Finally, one of the local jackals sees the light!

Jesse can talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk it and actually govern...he's as clumsy as anyone I've ever met. As one who worked in state government during his administration, by the end of his run he had totally isolated himself; the politicos just waited him out and slam dunked him when it came to passing meaningful legislation. As a result, it set the stage for our first budget shortfall back in early 2K, which in my opinion we've never totally recovered from.

He destroyed any chance of the Independent Party gaining traction in the near term. So, while I still admire the whole speaking truth to power shtick he has, I wouldn't let him near a government office...unless it was to pay his license tab fee. In the end, it was more about self-promotion than making a difference for the rank and file.

LAMBERT: Oh, I get all that. But in terms of pragmatic governance are we any worse off today?

"Are we any worse off today?"

I think my point is that with another viable party alternative, we might have been actually better off by today. But, because Jesse's "straight talk" couldn't translate into anything other than an obvious grab for personal income generating opportunities, he ruined a great chance to break the "taxes/no taxes" party logjam we face right now.

He was great for journalists, bad for regular folks. I love watching the guy, but I wouldn't follow him anywhere.

LAMBERT: unfortunately, our subsequent experiences with Peter Hutchinson (Pawlenty v. Hatch) and Dean Barkley (Coleman v. Franken) offers no good reason to encourage third party activity. Personally, I forsee a crack-up among Republicans producing something amounting to a third.

On sheer entertainment value alone, I'd take Jesse back in the Governor's mansion.

Here's my question for Peter Weinhold, you assert, "....it set the stage for our first budget shortfall back in early 2K, which in my opinion we've never totally recovered from." Huh? We're looking at 2009 - 2010 budget revenues and an economic fallout from catastrophic banking, real estate, and a derivatives market run wild and you're going to mark this all up to Jesse Ventura? Due to a failed health care system, we have double digit inflation in the cost of heath care every year for the past 10 or more which places an incredible burden on states, businesses, and our citizens. And you're going to assert that Ventura set this stage?

Sure, I opposed the tax rebate that Jesse sent back to the people on the grounds of poor economic policy. And yes, I found Ventura unduly self-aggrandizing. But can we not have realistic perspective in our public assessments of policy and economic failure?

All this reminds me of the argument that for eight years we had G.W. Bush, six of those years Republican control of Congress with huge deficits and runaway greed with no regulation or oversight when the whole system collapses and some idiots out there want to blame it on Barnie Frank and his homosexuality.

Only very powerful hallucinogenic drugs could make someone believe these freaky distortions.

LAMBERT" Will those drugs be available under the medical marijuana law?

I love the hypocrisy of your article Mr Lambert! A member of the media getting excited by someone questioning the status quo and bringing common sense into the current political climate. I'm sorry Mr Lambert but isn't it your job to be the Jesse Ventura's of this world. Shouldn't you, the journalists, be the ones to question our government and cut through the two party rhetoric and talking points instead of wishing for the Jesse Ventura's of the world to do it for you. It's very telling what you said about his comments on organized religion. That you and many of your fellow "journalists" agreed with what he said but instead kept your mouths shut and even in most cases chose to tear him down for saying it. Imagine what those four years would have been like if you and your fellow journalists had the courage to stand by your convictions when you agreed with him instead of going the easy route of Republican and Democrat talking points and tabloid journalism. Who knows, maybe instead of wishing he was still in office today, he actually would be. I guess courage isn't in the make-up of the Minnesota media.

LAMBERT: Look, you can Google pretty much anything I've ever written. If it sounds like just the same status quo blather, you let me know. But I'm not -- nor have I ever been -- an elected official. (By God, I'd change things!) The context here is someone telling Hannity and his ilk they're full of BS ... to their faces. No one much cares if some pipsqueak media pundit says it. But they notice when it says "former Governor" next to your name. Bottom line though, Ventura never bothered to exert the energy to expand his refreshing candor to anything or anyone other than himself.

Man, he sounds just like another celebrity-turned-governor I could mention. One who is busy running California into a 21 billion dollar deficit.

LAMBERT: California's descent into fiscal madness began with Howard Jarvis and Prop 13.

It sounds like a good time for another of your semi annual if I were king blogs. I'd love it with a little bit of relish and a backing chorus.

LAMBERT: I usually wait until December, but you may be right. The King needs to make a few decrees.

Here are some facts, rather than opinions:

In 1999 California's budget was $75 billion. Population ~33 million.

Now California's budget is $145 billion. Population ~36 million.

Government has doubled in 10 years and population has only increased by about a tenth. Yet California is still running a $21 billion deficit.

California has the highest sales tax. California has the highest income tax that starts at only $45,000 per year. California has the highest car tax in the nation. California has the highest business tax in the West.

I realize the knee-jerk liberal reaction is to blame Prop 13 and try to claim that California is just not taxing its citizens enough, darn it. But when you double your spending in 10 years, without a population increase, AND still run a huge deficit it's pretty clear that the problem is SPENDING not low property taxes.

LAMBERT: I assume you're asserting that certain fundamental costs to government, such as health care, have remained pretty much constant and consistent with the state's population growth? Ditto the costs of repairing and upgrading infrastructure and other costs associated with the rate of inflation?

Robb -

Earlier this decade there was that first billion dollar or so shortfall that was the initial blow to the state economy. In terms of a balanced recovery, I don't think we ever fully recovered from that. What I'm saying is that because Jesse wore out his welcome by the end of his administration, people stopped taking him seriously. When it came time to continue to do real work on the budget back in the day, they marginalized him. I'm certainly not blaming him for what's happening now; I haven't had a good hallucinogen in years, although given our current trouble, there are days...

As for the cast of third party characters now, I'm in total agreement. There's not much heat in the current bunch. As you say Brian, Ventura never bothering to exert the energy on anyone other than himself is/was the problem. If he would have demonstrated the ability to govern, and worked to attract a coalition, things might have been different.

As I said, I love the straight talk, I just disagree on whether things would be better with him in office. It was pretty painful back then.

LAMBERT: We'd be in better shape if Ventura hadn't kicked back the surplus way back when, but on much more solid ground if we'd stop kicking the debt can down the road with spending shifts and accounting tricks and face up to the true cost of doing business, circa 2009, something the infantilism of "no new taxes" thinking seeks to avoid, like a teenager resisting adulthood.

Tru Calling

Ah, they're letting Jesse be Jesse. Egads.

From Variety:

"Net also announced 'Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura,' in which the former Minnesota governor and professional wrestler, who believes 9/11 was an inside job, will investigate subjects like Area 51."

Only on Tru TV. Maybe on the second show he can look into that Kazeminy business.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004001.html?categoryId=1300&cs=1

LAMBERT: Ha!

I disagree about Ventura's Governing abilities as mentioned above. Being an Indy the guy was kicked from both the Left and the Right when endeavoring to perform his duties as Governor, it's hard to do your job when being slammed from both angles.

Sure Jesse is opinionated but he is educated also and performs his research to back his claims. He questions everything that requires questioning that those blinded by either a Left or Right paradigm (or mentality) do not for lack of ability or common sense to do.

Those that STILL believe that our country is led by the President are the most ignorant bunch alive and unfortunately are the majority as brainwashed into submission as thay are.

Money runs America and the criminal Banksters through their vehicle the Federal Reserve are running our presidents and Congressmen through its fiat monetary system by printing money out of thin air without any gold or silver backing it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

For those of you that think everything is "conspiracy theory" I ask that you google "Banking Quotes" or "Federal Reserve" quotes to begin to grasp who is running America and what they gained by creating the events of 9-11-2001. These are the guys that create money and wars out of thin air and have since 1913.

It's time to wake up and hopefully Jesse will open some eyes with his truths and facts.

GO JESSE!

LAMBERT: You may be a bit further down the line than I am, but there's no question that the average American is woefully under-informed on how directly mega-scale capitalism controls the levers and faucets of daily life. A case in point, the "60 Minutes" piece this past winter on the major Wall St. banks gaming the price of oil.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770_page3.shtml

It says something about how badly the national discourse has deteriorated over the past decade that Jesse becomes a voice of sanity. Still, it's better than opening the crypt and letting Newt Gingrich out every day to go on t.v. Did you catch Jesse on Ed Schultz's show where he suggested that Republican stalwart Norm Coleman ought to get a job in the private sector? Ed is a better pairing for Jesse than the regular geeks on t.v.

The problem with Jesse was that he liked being governor, but he didn't like governing, which involves sitting behind closed doors with people you don't like haggling over details you don't quite understand and don't think are worth studying.

My impression is that he was good at appointing; his staff seemed a cut above usual, and his appointments to boards, etc. seemed to selected for knowledge and ability rather than simply to pay-off cronies or contributors. (It's true given his personality and the Independence party, he didn't have many of either.) I haven't heard anyone address the issue, but his judicial appointments seem to have been very good.

I also think he was a better governor than T.P., but that's setting the bar lower than a snake's navel.

LAMBERT: Pawlenty's demeanor and supernatural deflection skills leave him with a reputation for more credible conduct in office than Ventura. But in terms of productivity in actual service to the state I think that's a highly arguable comparison.

Inflation in California is 3.4% (less than national average).

Let me turn that question around on you: you think that a near 100% increase in government is "keeping pace" with increased healthcare/infrastructure costs etc.?

Given a population growth of only 3 million over 10 years did California need to increase its state worker force by 70,000?

Increase in annual spending on Heatlh&Human Services 1999-2008: ~10 billion

Increase in annual spending on Education (K-12): 19 billion
Increase in annual spending on Higher Ed: 5 billion.

As you can see, an increase in education spending ALONE accounts for about a third of the increase in budget size while H&HS accounts for about 1/7th.

I love the way you first tried to blame Prop 13 and then, after seeing the numbers, you changed your tack and tried to claim that a 100% in government over a decade is "keeping pace" with normal inflationary costs and healthcare/infrastructure costs.

LAMBERT: The Howard Jarvis campaign to move most of California's critical budget decisions to voter referendum was at least as damaging to the state as the money it sucked out of what was a pretty good school system. Compounding that are the state's absurdly gerrymandered districts -- kind of like the 6th here in Minnesota -- which means zealots can get voted in and re-elected.

Not that you'll believe anything printed in a daily newspaper, but this is what the San Jose Mercury News says about Ca.'s money problems ...

The Mercury News analyzed state spending, line by line, from 2003 to 2008. The major conclusions:

# California's general fund under Schwarzenegger's tenure has grown 34.9 percent — from $76.3 billion in the 2003-04 fiscal year to $102.9 billion in 2007-08.

# But over that same period, population growth and inflation together grew by only 21.5 percent.

# If state spending had grown only at that rate, it would have reached $92.7 billion last year. Instead, Schwarzenegger and the Legislature spent $10.2 billion more.

"I wish it hadn't grown that much," said Mike Genest, Schwarzenegger's state finance director, "but in some sense, it was inevitable. Had we stuck with a very austere budget, we would have been in better shape.''

"But that would have meant real, permanent reductions in service levels, like schools and health care and prison guard pay, and that would have required herculean effort from the Legislature. And there was no chance of that."

Top Democrats cite voter initiatives as big drivers in the state's spending — like the 1994 "three strikes" measure that increased the prison population, or Proposition 98, the 1988 measure guaranteeing at least 40 percent of the general fund for education. Add to that, they say, some major lawsuits the state lost, including a federal case requiring more spending to upgrade prison health care at about $1 billion a year so far.

"If you factor out voter initiatives and court suits, the remaining part of state government grew at or less than inflation and population growth," said John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who served as Assembly Budget Committee chairman from 2004 to 2008.

So looking at the past five years, where did that "extra" $10.2 billion of state spending above the rate of inflation and population growth go? The Mercury News found:

# The state prison system received the biggest share, about $4.1 billion of it. Corrections spending has increased fivefold since 1994. At $13 billion last year, it now exceeds spending on higher education. Tough laws and voter-approved ballot measures have increased the prison population 82 percent over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, former Gov. Gray Davis gave the powerful prison guards union a 30 percent raise from 2003 to 2008, increasing payroll costs.

# Public health spending — mostly Medi-Cal, the state program for the poor — received $2.9 billion above the rate of inflation and population growth. Part of that spike is due to an aging population; part is rising national health care costs. But state lawmakers also expanded Medi-Cal eligibility among children and low-income women a decade ago, increasing caseloads.

# Schwarzenegger's first act as governor, signing an executive order to cut the vehicle license fee by two-thirds, blew a large hole in the state budget. It saved the average motorist about $200 a year but would have devastated the cities and counties that had been receiving the money. So Schwarzenegger agreed to repay them every year with state funds. That promise now costs the state $6 billion a year, or $2 billion more than the rate of inflation and population growth since early 2003.

# Spending on a few other areas, such as higher education, general government, transportation and environment, also grew faster — by about $1 billion each — than inflation and population over the past five years. That was mostly to cover debt payments on bonds that voters approved for parks and highways, along with moves to limit university tuition increases.

# Finally, general fund spending on K-12 schools and social services, like welfare, actually grew less than the rate of inflation and population growth.

The "size of government" is yet another one of those bugaboo terms that right-wingers like to throw out as some kind of liberal conspiracy to destroy American liberty.

What is driving the growth in spending and size of government? #1 Medical costs. The radical increase in health care impacts everything from elderly care to public employees to the cost of running prisons. Without hiring even one additional employee the medical costs to the state have doubled in ten years. As San Jose Mercury accounts, the cost of running prisons has grown incredibly.

These are not "liberal" or "big government" costs because they would have occurred regardless of who was in office and are inflationary pressures placed on government regardless of policy.

I'm sorry, there is no way in hell you are going to convince me that extremist right-wingers are protectors of "liberty and freedom." Their policies and actions belie that claim and the amount of government intrusion into the lives of individual citizens they advocate makes boldface liars of all of them.

What's worse for all of us is their self-serving tax cuts for the richest and huge retention bonuses for the corrupt economic theories make no sense and have lead us down a path to economic ruin.