Yesterday I wrote a post about a SacBee editorial entitled "Shared Sacrifice". Looking back, I think I probably focused a bit too much on the teacher pay, which was really a relatively minor side issue, and not enough on the question of Prop 98. Nonetheless, the name of the editorial certainly goes a fair bit towards inflaming itself.
But, the question of Prop 98 is a good one. Certainly the SacBee got it right when they called it the CA Teacher's Association's sacred cow. And given that CTA is one of the most powerful interest groups in Sacramento, that's not nothing. However, is it a good thing? I think that's a fair question.
Today in the Capitol Morning Report, a subscription only fact-filled tip sheet, former Assembly Member Bill Bagley takes a go at the gridlock in Sacramento. You might remember Bagley's name, as he is a long-time Republican Assemblyman who endorsed Barack Obama for the Presidency. He had a record of being a real moderate, but it was easier to be a moderate in the 1960s when he spent most of his time in the Legislature.
He goes through a whole litany of reasons why the Legislature is not a very bipartisan place from his day to the current antipathy. Bagley begins with the ending of cross-filing, which brought a bunch of moderate Republicans, in 1959. He then notes that the reform (Prop 9, 1974) that ended lobbyist lunches alienated the members from each other. They no longer dined and "hung out" with each other, and had the opportunity to like each other as human beings.
All of that is interesting background, but the real problem comes from the two more recent developments: Prop 13 and term limits. Prop 13 brought a bunch of conservative radicals who not only voted in a bloc, but wouldn't even sit next to Democrats.
But the death knell to bipartisanship was really term limits. The term limits blocked any hope of legislators developing a trust between members. There can be no long-term relationships of trust, because there are no relationships at all. Members have an eye on the next office, and the primary for that office.
Bagley's solution is the Open Primary and optimism for the meaningless Proposition 11 redistricting reforms. As we've said here many, many times, Prop 11 isn't a real solution. You can't redistrict "moderate" districts into LA or SF, or even some Republican areas. Perhaps the open primary would bring a few less partisan voters into the voting booth, but it's certainly no lock that will actually happen.
What amazes me is how quickly Bagley just drifts over the more obvious solution: repeal term limits. Term limits create a constant merry go round where legislators are always looking towards the next office, ignoring their current surroundings. Allow them to get used to the place, and to their fellow legislators. Unfortunately, as we discovered with Prop 93 last year, there is still quite a bit of opposition to that particular reform.
A final point should be made. One party has been willing to compromise, has made cuts to some of its core constituencies, has been willing to adjust to reflect the reality of our time. Unfortunately, you can't compromise with somebody who refuses to budge. You have to give a little to get a little, and Bagley's Republican heirs refuse to do so.
The Field Poll has been surveying Californians' attitudes on Prop 13, and the broader issues of taxes and spending. What they've found is that Californians don't want spending cuts, prefer spending cuts to new taxes - but also are willing to support new taxes if they're the only way to prevent health care cuts.
Reading these poll numbers against the Field Poll's Prop 13 numbers, which indicated ongoing support for Prop 13 and a belief that the state's problems stem from spending and not tax problems it seems clear that there is a massive disconnect among California voters. They cling desperately to the belief that government waste and overspending is the problem of deficits, otherwise they might have to honestly and openly explain that their support for tax cuts is a desire to get government-sponsored tax shelters at the expense of everyone else in society and our state's economic competitiveness.
Frank Russo argued the Field Poll numbers might provide a "road map" forward for the legislature. I agree, although that map suggests confrontation will be the first stop on the trip. Something has to give - Californians cannot maintain their low-tax environment without crippling spending cuts they say they don't want. Republicans will take that to mean a stubborn refusal to increase taxes is popular with voters; they'll not be inclined at all to seek new revenues.
What is really needed is a strong and persistent argument from Democrats - in Sacramento and in the grassroots - that our state has a structural revenue shortfall - that our problems really do stem from a lack of revenue, that a state ranking 46th in per pupil school spending doesn't have any revenue to cut. We need to not shrink away when Californians insist that our problems are on the spending side - those Californians are wrong.
It's especially important to begin with fellow Democrats. The Field numbers suggest that many Democrats are ardent defenders of Prop 13 and believe spending cuts are preferable to tax increases. These Democrats should be the target of a broad-based and long-term campaign to show them the error of this thinking - that their Democratic values are not compatible with these thoughts on budgeting.
It won't be easy, but it is necessary if we are to fix this state.
The 30th anniversary of Prop 13 has brought out a raft of commentary in the state media. This commentary tends to split on whether Prop 13 benefited or hurt the state - as if there is still any doubt that it was a disaster - but it rarely examines some of the underlying assumptions of Prop 13, and even more rarely does it explore the deep inequality it has enshrined into our state.
Much of this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what Prop 13 was and what it did. Voters convinced themselves it was a populist revolt against rising property taxes. They believe this so fervently that they act as if they willed it into existence.
In fact Prop 13 was an extremist attack on the very practice of state government by a group of far-right activists, with property taxes used as a convenient cover. Those who voted for - and who say they would vote for it again - still seem to believe its primary purpose was to protect homeowners, when its true goal was to destroy public services by starving government of revenue - otherwise why include the 2/3 rule? Why give commercial property the same protection as homeowners?
Further, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the level of taxation - especially property taxation - in California. California ranks 38th in property taxes. Somehow homeowners in the 37 states ahead of us haven't been losing their homes to taxes. One consequence of Prop 13 was a shifting of taxation to sales and income taxes - sales taxes are regressive and income taxes can be volatile. Prop 13 is therefore directly responsible for California's regressive and unstable budgeting. No Prop 13, no structural revenue shortfall.
California's per pupil school spending, which was among the top 10 states in the 1960s, is now among the bottom 10. Proposition 13 alone is not responsible, but along with two major court decisions that preceded it, it helped decouple school funding from the local tax base and thus undercut voter incentives to fund education generously, as it had been in the generation after World War II. Our roads, once a national model, are an embarrassment. ...
California once had a communitarian ethic. That's been turned into a market ethic. It once did serious planning for the future. For now, that's a nearly forgotten hope.
Prop 13 helped create a "homeowner aristocracy" - where those who bought their homes before 1976 are given preferential treatment and tax shelters while everyone else has to pay market rates. Some argue that those on fixed incomes deserve protection from rising tax bills, but it is difficult to have sympathy for this when the method of protecting them - Prop 13 - has produced a generation of inequality that leaves most folks under 35 unable to ever own a home in California.
Why should some homeowners get government subsidies and others do not? Why is it that under Prop 13 we protect some homeowners at the expense of future generations? If we are to right the state's finances, provide economic security for all Californians, deal with the energy price and global warming crisis, and have a competitive 21st century economy, we need to reexamine our priorities, and be willing to move past obsolete 1970s faux populism.
With all the hype today on the 30-year anniversary of Prop 13 -- today's SF Chronicle wouldn't stop talking about it -- it's incredible that NOBODY is talking about rent control and how Prop 13 paved the way for it. In today's Beyond Chron, I take my alma mater to task for hosting a one-day conference on Prop 13 without mentioning rent control.
I majored in political science at Cal - and while I had an excellent education, the Political Science Department was always a bit out of touch. Today, UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies will host a one-day conference on the 30th Anniversary of Prop 13 - where a field of experts will evaluate its "political, economic and fiscal impacts." Incredibly, none of them will talk about rent control (at least none of them are experts on it), although one of Prop 13's most significant effects was the passage of rent control ordinances in cities throughout California. Tuesday's crushing defeat of Proposition 98 - sponsored by the same Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association that pushed Prop 13 in 1978 - demonstrates a statewide mandate for laws that protect tenants. Any serious reflection on Prop 13's thirty-year legacy must involve rent control.
Don Perata has called the following proposal "Prop 13 for Community Colleges." It will be appearing on the February ballot
* Guarantees minimum funding for growth
* Guarantees $15 per unit fees that can only rise with the cost of living
* Guarantees a system of independent community college districts
In Today's LA Times, George Skelton goes after Arnold Schwarzenegger the tax/fee issue. SO, before we start, definition wise, here's what I think the distinction to be. A fee is charged specific users of specific services that the state provides. Taxes are just general charges that are not tied to specific services. Tax increases, under Prop 13, are required to have asupermajority. Fees can pass with a simple majority (and, of course, a gubernatorial signature).
So, remember how Arnold made lots of "no new taxes" pledges? Well, it turns out that if you call it a fee, they are exempted too. Yay!!
One of the pleasures of writing a Sacramento column is that politicians read it and occasionally change their minds. I'm thinking that must be what happened to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on taxes.
First, he apparently has bought into my oft-written contention that taxes, as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, "are what we pay for a civilized society." In order to enhance the quality of life in an increasingly congested state, taxes sometimes have to be raised.
Schwarzenegger, who previously preached the no-tax gospel, seems to have converted. Why else would he have proposed to sock doctors and hospitals with a new tax to help pay for universal healthcare in California? The docs would pay the state 2% of their receipts and the hospitals 4%, raising an estimated $3.5 billion.(LAT 1/15/07)
I have an idea that I've been kicking around for years -- I don't think it was entirely my idea, originally, but I've honestly forgotten where I first got it from -- that perhaps could cut the Gordian knot of the California budget process. I suspect it would have to be passed through an initiative process (because of the supermajority thing in the leg), and the actual numbers to balance the budget would need to be filled in by some very talented finance folks.
If you're curious, read the full post. And let me know what you think.
