Just wheneverything seemed to be going so well, the budget legislative analyst'soffice had to puncture our little balloon of joy. Well, not joy, unlessone's overjoyed at tax increases and spending cuts, but hey, at leastsomething was punctured.

According to the Los Angeles Times,"the plan that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers approved lastmonth to fill California's giant budget hole has already fallen out ofbalance with a projected $8-billion shortfall, the Legislature'snonpartisan budget analyst said Friday."

Lovely! So glad we know thatmoney we didn't have was spent so...wait, $8 billion? You mean there'sfully 20 percent of the original budget shortfall that we still haven't dealtwith? My, what cheap "nonpartisan" compromises will we have to make toget out of this one?

The drastic news has sent Schwarzenegger's office careening back into Panic Mode, especially where the governor's May special election idea is concerned. According to the Times,"The dour projectionis likely to complicate Schwarzenegger's effort to win voter approvalfor a package of budget-related ballot measures scheduled for a specialelection May 19." That is, it might mean that the passage of the ballotmeasures Schwarzenegger has proposed might be completely impossible, asopposed to simply unlikely.

Larry Gerson, professor of politicalscience at San Jose State, speaks for us all when he points out thatthe new insolvency will give opponents of the budget "a tremendousargument" against it, as does Jon Coupal, President of the HowardJarvis Taxpayers' Association. Coupal is quoted by the Timesas saying that "Their campaign was based on a shaky foundation as faras credibility goes . . . and this isn't going to make it any better."

Amen. This shortfall may, however, have positive politicalconsequences for Schwarzenegger's office. That is, they might force the governor to realize that, rather than wasting his time withinsignificant, counterproductive do-overs of actions that lost him tremendous political capitalin the past, what he ought to be doing is fixing the budget with good,old-fashioned executive prerogative.

When a ship is sinking, there isno vote on whether to release the lifeboats, and if Schwarzenegger'splan is really the solution to the budget crisis, then he ought torelease it regardless of the predispositions of California's spendinghappy electorate, who have already proven themselves to beuntrustworthy where money is concerned.

But, naturally, one could point out that this sort of approach hasits dangers, not least of all the fact that Schwarzenegger is notomniscient -- in fact, he's often quite the opposite. IfSchwarzenegger assumes the sort of massive executive power needed tosteamroller all these measures past California's people, that will inturn set a precedent that other governors can assume that sort ofmassive power in times of crisis, thus giving future governors apolitical incentive to maximize their own power by dancing on theprecipice of crisis forever.

This would be true if Schwarzenegger wereavoiding an election in order to get his plan passed. However, this isnot Canada, where politicians can suspend electionsbecause they don't like the results.

Schwarzenegger has absolutely nopositive obligation to call a special election and voluntarily puthimself in danger, especially at a time when stability in California'sleadership is necessary, and decisiveness is mandated. Obviously,Schwarzenegger is not the optimal leader to hold down this stability,but at least he has some measure of understanding about how money oughtnot to be spent, and can act decisively if necessary. One cannot saythe same for California's electorate. $8 billion is a lot of money, solet's not waste anymore finding out just how much California's peopledon't want to pay for it.