California Has Heard Enough Excuses. Now Becerra and Hilton Must Deliver Answers.

IN MY OPINION - California's next governor will not inherit a blank slate. He will inherit a state where millions of families are confronting an affordability crisis, housing remains painfully expensive, homelessness continues to test cities and communities, businesses question the cost of operating here, and technological change is moving faster than government. That was the real backdrop to Wednesday night's gubernatorial debate between Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton.

The candidates came prepared to attack each other. What Californians needed was something harder: proof that either man is prepared to govern. Becerra and Hilton represent profoundly different approaches to California's future. Their debate exposed those differences, but it also exposed a familiar weakness in modern politics. It is much easier to identify the person responsible for a problem than to explain exactly how you intend to solve it.

Becerra repeatedly brought President Donald Trump into the discussion and sought to connect Hilton with Trump's policies and political agenda. Hilton turned the argument back toward Sacramento, attacking years of Democratic governance and arguing that California's problems were created by the political establishment Becerra represents. There is plenty for voters to examine in both arguments, but blame is not a housing policy. Blame does not lower an electricity bill, move someone from a sidewalk into permanent housing, improve a struggling school or make California more affordable.

That is why this election should ultimately be about something much bigger than Trump, Newsom, Democrats or Republicans. It should be about results.

Hilton's proposal to eliminate state income taxes on the first $150,000 of earnings represents the kind of dramatic policy change that immediately attracts attention. But a proposal of that magnitude also demands equally serious detail. How much revenue would California lose? What would replace it? Which programs would be protected? Which programs could be reduced? What would the change mean for schools, infrastructure and public services?

Becerra, meanwhile, cannot simply argue that Hilton's numbers do not work. Defending existing revenues does not answer the question millions of Californians are asking: Why is it still so difficult to afford California? If the current structure should largely remain, voters deserve to know what Becerra would change within that structure to reduce the pressure on working families.

That same demand for specificity should extend to homelessness. California has spent years announcing programs, allocating money and promising progress. The next governor should be expected to establish measurable benchmarks and publicly defend the results. How many people will be moved off the streets? How quickly will housing actually be built? How will the state determine whether programs are working? What happens to programs that repeatedly fail? Most importantly, who takes responsibility when government spends enormous sums without delivering what taxpayers were promised?

Artificial intelligence presents a different challenge but requires the same seriousness. California sits at the center of a technological transformation that could create extraordinary economic opportunities while also disrupting jobs, communities and entire industries. Becerra emphasized stronger protections and community involvement surrounding AI infrastructure, while Hilton expressed greater caution about imposing additional regulation.

That is a legitimate philosophical divide. Californians deserve to hear it debated in detail because getting AI policy wrong could carry consequences for decades. California should not have to choose between innovation and accountability. The challenge for the next governor is demonstrating that the state can encourage one while demanding the other.

But the larger question from Wednesday night's debate remains: Can either candidate move beyond campaigning and demonstrate how he would actually govern?

California has become accustomed to enormous promises. Every election brings another plan, another initiative, another slogan and another declaration that this time government will finally deliver. Voters have every right to demand more. They should demand timelines, measurable goals, realistic budgets and consequences when programs fail. Above all, they should demand that whoever becomes governor accept responsibility for the condition of California rather than spending four years explaining why somebody else is responsible.

Becerra should be required to explain what he would change about a government his party has helped lead for years. Hilton should be required to explain how his sweeping changes would work when campaign promises collide with the realities of governing. Those are fair questions for both men.

Because when the debate lights are turned off, California's problems remain. Families still have mortgages and rent to pay. Small businesses still have payrolls to meet. Parents still expect functioning schools. Communities still expect safe streets. Taxpayers still expect accountability. And Californians still want to know whether the state they love will remain a place where their children can afford to build a future.

The next governor will have enormous power, and with that power should come an equally enormous expectation of accountability. California has heard enough explanations for why its problems exist.

Now Becerra and Hilton need to explain exactly what they are going to do about them.

 (Yonthan Mendal writes on Jewish community issues, antisemitism, Israel, and public policy. His articles focus on civic engagement, education, and issues affecting Jewish communities.)