There are lots of reasons for California voters to be upset and frustrated about the godawful Propositions 1A-1F that we're being asked to vote on in tomorrow's Special Election.
But calling this "crashing the gate" is an overstatement at best, and a wild exaggeration at worst. I take issue with this diarist on the Rec list, not because I disagree with their assessment of these measures' overall worthiness, but because the alternative will invite economic disaster for hundreds of thousands of working-class Californians, and opposing these measures is the easy way out.
Please follow me below the fold.
I serve on the boards of several political groups, which have in their own rights come to opposite conclusions on the ballot measures in tomorrow's election. And my own conviction on these propositions is split almost evenly for and against, with just a hair leaning toward Yes today, one day before the vote. Were I to hear a persuasive argument against in the next 24 hours, I might switch back to No.
Here's the rub:
For starters, our legislature has been hamstrung by Proposition 13 and the 2/3 vote requirement for years, perpetually kicking the can down the road another year rather than taking on this "third rail" of California politics head on (although one attempt to undo the 2/3 vote requirement, Proposition 56, failed by a 2-to-1 margin in 2004).
Now, We the California Voters are being asked to kick the proverbial can down the road another year for them, with no end in sight to this insanity.
On the other hand, the reason our duly-elected, Democratic-controlled legislature has been so unwilling to let our government fall into bankruptcy and shut down myriad programs is that the end result is catastrophic. This isn't some bullshit make-believe story. If we don't have the moolah, the State's Medi-Cal, transportation, and education system, among other things, will all find themselves shutting down until something resembling a budget is passed.
Here's my question to those who say we can do without the $6 billion or so that passage of 1A-1E would give the legislature:
What will you cut?
That's the question. And the real rub. Because it's not enough to say "screw 'em all" when that means hundreds of thousands of low-income people being denied health care and other mission-critical services. It's not enough when it means that tens of thousands more teachers will get a pink slip in the next few months. It's not enough when vital infrastructure construction projects get delayed or ended (remember Minneapolis? we have a few infrastructure needs here too). The last 3-month shutdown of infrastructure projects ended up costing us like $300 million in re-start costs.
We are already faced with what is now projected to be a $15 billion shortfall if these Propositions pass tomorrow. And if they don't pass, then the shortfall is $21 billion.
To give that context, our total discretionary spending budget is $100 billion.
Almost half that, or $45 billion, is K-12 education.
About $17 billion is health and human services
Another $16 billion is higher education.
Another $15 billion pays for our prison system (which can hardly be cut because it's based on sentencing, which is inflexible).
About $5 billion is debt service.
The remaining $2-3 billion is things like firefighter expenses for wildfires, keeping our State Parks open, etc.
So, I'll ask again, What will you cut?
To the person who can tell me where they would get their $21 billion out of this budget, I say go ahead and vote No and write your legislator with your ideas.
Oh, and this funding shortfall comes after our Democratic legislators got concessions from our dwindling GOP legislators in the form of $13 billion in new taxes each year for the next two years. So, if your solution is to more than double the tax increases in the next two years, while the current 2/3-vote requirement is still in place for at least the next year, then tell me just how you're going to make that happen.
It's easy to say "NO!" Just check with our current national GOP. But it's not so easy to deal with the circumstances we have right now and come up with workable solutions.
I disagree that just saying No is "crashing the gate." Crashing the gate means not only bucking the establishment but also coming forward with our own ideas and having the wherewithal and competence and skill to make those happen.
So far, I've yet to see a single suggestion for how to actually get out of this morass in California that would avoid near-certain financial disaster for hundreds of thousands of people (including teachers, low-income families, and construction workers). If I should see such a suggestion between now and tomorrow, I may change my mind.
Until then, I remain convinced that we're crashing nobody's gate but our own if we fail to see the forest from the trees in tomorrow's election.