Newsletter: Opinion: Grading Gov. Brown

Good morning. I'm Paul Thornton, The Times' letters editor, and it is Saturday, Oct. 31, 2015. Don't forget to set your clock back sometime tonight or early Sunday morning.

Here's a tough assignment: Assess the work of Gov. Jerry Brown — once the nation's youngest governor and now California's oldest ever, the policy wonk sometimes criticized for detaching himself from the legislative process, the budget hawk who defends the $68-billion bullet train — and come up with a single letter grade.

The Times editorial board's answer: Brown is very good but not great. He's patched things up for California fiscally for the time being without guaranteeing that the state will be left in good shape for his successor. In other words: B+.

The editorial board explains itself in the latest installment (previously, Senate President Pro Tem received a B+, and Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins earned a C+) of its #GradeYourGov series:

Since retaking the governor’s office in 2010 after a 28-year timeout, Jerry Brown has demonstrated the value of experience and maturity. He has been a solid leader, steering California out of turmoil and directing the attention of lawmakers and voters toward the issues that should top the state’s agenda: fiscal stability, water security, economic growth, environmental leadership and sustainability, a manageable criminal justice system, better schools, a rejiggering of the state-local relationship. His position in California history would be secure based on longevity in office alone, but in addition, he has been a very good governor.

But a great one? Not quite yet. Too many of his achievements remain untested and too many of his initiatives have yet to see completion. In 2012, for example, he used his remarkable political wizardry to persuade Californians to tax themselves to bail out their state government. But was it wizardry more of the marketing than the economic variety? It could still prove to be so if, as Brown leaves office at the end of his current and final term, those Proposition 30 taxes expire with a budget as structurally unsound as the one in place when he took office. A great governor does not provide order and prosperity only for the brief period he is in office and leave things to fall apart once he’s gone. He makes improvements that will outlast him.

Brown is partway there, in large part due to his achievements of 2014 in sound budgeting, in water and in criminal justice.

It is ironic, perhaps, that many of those achievements were merely twists on efforts by his unlikely predecessor, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A decade ago, Schwarzenegger proposed and voters adopted, in the form of Proposition 58, a supposedly tough budget reserve to provide a reservoir of cash saved up during years of plenty. It was to meant to address the state’s fundamental challenge: National economic boom years become California super-booms, leading to unsustainable spending, while national recessions turn into California meltdowns in the form of plunging credit ratings, panicked raids on special funds, attempted shutdowns or sell-offs of state assets like buildings and parks, and political uprisings of the type that led to Schwarzenegger’s bizarre victory in the recall of Gov. Gray Davis.

» Click here to read more.

Were Californians duped into thinking Proposition 47 would make them safer? L.A. prosecutor Marc Debbaudt says yes, the landmark sentencing reform passed by voters last year has led to higher violent and property crime rates in Los Angeles; Times editorial writer Robert Greene says the truth is a lot more complex. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Stephen V. Manley recommends changes for drug courts to make after Proposition 47's reclassification of many drug offenses as misdemeanors. And writing about misdemeanors, Greene examines the claim by officers that they can no longer make arrests for certain offenses because those offenses are no longer felonies. Read additional pieces on Proposition 47 here and here.

Like a good millennial bashing? Then read this: In an interview with Patt Morrison, “How to Raise an Adultâ€� author Julie Lythcott-Haims laments the prevalence of over-parented young adults, namely those attending four-year colleges. She says of her experience working with college freshman at Stanford University, "They were incredibly accomplished in the transcript and GPA sense but less with their own selves, evidenced by how frequently they communicated with a parent, texting multiple times a day, needing a parent to tell them what to do." L.A. Times

Face it, L.A.: San Francisco does business better than we do. But it wasn't always this way, at least to the extent it is now. Up until recently, both areas were regarded as economic success stories, with the Bay Area slightly edging out Southern California. Now, L.A. lags far behind, and Michael Storper explains why: "L.A.'s information technology companies ... were content to focus on lucrative but ultimately limited government contracts. Up north, Fairchild, Xerox, Hewlett-Packard and Schockley Semiconductors, which also worked as government contractors, saw the future and branched out into the consumer market. Ultimately, Steve Jobs and Apple would come to symbolize just how revolutionary that shift would be." L.A. Times

The battle over guns? It isn't about guns. Historian Jordan Zimmerman draws a historical parallel to say the fight is over something much deeper: "But this controversy isn't really about guns, any more than Prohibition was about drink. It's about different ways of seeing the world and — most of all — about who will gain the symbolic upper hand." L.A. Times

You thought the family wars were over. But "don't expect the family wars to be ending any time soon," says Jonah Goldberg. There's a lot of evidence lately proving the case long made by social conservatives (what Goldberg says "was once common sense"): that children raised by both their biological parents do better than other kids. That claim, however, comes with caveats, Goldberg concedes. L.A. Times

When a scientist is 99.9% sure about when an earthquake will hit, you should be 100% skeptical. The dire warning from JPL scientists about a major temblor striking L.A. in the next few years was rightly dismissed, writes Chris Goldfinger, but not because there is no earthquake danger. Rather, Goldfinger writes, there simply isn't enough data to forecast with certainty when an earthquake will strike or how big one will be. Still, it doesn't hurt to be prepared for the Big One. L.A. Times

Prepare me to write the next newsletter by providing your feedback. Send it to [email protected].