Press Release: LOS ANGELES COUNTY YOUNG DEMOCRATS APPLAUD APPROVAL OF AB 30

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 12, 2009

Contact: Dan Witzling, Vice President of Communications (vpcom@lacyd.org)

or David Graham-Caso, Legislative Director (legislative@lacyd.org)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY YOUNG DEMOCRATS APPLAUD APPROVAL OF AB 30

Measure’s Approval the Result of Two-Year Effort to Increase Young Voter Engagement

Los Angeles, Calif. - Los Angeles County Young Democrats (LACYD), one of the state’s largest young professional political associations, today applauded Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for signing Assembly Bill 30 into law. AB 30, authored by Senator Curren Price Jr., will increase the number of registered voters in California by allowing 17-year olds to “pre-register” to vote.

“We are thrilled that after two years of hard work by Senator Price’s staff and young Democrats across the state, this bill will become law,” stated Katherine Hennigan, LACYD president. “LACYD is a proud supporter of efforts such as AB 30, which seek to improve our democracy by increasing the number of registered voters in California.”

AB 30 will allow 17-year olds who meet all voter eligibility requirements (other than age) to “pre-register” to vote. When the pre-registered teenagers turn 18, they will be automatically added to the ranks of registered voters in California.

AB 30 was originally introduced by then-Assemblymember Price in 2008 as AB 1819. After the bill was held-up in committee last year, Asm. Price reintroduced the legislation at the beginning of the 2009 session. Both AB 1819 and AB 30 were among the top legislative priorities for LACYD, which resulted in the hundreds of members of the organization being asked to help advocate for the bill by writing and calling legislators and the Governor to urge approval for the measure.

“Senator Price has proven his commitment to the future of California time and time again,” said Hennigan. “LACYD thanks Senator Price for his tireless work to improve civic engagement and political participation among young voters.”

Founded in 1973, LACYD was established to give young Democrats a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state and federal political issues.

BACKGROUND: LACYD is the premiere Young Democratic Club in the greater Los Angeles area. LACYD's founders include: Congressman Howard Berman, Congressman Henry Waxman, Los Angeles Controller Rick Tuttle, and many other Democratic leaders. Founded in 1973, LACYD was established to give young Democrats a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state and federal political issues. Katherine Hennigan currently serves as LACYD President. (www.lacyd.org)

- # # # -

LACYD Approves Resolution in Support of Clean CA Gubernatorial Primary Campaign Pledge

The Los Angeles County Young Democrats (LACYD) Executive Board unanimously adopted the following resolution on September 30, 2009:

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A CLEAN CAMPAIGN PLEDGE

“Whereas, California will suffer irreparable harm to our economy, education, and health care systems, environment, infrastructure and more, unless we elect a Democratic governor in 2010; and,

“Whereas, the Republicans are on track to nominate a candidate for governor who is independently wealthy and who will invest tens of millions of dollars in negative attacks on the Democratic nominee; and,

“Whereas, Democrats cannot afford a negative, bruising primary that leaves our nominee weakened and damaged going into the general election;

“Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Los Angeles County Young Democrats urge Democrats to work together in a way that guarantees a Democratic victory in November by requesting any current and prospective Democratic gubernatorial candidates to sign a Clean Campaign Pledge which includes campaigning in an open and fair manner, without resorting to defamatory attacks or unwarranted invasions of personal privacy issues; and,

“Be It Further Resolved, that the Los Angeles County Young Democrats contact each candidate to make its position known and ask the candidate to sign such a pledge.”

Katherine Hennigan

President

Los Angeles County Young Democrats

AB 30 Goes to the Governor's Desk. LACYD Weighs-In...

On September 10, the California State Assembly concurred in amendments made to Assembly Bill 30 by the Senate and approved the measure, which would allow 17-year olds to pre-register to vote. LACYD is a strong supporter of this bill and we wasted no time sending Governor Schwarzenegger a letter declaring our position. The text of the letter is below.

September 10, 2009

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

I am writing you today on behalf of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats (LACYD) to express our organization’s support for Assembly Bill 30, a bill which would strengthen our state’s democracy by increasing the potential number of registered voters in California.

Founded more than 30 years ago by Congressman Henry Waxman, Congressman Howard Berman, Los Angeles Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, and others, LACYD is the largest organization in Southern California focused on giving young people a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state, and federal political issues.

LACYD is a proud supporter of efforts such as AB 30, which seek to improve our democracy by increasing the number of registered voters in California. AB 30 will allow 17-year olds who meet all voter eligibility requirements (other than age) to “pre-register” to vote. When the pre-registered teenagers turn 18, they will be automatically added to the ranks of registered voters in California.

Registration is one of the largest barriers to voting. Citizens often become energized by candidates or issue campaigns in the last weeks of an election, only to find they are not registered to vote or are not registered at their current addresses. Lowering the voter registration age would improve civic engagement and political participation. It would additionally help prepare a new generation of Californians to engage in our democracy. Though LACYD is a political organization, we believe that increasing the number of registered voters in California is a non-partisan issue. This bill is a sensible political reform that will strengthen our democracy and help to empower and engage a generation.

We strongly urge you to sign Assembly Bill 30 into law. Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Katherine Hennigan

President

Los Angeles County Young Democrats

If you agree the increasing the number of registered voters in California is a good thing, please take a minute to call the Governor's office at 916-445-2841 to let them know why.

You can also e-mail the Governor's staff at http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email. (If you e-mail, select "Other" when it asks you to choose your subject. Then make sure you indicate that you are supporting AB 30 in the subject line of the e-mail. Feel free to borrow as much content from the above letter as you like, but please edit it carefully to make the words your own.)

Next Legislative Committee Meeting: Rewriting California's Constitution

The Los Angeles County Young Democrats Legislative Committee is pleased to present a special LACYD forum to explore the increasingly popular idea of calling a Constitutional Convention to rewrite parts, or all, of California’s Constitution.

By what process could a Constitution Convention be called?

Who would be allowed to participate?

How can young professionals ensure they are heard throughout the process?

You are invited to join the LACYD Legislative Committee as we welcome a representative from Repair California, the coalition of statewide organizations that is leading the charge to reform how our state is run. We will learn about the campaign to call a Constitutional Convention and we will additionally have the opportunity to ask questions and offer input regarding what we, as young voters, would like to see discussed as the future of our state is debated.

WHAT: LACYD Legislative Committee: Constitutional Convention Forum

WHEN: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 6 pm – 8 pm

WHERE: Breathe California of LA County, 5858 Wilshire Blvd. (corner of Wilshire and Stanley Ave.) Los Angeles, CA 90036


Please RSVP to LACYD Legislative Director David Graham-Caso at LACYDlegislative@gmail.com

(This event is meant to be educational and is in no way intended to indicate an endorsement by the Los Angeles County Young Democrats of the call for a constitutional convention.)

Please click on the image below to see the event flyer.

Updated LACYD Legislative Tracking Matrix

Below, please find the LACYD Legislative Tracking Matrix, updated on July 12, 2009. Please click on the image below to view a legible version of the matrix.

Next LACYD Legislative Committee Meeting: Thursday, June 18

What: LACYD Legislative Committee Meeting
When: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7 pm
Where: 1337 S. Bundy Dr. Apt. 201 Los Angeles, CA 90025
Contact: David Graham-Caso, LACYDlegislative@gmail.com

As a result of the May 19 special election, California lawmakers have been forced to return to a bargaining table that must seem all too familiar by now, to hammer out a deal that closes an unfathomable $24.3 billion state 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 the recent special 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 this 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 Proposition 63 Mental Health services could have their vote interpreted as a vote in favor of cutting state-funded services across the board. The 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.

The challenge now confronting organizations such as LACYD is combating this vacuum of a coherent message and informing our representatives in the legislature how we would be best represented as they make the difficult decisions necessary to closing the budget gap. We need to clearly identify not only areas of the budget that our organization strongly believes are necessary to the future of our state and therefore should be spared deep cuts, but also those areas where we would find cuts acceptable. This is a difficult situation, but retreating into fiscal NIMBY-ism would do nothing to solve the problem and is advocacy not worthy of any serious political organization.

This is why I am asking everybody who plans on attending the June LACYD legislative committee meeting to be prepared to debate what areas of the budget our organization should stand up to defend and what areas of the budget LACYD should inform our legislators are expendable, given the current circumstances. I would like each member of the committee to attend the meeting prepared with at least one suggestion for an item in the budget they believe should not be cut and one suggestion of an item in the budget that should be scaled back. We do not need to offer solutions for the entire $24.3 billion deficit, but it would irresponsible to demand programs be saved while offering no simultaneous solutions.

While most Democrats would obviously prefer to close the budget gap by increasing revenues, the political reality of the situation does not effectively allow for the legislature to increase taxes substantially. This is why I would like proposals offered by members of the committee to focus on areas of the budget should be cut. Please also be prepared to defend your suggestion- I will be encouraging members of the committee to debate each proposal so that we can reach a consensus through active participation.

As a result of the debate and collaboration that I hope will take place at this meeting, I would like to be able to draft a letter which clearly identifies our organization’s priorities in the current budget negotiations. With the approval of the committee, I will ask the LACYD Executive Board to approve the submission of the letter to our area's representatives in Sacramento so that our organization’s opinion is a matter of public record. The timing is tight on this- the goal established by the legislative leadership is to have the conference committee finish its work by mid-June and put out proposals to the floor to amend the 2009-10 budget package, and to get those passed and in law prior to the start of the fiscal year (July 1).

If you plan on attending the meeting, please RSVP on this event page and additionally send me an e-mail at LACYDlegislative@gmail.com so I can be sure you receive the meeting agenda and materials when they become available.

Thank you.

Statement from LACYD President Katherine Hennigan Regarding Today's Proposition 8 Ruling

The following statement was released today by Los Angeles County Young Democrats President, Katherine Hennigan:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 26, 2009

Statement from Los Angeles County Young Democrats President Katherine Hennigan Regarding Proposition 8 Ruling

LOS ANGELES- Los Angeles County Young Democrats (LACYD) President Katherine Hennigan released the following statement today in reaction to the California Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Proposition 8.

“As a representative of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats, I am extremely disappointed in today's ruling. LACYD is one of California's largest groups of civic-minded young professionals and we stand firm in our belief that it is not the will of the people to uphold laws that violate any basic civil liberties. We are committed to continue our role in the fight to right this wrong and to ensure equality for all.”

Founded more than 30 years ago by Congressmembers Henry Waxman and Howard Berman, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, and others, Los Angeles County Young Democrats is the largest organization in Southern California focused on giving young people a voice and a vehicle for activism in local, state, and federal political issues. With a membership of more than 500 and dozens of local, state, and federal candidates either members or helped into office by the organization, LACYD remains at the forefront of keeping Young Democrats engaged, informed and heard on issues of importance to young people. For more information, please visit www.lacyd.org.

- # # # -

LA Times Article About Tobacco Tax Raises Questions

I posted a link to a Los Angeles Times article earlier today because the topic of the article is SB 600 (Padilla), a bill that would increase the tax on tobacco by $1.50. The Los Angeles County Young Democrats support SB 600 because it would raise money for the state at a time when California desperately needs the cash. The bill would raise this money by taxing smoking- something that is literally killing people. If the additional financial burden provides any further incentive for anyone to quit smoking, than the bill is working. This bill will raise money in the short term (through the tax), it will save money in the long term (healthy populations cost the state less money in health care costs and people will be healthier if they are financially forced to choose to quit smoking) and it will save lives. All and all, SB 600 is a good bill that LACYD is proud to support.

Along with shining a spotlight on this important legislation, the Times article was interesting because of the quotes in the piece from representatives of the tobacco industry and other opponents of the bill. The most prevalent message I could see being pushed by the opponents of this bill was that taxing tobacco disproportionately affects low-income and minority communities because these are the people that buy tobacco products.

"There are more smokers among people of color, and they will have to pay the extra tax."

So what opponents of the bill are saying is that cigarettes, which have been repeatedly scientifically proven to kill people, are being disproportionately used by low-income and minority communities. And that this is a reason NOT to create incentive for people to stop using this harmful product? To some degree, I get the Libertarian "it is your right to slowly poison yourself" argument (I don't see the logic in it, but I get that the argument exists) but this is just crazy. Spokespeople for the cancer lobby and their allies in this effort are arguing that we should not tax a (miraculously legal) poison because it may convince a targeted population of low-income and minority groups to stop harming themselves. I am glad to see the spokespeople aren't stupid, they are just Kaiser Soze-level evil.


There was one other part of the article that captured my attention. I was surprised to read the following quote from the piece:

[Frank Lester, a spokesman for Reynolds American Inc.] also said California voters are "dubious" about how past tobacco taxes have been spent. He cited media reports about the use of Proposition 10 tobacco proceeds, approved by voters in 1998 for childhood development programs, to pay for political ads promoting another ballot measure.

My question is this- where was this information when we were trying to get 1D passed in the May 19 Special Election? (For those of you with short memories and who have not frequented this blog, Proposition 1D would have allowed the legislature to take money that was raised by Proposition 10 to help reduce the state's budget deficit and prevent cuts to services across the board. Prop. 1D would only have taken surplus money that is not being used and would not have affected any existing programs. The measure failed miserably last Tuesday.)

If this is true, than money raised for First Five Commissions was being spent, not on the programs and children it was intended to be spent on, but on political ads. This would mean that the opponents of 1D that were steadfast in their efforts to block an attempt to use unused Prop. 10 money to help prevent catastrophic cuts to other services, did so with motives not articulated during the public debate. They opposed Prop. 1D in order to ensure that every Prop. 10 dime went to the programs helping children for which the money was intended. Oh, and political ads- you can't forget the political ads that were apparently bought and paid for with Prop. 10 money.

Why did we not hear of this during the campaign? Apparently there were "reports" about this- why were those headlines not appearing in television ads or mailers? Was this done and I missed it entirely or was this an oversight by the strange bedfellows assembled to pitch these doomed measures to the public? I know it doesn't matter now, I am just honestly curious.

Feel free to contribute to the comments section and let me know if you saw any ads or even a single mention of the way Prop. 10 funds were being used during the Prop. 1D campaign.

LACYD Endorses Environmental Legislation, Anti-Tobacco Bills

At our May Board meeting, the Los Angeles County Young Democrats Executive Board voted to uphold the Legislative Committee’s recommendations and formally support the following bills. All of the following bills are currently moving through the California State Legislature.

SB 17 (Padilla)

Senate Bill 17 would advance California’s clean energy policies by improving reliability and efficiency in power distribution through the deployment of smart grid technology.

SB 31 (Pavley)

The historic greenhouse gas legislation, AB 32, gives the California Air Resources Board (CARB) the authority to collect fees through market mechanisms such as auctions, and through a schedule of fees. CARB must spend the revenue to further the purposes of AB 32. This revenue can be used to invest in energy efficiency, clean energy resources and enabling infrastructure, new technologies and new jobs that will put California on the path to a clean and prosperous future.

SB 31 will give CARB additional guidance on how this revenue should be used. SB 31 will ensure that revenue collected pursuant to AB 32 will be invested in ways that will reduce GHG emissions, protect the health and safety of Californians, and put us on the path to a new green economy.

SB 565 (Pavley)

SB 565 would require the State Water Resources Control Board to develop a plan to ensure that at least 50% of wastewater that is annually discharged into the ocean, as of the year 2009, is recycled and put to beneficial use by the year 2030. The bill would fund the development and implementation of that plan by requiring the state board to impose a fee on each person discharging wastewater into the ocean.

SB 600 (Padilla)

SB 600 advances California’s tobacco prevention and cancer research efforts and generates a significant amount of revenue by increasing the state’s tobacco tax an additional $1.50 per pack. This bill was the subject of a recent Los Angeles Times article.

SB 601 (Padilla)

SB 601 seeks to strengthen existing law governing the issuance of tobacco retail licenses by establishing restrictions on license eligibility and prohibiting tobacco from being sold within 1,000 feet of schools.

SB 602 (Padilla)

SB 602 seeks to strengthen current tobacco laws aimed at reducing illegal sales of tobacco products to minors by requiring the state tobacco licensing authority to revoke or suspend retail tobacco licenses upon a recommendation of tobacco enforcement agencies.

SB 602 also seeks to prevent the proliferation of tobacco retail outlets in California communities by allowing over-concentration to be a condition for license denial.

SB 603 (Padilla)

SB 603 caps the number of new retail tobacco licenses that may be issued annually and requires tobacco retailers to pay an annual license renewal fee.

Press Release: Bass, Steinberg Move Quickly to Head Off Cash Crisis, Make Budget Process More Transparent

Editor's note: The following press release, distributed yesterday, describes how the legislature will approach the unfortunate task of figuring out exactly which essential services the state can no longer afford in the wake of this week's election results.

SACRAMENTO – Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) held a news conference today to announce measures that will help quicken the process to solve a looming $21 billion state budget deficit and head off a cash shortage for the state expected in July. Additionally, they announced measures to make the process more transparent than in previous years and include more legislators and public input in the process.

“The budget process will be completed quickly to help prevent a potential cash-flow shortage in July and to reassure the federal government and private investors that California is a safe investment,” Bass said. “This conference committee will be different than in the past. It will include more members’ points of view and it will be far more open to the public and transparent than in previous years.”

“Beginning today, the Legislature will work diligently in an open, transparent process to balance our budget and address a looming cash shortage in July,” Steinberg said. “I have great faith in the Senate and Assembly conferees to get this job done in the most responsible way possible.”

Measures to make the budget conference committee process move quickly and be more open include:

• The announcement that the budget conference committee will be made up of five legislators from both the Assembly and Senate instead of the usual three. Assemblymembers Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), who will chair the Conference Committee, Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), Bob Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills) and Senators Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Hills) will sit on the committee. Assembly Republican appointments to the Conference Committee are still being finalized.

• Plans in both houses to quickly move a spot budget bill (SB 61) on Thursday morning (May 21) that will be used to establish a budget conference committee

• Conference committee hearings on the governor’s May Revise proposal, unlike previous years. The conference committee will essentially be tasked with closing the $21 billion budget gap

• May Revision hearings directly in Conference Committee, rather than first being heard in subcommittee

• Conference Committee reconciliation of differences in actions taken by the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees in their hearings since the budget was enacted on February 18. There are not a lot of significant issues (given that the 2009-10 budget was already enacted). Most of the work and actions of the budget subcommittees in each house have been on proposals that were rejected in the February budget deal “without prejudice” (i.e., Gov’s proposals that didn’t actually deal with closing the budget gap), as well as some special fund issues, and oversight issues.

• Public and Televised budget conference committee meetings

• Conference Committee public testimony, particularly on May Revise proposals, as well as other suggestions on how to close a $21 billion budget gap, unlike past years

• Budget conference committee focus on cash shortage issues

The budget conference committee schedule will be as follows…

• May 21 - Conference Committee will begin with overview of the budget from the Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst’s Office
• earlier than usual, and May Revision will be heard directly in Conference Committee, rather than first being heard in subcommittee

• May 22 – Hear from the State Controller and State Treasurer on the state’s cash issues. (and DOF and LAO).

• May 25-28 – Conference committee will use its meetings to get public testimony. Each day will be a different subject (i.e., education, HHS, etc.), and the schedule will be published in the Daily File. This will give the public a chance to comment on the Gov’s May Revise proposals, as well as suggestions for how the Legislature and Governor should close the $21 billion budget gap.

• June 1 – Traditional Conference Committee action hearings begin to review the specific proposals of the Administration, and getting the LAO critique. Conferees will also consider the suggestions of citizens and groups who provided testimony during the public testimony days (week of May 26).

• The goal is to have the conference committee finish its work by mid-June and put out proposals to the floor to amend the 2009-10 budget package, and to get those passed and in law prior to the start of the fiscal year (July 1).

Below are links to audio from today’s news conference.

Speaker Bass’s entire opening statement to the media at today’s post-election/state budget news conference. (4:12)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass.mp3

Speaker Bass says the voters sent a message by defeating the budget related measures on yesterday’s ballot. (:39)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass1.mp3

Speaker Bass says there is no doubt spending cuts will be part of the budget solution. (:24)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass2.mp3

Speaker Bass says there will not be any additional federal money coming to deal with the state’s financial crisis. (:16)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass3.mp3

Speaker Bass says eliminating the two-thirds budget vote requirement is something to consider in the future, after the current budget crisis is resolved. (:10)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass4.mp3

Speaker Bass says the sale of state assets will not happen fast enough to deal with the current budget problem. (:14)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass5.mp3

Speaker Bass says Democrats are also looking for more ways to improve the economic climate, such as the housing and entertainment industry tax credits. (:20)

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/Newsline/Audio/20090520BudgetNewsConfBass6.mp3

Pro Tem Steinberg says the vote shows people want the legislature to do the job and it will be done. (:39)

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B821330A8-F7DE-4CB7-B70D-EC962A37B887%7D/uploads/%7B2C5E4B44-1346-4ABA-8B20-669C100AFE2F%7D.MP3

Pro Tem Steinberg says there will be serious cuts but the majority party will try hard to uphold Democratic values. (:41)

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B821330A8-F7DE-4CB7-B70D-EC962A37B887%7D/uploads/%7BA2D2C5CB-6EAC-40A7-A433-6B1615CE0E75%7D.MP3

Pro Tem Steinberg says there are three reasons the legislature must act quickly. (:32)

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B821330A8-F7DE-4CB7-B70D-EC962A37B887%7D/uploads/%7B0A9A66B5-E25D-4C63-894A-C72D7DB30CF2%7D.MP3

Click onto the following link for pictures of today’s news conference:www.asm.ca.gov/speaker/media

Website of pro Tem Darrell Steinberg: http://dist06.casen.govoffice.com/

Website of Speaker Karen Bass: www.asm.ca.gov/speaker

###

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.