Donald Cohen: The Lord of the Flies election
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
When I think about election day next week, the mental image I find most fitting is in the 1954 classic, the “Lord of the Flies,” about a group of teenagers stranded on a desert island that revert to savagery in their struggle for survival.
Californians struggling to keep important programs are on a different kind of island. The metaphorical island that we are on now is the one built by Proposition 13 and the Howard Jarvis tax rebellion of the late 1970s. That was the beginning of California’s descent from a once golden state of opportunity to a land starved of investment and resources.
Proposition 13’s tax caps, along with the requirement for budgets to be passed with a two-thirds supermajority, mean that a minority could thwart the aspirations of most Californians’ desires for high-quality services; great education that is the envy of the nation; a world-class infrastructure that is clean, green and essential for a productive business climate; and a health care system that meets the needs of all.
Now that vision of California is crashing against a legally empowered legislative minority that above all refuses to raise any revenues so it can starve public coffers.
The batch of initiatives negotiated with the minority party committed to downsizing and eliminating public services is creating an unfortunate scramble to the bottom. This, in turn, is causing teachers arguing with teachers, social service providers struggling to maintain vital early childhood programs, mental health professionals struggling to keep their services accessible for poor Californians and all of us confused about which one of our favorite programs we should side with and protect.
So, instead of voting for programs to extend health care, reduce class size or address global warming, we have to choose between cutting teacher salaries, increasing class size, eliminating care for a sick infant or slashing mental health services for teenagers in need.
Proposition 13 was the fuse that started de-funding public services but also created budget-distorting side effects. With the legislature unable to act with simple majority rule, others have stepped forward to do good things at the ballot – such as creating vital early childhood development programs, mental health programs for the indigent and many others.
Unfortunately, ballot box budgeting means that only those issues with sophisticated advocates and political savvy are addressed. It leaves other needs behind. For example, no one has advanced a ballot measure to pay for health care for California’s tens of thousands of home care workers so they and many others get left behind.
What is remarkable is the ballot measures that raise specific taxes for specific programs win the support of the majority of voters at the polls. At the same time minority party politicians are super-glued to a no-new-tax-pledge and refuse to raise revenues for programs they know Californians support. It’s the ultimate paradox that defines California’s descent into a “Lord of the Flies” election where advocates for schools, children and the disabled fight over dwindling resources.
The right wing and the starve-the-government types can sit and watch with glee as advocates for a robust public social and physical infrastructure scramble for limited dollars. It’s an island of despair where those of us who care about the state’s future are fighting over the crumbs left behind by several decades of post-Proposition 13 neglect.
It is a terrible situation and can only be rectified by eliminating minority rule in the state and developing a rational approach to budgeting. Of course, the state should live within its means but we should always start with our vision and our aspirations for a great California and then have the guts to speak honestly about what it takes to get there.
Every person, every family, every community has shown that it will sacrifice today for a better tomorrow. If we want our children to go to college, we put money aside to make sure that it can happen. If we want a new home we invest upfront and pay the price to make it happen over time. We never believe these things are free and we always expect to do what’s necessary.
Related Stories
Find out what Plan B is for California
Are California legislators election-crazy? Read the article to find out.
Sen. Kehoe calls the propositions California’s “best hope”
SDNN reader asks Kehoe budget questions
Political consultant Chris Crotty calls the propositions “criminal”
Assemblymember Joel Anderson says voting “Yes” means sending your job to Texas
Local activist Leslie Eastman is concerned that Proposition 1A is a major tax hike
It has always confused me that conservatives will advocate for cutting taxes at the same time as promising more and better services. It’s a “free lunch” agenda that is the height of hypocrisy and deceit. They decry tax and spend while their real agenda is spend without asking people to pay their fair share. It is fiscal irresponsibility wrapped in populist rhetoric. And, as was their ultimate endgame, it has successfully left Californians fighting over the path of our own decline.
It looks like this election may not go well for anyone. Defeat of the initiatives will put the state further in the hole. Passage of the initiatives will starve essential programs and lock in budget limits that will hurt already underfunded programs or those where needs will grow in coming years as the population ages.
And everyone will feel bad about it except for those who don’t want to make our schools the envy of the nation, that don’t care if home care workers have no healthcare of their own or that don’t see the need to provide support for disabled people and low-income children. Howard Jarvis, wherever he is, must be very happy right now.
Donald Cohen is the president of the Center on Policy Initiatives and an SDNN political columnist.
Tags: SDNN
SHARE THIS POST
READER COMMENTS
4 comments
POST A COMMENT
* Required to comment
-
-
- High schoolers learn about careers as scientists Academic Connections students chose from 25 courses of study
- How coaching executives is like deep sea fishing
- Five leadership traits the gurus don't tell you There are so many items to put on the leadership list that most people don’t share
- Twitter Applications to Feed Your Addiction Social Media networks have taken the world by storm over the past 3-5 years, and Twitter is no exception...
- Natural beauty surrounds Cathedral Mountain Lodge Cathedral Mountain Lodge is the center of the beautiful Yoho National Park with its many extraordinary natural sites, including spectacular waterfalls. Finding the lodge isn't easy -- but the extra effort is worth it.
- 8 great summer vacation career books Eight great career reads to bring along on summer vacation
Blogs
Balboa Park Collaborative
Landing a dream gig: Profile of Mike Griffin, zookeeper
51 days, 15 hours ago

Email
Bookmark




Comment by: Kris Vosburgh Posted: May 13, 2009, 1:15 pm
With California ranking at the top in tax burden, even with Proposition 13 in place, it is hard to take Mr. Cohen’s diatribe seriosly. He also neglects to mention that state spending is up 40% since Arnold Schwarzenegger took office, and this, too, occurred with Proposition 13 in place.
For those who counted on Proposition 13 to limit the size of government, it has been a falure. But it still has been dazzaling success for both homeowners and government. By making property taxes predictable, Proposition 13 makes homeownership secure, and because tax increases are not tied to market increases, when the market
declines, the property tax remains the most reliable source of revenue.
Comment by: Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters Posted: May 13, 2009, 1:35 pm
Let’s do a little full disclosure here. Donald Cohen is a career labor union official who now runs the union-progressive financed Center for Policy Initiatives. This outfit is not a “think tank” — it’s a labor union propaganda mill.
Cohen has never seen a tax or government bond he didn’t like. NEVER. And he would never support a spending cap (as Prop 1A pretends it is) unless he knew (as do I) that it is filled with loopholes.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with being biased in one’s viewpoint. Lord know I am!
But the difference is that when a conservative/free market/limited government/libertarian think tank (propaganda mill, if you prefer) is quoted, it is identified as to its bias — as well it should be.
Unfortunately, there are bogus “think tanks” in CA that are (though nondisclosure) not properly identified by the media as to their ideology. The CPI is one of these outfits.
Comment by: Erik Bruvold Posted: May 13, 2009, 5:04 pm
I am absolutely sympathetic to the challenges of getting a well written column out by deadline so I don’t want to be too harsh but I think it appropriate to offer up some DATA to flesh out Mr. Cohen’s argument.
1) Some history – Proposition 13 passed in large part because the old system (of assessments and variable rates) created grave inequities in market where, by 1977, supply of residential real estate in urbanized California was becoming significantly constrained. Too many fixed income Californian’s were seeing too steep of rise in property tax bills. Add in then Governor Brown’s refusal to release state surpluses to cushion the blow and it is no wonder that a poorly funded initiative passed with 60+%. It never was a “starve the beast” argument. It was about a system in which elected officials seemed entirely deaf to the concerns of the electorate. I dare say it looks like history has a way of repeating itself.
2) By most measures California tax burden has remained remarkably constant since Prop 13’s passage. Tax Foundation, Census, all have suggested that the burden has moved around in a narrow range since 1978. It has, by most measures, been a bit higher than average (and higher than neighboring states – clearly creating a challenge)
3) This relatively consistent tax burden suggests we never had an honest conversation about Prop 13 AND other factors, such as the highly progressive nature of our income tax system, the consequences of CEQA on real estate development, and school funding formula. I would agree with Mr. Cohen that California is in a state of denial but also believe it is a lot more coomplicated than an evil plot by Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Gann.
4) Finally Mr. Cohen seems to be arguing that revenue=quality or at least that there is a high correlation between the 2. I would not argue that investment levels will help but they won’t necessarily issue forth a Golden Age. The highest taxed state on the same measures noted above is New York. I would suggest that its level of services to its population is no better, and in many cases worse, than California’s.
Comment by: Mack Posted: May 17, 2009, 8:11 am
Jennifer Hudson
When is enough enough??? Shame!!! Shame! People should be ashame of themselves heckling on this poor girl about her clothing. knowing all she has been through this past year With the tragic deaths of her mom and close family members. She did well to be standing and she did a wouderful job singing on the today show. Jennifer looks great considering her recent situation and who really cares what she has on if anyone should be issued a tacket it should be the fasion police for having ZERO class shame on you!!!