The Aftermath

California was in no mood to approve short term solutions yesterday as the map demonstrates. Mainstream politicians have not brought before the voters fundamental changes to our socioeconomic structure such as the ones I discussed in yesterday's entry, because they are perceived as politically inviable. Voters have demonstrated that the short term solutions they were asked to approve are not politically viable either. It will be interesting to see how politically viable the cuts in programs and social services which are now being threatened will be, and what effect they will have on the society in the context of a plummeting economy. The opportunity for real changes is the best when the society has collapsed, or is perceived as being on the verge of collapsing. May Californians see the light and transform their socioeconomic structure which is neither ecologically, nor economically sustainable, and which I would characterize as sadomasochistic.

The Useless Election

Today, California is voting on six initiatives that have all been placed on the ballot by the state legislature. Among them, proposition 1A extends recently passed tax increases for two additional years. Three of them combined will raise $6 billion dollars through borrowing and redirecting money, thus reducing the projected budget deficit to $16 billion from $21 billion. A mass of mainstream politicians including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa support the measures which were the result of the most overdue budget in state history. The Los Angeles Times endorsed all of them except 1B. Five out of six are expected to lose and the measure with the most minimal impact, limiting pay increases for legislators if there is a budget crisis, is expected to pass.

I have not been paying much attention until very recently, don't plan to vote, and have taken the time to learn about the propositions out of curiosity. The measures are largely short term solutions that avoid fundamental changes the state needs to make, such as reforming proposition 13, which Arnold Schwarzenegger has explicitly opposed in the past. Borrowing $5 billion from future lottery earnings essentially relies upon the same logic as borrowing $15 billion to fix the budget problem in 2004. Except now the problem which Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged to fix when first elected is worse than ever. According to the election material provided by the Secretary of State of California, "Even with the adoption of the 2009-10 budget package and assuming that all of the propositions on this ballot pass, it is expected that the state would face multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls in the coming years."

Yet Arnold Schwarzenegger has never considered taking the advice of his economic advisor in 2003, Warren Buffet, to repeal or reform proposition 13. Neither have the voters been asked to approve a reform of this measure, even though a reform of this measure is ostensibly of mutual interest to the Governor and the average Californian. The proposition capped property taxes and created an unfair property tax system which contributes to the budget crisis, shortchanges the education system and local governments, and creates housing scarcity and higher housing costs.

We've also never been asked to vote for universal healthcare, even though bills have been introduced in the legislature in the past. We've never been asked to fund the mass transit system our state direly needs, and we've never been asked to vote for publicly financed elections. We've never been asked to make the fundamental changes which are necessary to create a fairer and more sustainable society.

California collects most of its revenue from the personal income and the sales taxes. During what is being referred to as the most severe recession since the 1930s, revenue from such sources will fall more precipitously than revenue from property taxes. The palpable sudden loss in wealth, power, and prestige that the U.S. is undergoing is the sound of the empire crumbling. California must transform itself and not allow itself to be buried under the rubble by perpetuating a system which is regarded as malfunctional .

The election is as useless as Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor. He pledged to fix the budget problem, now its' worse than ever. He denied that California had a revenue problem, but instead had a spending problem. The current drastic conditions have changed his mind. He began as a right wing advocate, only to confront defeat, and subsequently move further and further to the center until now he's just about the same as the man he replaced, Grey Davis.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is historically important not just because he's a movie star married to a Kennedy, but also because he broke with the Anglo-saxon hegemonists. During newscasts covering budget negotiations anchors and reporters have commented, "Arnold is not acting like a Republican, he's acting more like a Democrat." Every significant piece of legislation which he has signed during his governorship is virtually guaranteed to have been written by a Democrat. The most historically important perhaps being AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which was not only written by Democrats, but by a Mexican! Fabian Nuñez and Fran Pavley coauthored the bill. What awaits us after Arnold is perhaps the first Mexican governor of California since Pio Pico.

Think Swiss, About Transportation
The Swiss Embassy of Washington D.C. in collaboration with the Federal Office of Transport in Switzerland has created a traveling exhibit which launched on February 12th and is showing at George Washington University in Washington D.C. The exhibit is titled, “The Challenge of Sustainable Transportation for the 21st Century: The Prospects for Switzerland and the U.S.” Switzerland is a country which has a per capita oil consumption rate which is 47.9% of the United States, and according to the organizers of the exhibit, has the most used mass transit system in Western Europe. After learning more about the exhibit through the PDF that was published about it, I hope that it comes to California. According to the PDF, a bus usually requires only 5 passengers for it to become more carbon efficient than a car. If such is the case, why are there not more buses in Los Angeles? Following are some graphics from the PDF that serve to illuminate a society which for the most part lives in darkness and struggles to see the light regarding transportation and sustainable energy policies.

Facing Reality

A couple of days ago an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times titled Needed by 2050: decked freeways, tunnels, tolls, trains citing studies which calculate that $140 billion needs to be spent in six Southern California counties in the next 30 years to keep congestion in check. It also cites the state Department of Finance which forecasts that California's population will increase to 60 million by 2050 and Southern California's population will increase to 31.6 million.

"Many say boosting the gas tax would be the most logical way to collect more revenue. But it is politically unpopular with prices at the pump so high. California and the federal government each impose a gasoline tax of 18 cents a gallon, a rate that has not changed since the early 1990s despite a sharp rise in gas prices. Because the tax has not been adjusted for inflation, California has struggled merely to maintain its existing roads."

What should be discussed is that increasing the gasoline tax has the potential to stabilize gasoline prices by reducing demand for gasoline if enough of the revenues are invested in mass transit. Funding mass transit will give millions of Californians the option of not consuming gasoline or driving at all. This will improve the economy as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How is it that California with a population of 38 million consumes more gasoline than the modern industrialized nation of Germany with a population of 82 million? The Germans rely on alternative fuels to a greater degree than Californians, but the huge difference is mass transit.

The article also mentions that several Southern California counties have a sales tax that is dedicated to transportation. In Los Angeles county the 1 cent per $1 tax goes to funding mass transit mostly. Increasing such a tax for the purpose of funding mass transit would increase the financially beleaguered local mass transit agency's budget by nearly 25%.

The mainstream media and the society are beginning to consider solutions, which only a couple of years ago, were not even mentioned. Californians can no longer afford the car as the primary mode of transportation. This is a reality we must face. Taxes, for the purpose of funding mass transit, are good.