Californians split their vote

To fix Sacramento, Californians chose an intriguing former governor with experience, know-how and, presumably, wisdom. He’ll need all of it. Because voters also made the repair job much more difficult.

The electorate that selected a Democrat also voted solidly for fiscal conservatism.

The voters’ message to Sacramento: Keep your hands off other people’s money, whether it’s the taxpayers’, local governments’ or businesses’. You’re not to be trusted.

Gov.-elect Jerry Brown had it right during a victory news conference at his Oakland campaign headquarters Wednesday when he said that no Sacramento fix is possible unless state government wins back the confidence and trust of the people. To do that, he asserted, government must show that it can operate more efficiently — meaning make better use of the tax dollars it already has.

Distrustful voters, as they’ve been doing for many elections, placed more shackles on the governor and Legislature on Tuesday.

True, they did approve Proposition 25 to allow the state budget to be passed on a simple majority vote, rather than two-thirds. And the importance of that cannot be overstated. It should greatly loosen budget gridlock and reduce the market for pork-peddling. But this will only make it easier to pass a one-year spending bill, not enact long-term fiscal reform.

Perhaps — contrary to conventional wisdom — Prop. 25 will make it easier to slash expenditures because a centrist coalition of Democrats and Republicans will be able to exclude big-spending liberals and pass a budget with a simple majority. But that would require the cooperation of Democratic leaders, who have been greatly influenced in the past by the spending lobbies. So that notion is problematic.

And let’s drop any idea that Prop. 25 won primarily because of liberal-thinking voters. It passed, I suspect, because of a clever provision that will punish dithering legislators by docking their pay for each day a budget is late.

As Brown said at his news conference: “The taxpayers gave and they also took away.”

I’d argue they mostly took away.

Prop. 26 will reduce the elected representatives’ flexibility by requiring many fees to be passed by a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority. And it will make it extraordinarily difficult to restructure the state tax system, which badly needs to be updated to conform to the 21st century economy.

Prop. 22 is another shackle on Sacramento. It will cost the state billions by eliminating its ability to tap local transportation and redevelopment funds, leading to further state cuts in education, public safety and other programs.

Prop. 24 would have repealed $1.3 billion in corporate tax breaks, but voters defended big business and rejected the measure.

And voters could have saved the state’s deteriorating parks by agreeing to pay an extra $18 in vehicle registration fees, but they overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 21.

That “tells me they’re not in the mood to dig deep into their pockets,” Brown said.

And, the governor-elect asserted, “the real issue” facing him and legislators — and, more important, the citizenry, is: “What does California need, what does California want and what is California prepared to pay?”

Brown knows the question. He clearly does not know the answer.

The old pro knows the proper approach: Reach out immediately to diverse political groups, listen, ultimately bring competing interests together into compromise and induce the voters’ support. But he doesn’t know the specific pieces of any compromise.

With the brilliant campaign he ran, Brown made only one real commitment to voters: Any tax increase would require their approval. Aside from that, he didn’t lock himself into any box.

One thing I expect him to do soon after taking office in January — at least he should — is to embark on an infrastructure bond-selling binge to stimulate the California economy by creating road-building and other construction jobs.

About $42billion worth of infrastructure bonds have been authorized by voters but haven’t been sold, largely because of a bad market. Peddle the bonds anyway. California needs to put people to work.

Brown — a fiscal skinflint, despite opponent Meg Whitman’s distorted accusations — allowed the infrastructure to deteriorate during his first gubernatorial reign, 1975-1983. In recent years, he has acknowledged that was a mistake.

Oh yes, Whitman. She’ll have a simple legacy: Biggest campaign spender in California history, with her name forever added to a long sentence that includes the likes of Al Checchi, Norton Simon and William Matson Roth.

They’re naïve, mega-rich people with no political experience who thought they could start at the top by buying an election with their own fortunes. Guess they’ll never learn. Doesn’t work in California. Conceivably it could with a compelling candidate, but that wasn’t Whitman.

One fatal flaw: Never having taken an interest in civic affairs — rarely even having voted — before deciding she should be the governor.

Back to Brown: He’s facing a lot tougher obstacles than during his first tenure. Voters have erected many more barriers to problem-solving in Sacramento.

And, in truth, Brown wasn’t totally successful the first time. The young rock-star governor was often insufferable and inconsiderate, always rebelling against the establishment and he usually had a short attention span. He drove lawmakers nuts.

“He’s now more patient, more understanding, warmer, more relaxed, more considered — all in relative terms, by the way,” says Tom Quinn, his former political strategist and a longtime close friend.

Former Gov. Gray Davis, Brown’s first chief of staff, says: “All of us gain a certain amount of wisdom with maturity.”

Davis is optimistic about Brown, but says: “Why someone would want this job is beyond me. He’s not going to have any good news to convey.”

Welcome back, Jerry.

george.skelton@latimes.com