A Case Against Prop 1F, and Other Feel-Good, Meaningless, Drivel Props To Come
By Keith Carlson | 05/20/09 | 09:09 PM EDT | 4 Comments
Prop 1F passed yesterday. Yippee. Nothing will change because of it. Sure, the politicians who needed campaign mailers for their upcoming ventures will use it as "reform" they brought about, but who thinks it will "teach those Sacramento politicians a lesson"? Here's the lesson--if any--they'll learn: "increase revenue" so we don't miss out on our precious per diem increase.
This post might seem a day late, and 47% of voters short, but it serves as a warning against future "Prop 1F's"--which should be synonymous with "a proposition that lets a voter feel like they whacked a politician, which actually has no practical effect." Plus, it answers the question put, here, by Viorel to the OCGOP. Prop 1F is political deception--like the rest of the package it was spawned with in some back room. It is reformless reform. Which might seem innocuous. But it isn't.
Reforming our state will take a tremendous amount of energy by activists, money from donors, and education of our neighbors about the true nature of the problems in California. This effort will have to be sustained for a long time. Each time we rally behind an initiative or effort that makes it appear that we've fixed the problem, or even a part of the problem, we take away from our overall effort. Prop 1F affects the pay raises and per diem changes that are occasionally given to electeds. This impacts thousands of dollars of state revenue. We have billions of dollars in problems. 1F was, therefore, a colossal 'head fake' to the electorate.
Plus, the substance of the measure is flawed. It punishes all legislators equally for passing a bad budget. But doesn't it, therefore, punish the 'good guys' who voted 'no'? Doesn't it also incentivize, for personal-finance reasons the less wealthy legislators to vote to increase taxes to get a budget balanced? Keep in mind, a balanced budget is not our state's problem--perennially bad budgets are our problem. 1F encourages speed of process, and surrender on tax increases, rather than prudence and restraint in government spending.
Further, from a representative-government-theory perspective, it is not wise to tie legislators' policy decisions to their personal finances. I made this point in a debate with Sen. Maldonado the day before the election. He countered that no elected is in Sacramento out of concern for their personal finances. Money is not the issue he said. To which I replied that the Senator had proven my initial point: this is a feel-good measure that does not do anything. Meaning, if the Senator is right on his point that politicians are not influenced by their pay, then what in the world is the Senator doing telling voters he's "holding them accountable" and bringing about "reform" by pushing a measure that does nothing but influences their pay? Either hitting their pay (and not all of it, mind you, just a periodic raise) does impact them or it doesn't. If it doesn't, as he says, then his measure is meaningless.
Therefore, 1F was always just a measure to make angry voters feel like they had "done something." But feeling like you've done something and doing something are different things. As Coach Wooden used to say: "Never mistake activity for achievement." I think the OCGOP and the CRP members recognized 1F as a bundle of activity that achieves nothing for our state.
Unfortunately, those not in politics every day now think they can rest a bit easier having taught Sacramento a lesson with 1F. This reduces their (rightly felt) anger at the system, thus reducing their interest in getting involved in a real, long-lasting reform movement. In short, 1F takes pressure out of the political system at the very time pressure should be building.
It always surprised me looking at the polls that there was such a huge disparity between 1A-E and 1F. I guess people didn't realize it was the same horrible bargain that lead to all 6 measures. They were put on the ballot by the same people. Doesn't that strike you as odd that in the same negotiations one 'great' idea came out with 5 terrible ones? In reality, 1F is terrible too, and was the cherry on top of a pile of garbage, designed to make the whole thing look 'reformy'. But faux-reform is harmful to effort to actually reform.
Which is the cautionary tale for future elections. Don't vote for "feel good" measures just to "send a message" if you are not really accomplishing something. You'll only reduce the pressure in the system. We who believe California can be better should want pressure in the system more than ever. If you wonder if a measure will actually do something or not, analyze the language, what it'll really do, and even who is sponsoring it. If they are also sponsoring an entire "reform package" that harms the state, realize that it's probably not an accident that some are written in attractive ways. Keep in mind, the language of Prop 1A looked OK--the secret tax increase wasn't part of it. But a closer look revealed what was really happening. We sniffed out the ills of 1A, but not 1F. Sadly, the real impact of Prop 1F is like Novocain--it'll numb the electorate from the pain it would otherwise be feeling. Hopefully the numbness will wear off before we get more "reform" than we can take.
| 
|
4 Comments | Related Topics »Sacramento County (CA) | Placer County (CA) | Orange County (CA) | Los Angeles County (CA)
RECOMMENDED SITES
Comments
The post is not late - quite the contrary, the beat must go on.
For those " who believe California can be better and should want pressure in the system more than ever." should pick up on Pareto's Rule, aka as the 80-20 Rule:
The California Budget Deficit will not be effectively dealt with until a Bureaucracy Realignment and Closure Initiative (BRCI) is fully implemented to eliminate or significantly downsize wasteful bureaucracies and programs. Taxpayers deserve efficient government, and by helping to identify and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracies, such as the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC), the Community Association Institute (CAI), the California Real Estate Commission and others would make government more cost effective and responsive. If these bureaucracies were eliminated today, taxpayers would not miss a bit - but would certainly have an impact on the budget
Keith-
You just made my point even better than I could. It just took you nine paragraphs and 15 minutes of a voter's time to explain why something that sounds so common sense and harmless, is actually a bad idea. I read through it, but i guarantee most voters wouldn't have gotten through the third paragraph.
You don't seem to give the voters much credit. You tend to believe that if an angry taxpayer voted for Prop 1F in order to send a message, then that taxpayer will become less engaged in the future because they already "feel good". That's a very pessimistic and cynical way of looking at our electorate. I don't see anything wrong with measures that make voters feel like they stuck it to the politicians. I would argue that seeing those measures passed will actually encourage voters to take further steps because they see that something that they agree with has actually come to fruition.
As far as your point about "punishing the good guys" who voted against the plan...keep in mind that voters don't differentiate between the person who sat on the sidelines while the State fell into an economic abyss, and those who negotiated a bad plan to get the State off that cliff. The voters want to see leadership. They want to see our leaders come up with real solutions to these problems. Just voting NO is not acceptable anymore. There were no "good guys" in this budget negotiation. There were only the guys who supported a flawed plan and those that didn't. The good guys would have been the ones who crafted a real solution. Seeing as no one did that, there were no good guys, therefore there is no unfair punishment here. The voters elected these politicians to solve problems. They didn't. They get punished. It's just that simple. It takes me one sentence to explain why 1F is a good initiative. It took you nine paragraphs to do the opposite. I don't have to tell you who the majority of the voters agree with. If you're happy being the "eternal angry minority", so be it...but I'd rather see my Republican party show some backbone and create real solutions instead of keeping our heads down and voting NO on everything. Maybe then the voters would take us serious and we could have a shot of a majority once again.
Viorel,
Look at what you just wrote in back-to-back sentences: "I read through it, but i guarantee most voters wouldn't have gotten through the third paragraph.
You don't seem to give the voters much credit."
If we are going to conduct democracy directly, shouldn't voters read a few paragraphs? As far as the "credit" you are referencing--their willingness to send more messages, I disagree with you. I think voter participation and awareness increases in times of trouble, not calm. By pushing false reforms, we create an air of calm, when we are really in trouble. That's not helpful. I don't think it is pessimistic or cynical. (At least no more than your thought that voters won't read 9 paragraphs in 15 minutes!) I think it is historical reality, when times get tough (war, economic problems, etc.) voters pick up their interest and participation levels. We might say it is unfortunate that we don't always have higher levels of participation, but I don't think it's cynical or pessimistic to recognize that, in reality, we don't.
As to your last paragraph, you've created false catagories: those that "sat on the sidelines" and those that passed a bad budget. The reality is most Republicans legislators voted 'no' and complained publicly. Their level of public complaint and/or outrage varied, but it doesn't seem right to say, for example, that Chuck Devore 'sat on the sidelines'. This measure treats the Devore's the same as Karen Bass. But, in my opinion, Chuck (and some of his colleagues) did more for the state than Bass did--yet gets punished because he couldn't (magically) convince labor-elected, liberal Democrats to cut union spending or not raise taxes. That's crazy.
Also, keep in mind, your "one sentence" to explain why 1F was good focused on this year's budget. Unfortunately, 1F has nothing to do with that; it has to do with a deficit being declared. Budgets (good or bad) must be balanced, by law. 1F will not affect that, nor will effect the good, bad, or neutral lawmakers in each budget process. It will simply affect all lawmakers if a deficit is declared. So your one sentence, focusing on the budget process misses the mark.
Lastly, to comment on a few of your closing comments: the majority of voters approved condos for chickens at the last election--that doesn't mean I think they are right anymore than by voting for 1F. I'm not happy being in the minority, 1F won't put us in the majority. In fact, it'll delay the process. My 9 paragraphs should show that I didn't simple "put my head down and vote no"--I thought about it, reasoned it out, and voted contrary to popular opinion, what else do you want? And, finally, true punishment for almost all electeds is not hitting their wallets. True punishment for lawmakers that fail is not re-electing them. Throwing incompetent lawmakers out of office is democracy's real form of electoral 'punishment.' But it is hard to do, so some instead settle for a feel-good solution. But I doubt it'll solve anything.
Keith-
First of all, I think there's a huge difference between not giving voters the benefit of the doubt about their "passion" for reform, and measuring a voters' attention span. Just because a voter won't sit and read nine paragraphs doesn't mean that the voter doesn't believe that government is in need of reform. It is up to us, as a party, to be able to convince the voters, with a simple coherent message, to agree with our positions. Since it's absolutely impossible to explain to an average voter why Proposition 1F is a bad initiative in less than 15 minutes, I reckon that it's probably not worth it to do so. If we can't convince them to vote our way in the little amount of time we do have their attention for, then that's our fault.
Second, "By pushing false reforms, we create an air of calm, when we are really in trouble", I couldn't disagree with you more. This is again, another example of the Republican Party allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. It's pretty clear that voters are upset. The passage of Proposition 1F will hardly subdue their anger, and that's where I point to you not giving the voters enough credit. You think the voters are satisfied now that they punished the politicians but that's your assertion alone. Every non-political voter I've spoken to expressed to me that they voted for Prop 1F as a continuation of their NO vote on Props 1A-1E, not in lieu of it. That means their YES on 1F vote was directly connected to their NO vote on Props 1A-E. Just look at the results.
So, instead of us putting ourselves on the side of the voters and against the politicians, we have made a loud statement that even though we can't find a solution, we still don't want our Republican elected officials to be punished for it.
You say that "The reality is most Republicans legislators voted 'no' and complained publicly. Their level of public complaint and/or outrage varied, but it doesn't seem right to say, for example, that Chuck Devore 'sat on the sidelines'. I don't know what votes you're looking at but the true reality is that the majority of Republicans voted in favor of putting Prop 1A and 1B on the ballot (search for votes for ACR1); only a handful did not. Even those that did not (such as Chuck), didn't do anything to propose an alternative. That is not governing. That is the definition of sitting on the sidelines. As far as an everyday voter is concerned there is NO difference between what Chuck DeVore did and what Karen Bass did. Why? Because the problem is still not solved.
You also say that 1F won't put us in the majority but that it will delay it instead. There's no question that I disagree with your logic. Surely 1F won't put us in the majority, but surely it won't delay it either. What the party's position did though, was send a message to the voters that we could care less what they think: we know better. This stubborn style of politics is one of the reasons we're not in a majority. Just because 1F doesn't solve all our problems doesn't mean it's not worthy of our support.
Lastly, I don't know in what business you believe the Republican Party should be in, but I believe we should be in the business of winning elections. If there's an opportunity for us to gain some goodwill from the public by endorsing an initiative that may not do much good or bad, I believe we take that opportunity and run with it. Not doing so is against best political practices. Once we finally realize that politics is a game, and that the Democrats are currently kicking our butt here in California, then and only then we may start playing the game and winning elections again. For those who don't consider politics a game, I suggest that they stop playing, because they're bringing the whole team down with them.
I appreciate the discussion. Thanks for your time.
Post new comment