Arnold Flubbin’ — California Shruggin’
A couple of small rattlers near LAX the last few days elicited more attention among Californians than did a key election today whose results could have deep devastating economic consequences.
Most of the Golden State’s residents just shrugged at the half-dozen ballot measures served up before them on Tuesday and failed to show. A sound majority of those who did vote turned thumbs down on five of the measures designed, at least in a minimal way, to ease California’s escalating economic catastrophe.
Mike Finnegan of the L.A. Times gets it mostly right, pointing to the election as a failure of the entire system: both parties, the pseudo-Republican Governor, his out-to-lunch party, a corrupt and feckless Democratic majority and…yes… the electorate.
Finnegan neatly summed up it like this:
Rightly or wrongly, voters in the special election refused either to extend new tax hikes or to cap state spending. They also declined to unlock funds that they had voted in better financial times to set aside for special purposes…Clogged freeways, the decline of public schools, an outdated water system and a battered economy are just a few of the challenges demanding action by state leaders. Instead, they are consumed by yet another budget crisis, one that voters worsened Tuesday… On Tuesday, Californians showed they were unwilling to scale back their demands in tight times: Voters turned down propositions that would have freed up money that they set aside years ago for mental-health and children’s programs.
I think it fair to assign the bulk of the blame to one Arnold Schwarzenegger. He came into office in 2003, promising to break up the boxes of government and to make a clean sweep of business-as-usual. He prematurely drove out of office a pay-to-play, uninspiring Democrat who had let the state debt burdgeon to a staggering $38 billion. Nice work, Arnold. Today that debt tops $70 billion. Teachers are being laid off. Police forces are being shrunk. Health care is being slashed. And much more mayhem is right around the corner.
Arnold gets props for his enlightened energy policies and his willingness to buck California’s shrinking, detached and paleo-Republican Party on social issues. He had no problem allying with the Democratic majority in the legislature (better said he had to because his own Republicans would give him few and often not a single vote).
But Schwarzenegger’s tenure can now be declared nothing except an historic failure. He — and the Democrats– flinched from the one issue that would have made all the difference. Everyone with an IQ above room temp has known for a long time that there can be no long-term economic viability in California without a radical, that’s right, radical retooling of our tax base. That means a scrapping of the onerous Prop 13 which, essentially, gives business and corporate interests a near free ride on already ridiculously low property taxes.
Arnold gave a lot of leeway on a lot of issues but he stubbornly stuck to his “no taxes” Republican mantra. At least until recently when, out of necessity, he began to approve a whole new tier of increased “fees.”
But it was all too little too late. Californians long ago grew bored by the annual budget deadlock in Sacramento. With new taxes needing a 2/3 super majority, the Repubs have just enough votes to gum up the works. If Arnold had wanted to be remembered as an historic figure, instead of one more failed Governor, he would have shown the same courage on tax reform that he did on the environment he would have led the charge for change.
Instead, it was business as usual.
What the voters did today made no sense. Or, shall we say, it made a little sense. Offered no leadership from the state Capitol, presented with no inspiring or confident leadership, they voted with their thumbs and basically said “bring it on.” They’d rather risk the coming economic butchery than approve the strung-together, near incomprehensible jumble of patch-work, quick-fix initiatives served up by the Arnold/Democratic alliance.
In fairness to the voters, these measures were never coherently explained or presented to them. And the notion of borrowing money from funds earmarked for education while expanding and borrowing from the state lottery just didn’t compute. One could certainly argue that passage of these half-arsed measures might have offered some minor relief. But you could also argue that even if they had passed we would wake up Wednesday morning with the underlying affliction untouched: a completely dysfunctional state government and an electorate driven half-mad by the same.
P.S. I had forgot to mention the unseemly sight I encountered last Friday. It was commencement day at USC (where I work) and as I drove across L.A. and toward the campus in the morning I passed several intersections clogged with public school teachers holding signs and banners protesting the wave of layoffs shuddering through our school district. I pulled into USC at the same moment that Arnold’s entourage made its entrance in a caravan of black SUV’s. The Governor, as commencement speaker, was his usual, charming, charismatic self ( I am told. I skipped his speech and went only to our Annenberg grad ceremony that was graced by a talk by veteran journalist and good friend Warren Olney). But I have to say, with a certain sense of conflict of interest, that there was something grotesque about the Governor speaking at the city’s most prosperous of privately funded universites while the his public school and state university system was being buffeted by budget cuts. The USC audience was polite and generous to Arnold. I wonder if he would have gotten the same gentle treatment if he had, instead, shown up at UCLA or Berkeley. Or better, Crenshaw High School — ust a stone’s throw from the home of the Trojans.
—————————-
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper
Watch my regular Video Blogs by subscribing at http://www.youtube.com/McooperTube
May 19th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
[...] Read more: Arnold Flubbin’ — California Shruggin’ [...]
May 20th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Marc: What the voters did today made no sense. Or, shall we say, it made a little sense.
Rather than being critical of the voters for what you consider makes little sense, you could give it more thought and find out why it, in fact, does make sense.
There is no end to a bloated government, grown to repulsive proportions by the Democrats. People are tired of it.
What was done with the money and tax increases before this vote, and the one before that, and the one before that…? What would be done with this money that wouldn’t require going back to the taxpayers in less than four years? Why give more money to people who have used it irresponsibly in the past and show no sign of using it responsibly in the future?
You’re complaining about the vote sounds like a fat person who complains that he’s hungry because he needs more food rather than curbing his gluttony.
To roll this forward, what you see in California today, particularly thanks to the Democrats, is what you will be seeing in our country after Obama has rammed through more “entitlements” (I hate that word) and government growth that we can never afford and that will go on until any reserves, people’s ability to pay taxes, and their patience with spendthrift politicians runs out.
Government wants businesses and taxpayers to “give up something.” Maybe the politicians should set an example and start by ending their vote buying with taxpayer money and give up something themselves.
Initial steps would be to cut wages (even though the unions and Obama think that “they” shouldn’t have to give back), lay off unneeded workers (and there are plenty), and sell state assets – even state parks if it takes that to straighten out the financial mess.
Does that “make sense?” If not, keep studying.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:58 am
(s/b “your” complaining about the vote)
May 20th, 2009 at 7:51 am
“grown to repulsive proportions by the Democrats”
Yeah, those darn dems. . . . Bush Cheney were really for WAY smaller gummit – fer sure! Good thing they trimmed that monster!
Um. . . wait a minute
May 20th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Once again, Woody’s comments show that he doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about. They demonstrate an absolute, complete lack of knowledge of what is and has been happening in California.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:58 am
I think it’s correct to assign the bulk of the blame to Governor Schwarzenegger. For all the talk and swagger of ‘blowing up boxes’ of government, he has done pitifully little to educate the electorate of the problems facing the state. An honest assessment of Prop 13 is way, way over due. http://www.flashreport.org/images/Jarvis%20Cover.jpg
Of course, this is going to require some real courage. Telling people that they’ve stocked up on an elixir isn’t exactly going to be popular. Although, maybe folks are starting to get the message:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2009/01/the-lower-homes.html
May 20th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Kevin, perhaps you could enlighten me if I’m so wrong. For some reason, a wealthy state with high taxes can’t afford its bills. The way that I see it, either the taxpayers still don’t pay enough or the state spends too much. But, if you have another possibility that is more likely, then let me know. Otherwise, I’ll take it that your comment is really the one with a “complete lack of knowledge.”
May 20th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I would have had one more ballot measure…run all the taxpayer-sucking illegal immigrants back over the border.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:30 am
See what I mean? Rather than admit that the ‘government is the problem’ and it ought to be ‘drowned in a bathtub’ lines of thinking are a dead end, some would rather fixate their reactionary impulses on illegal immigrants.
Fortunately, the gentleman @ 9:09 am doesn’t vote in California.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Rob, I left out the blood-sucking unions, like SEIU and teacher unions.
Don’t you wish that unions let their members keep their money rather than blow it on campaigns for Democrats? They always expect something selfish in return, and that usually hurts the state and the taxpayers. You know what I mean?
I understand that ACORN can register me and my dog to vote in California. I just have to accept a free drink and look stupid so that they will think that I vote Democratic.
But, thanks for referring to me as a gentleman. That will really confuse some people.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Hey, just to give you guys some peace and let you discuss this your way, I’m not saying any more on this subject.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Well, Marc, Schwarzenegger showed up at not one but three African American churches — in South Central LA — the Sunday before the election and was very well received.
Is that kinda like accepting your challenge of going to Crenshaw High?
I’ve looked at polling on these various ideas.
We’ll leave it at that …
>The USC audience was polite and generous to Arnold. I wonder if he would have gotten the same gentle treatment if he had, instead, shown up at UCLA or Berkeley. Or better, Crenshaw High School — ust a stone’s throw from the home of the Trojans.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
This election is emblematic of California’s governance at this point in time. Our problem is in large part a creation of the uneasy relationship between representative democracy (the legislature and governor) and direct democracy (propositions, initiatives and recalls). The results of direct democracy, including the 2/3 supermajority required to raise taxes in the legislature, have created problems that representative democracy could not resolve.
There were good reasons to vote for each of the 6 propositions, and good reasons to vote against each of them. Legislators and party leaders were hesitant to get out in front of these proposals. The parties and most interest groups didn’t spend big money taking a public position on them. Only the gov was out front, and he has the coattails of a bomber jacket. He can’t sell anything but himself.
So we are back to square one, and square one is about 8 feet below the surface of the sea. The only real solution is for the Republican minority to get out the way and let the Dems and Arnold work something out. They can then blame Arnold (in the primary) and Dems (in the general) for all the unresolved issues remaining after the economic recovery takes hold.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Hey, just to give you guys some peace and let you discuss this your way, I’m not saying any more on this subject.
The power of prayer.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
<<>>
Wingnuts never fail to amuse. As Marc observed:
“That means a scrapping of the onerous Prop 13 which, essentially, gives business and corporate interests a near free ride on already ridiculously low property taxes.”
The 800 ton elephant in the room. Even Warren Buffet knew this back in 2003 when he told Arnie he would have to scrap it.
“In the 2003 California recall election in which Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor, his advisor Warren Buffett suggested that Proposition 13 be repealed or changed as a method of balancing the state’s budget. Schwarzenegger, believing that taking such a step would be to touch a political third rail that could end his gubernatorial career, said, “I told Warren that if he mentions Proposition 13 again he has to do 500 sit-ups.” A 2004 Los Angeles Times Magazine cover story that detailed the proposition’s damaging effects and advocated its repeal drew heavy criticism from its supporters.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)#Aftermath
You have to be an idiot – or a wingnut- capable of ignoring cause and effect not to get this.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Property taxes in Texas are higher than they are here in California. What does that tell you?
May 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Regarding Bill Bradley’s comment:
“I’ve looked at polling on these various ideas.
We’ll leave it at that …”
Well, that’s been exactly the problem, “leaving it at that”. Leadership has been abysmal for fear of having to pull some oars to make the polls move, heaven forfend.
Small fissures in the (hopefully) increasingly well-organized grass roots may be able to catalyze some movement on these issues.
George Lakoff had a persuasive proposal today, to submit to the voters a one-line initiative:
“Most Californians are not aware of the minority rule situation. . . . The Democratic leadership should immediately take the initiative on a 2010 ballot measure, a supremely simple one-sentence measure . . . :
‘All budgetary and revenue issues shall be decided by a majority vote in both houses of the legislature. ‘
“One sentence. Simple. Straightforward. Understandable. And democratic. It should be called the California Democracy Act. From grade school on, we associate democracy with majority rule. It will make sense to voters – at last! . . . Up to now, Democrats have been acting like sheep being herded by the Republican minority. They need to show courage and stand up for what they believe. That’s what the voters are waiting for. ”
I agree with Lakoff. To “leave it at that”, well, it’s lazy and fatalistic (accent on the “fatal” for our FUBAR state).
May 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Excellent idea, Sam.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“Well, Marc, Schwarzenegger showed up at not one but three African American churches — in South Central LA — the Sunday before the election and was very well received.
Is that kinda like accepting your challenge of going to Crenshaw High?”
If you think there is some equivalence between AME pr African American CHURCHES in South Central and Crenshaw High, you must be a white man, Bill.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
There is hope, but nor for us.
Kafka
May 20th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Nice distortion of my meaning.
I saw Lakoff’s piece. The problem with the frame-heavy approach to politics is it often ignores fact.
He acts like this is a solution for now.
It isn’t. You have to pass a constitutional amendment.
Which has been tried and failed. Which he either does not now, which is quite possible, or decided to leave out because it contradicts his claim that the voters don’t know about the two-thirds rule.
He also leaves out the Field Poll, conducted by an outfit about 10 miles from his university office, taken a few weeks ago, showing massive opposition to changing the two-thirds rule.
Aside from that, Lakoff has a brilliant analysis …
May 20th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Oh, I’m replying to these insights …
>Sam Sinister Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Regarding Bill Bradley’s comment:
“I’ve looked at polling on these various ideas.
We’ll leave it at that …”
Well, that’s been exactly the problem, “leaving it at that”. Leadership has been abysmal for fear of having to pull some oars to make the polls move, heaven forfend.
Small fissures in the (hopefully) increasingly well-organized grass roots may be able to catalyze some movement on these issues.
George Lakoff had a persuasive proposal today, to submit to the voters a one-line initiative:
“Most Californians are not aware of the minority rule situation. . . . The Democratic leadership should immediately take the initiative on a 2010 ballot measure, a supremely simple one-sentence measure . . . :
May 20th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Oh, btw, Sinister Sam left out this gem from Perfersser Lakoff’s column …
“The term ‘revenue’ would cover taxes without waving a red flag.”
Uh-huh.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
“# Woody Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Hey, just to give you guys some peace and let you discuss this your way, I’m not saying any more on this subject.”
Does this mean I’m not gay ? I’m kind of disoriented.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Settembrini, Texas does not have a state income tax.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Woody: “I understand that ACORN can register me and my dog to vote in California.”
We’ll take the dog, but…
May 20th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
[...] in the middle of grading final exams so I will let Marc Cooper speak for me: I think it fair to assign the bulk of the blame to one Arnold Schwarzenegger. He came [...]
May 20th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
[...] in the middle of grading final exams so I will let Marc Cooper speak for me: I think it fair to assign the bulk of the blame to one Arnold Schwarzenegger. He came [...]
May 21st, 2009 at 5:02 am
reg: We’ll take the dog, but…
Sure you’ll take the dog. She is totally dependent on someone else providing her food and shelter, like others in California who want the state to care for them. At least she does a few tricks for her treats. But, as I actually told my son the other day, she is a Republican dog.
- – -
Regarding the California budget, get this! While you turned your heads, Obama was trying to blackmail and penalize the state and its elderly because of a compalint by the SEIU.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-stimulus-california21-2009may21,0,737150.story
May 21st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Woody, you far right frak, you are so far behind the curve that it is pathetic …
May 21st, 2009 at 7:51 pm
BB, this is not the first time that I’ve mentioned SEIU and Obama trying to blackmail your state. It’s just that you guys would prefer to ignore it.
If you like, I can be sure to email you every time that I make a comment so that you may pass judgment on its timeliness.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
“designed, at least in a minimal way, to ease California’s escalating economic catastrophe”
Uh, no. While not passing these measures leaves the state in terrible shape, passing them would have left it in much worse shape, and nearly permanently, which is why virtually every progressive organization opposed it, and why they fought hard, and succeeded, at the CA Dem convention against the Dem party mainliners — with whom you’re now aligning — to keep the party from endorsing 1A.
The problem in this state is, and has been since 1978′s Prop 13, the 2/3 rule that allows a handful of rabid Republican ideologues to strangle the government by blocking revenue increases. The tax rate on commercial property in CA is insanely low, and the massive profits from those properties are going off to China and everywhere else but not to the communities that are making them possible; it’s a libertarian wet dream. Somalia here we come unless we change it. And we can change it, contrary to nitwits like Bill Bradley who don’t understand voter dynamics (the only reason he ever won was because of his NBA career).
May 21st, 2009 at 10:45 pm
a supremely simple one-sentence measure . . . :
‘All budgetary and revenue issues shall be decided by a majority vote in both houses of the legislature. ‘
It isn’t quite that simple because it needs accompanying legal language to change the state constitution, but it can be presented that way, and Courage Campaign has already taken that up:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/Declaration
“DECLARATION OF DEMOCRACY: Budgets and taxes should be approved by a majority vote of the legislature.”
May 21st, 2009 at 11:22 pm
the only reason he ever won was because of his NBA career
And if that’s a different Bill Bradley, all the more reason not to care what this one has to say about the results of a Field poll — a poll that shows that only 14% of registered voters — and only 11% of registered Republicans — approve of the job the legislature is doing. Since that job is dependent on the 2/3 rule that they say they don’t want to get rid of, a rule that allows a minority of Republicans to block tax increases, quite obviously the electorate is “not aware of the minority rule situation” — that is, they don’t comprehend its consequences. And so the approval of the rule can be turned around with an intelligent campaign that ties the rule to the severe cuts in services that we are facing. Every time someone complains about education, road conditions, crime, mental health facilities … anything in which the state government plays a role, point out that it’s because there’s no money because of the 2/3 rule. If they really believe that “the government’s the problem, not the solution”, then they should SFTU and buy their own damn roads and police.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
Bill Bradley, I’m passing this along, although I’m sure that someone as superior as you would consider George Will to be a “far right frak behind the curve.” The Coming California Bailout
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
Yawn.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Yawn? You sure consider yourself some kind of elitist. Don’t waste your time reading my comments or articles by George Will, given your vast superior knowledge. Of course, the lesser of us wouldn’t have been so smart as to get our state in the condition that the liberals put theirs.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Re: Bill Bradley’s comments above: “Nice distortion of my meaning. . . . You have to pass a constitutional amendment. Which has been tried and failed . . . it contradicts [the] claim that the voters don’t know about the two-thirds rule. He also leaves out the Field Poll . . . taken a few weeks ago, showing massive opposition to changing the two-thirds rule.”
I think you missed my meaning too. No one disputes what the polls say, since they say what they say.
The question is whether one becomes debilitated, by taking polls as received wisdom. Or, whether one takes polls as starting points that show the gaps requiring leadership/marketing/education.
Naturally, it is an open question as to whether this effort leadership will ever effectively coalesce and actually happen. And whether it would be enough anyway.
But to sit on our hands fatalistically because of a poll (and a failed campaign a few years ago), with this magnitude of crisis (and opportunity) before us?
Sometimes sophistication can be incapacitating.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
And for those who don’t know, this ain’t Bill Bradley the basketball player, but has written great stuff for a long time.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
VIDEO – San Diego County: Hey guys, we have a $700 million surplus, wanna know how we did it? State Govt: F- off, we got it.
San Diego Board of Supervisors Chairman Dianne Jacob on why California has a spending rather than revenue problem.