Looks like the last thread got shut down for being too long, so here is a new thread where we can talk about the latest in California propositions, and those of you from outside the state can point and laugh. We're having a special election on May 19 -- less than three weeks from now -- where six state propositions will be up for vote. All six were put forth as a package by the state legislature, supposedly to help fix the ongoing budget issues that California has. Here's a little rundown of each proposition, with links to the state Voter Information Guide where you can see the analysis and arguments for and against. My thoughts in a separate post (not that I've made up my mind on all of these). Sorry for the all caps, that's how they're in the VIG, I'm just copying and pasting. 1A: STATE BUDGET. CHANGES CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROCESS. LIMITS STATE SPENDING. INCREASES “RAINY DAY” BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND. 1B: EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN. 1C: LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT. 1D: PROTECTS CHILDREN’S SERVICES FUNDING. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET. 1E: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET. 1F: ELECTED OFFICIALS’ SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS.
I haven't formed opinions on the other propositions yet, but this one is pretty clear to me -- it's the kind of populist bullcrap that sounds great, but given that this was put on the ballot by the state legislature, it probably doesn't do anything, and even if it passes, it's going to have such a trivial impact on the state budget (of which elected officials' salaries are a very very tiny part) that it's pointless. Let me know when a proposition gets on the ballot through the initiative process in order to take on this issue -- that one might have some teeth. I'm voting no on this one.
So I heard dueling radio commercials (one for, one against, right after the for one) on the drive home yesterday. The pro argument is, we need to fix the budget process, yada yada yada. The against argument from this commerical is, prop 1A has a cuddly title, "budget reform", but it's actually an OMG 16 BILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASE !!!!11one The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association came out with that ad. They don't seem to realize that the state is really deep in the hole, and yes, taxes need to go up, because politicians are incapable of cutting spending -- seriously, politicians run on that all the time, but they never actually do it. So screw those guys, they don't live in reality, I'm voting yes on 1A.
I am grumpily voting yes for all these. I am really pissed there is not a chance to change the stupid rule requiring 2/3rds the legislature to pass a budget. Grrrr. I. Will. Not. Get. Myself. Riled. Up. On. This. Topic.
I changed my mind. These propositions are not the solution for California's budget problem, and passing them may prevent a better long term fix (i.e. getting rid of the 2/3 majority in the legislature to pass a budget, which lets a minority party hold the majority hostage). So I'm voting no on 1A. Also voting no on 1D and 1E -- gutting those programs is also not going to help at this time. Still voting no on 1F. 1B and 1C, I'm on the fence -- 1B won't do anything if 1A doesn't pass, so it doesn't hurt to vote yes and it sends the message that health care is a good thing. 1C has its good and bad points -- the lottery could use some updating, but at the same time, the lottery is like an extra tax on poor people.
Exactly. I understand it's in the state constitution, but this should serve as the prime of example of why budget decisions aren't always best decided by your average voter.
I'm going to vote for 1A just because, on principle, I vote against whatever the Jarvis people ads on the radio say to do. I'll vote no on everything else.
Complete. And. Utter. Governator. Fail. It is so far beyond time to get rid of the stupid, completely counter-productive proposition process. Between that and the budget process California is simply ungovernable. Sacramento makes Washington DC look like the model of governmental responsibility and efficiency.
It isn't the people, it's the system. We have a system designed so that nothing gets done and nothing can change. And it turns out that isn't a good thing to do.
It's not just the system. It's the morons who made the system in the first place. Last I checked they were people -- albeit irresponsible and stupid people. At this point the place is just plain broken. Pathetic thing is the right wing wackos will say today's votes were another tax revolt when in reality they were just a big f'ck you to the incompetents in Sacramento. Whatever. I know the truth. This isn't another tax revolt, it's the tax revolt chickens (and some other chickens too) coming home to roost. So if they want to delude themselves,then let them.
Looks like everything failed except for the emotionally satisfying but frighteningly stupid 1F. But those people were the population of California 30 years ago. You can't do anything to those people, all you can do is change the system they made. There's going to be massive cuts in everything now. We'll just see if that makes people upset enough to do something.
It's the California two-step: ballot initiative sets up massive cuts, voters then complain about the cuts and blame the legislature. You couldn't pay me enough Jessica Alba lap dances to be a CA state representative.
Oh, this isn't all the fault of Prop 13, though that's a big part of it. The voters in CA have approved a whole slew of stupid propositions since then, many of which have have destroyed the state government here. This is correct:
Just wondering - I get the impression that anti-tax folks will complain about any money spent on government services. What if Cali was to suspend the department of roads & highways for a few years? Once those potholes start swallowing a few SUVs and beamers and the highways are reduced to 1-lane because of safety issues - and commutes become 3x as long - would the popular sentiment change?
This is where you go wrong. The anti-tax folks want government services (the Howard Jarvis folks excepted). They just don't want to pay for them. Worse, they don't see the conflict between refusing any and all new taxes, and demanding more and more government services. They want good schools. They want good roads. They want health care and police and public transportation and who knows what else and they've voted again and again and again to guarantee funds to things like the schools. But when it comes to paying for all this stuff that they want ... it's f'cking insanity. If you big government, fine: pay for it. If you don't want to pay for big government, fine: stop voting for it. It's just that you can't have both big government and not pay for it. But that's what Californians have opted to have for decades. I am serious. What we have in this state is sheer political irresponsibility. That's all. To ascribe some rational motive behind it is to misunderstand the problem entirely. Oh, and even if legislators wanted to pay for services responsibly, it's basically impossible to raise taxes in this state. A 2/3 majority is needed and there's just enough of a GOP left here to block such efforts.
This is pretty good. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogfNEw2XSbY&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Budget Committee Chair Exposes Budget Myths[/ame]
That's the current operating philosophy of the national Democratic and Republican parties (maybe not now when they have no power, but when they did have power it was definitely the Republican mantra) and there are very few people in either party that have the balls to stand up and make that point unless they're outside of power to just score political points. Considering that Obama said he'll match federal emissions standards to the Californian standards, has there been any talk about axing the California Air Regulations Board as a budget cut? Their raison d'etre no longer exists since they were calling for something that was now taken up by the EPA and there's going to one national standard.
I was listening to a national public radio show this morning and they had the CA treasurer on and he was saying that the proposition process needs to be reformed and he listed two things in particular: 1. A proposition that imposes new public spending on the state has to also create the funding for it. 2. A proposition imposing a supermajority on any sort of legislative action can't be approved with a simple majority.
Kevin Drum put it this way. Cali used to be a high service/high tax state. Now, it's a high service/medium tax state.
There are myriad problems with the California budget process. First and foremost is the 2/3rd budget rule. Watch the video that Knave posted and fast-forward to the five minute mark. Its an excellent primer on the problem. The dems control both houses with 60% majorities. However, the budget requires a 67% supermajority. So every year, its the same old, same old. The dems refuse to cut service and the reeps hold fast on no new taxes. The state has perpetual gridlock. On the budget, here's my wish list: 1. Require a simple majority of the legislature to pass the budget. The dems vote yes, the reeps vote no. Taxes go up and then the voters can decide - but at least there will a decision, a resolution on the budget insanity we have now. 2. Repeal or loosen term limits. Its a freaking revolving door in the leg. Once someone gets a degree of competence - boom - they are out the door. 3. Redistricting must make more competitive districts. The dems and reeps locked themselves into 95% safe seats. Bullshit. There needs to be competition in many more districts. Will this solve all the problems? Hell no. But it will bring a lot more accountability to the process. ------ On the propositions, I don't have such a big problem with them in general. This round of props was only on board due to the cowardice of the legislature and the governator. I am never a fan of supermajorities. It just gives the curmugeons too big a voice. They should be dying off quickly - not deciding important elections. I would increase the number of signatures required and really step up the truth in advertizing aspect. In addition, too many of the props have been a catch-all for many different things. I really wish props were more strictly limited to one subject. ------- By the way, I didn't even bother to vote on special election. When the dems decided they wouldn't support the measures, I figured WTF, solve the problems your own damn way. ------- Ahnold is freaking useless. This is the second election where he got his hat handed to him on a series of propositions. I can't wait for him to be out of office. California desperately needs an adult as governor. I am really looking forward to a Governor Brown administration. Say what you want about him, the man is about governing and he's a hell of lot less ideological than many folks may think.
I think it's perfectly rational. We have a state full of people who bought $700,000 homes with no money down, and a state full of people who found out a little plastic card gives them all sorts of stuff. Why wouldn't voters run the state the same way they run their personal finances?