Journey to the Center of the Average Mind: West Coast
Gaze at this list of ballot initiative results in California, and the shimmering of the maroon Nos and forest green Yeses will entrance you into a state of ecoplasmapathic connection with the average California voter.
The nuance evident in these results suggests that the average Californian is not without intelligence. Rather than voting yes on everything or no on everything, the average California voter -- let's call her Maribel Averageo-Park -- voted in a logically consistent manner.
Maribel recognized, for example, that Proposition 20 (which takes redistricting of U.S. congressional seats away from the state legislature and gives it to a citizen commission created -- for redistricting of state legislative seats -- by 2008's Proposition 11) is ideologically if not directly opposed to Proposition 27 (which aimed to overturn Prop. 11). And she chose commission-based redistricting consistently, saying yes to Prop. 20 about as vigorously as she said no to Prop. 27. The number of yes votes on the one tracks with the number of no votes on the other to within a few hundred thousand votes.
Upholding another ancient California tradition, Maribel rejected tax increases across the board -- even the implied and enormous revenue boost of Prop. 19. She said no to the vehicle tax hike Reason TV treated in this film (Prop. 21); blocked Sacramento from helping itself to gas taxes earmarked for local services (Prop. 22); and said no to a hike in business taxes (Prop. 24).
Like many Californians, Maribel believes that the state's budget can be balanced without serious cuts in the size and intrusiveness of state and local government. "Waste, fraud and abuse" was Gov. Schwarzenegger's soundbite in the days of the California Performance Review, and this technocratic fallacy -- that you can keep growing government without having to pay for it, simply by making it more efficient -- endures among Californians.
So Maribel is again internally consistent in saying yes to Proposition 25 (reduce state legislative threshold for passing a budget from two-thirds majority to simple majority) and yes to Proposition 26 (institute a two-thirds requirement to increase a range of state and local fees). In Maribel's view, you can get to a balanced budget by spending smarter rather than by bringing known revenues and known spending into balance. I think this is like believing you can grab yourself by the hair and hold yourself at arm's length, but I spend more time looking at the growing structural gaps in California budgets than doctors recommend.
As for Prop. 19, well, Maribel is perfectly pleasant and has grown on me, but I always knew that deep down she wasn't cool. Gov. Schwarzenegger's signing of a Mickey Mouse decriminalization bill last month may have had more of an effect than expected, taking some of the moral authority out of the Prop. 19 argument. Many Californians are comfortable with the notion that people are rotting in jail and getting arrested for marijuana offenses -- so long as those people were trying to make a profit. In following the weird morality of "personal use" decrim, which views the consumer as a victim and producers and distributors as predators, Californians are unfortunately not alone.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How is it consistent to vote no on 21 (18$? fee on vehicles) but yes on 25 which would allow the legislature to increase many other fees/taxes?
I think people were fooled by the 25 language about 'punishing' legislators when the budget didn't get passed in time. Since it was backed by just about everyone in the government, it should have been a dead giveaway that it was something they wanted, not something they were afraid of.
People were fooled earlier when the media convinced them that it was terrible that a budget wasn't being passed. All they got out of it was "must make easier pass budget."
I think you're right. The news networks all acted as if the state was going to collapse into anarchy when the budget wasn't passed. Too bad they didn't pay attention and realize that their life could continue even without it.
A media that is the arm of the state Democratic Party, I might add.
When it says "endorsed by the Washington Federation of State Employees", I don't even read the initiative, I vote "No."
Are you shitting me?
On the ballot, Prop. 19's title ended with the word "Tax?"
So the "loss leader for a TEAM BLUE! vote drive" theory is unassailable.
And the scam totally worked.
And it will again in '12. And in '16. And '18. And '20. And...for, like, a thousand years.
HEIL
Don't be silly; Jerry Brown isn't going to live for a thousand years.
I wouldn't be so sure.
Do they have Sandtrout in california?
Who is Lawrence Warwick, and what does he have against Reason magazine?
http://is.gd/gGydn
Seriously, wtf gives? There are a few favorable decisions. I am assuming y'all are going to Reason.TV this one up? Make sure you interview some actors for a dose of reality amongst the interviewees.
I am interested in the demographic (age mostly) breakdown on Prop.19. Assholes. What an example of a miserable government policy, for which we have the perfect example in alcohol prohibition, that infects our culture and governance, and markets, that is a nightmare to undo.
I want to strangle Maribel.
I'm happy she voted consistently on the whole redisctricting stuff, but its not sufficient enough for me to look past the green jobs corporate handouts and the fact that people are still going to be punished for truly "green" jobs with jail time.
Schwarzenegger ruined the Republican brand for Californians. If only he had shown as much spine in Sacramento as he did as an actor in his films. Instead he showed himself to be an average RINO. If, when most Californians think "Republican" they think "Schwarzenegger" it is no wonder the Republicans went down in flames there.
Nah, when they think "Republican", California liberals think "Bush/Cheney". California Republicans think "Reagan".
When any Californian thinks "Schwarzenegger" they think "Gubernator".
There has to be more than 4 million people in Cali that use cannabis. Furthermore, there are certainly more than 4 million people that know someone, well, in fact, I would say that uses cannabis. Thats just wrong.
The question is, how many of those people actually showed up to the polls and were sober enough to vote correctly?
I have a friend with an Rx for pot here in California. He voted No on 19. He said he wasn't sure it should be legal. I should add that his Rx is for "generic discomfort", meaning recreational use. Go figure.
Maribel also voted Jerry Brown in as Governor. That, combined with passing Proposition 25 will create the perfect storm of out-of-control spending and tax hikes.
Tax hikes still require a two-thirds vote.
Maybe. That "notwithstanding" clause is a bit vague. A Superior Court judge ruled on August 5 that the Proposition actually *would* eliminate the two-thirds requirement, but then the Court of Appeals on August 9 reversed that and said that it was maintained.
Now that it's passed, of course, everybody urging a no vote saying that the language eliminated the requirement will be arguing the reverse, and most of those saying that it preserved the two-thirds requirement will be arguing the reverse as well.
If Maribel is as crazy as she sounds, she'd better at least be hot.
She used to be. Smoking hot. Porn star hot. Now she's wrinkled and fat and sagging in all the wrong places.
Maybe it's just me, but most porn stars are not hot.
It's just you. Hotness is about the aesthetics which your mind doesn't control or has any semblance of input over. Your dick does the walking, talking, plowing, while you are along for the ride, cheering him on or brought to tears of shame, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
I love how Reason just keeps piling on today... as if we here in California werenm't miserable enough already.
Get used to it. I think our misery is just beginning. Or maybe Jerry Brown will take on the unions? :D:D:D:D ok ok, not happening.
Unions? No he's going to take on the unicorns.
If by "take on" you mean "open mouth and take in", then yes, Brown will "take on" the unions.
Chances are, someone named Maribel was hot....around 1965.
according to this she would have been about 15
And she chose commission-based redistricting consistently, saying yes to Prop. 20 about as vigorously as she said yes no to Prop. 27.
We don't give a shit.
The main problem is if either Congress or the Federal Reserve try to bail out the fiscally irresponsible government of California - again.
49-1 says it doesn't happen.
I think you are correct that such a bill is unlikely to pass the United States House of Representatives in the next two years. However, I am more concerned about the Federal Reserve doing so. They are, right now, even talking about buying up bonds. If they are willing to do that sort of thing it is not much of a stretch to think they might bail out the entire State of California.
What would California use as collateral?
What do all states use as collateral? Promises, of course.
Nothing. It doesn't matter. The Fed controls the money supply, so it doesn't matter to the Fed even if it goes to zero. It's the rough equivalent of a debt-financed fiscal expenditure, just without being subject to a vote.
If that happens, I think the Tea Partiers would make common cause with Aztl?n.
"Hey Hey, Ho Ho, California back to Mexico"
The nation is in no mood for sob stories and bailouts. Take your tin cup somewhere else, California. We've got our own problems.
Good. Don't puss out and let everyone down, or there will be no end to it.
Hey, I'd love to see California forced to deal with it's spending problem. It won't happen, because we're not the only ones with a spending problem and bailing out a state doesn't have the same flavor as bailing out banks when your state might need it next.
As long as we get to keep most of Texas. In particular I want us to keep San Antonio, Texas.
California? Yea, let Mexico have it. And make sure NAZI Pelosi's U.S. passport is revoked.
Oh, we can keep all the rest of the states. Just give them Cali. CA has proven their government is hopelessly fucked up, and that they prefer that drugs are sold by gangsters. I don't really see what CA would have to complain about.
Why all this piling on California alone?
Are not Maryland and West Virginia at least as bad? Illinois is almost as bad; only the national sentiment led to Mark Kirk being elected.
West Virginia's Democratic governor had a A rating from Cato, deservedly, and was very fiscally conservative. Don't trust him in the Senate, as he's still a D vote, but WV isn't the basket case financially that CA is.
So how is it that Democrats in West Virginia are more fiscally conservative than Democrats in California?
I was conflicted on the 2/3's props. In a lot of ways, a bad budget is better than no budget at all. This increasing "no budget passed yet" mess does cause real harm, especially to people working in gov't jobs. And hell, I *like* the people who work at the DMV (for Halloween, one guy was wearing an "Angry Black Man" nametag, laughing at his supervisors who didn't like it but could do nothing to stop him), but they're caught in a horrible, horrible, most horrible system. To get 2/3's vote, everyone has to make awful compromises that eventually end in more spending... that's my theory anyway. Imagine if a business were run that way... there would be concessions up the wazoo.
I think the practical effect in CA will be to remove significant leverage from the GOP due to its persistent minority position. That will probably be a bad thing during future budget negotiations.
On the positive side, the fate of CA now rests in the Dem's hands.
Nobody forced them to become government sector employees.
Yeah, but low-skilled people take the job they can get. And there are some fantastical benefits. And I can sympathize with employees who are faced with crappy management.
You all are aware that we have no Federal budget at this time (Due 1 Oct), aren't you?
In a lot of ways, a bad budget is better than no budget at all.
Citation needed. Not passing bad legislation is an unambiguous good. Shutting down government is good.
While I'd rather have much much much less gov't, starving it seems to cause "desperate measures", which are very expensive and inefficient. You get increasingly crappy services with no market solutions forthcoming. They cut back on services in order to cause the most pain (eg, firefighting, road maintenance) in order to force emergency taxes (eg, increasing sales/property taxes) instead of cutting boondoggles (eg, mass transit).
It's all expensive and inefficient. Better that's out in the open than hidden by the presumption of planning.
Let it come.
Anarchy is great, but if you try to get there via a failing, flailing, desperate state apparatus, you get Somalia.
I live in California.
I can count on one hand the number of times I needed the state government.
And no, California will not end up like Somalia. With three major ports, a venture capitalist could simply buy it out and basically turn the whole state into a private, for-profit enterprise. I can not see how that is possible worse.
So I need six to make my point?... not that any of this couldn't be done by private business, and some of it is just to deal with stat-imposed threats, but that can only be dealt with through reform, not chaos...
Firefighting, police protection, road maintenance, schools, DMV, parks, medical research, unemployment payments, mass transit... there have to be other things too.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to eliminate it all, but starving the beast just makes it fuck you up, and causes people to fight on its side.
but starving the beast just makes it fuck you up, and causes people to fight on its side.
So, not-fighting it is preferable? The longer we put off this battle, the more it's going to be like CivilWar2 when it comes.
Why can not private, for-profit corporations provide those services?
Drink - a lot.
To really show how crazy the Cali voters are: DECEASED State Senate candidate Jenny Oropeza won her election.
This from LA Times blogs:
October 29, 2010 | 3:18 pm
"A week after the death of state Sen. Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach), Democrats have sent mailers to residents urging them to vote to reelect her. That would trigger a special election and give the party a chance to put up a new candidate."
That's actually not that crazy, if you know it will trigger a special election.
Heck, even if it doesn't, if you hate all the (other) candidates it's perfectly reasonable too.
Gaze at this list of ballot initiative results in California, and the shimmering of the maroon Nos and forest green Yeses will entrance you into a state of ecoplasmapathic connection with the average California voter.
Took me a minute to untwist that. It read like an excerpt from Usula LeGuin's Always Coming Home.
Maribel is one dumb cunt. She is legion. She is California.
What irks me is that they called 23 "Suspend Air Pollution Control Law" when carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; that is, unless plants are now considered polluters.
Look, I'm on your side, but the carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-pollutant argument is not a weak one. Obviously, something that is not a pollutant at one level of concentration can be a pollutant at a higher level of concentration.
Aaagh. Meant, "... is a weak one."
Was that not the official title of AB 32?
Hmmm an approximate 3.8% swing in voters and prop 19 would have passed. That is around 273,560 people, which in my unsourced opinion is probably less than the number of people who just voted no on everything.
Pretty close for prop 19, no way prohibition survives another 10 years.
That said, it bugs me how everybody massively overstates the windfall from ending prohibition.
The real cost of growing marijuana is next to nothing. When it's legal to grow, there is nothing that can sustain the absurd prices. Can you imagine $150 for a quarter ounce of corn?
No. Every farmer would rush into that market. Everybody with a back yard would too if they thought it would last.
The real benefit is a bit harder to explain, because it's more subtle, but much more important.
By ending the price distortion for such a high demand item, a massive amount of money will again be available for the rest of the economy to benefit from.
Someone who spends $1500-$3000 a year on marijuana because of prohibition will, after prohibition is ended, spend that money into other parts of the economy.
It's like between 2 and 12 W Bush 'stimulus checks' a year, every year, from then on.
If you think absurd taxes on legal marijuana is the way to go, you still don't get it. If you don't smoke, and think those taxes will be paid for by OTHER people, you still don't get it.
The real marijuana tax windfall is thus things like ordinary sales tax, income tax, etc, and all the benefits of a very significant amount of 'black market' money returning to a consumer economy that is in desperate need of cash flow.
Legalize marijuana, keep taxes on it at reasonably fair levels, and the job you save just might be your own.
Similarly, Tim, though you didn't mention it, this explains opposition to Prop 23, because the average California voter refuses to believe that environmental regulations (or regulations in general) can possibly have significant tradeoffs or costs.
+1
tdi
rfsr
gf;;'
fstop
like
What do all states use as collateral?
Why, you, of course. What did you think they used?
Naboo, if the volcano is located in Dana
Naboo, if the volcano is located