My question to California voters: What were you thinking?
Byron Williams
Oakland Tribune
11/11/2010
FORGIVE MY (self) righteous indignation, but there is a portion of the California electorate that I must ask a serious question.
I'm specifically referring to that unique group who voted no on Proposition 23, yes on Proposition 25 and yes on Proposition 26.
My question is what were you thinking?
When the dust settles from the aftermath of the midterm elections, long after it becomes passé to discuss the large sum of money Meg Whitman spent on her unsuccessful gubernatorial bid, we will still be discussing impact of the unique voting decisions by the California electorate.
Was it your intention to possibly overturn AB32 -- the climate change legislation that would have been stalled indefinitely had Prop. 23 passed -- but you wanted to tout your politically correct bona fides at dinner parties?
Did you, for amusement purposes only, want to see how the Legislature would escape with a balanced budget after the new set of barriers were installed?
Or did you simply not know what you were voting for?
Prop. 26, which appears to be passing with nearly 53 percent, classified environmental mitigation and other fees as taxes, requiring the almost insurmountable two-thirds majority vote to levy.
According to a UCLA School of Law study, Prop. 26 "could have substantial and wide-ranging impacts on implementation of the state's health, safety and environmental laws," including AB32.
Maybe it was the lure of requiring a two-thirds vote on fees that made you think taxes offered by those seductive political ads sponsored by Chevron, Philip Morris, Conoco Phillips and others. Did you not read the second sentence in your voter guide?
It said: "Fees include those that address adverse impacts on society or the environment caused by the fee payer's business."
Why is it good for California to demand a two-thirds majority vote before polluters have to shell out one dime for the harm they cause to the environment?
If that weren't enough, Prop. 26 also places a further strain on the treasuries of local municipalities.
While it is true voters apparently passed Prop. 25, which allows the budget to be passed by a simple majority, the additional constraints raise the question: where is the revenue going to come from to pass the budget?
Prop. 26 also appears to invalidate a tax swap, which was part of the 2009-10 budget negotiations, that will increase next year's already projected deficit by at least $1 billion.
A favorite postelection question is to ask: What message did the voters send? How should we answer that for California?
Should we conclude it's now easier for the Legislature to pass a budget, but tougher to find the resources?
Or should we say the interest of oil, tobacco and alcohol industries have been protected because we now make it more difficult for state and local government to impose mitigation fees on business activities that cause harm to the environment or public health and safety?
But I doubt this recent voting conundrum will discourage the collective low opinion held by the electorate of those in the Legislature.
We cling to the morphine of direct democracy, which leads us to arrogantly believe that through the initiative process we can make better snap judgments in the voting booth than the men and women we send to Sacramento to represent us.
The initiative process is successfully and systematically creating a managed democracy.
The classic definition of managed democracy is "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections that they have learned to control." Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state through the continuous employment of public relations techniques.
The difference in California is that the practitioners of managed democracy is not the government per se, but rather an assortment of special interests who often manipulate, cajole and deceive voters into supporting a narrow set of concerns.
