During the first week of classes, many students expressed their extreme dissatisfaction with the financial situation at hand by walking out of their classes. The walkout, however well-intentioned, was misdirected.
Although University of California officials may have mishandled the economic crisis, they have been handed a situation that has roots in a deeper problem ““ Californian direct democracy.
Direct democracy, practiced largely through ballot measures that find their way onto statewide election ballots, demonstrates that Californians do not understand the current plight of state finances. While state and federal legislators have access to a team of legislative analysts who can study the financial ramifications of bills or plans, most Californians do not.
As a voter, I admit that I do not have enough time to study every ballot measure’s costs and ramifications. During an election cycle, with both sides throwing out unreliable statistics, we do not know who we can trust. We elect, and essentially hire, legislators to study the causes and effects for us. They are supposed to be knowledgeable advocates who are able to research these matters in depth.
We have to look no further than the November 2008 election to see how ballots can cause financial irresponsibility to rear its ugly head.
Californians passed Proposition 1A, a ballot measure that plans to raise $9.95 billion dollars in “general obligation bond(s)” for a high-speed rail system from Southern to Northern California. On top of this, the entire project is estimated to cost a whopping $45 billion dollars, with some of the money coming from federal finances.
Advocates of the plan have stated that it will save millions of dollars in transportation fees and will provide an economic stimulus through jobs for Californians. These claims are dubious, at best. Consider, for instance, the notorious Big Dig, a project to build tunnels to help decrease traffic congestion in Boston.
Original estimates for the entire Big Dig were at a relatively low $2.6 billion dollars for what was to be a groundbreaking and revolutionary transportation initiative to relieve Bostonians of horrendous traffic.
Over a decade later, the cost has soared up to $14.8 billion dollars, or $22 billion dollars if you include the $7 billion in interest. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the scandals, fraud and faulty engineering that was involved in the project.
Although we hope that none of these problems will occur here, a project as large as the California high-speed rail seems prone to fall into a similar situation.
So we Californians have also chosen to accept a plan that will pile us with an obscene amount of debt that could potentially place even more debt on us in the future, all based on unsubstantiated claims of a need for a high-speed rail system. For example, CALPIRG projects that the rail system will take up to 92 million car trips off the road annually, a large and highly optimistic estimation, considering that the plan is still in its infancy.
It is not because Californians are inherently foolish that initiatives like Proposition 1A get supported. We just have a system in place that allows for special interest groups or lobbyists to make claims that seem intriguing and exciting. If we looked even deeper and researched even further, we would often see that propositions leave us with returns that do not measure up to the mounds of debt they will leave us.
While legislators may have the time and the staff to help dispel myths and set us on a better course, all that we citizens have are grand claims made by groups who are willing to push their agendas at any cost.
Propositions have caused a budget nightmare. Without reining in spending and helping to put an end to ballot initiatives that irresponsibly increase spending, California will continue to be weighed down by debt.
The budget nightmare leaves California at a crossroads. Direct democracy as an idea is a beautiful thing. Unfortunately, it is direct democracy that has led to a California that is unable to sustain its prisons, schools and infrastructure, with more than $51 billion in debt.
We, as students, often vote yes for measures for higher spending. We are also the first to cry foul at cuts and fee increases to our education.
Being so directly impacted by propositions’ repercussions, we should be among the first to call for a change to that system.
Although students have often supported propositions, that is not to say that all students are against reform measures.
Andrew Kreitz, a fourth-year business economics student and chairman of the Bruin Republicans, said on ballot measures that “even though they have been used to promote conservative measures, direct voting on every single law is not a good idea ““ the whole point of having a representative “¦ is that we entrust them with that.”
Even though you may support a proposition’s idea, the system of direct democracy weighs down the efficiency of our government.
In order to ensure that Californians have adequate access to education and other government services, we have to remove the system that thrives on misinformation and irresponsibility.
It is imperative that we change the California Constitution to disallow state ballot propositions. Ironically, come next election period, Californians should vote yes on a proposition. This time, the proposition shouldn’t be about high-speed rails or gay marriage, but about our very right to vote.
By removing our right to vote directly on economic matters and other issues of state, California will begin to gain control over our debt situation and finally be able to reap the benefits of being the world’s eighth largest economy.
E-mail Feeney at dfeeney@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.