7thriv

With 4 weeks left to go before the special election to approve the much ballyhooed CA budget deal, the propositions that the voters need to approve are way behind in the polls: 5 of 6 Budget Ballot Propositions Trailing in Polls

Support for five of the six measures, all of which require a majority vote, is no greater than 40 percent and each is running between nine and 27 percentage points behind the opposition. Only Proposition 1F, which would bar pay raises for government leaders in budget deficit years, looks like a winner, leading 71 percent to 24 percent.

There's a lot of nonsense in the linked article about "angry" "in your face" voters - especially GOP voters - who are threatening the state with ruin because they don't understand the beautiful symmetry of the propositions and how everyone has something to gain from them. I would say the poll results show that voters know exactly what is going on. 4 of the propositions have about the same level of support with 40% in favor and 49% opposed. Only 1C, which borrows against future lottery winnings, is faring worse. Gee, it's almost like voters are saying they don't want to pile up more debt! Who knew?

Prop. 1A is the cornerstone of the budget package. It limits increases in state spending and creates a large rainy day fund to stabilize the budget. The measure also enacts $16 billion in tax extensions.

Only 40 percent of likely voters are backing the measure, with 49 percent opposed. While Republicans have long fought for a state spending cap, they're overwhelmingly against the measure, with 24 percent yes to 65 percent no.

-- Prop. 1B, which would provide $9.3 billion for public schools, is backed by 40 percent of voters but opposed by 49 percent, and only 43 percent know that the measure will take effect only if Prop. 1A passes.

-- Prop. 1C, which would allow the state to borrow $5 billion against future lottery earnings, is opposed by 59 percent of likely voters, with 32 percent in favor.

-- Prop. 1D, which would temporarily redirect tobacco tax money from children's programs to the state's general fund, also is losing, with 40 percent of voters for it and 49 percent opposed, while Prop. 1E, which temporarily takes money from mental health programs to help close the budget gap, is down by 11 percentage points, 40 to 51 percent

The lesson I would learn from this is that CA voters are tired of the unrestrained spending and unrestrained taxing that is enshrined in the budget deal. They may also be tired of having to do this repeated budgeting by proposition, which our representatives seem to prefer, rather than their having to do any actual representing. The circumstances of the deal - where the governator and the Dem legislators chased a couple GOP state senators around for a few weeks - are also suspect. Remember that the deal was made possible by GOP state senator "Arlen" Maldonado, who changed his vote in exchange for a state-wide vote on open primaries (!). What this had to do with the budget is beyond me, but not beyond the insiders who don't seem to realize that an emergnecy requires more than just horse-trading over procedural crap.

The pro-spending forces who have CA in their grip are, of course, appalled. But their arguments are looking a bit long in the tooth:

"We are out campaigning hard for these measures, because should they fail, it
isn't the politicians in Sacramento who will be punished, it is our teachers,
firefighters, children, seniors, businesses and workers who will be hurt the
worst," said Jeannine English, state president of AARP and a backer of the
measures.

I have it on good authority that "Jeannine English" is actually the nickname that clever IBM engineers have given their proto-type for the Lobby-bot 2000, a robot programmed to spit out random talking points in support of BS political causes. Nothing else could explain her tired refrain that mean ol' GOP voters are looking to "punish" "children" and "seniors." That's right! I wish I could do it everyday, but I guess the special election will have to do!

English's statement is almost a parody of special interest pleading, by which the redistributing of CA's wealth to the politically connected is disguised with crocodile tears for firefighters and old folks. Hey, I like firefighters, too! I just don't like overpaid state employees, state board members, and lobbyists.

And, look at 1D and 1E, those are actually taking money away from education and services for the mentally ill. English is supporting that, even as she "weeps" for the loss of services to the most vulnerable. These sorts of services are the sort of thing people WANT the state government to do. Instead, the budget deal is trying to preserve jobs such as Carole Migden's six-figure income to work part-time on something called the "Integrated Waste Systems Board." Why would voters want to support this?

I also don't like that CA duplicates so much of the federal government's work, such as the Air Resources Board, which does nothing that the EPA doesn't do, except double the burden on business and consumers. Why should we support this sort of special interest feather-bedding?

A real budget deal would have looked to return CA to its core competence: education, research universites, prisons, first responders, and the like. This one does not do this, but instead maintains a bloated beast that the political class does not have the heart to shrink