonic duck might say.
That means politicians like today's agency secretary and department head, Fred Aguilar and Charlene Zettel, both former Republican members of the state Assembly, would take on decision making powers now reserved to the certified expert professionals who now people the boards and commissions Schwarzenegger wants to kill.
As it stands, once they're appointed and confirmed, members of those professional boards cannot be dumped by a governor until their terms expire. Some are appointed not by the governor but by legislative leaders. That's to insulate them from pressure exerted by any sitting governor. By contrast, agency secretaries and department heads like Aguilar and Zettel are out if they displease the governor they serve.
So decisions by these political appointees would be open at the very least to the same sort of suspicions of pay-to-play politics that have dogged both Republican Schwarzenegger and the governor he replaced, Democrat Gray Davis.
What happens if the pals of a doctor whose license is threatened for alleged malfeasance or incompetence contribute $1 million to campaign committees beloved of the governor and the license subsequently remains in force?
And what qualifies the likes of Aguilar and Zettel to make these decisions, anyway? Career politician Aguilar, for one, can't say. In a conference call with reporters the other day, he refused four times to answer that question.
Then there's the fantasy aspect of all this. In his state-of-the-state speech, Schwarzenegger said "No one paid by the state should make $100,000 a year for only meeting twice a month." True, some state commissioners indeed do make that much, like members of the Public Utilities and Solid Waste Management commissions.
But not members of most boards Schwarzenegger wants to abolish.
Rather, members of the medical, dental and other professional boards get $100 per day and a moderate per diem expense fee. So while he says he wants to get rid of freeloading commissioners, in fact the governor is targeting professionals who serve virtually for free - but whom he can't control.
This is reform? It actually looks more like an attempt to seize more and more centralized power.
But Schwarzenegger implies his moves would save the state money. Asked how much, Aguilar couldn't answer. Before an agency secretary or a department director would make a licensing decision, he said, they would heed staff reports, results of legal hearings and counsel from new advisory commissions.
Might these cost more than today's system? "We have no estimate yet of costs," Aguilar said. "But we do think this would be more efficient and give more accountability." Accountability, he might have said, to a power-hungry governor but not to professional ethics or standards.
Schwarzenegger and aides like Aguilar ignore the fact that the regulatory boards they seek to dump originated in the Progressive era early in the last century as a reaction against an entrenched pay-to-play system and a spate of snake-oil salesmen. No one has ever alleged corruption in their activities.
Which means that rather than creating reform, part of Schwarzenegger's grand plan now seeks to undo existing reforms that have worked well for almost 100 years.
They've become a tradition, and it might serve Californians well just now to remember the old saying that "Once you abandon a tradition, you often discover why it became a tradition in the first place."
Elias is author of the current book "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It," now available in a revised third printing. Email him at tdelias@aol.com
Blowing up boxes or building an empire?
" plan now seeks to undo existing reforms that have worked well for almost 100 years" - the devil is in the details. From my brief read of the California Performance Review (http://www.report.cpr.ca.gov/) it is a mixed bag at best. Get rid of old and unnecessary commissions, yes. Throw out internal controls, no. It appears to me that a large portion of what is proposed will take legislation and or initiative action to implement. Since the RATs control the legislature this is not a given.
I look forward to reading more details as they become available, but like other measures, I suspect we won't hear anything substantive until a campaign has been launched.
While these consolidations may take legislation/initiative to implement, with an artfully prepared initiative, and a multi-million dollar advertising campaign promoted by the Governor, I'm convinced that almost anything could pass.
It is worrisome. See also:
CA: The California Performance Review: Devolving Constitutional Government in the Golden State
I think we would do much better to limit the functions of government (e.g. do away with certain functions like the Coastal Commission and let the counties deal with those issues [as they were designed to do]). That would cut the payroll and allow us to be more competitive. Further, so many of our laws just plain need to be repealed. Do you know you can't buy goods made from kangaroo hide in California? We do not need laws like that. California Department of Justice Firearms Division - unconstitutional on its face. And so on. I am so glad I didn't vote for Arnie. Now I don't have to wince when he proposes this stuff.
Blowing up boxes or building an empire?
more like rearranging the deck chairs on the SS California.
Isn't this a form of regional govenment? If so this is what Nixon tried with Executive Order No. 11647 which was found to be unconstitutional because it usurps the power, jurisdiction, and authority of local governmental bodies, and prepare recommendation for the enactment of corrective legislation.
His was bumped because it was a Federal trick to divide America into 10 regions. I wonder what will be the answer to this move.
Could the individual counties stand up and say NO!
ping
There's always someone who thinks they can bypass the checks and balances our Founding Fathers so brilliantly set up.
Yes, of course they all could, but they won't because those elected to County Government have little, if any idea that such a thing would be undesirable, wrong, or unconstitutional!
They don't even understand their own oath of office, (most of 'em) and it's significance in defending their state and federal constitutions against this obscenity that started with FDR and that Nixon tried in violation of all that's sacred to our constitution!!!
Only people like Dick Carver, County Commissioner extraordinnare of Nye County and a few who have served over on this side of the CAL-NEV state line have ever had a clue as to the importance of county government as the ultimate "regional governmental body!"
As Thomas Jefferson wrote... "And each state is to be further divided into counties, each to govern what lies within it's bounds."
This CA CPR thing by Schwarzenegger is nothing but a bunch of business types who think that government should be run exactly like a business. The fact is... government can never be run exactly like a business because government's board meetings are open to the public with a few specific, narrow exceptions, unlike corporate board meetings that are completely private in nature and not always very democratic in their process, like government's must be!!!
Just like Cassius Clay... He's "THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME!!!" (echo... of all time!!!)(echo... of all time!!!)
Shrink government and get it as close to the people as possible. Local control in local hands is the ideal makeup of government of, for and by the people!!!
I know we fight against regional government. Siskiyou County just approved a comment letter with a set of principles agreed upon by several groups on the proposed CIP - Conservation Implementation Program (basinwide ecosystem/water management "stakeholder" based proposal for the entire Klamath River system. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/
The letter read as follows:
Siskiyou County has been participating in an effort to draft an Alternative CIP that includes a major role in coordination and budgeting for elected governmental officials from tribes, counties, state and federal government. The alternative will provide for a bottom-up process to develop recovery strategies and plans both locally and across watersheds. We are assisting in fully developing this concept and building support throughout the entire Klamath River system. We believe we have a much better approach to resolving issues, while also providing for the operation of the Klamath Project. We will make that alternative available in the near future.
While that effort continues, we want to provide the following comments on your CIP second draft that reflect the principles and elements of the Alternative CIP concept. The CIP should:
1. Recognize that a “bottom-up” approach to developing watershed or Project level plans and recovery strategies is mandatory.
2. Recognize the value of incentives to private landowners, respect and protect private property rights and the privacy of individual landowners.
3. Provide for periodic, independent and objective scientific review of technical information, analysis and conclusions pertinent to the recovery plan and the program’s ability to meet goals and objectives.
4. Encourage the aggressive pursuit of adaptive management principles by federal, state and private resource managers.
5. Provide for maximizing the efficiency of dollars spent on the ground.
6. Through peer-reviewed scientific data and analysis, provide for specific benchmarks in goals and objectives of the recovery plan.
7. Provide that plans and actions will not usurp the planning authorities of tribes, counties and federal and state land management agencies.
8. Provide assurances that federal agencies will not attempt to extend their reach beyond the scope of their lawful jurisdiction and authority.
9. Provide that landowners who voluntarily participate in restoration or monitoring activities will not realize adverse regulatory consequences as the result of such participation
10. Broaden the CIP objective to take into account the balanced use of resources for commercial fishing as well as agriculture, timber harvest, mining and recreation.
11. Component plans and recovery strategies should not redirect costs or impose adverse impacts on others in the Klamath system.
12. Provide that the recovery plan will contain:
a) An inventory and assessment of the voluntary conservation actions taken to date throughout the Klamath Basin.
b) A description of the watershed-specific goals and objectives of the recovery strategy.
We look forward to working on a better, revised CIP and appreciate the opportunity to comment on this second draft.
It sounds like this is something that needs to be brought up to a conservative judge.
This site is new. Maybe there's something you can use here.
http://www.learn-usa.org
Oh jeese, I don't have enough fingers to count them on.
How's your idea progressing? Maybe we should talk.
I just heard today from the Florida everglades area, that watersheds will be used to implement a new economy for America. They are calling it the restoration economy. It uses wetlands and watershed areas for eliminating all other types of economic use, then imposes this idea that restoration a the only viable economic engine in a post-manufacturing society. Have you heard of it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.