While most of California is starting to enjoy warmerspring weather these days, chill winds, metaphorically speaking,continue to blow through Sacramento.
Those winds -- the sour, disenchanted sentiments of manyGolden State voters -- appear to be signaling that the May 19 ballotinitiatives that were brokered during the recent negotiations to closethe yawning multibillion-dollar deficit in the state's 2009-10 budgetare in serious trouble.
According to a Public Policy Institute of Californiapoll released late last week, many Californians gave low to failinggrades to both members of the state Legislature and to Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger.
"Californians areclear that the budget situation is serious, but most disapprove of theleadership in Sacramento-the people who are providing the solutions,"says PPIC President Mark Baldassare. "These leaders have their work cutout for them if they want to persuade voters that the ballot measuresare necessary to address the problem."
According to the PPIC survey, the same Californiansaren't big on the special election Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E.They do seem to like Prop. 1F and that's because the measure, ifapproved, would block pay increases to state elected officials in years of budget deficit. ThePPIC poll showed that 81 percent supported Prop. 1F, while 13 percentsaid they'd vote against it and 6 percent said they were undecided.
As to the rest of the measures, well, the results ain't too pretty. Here's the PPIC survey results:
Prop. 1A: Aboutfour in 10 support the measure (39% yes, 46% no, 15% undecided) tochange the budget process by increasing the state "rainy day" fund.Less than half say the measure would be very (7%) or somewhat (38%)effective in helping California avoid future state budget deficits.
Prop. 1B: Theyare divided (44% yes, 41% no, 15% undecided) on the initiative thatwould require future supplemental payments to local school districtsand community colleges to address recent budget cuts. There is a sharppartisan split on this measure, with Democrats far more likely to favorit (59%) and Republicans far more likely to be opposed (60%).Independent voters are more likely to vote for it (46% yes, 38% no).There are regional differences, with just over half of likely voters inthe San Francisco Bay Area (52%) supporting the measure and about fourin 10 doing so in other areas (41% Los Angeles; 40% in Orange,Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties; 39% Central Valley).
Prop. 1C: Halfoppose (37% yes, 50% no, 11% undecided) the measure to modernize thelottery and allow for $5 billion in borrowing from future lotteryprofits to help balance next year's state budget. Less than halfsupport the initiative across party lines (45% Democrats, 37%independents, 29% Republicans) and regions (42% Los Angeles; 40% BayArea; 33% Central Valley; 32% Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, andSan Diego Counties).
Prop. 1D: Nearlyhalf support (48% yes, 36% no, 16% undecided) the proposition totemporarily transfer funds from early childhood education to helpbalance the state budget. Likely voters are split along partisan lines,with nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans in favor (60%Democrats, 48% independents, 34% Republicans). Regionally, support ishighest (52%) in the Bay Area (48% Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,and San Diego Counties; 47% Central Valley; 45% Los Angeles).
Prop. 1E: Nearlyhalf favor (47% yes, 37% no, 16% undecided) the measure to transfermoney from mental health services to the general fund to help balancethe state budget. Democrats (54%) and independents (46%) are morelikely than Republicans (39%) to vote yes. Regionally, support for themeasure is highest (51%) in Los Angeles (49% Central Valley; 45% SanFrancisco Bay Area, and Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and SanDiego Counties).
If Democratshadn't agreed to place these measures on this special ballot, theminority Republicans would likely still be holding out and we wouldstill be without a state budget.
If you get thestrange political math that is Sacramento, you get why the voters havebeen saddled with a bunch of bad choices in the form of theseinitiatives.
Nevertheless, the poll results makes it clear that many Golden State residents are pretty steamed.
Who can blame them, too?
Sacramento is the defacto epicenter for entrenchedpartisan warfare. If there was ever any doubt about that, this year'sextended budget stalemate is "Exhibit A."
The hope -- the prayer -- for even a small bit of cooperative bipartisanship went out the door almost from the get-go.
Instead of standing up and making the hard choices, somestate lawmakers -- not all -- learn early that it's easier to punt andlet the voters decide directly.
That way when someone asks why the lottery was messed upor why funding for mental health services and early childhood educationwas gutted or delayed, the pols can lay blame squarely at the feet ofthe voters and say, 'Well, they just didn't go for it this time.'
To those high school civics students or collegefreshmen out there, you may be wondering whether this is all standardoperating procedure for our state government. The answer is no -- atleast it shouldn't be.
What's really messedup about this special election is that these initiatives were theunderpinnings of a complex the budget deal. If they're not approved bythe voters like the PPIC poll suggests in some cases, what exactlyhappens to the deal? What happens to those programs that are on thehook?
The mind just reels. It's governing by crap-shoot.
Jeff Mitchell is a longtime California journalist and political observer.
