The transparent shenanigans of the California state government

Californian politics are far too complex and chaotic for any rational human to fully comprehend; to even begin to understand its idiosyncrasies would be a life’s work. A starting point in understanding the polemics of this political system, the metaphorical tip of the iceberg if you will, lies in the political composition of California congressional districts. These districts are gerrymandered, which causes extremism and makes many issues nearly impossible for the state congress to come to an agreement upon. When there is no competition between liberal and conservative policies, potential representatives are forced to pander to the extremes of bipartisanship, which usually results in less moderate representatives. 

For example, Democratic congressmen running for election in an established liberal district such as Berkeley have a tendency to pull their platforms towards the extreme ends of liberalism. Conversely, the same phenomenon happens in the overwhelmingly conservative voting bloc of Orange County; when Republican candidates run unopposed by Democrats, they have to duke it out within their own party and the election becomes a battle between who is the most conservative. 

Add this to another difficulty that California must face: its sheer size and diversity. It would be silly to think that all sixteen representatives from the greater Los Angeles area, each representing their own district, would all vote in unison. Humboldt County and Orange County obviously have their differences, as do the collective areas of Northern and Southern California. East and West California have never really fully agreed with each other either on politics; people living on their 5th generation family farm near the border of Arizona have little in common with surfers from Malibu or techies from Silicon Valley.

So, it is easy to believe that tensions can run high when everyone is squeezed into the state capitol building in Sacramento. One can imagine the scene: the speaker of the assembly politely asks Beverly Hills and West Hollywood to remove their sunglasses, which they reluctantly do while making quips about his suit. The Bay Area representatives are nowhere to be found – Santa Barbara saw them go on a quick blunt ride while role call was being taken, someone says. San Diego will be late, says Pasadena, its birthday was last night and they got caught in traffic driving back from Tijuana. Monterey and Santa Cruz will also be missing; the Red Hot Chili Peppers are using their pads to film a video for a few days. The assembly murmurs and heads are nodded in a mood of general approval.

It might not have been such a festive event last June, when the federal deadline for a state budget was looming and the budget needed to be balanced. For a budget to be passed or for any new taxes to be imposed in California, a two-thirds majority is needed. You can imagine how hard it is to try to get two-thirds of California to actually agree on something, but to ask them to agree on how their state should spend its money is not a request to be taken lightly. Additionally, voting on expenditures and taxes is done separately, as opposed to being two parts of one bill. This proves to be quite unsustainable: everyone wants better services, yet nobody wants to pay more taxes. 

All of this might help to explain the $20 billion deficit that California is currently facing, as well as the face Arnold Schwarzenegger must rehearse in the mirror and use when revealing his plans to fight this deficit to his state’s populous. His plan, which has not yet been passed, includes pay cuts for state workers, expanded offshore drilling, and the elimination and revamping of various social services, which includes welfare programs and Medicaid. Another tier of his plan is to ask the Federal Government for an additional 6.9 billion dollars, which has been greeted with some uncertainty. He has asserted that California is not asking for a bailout, “just federal fairness.” His defense of this request is a bit ominous: “When President Clinton was in office, California got back 94 cents on the dollar from the Federal Government. Today, we only get 78 cents back. But in the meantime, Texas gets 94 cents, Pennsylvania gets $1.07,” he said. “And guess what New Mexico gets? $2.03.”

What? Is New Mexico is stealing from the government? When you refer to dollars given and received from the Federal Government, what dollars are you talking about, Arnold? This seems like a bit of a cop out; accounting errors in federal transactions can hardly amount to 6.9 billion dollars, he is basically just asking for more money, because: “cam ahn, we ah broke.”

However arrogant this may seem, it would be disastrous for the government to completely ignore the request. California’s economy is the largest in the country, accounting for about 13% of the United States’ GDP, and among the largest in the world, falling in somewhere between 7th and 10th largest. It is truly unfortunate that politics in California have set up such a roadblock for a sustainable economy.

Even with federal money, California would still have a heavy deficit. What could possibly make California’s economy solvent? Where is the money going to come from? Perhaps the governor will call for an end to sickness and disease; it would surely cut down on prison medical expenses. Maybe he will choose to excessively tax tires, as it has been shown that cars cannot run without them. He could also point his middle fingers east towards the rest of the country, pull a Hugo Chavez, and seize the entire budding marijuana industry in the name of the Californian Government. $14 billion a year? Hell yeah! 

This might actually not be a bad idea; there is an initiative that will most likely be on the 2010 ballot to legalize and tax marijuana, which has been projected to pull in an additional $1.4 billion a year in sales tax. This initiative is really of little importance to Arnold; however; there is no way in hell that he would ever choose to endorse an initiative legalizing buds. With or without his support, the legalization movement in California now has much of the motivation it needs: money. Already it can be broken up into two separate movements, the “slow-moving” group, that feels that more kinks need to be worked out before any legalization takes place. This position, which is fronted by NORML and various other organizations, supports a push toward complete legalization for the 2012 ballot. Easy does it, man. The second group, primarily fronted by Richard Lee, the leader of the 2010 legalization initiative and founder of Oaksterdam University, thinks that now is the time.

The legality of marijuana is among one of California’s more confusing contemporary issues, and with the amount of lobbying that might be in opposition to its legalization (i.e. the powerful religious lobby responsible for the destruction of Proposition 8), it seems dubious whether or not the Californians’ hard-earned weed money will get put into California’s pockets in 2010. Legalization of marijuana will in no way guarantee California’s fiscal future, if it even emerges as a possibility. Yet, California has been and always will be a wild and crazy state. You cannot be too quick to predict its future, or too keen on becoming personal with its mood at any given moment, for fear that it will change its mind. 

I am no economist myself; I cannot even attempt to accurately predict what will happen to California’s economy. However, judging from its political past, the survival plan eventually chosen by California’s legislature will no doubt be heavily bloodstained with blood and scarred. The path chosen will be a result of vicious debate, despair, and most likely will not represent the opinions of Californian citizens.