| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| California Establishment tries to blame public for its dysfunction |
| 2010-02-09 |
| A new poll is out that's absolute catnip for the members of the California political and media establishment who like to say the ignorant public demands services via ballot initiatives but then refuses to pay for them with higher taxes. The Public Policy Institute of California survey found residents don't have a good sense of where state revenue comes from or what the state spends most of its money on. What does this unsurprising revelation translate into when interpreted by the Los Angeles Times? A snarky news story that said Californians who disdain our leaders and institutions “should save a little distaste for ourselves. ... Those who favored the comics pages in decades past may recall the words of the possum philosopher Pogo: ‘We have met the enemy, and he is us.'' Other coverage had a similar tone. This is nonsense – easily refuted nonsense. For starters, the vast majority of ballot initiatives dictating state spending didn't spontaneously emerge as a result of voter concerns. They came from special interests. Then there's the fact that these initiatives aren't remotely the straitjackets they're made out to be. Nearly all their spending requirements can be bypassed with the same two-thirds vote it takes to approve the budget. As the Legislative Analyst's Office noted in September, “Despite these restrictions, the Legislature maintains considerable control over the state budget – particularly over the longer term.' Then there's the fact that the establishment argument builds off the bogus premise that petulant voters have kept California's taxes artificially low via Proposition 13 and through their support of the constitutional mandate that taxes can only be raised by a two-thirds vote. But the truth is California is among the most heavily taxed states in the union despite these obstacles. Its sales, income and gasoline taxes are among the very highest in the nation. Its corporate tax is the highest in the West. And even with Proposition 13, its property taxes are about the national average. Why does the media's echoing of the political establishment's claptrap matter? Because it reinforces a narrative that holds that Sacramento is dysfunctional because the public is dysfunctional; therefore, there's no point in even trying to fix the status quo. This is elitist garbage. Sacramento is dysfunctional first and foremost because legislators with gerrymandered districts face few if any repercussions for mismanaging the state. Their political futures, however, are at risk if they get in the way of the special interests who have such power in light-voting primary elections for open seats. This results in such policy atrocities as the bipartisan vote by the Legislature last summer to promise a future $11.2 billion payoff to schools even though the state is in the middle of a long-running fiscal catastrophe. The California Teachers Association said, “Jump,' and lawmakers replied, “How high?' So Pogo's philosophy doesn't apply to California's politics. But surveying the wreckage that is Sacramento, a Charlie Brown phrase comes to mind: Good grief! |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #10 More revenue is great. The problem is that the additional revenue was mostly from income tax and sales tax and mostly went to Sacramento and got put into the General Fund. So power migrated from the cities and counties to the state. Sacramento rebated some of the money back to the municipalities, but it always came with strings attached and was distributed according to whatever political theory was in vogue in Sacramento, not what according to the productivity and wealth of the community. Since the political theory most often in vogue was equality of outcomes, you end up with a lot of very mediocre schools... which then become bad schools as illegal immigrants began to flood in. Additionally, no government in our country uses GAAP rules, so the General Fund can be raided for whatever. Municipalities with their own property tax revenue streams are the closest we have to legitimate "accounts" in the accounting sense. Therefore, the most transparent and efficient way to manage funds is to put the smaller unit of government in charge. Landlordism, high state income taxes, out of control bidding by municipalities for malls and big box retailers (to increase sales tax revenue), were just a few of the bad results of Prop 13. Then there was all of the daily stuff that directly affected my generation: the end of summer school, the end of after school programs, libraries closed four days a week (yes I know, these all came back after a while... using state money), an artificially constricted housing market, It was bad law. Initiatives are a part of the old Progressive movement that need to go away. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2010-02-09 22:42 |
| #9 I'd be more credible if I said TAXES, not taces. Jeebus. Landlords have their place. Until you can scrape together a decent downpayment, they are your "home" source. Even multifamily holdings get re-appraised and taxed at new levels on change of ownership, and most have changed since '00, ith consolidation happening. Reed's blog shows that they net revenue to the state due to Prop 13 has still been a plus - they just overspent it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-02-09 22:05 |
| #8 Frank, I agree with you that the current spending problems have nothing to do with Prop 13. Maybe it is misplaced nostalgia on my part, but Prop 13 made a great state a less great and played havoc on my generation. The problem with old people being taxed out of their homes could have been fixed with simpler legislation. Home prices almost doubled after the '73 oil shock (for no reason that I have ever been able to discern) and the resulting tax bills hurt many. My bottom line is that the initiative system has created far more problems than it has fixed. Prop 13 will always be for me the symbol of what is wrong with initiatives. It was created by landlords, for landlords, and created many more landlords -- often absentee and not particularly concerned with the kinds of tenants they brought in so long as they paid rent. A republic needs small freeholders... not landlords. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2010-02-09 21:42 |
| #7 I was 18 when it passed, and working as a student engineer, making around 4 bucks (IIRC) over minimum wage, but gaining valuable experience, when Prop 13 passed. I was laid off. You'd think I'd be an anti-Prop-13 fan. Most long-term homeowners could not afford the escalation of property taxes based on equity they never saw til they sold. The state's revenue increased hugely, especially with the hold-n-sell attitude. A 60 year old homeowner, wishing to stay in their home til death, should NOT be taxed out by increased property taces based on a theoretical sale price. Chris Reed at the SD UT blogs on this frequently and links to others. Prop 13 DID NOT cause the State's funding problem The dramatic increase in spending in the 90's and 00's did |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-02-09 21:10 |
| #6 Prop 13 was bad for several reasons. One, it took the ability to raise revenues out of the hands of the municipalities. They were now beholden to Sacramento, getting their budget deficits paid out of the state general fund. Sacramento could and did use this power to further its own agendas. Two, every municipality now had to tax property at the same rate. There was now nothing to differentiate a good town with good services from a lousy town with poor services. Whereas there were solidly middle class towns with great schools before Prop 13, afterward, only the wealthiest burgs could afford great schools. Three, services really did go in the toilet after Prop 13. I was a 13 year old in one of those solidly middle class bergs when it passed. Things went downhill rapidly. Four, the housing market was distorted. Due to the way Prop 13 was written, the only way a municipality could revalue property to its market value for purposes of taxation was after a sale. As folks who owned began to realize that they were paying way under the market for property, they held on to it for longer, freezing new buyers out of the market. All of you folks constantly kvetching and carping about all those Californians who came to your state and messed everything up? They were my friends and classmates who couldn't find anything even remotely affordable in state. (And when the oldsters were ready to move to Sun City, they held on to the property for the rental value and often rented to immigrants, illegal or not.) In my opinion, California's tax rate is so high precisely because of Prop 13. As evidence, I offer all of the other states that never limited property taxes that have low overall tax rates and which are doing well. My solution? Get rid of the initiative system. As the Founders understood, even the people need checks and balances and the initiative system rips away those checks and balances. And speaking of special interests, Howard Jarvis, the hero of the Prop 13 crowd, was a lobbyist for the Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2010-02-09 20:45 |
| #5 Nothing good in this state would ever happen if it weren't for the ballot initiatives. Yeah, keep tellin' yourself that. Prop 13 was as bad as all the other props the people pass to reward the party with the better scare ads. All the while politicians get rich doing nothing about the state's problems because they know when it really gets bad the sheeple will decide it for them in a prop. Caliphornia is broken. Between the teachers, prison guards and illegals, I'm very doubtful it can be fixed. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-02-09 19:55 |
| #4 Ebbang: Prop 13 was a great thing, but too often now, our CA electorate falls for crap like the mandatory funding level for schools, bullet trains, First Five, etc. All in the name of "the children" or "hey, it won't cost us anything because it's paid for by bonds!". The LA Times, Sac Bee, et al, should be shut down as propaganda outlets for the Donks, CTA...actually, on further review, they should be allowed to founder in their red ink. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-02-09 19:41 |
| #3 Back in 1978 the California Teachers Association just about had a cow when Proposition 13 passed. One good thing about ballot initiatives is that it gives the people a direct control over their government. Old folks on fixed incomes were being taxed out of their homes but the legislature would have never passed Prop 13, or anything remotely like it, in a million years. It was great fun telling them to piss off. Nothing good in this state would ever happen if it weren't for the ballot initiatives. That's why I believe the state legislature should be dissolved...permanently. As for the CTA, they do more to hold our students back than anything else. It's not just the waste of tax dollars, I could forgive them for that, it's the incredible waste of the students' time. Years and years and years are spent on totally irrelevant subjects before they get around to teaching anything that might help the kids get a job, if ever. It is a monstrous criminal enterprise. You can say it's not against the law but that's just because they have so much influence with the legislators. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-02-09 12:05 |
| #2 Its time California had a Constitutional Convention - scrapped the old Socialist order and re-established the "Republic of California" i.e. The Bear Flag Republic. Allow no presently seated Democrat or Republican office holder to attend the proceedings, in fact preclude their participation in any present or future order of government. Consider feeding the existing politicians to the bears - polar, grizzly, or panda. |
| Posted by: Gliting Fillmore5526 2010-02-09 11:14 |
| #1 As one on the inside, I know this is hooey and agencies empire-build based upon the specious notion that it's to serve the public. |
| Posted by: Jack Salami 2010-02-09 11:08 |