Opinion: Readers to Sacramento: Burn, baby, burn
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
One of my duties here at The Times’ Opinion Manufacturing Division is screening the online comments we receive from readers in response to our editorials and Op-Ed articles. Most of the time, the comments on any given story are all over the map and don’t reveal a strong consensus on the part of our online readership.
Then there’s Proposition 1A (and, for that matter, most of the other five measures on next Tuesday’s state ballot).
Judging by reader comments, Proposition 1A, which the Times’ editorial board supports, is in major trouble. And yes, I’m vaguely familiar with the science behind extrapolating broad public opinion from a small pool of people, but no, that won’t stop me from using our reader comments to speculate on the ballot measure’s fate.
Why is 1A doomed? Save for a one-off here or there, the comments to our editorials and Op-Ed articles on Proposition 1A are uniformly hostile to all things Sacramento. Sure, there is some variation in opinion, but it’s far more a matter of how angry readers are as opposed to being for or against the measure. The most striking comments have come in response to warnings in our editorials about the consequences if voters reject the budget reform measures, forcing the state to go without the billions of dollars in revenue the temporary fee and tax increases would generate. California would run out of cash and face lawsuits from creditors, and the global recession would only deepen given the de facto spending freeze by the government overseeing the world’s eighth-largest economy, The Times has contended.
The response? As the title of this post suggests, many readers themselves acknowledge their willingness -- if not desire -- to see what happens if the state hits bottom and runs out of cash. Below is a sample of the reaction we’ve received to our editorial Monday on the special election (with original grammar and spelling left intact).
‘LarryP’ writes:
This is the same tired argument used to bail out big banks with taxpayer debt. ‘Just give us more money to buy some time and everything will be okay,’ we’re told. The unfortunate reality is that the State has made no meaningful attempt to identify and cut what the public knows to be loads of politically-sponsored waste infecting the system. Until that happens the best course of action is to shut down any attempts to plug the rotten dike. Giving more money & time to the same entrenched interests will do nothing but stave off the inevitable a while longer. It’s time to make some hard choices.
‘Jim’ writes:
No, if voters don’t vote these props in, cuts will have to take place. Tighten your (seat)belts prople it’s going to be a rough ride!
Tim Bowman, a frequent contributor to our comment boards, writes:
Let the vehicle run out of gas, and then tell the drivers in Sacramento to get out and walk back the way we came. The rest of us might have to walk a bit, but we will at least go forward.
‘Dan’ writes:
There is no reason to pass ANY of these garbage props. The LA Times is as partisan now in advocating their passage as they have been for the last 5 years as their readership has TANKED. Send CA into BANKRUPTCY and let the courts reveiw all the bogus contracts and ‘manditory’ spending of schools, prisons etc... It’s the only way to rebuild a working budget.
As for bankruptcy, that isn’t an option for California -- which makes the picture so grim for the state if the budget-reform measures fail next week. As The Times wrote in its endorsement of Proposition 1A:
Those populists who urge voters to let the state go bankrupt miss the very important point that, unlike Orange County or Chrysler, California is ineligible for bankruptcy protection. Instead of an orderly retooling, the state would face a slew of creditor lawsuits and consent decrees, none of them geared toward a fiscal fix.