As some readers noted with alarm, this page went AWOL last issue, the result of too few letter writers and a short production schedule. But the mailbag has recently been full. Most responses to the redesign were positive. Some readers wondered about our photo illustration of the Golden Gate Bridge formed with the Chinese characters for "double happiness," including a couple of engineers who pronounced it structurally unsound. A few older readers found the text hard to read, a problem we’ve addressed with a heavier-weight font. Several readers were discomfited by the truncated "A" in the logo, which we’ve modified. Finally, a few read Richard Rodriguez’s essay on the theme of disappointment in California literature as his own disappointment with the state, and objected. One writer even offered the author free rent to see a sunnier side of California. As always, we appreciate your comments.

Breaking the impasse

John Judis’s well-written and interesting article about Governor Schwarzenegger raises the question of how complex issues of state public policy can be resolved in the political environment in which we live.

Take one example: the cost of public- employee pensions. Because these pensions are defined benefit, rather than defined contribution (the standard in industry), taxpayers are at financial risk whenever CalPERS’ or STRS’ stock market investments drop in value. So the governor proposed that new state employees receive defined-contribution pensions instead. The individual puts in some money, the state matches it, and the funds go into an IRA. The actual level of money could be made to work out the same, but the huge annual swings in taxpayer exposure would be eliminated, allowing for better state budgeting. Just like employees in the private sector, the new public employees would see their IRA’s grow over time, some years more than others, but with actuarial near certainty of growth outstripping inflation over the course of a worker’s preretirement lifetime. That was the proposal.

As Judis pointed out, the reaction from public-employee unions was so fierce that the idea never made it to the ballot. But how are we to address problems like this? The short-run political interest is very strong, and made stronger by term limits. The problems, however, are long term. It is easy for a candidate to promise defined-benefit pensions at election time, but impossible to deliver them when stock portfolios drop. The city of San Diego is at risk right now of bankruptcy because of what its city council promised, and then couldn’t fund.

These are problems of our governmental system. They are not partisan: We have encountered them under Republican and Democratic majorities in city councils, state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress.

The answer, I predict, will increasingly be found in the kind of approach that was taken to fix Social Security in 1983, and to decide which military bases would close over the last decade. Legislators are not experts in either fi eld. Pressures to make short-term promises (e.g., to keep open all bases in the districts of powerful members of Congress) will dominate under normal conditions. So, by law, a commission of experts was set up—balanced in viewpoint, background, and political party. The commission was empowered to come up with a solution, and then the legislative branch (in this case, Congress) was given a single up-or down vote. No amendments were possible, since that would reintroduce the same pressures that made the problems intractable originally. There is a role for elected officials, but it is one of validating, not originating, solutions. The solutions are the work of experts, who do not, themselves, run for office.

Looking ahead to the problems our state faces, I predict more reliance on this commission model. I anticipate seeing it surface again soon to help get some fiscal control over pensions, as well as state and local governments’ unfunded health care insurance liabilities, and the problem of the medically uninsured residents of California. We shouldn’t resist this trend. It’s likely to produce more thoughtful solutions, while still preserving, at the ratification stage, an appropriate role for the people’s elected representatives. And Berkeley professors will likely be tapped to serve on these commissions, rather than having to run for office to see their expertise have an influence on matters of public policy.

As one who worked for and with the California Legislature for over 30 years, I enjoyed John Judis’s article, "Arnold’s dilemma." The one element missing from this excellent assessment of how California has reached its current state of impasse is reapportionment, or lack thereof. The gerrymandered plans of the past four decades have also contributed mightily to the gridlock we call the legislative process, as the minority party, usually the Republicans, sold their souls for "safe" seats and, with the help of whoever was governor, perpetuated the status quo.

I have been the owner of residential and rental property for 40 years, and I fully approve of Propositions 13 and 4. Prop. 13 was and is the best thing to happen to me in my 54 years of voting in California. Property owners now have control of their own property. When Prop. 13 passed, 65 percent of voters were telling the governor and the Legislature to cut state costs appropriately. Instead, they relied on deficit spending and user taxes. Welfare and other social programs should have been cut, not education and transportation. Labor and business should not be blamed for supporting their interests. Our elected leaders are fully responsible for the California dilemma.

John Judis wants us to believe that Sacramento’s "toxic political culture" rather than individual gubernatorial failures is to blame for California’s ills, but Arnold Schwarzenegger sold out to the same special interests that sank Gray Davis. This governor’s self-congratulatory willingness to believe his own hype earned him his current predicament, not some mythical site-specific cultural toxicity. Californians (at least the majority of those who bothered to vote) aren’t notably stupid, and it was easy enough to see through a transparently cheesy appeal to the pop culture machismo of blowing up boxes and kicking butts. Schwarzenegger’s recognition that he miscalculated assures us only that he isn’t yet brain dead.

Fan mail

Congratulations on a significant and well-crafted redesign of California magazine. You’ve started what I believe is long overdue: connecting the immense resources of the University to the world beyond the campus. I recognized and even enjoyed the magazine’s prior focus on the cozy world of Cal, but I believe we are called to engage the larger issues of our day. In the new California, you have found a way to do both, and I commend you for finding that balance.

In my various "Bear roles," I am often struck by the profound work going on at Berkeley in the public service of California and the nation. Yet I am equally frustrated that so little of it finds its way beyond the walls of the University. The new direction of the magazine responds to both challenges with authoritative and insightful writing about things that matter.

Wonderful issue—impressive articles, and a genuine pleasure to read. I recommend you have professor emeritus Ronald Takaki write an essay on the changes he has witnessed— and foresees—as California, and particularly Cal, change and adapt to a new ethnic reality.

Two pieces in the January/February issue—by Richard Rodriquez and John Judis—were excellent. The first impressionistic, wistful, and wise; the second informative in a satisfying way. Just when I wanted a quick summary of Prop. 13—its history and consequences for the state—there it was!

California, rent free

I wish more people who come to California were disappointed and went back home. I am a native of a city in the Bay Area, and I have found no better place to live. True, there are too many people and cars, but the benefits I have received far exceed the disappointments I have had. My city takes care of its streets, and our parks are green. I feel sorry for Mr. Rodriguez, who lives in a city that does not care (streets in disrepair, city has no money, grass is not watered, etc.). I have an offer for Mr. Rodriguez: free rent for six months. During the six months, he can see the better side of California.

Karl had it covered

One of my persistent memories of Karl Pister—one of the world’s most accomplished persons—was when we were classmates at Stockton High School and he owned one of those duplex slide rules. It was about 30 inches long, and he carried it on a belt from his waist. Karl, like most of us, rode a bicycle, and I was concerned that the slide rule might get into the spokes and flip him. But he was brighter than that.

Energy futures

Your article "Power hunting" (November/December 2005) was well written. In the 1970s I worked with a number of groups in efforts to promote a sound national energy policy. We promoted a market approach to low-cost options and tried to get national attention diverted from just oil and gasoline prices and short-term availability. It soon became apparent that direct burning of natural gas, a substitute for oil, was more efficient than converting it to fertilizer, growing corn crops, and then converting those crops to alcohol. We also tried to emphasize that any industry built on subsidies would probably always require those subsidies, while promoting technology that would become outdated in a market environment.

Our biggest disappointment came in the opposition we encountered when suggesting that coal-fired electrical generation plants be built on site in Wyoming, where billions of tons of low-sulfur coal are available near the surface. The electrical demand in the Pacific Northwest peaked in the winter, while the southern section of the West peaked in the summer. Expanding the grid system would have allowed for efficient distribution and the possibility of reduced oil/natural gas usage by electric utilities during the summer months. We can only hope that future energy policy will promote efficient development and usage while avoiding the pitfalls of protectionism and the advancement of outdated technologies.