But he's seen enough disastrous budget years now to know how readily -- and wrongly -- many people blame the state's problem on illegal immigration.

But illegal immigration didn't get California into its budget fix, and full federal payment -- an unlikely prospect -- wouldn't get us out.

Playing to the anti-immigrant chorus, even in a quest for federal money, undermines the message every Californian must hear: We cannot currently pay for those programs that we consistently list as our top priorities, including first-rate education, transportation and public safety, and it's not because of the size of the undocumented population. It's because of our appetite for services, the structure of our tax system and the dysfunction of our government.

He has been an outstanding spokesman in the fight to combat greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, dueling with the deniers on the weekend talk shows and touting California's policy progress around the globe.

But perhaps because his career has put him so directly in touch with the popular imagination, he also gives voice to the common wisdom of the day -- even if that wisdom is wrong, as it is when it assigns the state's troubles to public workers, welfare recipients and illegal immigrants.

Maze leads the group Downsize California Now that is preparing a ballot initiative for a two-state solution. According to their plans, 13 counties on the coast, ranging from Los Angeles to Marin, just north of San Francisco, would be split off and be named Coastal California, West California or whatever they please. The remaining 45 counties, including Orange County, would become the "real" California.

The movement was formed at the end of last year, when angry farmers in Central Valley rallied against Proposition 2, a ballot measure banning the tight confinement of farm animals. Originally called "Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries," the non-profit group has grown into a broader platform for those who cherish limited government. They hope to see the two-state initiative on the ballot by November 2010.

Convincing Californians to vote for the division of their state will be a difficult task, though. A poll by the Field Research Corporation earlier this year found that 82 percent of registered voters opposed the idea of splitting California into an eastern and western state. Also, such a plan would require approval by the U.S. Congress.

Since California became a state in 1850, there have been about 220 documented attempts to divide it, says Kevin Starr, a professor at USC and author of a multi-volume series on the history of California. "And none of them have gotten anywhere."

Rob Pierson oversees the petition drive at the headquarters of Downsize California Now in Fresno. After a successful secession, he explains, both states would hold a constitutional convention. The ideal California would feature a single-house legislature that would be in session only three months a year. Income taxes would be abolished and a balanced and an on-time budget would become mandatory.

"A small group of extremists can hold the government hostage,"

"I've always believed that term limits are a function of demagoguery."

"Proposition 13 has been a sacred cow. But you know, it's time to look at Proposition 13."

Instead, it's our elected leaders who have chosen to balance the budget on the backs of our state workers, the young, the elderly and the poor.

We will not tax oil companies for oil extraction like other states do.

We will not tax the likes of Warren Buffett, who are willing and able to pay more to a society that has lent to their prosperity.

Inspired by the courageous actions of our governor and our legislators, my wife and I decided that we too had to make the same kind of "tough choices" to balance our budget. We've decided not to feed the children.

Our immigration system is not broken, and we don't need immigration reform. It is our government that is broken, and we need government reform.

Let us have strong border control,

but let us also have legalization of long-term illegal immigrants

Remittances are a huge drain on the state and federal levels. The amount of money leaving the country is enormous.

Private charities provide spotty help at best. Taxes are the fairest way to spread the cost around.

Why is it that during times of economic crisis, the most vulnerable are blamed?

What about those of the legal population committing welfare fraud, Medicare fraud and Social Security fraud?

These vulnerable workers do pay taxes. When they purchase items, they are paying sales tax.

We cannot underestimate the significance of contributions these illegal immigrants make to the farming/agricultural/food processing/packaging business.

The standout in the recitation of costs because of illegal immigration is the portrait of Delia Godinez and her five children. The family receives $650 each month from the state's CalWorks program, $500 in federal food stamps and other vouchers and unmentioned thousands in public schooling benefits. This is for one illegal immigrant family.

Even parking becomes impossible when half of my neighbors are living nine people in a one-bedroom place with five cars outside.

As a member of Congress, I work hard to make sure that federal funding for school districts is maximized so this center and other area schools can best serve our students and communities.

Let's get the facts straight. Despite the cap instituted by Proposition 13, property taxes have increased dramatically in California. According to Board of Equalization data, property tax revenue has increased 800% since the measure passed in 1978 -- from $5.6 billion a year to $50 billion. Compare that with general fund revenue -- made up largely of sales, income and corporate taxes -- which has increased 500% over the same period.

In order to "solve" California's massive budget crisis, the tax-and-spend lobby and left-leaning academics are again suggesting that we revise Proposition 13, which changed the state's tax structure in 1978 by lowering property tax rates and limiting annual increases.

Ironically, these new efforts to change the highly popular initiative are based, not on the argument that Proposition 13 has failed California, but on the grounds that Proposition 13 is working precisely as intended.

California's budget problem is a result of unrestrained overspending coupled with unstable sources of revenue.

While income tax and sales tax revenue are way down by double digit percentages, property tax revenues have simply flattened out, notwithstanding dramatic drops in market value. True, some counties will see slightly larger drops in revenue than others, but some counties will actually see increases in property tax revenue. There are few places in all of America which can make that claim.

Here is the real irony. Our sales tax and income tax system has evolved over many years in ways dictated by our political elite and smartest policy advisors. Thus, the volatility that we now complain about has been brought to us by people who are oh so much smarter than the rest of us. Proposition 13, on the other hand, was sponsored by two relatively simple men, Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, who were seeking, first and foremost, just to protect homeowners.

Smokers are a finite group of taxpayers who are shrinking daily either to death or dictums from their thinner wallets. Sacramento should not pin the burdens of child health and education on one downtrodden class of disliked citizens.

The state’s biggest labor union is launching a $1-million TV advertising campaign promoting new taxes on the oil, tobacco and liquor industries in hopes of dissuading lawmakers from adopting the deep social services cuts proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The governor wants to eliminate the state’s welfare-to-work program, health insurance for the working poor and student grants, among other programs.

"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."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that the claim by some conservative activists that illegal immigration is to blame for all of the state's fiscal problems is ignorant and bigoted.

In response to a question about Californians getting a much smaller return on every dollar they pay in federal taxes than residents of many other states, the governor said: "I would say the California congressional delegation is less effective because Democrats and Republicans are not working together as well as in states like in Texas and in Florida."

A crazy myth has been spreading about the core measure on the May 19 state ballot, Proposition 1A.

The myth is that Prop. 1A is a sneaky trick to raise taxes.

Truth is, it's a measure to create a spending cap and rainy day reserve -- to slow the growth of state government.

Republicans would accept only a temporary two-year extension of an already-agreed-to two-year tax hike. And if voters didn't approve the spending limit, there'd be no tax extension. In 2011, rates would revert to their old levels.