Is The Backlash Beginning?

California voters headed to the polls yesterday to weigh in on various measures to try to shore up the Golden State's withering economy.  The results are very interesting:

Of the six propositions offered, only one passed — the one to freeze pay raises for legislators when the state's running a deficit — despite Arnold and his allies having outspent critics 10 to 1 in pushing the initiatives. To paraphrase a hip-hop classic, California knows how to tea-party:

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was dealt a crushing defeat as voters rejected a series of ballot initiatives designed to help plug the state's spiraling budget deficit…

Schwarzenegger had warned that failure of the proposals would leave California grappling with a budget shortfall of around 21.3 billion dollars.

But weary voters were unwilling to heed Schwarzenegger's deficit warnings and came out broadly against the ballot proposals, by margins of around 60-70 percent to 40-30 percent, local media reported.

The LA Times is naturally upset — with voters:

By rejecting five budget measures, Californians also brought into stark relief the fact that they, too, share blame for the political dysfunction that has brought California to the brink of insolvency…

The results Tuesday fit Californians' long-standing pattern of demanding what is ultimately irreconcilable, all the more so in an economic downturn: lower taxes and higher spending.

"We all want a free lunch, but unfortunately that doesn't exist," said former Gov. Gray Davis, whose 2003 recall stemmed largely from a budget crisis brought on by the dot-com bust. For decades, Davis said, Californians have been "papering over this fundamental reality that the state has been living beyond its means."…

The public's contradictory impulses were laid bare by a recent Field Poll. It found that voters oppose cutbacks in 10 of 12 major categories of state spending, including the biggest, education and healthcare. Yet most voters were unwilling to have their own taxes increased, and they overwhelmingly favored keeping the two-thirds requirement for tax hikes.

As noted by Karl, the same Field Poll showed fully 72 percent of Californians treating this as a chance to send a message to Sacramento that they're tired of higher spending and higher taxes. In fairness to the Times, though, Mark Steyn has long lamented this same tendency among European and, increasingly, American voters: They love their government goodies even though they manifestly can't afford them, with the total paralysis here over social security reform the grimmest example. Californians don't really have to make a hard choice between cutting spending and raising taxes since The One will surely force you and I to bail them out, but per that gruesome Heritage graph illustrating his own deficits over the next decade, the national reckoning's coming. And given the likelihood that universal health care will pass sometime soon, creating a dependency among the public even more profound than social security, it's not hard to guess how that choice will go when the time comes to make it. How's that for a pessimistic thought from your favorite eeyore blogger? In the meantime, your exit question: Republican revival in California next year? Meg Whitman's got to like the headlines this morning.

Of course, given the state of the country right now, this likely means that the federal government will take over the state of California like it has taken over AIG, GM, Chrysler, and any number of other private companies.  California is, after all, too big to fail, isn't it?  So, ultimately, what is a principled and correct stand by California voters will end up being to the detriment of the rest of us, which will allow the political leaders on the ground to escape the just punishment for their failures.  *sigh*

To the final point made above, I can't imagine this would signal a Republican revival in California, but it does bode ill for Democrats in Congressional races in 2010.  If California voters -- some of the most liberal in the country -- rejected policies that are microcosm versions of Obama's national policies by 20-30 point margins, we could very well see a tsunami of Republican victories.

Of course, that's all dependent upon the GOP putting forward an actual alternative for people to support.  The depressing reality of the GOP since about 2000 has shown that many would rather be a Diet Democrat party than a true conservative, fiscally responsible, smaller-government sort of party.  Let's hope the puzzle pieces have been put together with the wizards of smart in the GOP, and that they give up the dieting in favor of real substance, which the American people clearly crave.  Not only would it shove the irresponsible and iron-fisted Democrat rule out of the way, but it's also the last hope of restoring sanity to this (soon-to-be-formerly) great nation.

Victor Davis Hanson puts this election into the bigger perspective very nicely:

It is generally known that Americans want it both ways — green giddiness and plenty of oil and gas for their cars and homes; lots of government services and low taxes; a big military but spasms of isolationism. But now California is where the rubber meets the road, and we just saw the big government side of the equation dissolve. With the highest income taxes, highest sales taxes, and biggest deficits, Californians finally said "no mas," and let the cutting begin. Of course, we have expanded government to such a degree that "radical" cuts will only get us back to about 2005-sized government, and "tax cutting" in this loopy state will mean holding firm at a 9% sales tax and 10%-plus income tax. But one must begin somewhere.

One would hope this is wake-up time for Obama. His proposals will put the federal government a year or two away from a California-style reckoning. For now, the slash and burn tax approach to "them" (the top 5%) has assured the people that they can spend all this borrowed money on health care, education, cap and trade, and free this and free that. But in about a year's time, as the deficits and interest rates mount, the fed will start looking everywhere for cash, and Obama's "95% of you will get a tax credit" will go the inoperative way of military tribunals and rendition, and we will start to see a real pushback against taxes.

The Republican candidate who can demonstrate that tax cuts will increase aggregate revenue, and, when coupled with substantial spending cuts, will balance budgets, will be put in the driver's seat. In about a year's time, those gurus who were "disappointed" because Obama's "stimulus" only led to a $1.7 trillion deficit when much bigger borrowing was needed, will be seen as unhinged as they really are.

Is this the beginning of the backlash?  Time will tell.  We can hope.

There's my two cents.