Writing at the very progressive Calitics blog, Robert Cruickshank calls the Obama administration "clueless" when it comes to California and makes the case for federal loan guarantees for the state. Expect to hear more anger from the left if Obama leaves California to twist in the wind.

I believe that the state should get those guarantees. They come at very low risk (and no cost) to the Treasury. In fact, the state is likely to pay a substantial fee for the guarantees. But as I argue in today's New York Times, the Obama folks should -- for political and policy reasons -- attach serious strings to the guarantees, which would help the state with cash flow problems this summer and fall. Essentially, the administration (and Congress for that matter) should only help California with its cash flow if the state puts forward a real plan to fix its long-term structural budget problems. Such a deal would be good for the state and for the country.

"The role of consumers has had considerable attention in the press because the economy desperately needs additional spending right now. But it is not - and should not be - the responsibility of middle-income families to provide that spending."

Robert Frank made a good point this weekend.

Possibly the most frustrating part of the economic recovery debate has been the willingness of many policymakers and thinkers to lay the responsibility of recovery at the feet of the American consumer. Luckily, economists (like Mr. Frank) and think-tank types (like our own Alejandra Lopez-Fernandini and Rourke O'Brien) have been presenting the argument in recent weeks that, quite likely, we should give families signals to save and perks when they do. From last Thursday's USA Today:

Yet those Americans who choose prudence should not be made to feel unpatriotic -- as if they are destroying the economy of their country -- because they fail to spend recklessly. It's time we move beyond this economic belief that places the health of the U.S. macroeconomy squarely on the willingness of individual households to spend, spend, spend.

The New York Times pens an editorial today that's half-kvetching at the current state of retirement security and half-prescriptive for policymakers interested in preserving a comfortable retirement for the boomers and beyond. Are they optimistic about a market rebound that acts as a cure for shockingly low account balances (and can you tell I just got my quarterly statement)? Consider the following passages:

The last 25 years was a time of low inflation rates and low interest rates, which boosted stock prices. Going forward, inflation and interest rates have nowhere to go but up...

So far, the cumulative wipe-out of household retirement savings totals about $2 trillion, and no one believes that the downturn is anywhere near over. As a result, participants in 401(k)’s are in greater danger than ever of coming up short in retirement...

The wipeout in 401(k)’s has made it clear that it is not enough to get more people to save more...

Decidedly pessmistic. Alas, the piece is not bereft of hope or constructive talk.

The New York Times looks in on the campaign for an English-only ballot initiative in Nashville. The coalition against the measure is a broad one.

One lesson from earlier efforts at English-only. States and cities that have passed such measures have found them awfully difficult to enforce, as courts overturn such initiatives and politicians ignore them. That seems likely to happen in Nashville, where the mayor and much of the civic leadership opposes the English-only initiative.

..this (unintentionally, I think) ridiculous piece in yesterday's New York Times. The Los Angeles-based writers, Caitlin Flanagan and Benjamin Schwarz of the Atlantic, discover (without disclosing their evidence) that Prop 8's victory came as a surprise to Hollywood because the creative community didn't realize that folks in black churches were not ready for same-sex marriage. The piece then goes on to make a number of other claims (among them that gay activists think Prop 8 wouldn't have passed if Hillary Clinton had been the nominee), without a single example or a even a bit of factual support. The piece recycles a now discredited exit poll statistic that 70 percent of blacks voted for Prop 8. And in the process, it manages to trade on one stereotype (the smug, self-righteous, out-of-touch Hollywood types that exists only in the warped minds of New York editors and other East Coast elites) and to traffic in another (that of the cultural conservative homophobic black folk.)

Look at the quotes (of Hollywood talking about blacks): "It's their churches," somebody whispered to one of us not long after the election (Yes, that's the real attribution). "It's their Christianity," someone else hissed, rolling her eyes.

This New York Times story spotlights the problem of "prison gerrymandering": prisoners can't vote, but they can count as residents of the legislative districts in which they are confined.

This may sound like a detour from direct democracy, but I promise I'll get there in a couple paragraphs (after I indulge a little provincialism). 

Here's a thought: The world of hip hop had an East vs. West war that raged for years. After reading reviews of James Frey's latest book, supposedly about Los Angeles, I think it may be time for a similar war in journalistic and literary circles.

The New York Times and Washington Post have given rave reviews to Frey's new novel, Bright Shiny Morning, which purports to be about Los Angeles. The Post called it "very acccurate" and said it "can be considered a reliable guide" to the city. The Times said, "He stepped up to the plate and hit one out of the park." I'm not sure I can find words to convey how insane these reviews are.

In Tinseltown, the book is a laughing stock. The editor of the LA Times book review, David Ulin, suggested it is one of the worst books he's ever read ("an execrable novel, a literary train wreck without even the good grace to be entertaining "). I picked it up this week (making sure not to pay for my copy), and think David might be too kind. It is absolutely the worst thing I've ever read. I couldn't find a single true thing in it about Los Angeles. Frey doesn't even get the weather right.