Los Angeles Times Soft-Peddles Voter Unease With Democrats' Budget in California

At the Los Angeles Times, "California voters see some bright spots in grim budget":

Reporting from Sacramento — The budget approved by Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers last month was largely distasteful to voters, a new poll shows, but many felt the process went more smoothly than in past years, when political paralysis gripped the Capitol and left the state starved for cash.

The element of the spending plan that most troubled Californians was the threat of steep cuts in education. In addition, about half opposed reductions made in healthcare and other services, and more than half viewed the budget as unfair.

But the poll suggested surprisingly strong support for higher vehicle fees and a new fire levy, both of which are included in the plan. Voters were about evenly divided on paying sales tax when buying from online retailers such as Amazon.com — one of the budget's most controversial provisions that now appears headed for a statewide referendum.

Continue reading.

But also read the poll's internal data. The Times' report glosses over some key details. A plurality of 43 percent "oppose the state budget recently passed by the state legislature and Jerry Brown ..." And after a series of specific questions on the content of the budget, a plurality of 47 percent opposed "the state budget recently passed by the state legislature and Jerry Brown..." The more you know the worse it gets. Figures. And the budgeting was based on future anticipated revenues, which could be a gimmick. And a plurality of 44 percent of voters thought it was wrong to "force deeper cuts down the road." And exactly 50 percent of those polled favored cutting state subsidies to local governments, even after they'd been read this long lead-in to the question item:

Now let me read you a pair of statements that some people may make about the measure to eliminate local government subsidies provided to companies that build businesses and conduct other projects in blighted or run-down areas.

Supporters of this measure say that eliminating the subsidies would save the state 1.7 billion dollars. They say these subsidies have often been misused for projects in areas that don't need it, and the money would be better used to help balance the budget.

Opponents of this measure say that eliminating the subsidies would cost the state thousands of jobs. They say these subsidies are crucial to creating jobs and revitalizing neighborhoods, and now is not the time to make cuts that will prevent getting the economy back on track.

The prompt is framed as if subsidies are a good thing, with only the $1.7 billion in savings discussed at the middle of the paragraph. Still, half of those polled thought cutting subsidies was a good thing. There's more at the raw data file. If anticipated revenues fall short voters won't support deeper cuts to education. And voter support for the Amazon tax is tentative. It's going to be an important referendum campaign, apparently in 2012.