Posted on 06/16/2009 8:08:28 PM PDT by Amerigomag
California’s leading public pollsters, Field Poll director Mark di Camillo and Public Policy Institute of California chief Mark Baldassare, did their usual post-election analysis at today’s monthly luncheon of the Sacramento Press Club. It was an indicative event with regard to the current state of state politics.
A relative handful of those in attendance were practicing journalists, tracking the fast diminishing state of state political journalism, and most of the questions (or speeches) after the presentations were posed by non-journalists.
After a lengthy awards ceremony of scholarships for the journalists of tomorrow (hmm …), the two Marks, as they are known, began their presentations and lunch was served. In days past, had that occurred, I would film the event and eat at the end of it. Not this time. Only a few journos I saw, at least of those few who paid for the lunch, eschewed the dining in favor of note-taking.
What the Marks had to say was actually quite familiar for those who’ve been paying attention. In theory, as their polls foretold for the past few years, California voters want to deal with the chronic budget crisis with a combination of cuts and taxes. Since that is not what happened last month, there are other explanations.
One, offered by Baldassare, is that the special election electorate was unrepresentative, and thus doesn’t show what people really want. Of course, people also express their opinions by opting out.
Another, offered by di Camillo, is that the public doesn’t trust the system, regarded as dysfunctional, with its money. The pols (who guarded their perks and voted their staffs big pay hikes while pushing through a big tax hike) have to show that they’re serious about reform in order to wring more revenue out of the electorate.
Both agreed that the great majority of voters, whether they voted last month or not, don’t know much about where the money comes from or where it goes. Most voters, as Di Camillo pointed out, believe that somewhere between $10 and $20 billion of state spending is sheer waste, easily cut. They don’t know that most of the money goes to education and health and welfare, and is required by law to do so. The only major area of spending they want cut is in prisons, presumably because few voters are in prison themselves.
As for tax hikes, in theory, a majority of voters wants tax hikes to maintain popular programs. So long as the taxes are on somebody else. But as Di Camillo pointed out, support for ending the two-thirds legislative vote required to pass a budget or any tax hikes starts out under 50%. Because people don’t trust the spenders to spend wisely.
And Prop 13, that disruptive 1978 warhorse authored by a cranky landlord lobbyist by the name of Howard Jarvis, is still sacrosanct. Not only do the great majority of voters not want any change in residential property taxes, amongst the lowest in the nation, they don’t want to do the split roll, as it’s been known for years, raising taxes on corporate property. Why not? Because the economy is down and Californians don’t want to risk any nascent recovery.
So what taxes are popular? Well, maybe an oil severance tax. Maybe a tax on people who make over a million dollars a year. Maybe taxes on tobacco, and alcohol, and, a new one, porn. Because those are bad, you know, and presumably only indulged in by a minority.
But in political reality, what might work? And this question, one of the few posed by a journalist, albeit a former one, superlib Peter Schrag, the former Sacramento Bee editorial page editor, presumed that the public is upset after the next round of budget cuts that makes a difference to most.
Well, those would be targeted tax hikes. On a minority of people. Tied to specific spending programs. And not the discretionary spending that has mopped up billions of dollars – for early child development, a boondoggle for Hollywood director Rob Reiner’s nipped-in-the-bud political career, or for special mental health services — that might better have been spent on preserving and improving fundamental programs.
What about making the sales tax make sense – that is to say, make it cheaper but broader — in a service/high tech economy? Nope
.
Baldaassare, who’s part of the California good government lobby, which I agree with in many respects, said that California voters want fundamental change. I think that is a stretch from their current state of being fed up and behind the curve.
Oh, and who is the only politician Californians really like, now that Schwarzenegger – having lost his public rapport after being closeted for months in meetings with pols, and charting a seemingly inconstant course over the years – is seen as “one of them?” That would be Barack Obama, of course.
California may have one of the lowest property tax rates but it has the highest income tax rate and a high sales tax.
The simple fact of the matter is Californians pay about the highest taxes in the country yet state government just can’t seem to make ends meet. It is way past time for new state government. They complain that they can’t touch spending in many areas because “it is the law”... Well who made it law you morons? In the case of propositions, those were put on the ballot because they wanted to sidestep the issue and making it a proposition was an easy way out for them.
Screw’em all.
They say most of the German people adored Hitler, right into June of 1945.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.