big, BIG trouble

It appears that irony knows no bounds when it comes to California politics. Yesterday, an electoral landslide was supposed to send a clear message to our state legislators. The only message that got through was that those without something better to do than vote in the election (according to the paltry 22.4% statewide turnout reported by the Secretary of State, there were a lot of better things to do yesterday) are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. As emotional and powerful as that message is supposed to be, it certainly loses its effect when it lacks anything resembling a mandate for legislators to go back and fix this budget mess in a manner of which Californians approve. With the thorough crash and burn of Propositions 1A-1E (none of the measures were able to muster more than 38% of the vote) our legislators should understand that Californians are not happy with how things are being done in Sacramento. Unfortunately, voters failed to send anything close to a clear message about how they would prefer thing be done.

As a result of yesterday's special election, California lawmakers must return to a bargaining table that must seem all too familiar by now, to hammer out a deal that closes an unfathomably unreasonable $21 billion budget gap. They are going to have to negotiate a compromise that is tolerable to Republicans who are frequently threatened by their own party if they appear to be amenable to even the slightest rational increase in revenue generating taxes. They are going to have to strike a deal that is tolerable to Democrats, who were sent to Sacramento to protect (and hopefully improve) the services government provides for Californians. They are going to have to agree on a budget, which in the past has proven, shall we say... difficult. They are going to have to do this absent any lucid direction from voters.

In addition to Tuesday's election kicking our budget crisis from the frying pan, directly into the fire, the message sent by the few voters who actually showed up to vote is dangerously ambiguous. Because of the confusing and occasionally counter-intuitive nature of the ballot measures, voters were not able to send a clear message to legislators regarding how they want them to approach the daunting task of resolving the unending budget fiasco. For instance, a voter who voted "no" on the measures because they were displeased with the way the initiatives were placed on the ballot, could have their "no" vote interpreted as a vote against the extension of tax increases. A voter who was voting to protect money set aside for First Five Commissions and Prop. 63 Mental Health services could have their vote interpreted as a vote in favor of cutting state-funded services across the board. Yesterday's rejection of these convoluted and complex initiatives allows legislators to manipulate the "message" they were supposed to be receiving into whatever mandate they would like, in order to justify the actions they are about to take to deal with the budget deficit. As confusing as the text of the ballot measures was, the unclear message sent by the overwhelming denial of the initiatives is equally baffling. Worse, it is dangerously malleable.

Those that voted yesterday tried to send a message. I am afraid, however, that the only message that will get through will be whatever those that got us into this mess in the first place want it to be. Simple put- we are all in big, big trouble.