Steven Greenhut Sr. editorial writer and columnist The Orange County Register [email protected]

Californians will need to gear up for a knock-down-drag-out, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners, hand-me-another-cliche fight between Good and Evil for the November election.

Excuse my sarcasm, but as important as some of the Nov. 8 ballot initiatives might seem, nothing much will change in California no matter which way the wind blows (stop me before I cliche again). The state's special class - i.e., the highly paid and outrageously pensioned government workers - will spend tens of millions of dollars taken by force from its members (and ultimately from taxpayers) to fight:

a) A Schwarzenegger-backed, Chamber-of-Commerce/Business Roundtable plan to meekly control government spending, by restricting spending increases to the average revenue growth in the past three years.

b) Another Schwarzenegger initiative, which would force teachers to work five years before being granted tenure, a nearly ironclad protection against firing barring some gross illegality.

c) An independent initiative that would limit the ability of unions to take money by force to fund the Democratic politicians who are bankrupting the state by giving unions everything they want (Look up "pension crisis," for an example).

d) The governor's redistricting initiative, which would let a nonpartisan panel, rather than politicians, create California electoral districts. Under the legislator-drawn districts currently in force, not a single legislative seat changed party hands in the last election cycle.

These initiatives (Propositions 76, 74, 75 and 77) are all worthy efforts as far as they go, as is Proposition 73, which forbids, say, the school nurse from taking your kid to the abortion clinic without bothering to tell you about it.

Yet none of these initiatives really gets at what's at the heart of California's and the nation's fundamental problems, namely, an excessively large and arrogant government that never gets enough power, money or special privileges to suit it.

Politics is the art of the possible, and the November initiatives certainly are politically possible. Fortunately, columnists have the luxury of living in the world of the philosophical, where we can think of ideas that seem impossible ... at least for now. Of course, for most of humanity's existence, the ideas enshrined in the U.S. Constitution were deemed unthinkable, so there's good reason to float a few trial balloons, to keep reminding Americans that real change could someday happen.

Here are a few ideas worth daydreaming about:

1) The Separation of School and State Initiative.

Approximately 50 percent of the state's budget goes to public education, not counting all the local and federal dollars earmarked for these ill-performing government agencies. Despite all the dollars, kids are routinely miseducated, with the best-funded districts incapable of even providing safe buildings with functioning lavatories (Think LAUSD).

The best public schools provide what would be considered mediocre learning by past standards, as kids are spoon-fed politically correct drivel, dispensed in one-size-fits-all fashion, while bureaucracies get bigger, employees get better paid and administrators enjoy the cushiest perks and $250,000 salaries. In other words, our government-controlled monopoly system functions like every other government-controlled monopoly system. It's for the bureaucrats, and the "customers" - in this case, parents and children - are merely props.

Instead of voucher and charter efforts that still leave governments in control and will take an even larger share of taxpayers' dollars, this initiative would immediately disband every public school system and sell off school properties to the highest bidders.

There would be confusion for a short period, then the free-market system would work its wonders. A complex and unpredictable network of private schools, ranging from small home schools to large institutions, would spring up. Parents would pay for their own kids' education, but they would have plenty of money to do so after the tens of billions of dollars misspent annually on the current bureaucracies were returned to them.

What about inequality? What about the poor?

You think the system is equal now? Do kids in public schools in Compton get the same education as kids in Beverly Hills? Get real, despite the ludicrous rhetoric from the public-school establishment.

Currently, poor kids get the rawest deal, being forced to attend unsafe and miserable schools. They would find new choices, new opportunities, new private schools that treated them as individuals rather than as daily attendance numbers. Churches and charities would help the poorest of the poor afford the tuition, which is typical of what Catholic schools now offer in inner-city areas.

Competition would reign supreme, with bad and mediocre schools losing customers to better ones. We would all have more freedom. Radical idea? Well, it's only radical if you think free-market systems are radical and centrally planned Soviet-style economies are preferable.

2) The End of Redevelopment As We Know It Initiative.

California's redevelopment laws allow cities to create agencies designed to combat blight through a bizarre financial instrument known as Tax Increment Financing. Once the agencies declare an area blighted - blight is pretty much anything some bureaucrats say is blight - then the agency gains the increase in property taxes from any improvements made in the blighted area from that day forward.

These redevelopment agencies are empowered to float debt, lard out corporate welfare to favored trough-positioned companies and use eminent domain to transfer properties from their current owners (i.e., average folks) to favored developers (i.e., Costco). The result is the destruction of property rights and the creation of endless strip malls subsidized by taxpayers.

This initiative would shut down every such agency, outlaw the use of eminent domain except for roads and a few other genuinely public uses, and ban subsidies to corporations, auto malls, chain stores and other private development interests.

Wouldn't it be sad to force those poor Armani-suit-wearing corporate chiefs to have to pay market rates for property or actually build a stadium, theater or mall without tax dollars? I'm already choked up about it.

What about the existing debt? The cities that ran up the redevelopment debt would have to pay off the bonds out of their existing budgets, and no tax increases or new bonds would be allowed to help out. If it means shutting down 60 percent of the government, switching to a volunteer fire department and selling City Hall, well, I can live with that.

3) The Take A Bite Out of Takings Initiative.

Governments are built around the concept of organized plunder: politically powerful groups - i.e., unions, environmentalists, bureaucrats, other special interests, favor-seeking corporations - use the power of the state to take things from other people, and redirect the proceeds to themselves.

It's no wonder that the government treats property rights so shabbily, as it routinely imposes new regulations that strip property of its value. When eminent domain is used, at least "just compensation" must be paid. Property owners rarely get what they deserve, but at least they get something. Unfortunately, with regulatory takings, the government steals the value of land by imposing new restrictions on its use, and it rarely has to pay the owner compensation if the owner retains title to the land.

This initiative would require that government compensate owners of property for the lost value for any regulation or delay in approvals. So, if Government A declares that a developer can only build a handful of houses on his oceanfront land rather than the number he planned, then the government must pay up. You want to regulate, OK, but you've got to pay for it! What freedom-loving person could be opposed to that one?

There are all sorts of other ideas, such as an initiative that would cap government spending at a fraction of its current level, or one that would cap taxation at, say, 10 percent of income, or an initiative that outlaws defined-benefit pension plans for "guvmint" workers, or one that removes sovereign immunity that protects government officials from being sued for many of their actions. Send me your ideas at the e-mail address listed below. I'll print the best ones on the Register blog.

Could any of these qualify for the ballot, or have a chance of getting passed and not be overturned by the liberal courts? Of course not. But it's worth ruminating on the possibility of a fight over real measures that would dramatically improve things.

Call me a dreamer. But all real advances started with a dream.