Study of State Governments Ranks California With a Capital C (Minus)

It’s now official: California government has hit rock bottom.

State governments don’t get any worse, anywhere.

That isn’t a Republican or a Democratic assessment. It’s the judgment of a respected national magazine for policy wonks: Governing, published by Congressional Quarterly, a pillar of nonpartisanship.

The monthly mag examines the nitty-gritty, basically boring details of government and is read by 85,000 state and local officials and politicians.

It just completed an in-depth study of all state governments -- a “government performance project” -- conducted by a large team of academicians and journalists and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Then it graded each state.

California rated a C-minus. That was bottom of the heap, along with only one other state: Alabama.

Graded at the top were Virginia and Utah, each with an A-minus.

To put this in perspective, there were a lot of states the magazine didn’t rave about. It issued a C or C-plus to 18 others. It graded 27 in the B range. The average grade was a B-minus.

California’s neighbors -- among our stiffest competitors for jobs and investment -- got these grades: Arizona, B; Nevada, B-minus; Oregon, C-plus.

Some big states: Texas, B; New York, B-minus; Florida, B-minus; Illinois, C-plus.

What grabbed my attention was the top of the California story:

“People who work in California government” -- Note: governors especially -- “love to talk about how their state dwarfs entire countries in both population and economy. Well, everybody needs something to be proud of. They certainly can’t talk about how the state dwarfs anyone in the quality of its management. When it comes to management, California is the dwarf.”

Whoa! Wasn’t this cheap-shot, California bashing? But I knew deep down that the writer was close to the mark.

I called the man, project co-editor Richard Greene. No, Greene replied, he had never been turned down for a job in California, never been denied admission to a university nor had any other reason to hold a grudge against the state.

“California has been kind of lousy-managed for a long time,” he said. “This just reflects that the state still is doing a lot of the same things wrong.”

Continuing with the magazine story:

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has promised loads of reforms -- and he couldn’t start quickly enough. The state’s budget is balanced on a tower of debt. It’s not spending nearly enough on its infrastructure. And, with the exception of a lone outpost in the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the use of performance information is minuscule.”

Legislative Analyst Elizabeth G. Hill is so objective, nonpartisan and esteemed she’s known as “the budget nun.” On Tuesday, she took a swipe at Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget-control “reform.” Under it, if there was a budget hole that the Legislature couldn’t fix, spending automatically would be cut across the board.

Hill wrote: “The governor [says] the main purpose of the reforms is to deal with ‘autopilot spending’ and instill discipline in future budgets. [But his] specific proposals work in exactly the opposite direction.... They would put more spending on autopilot and make it more difficult to balance future budgets in a rational way.”

Hill also noted that Schwarzenegger again proposes to raid the transportation kitty, shifting $1.5 billion in highway money to general fund programs. That would bring to $4 billion the amount heisted from transportation by Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis.

This is what Governing magazine says about that: “The condition of the transportation system in California is showing the signs of neglect, and ranks fourth in the country for the number of traffic lanes in poor condition.”

It criticizes all the state borrowing, most of it by Schwarzenegger, who promised voters he’d “tear up the credit cards.” The magazine totes up $26 billion worth of IOUs, adding: “The variety of ways California borrowed is testimony to the state’s creativity.”

The magazine goes easy on Schwarzenegger: “Generally, the state’s difficulties are not the fault of the current administration.” But it smacks the electorate: “California is a victim of its initiative process, which hampers the ability of elected officials to get their jobs done.”

It cites Proposition 98, which mandates more than 40% of the general fund for schools. This reduces the politicians’ flexibility. Schwarzenegger is trying to do something about it, but Hill says his proposal would make matters worse.

“In a similar way,” the magazine says, “the public’s decision to devote $3 billion to stem-cell research may be morally upstanding. But all such mandates take the steering wheel of government out of the hands of the governor and Legislature.... Usually, this results in an accident of some sort.”

One might argue about specific findings in the study, but it does confirm many reports and suspicions. A recent Rand Corp. study ranked California near the bottom nationally in both school funding and student performance. A Field Poll released Wednesday reported that 53% of voters think California is “seriously off on the wrong track.”

California’s government gets little respect and doesn’t deserve much.

It’s no more Schwarzenegger’s fault than Davis.’ But it’s Schwarzenegger’s time to be tested and it’s his government being graded.

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skel ton@latimes.com.