About this Blog
Direct democracy -- the Switzerland-inspired system of initiatives, referenda and recalls that allows voters to make and repeal laws in 24 states -- is poorly understood. It isn’t even very direct. Direct democracy has become blockbuster democracy: a half-billion-dollar international industry of signature gatherers, consultants, and election lawyers who use ballot measures less as a method of making law and more as a tool of mega-communications to boost some politicians, hurt others, and supplement lobbying campaigns.
Blockbuster democracy is a decentralized business that practices wide-open politics. This blog aims to provide a center of news, analysis and conversation for and about the industry. We will report from blockbuster democracy’s capital -- California -- but we’ll monitor ballot measures from across the country and around the globe.
Your Blogger: Joe Mathews is an
User login
What Do You Really Think, Mr. Mayor?
Former LA Mayor and state education secretary Richard Riordan blasts his former boss, Gov. Schwarzenegger, and the special election ballot measures in an angry LA Times op-ed this morning. Expect to hear lots more about this dust-up and the personal overtones. There's some history--Riordan was preparing to run for governor when Schwarzenegger, who had been telling Riordan he wasn't running, made the leap. And Riordan was essentially forced out of his job as education secretary. (To make Schwarzenegger's Sunday morning even less pleasant, his former political consultant Don Sipple all but calls his governorship a failure in the news pages of the Times).(NOTE: Sipple says that he was not saying that but instead was providing analysis: If people conclude that the Arnold experiment didn’t work out so well, then they will be looking for something very different.”
I know both parties to this dispute. Riordan is a little overheated in his rhetoric, but his piece touches on a point that deserves more attention. The new education spending in Prop 1B comes after Schwarzenegger leaves office in 2011. But the takeways from health programs in Props 1D and 1E -- the securitization of lottery revenues -- would come right away. Riordan says that honest liberals (because of cuts) and honest conservatives (because of tax increases) should oppose the measures.
I think the case is less clear cut, and context is crucial. The strongest argument for these measures is that the legislature passed them. It's far from clear that the legislature could reach agreement on a budget deal that would be anywhere. In fact, the odds are that any new deal the legislature reaches later this year (in the likely event that these measures don't pass) is likely to be worse on spending and taxes than this package. It's really not enough to be for this package. Opponents need to show a clear path to a better solution.
Yes, the legislature passed
Yes, the legislature passed these, but not because anybody believed in them. They were passed solely because of the insane 2/3 rule on budget and taxes. The legislature should have put its time and energy into repealing the 2/3 rule, instead of proposing this mix of regressive taxes (1A), political games (1B), foolish financial tricks (1C, 1D, and 1E), and pointless gestures (1F).
This is especially true because earlier this year, the legislature passed a tax reduction for corporations, which the analyst says will amount to hundreds of millions if not billions by 2011. And then they turn around and propose raising the most regressive tax, the sales tax, by 20%, and increasing income taxes in a regressive way that amounts to a 25% increase for those making the least, and less than 3% increase for those making the most?
No way, no how.
But What is the Politically Viable Alternative?
In response to David's post, it's easy to vote no. But no opponent of the measures has offered a politically viable alternative. I agree that 2/3 should be changed, but the legislature can't do that and every poll there is suggests that voters won't. Given the constraints here, this is the best viable deal. And it's clear the state is in a more difficult position if these don't pass. As for the taxes, yes, income and sales taxes are not the best taxes to raise, though I would point out that these hikes are temporary. (I have less of a problem with the changes in the corporate taxes; the new system is a huge improvement in the old corporate tax system, which essentially created incentives for California companies to locate facilities that employ lots of people out of state.) I'd have preferred gas, severance, sin and carbon taxes, but again, politics is the explanation here. Those taxes all would fall on groups and industries with well-organized lobbies. Yes, you could ignore them, but since any budget deal would have pieces that went on the ballot, those lobbies could have spent money against whatever passed. Now, as you'll see when political committees in favor of the measures start to disclose their donors, those lobbies are ponying up in favor of the deal. Bottom line: it's a bad deal and a bad set of measures. But there's nothing better out there until you make big changes in the system. And the state's budget problems and the global economic crisis don't give us time to wait for systemic reform. In fact, these measures--and the need to pass them, despite all their problems -- represent a strong argument for broad reform in California. Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/
Post new comment