Capitol Letters
Thursday, May 14, 2009
As wildfire blazed a few miles away, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke to the cameras at Earl Warren Showgrounds about emergency services last week, performing a political tap dance for the ages.
Just two days before, the governator was in full campaign mode at another public event, threatening that California’s firefighting force would be slashed if his five pet ballot measures are defeated in the May 19 election. Now, confronted with the real-life suffering of real-life people fleeing the Jesusita Fire, he suddenly softened his tone to one of reassurance, promising Santa Barbarans — and all Californians facing a long fire season — that he would never allow politics to hamper their protection.
Capitol Letters
“First of all, let me just make it clear, because there’s always the question that comes up, what happens to the fire departments and to the budget if those initiatives don’t pass,” Schwarzenegger told reporters. “The first thing you should know is, I will always fight and get every dollar I can for public safety. That is the important thing you should know.
“Number two, it is very clear that when the initiatives fail, there will be $6 billion less that will be available, so therefore there will have to be additional cuts made, if it is in law enforcement, fire, education,” he added. “But I will fight for every dollar, and will always make sure we have enough manpower and enough engines and helicopters ready to fight those fires.”
So: Lots of cuts, but still plenty of helicopters. Thanks for making that perfectly clear, governor, sir.
As a political matter, it’s probably only fair to cut Schwarzenegger some slack for his masterpiece of obfuscation, given the treacherous political terrain he now faces. Facing near-certain defeat for his increasingly unpopular Propositions 1A-1E (note his diction: “when” the initiatives fail), he’s quickly running out of plays to convince voters to support the measures. Together they represent about $6 billion in short-term revenue he has counted on to close the state’s metastasizing deficit, and many billions more in the long term.
While Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders justifiably take the heat for the state’s chronic budget mess, however, it is important to note that California voters themselves bear a large responsibility for the financial dysfunction.
Let’s face it, scaring the bejesus out of voters is a time-honored tradition in California (see: Campaign, Proposition 13). More importantly, Schwarzenegger is right on the money in foreseeing a new round of substantial budget cuts when, uh, if 1A-1E lose; legislative Republicans, who hold a minority veto over fiscal matters because California’s constitution requires a supermajority vote to pass a budget, will be even more emboldened after the election, and tax increases will no longer be on the table.
While Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders justifiably take the heat for the state’s chronic budget mess, however, it is important to note that California voters themselves bear a large responsibility for the financial dysfunction. As a recent Field Poll clearly showed, voters want all the benefits of high-cost services — without the sacrifice needed to pay for them:
• Two-thirds of voters — 83 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of independents, and 57 percent of Democrats — say the budget should be balanced primarily through spending cuts.
• Solid majorities of voters, however, oppose cutting public schools, health care, or higher education — which happen to be the three largest portions of the budget, collectively representing about 80 cents of every dollar the state spends. And voters also reject cuts in law enforcement, childcare, mental health, environmental regulation, water storage, public transportation, or roads and highways.
• Six in 10 voters at the same time say that higher taxes on residential property, income, sales, gasoline, and vehicles should be off-limits, along with expanded taxes on professional services or business property.
And, oh yeah, a large majority of voters in a recent Public Policy Institute of California survey went thumbs-down on changing the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget.
This popular public mindset — simultaneously ruling out serious spending reductions, revenue increases, and the one reform that might make either option politically viable — is, for lack of a better word, irrational, and ensures that the gridlock in Sacramento won’t be broken anytime soon.
P.S.: Schwarzenegger reported this week that with tax revenue sapped by the recession, the state now faces a projected $15.4 billion deficit for the fiscal year that begins July 1, even if the budget initiatives pass, and $21.3 billion in red ink if they don’t. At press time, he’d scheduled release of two alternatives for dealing with the mess, depending on Tuesday’s election results.
Don’t forget to vote.