Media Critical

We just had quite a week on the money in politics front. The Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee informed his reform-minded public that he was opting out of public financing for the general election because the system is broken. This, unless you listen only to the Democrat's presumptive presidential nominee and his staff, is being seen as a flip-flop. The Republican's presumptive presidential nominee, unless you listen only to him and his staff, had his own pas de deux with public money earlier this campaign season before deciding to go private.

We just had quite a week on the money in politics front.  The Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee informed his reform-minded public that he was opting out of public financing for the general election because the system is broken.  This, unless you listen only to the Democrat's presumptive presidential nominee and his staff, is being seen as a flip-flop.  The Republican's presumptive presidential nominee, unless you listen only to him and his staff, had his own pas de deux with public money earlier this campaign season before deciding to go private.

Back in January, the state's superintendent of public instruction said that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget proposal would change what the governor promised would be the "year of education reform" to a "year of education evisceration."

If the governor's proposal comes close to becoming reality, the impact on California schools would be an estimated reduction in funds of $3 to $4 billion. The Legislative Analyst's Office reports: "The Governor's budget provides total K-12 per-pupil funding (PPF) of $11,626 for 2008‑09. This is roughly $300, or 2.6 percent, less than total PPF for 2007-08. In inflation-adjusted terms, the reduction is about double-roughly $600, or 5 percent."

"We believe that Californians are sending enough of their money to Sacramento," said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Aaron McLear, "and we ought to live within our means."

McLear was responding to a proposal by Democrats in the state Senate to raise taxes by $11.5 billion, "more than double the tax increase proposed by their counterparts in the Assembly," the San Jose Mercury News reported. 

As I move into a new house, I quickly make a disappointing discovery. Either my new neighbors, whose sprinklers were on full blast, have little confidence in the credibility of the government or they haven't heard that there's now officially a drought in California. The governor said so on Wednesday of last week. The reaction, if not action itself, was swift.

"Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water)," the press release said, "expects Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's declaration of a state-wide drought to bring much needed attention to the water challenges facing California."

The fallout continues from the ruling on May 15 by the California Supreme Court saying the state constitution protected everyone's fundamental "right to marry." The reaction? California politics, not surprisingly, became national. So did the coverage.

Much of the coverage since the California Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional has been focused on the impact the ruling might have on the nation's electoral politics, not to mention Gavin Newsom's gubernatorial prospects. The Wall Street Journal was perhaps clearest the day after the ruling in "Gay Marriage Returns."

Three things this week . . . .

I'd been waiting for one of them, the Los Angeles Times poll on the presidential race, to come out. It did and there was no surprise in that the poll's findings indicate that California is "reliably Democratic," as the photo caption on the story put it. ("Obama would take California in November Times/KTLA poll finds")

Maybe the headline could have been, "Duh!" given that the last Republican presidential candidate to win here was George H.W. Bush (against Michael Dukakis). More significantly, however, the story did not put into context that things change, especially in this campaign.

Since 1911, the number of seats in the U.S. House has been set by Congress, basically at 435. The calculation results in one congressman representing roughly 600,000 of us who constitute a congressional district. Every 10 years, based on the census, seats might move in response to population shifts from one state to another. This is important.

In addition to its 80 state Assembly and 40 state Senate districts, California currently has 53 congressional districts. The map looks like it was drawn on an Etch-a-Sketch during an earthquake.

Whenever I fly to Las Vegas on a Friday, usually from Bob Hope airport in Burbank, there usually are women who are getting on the same flight dressed in a manner that indicates that either they are commuting to work or Halloween is near, and it's not always October.

On one flight, purely as a result of "accidental" eavesdropping, I confirmed what my business partners had already guessed: the women were, indeed, commuting to work. These women -- and I'm not saying this has been scientifically studied, at least not by me -- are prostitutes. At least for the weekend. At least in Vegas where, though not legal, prostitution is overtly tolerated and encouraged.

Political courage, once again, was in short supply last week, what with two-thirds of the viable candidates for president reaching new lows in pandering. In California, we know all too well how gas taxes get used for funding all sorts of projects having nothing to do with their intended purpose. As a state, we have more interest than most in transportation matters that involve driving our own vehicles. Ample and/or efficient mass transit is but a pipe-dream outside of the Bay area.