Ballot Measures

California is slowly moving in this direction. Orange County adopted a measure requiring voter approval of pension increases for government workers last fall. San Diego has a similar requirement in place. Now Ventura County is looking at putting such a measure on the ballot next year.

It's true that state legislators and local elected officials have a record of irresponsible pension giveaways. (For evidence, look no further than SB 400, the notorious 1999 law that permitted the spiking of pensions across California). But, as this story notes, voters can be big spenders too, even when it comes to pensions.

There's also a question of how intimately voters should be involved in government decisions. The move by economic conservatives to require votes on pensions mirrors the effort by environmentalists and NIMBY types to require votes on every change in land use policy. I can think of any number of controversial government decisions that might be routinely kicked to voters. Should every local community vote on any new government contract?  Every new traffic rerouting? Every school opening or closing? Where does it stop?

My friend and former LA Times colleague Matt Welch, writing on his blog at Reason, the libertarian magazine he edits, makes a very good point about media commentary, particularly from our former paper, that voters are responsible for the state's fiscal fix because they vote for so many ballot measures that boost spending.

I think the line of commentary is right. But it's also new, and it's more than a little disingenuous for the LA Times to be making this argument. Welch looked back and discovered that the LA Times endorsed 20 of the last 22 bond measures on the statewide ballot. Patient, heal thyself. 

Welch also reveals that one of the two non-endorsements happened only becasue of his own work inside the editorial board.

Angry about special elections and long ballots full of confusing propositions? In today's LA Times, I suggest the solution may be... more regularly scheduled elections. Specifically, a strict system of quarterly elections that the state and all local governments in California would follow. The story is here.

cross posted at Fox & Hounds Daily.

Criticize Prop 1A if you like, but opponents of the measures (and heck, even some supporters) should stop saying that it's long. It's not.

By comparison to other California ballot measures, 1A is short and compact. And the legislative and gubernatorial staffers (not to mention the interest group folks) who drafted 1A have done a much better job of being concise than sponsors of ballot initiatives.

Prop 1A is a little less than 3,000 words. If that seems like a lot, consider this: between 2000 and 2006, 15 of the 46 voter-sponsored initiatives on the ballot were over 5,000 words long, according to a 2008 report from the Center for Governmental Studies. Eight of those 46 initiatives were longer than 10,000 words.

The trend, the CGS report found, is at least 20 years old. Between 1980 and 1987, only two initiatives were longer than 5,000 words. (Irony: One of those initiatives, Prop 37, the lottery initiative, would be changed under Prop 1C on next Tuesday's ballot). Most initiatives in this era - and previous eras - were about the same length as Prop 1A, between 1,000 and 3,000 words. But in the 1988 and 1990 elections, all 13 initiatives exceeded 5,000 words.

It's no easy thing for Californians to figure out exactly what the six measures on the May 19 special election ballot do. For one thing, the Legislature and Governor did their best to hide the real impact of the measures by ordering up some glossy campaign-speak to decorate the titles and summaries on the ballot. It's easier to sell "budget reform" and "lottery modernization" than a tax increase (Proposition 1A) and more borrowing (Proposition 1C).

But even without the deceit, these measures do not yield to a quick study. For the first time in the nation's history voters are being asked to amend a state constitution to require the use of linear regression in determining how much the state will invest in higher education, health, and environmental protection. If it were necessary for a voter to actually explain how Proposition 1A works before being allowed to vote for it, I suspect it would get less than 1 percent of the vote.

As hard are the measures to understand, it may be harder still for them to answer the critical question: What do they mean for California? What signal will voters be sending by passing them?

Please join us this Saturday morning, May 2, in San Diego for what should be a fascinating discussion about the ballot measures on the May 19 special election. The event runs from 10 to 11:30 a.m. at the San Diego Hall of Champions. (Sports fans out there would be wise to make it a day of California governance and sports). The event is free, but be sure to reserve yourself a seat by signing up here or here. And you can consider this brunch if you like--there will be food.

The panel is headlined by former Congressman and former state finance director Tom Campbell, who has thought as deeply about the state budget as anyone alive. (He has an interesting discussion on tax reform currently running on his web site).  Also on the panel are Chris Reed of the San Diego Union-Tribune, writer of America's Finest Blog; New America senior scholar Mark Paul; and your blogger. The co-sponsors are New America, the Center for Policy Initiatives, and the City Club of San Diego.

Former LA Mayor and state education secretary Richard Riordan is getting a lot of attention, here and elsewhere, for his screed against Gov. Schwarzenegger and the budget measures on the May 19 special election ballot. What no one seems to have noted, however, is that Riordan doesn’t seem to have a clue about California fiscal realities.

In just 777 words Riordan manages to leave no California budget canard behind.

More taxes on the rich “will be economically disastrous for California,” Riordan (“and I am one of them”) writes. It is perhaps a sign of how little taxes matter to the rich that Riordan seems not to have noticed that California has spent the last three decades lowering his taxes.

Since 1978 California has slashed property taxes. It eliminated the inheritance tax and lowered the top income tax rates on high incomes. It has lowered both the nominal and effective corporate income tax rate, and in 2011 will let multinational and multistate companies reduce their payments even more. Economists may quarrel about who bears the burden of the corporate income tax, but to the extent it falls on wealthy shareholders and owners –– and they always insist it does –– the rich now pay less.

Here's a link to the poll, which shows five of the six measures on the May 19 special election ballot with less than 50 percent support. Here's pollster Mark Baldassare's take on the results in the Sacramento Bee. And here's my upbeat prediction, via Fox & Hounds Daily.

That optimism is based on the fact that opposition to the measures is poorly funded, disorganized and late to the game. The Sacramento Bee, in this news story, suggests the opponents are coming together to fight Prop 1A, the spending limit. But the opposition is forming too late to make much difference on its own. The real problem is that people don't understand much about the measure other than its link to taxes. As Ted Costa, the anti-tax activist who is co-chair of one of the campaigns against 1A, said on a conference call yesterday, "We can beat this with just robocalls." 1A likely loses even without a campaign against it.

Writing in the Sacramento Bee, Meg Whitman, the eBay chief turned GOP gubernatorial contender, comes out against Props 1A (spending limit and rainy day fund), Prop 1B (a boost in the education funding base) and Prop 1C (a plan to modernize the lottery and borrow against future revenue). She supports Props 1D and 1E (which redirect voter-approved moneys for early childhood and mental health programs) and the populist 1F, which would bar legislative pay increases in years with deficits. All six measures were part of last month's budget deal and appear on the May 19 special election ballot.

This is safe politics but something short of leadership. Whitman needs the conservatives who vote in Republican primaries, and they hate the temporary tax extensions that are part of Prop 1A. (If the measure passes, the temporary taxes run for 4 years. If it fails, they run for 2 years). One potential rival, former Congressman Tom Campbell, has bravely backed Prop 1A. Another, insurance commissioner Steve Poizner, has adopted a line similar to Whitman's.

That's how California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today characterized opponents of the six measures that were part of last month's budget deal and go before voters in the May 19 special election.

Schwarzenegger made plain in a speech at the Commonwealth Club that, despite sagging approval ratings, he intends to campaign strongly for the package of six measures.

He also revealed a tough political strategy: go negative against opponents of the package and particularly the spending limit and rainy day fund measure, Prop 1A. In the speech, Schwarzenegger depicted those opponents as out of the mainstream, "the far left" (who want to spend) and "the far right." He was not kind. Consider this excerpt:

In a blast at members of his own party, he said: "Those who say that we could balance the budget through spending cuts alone are guilty of political cynicism at its worst. These are not serious people."

That's right, the governor of California effectively declared that much of the Republican establishment, a majority of GOP legislators and the two of the three GOP candidates for governor in 2010 (Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman) "are not serious people." That's a bit much, but their opposition to taxes in this circumstance is certainly unserious. It appears that the third GOP candidate, former Congressman and Schwarzenegger finance director Tom Campbell, has the governor's endorsement. If he wants it.