Proposition'd to Death

There's a new Field Poll out on next week's special election in California. Arnold's initiatives are all polling behind, but the No votes are all in the 40s. In other words, it's going to come down to GOTV, especially given that this is an election that nobody wants, and turnout is bound to be low. This is made all the more important by the fact that it's basically the kickoff of Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign.

Because if he wins on any of these, he wins in 06. At least I'm going in with that thought process in mind. He'll be called "The Comeback Kid" by the political press, and his campaign will have momentum, and he'll ride it right through to next November. Already he's leaking reports of focusing on traditional progressive issues like education and health next year to win back moderates. A win next Tuesday will put the sheep's clothing over this wolf and give him the aura of being unbeatable. It is imperative that we GOTV and force this maroon to be exposed for the anti-worker Republican that he is.

I've given out capsule endorsements on a couple proposals in the past few weeks. I'm against the first 6 on the ballot, for the last 2 (albeit tepidly). However, I think this guy from the LA Times has it right: enough with the propositions already.

IF GOV. ARNOLD Schwarzenegger really wants to "blow up the boxes" in Sacramento, he should sponsor one two-line initiative:

"There shall be no further initiatives. All previous initiatives may be modified by a majority vote of the Legislature."

When asked after the Constitutional Convention in 1787 what kind of government the new American nation had adopted, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." In a republic, there is no monarch. More important, representatives elected by the people enact laws on their behalf.

Direct democracy is a noble idea. But the process has changed from a progressive attempt to overrule the powerful corporate (particularly railroad) interests controlling the legislatures, to a back-door attempt by corporate interests to overrule the legislature by tossing money at ballot measures designed to confuse an unwitting public. Direct democracy was reviled for decades by conservatives, who feared a tyranny of the majority. It was championed by progressives as a corrective to the legislature to be used sparingly. Here's how that turned out:

California voters generally acted according to this view. From 1912 to 1978, they passed 46 initiatives, about two every three years. Proposition 13 changed this pattern.

The 1978 proposition slashed property tax rates and limited increases on the assessment at the time of sale. It also transformed the state's political landscape in two other critical ways. Since 1933, California law had required a two-thirds supermajority in the Legislature to approve a budget. Proposition 13 applied the supermajority threshold to all tax increases. Thus a small, unified opposition party could paralyze the budget process and block efforts to raise revenues.

The success of Proposition 13 marked the beginning of a new trend. The initiative was no longer viewed as a means to correct the Legislature. Rather, it became an instrument to govern. Between 1982 and 1988, voters passed 22 measures. In the 1990s, they passed 24 more. In the 20 years since Proposition 13, Californians passed more initiatives than in the preceding 6 1/2 decades.

Many of these measures further limited the Legislature's ability to govern. Proposition 4, approved in 1979, imposed limits on the growth of state spending. Proposition 98, passed in 1988, mandated that 40% of the state's general fund be spent on public schools and community colleges.

We've propositioned ourselves into a corner in this state. The legislature pretty much can't do its job unless we're in some sort of boomtime economy. Both sides don't compromise because there's always an out of "bringing the issues to the people." I vote for state assemblymen and state senators because I want them to do the job. If I'm voting for everything, I don't understand what they do for a living.

A "No" vote is demanded on strictly that assumption.