The “kick the can down the road” cliché is making the rounds in Sacramento as the governor and legislature try to get a handle on the budget mess before the state runs out of cash. The can has been “kicked down the road” too often in the past using budget gimmicks to delay the hard choices necessary to fix the budget.
But some Democratic politicians see a strategic advantage in stalling real fixes to the budget problem now. They want to employ temporary patches to the budget like deferrals and accounting maneuvers until after the next general election when they anticipate Democrats will not only keep strong majorities in both houses of the legislature, but see one of their own elected governor. Then Democrats can implement their agenda of budget solutions.
However, even in this Democratic leaning state there is no guarantee that a Democratic governor will be elected in 2010. In fact, over the last 45 years Republicans have served in the executive chair more than two-thirds of the time. This phenomenon has similar precedents in an even bluer state than California.
Massachusetts’ one-sided Democratic legislature is made up of 19 Republicans out of 140 Representatives in the House, 5 Republicans out of 40 in the Senate. Yet, the Bay State has had a Republican or conservative governor over the last 45 years for the same amount of time as California. (I include on the Republican side conservative Democrat Ed King who served one term between the two terms of Democratic governor and former presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. King was a cut the taxes, support the death penalty, pro-business governor who President Ronald Reagan called “my favorite Democratic governor.” King switched parties after he left office.)
It seems strange that two clearly Democratic leaning states have a penchant for electing Republican governors. I wondered if voters’ distrust of government led them to consciously put a check on the heavy majority in the legislature.
I put that question to Claremont McKenna College political scientist John Pitney.
“Most voters do not cast ‘check and balance’ ballots. A small number will take party balance into account, and an even smaller number will vote mainly on that basis,” Pitney responded. “But that does not mean that checks and balances are irrelevant. Far from it. If the desire for balance shifts only one or two percent of the vote, it is more than enough to tip close elections. It’s probably the reason Republicans held control of the House in 1996 even though Dole crashed and Gingrich burned.”
Pitney pointed to a television advertising campaign Republicans ran a week before that 1996 election. The GOP seemingly conceded the defeat of presidential candidate Bob Dole while arguing that a Republican Congress was needed to deny President Clinton a blank check.
A similar strategy could find its way in the 2010 California gubernatorial election. Voters frustration with the legislature, reflected in the less than 15% approval rating in polls, may well lead to a desire to provide a safeguard against a body they don’t approve. A Republican candidate for governor would be wise to take advantage of such an attitude.
Meanwhile, the legislature should do what is necessary to solve the budget crisis now. For Democrats, it is far from certain that a fellow Democrat will be sworn-in as governor in January 2011.