Summary:This election year, noted moderator Larry Carroll, we find ourselves in a political environment in which Republicans are considering a Democratic vote on the national stage and Democrats are leaning Republican in California's gubernatorial contest. So what is at stake in the upcoming elections, and where California will be headed after November?
Consultant Jim Brulte, former state Senate Republican leader, began the panel discussion by highlighting a central question for Californians: Will politicians in Sacramento continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion, as they have done over the past few years? Or will they return to legislative gridlock on key issues?
Bill Lockyer, current state attorney general and a Democratic candidate for state treasurer, agreed that the question is crucial and suggested that the answer depends greatly on how Gov. Schwarzenegger chooses to interact with Democratic state legislators in the aftermath of his presumptive re-election.
On a national level, members of the panel accepted the position of Congressman Dan Lungren that a change in control of the House of Representatives from Republican to Democrat would obviously affect California's influence in the Congress; whether such a change would be positive or negative for the state, however, depended on the individual panel member's political viewpoint.
A discussion of California's infrastructure problems was at the heart of the discussion. John Chiang, a Democratic candidate for state controller, noted that "this is a critical time in California's economy," and the others agreed with his prediction that the state would suffer serious consequences if several bond measures aimed at funding the state's infrastructure improvements fails to pass. These infrastructure improvements include upgrades to roads, bridges, highways, levees and water protection systems. State Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, who received praise on his leadership, pointed out that the proposed infrastructure investments are long overdue and that California had not made a significant investment in infrastructure in at least 40 years. Lockyer underscored the urgency of the bond measures by asserting that a failure to pass the infrastructure bond measures would "cripple the economy and ruin the environment" of the state.
Immigration was another hot topic of debate among the panelists. Republican Lungren attributed the failure of U.S. immigration policy to the unwillingness of previous administrations — both Republican and Democrat — to enforce federal immigration laws. He added that he does not fully support the recent immigration bill signed by President Bush but called it a significant "down payment" on a more comprehensive bill to come in the next Congress. Speaker Núñez, on the other hand, stated that a more serious problem exists with U.S. immigration policy: the disconnect between immigration laws and the natural law of supply and demand that govern the nation's economy. Yes, he conceded, there must be better control over the border, but he stressed that we should "not kid ourselves" that building a wall will stop people from crossing the border. Chiang agreed, adding that immigration is a global phenomenon that cannot be stopped, despite a country's best efforts to do so.
The panel concluded with a final question from Carroll, posed both to the panel and in a separate electronic poll of the audience: In which area is it most important that the state government make significant improvements? Given five choices (greater cooperation between the governor and legislature, improved fiscal responsibility, extension of term limits, enhancement of social programs or improvements to the state's business climate), the audience answer — improvements to the state’s business climate — seemed to surprise the panelists, who acknowledged the assessment but also supported Lockyer's pronouncement that cooperation between the governor and legislature is of prime important because it is a necessary precondition to progress in any other area of state governance.
