Californians should not mistake a widely shared dislike of our political situation with shared agreement on what constitutes the common good.

Is signing a petition and delivering it to the government a public act, like voting on a bill in the legislature or contributing money to a campaign? Or is it more like casting a secret ballot at the polling place?

Toleos said, "We don't ask people to go confront strangers. This is about finding someone they already know -- a cousin, a friend and co-worker -- and having a civil dialogue."

With ballot initiatives, voters can set in cement laws and constitutional amendments that will govern the state long after they are dead or have moved away, even if a new majority of Californians would like something different.

Such a direct democracy isn't worthy of the name. It isn't very direct, and it isn't particularly democratic.

Successful reform in this area should not restrict voters or lawmakers. It should seek to free them, and give them more power and discretion -- but it should do so in ways that allow better checks and balances. This could be accomplished with four changes to the current system: Make initiatives subject to the same rules as legislation.

This would mean that, like bills in the Legislature, initiatives would be submitted to the legislative counsel's office for vetting. The drafter of any initiative that added to state or local budgets would have to convince that office that the measure proposed enough revenue to cover those costs.

More important, initiatives would no longer be immune from legislative amendment. Any initiative that passed could be amended or eliminated by the Legislature after being in place for two years -- the length of a legislative session.

As a corollary, any initiative that seeks to impose supermajority requirements would itself have to pass by a supermajority.

Currently, an amendment may be added with a simple majority vote of the people. But the constitution cannot be revised except by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and a vote of the people. This dynamic -- making it easier to add than to edit -- is one reason California's Constitution has grown so long.

Under the current system, the Legislature holds hearings on each initiative, but there is no formal mechanism for negotiations between initiative sponsors and lawmakers. There should be. An initiative that gains enough signatures should first be put to an up-or-down vote by the Legislature. In addition, lawmakers should be able to offer amendments that an initiative sponsor may accept or reject.

Reform to the initiative process must also address an oft-neglected tool of California's direct democracy, the referendum -- a measure that permits voters to undo an act of the Legislature.

The signature-gathering standard for a referendum should be lowered substantially, perhaps to 1% of the number of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election.

Two columns in the Los Angeles Times caught my eye. The second one is on a "student loan bailout". In this first one, though, Tim Rutten bandwagons with his bemoaning of California's voter initiative process. He cites Chief Justice Ronald M. George's statements before continuing...

Serious political historians also agree...

So you are a moron if you disagree, you see.

that, as currently utilized, the California initiative process is a perversion of what the Progressives intended when they inserted these direct-democracy provisions into the state Constitution.

Let us, for the sake of argument, grant that as true. So freakin' what? We all have to play by the same rules. Maybe the "Progressives" were hoping that only their pet initiatives would pass a direct vote, but that's not the way law works. Ain't equality great?

Just because it isn't being used the way those folks wanted way back then is not a good reason to scrap it now.

Moreover, Californians are not particularly unhappy with the initiative process.

Ah, but we’d better find a way to chuck it anyway, right (but only after using it to repeal the California Marriage Amendment, of course)? I'm open to refining the initiative process, but only if California is broken up.

David Lazarus has a column entitled, "How About a Bailout for Student Debtors?"He cites rising fees/tuition costs for higher education. Doesn't he realize that more government involvement, especially in the form of bailouts, will raise those costs? The institutions note that people "have more money to spend" and so they will charge them more. It is called supply and demand.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (HR 3221) passed the House last month pretty much along party lines. It's now working its way through the Senate.

The bill would eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan Program, thus making student loans much riskier (and hence unattractive) for banks. The Education Department would continue offering direct loans and would presumably dominate the market.

Democrats say the legislation would free up more funds for Pell Grants and other financial aid. Republicans say the federal government would be playing too large a role in higher education.

The Republican’s are wrong. The federal government already is playing too large a role in higher education.

I have no problem with the government, rather than banks, deciding who gets a college education and who doesn't, just as it's the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone gets at least a high school education.

Gotta love incrementalism. Maybe it is time for government to get out of high school education? Banks don't decide. Students and admissions staff decide.

I'm sympathetic, but only because the government has already shown itself to be a soft touch for banks, insurers, carmakers and especially for homeowners, who in many cases had no business taking out loans they couldn't repay.

In that context, I think it's perfectly reasonable for college students and recent grads to seek a little bailout of their own.

Of course! It's a version of the domino theory at work. Government intrusion into one area justifies having it intrude into others. "They got paid!" means everyone else should get "paid", too.

So what about recent grads who did what I did and purposely choose an institution they can afford? Are they just suckers? They sure are, if they could have gone to a more expensive (and thus, more prestigious) university, and had taxpayers pay the entire bill. Boy, I went to school at the wrong time. I bought my house at the wrong time. I bought my car the wrong time. In each case, I missed handouts from other taxpayers. I guess I’m a sucker.

Lopez, who is national president of Mexican American Political Association and national director of Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, said the charges against him were groundless and he and his attorney planned to fight the allegations.

Lopez has faced voter trouble in the past, including in 1996 for allegedly registering new citizens in the congressional district where Democrat Loretta Sanchez upset incumbent Bob Dornan.

A congressional investigation found some voters had cast ballots before their citizenship was finalized. The Orange County District Attorney’s office investigated the allegations, but no charges were filed.

"To solve the budget’s continuing structural deficit, we must reform the way the government spends its money. And to restore the trust of the people, we must reform the way the government operates.
...
My colleagues, I say to you, political courage is not political suicide. Ignore the lobbyists. Ignore the politics. Trust the people.
...
Do the math. Our revenue increases by more than 5 billion but our spending increases by over 10 billion. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
...
A lot of people say, 'Arnold, why don’t you just raise taxes and be done with it?' Well, as I said earlier, we don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. We could raise taxes by billions but that would only further drive up spending by billions of dollars.
...
I can also announce that we intend to wipe out nearly 100 unnecessary boards and commissions, abolishing over 1000 political appointments in the process.

No one paid by the state should make $100,000 a year for only meeting twice a month.

I know the special interests will oppose all the reforms I have mentioned. Any time you try to remove one dollar from the budget, there are five special interests tugging on the other end. Anytime you try to make something more efficient, there are a half-dozen special interests trying to prevent it.

The result is that nothing changes in Sacramento. This place is in the grip of the special interests.

The people of California demand reform. That is what the recall election was all about."