Perhaps because I only watch local television when I’m doing cardio at the gym, I have yet to see an ad urging California citizens to vote against the budget measures on next week’s state ballot. I have seen a plethora of publicity promoting the six propositions, including (snail) mailings I’ve received.
Despite all that, all but one of the propositions trails in the polls. And that proposition, 1-F, would “bar legislative and statewide constitutional officers from receiving pay raises when the state is running a budget deficit.” Despite the contentions of the Governor (who favors the measure) and his publicity team, the people know the remaining measures, if adopted, would not restore responsible budgeting in the Golden State, but would instead cede greater power to legislators and other officials in Sacramento.
Passage of these propositions, particularly Prop 1-A, given its confusing language, would likely mean further tax hikes in the Golden State, but without any significant budgetary restraint. Should these propositions fail, it would sign that the issues which motivated those of us who participated in the Tea Party protests resonate with voters.
As such, next Tuesday’s balloting will be the first real electoral test of the Tea Party Movement. This is the first time since people started rallying last February to protest the ever-increasing size of government that voters have a clear choice about bloated government budgets on the ballot.*
As Hugh puts it:
If the tax hikes are rejected by large margins next week, the country’s political elite ought to study that result closely. Despite huge spending margins and despite a thin veneer of bipartisanship, the tax hike gang is getting thumped because the electorate is saying –no, shouting– “Enough!” . . . .On social issues, the California [electorate] is evenly split, as the narrow victory for traditional marriage this past fall demonstrated.But there is a sizeable majority in favor of a radical change in the way government operates. The anger directed at Arnold and his tax-raising, free-spending pals is fueled by the genuine hardships brought about by the panic in the fall and the drop in home prices. Every business and almost all families have had to make painful cuts and downsize or postpone dreams.But not the state government. And that has ignited the voter revolt underway that will culminate next week.
Should these measures fail, as polls now indicate they will, we’ll have tangible evidence of that revolt, evidence that the issues which fueled the Tea Party protests over the past few months resonate with voters in one of the bluest states of the union.
They’ll have no choice but to hear us in Sacramento, but will they hear us in other state capitals and in Washington?
*Republican Jim Tedisco may well have lost the New York special election to replace Kristen Gillibrand in the House because he waffled on the President’s “stimulus.” Had he clearly come out against that spendthrift measure, he may have been better able to define the differences between himself and his eventually victorious opponent.
If the voice of the tea parties can be focused into a concerted media campaign with clear, unambiguous language, the voice will be heard. That’s a big ‘if’.
I’m showing my opposition to irresponsible state government spending by voting No in the May 19 election, and attending the Tea Party protest this Sunday at the Federal Building in Westwood (3:00 – 6:00).
P.S. I’m in Los Angeles.
Many Democratic groups are opposed to the props as well; there is plenty of outrage at the gimmicks contained therein, on both sides – and with some groups on the left organizing to fight these props as well, it’s basically insiders in Sacramento against nearly everyone. There will be plenty of credit when these props fail (as I think they will and the polls show likely).
Also, just to keep us on facts: it’s wrong to describe the props as tax hikes. You state that if the props pass there will “likely mean further tax hikes”, but Hugh says “if the tax hikes are rejected.” So are the props definitely tax increases? or will they lead to them, in your eyes? Some are budget transfers (this fund to that), one is to “modernize” the lottery and borrow against its future income and so on – but they are not all tax increases, so when and if voters reject them, it won’t be for simple “anti-tax” reasons but based on other factors – like what they actually say.
Which is why, torrentprime, your Obama Party is mobilizing to pass them, your Obama Party members demanded them, and your Obama Party members rammed them through the Legislature.
Now that they’re going to fail, you’re throwing your Obama Party leadership under the bus and trying to claim that you don’t like these propositions, when months ago you were screaming at Republicans for being “obstructionist” and not falling in line to pass them.
Arnold is toast. Your Obama Party created these abortions, your Obama Party endorsed them, and your Obama Party owns them. Your Obama Party and the Obamamessiah are failing in their first attempt to use gimmickry to convince people to ignore their idiotic deficit spending and accept the tax hikes you want to force on them. Doesn’t bode well for people like you who have sold your entire credibility to support the Obamamessiah and his lies like these propositions.
I have seen a television ad against Prop 1A the past two days. But, I think that the old rule is true. If a prop is this far down this late, it ain’t gonna pass. The reality is that all eligible California voters need to vote NO on ALL six props. They are all tax and robbery measures. And, the fact that Gov. Benedict Arnold has put his weight behind these tax and robbery schemes is proof that we should not trust “moderate” Republicans. In the end, they cave. Gov. Benedict Arnold is a real disapointment and needs to slither out of Sacramento ASAP!
I believe the those of us who live in California (Dems & Reps) have experience a “rude awakening” over the past 6 months when it has come to the collusion of the parties. In order to better understand what takes place in Sacramento and Washington DC, we should begin to refer to the “Political Class” when referring to our elected law makers at whatever level they occupy. The “Political Class” believes in government by the people (i.e., we, the tax payers fund their idiocy), for the people (this translates into “forget” the people – we got the power and we intend to keep it) and of the people (they dropped the last letter in this word (it actually means “off” the people – off our backs while they lay on their backsides). The “Political Class” in California has created a “Dependent Class” of people which has become so selfish that it refuses to give up anything ignorantly granted them by the “Political Class.” Hence, the United Teachers of Los Angeles want to strike when their very own contract with LAUSD forbides it – funny, they signed it and now want to ignore it. Legislators in California get $175 a day to use for their meals!!! However, they dont want to give that benefit up and pay their own way. Humm, Karen Bass wanted to give poor Staffers a raise this year – forgetting that her own idiotic spending has pushed the State into financial oblivion. The list goes on and on here in the Golden State.
Sorry, Dallas, but I have to stand in with TP on this one.
While I can’t speak for California Democrats, I would not be surprised that local electors are dissatisfied with local politicians with respect to state budgets, especially if it’s perceived as an “insider thing.”
Assuming per se that Tea Party activists are by default conservative/Republicans demonstrates an ignorance with respect to the origins of the movement. There’s a lot of big-spending Republicans out there as well, so I don’t see why your invocation of Barry Obama has any relevance to California’s current political debates.