Armed with an increased understanding of the fiscal problems facing our state and local governments, Californians are clamoring for reform on a multitude of levels. So if good governing is doing the will of the people and supporting solutions to the state's most pressing problems, how is it that the majority party in Sacramento is inconsistent in addressing pension and regulatory reforms?
Spawned by the public employee pension crisis, San Diegans took matters into their own hands last June when two-thirds of voters approved overhauls to the city's pension system. Given the severity of the crisis, you might expect an issue this important to top the list of priorities on state leaders' to-do list in Sacramento. Yet the majority party proved once again that its priorities are not in alignment with those of California citizens.
My Republican colleagues and I have long supported pension reform and even introduced a plan the governor supported word-for-word as legislation. Our proposals, however, were largely disregarded. To make matters worse, the State Assembly was in session for 244 days and had 633 calendar days to take action. The majority party, however, chose to sit idle as the legislative clock ran out. Subsequently, they waited until the final days of the two-year legislative session to consider much needed reforms to our shattered pension system. The result was a backroom proposal with details not available to the public or even members of the Legislature until an hour before a late night hearing that preceded a vote on the plan.
Evidently, legislative leaders had decided pension reform was important enough to push through the legislative process. They also admitted reforms to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were in the works; then the president pro tempore of the senate claimed the issue was, "too important to rewrite in the last days of the [legislative] session."
It is interesting how leadership picks and chooses which issues are worth pushing through the legislature in the waning hours of a two-year session.
Like pension reform, regulatory reform is a major issue in need of immediate attention, especially some of the job-killing provisions of CEQA. Excessive litigation in the name of protecting the environment too often stalls economic development at a time when our state desperately needs to spur private sector job creation. Rushed through the legislative process, a watered-down version of pension reform passed but fell significantly short of what is needed in California leaving the state in hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of unfunded liabilities in projected pension and health care expenses.
The pension proposal's 11th hour urgency was meant to give voters the false impression that the Legislature is tackling the big issues, when in fact it is picking and choosing its priorities for political gain. Throughout my tenure in the State Assembly, I've worked hard on reforms aimed at getting Californians back to work again and was disappointed that the majority party didn't find them worth fighting for in the battle of last minute priorities.
Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, represents the 74th Assembly District in the California Legislature.
Spawned by the public employee pension crisis, San Diegans took matters into their own hands last June when two-thirds of voters approved overhauls to the city's pension system. Given the severity of the crisis, you might expect an issue this important to top the list of priorities on state leaders' to-do list in Sacramento. Yet the majority party proved once again that its priorities are not in alignment with those of California citizens.
My Republican colleagues and I have long supported pension reform and even introduced a plan the governor supported word-for-word as legislation. Our proposals, however, were largely disregarded. To make matters worse, the State Assembly was in session for 244 days and had 633 calendar days to take action. The majority party, however, chose to sit idle as the legislative clock ran out. Subsequently, they waited until the final days of the two-year legislative session to consider much needed reforms to our shattered pension system. The result was a backroom proposal with details not available to the public or even members of the Legislature until an hour before a late night hearing that preceded a vote on the plan.
Evidently, legislative leaders had decided pension reform was important enough to push through the legislative process. They also admitted reforms to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were in the works; then the president pro tempore of the senate claimed the issue was, "too important to rewrite in the last days of the [legislative] session."
It is interesting how leadership picks and chooses which issues are worth pushing through the legislature in the waning hours of a two-year session.
Like pension reform, regulatory reform is a major issue in need of immediate attention, especially some of the job-killing provisions of CEQA. Excessive litigation in the name of protecting the environment too often stalls economic development at a time when our state desperately needs to spur private sector job creation. Rushed through the legislative process, a watered-down version of pension reform passed but fell significantly short of what is needed in California leaving the state in hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of unfunded liabilities in projected pension and health care expenses.
The pension proposal's 11th hour urgency was meant to give voters the false impression that the Legislature is tackling the big issues, when in fact it is picking and choosing its priorities for political gain. Throughout my tenure in the State Assembly, I've worked hard on reforms aimed at getting Californians back to work again and was disappointed that the majority party didn't find them worth fighting for in the battle of last minute priorities.
Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, represents the 74th Assembly District in the California Legislature.