Biggest Little Proposition On California's Ballot
I realize that the entire universe of political commentary is going to be focused on the national stories tonight, but since I already posted my national election "picks" yesterday, today instead of adding to the maelstrom of punditry over "what the election means," I'd like to turn to a local issue out here in the state of California, because I think its importance will largely go unremarked by the media (at least outside of the state). It doesn't really have national implications, I admit, because of California's almost-unique laws, but I still feel it is worthy of at least some attention.
There are (as always) quite a number of propositions on California's ballot this year. The one the national media will report on tonight is Proposition 19, which may legalize marijuana for recreational purposes for all adults in the state and set up a battle royale with the federal government over the issue. There is a second ballot initiative (Proposition 23) which would roll back California's progressive environmental law, which is being sponsored by oil companies and other polluters. But neither of these is the issue I'd like to talk about here.
Proposition 25, as I said, will likely have no national implications (as 19 and 23 do). But that doesn't mean it isn't important. What Proposition 25 will do, if it passes, is to change our state laws regarding how budgets are voted on in our legislature. Already, I can feel readers' eyelids drooping, as it sounds like a pretty wonky subject, for which I apologize.
California's state government is somewhat of a mess, and the voters bear a large responsibility for that fact, not the politicians in Sacramento. In the first place, we (through the ballot initiative) have locked up much of the state's budget beyond control of the legislators entirely. The lion's share of California's budget is already accounted for before the politicians even begin to deal with the slice of the budget they are still responsible for. But what really gums up the works is the fact that to pass a budget in California, we have to hit a higher bar than even the United States Senate's filibuster. Our legislature has to vote in numbers that would overturn vetoes in most other states. Fully two-thirds of both chambers must vote to pass a budget before it even gets to the governor's desk. Only two other states (if memory serves correctly) have such a monstrously high bar to pass a simple state budget. And it is killing California's ability to get much of anything done.
Budgets are routinely late -- by months and months and months. In the meantime, the state has had furloughs and has sometimes even been forced to issue IOUs instead of paychecks and all other state funding. Which is downright pathetic.
Proposition 25 would change this in two significant ways. The first is that the budget could pass on a simple majority vote -- like most other states require. This alone would give the legislature much more flexibility in terms of balancing the books. In the recent past, California has had Republicans representing slightly more than one-third of both houses (one-third plus one, in essence). This has allowed Republicans to block just about everything, and force all sorts of dealmaking to entice one Republican to vote for the budget (this is what leads to the months of delays). With a simple majority, they could not practice such raw obstructionism.
The second reason things would change is a part of Proposition 25 which was obviously tossed into the mix as a real "crowd pleaser" -- if a budget isn't passed on time, then all the legislators' paychecks stop. Later, after they do pass a budget, they cannot award themselves "back pay" for this period. This is short, sweet, and to the point -- if you don't do one of the basic parts of your job, you do not get paid. Period. As I said, in terms of populism, this was a brilliant addition to the proposition, because just about everyone (no matter what their political beliefs) understands the basic fairness this represents. It would be a goad, and it is meant to be an effective goad. It would probably work wonders in getting things done on time (state legislators are not always millionaires, and quite a lot of them heavily depend on their salaries for their livelihood).
There hasn't been a whole lot of advertising on Proposition 25, at least not that I've seen. The few ads up seem to lean heavily on the "take their paychecks away" part of it, which is politically a smart thing to do. I haven't seen any "No" ads yet, but they doubtlessly exist. And I haven't seen any polling on the issue at all, so I really have no idea what its chances are going to be.
If Jerry Brown wins the governorship, as pretty much all the pollsters are predicting at this point, and Proposition 25 passes, then we will achieve true "one-party rule" in California, by Democrats. Unlike the shaky seven-month "filibuster-proof majority" in the U.S. Senate last year, there will be enough Democrats to get their agenda passed relatively unscathed. This, it should be pointed out, is going to be a double-edged sword. It will allow Democrats to run things they way they've been itching to, but it also means they will be fully responsible for the results. If things go well, they will reap the rewards from the voters next time around. If things go badly, then the whole experiment could very well blow up in their collective faces.
There are other interesting (and even wonkier) things on California's ballot this year, such as taking away the redistricting power from the legislature when drawing new districts for the U.S. House of Representatives (which is designed to get rid of the blatant gerrymandering which both parties are complicit in here), which could mean big changes coming for our next House elections. There is a local measure in San Francisco to try an experiment -- have all the polling places open both on Election Tuesday, and also on the Saturday which precedes it (bringing in "weekend voting," as most other Western countries do). As well as the two propositions (19 and 23) which will be talked about tonight during the national coverage.
But in terms of the future of the state of California's government, the most important race to watch tonight will be Proposition 25. It's wonky, it's not even remotely sexy, but it could usher in a new era in how our state's budget is run. What it means ultimately will be a good test case for Democrats, which (as stated) could go either way. But, at this point, anything is better than the eternal gridlock California is doomed to endure every year when it comes to passing a budget.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
OK, I realize this isn't all that germane to anyone outside CA, so I'm throwing this comment thread open to a general "election night" comments.
This is because liveblogging is too stressful, which is why I rarely do it...
But have at it everyone! So far, we've got Senator-Elect Rand Paul... what's next?
-CW
Looks like the Republican wave has been turned back (at least in the Senate) by the floodwall of West Virginia.
An hour after polls closed, nobody's talking about PA, WI, IL, or CO. Interesting...
-CW
LA Times calls CA for Brown and Boxer... no word on Props...
-CW
Chris,
I'm happy that Harry Reid beat Sharron Angle - it just makes the entire evening a little less depressing.
I also have to admit that I was quite happy to see Feingold go down in defeat. There is some justice in the world. And, I don't really care who beat him.
As for California ... what can I say ... proposition 19 nothwithstanding, the voters of California give me hope for the future.
Unfortunately, the Giants' World Series win was not the good political omen for the country that I had hoped it would be. But, what a series it was! I now have a favourite National League team ...
Liz -
I predict you'll actually miss Feingold when you see who replaces him. Sometimes the cure is worse, if you know what I mean.
I feel this way about Reid. I can't stand the man, and have all kinds of problems with the way he runs the Senate. Which I have publicly vented here, many times.
But I thank all that's holy that he won tonight, as his opponent was a total loon. This also gives weight to the Christine O'Donnell "that's what you get when you nominate freakshows" argument the GOP establishment is going to have with the Tea Party VERY soon now, for which I am also thankful.
I don't know whether Reid'll step down as Maj. Ldr. or not, though... I could see him going either way...
Yeah, prop 19 was a disappointment, but they'll be back in 2012, that's my guess, with a better-written prop....
I do have to say, with absolutely no modesty whatsoever, that yesterday's column has been 100% right so far. With three races left to call (AK, CO, WA), so far I'm 34 for 34. Not too shabby, eh?
:-)
Oh, and so the moderator doesn't get annoyed with me (snerk, snerk), Prop 25 looks (at this point, very little vote counted) like it will win, to tie it all in to this column.
-CW
Congratulations, Chris! No one prognosticates about these things better than you do.
But, I will not miss Feingold. I can absolutely guarantee that will not happen. Call me obstinate in the extreme if you must, but that is how I feel about the poster boy for the I-want-what-I-want-when-I-want-it crowd.
Do you think Obama et al. have learned any valuable lessons about how to put in place a half-way competent communications strategy?
a little glimmer of daylight in florida: amendments 5 and 6 passed, effectively outlawing the gerrymander.
http://cbs4.com/wireapnewsfl/Redistricting.amendments.pass.2.1993619.html
nypoet22 -
CA also got rid of it, by passing Prop. 20, and by rejecting Prop. 27. Woo hoo!
:-)
-CW
Krauthammer makes a very good point.
It's a foregone conclusion that Americans have rejected Obama and rejected him big by giving the House to the GOP in a big way.
Now, one may argue that Dems still control the Senate??
Do they???
More Dem Senators will be up for re-election in two years. Many more than Republicans Senators..
Those Dem Senators have gotten a bird's eye view of what happens when they ignore the will of the people to promote a self-serving agenda.
You can bet that Dem Senators will be more interested in compromising with the GOP than they will be interested in taking one for Obama.
In essence, the GOP has complete and mandated control of the House and de-facto control of the Senate. :D
It's morning in America again. :D
Michale.....
A VERY good read...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588612828579920.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Michale.....
Hay CW,
You DO realize that, if the remaining 11 House races are decided for the GOP, my prediction of 72 seats picked up will be dead on ballz accurate, right?? :D
Michale....
CW-
What's interesting to me is that all the voting on the propositions seemed to be pretty moderate, middle-of-the-road voting.
Yet a lot of very conservative conservatives won in the election in general.
So it seems to me that some very good marketing won out last night. Marketing that managed to convince people that Obama is extreme and that having a balance of power would be a good thing. These were the 2 tropes I heard from all of the conservatives/independents I spoke with.
Not that I believe either of these 2 things are true. But it's the perception that decides the election.
That's why it's interesting to me to contrast voting on propositions vs. politicians. Because with propositions, the language is readily available to be discussed and debated, while with politicians, all most people have to go on is the marketing.
Anyways, it's not the end of the world, but I certainly do feel a little election hangover this morning.
-David
p.s. Liz- Why the Feingold hate?
David,
So it seems to me that some very good marketing won out last night. Marketing that managed to convince people that Obama is extreme and that having a balance of power would be a good thing. These were the 2 tropes I heard from all of the conservatives/independents I spoke with.
Isn't it possible that it is MORE than just "good marketing", David??
Isn't it possible that Obama IS too extreme??
Just curious...
"We can't discard one theory, just because we don't happen to like it."
-Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN
Michale...
michale,
i'll give you credit for calling a pretty darn good over-under, but i seriously doubt you're going to come up on the plus side of it.
regarding the president's being too "extreme," it's never been about how far left or right the policies are, it's about how good or bad they are, and there's a difference. from stimulus to health-care, the basic ideas are pretty well-liked; it's the implementation that the public has found wanting.
if the policies were better, it wouldn't matter if they were further to left than they are, or even if they were far to the right. but a mandate with no public option or price controls, lots of spending but very little on infrastructure, these have something for every side to hate.
as liz frequently points out, the president has also done a lot to end our foreign wars responsibly and save our economy from disaster. however, things haven't turned around yet, and people generally don't look on the bright side when they're unemployed.
~joshua
NY,
regarding the president's being too "extreme," it's never been about how far left or right the policies are, it's about how good or bad they are, and there's a difference. from stimulus to health-care, the basic ideas are pretty well-liked; it's the implementation that the public has found wanting.
While the implementation has been half-assed and, in many cases, non-existent, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the policies themselves were a good idea.
Take the porkulus stuff and the bailouts..... I advocated back then to let the whole thing fail and then rebuild a better system..
But Bush and Obama had to try and save things and look where we are two years later?? Still limping along with the worst still ahead..
Had Bush and Obama let things fail, then we would be well on our way to recovery, a REAL recovery built around a better way of doing things.
THAT would have been the best way to go. THAT would have been visionary. THAT would have shown REAL leadership...
As far as CrapCare goes?? That was a bad idea from the word go... The intent might have been a good idea... Getting rid of pre-existing conditions conditions and bringing down rates and such are all good ideas..
But CrapCare doesn't address ANY of that...
Can insurance companies still deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions? Yes and they have.
Can insurance companies raise their rates? Yes and they have.
I mean, honestly and seriously.. All Left vs Right aside...
When you have 75% of Americans, across all political spectrums stand up and say that CrapCare is... well... crap. How much of a clue is needed to say, "Hmmmmm Maybe we should rethink this..."
Like I mentioned in a previous commentary, all the clues were written on the walls months ago.. Almost a year ago...
But, over and over again, the Democrats ignored the will of the people. Ignored all the warning signs.. And this is their reward..
I readily admit that not all of Obama's policies were bad. Credit where credit is due and Obama does deserve credit for doing things right..
But the policies that WERE bad were REALLY bad.. And that is what brought us to where we are at today.
And if the American people have to fire more Democrats in two years up to and including Obama to get their point across, well then so be it.
The American people spoke yesterday.
It would behoove ALL Democrats to listen... They ignore the message at their own peril..
Michale.....
While the implementation has been half-assed and, in many cases, non-existent, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the policies themselves were a good idea.
[snip]
Getting rid of pre-existing conditions conditions and bringing down rates and such are all good ideas..
But [snip name-calling] doesn't address ANY of that...
Can insurance companies still deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions? Yes and they have.
Can insurance companies raise their rates? Yes and they have.
michale,
is this your new strategy of showing me i'm wrong by agreeing with me?
;)
~joshua
NY,
is this your new strategy of showing me i'm wrong by agreeing with me?
;)
It's just me thinking outside the box.. :D Or even the universe.. :D
Michale.....
Isn't it possible that Obama IS too extreme?
Is he a socialist? No. He's actually pretty centrist.
Seems to me like the liberals don't like him and the conservatives don't like him because he has tried to define a path in between both. And, he hasn't done a good job explaining much of what he's done.
When something is overinflated, that's what I consider marketing. And that's what all this crap about Obama being extreme is. But, to the Republicans credit, the Democrats were not able to get a better message out.
Take the claim "the Democrats ignored the will of the people". This is messaging that Republicans have been getting out since at least last spring.
Did the people really not want healthcare reform? I don't think so. What they didn't want was the healthcare reform compromise. nypoet makes a great point on this that it was a bad compromise that pleased very few.
Are the people really clamoring for "trickle down" economics? Are they clamoring for more war? For tax cuts for the wealthy? For conservative philosophy?
I guess we'll see. But judging from the exit polls, Republican philosophy isn't very popular either. The election seemed more anti-Obama than pro-Republican.
But I give it to the conservatives on their messaging. When the average person on the street can repeat their top talking points, you've got good marketing.
And conversely, if you asked people what Obama believed, you would probably hear the standard Republican beliefs about him rather than his actual philosophy. That's good marketing.
Cheers
David
David,
I don't hate Feingold.
I just think he deserved to be defeated - just for his disingenuous vote against Wall Street Reform and for being the poster boy for the pompous and self-righteous I-want-what-I-want-when-I-want-it crowd.
That is all ... :)
Is he a socialist? No. He's actually pretty centrist.
By Castro's definition, perhaps.
David,
Is he a socialist? No. He's actually pretty centrist.
That's not what I asked..
I asked if it is possible he IS too extreme.. But let me clarify, to give Obama the benefit of the doubt..
Is it possible that Obama is too extreme for the mood of the country in the here and now??
I think, given the activities of the last couple of days, the answer is clearly YES..
When something is overinflated, that's what I consider marketing. And that's what all this crap about Obama being extreme is. But, to the Republicans credit, the Democrats were not able to get a better message out.
Maybe that's because the BEST message is always the facts... :D
Take the claim "the Democrats ignored the will of the people". This is messaging that Republicans have been getting out since at least last spring.
Given the facts, the "message" is dead on ballz accurate...
Did the people really not want healthcare reform? I don't think so. What they didn't want was the healthcare reform compromise. nypoet makes a great point on this that it was a bad compromise that pleased very few.
Exactly.. CrapCare is not HealthCare reform.. No way, no how..
The people spoke very clearly that they were against CrapCare..
But Obama and the Democrats ignored the American people..
And 2 Nov was a direct result of that malfeasance..
I guess we'll see. But judging from the exit polls, Republican philosophy isn't very popular either. The election seemed more anti-Obama than pro-Republican.
Exactly.. This election was about Obama and his policies. And the American people spoke loud and clear against those policies.
But, judging from the reports, Obama and the Democrats STILL don't get it.. Obama STILL believes his policies were right.. Democrats STILL think that the GOP has to co-operate with the DP..
The "echo chamber" has gone national... :(
But I give it to the conservatives on their messaging. When the average person on the street can repeat their top talking points, you've got good marketing.
OK, I see the conflict here... What you call "good marketing" is what I call, "just laying out the facts"... :D
Michale.....
I asked if it is possible he IS too extreme.
I believe that a large percentage of the public voted this way. But, this perception can occur in a couple of different ways.
One. He can actually do or say extreme things. I haven't seen this.
Or, two. He can be portrayed as extreme. He can be portrayed as a socialist. He can be portrayed as foreign and not born in this country. They can say that his policies are the coming of days and that big government is taking over everything.
And it looks more like #2 to me. Heheheh - I said #2. People believed the marketing. Look at "Chris1962", for example, comparing him to Castro.
Is he really Castro? C'mon.
Sorry, Michale, but I don't see any evidence that makes him look extreme.
What people are against with health care is the provision that requires everyone to buy it. And this provision was a request of the insurance industry. If you were to tell me that Obama was "too corporate" than I might believe it. But "too extreme"? C'mon. The guy is like luke-warm water.
-David
And it looks more like #2 to me. Heheheh - I said #2
hehehehehehehe :D
Is he really Castro? C'mon.
Naaw... Obama is too extreme to be Castro... :D
Sorry, Michale, but I don't see any evidence that makes him look extreme.
Forcing thru a policy by hook or by crook against the will of 75% of the American people seems pretty extreme to me...
What people are against with health care is the provision that requires everyone to buy it.
Although the force-purchase of a product is a pretty big part of why people hate CrapCare, that is not all they are against.
They are against all the new bureaucracies that are created, they are against the fact that CrapCare does nothing to target waste, fraud and the exorbitantly high cost of malpractice insurance. A cost that is passed on to the consumer.
Hell, if you cut all the government waste, fraud and put reasonable caps on judgments and settlements, that right there would bring down costs dramatically...
So, it's not just the compulsory purchase that Americans are against..
The American people did not want CrapCare. Period.. The people told this to Obama and the Democrats in so many ways. Christie, that other GOP Gov that was elected, Scott... and so on and so on...
Going against the vast majority of an INFORMED public is the very definition of extreme..
At least, as I understand the definition of 'extreme' in this context.
Michale.....
The basic problem here is this.
Obama and the Democratic leadership seems to think that they haven't explained their position well enough.. They feel that, if they can explain their position well enough, the American people will understand and agree with their position.
The logic of Obama and the leadership is faulty..
The American DO understand their position. They simply don't like it or agree with it.
Obama and the Democrats think that the American people don't get it.
The American people KNOW that Obama and the Dems don't get it.
Michale....
They are against all the new bureaucracies that are created, they are against the fact that CrapCare does nothing to target waste, fraud and the exorbitantly high cost of malpractice insurance. A cost that is passed on to the consumer.
That's not what I've heard from people I know. People across the spectrum. Except perhaps for the piece about cost. People are worried about cost and they don't like the mandate.
I've heard the other stuff largely as messaging from conservatives who are repeating much of the messaging from the insurance industry.
But yes, I'd largely agree with you, Michale, that health care is the single biggest issue that Obama is being judged on. It's not something popular with much of anyone. Though it's debatable whether this is because people just have wrong perceptions about the changes. Like the guy who thought Obama was taking away his Medicare.
I believe people did want health care reform. Even you and I seem to agree on this. So if I were an advisor to the President, I would say this is an opportunity to fix it.
(But I would also probably say now is not the time. Let's focus on the economy. Which, by the way, seems to be improving.)
I see what Obama did as trying to please both the left and right and find an alternative acceptable to the health care industry. That's not extreme. That's compromise. (Not that I agree with it, mind). Or, corporate compromise. The final bill just unfortunately had the effect of pleasing very few.
To call him "extreme" is some good spin.
Cheers
David
p.s. A fun site. Apologies, CW, it's the name of the site.
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
I put it in a separate comment in case it gets banned :)
I put it in a separate comment in case it gets banned :)
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
Michale.....
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
WOW.. Talk about spin! :D
I could create an identical site loaded with all the good things that Bush had done while in office...
But by just listing all the good and ignoring all the bad, it's nothing but propaganda.. True (likely) to be sure, but propaganda nonetheless...
As far as healthcare reform... Yes. The American people want healthcare reform.. But, as we agree, CrapCare ain't it..
But before healthcare reform, the American people wanted jobs.. SCREAMED for jobs... BEGGED for jobs...
Obama ignored it all...
Pretty extreme, don'tcha think?? :D
Michale.....
When something is overinflated, that's what I consider marketing. And that's what all this crap about Obama being extreme is. But, to the Republicans credit, the Democrats were not able to get a better message out.
David, in a country that wants smaller government and LESS government intrusion, not more, Obama has not only instituted a MANDATE that people purchase a private-sector product with their own money but nationalized car companies, banks, and student loans; instituted new mega-expensive government agencies and expanded the size and power of existing agencies, including the IRS; and gave free reign over gabillion-dollar budgets to unelected, unaccountable czars, one of whom is a controlling a budget bigger than the Pentagon's.
I don't know what the liberals' personal definition of "extreme" is, much less "too extreme," but to the majority of Americans who want LESS government in their lives, Obama's policies have been too extreme, to say the very least.
But before healthcare reform, the American people wanted jobs.. SCREAMED for jobs... BEGGED for jobs.
Obama ignored it all.
Pretty extreme, don'tcha think?? :D
But I thought it was the private sector's role to create jobs, Michale?
That's what conservatives would say, anyways. Not the role of the government.
Does that make conservatives "extreme" that they don't think government should be involved in creating jobs?
Ok, ok. I shouldn't be picking on holes in conservative philosophy. It just strikes me as funny when conservatives say "We're going to create jobs!" and "It's not the government's role to create jobs!" at the same time.
A good way to tell if something is spin is to see if a party says the same thing once they're in power. Here's an example. Or look at the discrepancies between what they say and what they do. When conservatives are in power and want to spend they say "Deficits don't matter!" When they're out of power, it's all about reducing the deficit. Another good example is "Change we can believe in." from the Dems. What happened when they got into office? Not as much change as advertised.
This whole conversation about "extreme-ness" is getting pretty silly though.
Maybe the more important question is, Why do you and CB seem to care so much about Obama's "extremities"? Why the comparisons to 'Castro'? Why all the hyperbole about "nationalizing car companies" and "gabillion-dollar budgets"?
I don't even know what a gabillion-dollars is. But it seems pretty extreme :)
Cheers
David
And Michale, you know I'm joking around and also that none of us here at CW.com are really big fans of healthcare so don't take anything too seriously.
It just seems to me like the only way to ever really fix something like healthcare reform or our economy for that matter is to stop all the politicking and really sit down and work together.
It's why I feel we'd get better policies if our government picked three people off the street, one independent, one conservative, and one liberal, and let them hammer out a policy. Rather than our elected representatives.
Crap. And by big fans of healthcare, I meant "big fans of the Democratic healthcare reform".
I really am a big fan of heathcare :0
But I thought it was the private sector's role to create jobs, Michale?
That's what conservatives would say, anyways. Not the role of the government.
True...
But the government needs to create the conditions so that the private sector CAN create jobs..
Instead all the government is creating is confusion..
Michale.....
I really am a big fan of heathcare :0
I care for Heath too.. :D
Michale.....