Measure for Measure

OpinionJournal

Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to remake California's government.

BY PETE DU PONT

For better for worse, for richer for poorer, all of a state's people are married--at least for a while--to a governor, and the opportunities available to them depend a great deal upon the vision and courage of their leader.

New Jersey's James McGreevy worsened people's opportunities. He campaigned against raising any taxes and then raised them on pretty much everyone--$417 a resident in the two years he served--before the state's economy tanked and he was forced out of office in a sex scandal. Fifteen hundred low-income minority children in Milwaukee lost their opportunity when Wisconsin's James Doyle vetoed a bill to allow additional students access to the best public school choice program in the nation.

On the other hand, Colorado's Bill Owens supported (though he is wavering a bit) the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or Tabor, a constitutional provision restricting the growth of state spending to the growth in population plus inflation and mandating the return of any revenue surplus to the taxpayer, making Colorado a top personal income growth state in the country for a decade. New Mexico's Bill Richardson has followed the same successful path, holding state spending to Tabor levels even though there is no requirement that he do so, and reducing income and capital gains taxes

And then there is California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose 19-month career is easily the most visionary and strongest gubernatorial leadership performance in modern American history.

Mr. Schwarzenegger replaced incumbent Gray Davis in a recall election in 2003, and then proceeded to offer real change and a broad opportunity vision to California residents.

Within hours of taking office he undid Mr. Davis's tripling of the car tax, cutting taxes by about $2 billion. He slashed spending by about $6 billion in a first step to eliminate the state's $22 billion deficit. The current budget is balanced at a level $11 billion less than the projected baseline when he took office. In March 2004 the voters passed Proposition 58, the first Schwarzenegger ballot initiative, requiring a balanced budget, establishing a Rainy Day Fund to accumulate cash to meet future unexpected economic declines, and banning the use of bonds to finance future deficits.

But that was just the beginning. A week ago the governor called a special election for Nov. 8 to vote on three policy changes that the Democrat-controlled legislature has refused to consider: stronger state spending restraints, higher standards for public school teachers, and retired judges rather than legislators drawing legislative district boundaries.

The most economically important is Measure 1131, which would put additional controls on state spending. Mr. Davis drove spending up by one-third in his five years in office; Mr. Schwarzenegger's proposition would limit spending increases to average revenue growth over the previous three years and give the governor the power to reduce spending if revenue decreases and the legislature fails to act to correct the deficit.

A second proposition seeks to improve the quality of California public school teachers' skills by requiring five instead of three years of work before they gain tenure and making two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations sufficient reason to fire a teacher.

Finally comes the most politically explosive Schwarzenegger proposal--mandating the drawing of legislative district lines by retired judges. There is no question that when legislators of both parties work together to draw district lines there is political collusion to safeguard their own seats. As California economist Art Laffer (a supporter of the proposition) pointed out, among the 80 state Assembly seats, 20 Senate seats and 53 U.S. House seats up for election in 2004, "not one seat of the 153 changed party affiliation." The Declaration of Purpose of the proposition has it right: "Partisan gerrymandering, uncompetitive districts, [and] ideological polarization" govern the redistricting process.

No doubt three bipartisan, retired judges selected by lot from pool will do better than partisan, self-interested pols. But judges are no less human than the rest of us and no less inclined to follow their political instincts--Roe v. Wade being one example and the decision upholding McCain-Feingold's limitations on free speech another--so sooner or later the retired California judges will make ideological decisions in drawing district boundaries. Nevertheless this is a visionary solution to a political problem that will not be solved in any other way.

Two other emotional proposals have already qualified for the November vote--parental notification and a two-day wait for unmarried girls 17 and under to receive an abortion, and requiring a public employee's written consent before a union can spend his dues money for political contributions.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has not endorsed the abortion measure, but it will bring a great many people to the polls on Nov. 8. An April Fox News poll showed 78% support for parental notification--and no wonder. Under existing California law 14- to 17-year-olds need parental permission to use tanning machines or to get their ears pierced. How does one then argue that a young girl's abortion requires no parental notification?

Union political use of public employees' mandatory dues is a real issue too--why should anyone required to join a union have to financially support candidates or policies that he disagrees with? If Enron or Tyco had used employee money to support their policy proposals and political candidates, the liberal left would--quite properly--have been apoplectic. But the left supports unfettered union use of state employees dues for political purposes. Indeed, the California teachers union has already slapped an annual $60 dues assessment (for up to three years) on its members to raise the $50 million it needs to fight Mr. Schwarzenegger's November ballot proposals.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has no illusion that California's über-liberal Democratic Party will support his individualistic vision; it has always advocated higher taxes, greater spending, and more expansive government regulation. So his strategy is a straight-up challenge. As he said in February, Democratic legislators "can do whatever they want, but this train has left the station. They can jump on the train, they can stand behind and wave goodbye, or they can stand in front of the train . . . and you know what happens then."

Democratic state treasurer (and a likely Schwarzenegger 2006 opponent) Phil Angelides says, "This special election will be Arnold Schwarzenegger's Iraq." Most likely that means the Democratic Party will end up in the Saddam Hussein role, for when a man of strength and vision goes to war for propositions that will increase individual opportunity, he usually wins big.