Let's give Schwarzenegger tools he needs.

The year was 2003, California was facing a budget deficit of $26 billion (including both a current and structural component). A very logical and workable bipartisan solution developed by Assemblymembers Keith Richman (R-Northridge) and Joseph Canciamilla (D-Pittsburg) was rejected by legislators of both parties (who were apparently more concerned about partisanship than solving this serious problem).

California's credit rating on Wall Street was equivalent to that of "junk bonds," and, if that wasn't enough, our productive output was diminishing due, in part, to increasing unemployment created substantially by the new wave of outsourcing and "runaway film production" resulting from escalating costs of producing products and films in California and, in the case of the higher technology jobs, from a lack of skilled workers due to inadequate or lack of education (it is estimated that almost 50 percent of local students do not graduate from high school).

California's voters, recognizing the danger of continuing under the same leadership, demanded a recall of then Governor Gray Davis and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as our new governor with a clear mandate to fix the mess we were in.

When Governor Schwarzenegger began his term, he immediately approached the legislature in an attempt to work together to solve California's fiscal crisis. His initial goals -were to stop the current fiscal hemorrhage, boost the state's credit rating and provide fiscal stability and economic strength for the future.

These initial goals were substantially accomplished by the passage of Propositions 57 and 58 which provided for a $15 billion bond issue to deal with the current portion of the budget deficit and a requirement for an annual balanced budget. These propositions reached the ballot through a cooperative effort by the governor and the legislature, beginning as Assembly Bills ABX5 9 and ACAX5 5. Unfortunately, this was the last time the governor and the legislature worked cooperatively to solve the more serious problems of our state.

The implementation of Propositions 57 and 58 solved some of the problems but not all. A significant structural budget deficit is still looming, the high costs of doing business in California and the significant high school dropout rate are still fueling outsourcing and "runaway film production, and the legislature is manipulated by special interest groups and substantially controlled by party extremists elected from "safe seat" districts (created by the current method of drawing legislative districts).

Currently, there is a serious "tug-of-war" going on between the governor and the legislature. Each time the governor attempts to do the job he was elected to do, the partisanship and special interest manipulation in the legislature prevents him from doing so. His only alternative is to go directly to the people, which he has decided to do.

Attack ads

The special interest groups are pumping huge sums of money (more than $25 million to date) into a well organized deceptive attack campaign to confuse the voters and defeat the propositions that can help the governor achieve the goals that we set for him. Additionally, since the special election was announced, the special interests backed legislators have been blocking the governor's attempts to enact legislation that is beneficial to all Californians.

It is clear that the special interests will fight to the bitter end to maintain control. In his Los Angeles Times article titled: "A Year of Partisan Paralysis in the Capitol" Times Staff Writer Jordan Rau said "many of the Governor's proposals--to reorganize state government, expand Medi-Cal managed care to include the disabled and blind, lower prescription prices, encourage solar power--were undercut by Democrats distracted by and angry about the fall ballot." Additionally, Senate President Pro Tern Don Perata of Oakland admitted to the Times that there were some huge opportunities for legislation this year that were squandered unnecessarily for a special election that, in his opinion is neither needed nor wanted.

It is difficult for me to understand why the voters would not want to limit the state's spending to the amount of revenue received (Prop. 76), to have an independent body of retired judges draw the legislative districts enabling more moderation and cooperation in the legislature thereby reducing the gridlock (Prop. 77), to ensure that our children receive high quality education from high quality, high performing teaching professionals (Prop. 74) and to allow union members to determine whether they want their dues to be used for political influence (Prop.75).

Playing on fears

There have been numerous ads by the special interest groups (identifying themselves by generic coalition names) which are providing interpretations of the propositions that are inconsistent with the actual wording of the propositions. They are playing on our fears and guilt by incorrectly asserting that we will be hurting our children by denying them good teachers and adequate funds for education if we vote for Propositions 74 and 76. Proposition 74 requires new teachers to work successfully for five years before they are given tenure and therefore, a job for life. Currently, only two years are required. How can anyone know whether a two-year employee has what it takes to satisfactorily perform a job for life? Not only can the current law result in poor teachers being retained indefinitely, it can also result in potentially good teachers being terminated prior to completing two years because their true value has not been able to be assessed in such a short period of time.

Proposition 76 would prohibit the legislature from spending more money than the state collects in revenues. The special interests would have us believe that the sole purpose of this proposition is to take funds from the schools. This is ludicrous. California spends 40 percent of its entire budget on schools, a higher percentage than most states in the nation. If spending needs to be reduced for lack of revenues, it follows that all areas of the budget would need to be reduced; however the purpose for Proposition 76 remains to stop spending money that we don't have. Our schools are providing inadequate motivation and education even with the tremendous amount of funds being allocated to them. Perhaps some of the funds should be spent on an audit to determine the true source of the problem.

We elected a governor to reduce our deficit, and restore economic vitality and enhanced productivity to California. Let's give him our support and the tools he needs to do the job. You wouldn't send a plumber to fix a leak without giving him a wrench, would you? We have a serious leak that needs to be fixed.

Gregory N. Lippe, CPA, is managing partner of the Woodland Hills-based CPA firm of Lippe, Hellie, Hoffer & Allison LLP and a director and vice chair of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association