Once upon a time, there was a Golden State which had the arguably the best public schools and the best public higher education system of state colleges and universities. People longed to move there for its natural beauty, its climate, its good schools, its many jobs in the entertainment, defense and high tech industries, etc. Was it a perfect state? Far from it, but it did seem to be the place everyone wanted to be — once upon a time.
Now? Not so much. You might even call it an unmitigated disaster, a failed state, one that is, for all practical purposes, ungoverned and ungovernable.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled an $82.9 billion state spending plan today that calls for no tax hikes but envisions pay cuts for state workers, reductions in services to California’s neediest residents – and relies on the benevolence of the federal government.
Well, the economy is bad. Times are tough. Yet I live in a state (New York) which, despite its fiscal problems, still manages to fund social services, good public schools, a good public higher education system, and provide all the other essential government assistance without massive layoffs or cuts.
New York State has an $8 Billion deficit this year, but that’s less than half of the budget deficit faced by California. New Yorkers suffer from high unemployment, but the values of our homes (at least those among us who don’t live in super rich enclaves like the Hamptons or own condos in Manhattan) haven’t gotten flushed down the toilet.
How did this all come to pass? How did New York manage to avoid a California budgetary collapse? Well, for starters, New York wasn’t subjected to the grand conservative social experiment known as Proposition 13, a provision that, once approved, altered California’s Constitution making it impossible to raise tax revenues and thus do what Government needs to do — provide for the general welfare of its citizens.
Under Republican Gov. Earl Warren and Democratic Gov. Pat Brown, California epitomized the postwar American dream. Its public schools, from kindergarten through Berkeley and UCLA, were the nation’s finest; its roads and aqueducts the most efficient at moving cars and water — the state’s lifeblood — to their destinations. All this was funded by some of the nation’s highest taxes, which fell in good measure on the state’s flourishing banks and corporations. […]
… With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians grumped to the polls and passed Proposition 13, which rolled back and then froze property taxes — effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue. Ranked fifth among the states in per-pupil spending during the 1950s and ’60s, California sank to Mississippi-like levels — the mid-40s — by the 1990s.
Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded chiefly by personal income taxes. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily reduced. In the current recession, with state unemployment at 11 percent, tax revenue has fallen off a cliff.
But the problem with Proposition 13 wasn’t merely that it reduced revenue. It also made it very difficult to increase revenue. Raising taxes now requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature, though in 47 other states a simple majority suffices. California has become overwhelmingly Democratic in the past two decades, but Republicans have managed to retain footholds — representing just over one-third of the districts — in both houses of the legislature.
So what was a bad situation for the rest of the country (brought about by the Federal Government’s deregulation the financial industry — but that’s another story) was made much worse in Sunny California. Because a bare minimum of legislators, ideologues for the most part, is all you need to turn hard times into a financial catastrophe of epic proportions. All because of a myth that Government is always bad and taxation is always evil.
The current Republican crop has refused in good times as well as bad to raise business or other taxes (increasing the tobacco tax, for instance, has failed each of the past 14 times it has come up for a vote). Abetted by little local Limbaughs who inflame Republican brains, they protest that the state already has the nation’s highest taxes. In fact, California ranks 18th among the states in percentage of personal income paid to state government, and its presumably beleaguered wealthiest 1 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, pays just 7.4 percent of their income to the state, while the poorest Californians pay 10.2 percent.
But the myth of soak-the-rich high taxation persists among Republicans — so much so that the GOP front-runner to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger in next year’s gubernatorial election, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, is calling for cuts in business tax rates even though the state is staring at a $21 billion deficit that it somehow has to close. In short order, unless the federal government steps in with a bridge loan, the state will throw 940,000 poor children off its health-care rolls and lay off tens of thousands of teachers.
In a way I pity Arnold Schwarzenegger. By most standards he is a fairly moderate Republican. But he’s hamstrung by his own party, which is far more radical than he is, and by the effects of Proposition 13 which makes it impossible for him to deal with California’s present economic crisis in an effective manner.
He can’t raise taxes to provide spending to stimulate the economy because it would never pass the legislature. So he is forced to look for tricks to get around the budget crisis he faces — cruel tricks for all the people who are employed by the state of California, or the kids that attend its schools, or the people who rely on social services for their health care — while also hoping (and begging) for assistance from the Federal Government led by President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress, will come riding in on it’s white horse to save the day, or at least keep California from drowning in its own self created sea of red ink for another year.
And you wonder why Progressives laugh at Tea Baggers and other Conservative Republicans who mindlessly continue to repeat their mantra that cutting taxes is the only way to save the economy? Hey, we’ve seen that disaster flick played out in real life in the state that gave us Hollywood, and frankly the story doesn’t have a happy ending.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-montana-taxes3-2010jan03,0,3864486.story
I voted for Prop 13, and I have no regrets. It’s what came later that is killing the state.
nalbar
That guy already owns his house, so his taxes are less than paying rent in a one-bedroom in California. What’s the bitch here?
And he could take it right out of his equity and pay it through a reverse mortgage – his home is worth many times more than he paid for it.
Ridiculous. I have no sympathy for such people. He can afford to pay, and he should.
The residential property tax is regressive and ought to have been limited. It is the 67% requirement for any tax that has killed California.
Prop 13, IIRC, also has disparity of treatment between long-term property holders and young people who have only recently bought their property.
I hope Booman and Real History Lisa don’t endorse using the regressive and inequitable property tax to fund schools.
BoomanSteven D. I made a mistake about the identity of the original front pager.I don’t endorse regressive property taxes. I would prefer that we have a progressive tax system in which those who benefit the most from society (i.e., the wealthy, multinational corporations, etc.) pay the most and those who are poor pay the least. The trouble with California is that Prop 13 set in motion an anti-tax campaign in California (and other states, though not to the same extent) that made increasing any taxation to fund government services next to impossible. In essence it a form of government I;d call a tyranny by the minority.
Of course, this was exactly what anti-tax reformers have always claimed would lead to a stronger economy. The truth is that it does no such thing. By reducing government expenditures it has a net negative effect even in a good economy, and in a bad one it makes matters much worse than they would be otherwise by eliminating the ability of government to use spending as a stimulus to create jobs, etc.
Add to that the fact that less government spending on schools, social services, health care, environmental protection, financial regulation, etc. leads to a lower standard of living and makes economic cycles more unstable and unpredictable, and you see why those who persist in the belief that less government in a modern society already dominated by large corporate interests is a panacea for all society’s ills are either delusional, or people who selfishly benefit from the disparities in income and wealth such programs invariably establish.
We are in agreement then.
The disparity is between those that keep their homes long term and those that move, not just ‘young people’. The rates ‘reset’ when a home is purchased. We have had our home for 30+ years, so we pay a lower rate than those next door, who purchased 4 years ago.
Apparently it’s no big deal that a person could spend 140,000 for a house and then end up paying 10% of that A YEAR in taxes later.
They can always get a reverse mortgage!
That’s insane policy.
nalbar
Your correction is noted. And your conclusion agreed with.
I’m opposed to regressive taxation. But that wasn’t a problem Prop 13 was trying to solve, as Steven points out in his own comment.
I was in school when Prop 13 hit – you could see the effects nearly immediately, and it has continued to get worse sense then.
It was wrong then and even worse now.
TAX THE RICH. Why? They aren’t employing enough people and aren’t spending it in the right places.
I think there was a credible argument to be made for shifting tax burden from property to income. This being a rightwing initiative, however, increasing income taxes never happened, and was in fact blocked by the same law. It wasn’t the specific taxes that are the real issue, it’s the whole idea that taxes are evil. For that, a ridiculous little whiner called Howard Jarvis will burn in a special hell directly below LA.
.
Neocon fiscal policy caused profound economic growth in the 320,000 populated state of Iceland … for a decade. Just put up a diary about the discussion in Europe.
ICELAND’S EXPERIMENT WITH FRIEDMAN POLICY
Under the leadership of Prime Minister David Oddsson and explicitly inspired by Friedman, Iceland’s neoconservative young Turks implemented a radical (but now familiar) program of privatization, tax cuts, reductions in spending and deficits, inflation targeting, central bank independence, free trade and exchange rate flexibility. Corporate taxes were cut from 50 percent down to 18 percent. Privatization and deregulation were driven directly through the prime minister’s office, and the major banks were privatized.
Economic missions and reports on Iceland issued by the influential International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) largely praised and encouraged these reforms, often disregarding the rising risks for its financial sector until recently.
Read more …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
“once upon a time.”
When will Californians wake up and stop paying homage to Ronald Reagan?
In a way I pity Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Don’t. He wants these cuts. And they are outrageous.
NEVER pity Arnold. While our fiscal situation is the end result of many years, Arnold could have lead the way to better tax policy. He refused.
Now he is taking the opportunity to gut the system.
nalbar
Add to that the ridiculous Proposition system itself, which makes it possible to pass just about ANYTHING and you’ve got reasons 2 and 3 that I moved from CA to Jersey 7 years ago (the first being the unaffordable housing market). Oh and let’s not forget that Arnie got (gets) away with a corporate coup of the State Gov’t, a close fourth.. and.. and..
Did CA ever get back any of the millions/billions stolen from them by Enron? Did they even try hard?
No, and no.
However we did recall the Governor who warned us what was happening and replace him with someone who denied Enron did anything wrong.
nalbar
Didn’t Greg Palast or someone similar do something showing a connection between the Guvernator’s rise to power and Enron? I recall reading something along those lines…
Exactly…all Arnie cares about is corporate interests. He may be a social liberal, but fiscally, he is pure Reagonomics…low taxes for businesses, gut social programs, and fuck the poor. It’s done a world of good for California, can’t you tell? Don’t you see the jobs pouring into California? No? Well, gosh, we’ll just cut taxes more…that will do it. Yeah…Trickle down my ass.
The Petri dish of Reagonomics.
When the fox is the governor, the chickens will get eaten. And, what happens in California, often happens later in the rest of the United States. But, then, not always. NY still does not have the equivalent of Proposition 13 and Kennie Lay and Enron are no longer around.
When I first moved here in the mid-seventies Cali had the best college system in the nation. Proposition 13 (and the mythology of no taxes) has destroyed the state.
There is talk about rescinding it, or rescinding the two-thirds majority part, but, of course, it will be hard and isn’t likely as long as the inland is filled with hard head true believers (who, by the way, are often living off federal funds, either subsidies for farming or other.
Regarding the comment about long-term property owners versus new owners, this provision made millions for large corporate property owners like Bank of America and Southern Pacific. Don’t think the people behind Prop 13 didn’t foresee this.
Exactly. If you lived here, you saw it with your own eyes. When I was in school we had excellent teachers, safe and clean grounds, small class sizes, and lots of extracurricular programs. After prop 13, all that changed very dramatically and incredibly rapidly.
Why does anyone take Republican arguments seriously? They are NEVER in good faith. They don’t give a rodent’s sphincter about the economy, per se, they care about their own bank accounts. Arguments about benefiting the economy are nothing more than smoke to be blown up the persuadables’ nether regions – their intent always has been and always will be to prevent the government from interfering in their business(es) at a minimum (drown it in a bathtub), and optimally to co-opt the government for the benefit of their own business(es).
Always.
The social stuff simply motivates the masses but by way of implementation there is next to no there there in the GOP – social conservatives got bupkis from a unified Republican government…
We have to take them seriously because others do. And it’s the others I’m worried about.
I think it’s very important to try to find the appealing nugget in the bs – the point that makes those who seem intellectually naive (that’s the kindest way I can put it) believe their baloney.
Until the left finds and reclaims those nuggets, we’ll be continuing to fight this Sisyphusean battle.
I agree with taking them seriously, but not their arguments. Their arguments should immediately be deconstructed and shown to be utterly vacuous because the GOP cares nothing about the common every-day guy – he’s grist for the mill, fodder for the cannons, a means to an end.
Nothing more.
…for Arnie. But I just can’t get the sneer out of the way.
Good diary.
Not to mention his womanizing. Sheesh, what a jerk.
While I won’t deny that Proposition 13 in toto is a disaster, I can see that, in boom times (for business), limiting property taxes might be a slick way to lure new residents/workers to the State….but, as all here agree, when the economy turns south, it denied to the State Government an obvious means to mitigate (if not resolve) the problems with property-tax shortfalls curtailing funding of government services.
yeah, Gullyvornia might fall into the ocean yet, but it won’t be because of all the Liberals….it’ll be because the Conservaturds refused to allow the State to pay for repairs to keep the Ship afloat……
I know this is a lost cause, it is so thoroughly embedded in the folkways, but I think WC Fields, on his deathbed in 1946, was quoting San Francisco Supervisor James McSheehy, a notorious malapropist, who said in about 1940, quoted in Time…
“Let us take the bull by the tail and look the matter squarely in the face.”