Calblog

The NY Times on the Recall

The NY Times has weighed in against the recall. My turn for a fisking.

During his campaign for re-election, Mr. Davis failed to warn voters about the breadth of the budget problems around the corner. Now many people want to hold him accountable. They are justified in their criticism, but wrong in their proposed solution. The recall effort is disturbingly dishonest. It is not oriented in favor of healing California's crisis, but is driven by wealthy individuals seeking to advance their own careers by exploiting a political disaster.

Daivs failed to warn us of a $38 billion deficit while running for reelection but it is the recall that is dishonest. The recall that is expressly authorized by the California Constitution. As for wealthy individuals advancing their own careers, let's not forget the money Davis spent in the Republican primary to make sure Riordan wasn't in the eventual election to pull the votes of Democrats who wouldn't crossover for Simon.

Leading the pack is Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican multimillionaire businessman who failed to win his party's nomination for the 1998 California Senate race. Mr. Issa, who has been a congressman for only three years, would like to be Mr. Davis's successor — under California law, voters supporting the recall will simply check off their choice for a new governor from among a long list of volunteer candidates. Bill Simon, who was defeated by Mr. Davis in last year's elections, and Arnold Schwarzenegger have also expressed interest in running.

I guess we're supposed to be upset because the only replacement choices are Republican. Exactly who determined that no Democrats are on the list? Oh yeah, the Democrats who one by one take themselves out of the race. Next.

So far, none of Mr. Davis's prospective replacements have come forward with a comprehensive plan for how to steer California out of the red. California Republicans and potential candidates haven't provided meaningful alternatives to Mr. Davis's plans for closing the budget gap aside from further unpopular public service cuts. They've devoted much more energy to exonerating themselves for any role in creating the current crisis.

I haven't any of them exonerating themselves nor coming forward with a plan. Other than Issa who formally announced a week ago, no one else has said they are running. Perhaps when they start campaigning, they'll address that. But since they haven't before announcing their candidacy, let's not have the election at all.

Mr. Davis may have provided less than impressive leadership during the state's doomed energy deregulation project, but deregulation was, after all, the Republicans' idea and the creation of Gov. Pete Wilson, Mr. Davis's predecessor. Mr. Davis was forced to use state funds to purchase energy for the state when the utility companies went bankrupt, but it was representatives of the Bush administration who resisted his pleas for some controls on excessive profit-taking by the energy industry. And in Washington, Republicans have been very reluctant to help bail out floundering state governments. When President Bush was busy planning for tax cuts, Democrats proposed an alternative economic plan that included large amounts of financial aid to troubled states. Mr. Issa should have been lobbying for that plan rather than collecting signatures for a recall.

You will hear this a lot, boys and girls. It was energy deregulation by the Republicans than got us into this mess. I have looked at these numbers. At best, under Davis' own view, the energy issue accounts for $9-11 billion. We've got another $25 billion+ to talk about. That's with Davis' "blame it all on the Republicans" spin.

Some pro-recallers argue that there's always a possibility of stumbling on a candidate possessed with the genius to save California from bankruptcy while simultaneously sparing tax hikes and public service cutbacks. It's worth the risk, they say, since there's not much more to gain by keeping Mr. Davis.

Gee, we can't get anyone better so we should keep Davis when the Constitution allows us to remove him. Remember the California Constitution allows this remedy. Here's the message recall sends: Perform or you're out of here. You don't have an automatic 4 years.

But there is. California is already well known for the influence of money in state policy — those with the most money, not necessarily the most sense, usually win the state's endless string of proposed ballot referendums. The proposition to recall Mr. Davis has become a realistic threat only since Mr. Issa started pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars from his own fortune into a larger-scale campaign, making the traditionally expected — but usually ignored — gubernatorial recall effort a forefront issue. Allowing money to popularize and influence recall efforts the way it has other propositions is not good policy or precedent.

Davis is known as a pay for play politician by all but his most devoted supporters. Now that Issa's laying out money, we're going to complain. One detail: There's a limited benefit to Issa's money. He gets the recall and his name on the ballot but does not boost his own standing in the race but doing so.

The status quo may not look promising, but entrusting the world's fifth-largest economy to a relative stranger through a recall effort led by people who have often been part of the problem is not any more comforting. Despite romantic delusions of popular upheaval against a disliked leader, a sounder method of keeping leaders accountable already exists: voting. Mr. Davis well knows his political future is riding on his actions in the coming weeks. If he cannot deliver a balanced budget or avoid taking unpopular steps toward achieving it, he's done politically. No coup d'état à l'argent necessary.

Try to stay with me here. The recall is an election. We vote on removing Davis and selecting his replacement.

Hat tip for the NYT piece: Molly.

Posted by Justene Adamec at June 20, 2003 09:09 PM | TrackBack