2012 will be a great year. We have to re-elect the President because this is make or break for the middle class. We cannot return to the policies that got us into the mess, we need to rally with our leader and help strengthen our nation. Winning the future is most important.

2011 was challenging and some of those challenges will continue into this new year. But it is important to confront challenges with energy, faith and devotion. Never let up in the face of the impossible or unexplained.

It is likely not possible to propose an idea that would be more universally condemned, certainly at first blush, but hear me out:

What California needs is more legislators.

As unwelcome as that idea may seem, the conclusion is inescapable to anyone who listened to the pleas of Californians who testified this summer before the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Without fail, they said they did not want to be put in a district with other people with whom they had nothing in common and they wanted one of their own to represent them.

Under the system we’ve got, that isn’t possible.

The size of the Legislature — 80 Assembly members, 40 senators — was established in 1879. At the time, there were fewer than 1 million people living here.

Q What can you say to people who are watching who work on Wall Street who might find this news a bit alarming, perhaps?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think what you should say — well, here’s what I’d say: I remain confident that we will get an extension of the debt limit and we will not default. I am confident of that.

I am less confident at this point that people are willing to step up to the plate and actually deal with the underlying problem of debt and deficits. That requires tough choices. That’s what we were sent here to do.

I mean, the debt ceiling, that’s a formality. Historically, this has not even been an issue. It’s an unpleasant vote but it’s been a routine vote that Congress does periodically. It was raised 18 times when Ronald Reagan was President. Ronald Reagan said default is not an option, that it would be hugely damaging to the prestige of the United States and we shouldn’t even consider it. So that’s the easy part. We should have done that six months ago.

The hard part is actually dealing with the underlying debt and deficits, and doing it in a way that’s fair. That’s all the American people are looking for — some fairness. I can’t tell you how many letters and emails I get, including from Republican voters, who say, look, we know that neither party is blameless when it comes to how this deft and deficit developed — there’s been a lot of blame to spread around — but we sure hope you don’t just balance the budget on the backs of seniors. We sure hope that we’re not slashing our commitment to make sure kids can go to college. We sure hope that we’re not suddenly throwing a bunch of poor kids off the Medicaid rolls so they can’t get basic preventative services that keep them out of the emergency room. That’s all they’re looking for, is some fairness.

Now, what you’re going to hear, I suspect, is, well, if you — if the Senate is prepared to pass the cap, cut and balance bill, the Republican plan, then somehow we can solve this problem — that’s serious debt reduction. It turns out, actually, that the plan that Speaker Boehner and I were talking about was comparable in terms of deficit reduction. The difference was that we didn’t put all the burden on the people who are least able to protect themselves, who don’t have lobbyists in this town, who don’t have lawyers working on the tax code for them — working stiffs out there, ordinary folks who are struggling every day. And they know they’re getting a raw deal, and they’re mad at everybody about it. They’re mad at Democrats and they’re mad at Republicans, because they know somehow, no matter how hard they work, they don’t seem to be able to keep up. And what they’re looking for is somebody who’s willing to look out for them. That’s all they’re looking for.

And for us not to be keeping those folks in mind every single day when we’re up here, for us to be more worried about what some funder says, or some talk radio show host says, or what some columnist says, or what pledge we signed back when we were trying to run, or worrying about having a primary fight — for us to be thinking in those terms instead of thinking about those folks is inexcusable.

I mean, the American people are just desperate for folks who are willing to put aside politics just for a minute and try to get some stuff done.

So when Norah asked or somebody else asked why was I willing to go along with a deal that wasn’t optimal from my perspective, it was because even if I didn’t think the deal was perfect, at least it would show that this place is serious, that we’re willing to take on our responsibilities even when it’s tough, that we’re willing to step up even when the folks who helped get us elected may disagree.

And at some point, I think if you want to be a leader, then you got to lead.

WITH the Senate preparing to debate filibuster reform, now is a good time to consider a similarly daunting challenge to democratic representation in the House: its size. It’s been far too long since the House expanded to keep up with population growth and, as a result, it has lost touch with the public and been overtaken by special interests.

The authors go on to claim:

The result is that Americans today are numerically the worst-represented group of citizens in the country’s history. The average House member speaks for about 700,000 Americans. In contrast, in 1913 he represented roughly 200,000, a ratio that today would mean a House with 1,500 members — or 5,000 if we match the ratio the founders awarded themselves.

I last wrote about this issue on August 6, 2010. The movement to make our representative democracy more representative continues to grow.

I enjoy reading public budgets because they are crafted by a publicly, democratically elected body in a generally open, accessible and transparent process. Since 2004, starting with my community colleges budget when I served as a Student Trustee on the Board, I’ve been reading public budgets.

The organization of a budget shows how a budget viewed by the public.

California’s State Budget Proposal will be released by Governor Brown by January 10 (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/agencies.html). The state budget has been organized by agencies and general category:

• K thru 12 Education
• Higher Education
• Health and Human Services
• Corrections and Rehabilitation
• Business, Transportation & Housing
• Natural Resources
• Environmental Protection
• State and Consumer Services
• Labor and Workforce Development
• General Government
• Legislative, Judicial, and Executive

United States Federal Government Budget Proposal will be released by President Obama no later than the 1st Monday in February (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget). The federal budget was organized by departments and agencies:

• The Budget Message of the President
• Rescuing the Economy
• Reviving Job Creation and Laying a New Foundation for Economic Growth
• Restoring Responsibility
• Department of Agriculture
• Department of Commerce
• Department of Defense
• National Intelligence Program
• Department of Education
• Department of Energy
• Department of Health and Human Services
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Department of the Interior
• Department of Justice
• Department of Labor
• Department of State and Other International Programs
• Department of Transportation
• Department of the Treasury
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Corps of Engineers – Civil Works
• Environmental Protection Agency
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• National Science Foundation
• Small Business Administration
• Social Security Administration
• Corporation for National Community Service

Question: Which organization of a budget do you prefer and why?

I blogged about the idea in mid-October 2005, wrote a paper on it in May 2006 for a public policy course at UC Merced, and posted a PowerPoint presentation in May 2008 that included all 50 states, amount of legislative committees and asked about trust.

Two years later this week I read an article in the National Conference of State Legislatures magazine titled “What Legislatures Need Now.” The article again peaked my interest.

I sent an email to Karl Kurtz (one of the authors of the article) and he referred me to his follow up blog post on the article. Kurtz reflects on the recommendations from “The Sometimes Government” and the ideas suggested, such as a full-time legislators and professional staff, and remarks:

Other standards in “The Sometime Governments” seem quaint: In an age when population growth has caused the ratio between citizens and legislators to soar—and therefore place pressure on the ability of legislators to serve such large constituencies—”The Sometime Governments” recommendation to reduce the number of members in the legislature to improve efficiency seems questionable at best. As many people are talking about growing the size of legislatures today as shrinking them.

And the conversation continues and reading through Kurtz’s blog posts and the comments, a thought comes to mind.

I think the we believe that a representative democracy should be representative of the democracy. In California, there are 38 million of us and most of us care about ourselves, our family, friends, and the future.

We want our representative democracy’s government (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to promote tranquility, provide basic services and ensure equal opportunity, among other values. Of the three branches, we expect the legislative branch to be most representative of the public, of us.

A lot of folks point to term limits, the overwhelming influence of corporations, and the 2/3 vote requirement to pass a budget and raise taxes as fundamental problems that must be addressed, and they should.

However, a dimension that has been crowded out of the conversation is that of the legislative branch of our representative democracy. I believe the man or woman we elect to represent us in the legislative branch is our go to person. The person who is responsible for listening to our questions, comments, concerns, suggestions and complaints and translating it into legislation that may become the law of the land. This is the person who I look to for leadership on the floor of the Assembly of Senate on the issues I care about and want addressed.

In a world were the size of the California legislative branch is constitutionally limited to 120 (40 senators, 80 assembly members), elected representatives are trying their best to represent us: websites, online contact forms, taking our calls, reading our letters, hosting telephone and in-person town halls, and the like. But, for me, when you cannot meet eye-to-eye, face-to-face and shake the person’s hand and tell them what you think and how you feel about things, that physical connection, the visceral moment in which a bond is established, and where trust begins, something about our representative democracy is lost.

I still think, five years later, that increasing the size of the legislature, increasing the number of representatives, decreasing geographic size of legislative districts, establishing a unicameral legislative branch are means to an end and that end is ensuring our representative democracy is representative of the democracy, of us.