California compromise

The Modesto Bee writes an opinion piece to Arnold reminding him about a thing called compromise and the merits of open debate:

At the top of the reform list should be legislative redistricting. We urge the governor and the Democratic controlled Legislature to collaborate on a fair system for drawing legislative and congressional district boundaries.

This should be an easy one. There are plenty of systems available that would be improvements on the current arrangement that allows legislators to draw their own lines.

But the governor's other reform targets — changing the state employee pension plan into a program similar to a 401(k) investment, merit pay for teachers and adopting a formula to limit state spending — aren't ready to go on the ballot.

They are much too complex and need much more debate before ramming them down the throats of voters in the governor's typical take-it-or-leave-it fashion. Serious legislation demands serious consideration of all the ramifications of such changes.

Schwarzenegger has offered few details about his plans to the public or Legislature. This effort seems more about making political points than making good public policy.

The Democrats have begun the compromise process on one issue, the redistricting of California. They have since agreed to a three judge, independent panel, but want to see it in place in 2010, the next scheduled reapportionment. I've seen no reply from the Governor on this proposal so far.

The problem with ballot initiatives is that there is no changing them. You get what is offered, and if you agree with the end result you've been sold, you may agree to a bad law.

Arnold's proposals need some vetting. Some open debate won't hurt anyone, and I say this while currently in opposition to Arnold's proposals. But I have faith that, once properly examined, the public will see the folly of what it is Arnold wants to do and reject his wishes.