 |
 -0 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
|
Will Davis ever learn why he's the most unpopular governor? And if he does, does he have the intellectual honesty to admit to himself that his own passivity and penchant for taking what he considers to be the easy way out of problems are at the root of his poor public standing? Or does he really believe the propaganda his minions disgorge about his being the victim of wretched fate and the shortcomings of others? If Davis does have an objective sense of his own shortcomings, he appears not to have learned any lessons from it because his latest response to the state's budget crisis exhibits the same characteristics that got him into trouble in the first place. Davis can claim that it's a "credible and prudent" fiscal plan, but it's neither. It's another expedient "solution" that solves nothing, evidently crafted to buy time until after he knows whether the recall petition drive fails or succeeds, and shore up his standing with groups whose support he would need if he does, indeed, face a recall election next fall. Davis' popularity first dropped because Californians have perceived, accurately, that he waffled when the first signs of what became the energy crisis emerged three years ago. Despite his strenuous efforts to shift the blame to others, such as rapacious energy traders, the fundamental responsibility for a critical six-month lapse in action is his. The Democratic governor's standing dropped even further when he reneged on his seemingly firm pledge not to squander a windfall of revenues from stock market gains that appeared three years ago. He could not resist bipartisan and special interest pressure to spend the windfall on tax cuts and programmatic increases even though he knew -- and publicly warned -- that it would be a mistake. And when the state's budget began hemorrhaging red ink as a result, Davis and lawmakers papered over the deficits with inflated revenue estimates, low-ball spending numbers and backdoor loans for two years. There is a pattern here. When the moment came to exert leadership and show a little courage, Davis blinked and took what he considered to be the least perilous path -- only to learn that voters resented it. But having seen his standing plummet to record low levels with that risk-averse approach, Davis -- for reasons that defy rationality -- didn't learn the lesson. Denial, as the old saying goes, is not merely a river in Egypt. Californians would appreciate it if their governor stood up, took the appropriate amount of responsibility for the budget crisis and forthrightly laid out the painful steps that would be required to resolve it -- to bring the state's income and outgo into balance. He took a couple of tentative steps in the right direction in December and January -- although not without an irritating number of gimmicks -- but faced with political opposition, he has retreated into characteristic passivity. Rather than lay out a fiscal road map that makes sense for California and enlist Californians in pressuring the Legislature to enact it, Davis, by his own admission, is bowing to the conflicting pressures from a polarized Legislature and from Wall Street lenders. The guiding motif appears to be to quickly enact something -- anything -- that looks like a budget, even if it falls apart in the ensuing weeks. That's exactly what Davis and lawmakers did in 2001 and 2002 and they appear headed in that direction again.
Actually, the centerpiece of the much-revised budget -- a nearly $11 billion loan to cover the accumulated deficit,
|
|
|
