letting the envirneyamt list destroy 80,000 people's jobs because of a stupid little bitty fish? and then you've got nancy pelosi spending $3 million on a stupid little mouse? >> guest: quite frankly, there's a three-person panel that oversees offshore drilling here. the governor's folks voted to try to do that offshore drilling which meant billions of dollars to the state of california. as i said, supported by even environmentalists and those counties on the shoreline. but yet the two democrats voted against it. so the governor is o now running to the legislature to deal with that in this budget negotiation. and i think we should. i agree 100%. the fact is we are losing jobs in the state of california. we need balance in our environmental laws. one of the issues i believe we should do is put a moratorium

on all the regulations that we've put into place. put a moratorium on those for the next two years until california can grow out of this recession. that's what it's going to take, job creation and growing out of the recession will bring california back. . . host: and we want to get the democratic perspective in just a moment. darrell steinberg will join us.

and at the bottom of the over, governor tim pawlenty was showing us from minneapolis. ♪ >> our party needs a lot of work, obviously. >> tonight, indiana republican governor on revitalizing the

gop. >> look inwardly, think about how it can speak more meaningfully to the problems of today and it to the americans of today. to the young people, specifically. tonight on c-span. also on xm radio for download the podcast. >> how is c-span funded? >> private donations? >> i do not really know. >> i do not know where the money comes from. >> federally? >> contributions from donors? >> 30 years ago america's cable companies created to spend as a public service, a private business initiatives, no government money, no government

in date. >> with the federally mandated switch to digital television next week we will get a report on how the fcc prepared viewers for the change with the following guests. monday night at 8:00 ppp.m. eastern. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from sacramento is darrell steinberg, a member of the california senate. guest: great to be here this morning, steve. host: how did california get in the situation with its deficit? guest: being the largest in the union is probably feels the biggest impact from the national and international economic crisis. host: we have seen the single

largest drop in revenue in the state's history, so we're living through what the people of the country are living through also. -- guest: just as people have less money, so is our state. but i am optimistic. we're not ready to throw in the towel. there has been a lot written nationally about the decline of california. we will be just fine. there are a lot of things we have to do. there's a lot of change that needs to be had, but california will see better days. host: let me ask about two specific proposals. one would eliminate 900,000 children from a subsidized state health care insurance program. how realistic is that? guest: the democratic majority party will not agree to cut 900,000 kids off the health care rolls, nor will we agreed to

eliminate college scholarships which have provided economic opportunity for thousands of californians. we will also not eliminate the most successful program we have which is transitioning people from assistants to work. we will make cuts in each of these areas, but the governor has presented a free market. even with the failed election it comes on the heels of california serving a $36 billion deficit in february. now is proposing another $24 billion solution. $4.5 billion is to build a rainy day fund. you build one in good times in my view, but in california now we are hearing the thunder and lightning and it is raining hard. we do not believe that we can afford that level of a rainy day

fund. if you back up that much money over reserve weakened balance -- we can balance the budget and great opportunity in these investments. host: one viewer sent in this tweet -- how can senator darrell steinberg be optimistic? guest: welcome in the next 30 days we are going to balance this budget. if you look back to where i started as the president of the senate in 2008, over the last seven months and as we approach june 30, we will have resolved a huge deficit. these are historic times.

we will balance the budget and then take the opportunity to change what we know is broken. it has been 31 years since the passage of proposition 13. it happened for a very good reasons, but i think the pendulum has swung too far. it is time to look at the whole way that we govern in california. with prop. 13 all the power went up to the state. we need to bring government closer to the people and give school districts and local government more ability to make independent decisions so they're not dependent annually on what the state of california says or does. that is one of many reforms. one of the great flaws of the initiative process is that anyone can put forward an

initiative but not suggest how to pay for it. senator runner has done that a number of times when it comes to criminal justice. we need to change the initiative process that says if you want to put forward an idea you have to suggest how to pay for it for it to qualify. host: one of the articles over the weekend from a local paper asks "can the governor finally get it right?" to describe a situation between both parties as a poisoned atmosphere. would you disagree? guest: i disagree. the editorial also pointed out that the governor has maybe not gotten sufficient credit for helping broker the $36 billion deficit reduction plan in february, the single largest resolution in the state's history. i do not find the atmosphere

poisonous. i think democrats and republicans have worked together and will work together. we come to representative government with different values and ideas. certainly in california we are hamstrung a bit by another of requirement. we're one of three states that requires a two-thirds supermajority vote to pass a budget. that empowers a small minority of members to hold up the progress. that needs to be changed. by and large i do think some of the poisonous atmosphere described in the editorial is a little bit overstated. we have some significant structural problems in the way we govern. we have this third two-thirds

requirement, but there are a lot of good things coming on. we're leading the nation and renewable energy and climate change. we are at the center of the economic renaissance. the whole green economy i think will take off first in california. there's a lot of positive for california as well. host: our guest is darrell steinberg. he was a member of the sacramento city council before being elected as senator. we're joined from hayward , calif. by charlie. caller: i am confused and i have seen a lot of information saying that it is not the best policy for california. it takes a couple of thousand gallons of water to make 1

gallon of ethanol which seems to affect food and gasoline prices. why can we put a fee on the use of corn ethanol in california's gasoline so that the gas companies will have to get rid of that mandate? guest: it is certainly an idea to consider. the whole issue of ethanol is really a national energy issue. in calif. we're on the verge of passing the first in the country -- 33% renewable energy standard. to say that we can no longer rely on fossil fuels that hurt our climate, that we can no longer rely on foreign oil. you talk about what is important in foreign policy, certainly it is to promote renewable energy.

i know that california even in the difficult times is on the verge of doing something very important for renewable energy, lessening the demand for imported oil. host: let me go back to the issue of education. as you and senator trunner pointed out, governor schwarzenegger promised to run as a governor on education and now that as were many cuts will take place. guest: there is no question about it that education will take a significant hit. some of it will be mitigated by the federal economic stimulus funds, but that is only a short- term solution. look, we cannot afford in california to continue to disinvest in public education. it is true that california spends about 50% of the tax

dollar on education, but we still rank near the bottom nationally when it comes to per pupil spending. it is more than money. we need to look at reforming our education system. we have a 21% dropout rate in the state. we have a one-size fits all system where education is largely geared to just the kids who will go on to four-year colleges, but we have a great community college system here. i think as early as eighth, ninth, 10th grades we need to create multiple pathways for young people so that everyone not only gets that diploma but has the education and training to enable them to qualify for a high-wage job. and the one area where democrats and republicans agree is that

given the california like every other state does not print money, unlike the federal government, as long as we have deficits we will always have these its theological debates between taxes and spending. in the long run there's only one way out. that is to create a high-wage economy. it is the only way to create real opportunity and it sustain the tax base. a job that we count ought to be a job that pays at least a middle-class wage, provides health insurance for workers and families and provides some form of retirement security. that is the way that we build a middle-class and fund public services over the long run. host: this story is from "the

los angeles *" with schwarzenegger saying he is open to the idea of a flat tax. guest: it ought to be looked at. we want to look at the number of tax deductions and loopholes that exist in our current system. those are expenditures just like funding for education or health care or for public safety. we want to have a real debate this year about whether or not on a tax expenditure side, the tax loophole side, that those expenditures are delivering the high-wage jobs they promise. a flat tax -- i am open to looking at it. at least it would take away the debate about what form of deduction is creating the most social good or not.

i know that it also has its flaws, but certainly in this era where we have an opportunity to ready-made california -- remake california, i am open to all options. host: if you are just joining us our guest is darrell steinberg. he is the senator of california. the state and has until the end of this month to reach an agreement. good morning, caller. caller: good morning, you mentioned that the proposal to cut children from that state health program -- i have to ask you given your response that these children cannot be cut -- democrats in the legislature and all around the country have voted to facilitate the

displacement of that citizens parents -- children's parents from their jobs. they are living in tents because they cannot get jobs because they're discriminated against as americans. you cannot rationalize the displacement of american citizens in the workplace because of arms the children. you take citizens out of jobs where they used to support themselves and replace them with cheap foreign labor which we have to subsidize through the tax base. that is wrong. thank you. guest: well, i disagree with the collar and agree with governor schwarzenegger's comments about the issue of immigration. it is very easy especially in difficult economic times to stereotype or use one group of

people as the cause or reason for the economic troubles. i think it is wrong and dangerous. immigration is a great source of strength. it is a great source of our economic vitality. we need the congress and president, and i know this is on the list year, after health care and restoring the economy, we need a comprehensive immigration policy to create a real path of citizenship for people. people come for one reason -- they want to better their lot in life and it to improve the lives of their families. we have to enforce immigration laws, of course, but we also need a path to citizenship for people to improve and our economy, not detract from it. host: the next call comes from sherman oaks, california.

caller: good morning, please bear with me. i woke up to the end of senator runner and he stirred some negative response from me. i would like to make some comments and have the john and respond to me. i am a third generation angelino in my family has been in california since the beginning of the 20th century. i remember when government worked under pat brown and others. they believed government could work for all of us. with them we got the california aqueduct and an expansion of the junior college system and the the u.c. system and public education. 30 years ago california's system was the envy of the world. now we are reaping the benefits, i think, we are seeing that utopian vision of what ronald

reagan wanted -- no taxes and no services. i would say we are from the private sector and here to help -- that is what we find ourselves in now. my last comment -- senator runner gave us an example of union contracts are bogging us down. the example he gave was a school librarian. he says that we cannot fire a school librarian it and ask a parent to volunteer. i am a n l.a. unified substitute teacher -- that is a valuable job and worth compensation. he says let's take that job away and the livelihood of the library in and get someone to do for free. host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: a couple of things. the last comment -- the public sector is one of the last

bastions of middle-class employment and is difficult economy. when you layoff public workers that does not improve our economy. on the larger issue, we have a great opportunity to fix what is broken. we have to fix the tax system. we are overly reliant on the personal income tax. we have to bring government closer to the people. we are so tangled up with local government and school districts that the entity that raises the revenue does not provide the services. we need to reform the initiative process. we have to change the two- thirds. here is the reason why it is so important. because california can still be the place that the caller described. we have been the leader in the

nation when it comes to building a first-rate public university system, building the state's highway system, leading the country when it comes to environmental advances. we can see those days again if we're willing to look at how far the pendulum has one and how to bring it back a little. so that we have the opportunity to invest in the quality of life that still makes california the place where so many people want to live. host: let me return to the issue of immigrants. in his editorial board with the newspaper governor schwarzenegger confirm the cost between $4,000,000,000.705032704 dollars -- a small percentage of the overall deficit. -- between $4,000,000,000.705032704 dollars. here's a twitter that says hal

emigrants instantly benefit from taxes that retirees have paid for so many years. guest: if it is $5 billion, what that does not reflect is the economic contribution that these same people make. it is often by working in very low-paid jobs, but they are contributing something. the studies go back and forth. the studies i have seen show that immigrants, even undocumented immigrants make a significant contribution. what will you say about the children of undocumented immigrants? are we really going to say we should not educate children? that we should deny children the opportunity to get health care they need it?

i think people in the middle recognize we need a national immigration policy that provides a path to citizenship for those who have come here to better their own lives. sure, people need to go through a process and work towards citizenship, but that needs to come from the national level. all of the stereotyping, the way that immigration is used by people from the right wing is frankly scary. host: this common comes from a viewer in the mississippi river, gulf coast region.

we're joined from south carolina. caller: good morning, senator, you said we need a legal path to citizenship. we have one. it was working quite well. the problem is that some people do not want to follow it. i don't know what your population is in california, but if you have two million people paying their taxes and another two million sponging off of it, how in the world do expect to balance your budget? what is in california do like south carolina did in start passing their own loss to keep these illegal immigrants out? guest: again, i would give the same answer. i think the immigration issue is real and it touches a nerve

with a lot of people. but most people who come to this country and to the state of california come to work. i think we ought to encourage that with the legal process that has frankly not worked. national immigration reform was debated during the latter years of the bush administration. it needs to be a national priority so that we can legalize people here working hard. in most instances they make an economic contribution. host: let me go back to something. correct me if the numbers are wrong. if the budget has gone to $50 billion to $90 billion over the last tenures, what are lessons you can take from that when the

economy turns around? -- to $90 billion over the last 10 years? guest: you have to account for inflation and growth of population, but there are lessons. during good times we need to put more money away for the inevitable rainy day, no question. i was a big supporter of proposition step failed including 1a, which would have required a rainy day fund during good times. that is solid budgeting. we have a revenue system that has a lot of volatility. it is not an overstatement that as goes google and the stock market so goes the california economy because so much of our revenue is based upon high

income earners and how they do in the capital gains market, the stock markets. one of the goals we have under the category of reform here is to flatten the tax base. i do not know that as a flat tax, but certainly to diversify our sources of revenue. again, to bring some of what the state now goes down to cities, counties, school districts because now you have a state with the revenue system that goes up and down. we have the responsibility for raising all the money. the system does not work anymore. because of this crisis we have the opportunity to change it. host: our last call comes from chicago. caller: good morning, i was